Problematic Stuff

Post Reply
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 36550
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Animavore » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:20 am

laklak wrote:I've seen people call themselves that. Could be ironic, though. Most of the ones around here fancy themselves ironic. But I do live smack in the middle of two universities, one of which is a liberal arts school. That might skew the stats.
I suppose it's not uncommon for people to take the word used against them and own it. Like black people with the n-word. Or Irish people with "alcoholic".
Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 14489
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: on the beach, drinking a beer
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by laklak » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:32 am

Or Southern white males with "redneck" or "cracker". I think that has a lot to do with display of problematic shite like Confederate flags, too.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58009
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:04 am

Or cardigan-clad Physics teachers as "brilliant but eccentric"... :tea:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:26 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: It's a shame you can't fucking read and retain anything in memory for more than about a day. The idea isn't at all controversial on these boards. The reason why is that the progressives here can understand the context of racism, and can see that while definitionally a minority can be racist, functionally they likely can't - as their actions (unless an act of violence) can't pose a threat to someone from the dominant culture with the backing of a state that systemically favours the dominant culture.
Here, your unreasonable anger evinces your SJW nature. You go straight to the insult, because to you disagreement is insult or offense. It upsets you.
Don't make me laugh. You know exactly why I abuse you. It's because you are dishonest beyond belief, and your disingenuous reply here just reinforces that view.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:44 am

Forty Two wrote: To say that "garden variety conservatives" are a bigger threat to society than the "SJW" movement, seems to me to be based on a pretty negative assessment of what it means to be a "garden variety" conservative.
Believe in unlimited growth, trickle-down economics, reduced social services, against a lot of environmental regulation, against global institutions like the UN that are needed to address global warming and international conflicts, overly patriotic and pro-exceptionalism, against the UNHCR (conservatives in Australia, at least), pro arms trading, against equal rights for gays and lesbians, and I'm sure there's plenty more where conservatives cause direct harm to people and the environment.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:03 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
I meant - can you back it up with an authoritative quote, not your own tailored definition.
This is basic shit, pErv. https://quizlet.com/6266751/8-tenets-of ... ash-cards/
I don't think it is basic shit, given all the definitions I've looked up on postmodernism literally say that it's very hard to define. And it's not surprising, I guess, given the level of wibbling that postmodern articles contain.

Regarding the 8 pillars listed, I still don't see how that quote you took from the article about (paraphrasing) "interlocking power structures, and oppression" is a central tenet of post modernism. I don't see anything about that in the 8 tenets.
[SJW Example: Demands that we not criticize other cultures, even when they throw people off buildings and oppress others.... it's not their culture that's the problem, it's white racism]
Do you have some examples of SJWs saying we can't criticise other cultures when they throw people off buildings?
Power Reductionism: All institutions, human relationships, moral values, and human creations are expressions and masks of the primal will to power. [SJW Example: It's all about power play among groups -- marginalized vs oppressor]
I see this is the tenet that you suggest applies to the quote from that article, but it literally makes no sense. Power is a verb there.

Assuming it means power as a noun, it still is pretty unintelligible. What does "masks" mean there?
[SJW Examples: destroy western civilization (like what's happening in universities) -- all traditional "norms" must go, etc.]
This is just more of the bullshit "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:09 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: What effect would his words have on a white person in each country?
Depends on the person, doesn't it? Some black people and some white people aren't much effected by words. Others have conniptions over a rude comment.

But, again, doesn't matter - racism is an individual thing. It's not a question of what upsets other people, or what upsets anyone, actually. To be racist is a function of the mind of the racist person, not how other people react or the harm it causes. Someone might be a raging racist, but keep it to herself completely. She's still a racist if she judges based on race or discriminates based on race, or thinks people are inferior or superior because of race.

This is another thing that SJWs do -- they view people in group terms, not as individuals (and that comes from post modernism, which discounts the individual). A person might not be effected at all by some words, but if the stereotype is that people in that person's racial group are effected then use of that word by a non-group member is now racism (as long as it's the oppressor group that is doing the effecting -- if it's the marginalized group, then it doesn't matter, even if the individual from the majority group is being effected).
A lot of laws are based on the "average" citizen. It's about reasonable expectations. If a reasoned case can be made for why racism on average from the dominant culture is worse than racism on average from the minority culture, then there's nothing at all wrong with instituting that in law. And note, you disagreeing with the reasoning isn't an argument against the reasonableness of any such argument.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:28 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: It's a shame you can't fucking read and retain anything in memory for more than about a day. The idea isn't at all controversial on these boards. The reason why is that the progressives here can understand the context of racism, and can see that while definitionally a minority can be racist, functionally they likely can't - as their actions (unless an act of violence) can't pose a threat to someone from the dominant culture with the backing of a state that systemically favours the dominant culture.
Here, your unreasonable anger evinces your SJW nature. You go straight to the insult, because to you disagreement is insult or offense. It upsets you.

