Jump to content

General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Feminism is crazy, because they forget that why the MRA's and MIGTOWs aren't taken as seriously, it's because nothing hates women more, than other women.

Confirmed: you have no clue what feminism actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
I almost feel like you've never met religious conservatives. It's ironic that people can be Christians and extremely conservative, considering that the ideas of it are to be kind to everyone.

 

dafuq? What does conservative christians have to do with anything? Also way to judge what I know, despite knowing jack shit about me and what I have experiences with the bloody PMRC smearing metal music and videogames.

They lost the argument on that, just like the mainsteam left and alt-left are losing the argument on restricting rights and freedoms in the name of progressivism, collectivism, and diversity.

Also you appear to not understand what Christianity is about at all, because we aren't supposed to be kind to everyone, we "treat unto others, that which you want done unto you", meaning that you bring down censorship and violence onto me, I'll do the same for you, and eye for an eye.

 

It's not really being kind when the same people attempt to say abortion and birth control are unbiblical, despite divorces being legal which more or less were considered to be unheard of before the 20th century.

 

To hell with kindness, abortion is murder. Roe Vs Wade was an illegal court ruling. The government shouldn't be telling what anyone can or can not do with their body, and the reason that you leftists will never get the legal abortion law you have wanted, is because you already broke the law for it.

 

Also could you consider that while both males and females can be abusive, the MRA and MGTOW groups are basically saying they want superiority over women.

 

Actually not true. Why don't you talk to them instead of making general statements about groups you haven't talked to. I've talked to Mens Rights Activists, and most of them are broken hurt souls who have had their lives destroyed by family courts, divorces, and evil women taking advantage of them, that continues to happen but leftists always like to pretend that it doesn't.

 

But nooo let's just worry about masculinity and virginity, which are both meaningless constructs.

 

Ah, more post-modernist bullshit that are neither meaningless nor "constructs" you left-wing leaning parasite.

 

And you can't say "well you criticize race as being inherent", but last I checked, the government doesn't register if you're a virgin or if you're considered masculine.

 

Slight of hand, because the US government does have race and sex profiling in the census. And no one cares if you're a virgin because cultural marxism has erroded pop culture to promote sexual intercourse at younger ages and to view restraint and virginity as bad and the sign of a loser.

 

Here, let me leave some speeches:

 

Here let me leave some videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLUIXWnrC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hMljeJ3epY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mB13NV7rY0

 

Confirmed: you have no clue what feminism actually is.

Neither do you. Because it certainly isn't about women's rights, they have them in the west already.

Share this post


Link to post

oh my god, i've had about a 1/4 of a bottle of rum, once i'm sober i got a LOT to say about this. But right now i'll just say this: I didn't expect you to actually link to Paul Joseph Watson. I thought he was so fringe and stupid that even right wingers made fun of him...oh boy. I got a LOT to say, hell there are multiple videos responding to just the FIRST link.

 

You've kinda shown your hand here Sel, not only do you confirm all of my suspicions about you being part of the murder-cult of the alt-right, but really? PJW???? You could do SO much better than this prick.

 

Wow, even drunk off of link, an ungodly amount of booze (had to make myself another drink) i can think of many arguments to contradict what you have posted.

 

Look, M8, you can do better than this, rise up against the people who are really oppressing you: the super-rich.

 

They want to keep you angry and distracted, just, cast off this terrible alt-right ideology and join everyone else in realizing that it's not "The libs" or "the jews" or "the muslims" who are ruining everything. It's the people with all the power and money who use that power and money to get more power and money.

 

Anywho, I'm gonna sober up and post a more measured, rational, and evidence based response soon, see you then.

Share this post


Link to post

dafuq? What does conservative christians have to do with anything? Also way to judge what I know, despite knowing jack shit about me and what I have experiences with the bloody PMRC smearing metal music and videogames.

They lost the argument on that, just like the mainsteam left and alt-left are losing the argument on restricting rights and freedoms in the name of progressivism, collectivism, and diversity.

Also you appear to not understand what Christianity is about at all, because we aren't supposed to be kind to everyone, we "treat unto others, that which you want done unto you", meaning that you bring down censorship and violence onto me, I'll do the same for you, and eye for an eye.

 

To hell with kindness, abortion is murder. Roe Vs Wade was an illegal court ruling. The government shouldn't be telling what anyone can or can not do with their body, and the reason that you leftists will never get the legal abortion law you have wanted, is because you already broke the law for it.

 

Actually not true. Why don't you talk to them instead of making general statements about groups you haven't talked to. I've talked to Mens Rights Activists, and most of them are broken hurt souls who have had their lives destroyed by family courts, divorces, and evil women taking advantage of them, that continues to happen but leftists always like to pretend that it doesn't.

 

Ah, more post-modernist bullshit that are neither meaningless nor "constructs" you left-wing leaning parasite.

 

Slight of hand, because the US government does have race and sex profiling in the census. And no one cares if you're a virgin because cultural marxism has erroded pop culture to promote sexual intercourse at younger ages and to view restraint and virginity as bad and the sign of a loser.

 

Here let me leave some videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLUIXWnrC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hMljeJ3epY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mB13NV7rY0

 

Neither do you. Because it certainly isn't about women's rights, they have them in the west already.

 

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. I really don't intend to start many responses with taking the lord's name in vain, and then having vulgarity sprinkled in, but holy fuck do I need to get that out of my system.

 

Alright, let's talk about Conservative Christians. I explicitly referenced Conservative Christians referencing you stating "nothing hates women more than other women", because I wanted to show to you that that is a bullshit statement. I stated that Conservative Christians are hypocritical in hating women's rights to their own reproductive systems, then immediately stating that they follow the bible to a Tee. I sure as hell have a right to judge what you know, considering most of it seems to be a repetition of alt-right circle-jerk lies. You believe in a lie that 'women explicitly hate each other for simply existing'. You also believe in a lie that says that Native Americans weren't killed by genocide, which is also complete bullshit considering that the U.S. Government was perfectly fine, and sometimes had even endorsed mass hunting of Bison, which were the main source of resources for Natives. Additionally, there was the figurative (and sadly, sometimes literal) fucking over of Native tribes with treaties that the U.S. Government would immediately invalidate. Did you forget that Custer existed? You believe that Christianity is so innocent and pure despite me pointing out that conversion therapy exists and that Conservative Christians aren't capable of such atrocities. And more recently, I have proven that yes, while the NRA used to be a (Relatively) useful organization, past the 1970s they became a radical shell of what they were, attempting to give everyone guns in the hopes that problems would sort themselves out. You believe that the Alt-left is instigating violence, despite the fact that the alt-right consists of ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. These are people that believe that Jews have taken over the government, that Hitler did nothing wrong, and are perfectly fine with advocating the superiority of a race over another, even sometimes internally joking about the holocaust, thinking that it was a good thing. Even if the alt-right isn't composed mostly of Nazis, you'd think that most of them would have already left the group when they saw that literally everyone else at Charlottesville was a Nazi. You believe that politics isn't supposed to be scientifically backed, which is a dangerous thought in itself. Hitler's regime was also based on fake science or even straight up lies.

 

What about the PMRC, metal, and video games? Two of those things have repetitively been blamed for violence in society, which makes me wonder where you get this notion from.

 

You know the golden rule refers mostly to being kind to another person, right? The whole negative part of it came from Hammurabi's code, which had similar rules for crimes, except with negative connotations.

 

Man, that is a really ironic statement. "To hell with kindness." Guess that really sums up your view on things, hmm? Also ironic is this: "The government shouldn't be telling what anyone can or can not do with their body", which you stated yourself. Guess who should be able to decide what should be done with their own bodies? Hmm? I feel like it's on the tip of my tongue, or rather my fingers. It's almost as if women don't have full political control over their reproductive systems to decide what they want to happen within it...

 

Did you forget the part where I mentioned that women can also be abusive? But noooo let's just completely ignore that. As if men don't do similar things to women?

 

Your views on virginity and masculinity are laughable. "Ah, more post-modernist bullshit that are neither meaningless nor "constructs" you left-wing leaning parasite." First off, I said explicitly that the government doesn't give a shit about virginity or masculinity. And as far as I'm concerned? These are meaningless concepts invented by men to justify "superiority to women." How ironic it is that a male can have multiple female partners and be given a positive view, whereas a female having multiple male partners makes them look negative.

"Slight of hand, because the US government does have race and sex profiling in the census. And no one cares if you're a virgin because cultural marxism has erroded pop culture to promote sexual intercourse at younger ages and to view restraint and virginity as bad and the sign of a loser." Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Yet again I'll have to repeat that phrase, because this sentence is so goddamn insulting. You completely missed the point that I mentioned race SPECIFICALLY as being registered by government, but virginity and masculinity AREN'T. And of course, who the fuck should care if you're a virgin? It's a made up construct, as I said 4 sentences ago. What does cultural Marxism have to do with it? I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, you refer to cultural marxism as some evil thing, when if you take it literally within context, it would mean cultural equality, which seems to have nothing to do with what you're referring to. And this is also an alt-right fabrication, made up to make their own point of view more appealing. Please, tell me of any real instances of cultural marxism and I would be glad to debate it with you. I find it difficult to believe that pop culture views virgins as losers, considering that it's a made up construct. And even so, were these in place before the "erosion" via cultural marxism, or was it something that simply showed up because of it? That's also a question to ask concerning sexual promotion to younger ages.

 

Also, nice link to a $4 movie. I'm assuming it's a reference to The Matrix, given the title. Is it about the alt-right or some circulation of alt-right lies?

 

So you're admitting you don't know what feminism is? It's certainly about women's rights, because they don't actually have them already. There's no right to equal pay, to equal guarantee of employment, or that they will even get viewed socially as equals. If you'd read the speeches, they are shockingly similar.

 

Anyways, anything I've not said about the alt-right will most likely be stated in this video covering Charlottesville.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoYKuoiUrY

Share this post


Link to post

Hurr duurrr nazis nazis alt right nazis.

Everything I don't like is Alt-Right Nazis (which is ironic as national socialism has been proven to be left wing time and time again)

I'm done with this mate, there's too much regressive leftism in this.

 

Not even going to waste the energy debating how stupid those responses are.

And the fact that you're calling me alt-right just shows how fucking stupid you two are.

Might as well call this topic "Regressive Leftism Politics Thread".

 

I don't even know why I'm debating American politics anyway, I'm Australian.

Share this post


Link to post
Confirmed: you have no clue what feminism actually is.

Neither do you. Because it certainly isn't about women's rights, they have them in the west already.

In everyday life, you'll pretty much never get talked over or get talked down on by a woman, and you'll never be seen as less strong or intelligent than a woman by default. I'm glad to be the exception here though.

You'll also never have to pay extra for clothing, underwear, hygiene products, and you'll never have to pay the "pink tax" on a product that's no more expensive to make. You aren't 25+% likely to be raped, assaulted, or stalked by a domestic partner or ex, you aren't 20% likely to be raped or sexually assaulted in your lifetime, both of those statistics increasing based on your race and whether or not you're trans. Your sexuality isn't socially stigmatized. You don't have the opposite sex tirelessly trying to regulate your reproductive system.

 

So what's this about equal rights? You're absolutely fucking lost if you think rights is all there is to equality.

As far as I'm concerned, men have no fucking right to tell women what that should or shouldn't stand up for, or what rights they do or don't have, especially considering they've practically fucking dictated their lives for the past few thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh there's a perfectly good reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=1&v=T0xoKiH8JJM :^)

(Dude's name is "Dick Masterson". He has his own podcast. It's pretty funny)

 

Also you're dead wrong on everything, because there's a massive social stigma against men by the mainstream left. Feminism is a losing argument for leftists, why do you think over 50% of American women voted republican, and why less than 7% of UK residents are feminists, and even less over here in AUS?

 

In everyday life, you'll pretty much never get talked over or get talked down on by a woman, and you'll never be seen as less strong or intelligent than a woman by default. Your sexuality isn't socially stigmatized.

 

Yeah you clearly haven't lived my life, nor are very observant of what the DNC and radical feminists have been doing to men since 2008.

