Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:47 am

She's right, and it's not just women.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:39 am

She's not really. When she refers to rape she's inexplicably mostly referring to sex in relationships. I don't even know if she acknowledges that most rape is outside of consensual relationships.
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.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

And those cases are often very violent.
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.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:37 pm

JimC wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:19 pm
Forty Two wrote:

Where someone is espousing the view that there is no such thing as reason or logic, or that it's a white, male construction used to oppress the minority groups - moderate left leaning folks should feel quite free to state "that's lunacy, and I don't agree with that far far left crackpot." However, I think there is a natural resistance to doing that, because to some people if they do that, they think they are handing over a point to their opposition on the right.
I, and the vast majority of "progressives" at Ratz (yes, Hermit, I know you don't think I'm progressive enough... :roll: ) have repeatedly done just that. A large number here have science backgrounds (unlike yourself...), and while the general way science is structured is not immune from criticism, the basic principles of evidence-based rational inquiry have stood the test of time. At the risk of repeating stuff ad nauseam, the proportion of progressives that would assert that "science is a white, male construction used to oppress the minority groups" would be very tiny indeed. Having said that, it is not lunacy to be critical of tendency of the science establishment to put barriers (perhaps structural or unconscious) to the participation (in a statistical sense) of women and racial minorities, if the data suggests that. Also, aspects of technology that are dangerous to the environment are not immune from criticism.

As an aside, in the minds of the dipstick anti-science minuscule minority, there must be quite a conflict - I'm sure they would show the appropriate concern about global warming, our knowledge of which comes straight from rigorous science. It must be uncomfortable to share anti-science views with red-neck Trump-supporting morons... :tea:
When I post something that the looney portion of the left says or does - or an example of the extreme left doing something violent or stupid - it's not an accusation against you or some other moderate progressive who doesn't agree.

The thing that makes me laugh sometimes, though, is that SOME on the moderate end so don't want to acknowledge that there is an extreme looney end on their side of the aisle, that they (a) will sometimes refuse to say that they disagree with whatever looney lefty is doing somethign violent or stupid, and (b) repeatedly steer the conversation into a discussion of whether the looney-tunes person cited or quoted is representative of the whole of the left/progressive faction or side of the aisle.

I've also pointed out many times that whether you or even the majority of progressives/leftists agree with some stupid loon or another is a different issue from whether that particular person (or group) is doing or saying something ridiculous, contemptuous, wrong, false, stupid or violent.

So often the conversation gets steered into the "but not all progressives" or "but not all liberals..." etc. And, I agree. Definitely not all. I've made the same point about the right. So many times we have threads about right wingers who are extreme - racist asshats or homophobes who do or say something blatantly hateful. That's not an accusation that everyone who leans right on this forum or the majority of right-leaning people in general, hold those same extreme or "alt right" views. Yet, we can still talk about the looney tunes righties without the constant derailing of the thread into a discussion of what most people here or most people in general on the right believe.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:48 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:26 am
... and then complain about it on the internet after heating their sad-meals-for-one in the microwave before taking their medication. :tea:
A forum discussion board of this variety - with subjects, topics, subtopics in a variety of different areas from the serious to the absurd, from ugly to the sublime, from the upsetting to the inspiring, from the offensive to the kind, from the poignant to the irrelevant -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with interested persons picking a rather far out subject and discussing it, and even complaining about it.

It's done on both sides of the spectrum. Some Christian store owner doesn't want to make a gay couple's gay wedding cake. That's not representative of most conservatives or even most Christians' viewpoint on the topic. Most religious bakers have no problem making almost any cake for anyone. I would submit that some small number of Muslim bakers would have a problem making a Peppa Pig birthday cake, and some Christians would have a problem making a Beelzebub cake for the American Satanists wor whatever. But, is this really a "problem" or a danger of significance across the US? Of course not. Nobody is having any real problem getting the cakes they want. Even the gay couple in colorado, it's not that they couldn't get a cake somewhere nearby - it was that one baker didn't want to make that cake.

