Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

Untitled.jpg (41.07 KiB) Viewed 2269 times

[Forty Two]

Though it could just be trolling.

It's not trolling to cite specific examples of people, self-identifying as Progressive proponents of social justice. These are examples of one faction of the Progressive movement. That isn't to say that everyone who calls themselves Progressive agrees with everything these nutjobs say. But, a discussion can be had as to how extreme or "out there" some of the views are.

But, to some degree, I am occasionally messing with people - when, I utilize the arguments made and positions adopted by the so-called "Regressive Left" (otherwise known as the people expressing "kooky" views, to use pErvin's lingo) -- it's kind of fun sometimes to flip the narrative. Not so much "trolling" as ribbing.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

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..."

That's not it at all. The issue really is folks are saying that when I point out a bunch of spruce trees in a forest, those folks want to say that there are no spruce trees in the forest because the forest also has lots of pine and fir trees. They then accuse me of "conflating" spruce trees with pine and fir, and then they say that spruce trees are not relevant to the forest because the majority of trees aren't spruce.

[Forty Two]

I predict a wall of text.

And slicing posts into little quote slivers like a salami. Makes Gish galloping so much easier.

When a person makes a bunch of points, there is nothing wrong with addressing each point. And, it's not gish galloping to address a series of arguments or factual claims someone raises. The salami is the gish gallop. Addressing each point by slicing the salami so as to address arguments seriatum is not the gish gallop. It's meeting the each argument or factual claim head on.

[Forty Two]

yeah, good find. Although, I know what he's going say in response: He didn't mean all progressives.

Of course I didn't mean "all progressives." Just like when someone criticizes a person of the religious right persuasion and calls them a conservative. They are conservative, but not all conservatives are religious right. This is the same thing. The "kooks" that you pointed out -- those holding kooky views - are nevertheless Progressive. Not all progressives hold the kooky views. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

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.

Are the persons in that post - like the one who says "all white people are racist, all straight people are homophobic..." etc., is she not Progressive? She would say she's Progressive. Is she not Left? She would say she is? She's referred to herself as both of those things. I submit that she is Progressive, even though not all Progressives share her view.

It's like how there are pro-life and pro-choice Libertarians, both believing their position is the true Libertarian position. Not all libertarians are pro-life, but pointing out a pro-life libertarian and refuting their argument or mocking them is not an accusation that all libertarians share that view.

(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.)

Yes, it is a helpful distinction. Where the line is drawn, and what positions are kooky and whackjob, however, is not an objective and/or settled matter. Some Progressives do not think it's kooky or whackjob to say that science and logic and reason are constructs of white anglo-saxon colonial patriarchy, and we need to incorporate other ways of finding "truth" into science, etc. Some Progressives do not think it's wacky to say that all men are sexist, and women cannot be sexist. They think that's correct. I've had serious discussions with non-blue haired extremist, activist ilk - regular people - who honestly think that black people cannot be racist, and they think that a person pointing out that a black person can be racist is, itself, racist. That's not relegated to a tiny band of near insane loons. Of course, it's also not a view held by everyone who identifies as Progressive.

I think what's happening here, is that some folks want to call themselves Progressives and be champions of "social justice", while at the same time they don't want to be saddled with some of these examples that seem, to most middle-of the-road onlookers, to be really fucking batshit crazy. And, I can understand and respect that desire not to be saddled with that. However, the solution is not to go about it the way folks are addressing me here - the solution is to say "I'm Progressive and in favor of Social Justice and I think [insert viewpoint X here] is bashit fucking crazy, and the people that espouse it are wrong, and here's why I think that...." instead - there is this gymnastics exercise where folks want to suggest that the kooks and the kooky viewpoints simpl are not Progressives or Progressive viewpoints. We're just going to define progressive as only those progressive viewpoints that we believe are reasonable, and anything else is not Progressive. It's called "no true Scotsman." No true Scotsman would do that. No true Progressive would believe hold that viewpoint, and bringing it up that someone claimign to be a Progressive does hold this viewoint is accusing all Progressives of having that viewpoint.

If you don't believe something is correct or a reasonable argument, then just say so and say why. Maybe you disagree with some faction or group that champions social justice and calls themselves leftist or progressive. What's wrong with that? Maybe you're a moderate progressive, and they're far left progressive? It's kind of like how I am a moderate libertarian - I am not a far left or far right libertarian, and I won't be saddled with some of the bonkers views that some libertarians hold. But, I still lean libertarian. And, I am also rather classically "liberal." I don't accept all positions that other people who identify as liberal advance, but I don't try to say that they aren't "liberals" simply because of disagreements with them.

[BarnettNewman]

That you find this funny is all I really need to know about you.

[Forty Two]

Oh, I forgot.

I have to be outraged everytime someone in Tasmania does something stupid. Nope. It's not funny. Not at all. Nobody should chuckle at the notion of some Tasman footballers not only painting themselves up like Swart Piet in the Netherlands and then being surprised that they are the subject of backlash... lol.

Yes yes.... I even chortle at Swart Piet... Santa's Moorish black slave that lugs all the presents around for him.... not funny at all. It should say all you need to know about someone if they were to laugh at that custom, which most Netherlanders find to be completely not racist in any way shape or form, because that sort of thing isn't racist there, as it would be in some other places....

I'll take back my laugh, and issue a prompt demand that these footballers lose their jobs and never be allowed to work or participate in civil society again, other than to participate in charitable outreach programs and to give public apologies as they self-flagellate.

[laklak]

This is proof positive that all Taswegians are racist fucks and should be shunned.

[Brian Peacock]

Hobart is the hill billy capital of the antipodes - the Frankfort beneath the Southern Cross.

[BarnettNewman]

Oh, I forgot.

I have to be outraged everytime someone in Tasmania does something stupid. Nope. It's not funny. Not at all. Nobody should chuckle at the notion of some Tasman footballers not only painting themselves up like Swart Piet in the Netherlands and then being surprised that they are the subject of backlash... lol.

Yes yes.... I even chortle at Swart Piet... Santa's Moorish black slave that lugs all the presents around for him.... not funny at all. It should say all you need to know about someone if they were to laugh at that custom, which most Netherlanders find to be completely not racist in any way shape or form, because that sort of thing isn't racist there, as it would be in some other places....

I'll take back my laugh, and issue a prompt demand that these footballers lose their jobs and never be allowed to work or participate in civil society again, other than to participate in charitable outreach programs and to give public apologies as they self-flagellate.

Did I say you have to be outraged? I thought it was ignorant and beyond stupid. Not even funny stupid. See how this works?

[Forty Two]

That says all I need to know about you...

[BarnettNewman]

That says all I need to know about you...

I know you are but what am I?

[Brian Peacock]

And they say that the rhetorical arts are dead.

[BarnettNewman]

It starts with the source material.