 

Also fuck equality: the kind of equality the mainsteam left and feminists want is not real equality; it's equity and supremacy, to be both the controller and simultaneously the oppressed. It's Gender Communism. It's wanting to destroy the social boundaries and differences between men and women, when they are inherently different and biologically separate, and we have more proof than ever before in the modern day to prove this so.

 

And when reality doesn't conform, you make shit up like the bullshit "gender paygap" to reinforce their fake worldview.

 

Feminism is a losing issue for the left and for you.

"It's over Username, I have the high ground."

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, if your goal is to tell me why I'm wrong about feminism, maybe opening your post with that "male superiority" bullshit wasn't a smart idea.

Second, you've literally been proving my point the past few posts by talking down on and acting like your opinion somehow matters more than mine. You've literally claimed a "high ground" in your last post when it was nothing but uncited claims from a person who doesn't actually understand feminism in the first place. You've rejected the most basic forms of male privilege while actively exercising them. You expect me to take your perspective on feminism seriously when you didn't even address the issue of how often women are raped?

Again, don't come at me with your male entitlement to "correctness" on a topic you know jack shit about.

Share this post


Link to post
Hurr duurrr nazis nazis alt right nazis.

Everything I don't like is Alt-Right Nazis (which is ironic as national socialism has been proven to be left wing time and time again)

I'm done with this mate, there's too much regressive leftism in this.

 

Not even going to waste the energy debating how stupid those responses are.

And the fact that you're calling me alt-right just shows how fucking stupid you two are.

Might as well call this topic "Regressive Leftism Politics Thread".

 

I don't even know why I'm debating American politics anyway, I'm Australian.

Y'know, I think that saying the Nazis were left leaning is also an alt-right lie... Which would somehow be ironic given that they are Nazis. But as it turns out, that's actually what it is.

 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

 

Also, are you not willing to argue because I'm right? Because I find it difficult to believe it's something you can't respond to, especially when you are still arguing about feminIsm, even though my response touched on it.

 

I never called you alt-right, I just said you believe a lot of alt-right lies.

 

I feel like I'm getting deja vu from that last statement...

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, Sel, look, you've given the game away when you linked to the "red pill movie" which, btw costs $4 to watch so that means that you've PAID MONEY to watch it. I didn't pay $4 because i didn't want to give money to whoever made it but I digress.

 

I AM going to say you're alt-right, because remember way back a week or two ago I said i call it like i see it...well I see you repeating the alt-right's talking points, linking to alt-right youtube personalities, and everything you've said really points to you being alt-right. And the alt-right is a white supremacist group, btw, so yeah, I'm also calling you a white supremacist. This isn't out of nowhere either and i'm not using it as an insult, I'm more just stating a fact. Everything you've said on this thread points to the idea that you are a member of the alt-right.

 

I should just stop there really, the alt-right as a group really doesn't deserve any recognition.

 

But i'm gonna keep going because, well, white supremacy is on the rise but it's a losing ideology. So, it may take 5 years or 25 but the overton window will shift back and white nationalists are going to be pushed back into the fringe but here's what i don't think a lot of the alt-right get. Leaving aside things like...morality, respect, and in general not making "be an asshole" your primary political ideology, there's a very practical reason why you shouldn't follow these hateful ideas that make up white supremacy : you're making yourself look bad.

 

It's sorta a self-defeating ideology when you think about it: "We want to be respected and uncensored" well, walking around with lit torches shouting "Jews will not replace us" isn't helping your case that you should be treated like anything less than dangerous. Constantly banging on about free speech, then using that free speech to shout racial slurs and try to provoke people doesn't make your point a good one.

 

The alt-right's biggest fear is that white people are being mistreated and prosecuted, well maybe don't act like dangerous hateful people. The fact that at one of your rallies (charlottesville) someone from the other side was murdered by an attendee, should have made everyone in the alt-right go "wow, this isn't who we are." But...it is, because instead of distancing yourself from the murder, the alt-right attacked the victim, saying that she was a "useless woman". This really doesn't sell your case. If you have such little empathy for people that you can't accept that BLM has a point about black people being disproportional targeted by police or that people are tired of being told "You're the real racists" and then are called racial slurs by the same people, at least try to understand that by actively going out of your way to piss off people who aren't white, you're making it worse for yourself.

 

I think white nationalism is bad because of all the murders, hate crimes, and inequality it creates. But if you REALLY don't care about people who don't look like you, at least recognize that the alt-right isn't normal, and it's a losing ideology. At the MINIMUM, think about the long-term selfishly, rather than the short term fears and prejudices. You're tired of feeling like the bad guy, that white people are demonized, well maybe stop doing and saying terrible things.

 

The alt-right IS going to lose, it's been shown time and time again that hate is losing, maybe jump on board with the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I'm obviously behind, time to try and catch up. Again, dash first, then I'll get to kraken.

 

So, I want to discuss the deeper stuff, Sel and Bull you don't need to be a part of this, you seem uninterested in doing anything except 1-3 line responses anyways.

 

I have much more hope for knight here. Anyways, I specifically want to talk about this idea that "straight white men" are under attack by BLM, feminism, and seemingly everything on the left, because this is where you and I (and i bet a lot of other people) have a different world view than you on. See, I don't think it that straight white guys are under attack or something along those lines.

 

Let me ask you this, does: "The left attack straight, white, cis, guys and tries to shame them just for being white. They use PC culture to try to suppress what straight white men want and try to make them out as the bad guys." ring true? If it does, I totally can understand why but I think that's not necessarily the case. See, it's not "Straight white guys" that Social Justice types hate, it's the established power structures built within society, and not all of them are laws. Many of these are either social or while TECHNICALLY dismantled, their echos are still felt today. And a lot of these power structures where built by straight, white, cis, men in order to benefit straight white cis men while leaving others out of the that power structure. What we're seeing now is attack on this existing power structure, not the idea of being a white guy or straightness or being cisgendered. And this dismantling is being done because POC, LGBTQ people, and in general minority groups are getting power, not more power, just more of a voice and ability to change situations that are detrimental to them.

 

But I will admit that POC and LGBTQ have something that seemingly straight, white, cis guys don't: and that's a narrative, which is pretty powerful. Usually, straight, white, cis, guy's narrative was more like the "default", every hero that was written or any tale told was for the benefit of straight, white, cis, men, because they were the ones who had all the power. But now, there really isn't a "default" and that's good in my opinion, but at the same time POC and LGBTQ people have a powerful narrative, a good-feeling narrative: overcoming oppression. And because straight, white, cis, men were usually the oppressors, we can be made out to be the villain a lot. Straight, white, cis, men really don't have a narrative anymore.

 

That's why it can feel like straight, white, cis, men are being "attacked" but I really don't think they are, and in fact, I think it leaves us open to a new narrative: overcoming difference and fighting back against the authority that really has been ruining everyone's lives up to now.

 

I'm going to post a link to a site: https://www.redneckrevolt.org/about

 

This is a group of people who found that narrative. Rather than uniting by race, which in a world with more travel and communication than any point in history is detrimental, they're uniting by class.

 

This is a narrative i'm fully behind, because stories ARE important. And seeing that in most of them people who you're supposed to identify with are villains, can make it feel like the world's out to get you. But it isn't, more people want equal rights, and that's a good thing. So when they attack these systems of oppression, they aren't attacking you, but a bad legacy that you don't need to hold on to. While we can learn from the past, often times the most important lessons are what NOT to do.

 

Plus, I don't think "the west" or "western values" are eroding from "PC culture". When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too. I don't think of white people as western, I think of the attitudes people have, how one goes about making their mark on the world and just living as a person.

 

There's a lot of specifics one could get into on this thread, but when we all see the world in a different way, when all have different but rational (sometimes) response to any given piece of information. And specific political things just have way too much baggage to do anything but either preach to the choir with people that you do agree with or butt heads with people that you don't. Especially when you get to specific people.

 

Admittedly, "everything" may be a fair bit of an over-exaggeration, but I've certainly seen enough hacks and activists or speakers of various descriptions to say it is a prevalent thing that isn't really being challenged by anyone but people on the right, or centrists.

 

I see some that, I've heard that argument made a lot up here in Canada for why various laws are changing, personally. And while I don't begrudge that idea if it is the case, it doesn't change the fact that quite a few people are going way too damn far with it.

 

When I see University Profs of various places, not to many, but some, actually openly calling for White Genocide, or basically applauding the shooting of Republican Senators, I question if mere equalization is truly their goal.

 

When I see BLM or many other groups arguing FOR racial segregation of laws and spaces, I wonder where the hell did Civil Rights go? It was 60 years ago they were arguing for no racially segregated spaces at all, now modern activists in many places are demanding POC-only spaces, social clubs, events, or what have you. Its a regression back, and its being argued on the basis of social justice.

 

I also don't like BLM because they sparked the trend of dividing up basically every single movement along identity lines. I understood why they did it, but it doesn't mean I agree with their strategy. IMO nothing would come of it except perpetuating identity divides.

 

But that's just stuff I've seen that makes me question the situations.

 

On the more argumentative basis as to changing laws for such reasons, I can understand that and don't disagree, but my counter would be that in many cases it is not a discussion that is taking place (At least up here in Canada), it is a bowing to anything that makes the government look good and progressive without much care for analysis of the situations. Dr. Jordan Peterson's experiences up here in regards to Transgenderism, terms around them, language and pronouns is a prime example of this. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments used to push the provincial law making it illegal to say improper pronouns to a Trans individual was basically that: "Trans individuals are undergoing a Genocide here in Canada." To which I scratched my head and wondered what reality they were living in? Because while laws and the situation may not be entirely supportive of Trans lifestyles, I would very deeply struggle to call the situation a "Genocide". But no, they wanted to use dramatic language and emotional appeals to get the laws changed, and it worked.

 

There's also the utilitarian argument, and how much a government should cater towards a minority bloc within its country, but I'm not going too far into that since it very situational. I believe that all should have the same rights regardless. I'm also not a fan of quotas or exact numbers to match overriding statistics, if a person is best suited for a position, they should have it. I don't care about a 50/50 sex ratio of cabinet ministers, I care more about who is most capable for the positions. It could be 90/10, 60/40, 35/65, whatever they want so long as things run as well as they can.

 

See, IDK about that. Narratives are a fickle thing, and are very personal, even if some can be taken up by wider groups. Which is basically what I would call it, personal philosophy or motivation.

 

Ideally, I would hope that all could find things they could understand in other human beings, and stories around them regardless of WHO they are. IMO that's the major sign when we'll genuinely have a society that not only values individual cultural or national pride of all kinds, but also a general humanist sense of tolerance to the point where nobody cares (I go for the literal the definition of tolerance, wherein you don't have to like or love everything you see, but you can at least "suffer the existence of it", as should others towards you). Its why I personally don't care for stories or pieces of art that make a big deal about identity politics, that stuff shouldn't matter, and one of the first ways Art IMO can help is by making it come across as natural without being preachy. The stuff is just there because its naturally there, not because the artist wants to draw your attention to it. (Though admittedly hack journos don't help this). I'll come back to this later.

 

Me, personally, my philosophy around the whole thing is this (coloured by my Anthropology and History education): "So our ancestors sinned, so what if they were assholes? I guarantee you I can find ancestors in everyone's pasts who were assholes in some regard to someone else, or were assholes by our modern sensibilities. The difference is that I'm not them. I'm not responsible for their crimes, just as nobody else is responsible for those their parents committed. And while I will strive to not make the same mistakes, I don't owe anyone anything that I worked for just as I'm not owed anything of theirs."

 

So, IMO its easy for one to find their own narrative if they think on it hard enough, that's not necessarily the most pressing issue. The issue is that the focus has been to press the negative narrative around our identity onto others to take it up as their narrative, to the point where some of those who do twist reality. Many of all stripes do this and have done this in the past across many cultures, its not unique to this instance.

 

One can find that potential narrative. Another they can find is mine, which is one that basically encourages IMO more individual focus of self-actualization without much focus on the shackles of the dead and the past that are not yourself while still trying your best to live a life you're morally and mentally satisfied with. And most likely others have their own.