Yet - some people started a thread (more than one, I think) about it here on Rationalia, and there were a lot of complaints about it.

I guess the answer here might be that different people have different things they're interested in, and different things upset different people to the point of complaining, and sometimes, no matter the side of the political aisle people are on, they talk about what to most other people is a minor non-issue. Sometimes, even, a minor non-issue is a useful backdrop or example of a larger political issue or ideological discussion or for a philosophical discussion.

This forum was built for just that - there is no shortage of bandwidth here and the forum is not going to run out of space if extra threads are created. So, if you want to talk about the relative merits of bacon or cheese pizza, or other pizza toppings - have at it. Doesn't matter if it's irrelevant or not an important issue. If you want to make silly thread parodies, or endless iterations of "bring us your news" - go for it. If you want to discuss where you went for a walk, or the craziest place you ever did the nasty, well have at it. Surely, if a person wants to discuss a small movement on college campuses to remove white authors from the English literature curriculum, or proclaimed efforts by some to "decolonize" science by removing reason and logic and the scientific method, that's not going to clutter the forum too much, will it? Couldn't there be good reason to discuss those far out, fringe positions?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:14 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:08 am
The thing with 42 is that he's conflated far more reasonable progressive ideas in with the crazy SJW shit. Views like women and minorities face systemic disadvantage in our societies. That minorities essentially can't be racist (from a society-wide perspective). And that we live under a patriarchy. These aren't particularly contentious views in mainstream progressive thought, yet 42 likes to lump this stuff in with kooky ideas like "all white people are racist", or "maths is racist" and the like.
I've not done that. I've not conflated anything. The thing with you is that if I cite or discuss a crazy SJW shit issue, you presume that I'm conflating it with "far more reasonable progressive ideas" when I've done no such thing. You seem to think that merely bring up crazy SJW shit as a subset of "progressive" ideas is conflating the crazy with the more moderate or reasonable. It isn't.

Now, you just said that "minorities can't be racist" is a "far more reasonable progressive idea..." - well, there we can have a discussion, because I don't find that statement to be reasonable at all. Of course a minority can be racist - if someone thinks one race is better than another, he's a racist - there are minority groups who think that one race is better than another. Therefore, they are racist.

Under an alternative definition of racism, where racism can only exist in a situation where one race has systemic dominance over another, then they come up with rationalizations like "minorities can be prejudiced or biased, but they can't be racist." That's all good fodder for discussion.

Discussing that does not "conflate" more reasonable views with less reasonable ones. A discussion of that is a discussion of whether the view is reasonable and why, and that's a discussion that can be had. Well, it can be had with some people - those people who are capable of talking about such issues without derailing the topic and making it a personal fight instead of an actual discussion.

You say that's not a contentious issue in mainstream progressive thought. It is, however, a contentious issue in mainstream thought overall (most people not identifying themselves as progressive). Moderates, conservatives, libertarians, traditional liberals, civil libertarians, etc. - a large swath of the population - does not agree with the notion that minorities and women cannot be racist or sexist because we live in a white, male, CIS, patriarchy.

And, the notion that the west - like the US, western Europe, Oz - is a giant patriarchy - that's not an issue that is generally accepted across western society and culture. I'll let you make the argument that it is a prevailing or perhaps merely a "non-contentious" view among "progressives" - but, overall, the idea of whether we live in a patriarchy is timely and current issue, precisely because so much of our current society does not subscribe to or agree with that assertion. And, many are on the fence. And many may subscribe to the notion now, but be willing to be persuaded otherwise if a good argument is presented.

And, then you call ideas like "all white people are racist" and "maths is racist" kooky. That's fine, maybe those ideas are kooky. I certainly think those ideas are kooky. So, we agree there. But, did NOT lump those issues together with the notion that we live in a patriarchy or that black people cannot be racist. I've discussed those issues, too, but I've never "lumped them together."

