Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

Science as a whole is a product of western "modernity" and the whole thing should be scratched off.... can you explain the black magic ability to make lightning strike someone from afar? LOL Western modernity and western knowledge is "totalizing." The SJWs here want to throw out western modernity -- one example given is Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity.

Decolonize your mind. Decolonizing western science means "doing away with it."

Social Justice.

There is no such thing as biological sex:

The feminist repudiation of logic - http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html

[Brian Peacock]

...

The alt right began as a reaction to neoconservatism about 10 years ago. It wasn't a racist, Nazi ideology, it was just a reaction to paleoconservatism. Younger conservatives taking over and opposing the neoconservatism of the previous 20 years. It picked up a racist overtone later.

...

Where they started is one thing, but what the term 'the alt-right' means now, what ideas it embodies today, is another. Does anybody really think that the alt-right are not essentially far-right in their political views or inclinations, collecting, as they do, around a belief in the existence of a unique and precious 'white identity' which they say is being systematically threatened by the forces of multiculturalism, liberal elites, international Jewry, and SJWs who, it is suggested, use political correctness as a weapon to police and limit free speech and undermine Western civilisation along with the rights of white males?

Would you take issue with this definition?

I don't have any real quarrel with the defining of present day "alt right" as far right extremism with racist undertones and even overtones, sure. It was coopted over the years by a far right groups.

What I object to is lumping in right-of-center conservatives - or even Christian religious-right douchebags - into the realm of alt-right. I especially object to libertarianism being lumped into that, and I object when people who oppose illegal immigration are said to be "alt right" not because of racist of far right views, but merely because they oppose illegal immigration.

What i'm getting at is how - for example - some people will label conservative commentator Ben Shapiro an alt-right person or even a Nazi. I disagree with a lot of what Ben Shapiro writes, but he's certainly not alt right or a Nazi.

The latest example of this dynamic unfolded with these claims from Bari Weiss of The New York Times: “Failing to draw distinctions between people like Sam Harris and people like Richard Spencer strips the designation ‘alt-right’ of its power and meaning,” she wrote on Twitter. “When that label is used promiscuously, people start to take it less seriously … And when conservatives, classical liberals or libertarians are told by the progressive chattering class that they—or those they read—are alt-right, the very common response is to say: ‘Screw it. They think everyone is alt-right.’ And then those people move further right.”

The left should stop promiscuously labeling popular figures as ideologically diverse as Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro as members of the alt-right. Doing so is wrong simply because it is inaccurate. And strategically, if you want the term to retain any stigma, you could hardly do a dumber thing than expanding its scope to inaptly include very popular figures. Their fans will sooner conclude that they cannot trust the mainstream to apply the label, or that it doesn’t mean anything, or that they must be alt-right if it definitionally includes someone who likes Harris or Shapiro, than abandon commentators to whom they’re drawn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ht/560285/

The strateg makes sense politically - you have a vilified group - racists/alt right (whatever), so you use that vilification to include other political opponents so as to sully those political opponents. People call Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson alt right to saddle them with the worst racism and extremism of the alt right. It's a common political strategy.

It happens in the other direction too - some people really don't like communists, so suddenly certain political opponents become communists. I've heard Hillary Clinton called a communist in the past. Or a Marxist or socialist. These words lose their meaning if people who are left of center moderates, or mainstream social democrats, etc., are lumped in with those extremists.

It happens with Trump a lot now - in 2016, he suddenly became an arch-racist, alt-right figure, purveyor of hate - a fascist and a Nazi. Everyone, pretty much, knows he's not that, but it makes for good politics because he's now a fascist and a Nazi....like... Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Laura Kipnis, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Mary Beard....

But it is also a concerted attempt to significantly redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech. By tossing people like Mary Beard and Christina Hoff Sommers into the slop bucket with the likes of Richard Spencer, they are attempting to place their reasonable ideas firmly outside the mainstream. They are trying to make criticism of identity politics, radical Islam and third-wave feminism, among various other subjects, verboten. For even the most minor transgressions, as in the case of Professor Beard, people are turned radioactive.

