|
Who What Now posted:Apparently allowing whores to divorce is a failure of liberal values and legitimizes the alt-right. It's really more that extremist inflammatory comments like this encourage the alt-right. Even on a reasonably moderated forum like SA, anyone who has the gall to suggest that maybe the Sexual Revolution has had negative outcomes in addition to positive ones is immediately caricatured as some sort of knuckle-dragging caveman whose political beliefs can only possibly be explained by a tiny penis and sexual inadequacy with women. Honestly, you guys (and it is almost always guys, not gals who do this) really need to step back sometimes and realize that you look like total assholes when you do this, and this is what drives people to the other side, just out of sheer spite. The alt-right's mouthpieces might be total twats, but they're at least smart enough not to insult the people they need to convince directly. Read up about Milo in person. He's perfectly nice to people of opposing political beliefs when they're in the same room as him, and it always catches them off guard. They're also very good about using evidence to support their points and referring to direct examples. Shoot, Rush Limbaugh built his career off of that. Obviously the mere presence of evidence does not automatically make them correct (it's all a matter of interpretation), but it does make the potential audience feel like they're being treated as equals rather than being condescended to. Like, look at this derail. Weird theological bullshit when I doubt anyone in this thread is even Christian. Meanwhile this Panzeh posted:loving on the side a lot is a really common feature of the two parent home historically. ...Is just nonchalantly treated like a completely accurate statement not needing any kind of evidential support. Like, if you're going to argue that monogamous pair-bonding is some sort of emotional hellscape, and that by extension almost all of human history and most of the non-Western world right now has just been a string of inherently unsatisfying relationships, that really strikes me as something requiring a stronger citation than conventional wisdom.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
While I do agree with that, at the same time, people living in that situation then (or even today) could still be happy. Whereas plenty of people living with our more "correct" modern social mores can be shockingly unhappy, to the point that a TV show like Girls explicitly romanticizes this unhappiness. I don't think you have to be alt-right to acknowledge the contradiction there. But increasingly it seems like unless you're in an alt-right friendly forum, acknowledging this contradiction is likely to get you dogpiled for being a regressive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
That's really only true for us, though. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned how the extended family is common for child-rearing worldwide. Those societies, though, are quite conservative, way more than anything the alt-right proposes we go back to. When adultery comes up we're always thinking of Victorian England or Leave it to Beaver, yet we also romanticize "village to raise a child" mindsets that in practice are often just as socially conservative. edit: It's not a literal one-to-one thing, I think with the alt-right it's more they're wondering why we have to assume literally everything about the way people used to view relationships was bad when we're not that much better off. It's possible to say, wait until marriage before having sex while also being morally opposed to marital rape. Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Communal child rearing is a thing everywhere as far as I know, assuming you have enough family to do so it is generally common for grandparents and such to help look after children. Not everybody does have that sort of family however, it depends a lot on where you live and what happened recently there, as well as your economic circumstances. Your environment dictates how much childcare you need, how much time you're able to spend with your children, how long you have to work, what your childhood was like etc. People are products of their environment and their childraising similarly so. For conservatives that's what they mean by "family breakdown"- people don't have access to their families anymore, and that's what bringing down the social order. Divorce, which by its nature destroys families, can be seen as a part of this, even in cases where it's the best possible option. Gay marriage similarly makes a mockery of the idea of marriage/family since gay couples can't (directly) produce children. But yeah, at that point they're getting into abstractions, which has a lot to do with how the alt-right came up to begin with. Traditional religious conservatives want the family structure because it's the way it's always been done. Alt-right wants that structure because they think it's an improvement over the one they're currently using, which is why they tend not to care about stuff like gay marriage since that doesn't actually affect them in any tangible way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
While I agree with you in principle as to the causes, I don't agree with you that the alt-right's motivation is rooted in wanting the white man to be in charge again. A person can be wrong as the origins and solutions of their problems without their motivation having to be essentially authoritarian. Let's not pretend we're dealing with binaries here. Leftist movements absolutely love capitalism when it coordinates with their political beliefs, and if you read alt-right sites a huge sticking with them is how obviously corporate projects (say the Ghostbusters reboot) are being dressed up in the heroic attire of social justice when it's obvious to anyone that the actual motivation is just to make a quick buck. For another example, Trump has built his entire campaign over attacking all the money in politics. That this is obviously completely at odds with the fact that Trump is himself exactly the kind of person who shoves money into politics does not change the fact that people across all political spectrums are very disgusted with how everything in our society revolves around money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