And, let's take the ideas that you just said were kooky. All white people are racist and all men are sexist are conclusions that some progressives have found logically follow from acceptance of the notion that we live in a white, male patriarchy that systemically oppresses women and minorities. That's WHY all men are sexist and all white people are racist. We, white males, are benficiaries of and witting or unwitting participants in a racist and sexist system which oppresses women and minorities, and we have significant privilege because of it.

Significant Progressive figures have written papers and published books about this. E.g. Robin DiAngelo, "What Does It Mean to Be White?" https://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Mean-W ... 1433111152 and "White Fragility," http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/ij ... ew/249/116

Is she kooky? I think so. You think so, since she says all white people are racist - racism coming out of our pores. "It's the way that we are". But, some people don't think so. She's got a following. Why can't we talk about that issue? Is she right? Some people who once were thought kooks turned out to be correct or on to something.

What does she base that on - she bases it on a definition of racism that is not dependent on the mind of the individual. She bases on an underlying collectivist foundation - where your and my racism is not based on whether we, as individuals are racist - we are racist regardless of whether we have never done a racist thing or thought a racist thought. And, that's a cutting edge Progressive position to take - it's part of intersectionalism. It's kooky, and it may not be non-contentious, but it is certainly a view seriously held by serious people - and as such, it is not inappropriate to seriously discuss it in a serious section of a discussion forum specifically built for discussing a wide variety of topics, including but not limited to politics, current events, philosophy, science, humanities, and the like.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:24 pm

Animavore wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:44 am
'SJW' is slang used by the Alt-Right to smear anyone they don't like. From feminists, to BLM, to The Last Jedi, to Battlefield V. This shows how meaninfless the term is.

There is no group called the SJW. There is no one who identifies, without irony, as SJW.

The Alt-Right, on the other hand, do exist, have self-identifying members, have memes and hand signals, have leaders and beliefs.


And that's it. No need for writings massive paragraphs on this stuff.
Many groups exist despite having ill-defined or very grey borders or perimeters. like... conservative and liberal - there is no "group" per se that has one set of values or positions that is "liberal" or "conservative." These are overarching concepts with lots of competing factions within and often there is disagreement on certain margins as to whether a person really is liberal or really is conservative. Yet, we can still use these terms in discussions.

Same with SJW - sure, it's ill-defined, and it is a pejorative. You're an SJW if you are wackily advancing a crazy notion, like the ones Pervin called "kooky." An SJW will go to a college campus and ring the fire alarm to shut down a quiet conference about "mens issues." That kind of thing.

There isn't full agreement on who is and isn't an SJW, but there are SJWs. The fact that there is grey area doesn't mean that the people engaged in and advancing notions such as the "kooky" ones noted by Pervin aren't SJW - they are. Just because there is grey area on the boundaries, doesn't mean that Brett Weinstein wasn't driven off the Evergreen Campus by SJWs, and it doesn't mean that Lindsey Shephard wasn't attacked by SJWs who almost cost her her job, and it doesn't mean that Laura Kipnis wasn't put through a Title IX inquisition by SJWs, and it doesn't mean that Christina Hoff-Sommers wasn't protested by SJWs who called her a Nazi and a fascist and tried to get her banned from public facilities. It doesn't mean that Melissa Click was not an SJW when she enlisted other people to physically assault and attempt to remove a student journalist from a public area of a college campus in order to stop coverage of an event held by people espousing, among other things, the "kooky" views pervin mentioned....
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:46 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:14 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:08 am
The thing with 42 is that he's conflated far more reasonable progressive ideas in with the crazy SJW shit. Views like women and minorities face systemic disadvantage in our societies. That minorities essentially can't be racist (from a society-wide perspective). And that we live under a patriarchy. These aren't particularly contentious views in mainstream progressive thought, yet 42 likes to lump this stuff in with kooky ideas like "all white people are racist", or "maths is racist" and the like.
I've not done that.
I've not conflated anything. The thing with you is that if I cite or discuss a crazy SJW shit issue, you presume that I'm conflating it with "far more reasonable progressive ideas" when I've done no such thing. You seem to think that merely bring up crazy SJW shit as a subset of "progressive" ideas is conflating the crazy with the more moderate or reasonable. It isn't.