 

Oh yes, I heard about redneck revolt. Call me a skeptic (or perhaps just an devout listener of Foxworthy), but I honestly wonder how many rednecks would be caught looking so sophisticated.

 

Class can be a good source of unification, I won't deny, its certainly better than most IMO.

 

IDK, I just never considered myself privileged in my ability to relate to characters who were not exactly myself. Nor do I necessarily see it as a bad thing that a majority of a culture's art should be reflective of the majority demographic. Like for example, do I go to Uganda and expect a lot of whites in their advertising? No. Do I go to Japan and expect a lot of artistic content that isn't centered around the Japanese? No. That's not to say I think there should be zero stories or pieces of art showing off different cultures or identities at all, but that I'm not shocked to see a disparity in the amount of content created catering to one group or another based on the place.

 

But I could find commonality in stories made by people or featuring characters or individuals half a world away in myths, films, stories, etc. and didn't necessarily feel odd that I wasn't represented, because I knew it was another human being or otherwise being I could get some understanding of. I don't think of myself generally in identity terms in relation to viewing art.

 

I'm a believer in the idea that actually removing the focus upon many aspects of our identities (race and sexuality, particularly) would actually help alleviate many of these problems. Because all it is, is language and culture (both made by us and only matter to us as of right now), and the less you use or put power to various terms, the more they'll fall out of usage and meaning to the present context. But this is a very idealistic idea, and certainly not the most popular one on either political side. We were on the path to it though IMO over the past few decades, until the Left revived identity politics as a source of issues, for better or worse.

 

I'm also a believer in the idea of the past still holding merits, despite its many faults (Kinda have to, I'm an Archaeologist). And while yes, some things of the past deserve to be cast aside, I wouldn't say they aught to be forgotten, nor would I say everything of it should be cast away. Its a tight line to walk, and most times I've seen people go overboard on it. For example, tearing down Confederacy Monuments on the basis that they essentially idolize the values of the Confederacy including but not limited to slavery. I strongly disagreed with that. Not every individual who served an "evil" power in the past necessarily embodies all of that, nor does it mean that they didn't do something worthy of a measure of respect or remembrance. Back in WWI, for example, when the Germans took the city of Belgrade, the Serbian Army fought to the last man, and in the end, while they were enemies, the German Field Marshall erected a monument in the city to those Serbian soldiers, because even though they were enemies, he thought they were worthy to be remembered for their bravery in the face of death. The Serbians after taking the city back with allied help later, erected a similar monument for their German counterparts. To re-contextualize it back to the Confederacy monuments, since a fair number of them were built in Union territory, I cannot help but think that the reason for why they were erected had to be something other than "Oh yeah we totally agreed with these guys we killed hundreds of thousands of!", and personally I'd rather people be able to see it as a piece of history than to destroy it. If people don't want to have them in public areas and they put it to a general local vote, fine, but at least put them in a museum or something.

 

I've also seen and utilized similar arguments for why writers like H.P. Lovecraft can still be praised for their works and shouldn't be censored even though some of their opinions are seen as bad by our modern sensibilities. Everything changes in time, especially culture, and what we accept today will not be what our descendants 100 years from now accept, necessarily. I don't begrudge people born in different social and cultures settings in time than ours for having different opinions on subjects we have, it simply means that they're products of their time. It also means that they can still be appreciated for the things they did create, even if it is tempered by the setting of its creation.

 

All of it to me, and what I know is that legacy is a very difficult thing, and a very personal thing. For some to act in unilateral manners on subjects of legacy, to me, can be a risky business because we cannot foresee what will come as a result of what we're told about our past legacies. I prefer everything to be out for people to see in some form, in as unvarnished as way as possible so as to get a clearer understanding of the humanity of people, but to leave it for people to decide for themselves. Both the Left and Right have a tendency to dehumanize segments of the population or groups for various reasons (heck, many others do besides mere political affiliation).

 

That's actually an interesting thing you bring up about Feminism. It is actually eroding in some fashions, depending on who you're listening to, for various reasons. I mentioned Dr. Peterson and his arguments against certain Trans-centric laws earlier, but there were also Radical Feminists who were on his side as well albeit using their own arguments. There actually is an argument being made that Trans-rights actually undermines Feminist works. Why? Because Feminism at its core still argues of the existence of a sexual and gender binary, and for specific rights to women because of their particular issues that are unique to women. They fought very hard in the past for women's only spaces because women needed to discuss their own issues among people who shared their experiences (2nd Wave Feminism, basically). But if a man can become a woman, or vice versa, how is that supposed to be rectified within those ideas? Many would argue that they can't, that the two cannot exist in tandem, but that since Trans-activism is the rising activist field, its obviously undermining some of the works of Feminism by promoting this idea that runs counter to what Feminism has been arguing for in the past. Take that as you will, its merely what I've heard.

 

As for Free Speech, I don't know what to tell you, it most certainly is becoming eroded with time. There are basically blasphemy laws in the UK not to mention a war on humour, Hate Speech legislature has grown substantially over the years in many different "western" countries (Canada alone I can attest to), tons of past books are being censored in various fashions because of the language within them on local levels (To Kill a Mockingbird being a popular choice I have noticed, among others), you cannot discuss various topics on some University campuses without inciting groups coming to brigade your talk, more and more private companies are trying to police speech on what should basically be public forums (though that one's tricky), and it has basically almost reached a point where in many countries you may as well include "The Right for people to not be offended at anything anyone says" be included in their legislatures with potentially specific interests in who is offended.

 

And its filtering into media as well and has been for a long time on PC culture. I saw it myself simply in the fact that the porno programs vanished over the years from cable channels. The one thing you would think would be the constant in cable as it is on the internet, they cut gradually over time. Tons of more mature movies are censored to shit depending on the channel (IDK why the fuck you'd bother watching a censored version of The Green Mile, for example, but that's apparently a thing). And even in films that try to utilize anti-PC elements in them for the purpose of the film, like Quentin Tarantino did for Django Unchained, or Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, they get lambasted for featuring racist content even though they're doing it for the purposes of authenticity of setting. Hell, Tarantino has been lambasted merely for how violent his films have been, or horror flicks like Saw for being "Torture porn". IDK what to tell you, to me, that's PC Culture eroding away at artistic liberty.

 

Well yes, inherently race is not necessarily tied to culture. Just so happens that many on many sides like to tie them together. Whether its Whites with European culture, or Blacks with African culture, etc.

 

Just my thoughts. I'll get to kraken shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Wow, Sel, look, you've given the game away when you linked to the "red pill movie" which, btw costs $4 to watch so that means that you've PAID MONEY to watch it. I didn't pay $4 because i didn't want to give money to whoever made it but I digress.

 

I AM going to say you're alt-right, because remember way back a week or two ago I said i call it like i see it...well I see you repeating the alt-right's talking points, linking to alt-right youtube personalities, and everything you've said really points to you being alt-right. And the alt-right is a white supremacist group, btw, so yeah, I'm also calling you a white supremacist. This isn't out of nowhere either and i'm not using it as an insult, I'm more just stating a fact. Everything you've said on this thread points to the idea that you are a member of the alt-right.

 

 

You're a fucking COMMUNIST!

You're WORSE than the alt-right. A bajillion times worse. Your ideology has killed more people than anything the alt-right has ever done.

You have no moral arguments whatsoEVER to judge my beliefs and label everything you don't like as "whyete supremacist"

 

Fuck You.

How DARE you call me an alt-right white supremacist you kunt!

 

I'm done with your regressive ideology. You are the losers in history, and you always will be.

You can rot in the fires of hell (where you most definitely are going) for all I care you fucking pinko commie.

Share this post


Link to post

You're a fucking COMMUNIST!

You're WORSE than the alt-right. A bajillion times worse. Your ideology has killed more people than anything the alt-right has ever done.

You have no moral arguments whatsoEVER to judge my beliefs and label everything you don't like as "whyete supremacist"

 

Fuck You.

How DARE you call me an alt-right white supremacist you kunt!

 

I'm done with your regressive ideology. You are the losers in history, and you always will be.

You can rot in the fires of hell (where you most definitely are going) for all I care you fucking pinko commie.

 

So you're just going to call dash a communist without providing details why you think so, and you get pissed when people think you're an alt-right member because you believe a lot of alt-right lies, and continue to say those lies thinking they're evidence to support your views? I mean, I'd rather you have this discussion with me rather than dash, but again, you didn't want to argue with me, because I listed out the alt-right lies you keep repeating. Do you think that everyone that disagrees with you has no moral arguments? Do you label everyone who doesn't agree with you as "Communist"? I swear, you're literally Liberty Prime right now, except it's not even over-the-top funny, it's kind of sad.

Share this post


Link to post

@kraken

 

Don't give me this crap when you're saying I'm apparently forgetting what you said previously.

 

If I recall, I left a whole damn page of sources of my opinions on various subjects after I got fed up with being told I have no fucking sources, and I had listed some of my various sources on subjects before as general statements.

 

You're also still not getting my point. My point was on the hyperbole you spouted about black versus white crime and how apparently "everyone" views it, THAT is hyperbole and a colloquialism you provided, it was not your views on gun control specifically I was questioning.

 

-----

 

Doesn't change the fact that the numbers are all down, and since its the DoJ and FBI's stats, I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of it is crime stats.

 

US population is also much different in size compared to many other countries. Not everyone of them is necessarily a good comparison. Plus, different cultures, different punishments, etc.

 

IMO the major factor in the prison population and justice system would be the likelihood of a criminal committing the same offenses again because the justice system is failing in its job. And if people are in jail for crimes that shouldn't necessitate jail time.

 

Who knows? You're asking rhetorical questions that you yourself don't have the answers to. How the fuck do you know if that's the case? Your question is almost impossible to get any kind of accurate statistics for. Do you disagree that violent felons shouldn't be locked up? Maybe the spike went up because more people started reporting more crimes? Maybe certain states lowered the bars for incarceration for various crimes? (I know that happened under certain Presidencies and State Administrations) There's a lot of maybes and what ifs, I'm concerned with the data and what it shows, in relation to these arguments for gun control, not necessarily on other matters.

 

-----

 

Eh . . . I'm on the fence on Universal Basic Income. Even though in my own country I'd love to have it since I make basically poverty-level income even with a full-time hour job.

 

On the one hand, I approve of the idea of a country giving you a wage simply for being a citizen, if we're to believe that government is as Rousseau argued it should be, they aught to do this if they're not going to give totally free social services in exchange for our taxes. And I don't have any problem with welfare as an idea (though I will admit, I'd prefer less people be on it as possible).

 

The classic fear has always been that if you just hand people money, they'll not do much good with it in order to build their status. Despite the video, I already have a lot of first-hand knowledge of this being true for at least a fair number of individuals I personally know. Doesn't matter how much money you give someone, if they don't know HOW to spend it in order to better their position to actually make more, they're never going to get out of their situation, it'll just be a question of how quickly they hit bottom. That's not to say I think that all who are poor don't inherently know how to handle money, I know plenty who do and just make some bad decisions or have a run of bad luck, but that the idea that some people cannot just be trusted with a lump sum at any rate isn't entirely unfounded. Hell, its the reason the idea of loans was invented, arguably, you give someone money, but you give it to them under the assumption that they'll make more in a set amount of time that you both agree upon, you don't just hand it out to them.

 

But the real reason I don't like the idea of the government paying for you to live (which is essentially what this is), because that basically means you're guaranteed to reach a point where if the government's finances collapse for any reason, you're screwed. Because the whole idea of the basic income is to supplement an existing income, but if you could exist on the existing income, the basic one wouldn't be necessary, hence why you'd be screwed if the basic income collapses (at least in regards to all of the people this would benefit most to get above the poverty line, of course).

 

If there is one thing I have learned about governments, its that I don't necessarily trust them to be good with money. In fact in most cases that don't involve a Financial Conservative (who's likely to cut social programs anyway) or a Business-oriented person governing the financial situation, I can fairly safely wager that money will be wasted and the government will be driven into debt, and since we're talking governments, they have the capacity to waste money in exorbitant amounts on stuff that will not make them much in return, doesn't matter who is in charge, necessarily.