And, the next bit after you mention what you say is not "controversial" (which is completely irrelevant, because we're not talking about what's controversial),
You called such a idea "ludicrous". That's why I said it's not controversial among progressives here. Again, you can't seem to remember what you yourself have written.
the next bit is one of those things that is a direct result of postmodernism. You are referring to people as groups, and taking the generalization and applying it to the specific, and of course, your underlying assumption is that racial groups are interlocking oppressor/oppressed systems, and you assign one to oppressor and the other to oppressed.
Well systemic racism against blacks still exists in the US and Australia (as well as a lot of other countries), so I think the assumption is pretty reasonable. Regarding my statement allegedly being a "direct result of postmodernism", it's pretty fucking unlikely as I've never studied or read anything about postmodernism to any degree before. Perhaps you will claim that I got the idea from someone else who got the idea from some postmodernist. I guess it's a possibility. But it seems more likely to me that multiple non-postmodernists (including me) came to the obvious conclusion based on evidence and reason.
Logic and reason are out the door for you,
Man, that's gold coming from you. :fp: You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag. You demonstrably rely primarily on logical fallacies, empty rhetoric, misrepresentation and outright lying. Most of us spend significant amounts of our replies to you pointing out one or more of these to you in your posts.
because the question was CAN a minority be racist, and at first the answer was no, but now you say they technically can be racist. So, we agree, but you continue to disagree saying that they can be racist but, well, you don't think their racism is as bad, because they're in the oppressed group, so it's not really racism anymore.
Disingenuous. Quelle surprise. This is just semantic bullshit. What people in the real world are concerned with are the outcomes of actions. Racism isn't decried because it meets a definition of racism. It's decried because the outcomes of racism are detrimental to individuals and societies.
Whether someone "poses a threat" is not relevant to whether they are racist. Racism is a thought process. It's an attitude. It's a viewpoint or an opinion. People who pose a threat CAN be racist, of course, and many racists pose threats. But, posing a threat is not part of the definition of being a racist.
More semantic red herring. The problem with racists isn't that they meet the definition of racist. It's that their actions are detrimental.
That's not what SJWs say, thought. The "rationale" of the SJW is that the "effect" is the determining factor. All whites are racist because they are in the white group. They are the beneficiaries of the "privilege" of the group, no matter what - their individual situation or lack of privilege or hardship doesn't matter. It's the group that matters. All white people are racist, all CIS people are transphobic, all men are misogynistic.
This has nothing to do with anything I said.
Now, you should be able to connect the dots of those thought processes back to the core tenets of postmodernism. I know you don't want to. I know you want sit there and play insult games, and do your little dance. But, this is not "controversial" my friend. LOL
The thing is, you are essentially invoking another conspiracy theory. Can you tell me how many SJW's are studying postmodernism? You'll likely point to the professors, and here's where the conspiracy starts. We are to believe that these postmodernist professors are indoctrinating all the activists who aren't studying (or haven't previously studied) postmodernism? How are they doing it? Is this a bit like "useful idiots" or "secret Marxists"?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:36 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: To say that "garden variety conservatives" are a bigger threat to society than the "SJW" movement, seems to me to be based on a pretty negative assessment of what it means to be a "garden variety" conservative.
Believe in unlimited growth, trickle-down economics, reduced social services, against a lot of environmental regulation, against global institutions like the UN that are needed to address global warming and international conflicts, overly patriotic and pro-exceptionalism, against the UNHCR (conservatives in Australia, at least), pro arms trading, against equal rights for gays and lesbians, and I'm sure there's plenty more where conservatives cause direct harm to people and the environment.
Justice is largely about retribution and little concern for rehabilitation.
Criminalising drug use instead of treating it as a health issue.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:22 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Justice is largely about retribution and little concern for rehabilitation.
Criminalising drug use instead of treating it as a health issue.
Just look at prison occupancy rates. Tells the whole story. America is number 2 after Seychelles who gaol everyone including gays.

America's prisons are over full occupancy is 103% of capacity.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to ... my_tid=All
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11865
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:02 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Justice is largely about retribution and little concern for rehabilitation.
Criminalising drug use instead of treating it as a health issue.
Just look at prison occupancy rates. Tells the whole story. America is number 2 after Seychelles who gaol everyone including gays.

