no im pretty sure the posts speak for themselves. i made fun of your post being entirely a rainbow. now im suggesting that when you get challenged you actually move away from politics and start making emotional reads of others, post rainbows, and now you suggest i post less. this is all bubble behavior. this is what happens when your weak, soft, and doughy ideas dont get challenged

maybe make a political comment. i don't need you making up how and when i got mad at you when i was making fun of your bubble behavior directed at someone else. i told you that you had all day to spend on this forum responding to me yet you don't have time to watch smart liberals have a very relevant conversation to the one you were having with lestat. you continue to respond to me and provide justification as to how you value your time. all of this is bubble behavior. this is what happens when you don't have weak and flawed ideas challenged

you are now resorting to flat out asking me to post less. this has all spawned from posting a video where smart liberals discuss the pitfalls of the SJW behavior, which ties directly to your conversation with lestat. bubble behavior from a forum full of far left group think. i may not agree entirely with lestat but you are demonstrating a big part of the problem

Nailed it. "SJW" might be the new name, but the right blaming liberals for causing racism by identifying racism is not new. See, ex, the way the Chicago Tribune handled the assassination of MLK (definitely not racism, just one bad guy, that's all. Liberalism is the real problem.)

Juan is one of the "big hitters" over I the cesspool that is unchained, and he thinks that makes him a special snowflake and that we give a **** about anything he has to say here.

lol "bubble", go open any thread about Islam or Trump or whatever and you'll see no shortage of dissenting opinion. The SMP reject crew has been arguing for years, most recently in the December LC thread, about the dangers of shutting down discourse by calling Stan racist, there's definitely no bubble on that subject. I'm sorry that you lack any perspective on how a forum works that you just waltzed into, but it's not really my problem and as I stated before it's not our responsibility to hold your ****ing hand.

since when does "big hitter" mean "+1s a lot of tooth's islamaphobic posts"?

The "big hitter" was in quotes because it constitutes in his own mind

Thanks for that tweet, sent it to my dad who made a comment last night about not liking Colin Kaepernick's choice of method for protesting, as if contemporaries have EVER approved of black people expressing displeasure.

I think Dan, Lestat, vhawk and chezlaw should watch this video and tells us what they disagree with this guy about?

I know I'm not one of those that you mentioned but...

He is right in saying that most people have been taught to accept diversity as inherently good and that discussion towards any negatives wrt diversity are ignored and/or automatically considered to be bigotry. Political correctness has shut down certain avenues of discussion that really should be opened up for the betterment of society and discussing both the positives and negatives of cultural diversity is a discussion worth having imo.

Unfortunately, that seems to be all he's right about. From there, all his flowery language does is put lipstick on a pig. The curse of smart people is that they have the ability to make moronic or destructive beliefs appear sensible to less informed people.

Bizarre.

Be much easier if you tell us what you somehow imagine I agree with him about.

I'm a far more extreme pro-diversity nut than that guy can even imagine. I'm also 100% in the PC camp

That was your quote, to which I responded:

To which you respond:

So, unless you are absolutely new to the internet I'm not sure where the confusion comes from who my response was directed to.

You said a "big part" of the SJW tactic is "undeserved smears." My assumption is that you are complaining that SJW's smears are never deserved. Is that your point?

It's not that hard a question since it comes up every ****ing time Chez opens his gob; is calling someone who says racist things a racist the best way to make a Trump supporter or not?

Maybe wookie will explain one day.

I spent xmas with an American who hates the Clintons. However he voted Clinton because of trump. It's obviously true that the republian voters are partially to balme for him voting clinton. It doesn't mean they he had no agency or he was made to vote for clinton - would those objections make any sense?

The causality of "Republicans made me vote for Clinton by nominating Trump" is a lot clearer than the causality of "Internet SJWs made me vote for Trump because..."

In the first case, the unspoken premise is that we have an effectively two-party system and deciding that Trump is an unconscionable vote leads pretty directly to voting for Clinton. If someone says "I voted for Clinton because the Republicans made me do it by nominating Trump" it is easy to understand what is meant, and it's obviously not a denial of agency. The phrasing is euphemistic.

But in the second case, what do mean internet SJWs have to do with voting for Clinton? It's a non-sequitur. The premise appears to be "I can't vote for a candidate who is preferred by <group X>. But somehow that logic doesn't apply when <group X> is neo-nazis, it only applies for SJWs? It seems rather more likely that the logic is a thin post-hoc rationalization, and it's the use as a rationalization that reads like disavowing agency.

Of course it doesn't make any sense that SJW created Trump voters, nothing the white nationalists say makes any sense and yet the Liberals are forced to spend time answering to it because we're dumb. HRC's health was the same way so is pizzagate, it's all ridiculous BS that "must" be answered but there is no answer because it's all made up.

Well I chose an example to make the point very clear and to show why the agency objection isn't just weaker but missing the point completely.

The causality is simple, people are just in denial about it (or pretending to be). For example when some are hateful towards a large group then those people who percieve their community is being hated on dont want to see the party of the people who hate them winning so some will abstain or vote for the other side even if they have to hold their noses

Whether these sorts of things are big factor in practice or not is debatable. I'm a bit doubtful it's a big factor because in the real world most liberals aren't hateful. However the 'no agency' objection is just missing the point isn't it?

The "no agency" objection is just pointing out that the rationalization (and the implicit argument to "SJWs" that they should desist from making criticisms of whatever) is bogus.

The part in parentheses is important since it seems likely that's the real point of all of this. "SJWs made me vote Trump" is just a dishonest way of arguing that SJWs should shut up, essentially.

So in those terms the 'no agency' is deliberately missing the point being made. It's just a rhetorical device.

The defense you are making for the dishonest defense against a valid argument is that it's in response to a 'view' that people are making dishonest use of a valid argument argument. You are actually blaming others for making people use the 'no agency' defense despite it being nothing to do with the argument.

It's not about SJWs at all. There is a very legitimate objection to being divisive and hateful based on it's consequences and those who argue for being divisiveness/hatefulness (or prcatice it) are indeed partly responsible for the consequences.

Well, my point was that these arguments ("you mean liberals made us vote for Trump") were rhetorical rather than describing an actual causal connection, so you're agreeing with me, and apparently rejecting your prior attempt to make an analogy to Clinton voters voting against Trump.

However, it's not obvious to me that those making the argument would agree that it's rhetorical. In any case, the entire purpose of the "you're denying your own agency" counter-argument is that it points out the rhetorically flawed nature of the original assertion. So it hardly misses the point. In fact it responds quite directly to it.

I was unable to parse this.

You could substitute "liberals" for "SJWs" or whatever other label you like, I was simply using the term Lestat used:

I disagree that the people Lestat is talking about are engaged in the practice of divisiveness or hatefulness but it seems like a tedious tangential conversation to have with you, so I'll demure :P

Wherever you personally want to draw the line between disagreement and being divisive, there is no disagreement that the alt right trolls cannot characterize as being hateful and divisive. Their whole goal in the "you made us vote for Trump!" is most definitely to try to shame those who disagree into silence. Talking about lack of agency is not missing the point but mocking an inane and disingenuous one.

But the objection is not just being made by the alt right and arguments are actually independent of the arguer. There's a strong objection to hatred and divisiviness which is made by liberals as much as anybody else and it's definitely not about shaming people into silence. The agency response is avoiding the argument completely.

Those who want to defend being hateful and divisive could either address the actual point or they can use rhetorical devices to avoid doing so.

There's a real argument in there just as in 'republicans made me vote for clinton'. It's nothing to with agency as it seems everyone agrees.

Okay both bad terms although I do have to accept that some of the haters are liberal.

It's playing the man rather than playing the ball when it far better to be playing with a straight bat

Nailed it. The entire video is basically him saying 'whites have been in control here since the beginning, so we should be treated special'

It comes as no surprise that they go to such great lengths to frame their white supremacy in intellectual language, the KKK has basically been doing that for 50 years.

IDK if it was the same in America, but back when I was in early high school in the early 90s, I was explicitly taught that "multiculturalism", where immigrants retain their own culture, was righteous and good and the policy of an enlightened Australia, whereas "assimilation", where immigrants bought into a shared culture and set of values, was wrong and evil and belonged in our shameful and unenlightened past.

You don't hear that so much anymore and I now regard it as an insane and dangerous idea, partly because the idea that the two are opposites is laughably simplistic, and partly because if forced to choose, I'm opting for assimilation as more important. It's in fact what makes America (and Australia to a lesser extent) so good at absorbing immigrants, while somewhere like France is making a mess of it.

All,
Can we get back to ****ed up **** in Trump's America, and not who voted for who and why?
Or is that a different thread?