 

Its also an enormous expenditure when you factor in that many western countries have enormous government debt already. Most cannot afford to give you free social services of all kinds to begin with, why would they be able to give everyone a Universal Basic Income? You'd need such radical economic reform to even make all of this viable that I'm unsure as to whether or not it could be done in a decent manner, especially in a time of economic instability. I'm doubtful that in many countries you'd even get the unanimous support to do a total overhaul of the economic system and welfare systems in this manner, simply out of fear that it totally flops.

 

Taxing the rich isn't really a solution to this either, because raising their taxes to extremely high amounts only gives them incentive for one thing: Move (themselves, or just their money). Because what incentive do they have to stick around? Pay enormous taxes to have the privilege of living in a particular country? We're talking about people who could theoretically buy anything they want. You could very easily end up in a situation where some nations trying to out-compete economically could just undercut everyone by simply offering to be a tax haven for the rich at a more decent rate than the taxes they'd have to pay anyway. The Rich move themselves or their money to these places, those places all get a cut, and the original nation is left with less major sources of tax revenue. Its why so many corporations have their HQs in places like China, for instance. And the Rich have the most mobility to move and take all of their assets with them out of all of the social classes. Its why I don't necessarily agree with just vastly increasing taxes on the upper echelons of society as a cure-all, if they know they can get a better deal elsewhere and they have the power to do so, you bet your ass they're going to move. Its not even always malevolent in their intent, why should someone who worked to earn their fortune be picking up the bill of the government because of poor economic decisions that cause inflation and unemployment to run out of control? Human decency? Its the governments' job (arguably) to look after the well-being of its citizens in all respects, not every citizen to every other citizen necessarily.

 

But ultimately, that is the real issue here as to why its being discussed, besides jobs. Its inflation. Everything is steadily becoming more expensive, and less people can afford to pay for stuff even with jobs that would otherwise be half-decent. A UBI is essentially just a band-aid solution to this problem. Because unless it addresses inflation, its only a matter of time before you'd need to raise the UBI more to compensate.

 

On the jobs end, I'm more worried about increasing automation and the fact that its going to drive prices insane over time while simultaneously un-employing A LOT of people, and make us all question the value of human labour. It'll be the new Industrial Revolution of our era, and it'll be curious to figure out how it will go.

 

I'd also argue the real solution for capitalism would be massive expansion into space via colonization and big industry out there, but that's just me. Make the ceiling to expand virtually infinite so that we cannot feasibly hit it. But that's still a long ways off.

Share this post


Link to post

I would advice you to tone down the language and keep it civil. Please remember that everyone has different viewpoints and respect it...

Share this post


Link to post
Well I'm obviously behind, time to try and catch up. Again, dash first, then I'll get to kraken.

 

I see some that, I've heard that argument made a lot up here in Canada for why various laws are changing, personally. And while I don't begrudge that idea if it is the case, it doesn't change the fact that quite a few people are going way too damn far with it.

 

When I see University Profs of various places, not to many, but some, actually openly calling for White Genocide, or basically applauding the shooting of Sith Lord Senators, I question if mere equalization is truly their goal.

 

When I see BLM or many other groups arguing FOR racial segregation of laws and spaces, I wonder where the hell did Civil Rights go? It was 60 years ago they were arguing for no racially segregated spaces at all, now modern activists in many places are demanding POC-only spaces, social clubs, events, or what have you. Its a regression back, and its being argued on the basis of social justice.

 

I haven't seen a lot of what you're describing here. The closest thing i've seen is someone joking that it's Sith Lords (specifically NRA types) who say "we need guns to fight against an authoritarian government" and then someone decided to do just that (in their mind anyways).

 

Overall, I'd ask where you're getting these news sources and if nuance was dropped because of the source's bias. Like, for example, let's take a hypothetical of...BLM leaders have a meeting at some cafe that's supposed to be "Black Only". Then that could be spun by an unscrupulous news sources as "BLM Leaders Demand Black Only Cafes". Idk, something to think about. I will admit i've been guilty of not checking my news a few times and it does take practice.

 

On the more argumentative basis as to changing laws for such reasons, I can understand that and don't disagree, but my counter would be that in many cases it is not a discussion that is taking place (At least up here in Canada), it is a bowing to anything that makes the government look good and progressive without much care for analysis of the situations. Dr. Jordan Peterson's experiences up here in regards to Transgenderism, terms around them, language and pronouns is a prime example of this. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments used to push the provincial law making it illegal to say improper pronouns to a Trans individual was basically that: "Trans individuals are undergoing a Genocide here in Canada." To which I scratched my head and wondered what reality they were living in? Because while laws and the situation may not be entirely supportive of Trans lifestyles, I would very deeply struggle to call the situation a "Genocide". But no, they wanted to use dramatic language and emotional appeals to get the laws changed, and it worked.

 

Again, I'd ask about where you're getting your news source here. Because the biggest criticism I could find of the bill came from the Daily Caller (A very very right-wing news orginization) that basically hammered the free speech aspect.

 

The only way i could see someone making the "genocide" argument is extending the enormously high murder rate Trans people are subjected to. It is hard to get exact numbers considering the FBI or any other law enforcement doesn't keep track of those kinds of statistics. But trans people are much more likely to experience violence against them, and almost always (except for like, boxers or something) where there's more violence, there's more murders.

 

The pronoun thing could be read as trying to protect a minority group from harassment. Like, for example, it's illegal to use racial slurs in the workplace, this is just an extension of those laws.

 

There's also the utilitarian argument, and how much a government should cater towards a minority bloc within its country, but I'm not going too far into that since it very situational. I believe that all should have the same rights regardless. I'm also not a fan of quotas or exact numbers to match overriding statistics, if a person is best suited for a position, they should have it. I don't care about a 50/50 sex ratio of cabinet ministers, I care more about who is most capable for the positions. It could be 90/10, 60/40, 35/65, whatever they want so long as things run as well as they can.

 

Now, there are two sides, I will admit trying to strive for exactly 50/50 is stupid and i'd much prefer a functional government. However, one thing to consider is democratic leaders are more often than not reflections on who have power within society. Generally speaking, a woman is going to look out for women more than a man will look out for women. Not always, and party ideology more often than not determine if a person's policies will be beneficial to any given group. Another thing to keep in mind is not everyone votes in their best interest. It's ideology over practicality, which is why you see a lot of people in poor southern states vote Sith Lord, even though it would be in their interest to vote democratic if they want to see more investment in their communities.

 

Ideally, I would hope that all could find things they could understand in other human beings, and stories around them regardless of WHO they are. IMO that's the major sign when we'll genuinely have a society that not only values individual cultural or national pride of all kinds, but also a general humanist sense of tolerance to the point where nobody cares (I go for the literal the definition of tolerance, wherein you don't have to like or love everything you see, but you can at least "suffer the existence of it", as should others towards you). Its why I personally don't care for stories or pieces of art that make a big deal about identity politics, that stuff shouldn't matter, and one of the first ways Art IMO can help is by making it come across as natural without being preachy. The stuff is just there because its naturally there, not because the artist wants to draw your attention to it. (Though admittedly hack journos don't help this). I'll come back to this later.

 

Me, personally, my philosophy around the whole thing is this (coloured by my Anthropology and History education): "So our ancestors sinned, so what if they were assholes? I guarantee you I can find ancestors in everyone's pasts who were assholes in some regard to someone else, or were assholes by our modern sensibilities. The difference is that I'm not them. I'm not responsible for their crimes, just as nobody else is responsible for those their parents committed. And while I will strive to not make the same mistakes, I don't owe anyone anything that I worked for just as I'm not owed anything of theirs."

Ok, first here i want to talk about Identity politics and representation. Because it's actually pretty simple: it may not matter TO YOU. But it really could mean the world to someone else. Just to out myself here, I'm LGBTQ, and seeing representation that's realistic to my life experience is always really important to me. I'm not gonna demand that every movie have a shoed-in poorly thought out gay or bisexual character (because whenever i see lazy LGBTQ writing it makes my eyes roll), but when it's done right, well, and doesn't demonize LGBTQ people (there are far too many movies and games where the villain is queer-coded) well it's really relieving. It honestly makes a world of difference. It's not that i can't relate to a character if they aren't LGBTQ, it's that having an LGBTQ character, or hell movie, makes it all the more special.

 

Anyways, another thing to consider is this: You aren't responsible for the sins of the past, but are you responsible for their lingering effects? For example, racist housing policy in the 1910s-1960s basically made black ghettos as we know them today. Due to a bunch of complex reasons that this video delves into:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWwiUIVpmNY racist housing policy in the past negatively effects black people in urban areas. Do people of today have a responsibility to fix problems that were created in the past? Not feel guilt, because honestly that doesn't do anything, but put time and effort into fixing problems that have an unjust origin.

 

I would say yes, you may say no. I leave that to you.

 

Class can be a good source of unification, I won't deny, its certainly better than most IMO.

 

I am very glad we can agree on this

 

I'm a believer in the idea that actually removing the focus upon many aspects of our identities (race and sexuality, particularly) would actually help alleviate many of these problems. Because all it is, is language and culture (both made by us and only matter to us as of right now), and the less you use or put power to various terms, the more they'll fall out of usage and meaning to the present context. But this is a very idealistic idea, and certainly not the most popular one on either political side. We were on the path to it though IMO over the past few decades, until the Left revived identity politics as a source of issues, for better or worse.

 

I don't think that "The Left" revived race issues. I think they were always there, but not talked about because it makes people uncomfortable. What we're seeing nowadays is "Enough is enough". Let me put it this way, in 1992 a black man named Rodney King was savagely beaten by police. It was unjustified force, there's no way around it. They beat him for 15 minutes. After the 4 main cops who beat him were found not guilty, riots broke out all over the city. This was because LAPD has a history of police brutality against black people. So, it was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. I don't think that racial tensions disappeared and then resurfaced because people on the left brought it up. I think that the tensions always existed and those who want to see racial problems dealt with, see people on the left to be more open and willing to fix those problems than those on the right.

 

To re-contextualize it back to the Confederacy monuments, since a fair number of them were built in Union territory, I cannot help but think that the reason for why they were erected had to be something other than "Oh yeah we totally agreed with these guys we killed hundreds of thousands of!", and personally I'd rather people be able to see it as a piece of history than to destroy it. If people don't want to have them in public areas and they put it to a general local vote, fine, but at least put them in a museum or something.

I forget who said it but, "Statues are how we glorify history, museums are how we remember it". So i absolutely agree that if people don't want them in public areas they should be put somewhere else. The thing is though, that confederate statues were never about history, it was basically a very subtle message to black people to "sit down and shut up". Which i know may seem like a stretch, but consider the amount of confederate monuments put up, during the civil rights movement: http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras

So, you have to look a bit deeper than skin-deep on some of these things.

 

That's actually an interesting thing you bring up about Feminism. It is actually eroding in some fashions, depending on who you're listening to, for various reasons. I mentioned Dr. Peterson and his arguments against certain Trans-centric laws earlier, but there were also Radical Feminists who were on his side as well albeit using their own arguments. There actually is an argument being made that Trans-rights actually undermines Feminist works. Why? Because Feminism at its core still argues of the existence of a sexual and gender binary, and for specific rights to women because of their particular issues that are unique to women. They fought very hard in the past for women's only spaces because women needed to discuss their own issues among people who shared their experiences (2nd Wave Feminism, basically). But if a man can become a woman, or vice versa, how is that supposed to be rectified within those ideas? Many would argue that they can't, that the two cannot exist in tandem, but that since Trans-activism is the rising activist field, its obviously undermining some of the works of Feminism by promoting this idea that runs counter to what Feminism has been arguing for in the past. Take that as you will, its merely what I've heard.

 

Something that's interesting to point out is that this is a complex issue, but feminism isn't "men vs. women" it's more about dismantling patriarchy, which is the idea that men should behave a certain way and women should behave a certain way. This negatively effects men to, just to give an example, I hear MRA types try to argue that because women get custody of their children more often than men it means that men are disadvantaged. But the thing is, that's actually a problem feminist already know about and want to change. Because it's the by-product of this idea that "women should raise the kids and men should be the breadwinner". That's just one example but there's a multitude of others.

 

As for Free Speech, I don't know what to tell you, it most certainly is becoming eroded with time. There are basically blasphemy laws in the UK not to mention a war on humour, Hate Speech legislature has grown substantially over the years in many different "western" countries (Canada alone I can attest to), tons of past books are being censored in various fashions because of the language within them on local levels (To Kill a Mockingbird being a popular choice I have noticed, among others), you cannot discuss various topics on some University campuses without inciting groups coming to brigade your talk, more and more private companies are trying to police speech on what should basically be public forums (though that one's tricky), and it has basically almost reached a point where in many countries you may as well include "The Right for people to not be offended at anything anyone says" be included in their legislatures with potentially specific interests in who is offended.

 

And its filtering into media as well and has been for a long time on PC culture. I saw it myself simply in the fact that the porno programs vanished over the years from cable channels. The one thing you would think would be the constant in cable as it is on the internet, they cut gradually over time. Tons of more mature movies are censored to shit depending on the channel (IDK why the fuck you'd bother watching a censored version of The Green Mile, for example, but that's apparently a thing). And even in films that try to utilize anti-PC elements in them for the purpose of the film, like Quentin Tarantino did for Django Unchained, or Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, they get lambasted for featuring racist content even though they're doing it for the purposes of authenticity of setting. Hell, Tarantino has been lambasted merely for how violent his films have been, or horror flicks like Saw for being "Torture porn". IDK what to tell you, to me, that's PC Culture eroding away at artistic liberty.

 

Ok, so first, porn disappeared from cable BECAUSE of the internet, not because of PC culture. Like, cable was just more expensive and more restrictive when it came to porn than the internet.

 

But anways, I would argue that PC culture is making MORE free speech than taking away. Here me out, I know it sounds crazy but consider what you could and couldn't show in a movie during the 1950s and 1960s. Interacial couples, any kind of nudity, and many would be refused classification if there was a single swear. Now, even pg-13 movies get 1 "fuck".

 

And next to that, what is and isn't "Politically Correct" changes. For example, when most people complain about PC culture they are talking about people on the left. But people on the right have REALLY dictated what is and isn't acceptable too. To give two examples: the first is a show on Disney Channel "Good Luck Charlie" where there was one episode that there was a lesbian couple who brought their kid over to play with "charlie". That was is, a lesbian couple showed up, dropped off their kid, and that was that. Well the show was pulled by Disney after hundreds of angry letters came in from conservatives who were furious that Disney DARED...show two women in a happy marriage together.

 

The second one is Far Cry 5, and I think political correctness ruined the story of that game. Because they COULD have had a really cool story about how far-right (hell, make them basically neo-nazis if you wanna avoid offending people) societies can be really brainwashy and xenophobic not just to people of a different race, but basically to anywho who wasn't in their group. But, they went with some magical brainwashing drug that makes everything like...really bland story wise. The people who made Far Cry 5 didn't want to lose sales from people, so they removed what could have been really artistically cool. Hence, political correctness ruined the story and made it much more bland.

 

Well, that's my direct response. I want to bring something new up a bit later.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm gonna forgo actually quoting you just to save space, dash.

 

Well for the first few, I believe Sargon ran a video on it specifically, linking a CNN interview segment and various other sources feel free to look them up, with a couple of Professors who had been caught in such incidents. Their response was pathetic, IMO.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohgGpXeHmc

 

Forgoing even Sargon's comments on the matter, I cannot understand what the hell these Profs are thinking in their reasons why they said what they said.

 

The first claims it was satire. Oh yea, that's totally satire when they provide no frame of reference for what they're satirizing at all and give no hint that you're writing is satire either. Its already difficult enough on internet chat forums to discern trolling at times, one often has to be literal if they want their intent to come across clearly. Or "start a conversation" on this topic? FFS YOU DID THIS ON TWITTER! The one public forum where above all others, its perhaps the most difficult to have any kind of intelligent conversation because you're limited to how much you can write. How much of an intelligent conversation are you supposed to have when each post you write is limited to a small number of characters? Blitz intelligentsia conversations maybe, but nothing the general public can thoroughly engage in. No, he did this to be provocative, and is playing dumb, I wager.

 

More to the point, what "intelligent conversation" would you even have on this topic? Supposedly all forms of Genocide provocation are bad, if not outright crimes in various countries, so what's the conversation to be had here if its not about the subject matter? "Oh, let's have a conversation about these edgy people who post this crap to get a rise out of people online?" Discussing why people might be prone towards posting edgy or provocative stuff might be an interesting psycho-analysis depending on how it was done, but that's not this Prof's area of expertise, so I doubt that's the conversation he'd be having.

 

Second guy, very tasteless. Even if we go out on a limb and say he wasn't actively supporting the fact that some people got shot for their political party affiliation, this is ridiculously bad behaviour for a Professor to do in the wake of a shooting. You don't do crap like that unless you're either trying to be provocative and don't give a fuck about backlash, Plus his reasoning could literally be applied to any Racist who desires racial genocide on Earth, or heck, even just any kind of homicidal individual who thinks a certain group of people aught to be killed, and it would work with them.

 

I have seen BLM chapters caught on film chanting for dead cops (I linked a couple from Sargon among others previously, regardless of his comments, I have little reason to doubt the footage clips), the POC-only spaces have mostly been argued by various campus groups on different Unis. And while I cannot find the links easily, I do have various instances I can list.

 

-Oberlin University, where its student radicals issued a list of demands which included removing tenure from some Profs and giving it to others merely on the basis of being black, and creating POC-only spaces among other things.

 

-Cal State University in LA offering segregated student Housing as a progressive initiative.

 

-NYC, a University there had people demanding POC-only spaces just recently.

 

-American University (Washington, I believe), protested for not only a POC only space, not only did they get their own time in the cafeteria separate from White students, they also protested for free extensions on all of their exam times and no risk of penalization for missing ANY of their exams among other things.

 

-----

 

Lots of different groups pushed. Here is Dr. Peterson's copy of a section of the Senate Hearing on the issue with both he and the lawyer Jared Brown witnessing, its a full hour, so be warned, but I find it to be quite illuminating:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

 

Here's an article detailing about four or five other criticisms of its content in different respects:

 

https://canadafreepress.com/article/canadas-bill-c-16-transgenderism-and-the-loss-of-common-sense

 

Different section of the Senate Hearings, this is a Megan Murphy giving a Feminist critique of C 16, mostly on grounds that oppose the idea of Transgenderism: (I don't necessarily agree with her views, but I can appreciate her consistency within the speech)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgOLs_cEKi0

 

But as you said, we have no real stats on the situation. And even if that is the case, genocide would still be an exaggeration.

 

Yes, but I'd say there is a difference between misgendering someone, and using a racial slur. A racial slur is an obvious insult. Not calling someone by their chosen pronoun is different, IMO. Yes, it indicates a lack of respect towards an individual, and potentially harassment if one goes out of their way to constantly do it, but its a different situation if say a person has no way of knowing what a specific person's pronouns are and misuse (apparently) causes some individuals mental trauma, and that even a single instance of misgendering can be treated as a crime.

 

Dr. Peterson also discusses the idea of compelled language and how it doesn't necessarily resolve this issue of harassment in this kind of situation anyway, in fact it could just promote more harassment out of defiance. But that's what he views.

 

-----

 

Possibly, though personally I'd make the argument that such a manner of thinking is an illusion, in many cases, or is merely utilized for political advantage. I'd look for non-party candidates for any genuine desire for that, IMO by and large. My province has been run by a Lesbian Premier for years, if there's one thing I've learned its that such a person can totally fuck up running a province as any other joker in politics. Funnily its been the recent years where a lot of problems have been coming forward in some of those communities. Then again, such could be the case merely by having someone of such an identity in power.

 

Well, if everyone voted practically, lots of things in politics would be different, it would also change how the parties try to cater to voters.

 

-----

 

Maybe so, and I don't disdain your preference. I just know to many others, even within your own wider community, it doesn't matter to them as much. I know quite a few who'd rather not get the attention, and merely have people not take it as a big deal so that they can just live normal lives.

 

IMO, it'd be a healthier outlook for everyone in general, not even just of any particular group but everyone, to not be as fixated on such arbitrary concepts of identity. Its IMO the exact way of thinking which lead to the creation of ideas like racial hierarchies, or even just divisions of identity to begin with. Its a pipe-dream of course, but I'd think it'd actually go towards solving a lot of these problems faster than many other approaches. Holding one identity up on a pedestal accomplishes little except to shift the problem (hence why I don't call Black Panther a "diverse" film, for example).

 

I reached the conclusion after finding group identity to be unfulfilling in that they have little nuance to be practical when put into policy, and individual identity to be an illusion. We aren't individuals in any respect. From our names, to our clothes, to our hairstyles, to who we chose to fuck, to what we like to eat, to what we enjoy watching/reading/playing, and often not even in our viewpoints (What is a truly unique viewpoint anymore, eh? Arguably, this one isn't either.). Very nihilistic perhaps, but to me it rings quite true of reality.

 

I'd argue the average person in general has no real responsibility for the lingering effects of any government (on any level) or business policies. Why? Because the vast majority of people have 0 power over the situation by virtue of not being in government or control of a business. Most people are not policy makers, hell, most people don't even have any power to vote on them. And even fewer people have any power over companies. If anyone is to blame, its them, since they're the ones who ultimately make the choices and the arguments and present them to the public.

 

The only power the general public have in that scenario is the threat of public opinion and protest, but in my viewing, most protests fail (especially up here in Canada). I loved studying the American 1960s and I won't deny that some protests are far more effective than others, but ultimately you're not talking about any great deal of power compared to lobbyists or even the effects of counter-protests depending on the issue.

 

That public power only exists by making people care, as well. Which unless its a really serious matter that they can relate to, most people honestly won't care. Everyone has their own problems, and don't necessarily want to take up the burdens of others.

 

Just look at the recent March For Our Lives protests. Yes, the media is making a big deal out of them being some of the biggest protests since the 60s, but there's also the factors they're not telling everyone. NRA membership and funds I believe tripled following the events, and an enormous number of people across the US DIDN'T join them. For one reason or another.

 

Now, that general apathy may very well be not what our predecessors envisioned for democratic government, but its the reality we live in. You have a hard enough time getting anyone interested in voting for what they can vote for, let alone protest genuinely and effectively.

 

-----

 

Just as a minor caveat to the Class identity I have, while we agree on it. I have become a bit more skeptic of class talking points like the often toted out "1%ers" even though in reality that's a colloquialism and the actual number of people is much higher and often a bit more varied than people think and therefore I see it as potentially proven to overzealousness as any other. Otherwise, again, I don't have much issue on it.

 

-----

 

IDK though, because think about the 90s. I'm not gonna paint them as some great time where no discrimination happened at all, you can see that it happened a lot, especially in urban centers where you had big divides, but how often did it come up as a talking point compared to now? I honestly couldn't tell you, but a lot of people I know who lived and were aware during that time didn't notice it as much, you never really saw it as a major social issue even if it wasn't eradicated. You saw in the decades preceding them, a lot of talk about the issues, but then they kinda fade a bit from popular discussion, until they get revived later here in the 2000s to the present.

 

There's a difference between the issues disappearing and whether or not they flare up again as issues. Think of it like diseases. You don't see much talk about them until a major incident happens or otherwise some major development that draws people's attention. The lack of conversation doesn't mean that its gone, but that its vanished from public sight as a major or prevalent issue. Various issues in society can basically vanish from public eyes for a long time before resurfacing based on various circumstances.

 

Police brutality, especially racially motivated incidents of such, have existed for a long time as well, but they only flare up at various instances, such as with Rodney King.

 

So when I say the Left "revived" race issues, that's partially what I mean.

 

But I mean generally that the Left revived identity politics, and in so doing, race issues as well.

 

Because identity politics is a double-edged sword, you cannot promote one singular identity without having others question why theirs are not also being represented or upheld. This is IMO why we see rise in White Nationalism among many other groups over the past few years, its gotten to the point where they're being encouraged to think in racist mindsets because all people are seeing is tons of activists thinking in what they regard to be as racist mindsets.

 

The division of the Humanist Movement along identitarian lines IMO is the biggest sign of this. The fact that they no longer saw it as prudent to simply have a humanist movement, they had to emphasize half a dozen other areas of identity as splinter movements, because apparently its discriminatory or ignores people by simply asking that all people regard themselves as simply human, and not focus on the other aspects of identity.

 

The talks of "privilege" and "intersectionality" are both very recent developments as well in terms of talking points, even if they may be evolutions off of earlier ideas. And in some cases they've gone way too far with them to the point where they flare up tensions themselves, and hence create issues. I just saw yesterday that apparently there's a new push among some groups about the idea of "Christian Privilege" as an idea, which not only kinda goes against the idea of privilege as I thought had been established where it mostly involved factors that one had no control over (since religious affiliation is ultimately a personal choice), but also comes across as very "First World Problems" kind of material.

 

To complain about Christian Privilege in a society that while being Christian in origin, is mostly secularized, IMO makes no sense. Especially when there exist all over the world instances where being a Christian is not a privileged position at all, yet you don't see this discussion going on anywhere else for other groups.

 

Which is IMO what is a cause of these problems. People see through the fact that many on the Left have no principles (granted they also see the same on the Right in their own times), but rather only care about "their own habitat" so to speak, and they get pissed off when these groups act self-righteous about their causes and incite protest over these very particular issues while appearing not to care about others that are arguably far more pressing in other places.

 

It creates an appearance of a very self-centered Left. The traditional Right largely makes no illusion about being self-centered in terms of it usually being more local or national in its aims, but because the Left tend to argue for more issues of far more expansive natures that go beyond the mere locality or nation in terms of actually truly solving them, it can create a weird disconnect wherein they pick and choose which issues they care about, in which instances. Criticism of Christianity versus Criticism of Islam is arguably a topic where this has occurred. The reality should be that the Left criticizes all Religions equally and promotes secularization (since that's basically the whole reason why the modern Left's principles exist at all), yet you see Leftist politicians who refuse to criticize Saudi Arabia, who refuse admit that perhaps at least some aspects of the culture contribute toward various specific issues, etc. Yet there's no such hesitancy for criticizing Christians of any variety. People can criticize the Pope all they want, he's even apparently taken to promoting many Left-leaning ideas irrespective of doctrine (not that that is a bad thing, but its very noticeable, even to myself not being a Catholic or Christian).

 

Another topic this has occurred with is Imperialism. China has, for all intents and purposes, become a new economic imperialist in terms of what it is doing in various African nations alone, yet you don't really see much criticism of them by Leftists, whenever you see Imperialism talked about, most cases they're referring to past European Imperialism, or slightly more modern American and maybe Soviet varieties. Even though the most pressing issues of the matter right now are arguably being done by China under everyone's noses.

 

Or Conservationism, now admittedly this is often very issue-specific when it comes to activists, so I'll limit myself to merely the politicians. Even Environmentalist-favouring politicians pick and choose what issues to tackle rather than try and resolve as many as they can. Sometimes ignoring even ones you'd think would be very simple. Like the pacific garbage patch. How the hell has that thing NOT been resolved by even just the UN at this point? They've known about it for a long time, they constantly harangue over environmental issues and its obviously a very visibly bad thing, yet where's the action been on it? Basically nothing. They cannot even blame the US on that one, apparently most of the junk comes from East Asia.

 

Its another consequence of living in a world that is far more globally connected than ever before. People cannot really get away from the fact that there are arguably far more pressing issues to attend to elsewhere in terms of needing urgent action.

 

Basically, it creates a situation where people come to resent the modern Left because they look like hypocrites even if they may be opposing hypocrites, and people think they're no better, and at times fan the flames of issues that ultimately look petty, look differently when analyzed, or don't matter. Conservatives do this as well, the last UK election is evidence of that where Theresa or her party obviously thought it was a bright idea to alienate big parts of the population for no reason by trying to cram every Conservative agenda they could think of in their manifesto, regardless of relevance or political motive, small wonder they didn't gain a fucking thing.

 

Styx has pointed it out as well. He noticed how back during the Bush era, when he still called himself a Leftist, you had all kinds of people being anti-war when Bush went into Iraq, yet immediately seemed to forget their own viewpoints when Obama became president and started authorizing drone strikes that caused many civilian deaths in places like Yemen or other nations, plus starting a few of proxy wars. He also noticed the same among Neo-Cons in reverse, its why he didn't flip right either.

 

In this way, they arguably create their own opposition, as people who otherwise would not be opposed or even have any stake in the game, get drawn in. Which IMO is what the Left has been doing on many issues recently, followed behind by the Right.

 

-----

 

Even if that was the intent, how the hell was that message supposed to stick in the 60s? The Confederacy lost quite handily a long time ago, the Union won. The only reason it would have been the case would be due to lack of Federal enforcement of its own laws (which was the case at the time of the 1960s). In which case that's a fault of the government, not necessarily the monuments.

 

More to the point why tear them down now? Seems 40-50 years too late IMO and just a feel-good exercise that doesn't really do much for anyone in reality. "Oh yea, you tore down a statue of a centuries dead guy whose beliefs they may or may not have held have almost no resemblance to what our modern society holds. Good job." Tearing them down while there was still major opposition to blacks having the vote? I can see that. Now? What's the point?

 

Regardless, I always cringe when I see stuff like that.

 

-----

 

Ah, but that depends on the Feminist you ask. Many older Feminists disagree with their younger counterparts. Still, could it not be argued that the one is, in some regards, undoing the work the other did? I'd say it could. I'll also refer again to the Meghan Murphy link.

 

-----

 

Still doesn't make sense why it would basically vanish from cable, it would explain a drop, but not complete vanishing. You can find all kinds of entertainment on the internet, yet you haven't seen all of those vanish from cable yet have you? You would think that at least some of them would persist, yet they don't.

 

But that's only one example.

 

Yeah, and now you see different things being regarded as politically incorrect compared to the 50s and 60s. There are a bunch of cartoons from the 90s alone I wager you'd never be able to show today without getting a flood of complaints, stuff that kids would watch barely 15-20 years ago.

 

It changes because of who is charge of political correctness. Nobody denies that. I don't like the Right doing it anymore than the Left, yet ironically, you often see overlap between the two in their views on the subject.

 

Both don't like over-sexualization of women albeit for different reasons, both don't like the use of filthy language (be it swearing or slurs for any reason), both don't approve of various drug usage (though that varies as to which they disapprove of and often changes with time), both have problems with various violent content, and both have their own sacred cows in terms of stuff they won't show or won't approve of being shown. They also both care about Halloween costumes, going to outrageous lengths for the sake of their political correctness.

 

I'm talking about PC Culture in general, and the fact that primarily now the Left is currently in charge of it, at least in NA. That will obviously change in time as it always has, but right now, here, I'd very much say the ball is in the court of the Left.

 

The fact that many different comedians have commented on the fact in the last few years that they simply refuse to go to many college or University campuses anymore because the student bodies cannot take jokes of different kinds they use is another hint towards this.

 

I haven't played Far Cry 5 yet, so I cannot comment on specifics. I just know that in general, the Far Cry games have mostly been out to entertain and in some cases make over the top characters and stories more so than make any grand political statements, so I'm not surprised.

 

I also wouldn't even say that that instance is necessarily political correctness, because is it right now politically correct to do such a thing? Last I checked, the supposed fear of offending Far-Right groups hasn't stopped most MSM outlets from repeatedly lambasting them for the past few years, it hasn't stopped all kinds of comedians and comedic routines from blowing all kinds of their issues or groups way out proportion, or it hasn't made Hollywood suddenly become worried about offending such people (Hell, they often openly provoke such people).

 

The only way that works is if Ubisoft assumes that most of their audience is right-wing, and far-right at that. I don't think so. I think most people were apolitical, and didn't want to be beat over the end with a modern political narrative in their Far Cry game. They already got a lot of backlash early on because people thought they were capitalizing on Trump being president (The number of hack articles speculating about the game's content in the time prior to release and how its a "Glimpse into Trump's America" were outrageous), and they were fed up with hearing about modern politics 24/7 by what was literally almost everyone.

 

Which that's a question, is catering towards a mostly apolitical audience, or at least an audience that desires some form of escapism from modern politics, necessarily a form of political correctness?

 

IDK, I'll just leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post

Alright, it feels like we're getting bogged down in specifics again. But I wouldn't trust was Sargon says, he's been caught, multiple times, not even reading the sources he quotes. So, whatever sources he quotes could very possibly say something different and he embellishes or doesn't understand what he's talking about.

 

But, here is something to consider, why do the words of a few professors make "Universities" as a concept a left-wing indoctrination facility? When i went to high school i had 2 teachers that were vocally against gay marriage but I don't see high school as some sort of anti-gay mill that brainwashes people through "cultural capitalism" or something. Which, btw, the idea that universities use cultural Marxism to indoctrinate people, is a theory that some people actually believe.

 

Anyways, about POC-only spaces.

 

IF it was happening...that would be bad, but surprise surprise....it isn't.

 

Oberlan: Basically the guy in question said some pretty anti-semetic things on facebook and students didn't like it so they filed complaints, oh, and i couldn't find anything about tenure being moved around https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/12/oberlin-professors-condemn-colleagues-controversial-remarks-others-defend-them

 

Cal state had housing that did only contain POC, but it wasn't because they didn't WANT any white people on there, it was just no white people asked to be a part of that housing group: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/california-today-colleges-segregated-housing.html

 

I can't find anything for that "NYC university", but i'm gonna assume it's a similar situation to Cal state because....my college has something similar, a housing group that focuses on POC issues and is made up only of POC, but it's not that they don't like white people or ask to be exclusively POC, it's that no white student asks to be part of it. It seems that this is overblown hysteria in order to paint colleges as super-pc and white-discriminating in order to push an agenda. Not trying to be overly harsh but, this isn't the first time something like this has come up, i do literally 5 minutes of research and it all comes crashing down.

 

Look, please diversify your sources. I'm reading this Canada Free Press article and....well it's not just heavily weighted towards conservative ideas, they are making some really bad arguments. Like, the first one they give is "it's not scientific"...yeah but, laws against saying racial slurs at the workplace aren't scientific either, they're social.

 

And i would argue that purposefully misgendering someone is like saying a racial slur. Because the intent is the same, it's to say "You are less than me because of who you are as a human being".

And that isn't right. No, "in my opinion", it just straight up isn't right to say "You are less of a human because of who you are". Not what they have done, not the choices they make, but because of who they are as a human.

 

Look, if your ancestors weren't slaves, i don't think we can really understand to know what it's like to have statues of people who would want you in chains or beaten if they were alive today. So, I'm gonna say that if POC want those statues down, well, take them down. I wouldn't want to glorify a darker chapter of our history unless there's a damn good reason.

 

You're right, feminism is complex, there are many aspects to it, and not everyone agrees. Refer to my "feminism isn't a monolith" statement.

 

Look, cable is getting it's ass kicked by YouTube, Hulu, and other streaming services, right now. Because it's just a better system. We had that with porn too. The internet made porn watching more private, more affordable, and didn't result in awkward billings. Moving on

 

Look, what is considered "PC culture" is just different groups requesting different things. You used to use the word "colored person" and it was 100% PC. Call native americans, "Indians" or "Redskins", 100% PC. There's a scene where James Bond rapes a woman and it was considered PC. What is and isn't acceptable changes over time.

 

And when it comes to sexualization or foul language, well there are people on the left and right spectrum. Heck, one of the biggest divides is "sex positive" vs. "sex negative" feminism. People are sensitive to sex and language, and for different reasons. But to pin all of the blame on POC and minorities is a different kind of "PC". Because, honestly, people are always behaving like it's censorship, but it isn't, it's criticism. Criticism =/= censorship. And hey, if you can't be funny without being racist or homophobic, maybe you're not that great of a comedian.

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Now that the rebuttal is out of the way, here's an interesting idea: Does the Right have more "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to their actions. To give an example: There were arrests made in Charlottesville, but those arrested did things like murder people, shoot weapons at people, and beat people. Windows were broken, people were hurt, and it's obvious reading through the report of Charlottesville that the neo-nazis were there to fight, they didn't WANT it to go well. So what happened? Well, police gave the order to disperse, declared it an unlawful gathering, and in general gave the white nationalists warning and opportunity to leave.