America's prisons are over full occupancy is 103% of capacity.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to ... my_tid=All
Indeed, and it's that awful, pointless "war on drugs." Half of federal prison inmates are in for drug offenses, and almost 20% of state prison inmates are in for drug offenses. Add to that that the "arrest" rate for drug possession at the state level is tremendous, and that results in millions of people getting a criminal record early on, and then a percentage of those turning to other crimes, in addition to drugs, because they are negatively impacted in the employment context from then on, having to disclose their "record."

If we decriminalized drugs, before too long, the American prison system would lose more than half of its inmates over time.

It's really a bad system. And, mass incarceration of criminals and housing them in a building seems to me a particularly inadvisable way to reduce crime. It's called "college" by gangsters for a reason.

I would end incarceration of non-violent offenders, and utilize technology to track them and their habits. Tracking devices, mandatory reporting to correction officers both in person and by phone/video conference. Prisons should should reserved for those who are violent and other particularly egregious crimes. However, shooting heroin and snorting coke should not result in a jail sentence, or a criminal record.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11865
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:27 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Your entire argument is based on the overbroad statement in the subhead.
No, it isn't entirely based on the statement in the subhead. However, YOUR argument is based on dismissing the "subhead" which is only a subhead by your declaration. It appears to be just as reasonable to refer to it as a bolded first paragraph. That's a common tabloid practice which they may imitate here - which is to have title to the article, possibly a subhead, and then the first paragraph being in bigger font or bolded, followed by the rest of the article. It's because most people read the title, the subhead and the first paragraph and then gradually fewer people read on to the meat of the article. And, the paragraph you're calling the subhead is not any less the words of SPLC than anything else in the artlce. That's the message they want people to come away with.
If there were any claim made in the body of the article that Rodger was influenced by the alt-right you'd have quoted it by now. There's a very simple reason that you haven't; the article itself doesn't make that claim.
I have quoted it -- "Including Rodger’s murderous rampage there have been at least 13 alt-right related fatal episodes..." That is literally saying that Rodger's murderous rampage is an alt-right related murder. If it's alt-right related, it's influenced by the alt-right. The same paragraph says, thereafter, that Rodger's and the other "alt right killers" therefore made "...last year the most violent year for the [alt right] movement." Thus Rodger is included in the reason why the MOVEMENT is violent. If he's not an alt-right killer, then why would his murders be considered contributing to the total movement's violence?

Then the article lists the "alt right killers", including Rodger, and says "The average age of the alt-right killers is 26," with Rodger being included among those who are "alt right killers." His age is part of the average age calculation that the SPLC makes for alt-right killers. That is saying he's an "alt right killer" and not just a psychotic asshole killer later adopted by the alt-right because they sympathize with his misogyny and angst.

The article then says "While some certainly displayed signs of mental illness, all share a history of consuming and/or participating in the type of far-right ecosystem that defines the alt-right." Yet, Rodger did not participate in the "far-right ecosystem that defines the alt-right" -- he was just a nut case who was psychotic, and depressed and had violent reactions to what he felt was ostracization by women and his peer group in general. Yet, the SPLC says he was "participating"in the "far right."

They call Rodger an "alt right killer" when they say "The timeline for alt-right killers began on May 23, 2014. On that day, college sophomore Elliot Rodger stabbed his three roommates to death..." They are literally saying he's an "alt right killer." If he wasn't an alt right killer when he made the killings, and was later "adopted" by some members of the alt right who sympathized with his complaints, that doesn't retroactively make him an "alt right killer" -- thus, the SPLC is just lumping in whackjobs together and attributing them to the "alt right" when they aren't. Rodger is one example of them doing that, and the prime one, since they say he was the one who touched off the stream of "alt right killers" that followed.

And, the suggestion that the article doesn't make a specific reference to Rodger as influenced by the alt right is ridiculous. The entire article is addressed to that point, and every name on that list is alleged to be influenced by the alt right. That's the purpose of the aricle.

Your argument here is that the SPLC says "the alt right is killing people" with "subhead" that says the list of murderers were influenced by the alt right, and then say later that "no, we're not saying everyone on the list is an alt right killer even though we say so several times in the article -- these are just nut jobs, some of whom are alt right killers, and others are just general psychotics - but the overall truth is that the alt right is killing people. We say 110 people, but that's not really true because not all of these killers were influenced by the alt right -- so, it's 110 minus the murders committed by the non-alt right killers we put on our list of alt right killers."
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 14489
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: on the beach, drinking a beer
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by laklak » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:59 pm

JimC wrote:Or cardigan-clad Physics teachers as "brilliant but eccentric"... :tea:
professor.jpg

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45475
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:06 pm

laklak wrote:Anyone who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't a Libertarian at 40 has no job.
Image
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11865
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:04 pm

The youth don't like capitalism?
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests