Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

02-17-2017 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Not by me.
That's fine, but it is still there. It is a creative supposition, so if you want to add definition to the abstract scenario it represents, feel free.


BTW-Does a historical, crystallized definition of fascist/fascism suit you better? Or are there just some OSJs who don't behave like mind-punching fascists? Got elaboration?
02-17-2017 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
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.
Whether or not there is a way to successfully practice identity politics in a productive way seems to be an argument worth pursuing. Can you acknowledge that there is certainly an unsuccessful and counterproductive way to practice identity politics that amounts to little more that tribalism. And such tribalism probably benefits the side most apt at playing that game and who has the biggest tribe?


Quote:
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.
Well, that's only set of "evidence" and I don't claim to know if it really is evidence. I think someone would need to do quite a lot of research to compare pro and con attitudes on the subject matter before we could even get an accurate temperature reading there. But based on what I've seen from a few searches, the attitude is starkly in opposition to the "SJWs" and many of the arguments of the social justice platform are being rejected, while the advocacy videos are much less numerous and popular as a whole.

You do realize that it's not necessary to prove large numbers of people are flipping republican because they hate SJW's acting like fools and trying to control their thoughts. Simply angering and solidifying the support of the right while disenfranchising many of those in the middle and on the left who might normally vote Dem is enough to cause major electoral damage.

So PC and identity politics abuse could have both produced a backlash among republican and their leaners who would have otherwise nominated a standard and somewhat qualified politician like Jeb!*, and it could have also helped disenfranchise middle and left leaning voters and, diminishing support for the Democratic nominee, even if many of those voters didn't actually go for Trump.

* This is my main assertion. I'm more concerned with why TRUMP than why did a republican end up winning, although it still blows my mind that there wasn't a huge public turn out to stop Trump, something that clearly also surprised Hillary.
02-17-2017 , 03:38 PM
republicans practice a virulent style of identity politics.
02-17-2017 , 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
That's fine, but it is still there. It is a creative supposition, so if you want to add definition to the abstract scenario it represents, feel free.


BTW-Does a historical, crystallized definition of fascist/fascism suit you better? Or are there just some OSJs who don't behave like mind-punching fascists? Got elaboration?
Well, yeah, there are some people opposed to PC culture and identity politics who are reasonable to talk with. But misrepresenting and demonizing your opponents' viewpoints and actions in political discussions is common across all ideologies, not just fascism. Many leftists do that, as do liberals, pacifists, libertarians, conservatives, pretty much everybody. So why associate it with fascism specifically? Because fascism is a big neon sign blinking EVIL at people. It can be politically useful to paint your opponents as evil, but it makes civil conversation more difficult.
02-17-2017 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Yes, I'm pretty sure he's not "alt-right"* or anything close to a white supremacist, and I'm also pretty sure people like you and many writers like those at Vox will try to push him into that basket by taking stupid jokes out of context, even jokes designed to make fun of people like you taking stupid jokes out of context.
02-17-2017 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Well, yeah, there are some people opposed to PC culture and identity politics who are reasonable to talk with. But misrepresenting and demonizing your opponents' viewpoints and actions in political discussions is common across all ideologies, not just fascism. Many leftists do that, as do liberals, pacifists, libertarians, conservatives, pretty much everybody. So why associate it with fascism specifically? Because fascism is a big neon sign blinking EVIL at people. It can be politically useful to paint your opponents as evil, but it makes civil conversation more difficult.
Ah, so the associate of fascism is with demonization. And when presupposing or observing there is no hard fascism, or the usual authoritarianism such as in 'normal' politics, the use of the term looks like painting people as evil.

I'm going by behaviors and processes, rather than a political ideological or identity. Hence the action in the scenario is a "mind-punch", an open-ended term to suggest the aggressive posture which is observable in the environment by such actors.
02-17-2017 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
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.
I'm talking about the people who MAKE the videos. Lord has already pointed to two rape apologist anti-SJW youtubers. I didn't even have to hunt them down. It was two out of seven or eight.