 

Now, people march down streets of DC, it was scheduled, and it was peaceful save a few broken windows. Then, without warning, without orders to disperse (which is police policy at the time), started throwing tear gas, pepper spraying, and arresting people. A few hours later, a limo was set on fire. 200 people were not only arrested, but had charges pressed against them. 60 are still facing charges. Were 200 windows broken? Is there video evidence of 60 people breaking windows?

 

NOPE!

 

Prosecution said that merely being in the march and being part of the crowd that broke windows, means you're guilty of their crimes, and should be punished. So let me be clear here, a march that had minor property damage is being punished as a group more than the neo-nazis who wave flags with coded symbols and literally killed someone.

 

Is there some sort of free-pass for people on the right? Are their crimes just tolerated more than people on the left? Like, another example: Hillary's goddamn emails, where she used a private server to conduct government business. Fox News and Breitbart to this day won't shut up about it. So, we're all in agreement that government officials using private email servers to conduct government business is a bad thing right?

 

Guess what Trump got caught doing while in the white house?

 

Using a private email server. Not just one, but multiple ones throughout the Trump Administration.

 

I'm not seeing a ton of people outraged over this, partly because Trump is so terrible that he can't go a week without doing something inane. But also because, well, it seems from my perspective that people on the right are under far less scrutiny than those one the left.

Share this post


Link to post

I was referring to the video even simply forgoing Sargon's comments, which I thought I stated clearly, but either way.

 

Obviously it depends on the University, not every Professor is a Demagogue, nor is every University an "Activist" University (I should know, I went to one that wasn't much of one). But perhaps what has contributed to that perception is that increasingly, you're seeing Universities become the foundation of Leftist activism (or rather becoming it again), often supported by the institutions, or the Professors themselves in some cases. Its no surprise that the majority of US University students predominantly vote Democrat, which while not being strictly left, tends to claim to promote Progressive ideas lately which are pretty much seen as Leftist.

 

The question also becomes moreso how the institutions present themselves and how do they handle actual intellectual diversity of thought and debate. Its not merely what the Professors or Students say and advocate for, but also how they treat diversity of opinion on the campuses. There have been multiple cases on many universities of situations where Right-wing or Right-leaning speakers have been brigaded, or otherwise stopped from speaking, whereas a Leftist speaker will not encounter such resistance. That perhaps is the bigger contributor to this perception. The fact that many campuses are openly promoting one side while not even providing any kind of defense for the other, when a University should ideally be a place where people of many different political or intellectual viewpoints can debate, discuss, and research into pretty much any subject. Which also goes into the fact that not every topic is "up for discussion", shall we say?

 

Cultural Marxism is an idea, specifically a perspective through which one can view information. It can be fitted, like many ideas into how you teach or analyze subjects, thereby influencing how people think about the subjects no different than any other. An uncritical mind can become indoctrinated through a perspective, if taught in such a manner. Therefore its perfectly possible that it could happen. Is it happening everywhere? No, but one could argue it is certainly happening in various places. Hell, people have argued it.

 

I never said it had happened, if you recall, I said this stuff was proposed and that I had my reservations about the fact that it was even being proposed. The fact that it hasn't happened in many places merely shows that the administrations haven't completely lost their sanity. I don't support the idea of even willful segregation IMO, because how do you know you're not merely promoting the idea of benevolent segregation?

 

It doesn't change my opinion that it is a regression back either. Benevolent or no, these motions are supporting stuff we claimed was bad less than 100 years ago. The Jim Crow supporters would be cheering at how we're validating their segregation viewpoints through voluntary segregation.

 

-----

 

You asked for different sources, I presented them. I didn't speak for the quality of the Free Press, merely that they proposed different arguments. You claimed you could only find one line of argumentation. Personally, I found Dr. Peterson's arguments to be the best of the lot if you were wanting my opinion.

 

And laws often are based in some manner of science, or that they can go hand-in-hand at times. The reason we no longer have racist laws anymore that have any kind of legitimacy based on biology is specifically thanks to the efforts of science, as well as social activism. Its extremely hard for someone to make the argument now that someone is an inherently different to the point where they're a separate sub-human species, and that's thanks to genetics. And I'm going off topic, but this was merely an example.

 

Purposefully, perhaps. But how many situations are done on purpose, and does the law treat the situation that way, or does it regard ANY instance as a violation? Regardless of merely Trans, people seem content to purposely and casually be impolite to others all the time for so many situations, yet some get special consideration for being protected from impolite language over others? This is going moreso into my Free Speech ideals and philosophy, but I honestly don't see the major legal issue in someone addressing someone else impolitely, which is essentially what this whole thing is. Yes, there is the idea of mutual respect, but the reality is that most people don't approach each other from a setting of mutual respect until that is earned, most cases people approach others they don't know in reserved neutrality, and respect may foster between the two from there or it may not depending on how things go.

 

How do you know our ancestors were not slaves at one point? My heritage is Irish-Scottish. Half of that ethnicity was effectively used as slave labour by the modern British for a time, and both were effectively subjugated by them for centuries prior. The Celtic Culture has been all but entirely destroyed from what it was between invaders and cultural conversion and arguably Cultural Genocide for centuries, what remains of the language is slowly dying, and many Celts were slaves in the ancient past to various ancient powers (and each other, but then such was reality at the time).

 

My point being that if you want to make this argument, kiss all of history prior to the modern day goodbye, hell even the modern day, arguably. Or are we going to go into cultural relativist arguments and say that the destruction of some cultures is apparently more important to take into account as to who has more of say on these matters than others, or that there is a hierarchy of the oppressed of the past? All of it can be described as "a darker chapter in our history" compared to now, if one were to argue it.

 

Ultimately, people can do whatever the fuck they want, I have no power over them and don't really care, I just have personal reservations on the idea and don't like seeing history get destroyed.

 

-----

 

I didn't deny that, I merely made a remark on who arguably is driving PC culture at any given time, predominantly, and the fact that it shifts.

 

Criticism is one thing, going so far as to charge people over very particular jokes when tons of comedians have made jokes on the subject before is another. John Cleese himself has said that if Monty Python's skits were filmed today, him and the whole gang would likely be arrested, which is a fucking farce to me.

 

That's a very specific view of comedy, a subject which is often in the eye of the beholder and morphs constantly with time. Comedians, some of the greatest IMO, have no problems in saying jokes that may come across as offensive to various people. Why? Because of various reasons. Mel Brooks made jokes, or was willing to make jokes in his films about everything except pedophilia and the death camps of Nazi Germany (If I recall correctly), but he made tons of jokes on Hitler and his Nazis because he wanted people to think they were foolish and to turn a negative subject into a positive one ultimately. He believed we needed to be able to laugh at pretty much anything, and so he made jokes about everything he personally felt comfortable joking about, and didn't discourage others. This guy joked about his own peoples' suffering under the Spanish Inquisition, among many other culturally offensive jokes in History of the World Part 1 alone. George Carlin was quite Left-leaning, used all kinds of filthy language in his routines and touched on all kinds of otherwise politically incorrect subjects because he a) Wanted to show that the words themselves are nothing but words, b) He wanted to get people out of the mindset of political correctness, and c) He wanted his audience to think as they were laughing.. He also flat-out didn't give a shit, but he'd been doing that since the 60s when he grew up. Russell Peters' entire act is mostly race, cultural, and ethnicity jokes, and he gets sold out crowds everywhere he goes. Probably helps that he's an Indian man born in Canada, but the fact remains he goes through the full monty in his acts, he hardly leaves any part of the world untouched, and one of the major points he emphasizes is that everyone's racist to some extent and white people don't have a monopoly on it at all.

 

Not every comedian needs to do those things at all, but I prefer variety over control when it comes to art, which means that likely some comedians will be offensive.

 

-----

 

As for your question, here is the short answer I'll give: Very difficult to gauge, very situational, and ultimately very personal. People on the Left and Right or who favour one side or another will obviously not put their side under more scrutiny unless they have a specific reason for doing so. It also depends on where you are, who we're talking about in terms of who is supposed to be scrutinizing who, and what exactly happened.

 

My conclusion? I would say that the Left gets a BIG free pass from a large part of the MSM. Fox and Breitbart are the exceptions, and the former is dying due to internal scandal and dying cable news, and the latter is nowhere near as popular to actually be any kind of replacement. But I can list TONS of Left-favouring outlets both great and small. CNN, CBC, MSNBC, BBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Vice Media, Huffington Post, Wired, Jezebel, Teen Vogue, and I'm probably forgetting a bunch of others but those are the ones that popped into my head. There are no where near enough Conservative alternatives with anywhere near as big of an audience to be actual competitors to many of these outlets, and even then its up in the air to whether or not they are actually "Conservative" in any true sense and not merely Neo-Cons. How many actual Right-Wingers do you see being chatted with on many of these outlets? Not many, and most get belittled or pushed around on them for their opinions, magically get cut off, or otherwise get stacked in panels that mostly have Leftists or Left-leaning individuals on them. Since there are far more of them that are undeniably far popular, I very much put this in the Left's favour.

 

Publicly? Divides on who gives a free pass where and what they know.

 

Law Enforcement? Similarly, it depends on where you are.

 

Politically? Changes like the tides.

 

Long response, where I'll demonstrate this:

 

I'd say that's a very interesting way to analyze the situation when the reality of Charlottesville I saw from the footage was the one arguably intentional death and set of injuries was caused by a mentally instable individual in his car after said opposing protestors surrounded it and started hitting on it. I'm not dismissing his actions, he is AFAIK being charged within the full extent of the law and should pay for his crime.

 

But its all the more interesting when said police in Charlottesville were told to stand down until said person was killed, even though they had to have been aware that in previous situations where incidents like there had occurred, the likely scenario was that there would be people fighting each other in the fucking streets.

 

A lot of things went wrong in Charlottesville, the biggest blame I place is on the law enforcement who according to you, apparently served an order ruling it an unlawful assembly, yet where the fuck were they to enforce it before someone got fucking killed? They had every reason to suspect that the situation would get violent, yet where were they? Nowhere until someone got fucking killed.

 

Same situation happened in Berkeley months prior, the only difference was that nobody got killed, so the police had no impetus to step in and thus simply abide by their orders to stand back.

 

People (Specifically people who don't like the Dems) are making a big deal out of Clinton's email server because there was basically no investigation at all around it that wasn't swiftly dropped, or into Uranium One, or basically any scandal that Hillary may have been involved with at all, no matter how severe it looks. I ask you, WTF is happening to Trump right now? Oh yeah, A FEDERAL LEVEL INVESTIGATION, one which has moved pretty much without any serious opposition ever since it started. I'm sorry, but how the hell has Trump not been under a fucking microscope ever since he even started running for the office? This motherfucker cannot eat two scoops of ice cream without being put under scrutiny by the most popular sources of information in the world. There's evidence to suggest that he had been wiretapped, he'd been spied upon (both of which haven't led to any further investigations that I know of ATM), and his past has been dredged through as thoroughly if not far more publicly than Clinton's ever was.

 

If anyone, blame the fucking MSM! These fucking morons have run the Trump-hate-train 24/7 non stop since the election, small wonder more and more people are tuning out. Its the boy who cried wolf.

 

Meanwhile Mueller is pulling a fucking witch-hunt and violating attorney-client privilege because he has literally fuck-all on Trump after nearly 2 years solid of investigating, and is desperate to find anything for an impeachment. They raid his former attorney's house over a tenuous link that Stormy Daniels may have been paid off and it might be a fraud case (Boy, how the hell does this relate to Russian collusion tampering in the election in Trump's favour? The purpose of the whole investigation at all, might I add?), yet the FBI apparently didn't raid the Clintons' attorneys over any of the far more visible links between them and various other scandals?

 

Guess what I don't see a lot of people being pissed off over? The fact that attorney-client privilege just got violated by a federal investigation that has completely overstepped its bounds and gone beyond its original mandate in the pursuit of anything they can pin to this guy they so desperately want out of office that they hope nobody notices that the investigation has completely forgone its original mandate. If a President cannot do shit about it, what the hell is an average citizen supposed to do if faced with a similar situation?

 

The only reason Mueller likely don't be fired over this is because to do so would result in harpies crying out: "Obstruction of justice!" and handing them the fucking impeachment charges on a platter because apparently this is a sacrosanct investigation mandated by God that can go on for eternity until something is found. Over-dramatic language, yes, but frankly that's how ridiculous this whole business looks to me.

 

Point here? I think besides what I posted, the evidence can be seen in the chat here. We all have our own opinions on what matters more and what deserves more scrutiny. From my perspective, the Media heavily favours the Left and its interpretations, while not sparing much for the Right, or the perceived opponents of the Left. Everyone else? Depends on where you are, and who you ask. The stats seem to suggest the same as well, from my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, you tried to argue that the colleges you listed trying to get POC only spaces was indicative of a larger problem. I showed that it isn't happening...so I guess we're just going to ignore that huh? Alright.

 

Also, college campuses have kinda always been progressive, like, when has this become news for you? It's like saying retirement homes are full of conservatives...yeah, ok. But i'm not the one claiming assisted living programs are GOP brainwashing institutions.

 

"Cultural Marxism" is the modern re-imagining of a Nazi idea called "Kulturbolschewismus". Just like then, it isn't happening and is basically just used in order to justify some truly terrible beliefs. In other words it's Fascist Propaganda, plain and simple. I'm not saying you said it's happening, i'm saying what it is.

 

And now you've gone from "POC are DEMANDING that colleges give them their own spaces" to "Willful segregation is bad". If i show you an article that explains that this isn't willful segregation, what's the next step down on the ladder? How much are you willing to backtrack and still try to look right?

 

You clearly didn't read the words that I typed if you're claiming that I could only find one argument.

 

And about laws and science. Yes, often they go hand in hand, but not always. Most laws, are in fact, socially constructed. That law that says you need to make sure there are sprinklers in a factory in case of a fire isn't scientifically based, it's socially based. And are you conflating science and statistics? Because those also aren't the same thing.

 

And i'm not arguing against erasing history, erasing history would be burning books, suppressing knowledge, and trying to pretend it never happened. I'm talking about glorifying history. I WOULDN'T want to glorify Celtic slaves, I don't want to glorify the colonization of other nations by Briton, and as someone who's ancestrally German there is absolutely history i don't want to glorify. And I wouldn't want to forget those things happened either.

 

Let me put it this way: I have no problem with people learning the Civil War happened, in fact everyone who lives in america should know about it, the problem is in glorifying the people who fought to keep slavery alive (and before you say state's rights, it was one very very specific state's right they were fighting for).

 

Lastly, about whether the Right has more leeway when it comes to being punished.

 

You seem to be purposefully not engaging with my point. It doesn't matter how they're treated by the media, i'm talking about official government action.

 

Someone was murdered in Charlottesville yet we're not seeing 60 neo-nazis being put on trial for being near a murder when it occurred. But we are seeing 60 left-wing protesters being put on trial for being near a few windows when they were broken. No police officers threw tear gas into the nazi crowd, pepper sprayed them, then arrested 200 of them with no warning. That's what happened to the J20 protesters though. May i remind you that not even one person was even assaulted before the tear gas was deployed?

 

And that's, again, not an exaggeration, the prosecution is trying to make being near a window when it's broken at a demonstration a crime. And you bet your bottom dollar it'll be selectively enforced against anyone who doesn't agree with capitalism.

 

That sends a pretty clear message to me in terms of what the government thinks is acceptable: Nazis are ok, trying to change the economic system will get a boot in your face though.

 

And finally (gonna make a whole section for this)

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Let's talk about Mr. Trump

 

To start with your points:

 

First, there WAS investigations into Hillary's misdeeds, you can say they were over quick because of something something deep state, but in reality it's probably because they looked bad but weren't Illegal:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 (basically it wasn't just Hillary, a whole bunch of people had to sign off on this)

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37811529 (shady, but not illegal, which isn't great but hey, that's why the investigation was dropped. "Officer! This guy painted a shaved Ren and Stimpy on his garage door!" "Ok, Shady and Sketchy, but not illegal")

Basically, both of these boil down to "Looks bad, is shady, but that's about it"

 

 

And now onto Trump's crimes.

 

So, you do realize that the presidential election WASN'T Trump's first experience with the Russians right? Like, a huge part of selling his building was getting Russian Billionaires to buy units. Now that may just seem like "just business" but these guys basically run Russia. So, he already was well connected among the Russian Elite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-history-of-donald-trumps-business-dealings-in-russia/2017/11/02/fb8eed22-ba9e-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cc1660046811

 

So, it's not like this Russia thing was pulled out of Comey's ass (who remember was originally in charge of the investigation). So! There's also evidence to suggest that key people within the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election met with Russian Elites during the presidential race.

 

That's what really kicked off the investigation mind you.

 

So, in order to determine if our President committed treason by allowing a foreign power to interfere with US election, a special investigation was started.

 

Now, how long do you think crimes take to prosecute? A month? Two? Six?...well yeah six, for a misdemeanor. Felonies can take 1 and 1/2 to 2 years to prosecute fully, and that's a single person. To gather enough evidence to prove without a doubt that there was collusion in the Trump campaign, while people are trying to cover their tracks and do whatever it takes to not go to prison, is gonna take a bit longer.

 

Now, you'll have to excuse me if i go off on a slight tangent here.

 

Judge Rod J. Rosenstein who was appointed by Trump himself signed a warrant allowing for the FBI to raid the offices and hotel room of Michael Cohen because the FBI was able to present enough evidence of probable Bank Fraud for a warrant. Then, a team that was not part of Mueller's investigation, raided his office and subpoenaed several documents.

 

So, already, this is not Mueller's doing. Mr. Cohen was already in trouble and the raid had nothing to do with the Russia Investigation.

 

And, the FBI has not nor will not violate attorney-client privilege. You know why? Even if they get a recording of some guy saying to his lawyer: "I killed a person, the knife that i used to kill them with along with a lock of the victims hair is in a box hidden at this location. Boy I hope no one finds it because it's got my fingerprints and DNA all over it." Then the FBI finds that box, and the fingerprints + DNA match, but they had to violate attorney-client privilege to get it, guess what happens? Guy walks away scott-free.

 

Any first year law student could tell you that. So, the FBI isn't going to do anything illegal in order to get the case built against Trump, which , btw wasn't even the point of the raid. Plus, how exactly did the FBI violate Attorney-Client privilege? I'll link you some articles explaining just what is and isn't privilege, read those, then tell me what the FBI did wrong:

http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-1-what-is-a-privilege/

http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-2-attorneys-and-clients-can-sorta-talk-openly/

http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-3-marriage-means-you-cant-convict/

http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/12/checking-your-privilege-part-4-forgive-me-father-for-i-have-testified/

 

I'm like, 100% sure the FBI prosecutors know more about Attorney-Client privilege than you, me, or the talking heads on the TV.

 

As a side note, Trump firing the person who's in charge of investigating him for crimes, would actually be obstruction of justice...like, basically the definition. He'd be trying to obstruct justice from occurring. Nixon tried to pull that crap too and called his investigation a witch-hunt.

 

Also, riddle me this: say you got elected president and had help from the russians to do it and now there's an investigation on exactly that. What would you do? Well, if it was me (and i had the morals of a cold-hearted businessman) I would cast doubt on the agency running the investigation, claim i'm innocent, get the voting base and news station that loves me constantly saying "there was no collusion", so that way i can stop the investigation before they find out exactly what I did.

 

Also, i'm not even gonna touch your comments about the "24/7 Trump hate train" because Fox news ran a report that Obama wanted Dijon mustered on his hot dog (and of course spun it as anti-american). If Trump isn't playing golf (which he does a LOT) he's messing something up; most of the news I see is like, him doing actually really bad stuff, I'd list them out but we'd need a whole new thread and about a week's research. And in case you haven't noticed, the Trump administration is much much worse than the Obama administration in almost every measurable way. Just on a functional level, at least Obama was able to get Ambassadors into a South Korean Embassy.

 

But let's talk PAST what Dirty Donald has done and focus much more on what he MEANS. What is his "raison d'être?" if you will? Why have so many people rallied around a washed-up businessman who represents everything wrong with wealth and power.

 

Well, let's start with his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again". Now, i'm going to assume you're a straight, white, male, I hope you don't mind. But for basically everyone outside of that group, America was never great for you. Native Americans (to start) were routinely massacred, had their land taken away, forcibly relocated, and to this day face massive discrimination. Do i even NEED to explain why being black in america was always bad till like, maybe the 80's? I hope i don't. Women are TO THIS DAY not given things that have been done, shown to work, and are really beneficial to them (like paid maternity leave). And as for LGBT people, well Reagan purposefully didn't put any resources or research into AIDS because he was convinced all gay men would just die of it and that's another problem solved for him. He didn't even commit ANY research until straight people started to get AIDS.

 

So, to "Make America Great Again" is to go backwards, towards white supremacy. Oh, and you don't need to wave swastikas or black suns to be white supremacist. You just gotta think black people belong in the ghetto because they're dangerous, hispanics should be in the fields and learn to speak English because this is AMERICA, complain that people calling a football team "Redskins" racist is just people being to sensative and whine about how PC culture is going overboard whenever a kid's movie with a black main character is brought out. You just gotta "support gay people, but not their right to marry". White supremacy, doesn't mean "genocides and hate crimes", it means keeping white people at the top, and everyone else at the bottom. In other words, the status quo that has existed for a very long time in the US

 

So, his entire slogan was basically saying, "All this progress over our history? Yeah, just get rid of it, we don't want it, who's with me?"

 

So, that's his first "appeal". The second is he's rich. In the USA, that means you're good. If you're rich, that means you were a Randian Superman, pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, didn't take any handouts....except for the money Trump's Daddy (who was part of the KKK may i remind you), gave him. So, this one point is wrong in two senses, the stupid stupid stupid idea of Randian economics being anything more than a pipe dream where those with wealth and power are willing to give up their wealth and power if someone truly better comes along. It's a stupid ideology that ignores very real systemic problems. AND he didn't even meet Randian standards, because he INHERITED all of his wealth.

 

Next is his whole, "Anti-PC Language" thing. And i'm just gonna say this, which SPECIFIC political correctness does he not adhere to? Is he saying that the american flag would be better used as a torch baton? That would be anti-PC. What about that Ned Kelly was a hero and shoulda been born in America, that would be anti-PC. Or what about that you can only get an abortion if you could use the fetus for a paddle-ball? That would be Anti-PC...or wait, does he only make fun of/not care about what black people, LGBT, disabled, hispanic, native american, or women consider "PC"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well anyways, Trump also ran as "Anti-establishment", which is hilarious if you ask me. Sure, he's not establishment, he's not a politician, he's just part of the demographic (mega-rich people) that bribe and own the politicians, see? Anti-establishment! It would be establishment to even pretend that the rich don't own this country's body, people, and soul.

 

So in short, Trump's not just a person, he's a symbol for everything wrong with America. But, because people are so fed up with the system (or were already GOP voters who were refreshed by a candidate who didn't try to hide all the racism and homophobia) people voted for him. AND, people hated Hillary so much, because she's basically a symbol OF the establishment and people are sick of it, that he won. Now that he can't do anything right and people are rightfully calling him out on it, his base are in conniption fits because this is the guy they put all their hopes and dreams into! He was the symbol, he was the guy who was gonna drain the swap and make america great again! But, turned out when so many people were saying "this is not the right man for the job", his base didn't listen. Because they didn't want to see Trump the man, they wanted to see Trump the symbol.

 

And every single american (except for the extremely wealth of course) is gonna pay for it.

 

You know, I've heard the accusation that I'm happy Trump's doing so poorly, that i get to say "i told you so" and be RIGHT! Here's the thing: I'm not happy. I got to say "I told you so" the first two months of his presidency, now i'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of Trump's and the GOP's shit.

 

This. Isn't. Normal.

 

And it sure as shit isn't because things are getting better.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.