Am i getting it right that the right has no agency in most of these discussions?

When someone on the left talks mean and stifles speech it causes people to move more to the right. When someone on the right does it causes? SJW...?

Seems the right gets to blame the left in who they are made to be but the left has to own who they are.

This unfairly implies that your only reason for this view is watching videos. That is not true. You have personally experienced a lot of online vitriol from the left and read articles about the illiberal left as well. Apologies.

Wow.

This argument ignores that most people identify as neither Rep or Dem, but Independent.
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-tren...dentification/

It ignores that "internet age" people 16-30 are often still looking for their political identities.

And in forming political opinions physical looks are not very important, but ideas and our ability to discuss them honestly and rationally are. Abuse of PC is frustrating because it stifles political discourse.

Meh, beside the point.

I really want you to think about this for a second. Do you honestly think that honest and rational discourse is more important than social acceptance?

Really? Like, 100 years ago, do you think most people thought blacks in America were equal to whites? How about gay marriage 50 years ago?

It's all about social acceptance. People are self-censoring due to PC. We all know this, yet no one will bring it up because of the consequences of it. Therefore, our fellow humans are suffering due to it.

But, certain people get to run around feeling REAL good about themselves!

I think the right has lots of it's own marketing problems and that certainly pushes people to the left. I grew up in a conservative area and was turned off by rednecks and overly religious conservative zealots, which has helped make liberal left points of view more attractive. But again this is beside the point. If either side does better making their message more palatable, they stand to gain support, and the reverse is true as well.

Sure, there is a certain totalitarian feel about how certain ideas are taboo to discuss without being shamed and smeared for questioning orthodox views.

When people insist those who support tighter immigration controls and deporting illegal immigrants are supporting "ethnic cleansing," and deserve the same vitriol as fascists, I imagine it discourages people from getting into discussions about it with anyone who disagrees with them and might change their minds, instead they will tend to only talk about it with people who agree with them and that reenforces their opinions. Same with discussions about police violence, affirmative action, rape culture, transphobia, terrorism, you name it. We're very polarized.

Setting aside left or right, free speech protectors take action when free speech is suppressed or oppressed. Progressives appear to have a tradition of sending investigators to examine such instances.

Clutching pearls about hyperbole may lead to over looking that spreading fear about and a need to control the 'other people' is how **** like ethnic cleansing and mass incarceration begins. One thing leads to another.

Because the left controls basically every single ideological state apparatus worth controlling and so have virtually 100% power when it comes to this issue.

Wow, sounds like you guys got cucked pretty hard.

This is a lie.

Like, for real, how embarrassing is it that the beta nu-male cucks took control over every state institution, the media, and pop culture? Y'all real manly men dudes sort of dropped the ball there. Maybe if you weren't turboposting every waking hour of the day and watching yootoobes you guys might have been able to stop them.

I really enjoy this voodoo like power these beta nu-male cucks have.

Despite the elephants more than holding their own, these cucks, we're told, have 99.99% monopolized the boards of the public universities. They've 99.99% co opted the insular boards of the private universities. These cucks have also acquired a controlling interest of the publicly traded MSM industry, and have packed those company boards too.

LMFAO @OSJers !!!1!

More people are registering as No Party. But partisan loyalty has actually increased - there are less swing voters than in the past ("floating voters" in this chart).



In 2012, 92% of Democrats and 88% of Democratic-leaning independents voted for Obama. Similarly, 92 and 86% on the GOP side. There are important implications from the increase in people who register as No Party, but not that people are less partisan.

But what I am really talking about is the phenomenon described in Scott Alexander's article on the outgroup.

Democrats have done a better job of attracting these young voters over the last couple decades than Republicans.

Well, actually physical looks are important. But so what? I'm showing you the form of the argument with a different premise to illustrate where I think your argument is invalid. I'm not challenging your premise.

This is a real important point. I use this rhetorical tactic all day, every day. IRL it works fine. On the intewebs it rarely works. To play that broken record... chatting on the interwebs is distinctly and fundamentally different than chatting IRL.

To bring this back onto the OSJer/SJWer topic, and to again repeat myself, OSJers 'angel shoot' this chat -vs- meta-chat distinction all day, every day. Although, I'm convinced the rank-n-file OSJers don't consciously realize this.

The OSJers are like white in chess, they always move first. Their standard opening is to scuttle the prior conversation, by going up a meta-level and whining about the Run Amuk PC Police, and then dropping an anecdotal story. However, if anyone else (it don't have to be someone they've labelled a SJWer) engages on that meta-level, they'll universally and incoherently drop back down a meta-level, and start spewing about the alleged details of their anecdotal story.

Speaking of that, this non-funny (IMO) MSM comic says hi...

Glad you are reading SA.

I'm not sure where we're really disagreeing here.

Yes, our country has become more partisan and polarized. That's what identity politics does. Perhaps it's even what those who promote it are striving for, to form teams to root on like sport, instead of encouraging people to dispassionately weigh political arguments against each other and make decisions based on what truths are revealed.

This is the inevitable outcome of tribalism. Even as more and more people recognize this and disapprove of it, even as they distance themselves from identifying with party politics, as long as tribalism is en vogue in both parties demonizing the other, pressuring people to "pick a side, pick a side" and limiting political discourse, how can we expect people to change their minds or votes?


Of course, but not lately. That's the same article I gave you earlier to illustrate my point. The subtitle of it is "Americans under 30 years old leaned left in this election, but not to the extent that they have in the past."

That's why I think the left is making a big mistake reverting to the identity politics they rightly condemn on the right. They are giving up the high ground, that of liberal rational discourse, and instead promoting tribal PC abusing thought police.




I've pointing at the tens of thousands of "anti-SJW" and anti-PC videos with tens of millions of views to illustrate the backlash to the abusive PC police. What argument are you invalidating?

Im all for better messaging and have said the left should. That is besides my point.
Right and the right has a history of creating obscenity and indecency laws and shunting down protesters exercising their first amendment rights.

Cite for Mississippi and Alabama?

"Identity politics" is most often a reaction to racism/discrimination.

Not sure what this has to do with identity politics.


So should the left ignore racism? That seems like a terrible idea.

Case in point: These videos are almost exclusively by terrible people who lie and apologize for rape and etc., etc. They aren't motivated by a "backlash to the abusive PC police." They are motivated by a backlash to equality and intellectual rigor.

We're disagreeing about what we've always disagreed about. Causation. You don't like identity politics so you blame only bad things on it and none of the good things. My view is that you way overestimate the significance of the specifics of ideology or messaging in attracting or pushing away voters.

Obama practiced identity politics. The more likely reason he got more votes from young people is because he wasn't an old fogey like Hillary and Trump.

The inference from tens of millions of views of anti-SJW videos to the claim that SJWs are causing lots of people to vote Republican.

So, in this supposition OSJs 'mind-punch' first and don't argue about it among themselves beforehand.

When the SJWs 'counter-mind-punch' has better quality of sense and information, what does it do to the OSJs minds?

OSJ here is defined as a fascist as previous described ITF.
SJW here is defined as people who know better than fascism.

Your case has no point. You act as if these people are all white supremacist storm fronters and serial rapists who are advocating against equality. Obviously there are some of those, but not tens of millions.

If you take some time to watch the videos and read the comments, most are people who are not apologizing for rape, racism, etc. They believe these things are terrible and we should condemn them. Most of them simply disagree with you about your "facts", logic and proposed remedies. They resent being told they are terrible rape apologists for disagreeing with you, and they think you* are the liar and terrible person for constantly trying to smear and bully them into submission.

It's not wonder they latch onto trolls who will fight back like Milo Yabadabbado. When Pewdiepie is the next one tossed into the alt-right basket of deplorables, most of his 53 MM subscribers will resent that, because he's simply not.

* I don't know how often "you" do this, but that is what they are complaining about in the tens of millions. You dismiss them at your own risk in a democracy.

Not by me.

Nor me. OSJers are defined as simply the peeps who try to derail chats by whining about the Run Amok PC Police, and equivalent.

You're sure about that, are you?

http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/17...tire-alt-right