There are consequences to all this “fascism” — and not just the reputational damage to those who are smeared, though there is surely that.

The main effect is that these endless accusations of “fascism” or “misogyny” or “alt-right” dull the effects of the words themselves. As they are stripped of meaning, they strip us of our sharpness — of our ability to react forcefully to real fascists and misogynists or members of the alt-right.

For a case study in how this numbing of the political senses works, look no further than Mitt Romney and John McCain. They were roundly denounced as right-wing extremists. Then Donald Trump came along and the words meant to warn us against him had already been rendered hollow.

Orwell warned that the English language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” He added, however, that “the process is reversible.”

Will true liberals do what it takes to reverse it? We can only hope so, because the battle against genuine authoritarian threats needs to be waged consistently, credibly and persuasively. For that to happen, words need to mean something. Calling women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Mary Beard fascists and racists only helps the other side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opin ... s-now.html

This issues cuts both ways doesn't it? Calling those who's views look leftwards Communists, Marxist, or Socialist fascists degrades those terms and with discourse. It erects false dichotomies. I'm not incline p label all of those with a rightwards view fascists. It degrades the term, and distracts from the fact that there's real, actual fascist out there - with those standing under the alt-right flag among them.

[Brian Peacock]

Science as a whole is a product of western "modernity" and the whole thing should be scratched off.... can you explain the black magic ability to make lightning strike someone from afar? LOL Western modernity and western knowledge is "totalizing." The SJWs here want to throw out western modernity -- one example given is Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity.

Decolonize your mind. Decolonizing western science means "doing away with it."

Social Justice.

There is no such thing as biological sex:

The feminist repudiation of logic - http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html

This is called 'generalising from the particular'. Look it up.

[Forty Two]

Can I look to Richard Spencer as an example of what the alt-right wants? Yes or no? Would that be generalizing from the specific?

These are social justice warriors. They define what social justice warriors want. They say it themselves.

Or, alternatively, can you point me to the true definition of social justice warrior? If you think I'm defining what SJWs want wrongly, then please provide the correct definition. I trust this isn't an area where it's impossible to know what an ideology is, is it?

[Forty Two]

...

The alt right began as a reaction to neoconservatism about 10 years ago. It wasn't a racist, Nazi ideology, it was just a reaction to paleoconservatism. Younger conservatives taking over and opposing the neoconservatism of the previous 20 years. It picked up a racist overtone later.

...

Where they started is one thing, but what the term 'the alt-right' means now, what ideas it embodies today, is another. Does anybody really think that the alt-right are not essentially far-right in their political views or inclinations, collecting, as they do, around a belief in the existence of a unique and precious 'white identity' which they say is being systematically threatened by the forces of multiculturalism, liberal elites, international Jewry, and SJWs who, it is suggested, use political correctness as a weapon to police and limit free speech and undermine Western civilisation along with the rights of white males?

Would you take issue with this definition?

I don't have any real quarrel with the defining of present day "alt right" as far right extremism with racist undertones and even overtones, sure. It was coopted over the years by a far right groups.

What I object to is lumping in right-of-center conservatives - or even Christian religious-right douchebags - into the realm of alt-right. I especially object to libertarianism being lumped into that, and I object when people who oppose illegal immigration are said to be "alt right" not because of racist of far right views, but merely because they oppose illegal immigration.

What i'm getting at is how - for example - some people will label conservative commentator Ben Shapiro an alt-right person or even a Nazi. I disagree with a lot of what Ben Shapiro writes, but he's certainly not alt right or a Nazi.

The latest example of this dynamic unfolded with these claims from Bari Weiss of The New York Times: “Failing to draw distinctions between people like Sam Harris and people like Richard Spencer strips the designation ‘alt-right’ of its power and meaning,” she wrote on Twitter. “When that label is used promiscuously, people start to take it less seriously … And when conservatives, classical liberals or libertarians are told by the progressive chattering class that they—or those they read—are alt-right, the very common response is to say: ‘Screw it. They think everyone is alt-right.’ And then those people move further right.”