Now, you just said that "minorities can't be racist" is a "far more reasonable progressive idea..." - well, there we can have a discussion, because I don't find that statement to be reasonable at all. Of course a minority can be racist - if someone thinks one race is better than another, he's a racist - there are minority groups who think that one race is better than another. Therefore, they are racist.

Under an alternative definition of racism, where racism can only exist in a situation where one race has systemic dominance over another, then they come up with rationalizations like "minorities can be prejudiced or biased, but they can't be racist." That's all good fodder for discussion.

Discussing that does not "conflate" more reasonable views with less reasonable ones. A discussion of that is a discussion of whether the view is reasonable and why, and that's a discussion that can be had. Well, it can be had with some people - those people who are capable of talking about such issues without derailing the topic and making it a personal fight instead of an actual discussion.

You say that's not a contentious issue in mainstream progressive thought. It is, however, a contentious issue in mainstream thought overall (most people not identifying themselves as progressive). Moderates, conservatives, libertarians, traditional liberals, civil libertarians, etc. - a large swath of the population - does not agree with the notion that minorities and women cannot be racist or sexist because we live in a white, male, CIS, patriarchy.

And, the notion that the west - like the US, western Europe, Oz - is a giant patriarchy - that's not an issue that is generally accepted across western society and culture. I'll let you make the argument that it is a prevailing or perhaps merely a "non-contentious" view among "progressives" - but, overall, the idea of whether we live in a patriarchy is timely and current issue, precisely because so much of our current society does not subscribe to or agree with that assertion. And, many are on the fence. And many may subscribe to the notion now, but be willing to be persuaded otherwise if a good argument is presented.

And, then you call ideas like "all white people are racist" and "maths is racist" kooky. That's fine, maybe those ideas are kooky. I certainly think those ideas are kooky. So, we agree there. But, did NOT lump those issues together with the notion that we live in a patriarchy or that black people cannot be racist. I've discussed those issues, too, but I've never "lumped them together."

And, let's take the ideas that you just said were kooky. All white people are racist and all men are sexist are conclusions that some progressives have found logically follow from acceptance of the notion that we live in a white, male patriarchy that systemically oppresses women and minorities. That's WHY all men are sexist and all white people are racist. We, white males, are benficiaries of and witting or unwitting participants in a racist and sexist system which oppresses women and minorities, and we have significant privilege because of it.

Significant Progressive figures have written papers and published books about this. E.g. Robin DiAngelo, "What Does It Mean to Be White?" https://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Mean-W ... 1433111152 and "White Fragility," http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/ij ... ew/249/116

Is she kooky? I think so. You think so, since she says all white people are racist - racism coming out of our pores. "It's the way that we are". But, some people don't think so. She's got a following. Why can't we talk about that issue? Is she right? Some people who once were thought kooks turned out to be correct or on to something.

What does she base that on - she bases it on a definition of racism that is not dependent on the mind of the individual. She bases on an underlying collectivist foundation - where your and my racism is not based on whether we, as individuals are racist - we are racist regardless of whether we have never done a racist thing or thought a racist thought. And, that's a cutting edge Progressive position to take - it's part of intersectionalism. It's kooky, and it may not be non-contentious, but it is certainly a view seriously held by serious people - and as such, it is not inappropriate to seriously discuss it in a serious section of a discussion forum specifically built for discussing a wide variety of topics, including but not limited to politics, current events, philosophy, science, humanities, and the like.
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.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Joe » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:51 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:46 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:14 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:08 am
The thing with 42 is that he's conflated far more reasonable progressive ideas in with the crazy SJW shit. Views like women and minorities face systemic disadvantage in our societies. That minorities essentially can't be racist (from a society-wide perspective). And that we live under a patriarchy. These aren't particularly contentious views in mainstream progressive thought, yet 42 likes to lump this stuff in with kooky ideas like "all white people are racist", or "maths is racist" and the like.
I've not done that.
I've not conflated anything. The thing with you is that if I cite or discuss a crazy SJW shit issue, you presume that I'm conflating it with "far more reasonable progressive ideas" when I've done no such thing. You seem to think that merely bring up crazy SJW shit as a subset of "progressive" ideas is conflating the crazy with the more moderate or reasonable. It isn't.

Now, you just said that "minorities can't be racist" is a "far more reasonable progressive idea..." - well, there we can have a discussion, because I don't find that statement to be reasonable at all. Of course a minority can be racist - if someone thinks one race is better than another, he's a racist - there are minority groups who think that one race is better than another. Therefore, they are racist.

Under an alternative definition of racism, where racism can only exist in a situation where one race has systemic dominance over another, then they come up with rationalizations like "minorities can be prejudiced or biased, but they can't be racist." That's all good fodder for discussion.

Discussing that does not "conflate" more reasonable views with less reasonable ones. A discussion of that is a discussion of whether the view is reasonable and why, and that's a discussion that can be had. Well, it can be had with some people - those people who are capable of talking about such issues without derailing the topic and making it a personal fight instead of an actual discussion.

You say that's not a contentious issue in mainstream progressive thought. It is, however, a contentious issue in mainstream thought overall (most people not identifying themselves as progressive). Moderates, conservatives, libertarians, traditional liberals, civil libertarians, etc. - a large swath of the population - does not agree with the notion that minorities and women cannot be racist or sexist because we live in a white, male, CIS, patriarchy.

And, the notion that the west - like the US, western Europe, Oz - is a giant patriarchy - that's not an issue that is generally accepted across western society and culture. I'll let you make the argument that it is a prevailing or perhaps merely a "non-contentious" view among "progressives" - but, overall, the idea of whether we live in a patriarchy is timely and current issue, precisely because so much of our current society does not subscribe to or agree with that assertion. And, many are on the fence. And many may subscribe to the notion now, but be willing to be persuaded otherwise if a good argument is presented.

And, then you call ideas like "all white people are racist" and "maths is racist" kooky. That's fine, maybe those ideas are kooky. I certainly think those ideas are kooky. So, we agree there. But, did NOT lump those issues together with the notion that we live in a patriarchy or that black people cannot be racist. I've discussed those issues, too, but I've never "lumped them together."

And, let's take the ideas that you just said were kooky. All white people are racist and all men are sexist are conclusions that some progressives have found logically follow from acceptance of the notion that we live in a white, male patriarchy that systemically oppresses women and minorities. That's WHY all men are sexist and all white people are racist. We, white males, are benficiaries of and witting or unwitting participants in a racist and sexist system which oppresses women and minorities, and we have significant privilege because of it.

Significant Progressive figures have written papers and published books about this. E.g. Robin DiAngelo, "What Does It Mean to Be White?" https://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Mean-W ... 1433111152 and "White Fragility," http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/ij ... ew/249/116

Is she kooky? I think so. You think so, since she says all white people are racist - racism coming out of our pores. "It's the way that we are". But, some people don't think so. She's got a following. Why can't we talk about that issue? Is she right? Some people who once were thought kooks turned out to be correct or on to something.

What does she base that on - she bases it on a definition of racism that is not dependent on the mind of the individual. She bases on an underlying collectivist foundation - where your and my racism is not based on whether we, as individuals are racist - we are racist regardless of whether we have never done a racist thing or thought a racist thought. And, that's a cutting edge Progressive position to take - it's part of intersectionalism. It's kooky, and it may not be non-contentious, but it is certainly a view seriously held by serious people - and as such, it is not inappropriate to seriously discuss it in a serious section of a discussion forum specifically built for discussing a wide variety of topics, including but not limited to politics, current events, philosophy, science, humanities, and the like.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:04 pm
eRv wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
eRv wrote:You really are lame. The first video is harassment.
Isn't. I mean, they talk to police, who state unequivocally that a person is free to record what he wants in a public place. If you go to public park for a protest, you have no right to expect there isn't a reporter there filming.
I'm not saying it's legal harassment. Sticking a camera in someone's face and following them around is harassment. The camera guy was a dickhead, despite his claims of innocence at the start of the video. He's lucky he came across the 'peace, love, and mungbeans' hippy type occupiers, and not some of the more aggressive socialist or anarchist occupiers.
Next time he can use the Progressive strategy of pushing, shoving, shouting expletives in people's faces, slapping women and pelting them with eggs. It's protest, and the rhetoric of the folks he's filming causes the climate of hate and violence....
eRv wrote:
eRv wrote: The second video the bit you quoted was not shown in its full context. She could have been saying "MRA's like to claim we say that all men are sexist, all white people are racist, and" etc...
No, dummie -- I've seen that full video by the person identified as Milo.
So why did you post a different video then?
Because, genius, it was a clip made part of a larger comment video.
eRv wrote:[
She seriously contends that all men are sexist, all white people are sexist, and all CIS people are homophobic.