a typical member of the alt-right posted:People across the political spectrum do not dislike that society revolves around money, they may at best dislike that they don't have the money, or that money is supporting a thing they hate (like the alt-right) but imbalanced power is absolutely appealing to a significant chunk of the political spectrum, their complaint is merely that it is unbalanced against them, or at least they perceive it to be so. A true desire to end power inequality would not produce someone who subscribes to social justice, or the traditional left. ...Not trying to be a dick or anything, I just find it uncanny how eerily similar so much of the rhetoric thrown around is if you flip the terms around.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
No kidding. I really don't get why leftists (or liberals or progressives or whatever we're calling ourselves) think this is at all a constructive line of attack. The worst of it is that it's so obviously unprovable. So I'm an rear end in a top hat? Maybe you're right that's a very subjective appraisal. So I'm a virgin? Ha ha what a moron I know for a fact that I have regular sex so I can now freely intuit that everything else you say is full of poo poo too. Besides that if we're really identifying "lack of high school sex" as the problem that's not something that can be laid at the feet of the right wing. The dip in sexually active teens/twenty-somethings is a recent phemonenon that came at the end of a decades long trend of extramarital sex being normalized. And it has been normalized- the very same people who report having significantly less sex than the Baby Boomers are also much more open-minded than they are when it comes to acceptable sexual practices, they just don't seem all that motivated to put those beliefs into practice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
^^This derail is stupid and I'm not replying to you unless you post an actual useful study backing up your argument instead of childish insults.Jippa posted:The sad thing is that that the alt righters real enemy is the older generation for leaving the economy in such a bad state. That is why they are depressed, saddled with debt and have little job prospects. Instead of realising this they are lashing back at "sjw's" telling them they are "privileged" on twitter. In all fairness people on our side do this too. Just last week there was this big harassment campaign against a woman because she was the girlfriend of a guy who donated ten grand to a project to make anti-Hillary billboards. The only explanation I can come up as to why both sides do this is because it's much easier to lash out in rage against an accessible person on twitter rather than the Waltons, who live on a literal guarded compound. And that much is why I personally prefer the alt-right to the establishment right. The alt-right is accessible and can be called out on their bullshit in ways the establishment right can't be. Yeah, you have to take a shower afterwards, but to me, knowing the truth is infinitely preferable to watching the media pretend like Marco Rubio is a sensible moderate when his platform is almost completely identical to Trump's.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Safe space bubbles online might not be an ideal environment, but at least we can look at them and get some clue as to what their thought process is. The establishment right, by comparison, for all intents and purposes lives in a completely different universe than the rest of us, where day-to-day living conditions haven't changed since the eighties. These were the guys who thought they could hoist Jeb Bush on the country with no serious resistance. Until Trump became the nominee they straight up refused to believe that a huge portion of their base genuinely despised them. If the alt-right is in a bubble, the establishment is in a bubble inside a bubble inside another bubble. fake edit: ...I feel like I should also note that should any alt-right people happen upon this thread (and they will), they are going to find it deliciously ironic that "safe space" is being used as a derogatory to describe them. It's one of the big things they make fun of us for doing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Where's this subculture of angry virgin communists and why haven't I heard about them, they sound cool. ...You are posting it in right now. The inability of most of the people here to see things from the other point of view is just baffling. All the generic insults lobbed by the posters in this thread, especially the dumb bullshit about the alt-right being a consequence of white losers "not getting laid", is an almost perfect mirror image of what they say about us and about as accurate. Sethex posted:Opinion articles without evidence don't usually counteract opinion posts lacking evidence. No evidence? See all the blue links? That's evidence. You're certainly free to disagree with his conclusions but the guy who wrote that article makes a much more solid argument than anything I've seen in this thread. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/amp/?client=ms-android-bell-ca&espv=1 ...Re-posting for the new page on the off-chance anyone can come up with a decent counter-argument that isn't just a vague one-liner.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Crazy as this might sound, actually reading alt-right stuff is probably a better way to get a grasp of how they think than speculating about their sex lives.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except part of the alt right is explicitly about women being evil because they won't sleep with men. OK, see, this would be a really good place for a blue link. The guys who wrote the article provided lots of starting points for the alt-right that have nothing to do with their sex lives. If you disagree, a reference would go a long way to making your argument more convincing. OwlFancier posted:I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that some of the alt right are just racist shitheads and maybe aren't also massive misogynists but some of them definitely are. And they advertise as such. You know what, I'm just going to quote the part of the article that addresses this- a gay jew and a biracial Pakistani posted:Every ideology has them. Humourless ideologues who have no lives beyond their political crusade, and live for the destruction of the great. They can be found on Stormfront and other sites, not just joking about the race war, but eagerly planning it. They are known as “Stormfags” by the rest of the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
"Sir Neo-Nazi do you hereby confess to your abhorrent crime of despising women and minorities and wanting to make them your slaves?" "What the gently caress is going on here I just wanted to make a dumb frog meme where is this coming from?" "AVAST HE IS USING HIS DOGWHISTLE TO SUMMON THE DICKWOLVES BURN HIM!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
^^Again, the alt-right would say the same thing about their own communities.OwlFancier posted:E: vvv what the gently caress are you on about? You've defined "dogwhistle" in such a way that the alt-right is always made up of racist savages regardless of what they actually say or do. Any possible alternate explanation they can offer for these actions is just handwaved as being part of a pernicious plot to trick people into thinking they're sensible. This would be less ridiculous except that hardly a few minutes later you dismiss evidence that bolsters their point by claiming the people in the video only represent a "specific subset", yet apparently the entire alt-right can be safely painted with the same totalitarian brush. (also it was kind of a dumb joke my bad should have just started with this)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What do you think they stand for if not any of that? For the rights of all individuals to have a fair chance to be successful in life. You're certainly free to disagree about whether the policies they support will actually accomplish this goal. But personally, I think it's more constructive to proceed as if our political opponents are not literal cartoon villains trying to use a cartoon frog to ressurrect Hitler from the dead. Armani posted:Again, the gently caress? I could say the same about you? What is up with shutting down conversation around here? You refuse to even show this alt-right we have been maligning unjustifiably with some idea that you'll get chased out or something. Back your balls up or don't show them. ...I'm in the middle of a pissing match with OwlFancier where I asked him to address the article and he responded by iterating how obviously nefariously evil the alt-right is and how anyone would have to be a complete idiot to assume they have any other motivation. The point I keep trying to bring up is that rhetoric on the alt-right is a lot more similar to the rhetoric around here than anyone is willing to admit Let's be serious here. Yeah we poo poo on each other all the time but all the same it's not like we're debating actual Trump supporters, or even Rubio supporters. I'm pissing people off simply by suggesting the alt-right has a coherent thought process beyond white supremacy. I don't believe in their poo poo any more than you do. "Shutting down conversation" indeed. I'm not "refusing to even show", you're refusing to even look. The best rebuttal to the Breitbart article has literally been "lol Breitbart". My argument has consistently been that reading alt-right sites is the best way to understand them, but if you're just going to assume that everything they do is closeted white supremacy well, fat lot of good that would do even if I did link you to specific articles. But this stuff is pretty trivially easy to Google. Ah, I'm tired. I think this guy probably had the right idea. Sethex posted:No no no, the thread was doing just fine in its exploration of the subject until we let 'source' material gently caress it up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is nothing to respond to in the breitbart article, all it does is try to eulogise the alt right by trying to make them sound well meaning, which is completely and utterly irrelevant. Did we read the same article? I thought it made them sound like assholes motivated less by actual reasons and more a desire to fling poo poo at people they don't like. Or are you simply assuming that the tone is meant to be positive because they don't write "also, the alt-right is made up of literal nazis" every few paragraphs? Armani posted:This is fine. But you need to show me any alt-righter that remotely believe what you just wrote. I can't prove they believe that anymore than you can prove they can't, especially since we're assuming any non-evil thing written by an alt-righter is just a dogwhistle intended to disguise their fascism. quote:Building a metaphorical wall and talking about triple brackets and globalism is not a fair shake for the global masses, sorry. If you wanna talk about some serious people with serious economic woes, my thought isn't the 15-25 year olds who run the loving alt-right train. You think Milo gives a poo poo about coal? Energy? Economic feasibility? Be loving honest, man. The actual premise of this thread is whether the alt-right is worse than the establishment