The left should stop promiscuously labeling popular figures as ideologically diverse as Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro as members of the alt-right. Doing so is wrong simply because it is inaccurate. And strategically, if you want the term to retain any stigma, you could hardly do a dumber thing than expanding its scope to inaptly include very popular figures. Their fans will sooner conclude that they cannot trust the mainstream to apply the label, or that it doesn’t mean anything, or that they must be alt-right if it definitionally includes someone who likes Harris or Shapiro, than abandon commentators to whom they’re drawn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ht/560285/

The strateg makes sense politically - you have a vilified group - racists/alt right (whatever), so you use that vilification to include other political opponents so as to sully those political opponents. People call Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson alt right to saddle them with the worst racism and extremism of the alt right. It's a common political strategy.

It happens in the other direction too - some people really don't like communists, so suddenly certain political opponents become communists. I've heard Hillary Clinton called a communist in the past. Or a Marxist or socialist. These words lose their meaning if people who are left of center moderates, or mainstream social democrats, etc., are lumped in with those extremists.

It happens with Trump a lot now - in 2016, he suddenly became an arch-racist, alt-right figure, purveyor of hate - a fascist and a Nazi. Everyone, pretty much, knows he's not that, but it makes for good politics because he's now a fascist and a Nazi....like... Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Laura Kipnis, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Mary Beard....

But it is also a concerted attempt to significantly redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech. By tossing people like Mary Beard and Christina Hoff Sommers into the slop bucket with the likes of Richard Spencer, they are attempting to place their reasonable ideas firmly outside the mainstream. They are trying to make criticism of identity politics, radical Islam and third-wave feminism, among various other subjects, verboten. For even the most minor transgressions, as in the case of Professor Beard, people are turned radioactive.

There are consequences to all this “fascism” — and not just the reputational damage to those who are smeared, though there is surely that.

The main effect is that these endless accusations of “fascism” or “misogyny” or “alt-right” dull the effects of the words themselves. As they are stripped of meaning, they strip us of our sharpness — of our ability to react forcefully to real fascists and misogynists or members of the alt-right.

For a case study in how this numbing of the political senses works, look no further than Mitt Romney and John McCain. They were roundly denounced as right-wing extremists. Then Donald Trump came along and the words meant to warn us against him had already been rendered hollow.

Orwell warned that the English language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” He added, however, that “the process is reversible.”

Will true liberals do what it takes to reverse it? We can only hope so, because the battle against genuine authoritarian threats needs to be waged consistently, credibly and persuasively. For that to happen, words need to mean something. Calling women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Mary Beard fascists and racists only helps the other side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opin ... s-now.html

This issues cuts both ways doesn't it? Calling those who's views look leftwards Communists, Marxist, or Socialist fascists degrades those terms and with discourse. It erects false dichotomies. I'm not incline p label all of those with a rightwards view fascists. It degrades the term, and distracts from the fact that there's real, actual fascist out there - with those standing under the alt-right flag among them.

Yes, of course, and I wrote exactly that.

On another point - How can you know who stands under the alt right flag, but not know who stands under the SJW flag?

[Brian Peacock]

How can you know who stands under the alt right flag, but not know who stands under the SJW flag?

Anyone who meets that definition for alt-right is probably alt-right - it's basically old fashioned white racism in new trousers. What's social justice, and what's a social justice warrior though? Is it defined, or even definable?

[Forty Two]

How can you know who stands under the alt right flag, but not know who stands under the SJW flag?

Anyone who meets that definition for alt-right is probably alt-right - it's basically old fashioned white racism in new trousers. What's social justice, and what's a social justice warrior though? Is it defined, or even definable?

A social justice warrior is a pejorative term for a social justice activist.

That's precisely what I did when I posted those examples above of SJWs. I wasn't aware there was a controversy as to whether the professor claiming there was no such thing as biological sex, or Anita Sarkeesian, were a social justice warriors. I was under the impression that that was fairly well accepted.

[Jason]

Look, you keep missing it. I did not view it as a "personal attack." I viewed it as a mischaracterization. If it was sarcasm, I did miss it, because I did not take your post to mean the opposite of what you wrote. Perhaps we're in agreement on the issue.

I'm always happy to hear things that are opposite of what I believe and argue - that's always been the case. I'm not one of the ones here who tries to get people who voice different opinions silenced. I have said many times that I prefer to talk to people who disagree with me.

On to your final sentence - "But I'm happy to discuss things seriously, for example, to what extent do you think the ideologies of the far-(alt)-right are not bigoted and, in particular, hateful?"

Impossible to answer that question completely, as you need to specify what belief, point, or principle you're referring to. If you want me to give you an example of a "far right" view that is not bigoted or hateful, I would say that there are many that can be - like, opposition to illegal immigration. I say "can be" because whether someone is a bigot or hates is a function of their subjective state of mind, and it is possible to oppose illegal immigration for hateful and bigoted reasons, but it's also possible to oppose illegal immigration for reasonable, tolerate and otherwise non-hateful and non-bigoted reasons.

The term "far right" or "alt right" are overarching terms that include a broad range of different types of beliefs. I would include in "far right" the ideologies of Naziism, fascism, the KKK. Much of these ideologies involves intolerance to the ideas of others (bigotry) and hate (dislike or hate of certain racial or other identity groups). In that sense, the question answers itself. I think Nazis, fascists and the KKK, and other such groups like Stormfront, American Nazi Party, that sort of thing, to be bigoted and hateful (based on their stated beliefs).

Where the thing goes off the rails, though, is when right wing politics is conflated with far right extremist ideologies like those listed in the preceding paragraph. When someone eats at Chick-fil-a and is then declared to be a fascist or a Nazi because the owners of Chick-fil-a are Christians who believe in marriage between a man and a women, then there is an improper conflation of a right of center religious Christian conservative ideology with far right fascism and Nazism.

The same objection is made on the other side to conflation of left wing ideas - like social liberalism, social democratic views with "far left" extremist ideologies like Marxism, communism, socialism, certain kinds of anarchism, ANTIFA, etc. It's not fair to declare a social liberal to be in the same group as ANTIFA or the communist party.

So, when you ask me what part of the far right ideology is not hateful or bigotted, we have to agree or settle on what constitutes the far right ideology you are referring to. What are parameters of that? What ideological ideas are you considering far right?

I wouldn't consider the owners of Chick-fil-a to be far (alt) right extremists. I don't think Trump is. I don't think the Trump admnistration is. So, to the extent that some people do think they are (and there are people that do say that), I would argue that they are not bigoted or hateful - but again - people have a wide array of views, and it's possible for a person with generally good and kind views, to harbor some views that others might consider bigoted or hateful, and still that person is a good person. And, there are Nazis and communists who have some views which other people would agree with.

42, you're a very good disputer. Are you a trained lawyer?

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two talking about the threat SJWs and their ideology poses to society:

SJW Examples: destroy western civilization (like what's happening in universities) -- all traditional "norms" must go, etc.

Are SJWs now alright with western civilization as a concept, and traditional norms are just cool?

I mean, social justice warriors - aren't they out for social justice, against the patriarchy, etc., and aren't they out there saying that reason, science and logic are patriarchal, white, racist concepts. Don't they want us to stop teaching ancient English literature in English literature classes? https://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale ... fs-to-stop

The left is a far bigger threat [to society], because of they are successfully effecting many areas of society and are being taken seriously.

Isn't that true? Or are colleges - particularly humanities and social sciences - under the thumb of the alt right?

Of particular concern is colleges/universities, and in recent years, primary and secondary schools. They are infecting the schools with SJW ideology, white privilege nonsense, bullshit about patriarchy, and the notion that hate speech is not free speech, among other things.

Aren't they?

They are successfully infecting areas of society with an illiberal, self-righteous, leftist philosophy, sympathy for socialism, incoherent nonsense like intersectionalism, the Progressive Stack and a variety of other horrid ideas.

Aren't they?

....
When that kind of thought process is infecting society, it becomes a significant danger.

The underlying acceptance among the younger generations of socialist ideas, Marxist ideas (even without an understanding that they are Marxist), postmodernism, social constructionism, rejection of reason, etc., that is a danger to the fabric of society.

Identity politics uses the concepts of class and oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, but starting in the 1970s, the postmodernists who were steeped in Marxism transferred those concepts into race and sexual identities. We're seeing the fruits of that now, and it's plenty dangerous to our society, given their open authoritarianism. We see it with movements to compel the use of words (pronouns) and to limit the use of words (censorship and advocacy of censorship) on college campuses. These ideas are infecting society.

Yes, and your rebuttal is?

WTF?! I said that you have repeatedly claimed that SJWs are a threat to society. You replied with "Err...not at all.". My reply above is highlighting where you've claimed that SJWs and/or their ideology is a threat to society.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Science as a whole is a product of western "modernity" and the whole thing should be scratched off.... can you explain the black magic ability to make lightning strike someone from afar? LOL Western modernity and western knowledge is "totalizing." The SJWs here want to throw out western modernity -- one example given is Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity.

Decolonize your mind. Decolonizing western science means "doing away with it."

Social Justice.

Oh shit, not again. So, a handful of juvenile PC weirdos in social science academia say stupid things, and this becomes a brush to paint everybody concerned with social justice?

Seriously, give the massive generalisations from tiny particulars a break...

[Seabass]

Land of the free, baby!

Detention of Migrant Children Has Skyrocketed to Highest Levels Ever
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/us/m ... ntion.html

[Hermit]

Land of the free, baby!

Detention of Migrant Children Has Skyrocketed to Highest Levels Ever
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/us/m ... ntion.html

Yabbut Bammy...

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

Science as a whole is a product of western "modernity" and the whole thing should be scratched off.... can you explain the black magic ability to make lightning strike someone from afar? LOL Western modernity and western knowledge is "totalizing." The SJWs here want to throw out western modernity -- one example given is Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity.

Decolonize your mind. Decolonizing western science means "doing away with it."

Social Justice.

Oh shit, not again. So, a handful of juvenile PC weirdos in social science academia say stupid things, and this becomes a brush to paint everybody concerned with social justice?

Seriously, give the massive generalisations from tiny particulars a break...

I'm not generalizing everyone on the left with a broad brush. I'm talking about the people who believe this stuff. The fact that not everyone on the left believes this stuff doesn't change the fact that some do, and they are fucking bonkers.

Like on the right. Your average conservative/right leaning person is not a white supremacist. Does criticizing white supremacy constitute painting everyone on the right with the same broad brush? Are we not allowed to criticize white supremacy because it is not representative of the majority of the right?

[Brian Peacock]

The impression given is that anyone espousing a socially progressive agenda is a crackpot.

[Forty Two]

WTF?! I said that you have repeatedly claimed that SJWs are a threat to society. You replied with "Err...not at all.". My reply above is highlighting where you've claimed that SJWs and/or their ideology is a threat to society.

I've explained this very clearly, more than once. The little douchebag carping about microaggressions and how it's racist to ask where people are from or sexist to say "hey guys" is an SJW who is not really a threat to anyone in and of themselves. However, the philosophical underpinnings of the far left are a threat to society, because the philosophical foundations of the far left are, in fact, openly antagonistic toward the philosophical foundation of western civilization and its liberal concepts of rights, liberty and property (Enlightenment values). The far left's foundational philosphies and ideologies openly seek to destroy our "society" in the manner in which it has been constituted for the past 300 years, since the Enlightenment. That's how it's a threat.

Some SJWs, as I pointed out, are more threatening than others. The ANTIFA variety can be quite physical and directly threatening, for example. Professors and administrators at colleges and universities, etc., can be quite threatening and injurious to people unjustifiably (e.g., the Wilfred-Laurier University variety - Nathan Rambukana, etc.). Ones that assault journalists and infringe on people's freedom of movement and freedom of speech in public places, like the Professor Click variety - those are more direct threats. Yale students who accost teachers and threaten people's jobs over Halloween costumes, they are quite concerning.

So, there is a whole spectrum here of behaviors and intents.