But, yeah, sure, not all "tens of millions" are storm fronters and etc. Here are the titles of the most viewed videos on YouTube with SJW in the title:

#SJW Feminist Festival Crashed By Crowder...In Underwear
TRUMP WINS - SJW Hillary Supporters and Assassinating Trump
Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face
[SJW MELTDOWNS] Reaction To Donald Trump Victory (6)
UNDERCOVER: Crashing College Socialist #SJW Protest
Indiegogo Excrement - $2000 SJW Laptop

It goes on like this for pages. It's outrage porn. SJW is just a label they give to it to try to tie it all together. It's incoherent garbage.

Quote:
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
Funny that Lord cited one prominent anti-SJW who claimed that Daniel Holtzclaw was innocent and another who ranted about the word "survivor" being used in association with rape, and who then later threatened to rape a rape survivor. Unlike the SJW videos that you find so convincing, I didn't go out and choose the two worst anti-SJWs to look into. Lord mentioned them. Bad luck I guess?

Quote:
, and they think you* are the liar and terrible person for constantly trying to smear and bully them into submission.
But they smear me and people who think like me. (Which is always my fault, right?)

Quote:
* 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.
These people are just normal conservatives. That's it. None of this is new.
02-17-2017 , 04:11 PM
Come on liberals, why didn't we together and stop that drunk girl in an Uber from saying something dumb that one time? Trump is clearly our fault. Time to own it.
02-17-2017 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
I'm talking about the people who MAKE the videos. Lord has already pointed to two rape apologist anti-SJW youtubers. I didn't even have to hunt them down. It was two out of seven or eight.

But, yeah, sure, not all "tens of millions" are storm fronters and etc. Here are the titles of the most viewed videos on YouTube with SJW in the title:

#SJW Feminist Festival Crashed By Crowder...In Underwear
TRUMP WINS - SJW Hillary Supporters and Assassinating Trump
Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face
[SJW MELTDOWNS] Reaction To Donald Trump Victory (6)
UNDERCOVER: Crashing College Socialist #SJW Protest
Indiegogo Excrement - $2000 SJW Laptop

It goes on like this for pages. It's outrage porn. SJW is just a label they give to it to try to tie it all together. It's incoherent garbage.



Funny that Lord cited one prominent anti-SJW who claimed that Daniel Holtzclaw was innocent and another who ranted about the word "survivor" being used in association with rape, and who then later threatened to rape a rape survivor. Unlike the SJW videos that you find so convincing, I didn't go out and choose the two worst anti-SJWs to look into. Lord mentioned them.



But they smear me and people who think like me. (Which is always my fault, right?)



These people are just normal conservatives. That's it. None of this is new.
I'm not dismissing there are lots of insensitive people out there who will make fun of your views in a disgusting way. Guys like Howards Stern, Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla, PewDiePie are all huge stars with hundreds of millions of fans who will mercilessly mock the latest trend of people playing the victim, and that will sound like racism and misogyny to your virgin ears, and you will have a point to criticize it. But most of these people are not racist woman haters, they just aren't quite as pure a soul as you.
02-17-2017 , 04:17 PM
More pure soul or more equal soul?

Real fake victims or fake fake victims?
02-17-2017 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Whether or not there is a way to successfully practice identity politics in a productive way seems to be an argument worth pursuing. Can you acknowledge that there is certainly an unsuccessful and counterproductive way to practice identity politics that amounts to little more that tribalism. And such tribalism probably benefits the side most apt at playing that game and who has the biggest tribe?
Yes to your first question, maybe to your second. Smaller tribes can band together and defeat a larger tribe.

Quote:
Well, that's only set of "evidence" and I don't claim to know if it really is evidence. I think someone would need to do quite a lot of research to compare pro and con attitudes on the subject matter before we could even get an accurate temperature reading there. But based on what I've seen from a few searches, the attitude is starkly in opposition to the "SJWs" and many of the arguments of the social justice platform are being rejected, while the advocacy videos are much less numerous and popular as a whole.
Okay.

Quote:
You do realize that it's not necessary to prove large numbers of people are flipping republican because they hate SJW's acting like fools and trying to control their thoughts. Simply angering and solidifying the support of the right while disenfranchising many of those in the middle and on the left who might normally vote Dem is enough to cause major electoral damage.

So PC and identity politics abuse could have both produced a backlash among republican and their leaners who would have otherwise nominated a standard and somewhat qualified politician like Jeb!*, and it could have also helped disenfranchise middle and left leaning voters and, diminishing support for the Democratic nominee, even if many of those voters didn't actually go for Trump.

* This is my main assertion. I'm more concerned with why TRUMP than why did a republican end up winning, although it still blows my mind that there wasn't a huge public turn out to stop Trump, something that clearly also surprised Hillary.
Right, the main problem with your claim here is that Trump wasn't running against a Democrat in the primary, but other Republicans. These Republicans have also been complaining about PC culture forever. So why did the backlash against PC culture help Trump and hurt the other candidates?

Look, if you want to know why Donald Trump won the Republican primary, at some point you need to stop focusing on fringe leftists and anarchists and look at the Republican Party itself. Why was the Republican party leadership, who almost universally opposed Trump, not able to stop him? Remember, the GOP nomination has been extremely orderly since Barry Goldwater, with the nominee always having been a VP or a prior runner-up (or Dole). Trump denigrated John McCain, an actual American hero, for being captured. He defrauded thousands of students through his business. He lied over and over again to the American public. Except for Dole, no prior Presidential nominee endorsed him, and the prior one gave multiple speeches directly attacking Trump's fitness for office. None of these have anything to do with PC, but before this election cycle I would have thought would end his candidacy.

To me, this seems more like a failure of leadership in the GOP. They lost the trust of their base, so when they said that Trump wasn't acceptable, their voters didn't care. How did they lose this trust?
02-17-2017 , 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Ah, so the associate of fascism is with demonization. And when presupposing or observing there is no hard fascism, or the usual authoritarianism such as in 'normal' politics, the use of the term looks like painting people as evil.

I'm going by behaviors and processes, rather than a political ideological or identity. Hence the action in the scenario is a "mind-punch", an open-ended term to suggest the aggressive posture which is observable in the environment by such actors.
Yes, and what I'm saying is that the behavior and process you are calling a "mind-punch" is not fascist. Lots of fascists do it, but so does everyone else.
02-17-2017 , 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I'm not dismissing there are lots of insensitive people out there who will make fun of your views in a disgusting way. Guys like Howards Stern, Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla, PewDiePie are all huge stars with hundreds of millions of fans who will mercilessly mock the latest trend of people playing the victim, and that will sound like racism and misogyny to your virgin ears, and you will have a point to criticize it. But most of these people are not racist woman haters, they just aren't quite as pure a soul as you.
That's not the main thrust of my argument. The argument that you and other "anti-SJW" people make is that SJWs employ terrible tactics. But the Anti-SJWs on Youtube also employ terrible tactics.

Let's take another example: Steven Crowder, who has the most watched video on Youtube with SJW in the title:

Quote:
In December 2012, Crowder and members of Americans for Prosperity were involved in an altercation at a demonstration in Michigan concerning the state's recently passed right-to-work law.[8] The incident began with an attempt by union activists to tear down the Americans for Prosperity tent, which was eventually successful. During the altercation, Crowder was punched several times by a union activist.
Obviously those are deplorable tactics. He shouldn't have his tent torn down. Everyone reasonable agrees.

But the story continues:

Quote:
A video of the incident released by Crowder was found to have been selectively edited, as Crowder apparently cut footage of the alleged assailant falling to the ground and getting back up, right before throwing the punches at Crowder.[9] Crowder then released an unedited copy of the video.[10]
...
In March 2013, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III declined to press charges against anyone involved in the December 2012 altercation. According to Dunnings, his office was originally sent an edited version of the video of Crowder's altercation. However, upon reviewing the unedited version, the prosecutor's office decided not to pursue the case.[12] Dunnings stated that "It's pretty clear the person that they wanted to charge was acting in self-defense."[13]
So Crowder deceptively edited his video and tried to get charges pressed against someone. That seems worse than tearing down someone's tent to me, but in any case we can agree it's bad behavior.

The point of this is: the argument CANT be about the behavior because both sides are ****. Crowder doesn't care about fairness or sound arguments or anything like that. That's how all anti-SJWs are. Every single one. They SAY they care, but they either engage in the same kinds of behavior or ignore it from their side.
02-17-2017 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
............snip............

To me, this seems more like a failure of leadership in the GOP. They lost the trust of their base, so when they said that Trump wasn't acceptable, their voters didn't care. How did they lose this trust?
This question of trust is key. And it goes beyond just one party, or two-party politics, or X party loyalty (and not just the dominant ones). So to focus in on just the Republican party is, IMO, to miss part of the equation and thus fundamentally skew what you are trying to analyze.

A majority of Americans, for reasons as rambunctious as our society tends to be, simply don't trust our government institutions (fed, state, municipal etc) or the governing parties that control them for segments of time. Reasoning this out would take an inordinate amount of time and threads. I can only suggest some reading to help point the way (since this will trend toward the fundamentals of human nature, human interactions both personal and group, and political institutions, historical and current):

tocqueville/democracy-america/

Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

War-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/the+peloponnesian+war
_______________________________________

More reading would be required IMO, but the above three are a fine start. Subsequent reading and study and thinking would be spirited on by digestion of the above material.
02-17-2017 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position

Right, the main problem with your claim here is that Trump wasn't running against a Democrat in the primary, but other Republicans. These Republicans have also been complaining about PC culture forever. So why did the backlash against PC culture help Trump and hurt the other candidates?

Look, if you want to know why Donald Trump won the Republican primary, at some point you need to stop focusing on fringe leftists and anarchists and look at the Republican Party itself. Why was the Republican party leadership, who almost universally opposed Trump, not able to stop him? Remember, the GOP nomination has been extremely orderly since Barry Goldwater, with the nominee always having been a VP or a prior runner-up (or Dole). Trump denigrated John McCain, an actual American hero, for being captured. He defrauded thousands of students through his business. He lied over and over again to the American public. Except for Dole, no prior Presidential nominee endorsed him, and the prior one gave multiple speeches directly attacking Trump's fitness for office. None of these have anything to do with PC, but before this election cycle I would have thought would end his candidacy.

To me, this seems more like a failure of leadership in the GOP. They lost the trust of their base, so when they said that Trump wasn't acceptable, their voters didn't care. How did they lose this trust?
But you really can't see how backlash to PC helped fuel all of what you just mentioned? What Trump had that all of those other Republicans who complained about PC over the years didn't was the balls to actually stick his finger up in the air and tell the PC police where to go. I feel like you read articles like this, and simply don't get it. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ald-trump.html

Obviously there are plenty of complicit factors, including racism and all of the things the left want to lay on the right. But those things have always been with us, and they have been diminishing in our society for centuries. We have been slowly but steadily been improving, building a more perfect union, and this has been largely due to liberal ideals.

Abuse of PC, and the tribalism the comes from leaning too hard on identity politics does not align with liberal ideals and values, it's much more aligned with conservative authoritarian tendencies. These methods do not strive to convince, but to divide good from bad through emotional appeals to morality, and then to indoctrinate or purge.

We had a short discussion earlier of why religion is not liberal, which I was pretty surprised to find you questioned. Maybe that's a part of our misunderstanding here. You can't expect to convert someone from one religion to another, at least not without an army. But you can eventually convince people to become enlightened by showing them better ways to find truth than revelation and dogma.
02-17-2017 , 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Yes, and what I'm saying is that the behavior and process you are calling a "mind-punch" is not fascist. Lots of fascists do it, but so does everyone else.
Yeah. I suppose that was a forgone conclusion on my end. The particular qualities of the various mind punches being used by whoever does them are distinguishable. Hence the processes particular to the 'fascist mind-punches' are the one's facing the counter-mind-punches from 'counter-fascists'. in the scenario. Well to keep that in mind when progressing upon that idea further. Thanks.
02-17-2017 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
That's not the main thrust of my argument. The argument that you and other "anti-SJW" people make is that SJWs employ terrible tactics. But the Anti-SJWs on Youtube also employ terrible tactics.

Let's take another example: Steven Crowder, who has the most watched video on Youtube with SJW in the title:



Obviously those are deplorable tactics. He shouldn't have his tent torn down. Everyone reasonable agrees.

But the story continues:



So Crowder deceptively edited his video and tried to get charges pressed against someone. That seems worse than tearing down someone's tent to me, but in any case we can agree it's bad behavior.

The point of this is: the argument CANT be about the behavior because both sides are ****. Crowder doesn't care about fairness or sound arguments or anything like that. That's how all anti-SJWs are. Every single one. They SAY they care, but they either engage in the same kinds of behavior or ignore it from their side.
Sounds pretty scummy. I guess that makes him a deplorable white supremacist? It looks more like the effects of tribalism, a team sport where each side takes it's shots, and they too often resort to dishonest tactics.

I'm teaming up with my new favorite youtuber, Pewdiepie, a goofy millennial who I only learned about after the press has tried to slay him as complicit with white supremacists. After watching this video, I'm convinced it's all BS propelled by the PC police who love trying to destroy people over nonsense:



I'm also now a fan of this guy since he stood up for PDP and that video lead to this cute story:



I'm finding all sorts of new teammates!
02-17-2017 , 06:08 PM
One mind punch to examine is the Supremacy Huff (tm). It's kind of like sniffing glue, but a person exhales their own supremacy. Like Betsy Devos demanding who and what her protesters are. A supremacy huff can also have the influence of erasing people, like genuine protesters who are, are 'huffed' away. A 'SJW' can respond to a supremacy huff with...

I think that huff is a bluff so I call it.
02-17-2017 , 06:47 PM
People who pretend to be nazis have those consequences. It's like comedians who backed off doing parody and lampooning of racist bullying because they observed the mean racists like watching their mean, belittling ****. Who may end up mimicking that unknowingly?
02-17-2017 , 07:17 PM
People, especially kids, enjoy doing things they are told not to, pushing the edges. This is called rebellious behavior. You won't stop it. Anyone who watches PDP's videos understands he's not advocating for white supremacy, just lampooning those who think practically everything is racist or leads to racism. This is clear if you spend 10 minutes watching his stuff. It's like those people who argued pornography leads to violence against women, it's like refer madness, it's BS no-nothings talking out their asses who are always worthy targets of lampooning by those who know better.

What's funny, if you watch the video I posted above, apparently PDP was joking how the MSM takes things out of context to smear people and get clicks, so he sat down in a Nazi uni and watched a hitler speech. And they took it out of context to smear him and get clicks, lol.
02-17-2017 , 07:20 PM
We're really to the point of the conversation where we are talking about the opinions of some random dude that got 'YouTube famous' for playing Flappy Bird and making silly let's plays?
02-17-2017 , 07:20 PM
lolz, FoldN going through some kind second childhood, now following Millennial YouTube celebs.
02-17-2017 , 07:23 PM
I like the idea that it's not really offensive if you're only doing it to see how much you can exploit someone for five dollars.
02-17-2017 , 07:24 PM
Supremacy is not rebellion from anything but equality. The stereotype of people "calling everything racist" is not some profound forgone conclusion. Bull**** alert, please. I'm sure it resulted in views, subs, and lulz though.

Real rebellion is saying **** you to supremacists who want you and me to shut our mouths; and declare you and me enemies.
02-17-2017 , 07:33 PM
It's good biz. People are making tons of money off of insufferable PC nonsense, and douchebags who call everyone fascist.

      
m