right. I'm in the minority for believing the establishment right is worse, for exactly these reasons. Antagonistic tone of this post notwithstanding, it appears that you actually agree with me. quote:Are you high? C-SPAM and the now nuked GBS are pretty evident examples of everything you just posted here. True blue conservative and right wing supporters. Who can still post and be funny. Like, your point didn't even contradict mine - we talk poo poo on each other all the time because SA is made up of loving every kind of demographic. It's not alt.net.knitting.sweaters where everyone is from your grandma's bingo club with the same idea. You're pissing people off because you're projecting like a movie theater. It's the 'dead, gay comedy forum' joke made by people posting since 1999. Oh, we're allowed to defend ourselves by referencing parts of the forum that aren't immediately visible to outsiders? Funny how the alt-right isn't allowed that courtesy. But then again they are human filth who actively hate us, people like us, and are completely incapable of changing their minds. None of this is striking you as even slightly ironic? Also lol on using gbs of all things to defend SA's intellectual pretensions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
That's my general impression too. Bear in mind, though, I think there's a pretty significant distinction between "reprehensible moron" and "literal Neo-Nazi", which appears to be the main reason for disagreement here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Sorry, having a filter is self-censorship and not cool. ...I can't even tell if this is sarcastic or not. On the one end this is the stand-up comedy tradition going back to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, and I'd always been under the impression that this was considered liberal humor. But on the modern end apparently Jerry Seinfeld is now considered too extreme for most college campuses (and you can completely forget about guys like Chris Rock), so honestly, I really just don't know. Reading this thread you'd think literally the only thing alt-right people do all day is jack off to Holocaust jokes. Maybe I'm just a crypto-fascist but that strikes me as kind of unlikely. But even if it is true, I still consider that preferable to the establishment right, who spend their time doing constructively terrible things. Crowsbeak posted:Well you just admitted that your fine with harassing Jewish people with images of the holocaust. So yes you are a Nazi. Now you, I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic given your earlier posts in the thread. That no one has caught on to this is, well, that's pretty unsurprising given the level of discourse here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh horseshit, it's not because Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock are "too extreme" that they won't do colleges any more, it's because they're old, out of touch, and haven't had new funny material in decades. OK, name some comics in that tradition who still perform on campuses. This isn't a scene I know that much about, so I'm legitimately curious. Who's pushing the envelope these days that liberals can like? Crowsbeak posted:Hey look he can't give a straight forward answer to straight forward question. Is it horribly racist to tweet holocaust pictures at Jewish people on twitter? Also I could care less about Comedians. Hey everybody look at this rear end in a top hat assuming I'm a man. Check your privilege plz.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
 I didn't realize The Atlantic was an alt-right publication.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not all jokes work with all audiences? Truly comedy is dead. I literally did the exact same thing you suggested I do, came up with results that indicated my assumption was not unreasonable, and you're still being a dick. I'm kind of getting the impression you're more interested in being a dick than having an actual discussion. Who What Now posted:Actually it's a verifiable fact that Tosh still does comedy tours. Is Tosh good or bad? More importantly, who finds him funny, cool people like us, or subhuman monsters like the alt-right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because you zeroed right in on the article at the bottom of the page, completely ignoring the multiple links to comedy tours going around college campuses that prove that comedians still play them. Out of the websites listed listed, three are articles about the difficulty of finding work in the current industry, two are for people looking to book comedians, another two are for people trying to start their own tour, and exactly one (an obvious corporate advertisement) is about an actual ongoing comedy tour. quote:Do think there is an objective quality to comedy or something? Because there isn't. ...And yet we can safely conclude that the alt-right are human filth for finding dead baby humor funny. Got it. OwlFancier posted:What's the end goal of being nice to the alt right anyway, what do we get out of it? Well, it's not like we're trying to convince them. In any given debate you're actually aiming for the neutral spectators, not the people you're debating against. They like provoking overreactions because it makes their opponents look like crazy people. This works especially well when you're just a faceless weirdo and they're an actual famous person. Crowsbeak posted:Never found him that funny, but to each his own. Me neither, which is why I'm a little surprised to see him referenced here as a defense. He seemed to me like exactly the kind of misogynist racist guy we're supposed to hate. But I watched his show maybe once several years ago, so I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You know that I'm not the one that called the Alt-Right subhuman, right? ...Sorry. It's easy to get mixed up. Kind of an inevitable problem when we're referring to large, nebulously defined groups. OwlFancier posted:I mean I prefer getting people to laugh at them for being dumb by associating them all with the worst of their lot because that's also funny as well as effective. I agree, and that's the main reason I don't like all the extreme language that keeps getting thrown around. It's like those Trump ads that's just stuff he said. Editorializing detracts from that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
"Moderate Nazis" are what's keeping Trump above forty percent. I'm inclined to think they're more moderate than they are Nazis. Or else we're so hosed it doesn't matter what we do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Really? I do it all the time. I only started reading Something Awful again recently. Even though I'm an American I took an interest in the UKMT thread because I was baffled why everyone hated Corbyn when he didn't actually seem to be doing anything. A lot of people get involved with alt-right movements for similar reasons. The more popular MRA bloggers, for example, claim fairly consistently that the main time they get pageview boosts is when feminists get mad about something that seems trivial or stupid, because people who have no idea what the big deal is can't get a straight answer from Jezebel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A large proportion of the country was against civil rights. People fought for them, and people against them were shamed into shutting the gently caress up about it. Sometimes you can't change people, you just have to shame them and yell at them and marginalize them until they die and hope the next generation is a bit less poo poo. At times like this I really wish I had a better idea of what actually happened during the civil rights movement. Like, it's tempting to reply with "it worked because Martin Luther King and Malcolm X provided completely different visions and MLK's was obviously much better", but considering how early they died and became mythologized it's really hard to get a good handle on how people at the time actually viewed them. For all we know they were successful precisely because they died, and that turned them into martyrs. The general refusal of American schools to cover this very obviously important period in American history doesn't help matters. My pet theory is that a lot of their progress had to do with how the government was desperate to discredit communist propaganda which used footage from civil rights marches to prove that we were totally full of poo poo about being the land of freedom. But an actual book exploring that idea would be really nice if anyone knows of any. Sadly communism is gone so even if true who knows if that will be any help to our current situation. 
Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You're also "putting words into his mouth" by insisting he has ties to some group of "social justice proponents". Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Well this is new. Usually leftists get huffy at the very idea that "social justice" is a bad thing. Are you actually acknowledging that social justice in the social justice warrior sense is a bad thing, or is this just a temporary rhetorical tack designed to discredit the person you're arguing against? OwlFancier posted:Other than "you idiots don't include economic class in your analysis of inequality" to which my response is "actually I do, you dumbass". Lately the general sense I've gotten from these forums is that "class not race" is some form of white privilege. Which isn't to say that discussion of class is itself considered verboten, but that it's being considered very, very secondary. boner confessor posted:woah the honeypot thread where idiots make bad angry posts about the blacks and the jews and then they get yelled at by whoever is bored enough to check is up to 25 pages, nice And you wonder why the alt-right is into "ironic" Nazi jokes. If you're going to get called a Nazi within a few minutes of a conversation, why not just own up to it? You do realize they do this precisely to piss people like you off, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol that you think i'm pissed off instead of wryly amused at the frailty of man I forget, were you one of the posters calling the alt-right human filth who needed to be exterminated from the planet earlier in the thread? It's kind of hard to tell when everyone on both sides of the spectrum here retreats to "lol I'm just a cool funny guy why so serious" the minute someone tries to call them out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lmao that you can say "how is it bad to accuse someone of being an SJW" and "it's bad to accuse someone of being a nazi" in the same post how stupid are you? do you maintain any consistency at all in your thoughts or is everything you post online designed to support your power fantasy of making imaginary people mad, in your mind game ...Are you even talking to me anymore? I seriously can't tell. edit: like, as far as I can tell we have the exact same opinion but you're trying to mock me because of...tone, what? I'm just seeing similarities where you're seeing the narcissism of small differences. Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
the alt right posted:yeah i know. that's why i'm mocking you, pal
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It's always so telling when they deploy Some Guy TT's defense: "if you aren't nicer to me, i'm going to go be, like, SUPER racist!" Calling it an ideology is honestly giving it too much credit- it's just base self-aggrandizement, desperate weirdos trying to take rhetorical hostages to strengthen their demand "someone, somewhere, be nice to me!" Why do you think I'm defending them? Is there some sort of rule that I have to say negative derogatory things in every single post or I'm some sort of secret alt-right sympathizer? You are trying really, really hard to make me the enemy here when as far as I can tell we don't actually disagree about anything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:the point, mi amigo, is that if it's wrong to lump people together by calling them racist, it's wrong to lump people together by calling them SJWs, and in theory after twenty years of writing this post with minor variations at you, you might figure out that the point is that whining about being lumped together is a sign of a dim soul and feeble mind. I uh, agree with you? And that was exactly the point my post was trying to illustrate? You might want to take a look around this forum before you go around calling people feeble-minded. People get hissy about the term SJW while simultaneously being shocked that anyone considers the word "racist" to be an insult on a pretty regular basis. The main difference is that racist is and always has been an insult. Originally the term "social justice" was created by leftists who agreed with it, and became repurposed by the alt-right in order to mock said leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Have the dignity to own your position, you mewling goddamned infant. We could save a lot of time here if you just tell me what kind of strawman you think I am instead of my having to guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The objection with racist is not that people are offended by it, but that is accurate and if people want to stop being thought of as maladjusted cretins they they should stop being one. This is what I mean by narcissism of small differences. Both the alt-right and whatever we're supposed to be calling the left-wing equivalent seem to think scathing vicious insults to the point of "ironic" comments of "i hope you die in a loving ditch asswipe" are appropriate. But on our side, it's considered OK because our base insulting words are technically accurate rather than sarcastic metaphors. "Our way of thinking is the justified one" is how all the great monsters of history, on all sides of the political spectrum start doing evil poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Someone who is upset that Political Correctness Gone Mad has resulted in people on the internet to his left treating his Important Opinions with less reverence than he feels he has earned, for god knows what misbegotten reason, and feels the solution to this problem is to be nicer to racist people, again for god knows what misbegotten reason. An interesting theory. Mine's a lot simpler. I just don't like bullying assholes, and don't tolerate that kind of behavior just because the ones doing the bullying are "on my side". If I'm a secret alt-right plant this is pretty hard to rationalize with your theory. But I'm sure you'll think of something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
So death threats against good people are bad, and death threats against bad people are good? Good to know. Funny. You seem to have much more in common with the alt-right than I do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:[in rod serling voice] picture a man, a man who is so fundamentally incapable of communication with another human being that he interprets all disagreement as insult or a threat against his person. this is... the alt-right zone Might want to read the full quote thread there champ. The original example I used was "ironic death threats", the existence of which on this forum was not questioned. Would be pretty stupid to do so, since it's come up in the last few days with no probations being issued.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, you're advocating that we stop looking at things like "facts" and "evidence" and believing in things like "what words mean" because they "justify" our actions and beliefs and that's bad? Absolutely not. But I find that in any given conversation there tends to be an inverse correlation between facts and evidence and vicious insults. quote:Calling racist people racist = death threats? Oh good, someone actually called me out on this...yeah, during the latest horrible derail in USPol someone used almost that exact rationalization when someone called them out on making a death threat. You know how "just lurk" is frequently thrown against anyone who thinks this forum is not an echo chamber? I've been lurking since the last time I was in this thread. It hasn't improved my opinion of it. Even if there is the occasional good post. Brainiac Five posted:The moral nihilism thread is that way, though the sign says "Log Out". Because most of it is just dumb crab like this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your position is fundamentally a nihilistic one that there's no way to determine whether a thing can be justified or not, no way to establish morality. I'm giving your stated opinions more respect than they deserve, to be frank. Uh, no. Facts and evidence can prove a stated position. Death threats can not. Unless your argument is that death threats can be justified somehow?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is a super dumb and wrong position. At dead least in the US. So much of our economic inequality is rooted in racism and the deprivation of equality to POC. Our lack of class identity is also in large part because poor white people are sold on the fiction that their problems are from a nebulous collection of POC and not rich white assholes. It's legitimately really baffling to me that FDR was able to build a coalition out of class issues back in the thirties yet we're incapable of doing so in the present day. I mean granted, those weren't exactly great times to be black, but they did eventually lead to a massive bi-partisan effort to address racism in the sixties, and we haven't gotten anything like that since then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 23:31
|
|