She's your peep, dude.

"Because I am white, none of these ideas are mine...."
What do you mean "she's [my] peep"?
Progressive, like you.
eRv wrote:[
eRv wrote: This is like primary school level debate. I must admit, because I've never really had large amounts of bandwidth and data,
What, do you live in Somalia? What country doesn't have internet sufficient to run youtube? LOL.
That's not what I said, but it's not surprising that you are misrepresenting what was said. But, yeah, Australia. If you knew more about the world outside of the US you would realise how fucked our internet is compared to the OECD.
Why would anyone outside of Australia care about how fucked the internet is there? Do you follow the internet bandwidth status in Texas or Montana?

Nobody follows the day-to-day grind of Australia. Sure, you folks keep up on the US, because the US is an important country. You don't, however, I daresay, keep track of the daily events in Cameroon or Romania.

eRv wrote:
eRv wrote:
I've never got into the whole youtube thing and all the random privately produced videos out there. But I just cringe when I watch shit like this, to think that someone actually spent time putting that stuff together to portray a level of sophisticated argument that my cat could better. Seriously, do you find this sort of stuff a convincing argument for anything?
I cringe, too. That's the point. These are your Progressive brethren. This is what they really believe.
Yes, I cringe at these people too. But I cringe far more at people who actually spend time and effort to produce such childish videos. And I cringe at people who share them. It's utterly embarrassing that anyone could think that sort of shit could substitute for an argument of any sort.
It doesn't substitute for an argument. It's just evidence of what Progressives think. When the Regressive Left makes videos espousing what they've read in their gender studies classes and in their organization/activist pamphlets, etc., it is espousing the planks in the Regressive Left Platform. The Regressive Left is not what the average Joe on the street thinks -- they can speak for themselves. When they're doing jazz hands, instead of clapping, that's the real deal.
Though it could just be trolling. :coffee:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:10 am

yeah, good find. Although, I know what he's going say in response: He didn't mean all progressives. He gets pulled up on this sort of thing all the time. Perhaps he genuinely does communicate like that (using the general to argue the specific), but I've seen enough of his hyperbolic views of the left to think that he does think a majority of progressives hold whacky views not too dissimilar to the "regressive" left.

(by the way, I think the term "regressive" left is a good one, and it does paint a clear distinction between the more liberal progressives out there and the whackjob left fringe.)
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.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Joe » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am

Yes, he has great flexibility of definition when it comes to what he has written, sometimes to the point of hilarity. It's just so unfair to hold him to his literal words. :hehe:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:57 am

I predict a wall of text.
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.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:05 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:57 am
I predict a wall of text.
And slicing posts into little quote slivers like a salami. Makes Gish galloping so much easier.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Joe » Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:12 am

There's nothing like a point by point refutation that misses the point.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:35 am

Joe wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:12 am
There's nothing like a point by point refutation that misses the point.
Yeah. It's like telling him: "That's a horrible jungle, you got there." Coito Two looks at one tree at a time and says: "What jungle? There is no jungle. But look at this tree, why don't you! You can't tell me it's not neat. And there is another one. Beautiful. And look at that one over there. Nothing wrong with it. And..."
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests