|
Mr Interweb posted:What do you call people who are economically liberal, but socially conservative? White? Shaun gives his detailed thoughts on Contrapoint's debate Also this article. The author also said in that twitter thread that she believes Contra is drifting right without realizing it. A lot of different takes from all walks of life were posted there. More often than not, a lot of people think it's a bad idea. Jimbot fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Nov 29, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Amoxicilina posted:The entire idea of holocaust denial, or downplaying the reality has always been strange to me. I have never understood it. Can someone explain to me why Nazis and their sympathizers do this? To make National Socialists seem not that bad and to make the holocaust seem like a Jewish conspiracy to build sympathy. The belief is the Jews spread misinformation to exaggerate the death toll from Nazis to build sympathy and make them bigger victims than they were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
i think this is a pretty fair take on things
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Amoxicilina posted:The entire idea of holocaust denial, or downplaying the reality has always been strange to me. I have never understood it. Can someone explain to me why Nazis and their sympathizers do this? Their reals beefs with Hitler are two: 1-He killd the wrong minoritiy 2-He lost. By minimizing the first one, they make extreme right wing beliefs more palatable overall. If even the MOST RADICAL right wing strongman didn't kill that much, why, they are not that bad at all! As for #2, they are working on it. Hell, if ol' Adolf would have had the foresight to name his party National Entrepreneurs this fascist comeback would likely have happened in the 1970s. There's also the whole mythmaking bonus of making sure only the massacres and killings of the left are ever remembered, with everything else being minimized, explained away, or just forgotten. "Stalin killed 300 million russians, there were none left! Pfft, Hitler? He killed, like, 900k people, and even those were mostly just typhus. Jews and gypsies were not that clean back then, you know, they had it coming. What, you anted the guards to wipe their asses for them?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do you call people who are economically liberal, but socially conservative? Dennis Duffy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Jesus christ you guys are so loving mad. Relax for crying out loud, I'm just asking questions, god, lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
ArfJason, I appreciate your dedication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i think this is a pretty fair take on things It's pretty much my take too. Shaun is a good egg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do you call people who are economically liberal, but socially conservative? Conservative. Conservatives at the moment are economically liberal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:That's not completely wrong though? Arguments and debates can easily get stalled by someone who demands studies or statistics over every single point. Perhaps topically, there was that Destiny video a short while back where the one guy gleefully pretended he had owned Destiny because he had never heard of the famous study where people with 'blacker' names got less callbacks from employers, and Destiny couldn't remember the name of the study offhand. For a proper debate, there has to be at least a minimal level of trust that when someone brings up a point of fact they are telling the truth. Unless you're already prepared with evidence to call out a point of fact as being false beforehand, everything just bogs the gently caress down. Every single point? Sure. But that's neither what happened nor what I'm talking about. Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Amoxicilina posted:The entire idea of holocaust denial, or downplaying the reality has always been strange to me. I have never understood it. Can someone explain to me why Nazis and their sympathizers do this? It's a way to sell ethnonationalism using the exact same rhetoric as the nazis. Ethnonationalists propose that diversity has failed and that all of the races would be better off if they were segregated. In order for them to argue this, they also need some major historical revisionism on their side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:That's not completely wrong though? Arguments and debates can easily get stalled by someone who demands studies or statistics over every single point. Perhaps topically, there was that Destiny video a short while back where the one guy gleefully pretended he had owned Destiny because he had never heard of the famous study where people with 'blacker' names got less callbacks from employers, and Destiny couldn't remember the name of the study offhand. For a proper debate, there has to be at least a minimal level of trust that when someone brings up a point of fact they are telling the truth. Unless you're already prepared with evidence to call out a point of fact as being false beforehand, everything just bogs the gently caress down. Yes. These people are too stupid and ignorant to debate. They, like Libertarians, can just make up any stupid bullshit and then force you to debunk it with cited sources and they declare victory if you can't. Meanwhile they quote some bullshit from Rand or Reason Magazine Issue 27 or just completely fabricated nonsense. Debating people is worthwhile if they live in the same reality as you. You might as well try to debate someone out of believing unicorns are real or that angels follow us around all the time and help us - the ground is so uneven it makes actual debate impossible. Also, debate isn't even the way to attack these chuds. You have to claim the moral highground and argue from there - stop trying to fight them with crime statistics and such. Trying to force them out of their reality and into yours through debate is fruitless because they don't care; they prefer their reality. Liberals have this stupid loving idea that these people are only this way because they just don't know better which is so unspeakably naive. Racism, homophobia, and transphobia are intrinsically immoral and intrinsically evil. It is intrinsically immoral and evil to allow someone to die from hunger or lack of healthcare when we have the ability to stop it. These things can't be argued with facts and figures because they don't matter anymore - the right just makes up their own facts. If you use these tools to debate them you are just playing their game. People need to grow a loving moral background and slam these people for being the evil pieces of poo poo they are. Do they quit the debate for them and their views being called evil trash? I guess they just got owned. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Morality is subjective and relative bud, and trying to debate the right wing using appeals to objective morality like ‘letting people starve is objectively wrong’ is just going to get you dragged down and beaten by an objectivist or ‘natural rights’ libertarian. They specialize in this philosophy and rhetoric, and use it to justify all kinds of western supremacist and racist poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Liberals have this stupid loving idea that these people are only this way because they just don't know better which is so unspeakably naive. I suppose that's not the question, there are plenty of other good questions as long as they aren't allowed to poo poo all over them, but unless you believe that there are just good and evil people and they happen to be evil (that's more an opinion of their side though) there must be some causative factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Morality is subjective and relative bud, and trying to debate the right wing using appeals to objective morality like ‘letting people starve is objectively wrong’ is just going to get you dragged down and beaten by an objectivist or ‘natural rights’ libertarian. They specialize in this philosophy and rhetoric, and use it to justify all kinds of western supremacist and racist poo poo. Yea, they'll just hop in with "Oh, so they have the right to take from me to feed themselves? Take MY PROPERTY?" and go on their own moral crusade about how taxation is theft and whatnot. I've seen it happen in person, to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The question is, why are they like that? they're still mentally children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Morality is subjective and relative bud, and trying to debate the right wing using appeals to objective morality like ‘letting people starve is objectively wrong’ is just going to get you dragged down and beaten by an objectivist or ‘natural rights’ libertarian. They specialize in this philosophy and rhetoric, and use it to justify all kinds of western supremacist and racist poo poo. You're not trying to convince them with your morality; you're trying to convince the audience. My whole point was that these people - objectivists, 'natural rights' libertarians, etc. - make this bullshit up whole cloth to support their immorality and stupidity. You will NEVER talk most of them out of it. Morality is not subjective or relative. It's always wrong to let someone die when you can prevent it. It's always wrong to hate someone based on their race or sexuality. I don't give a poo poo if those people think that their morals are just as good as mine; they're wrong and typically hypocritical. Liberals and leftists need to be comfortable making the value judgment that these people and their views are evil and that they're trash. But, liberals still think they're in debate club in high school. Like you're doing here: "But what if the objectivst starts quoting Atlas Shrugged! They'll win if they claim their immorality and evil is actually good!" Man, these people broke leftists' brains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The question is, why are they like that? I would tend to suggest that it's the same reason I'm the way I am. A product of environment that snowballs in response to exposure to groups that reinforce ideas later in life that you've been predisposed to find appealing due to your earlier formative experiences. So basically there are good and evil people but it's nurture + self sustaining ideological environments rather than something you're born with. Huzanko posted:You're not trying to convince them with your morality; you're trying to convince the audience. My whole point was that these people - objectivists, 'natural rights' libertarians, etc. - make this bullshit up whole cloth to support their immorality and stupidity. You will NEVER talk most of them out of it. I mean I think you're ignoring the fact that natural rights poo poo is appealing to a lot of people. Or that onlookers aren't actually looking to be morally right they're looking for something comfortable which justifies their existence. The reasons why their life is the way it is. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would tend to suggest that it's the same reason I'm the way I am. A product of environment that snowballs in response to exposure to groups that reinforce ideas later in life that you've been predisposed to find appealing due to your earlier formative experiences. I'm not ignoring that it's appealing. I know it's appealing. Being a selfish piece of poo poo is appealing, obviously. I'm saying that it's wrong. You're not going to convince everyone when arguing from a moral point of view but you'll convince no one with facts and figures that make people's brains turn off, especially when the right just makes up facts, figures, and philosophies that all boil down to "rich white people should own everything and grind everyone else into dust." How the gently caress do you expect to argue with "actually, evil is good!" with facts and figures? That is what you are arguing against. I'm not saying never quote facts and figures but you're hosed if that's you're only weapon. When debating the right you never gain any ground. You just lose ground and maybe hold your ground if you're lucky. Their whole strategy is based around wasting as much of your time as possible. You'll argue for positive change and then they will say "Actually, black people commit ALL the crime! Just look at this inforgraphic @pizzalord posted on Twitter!" The climate change "debate" through recent history is a good example of this. The goal of any debate with these chuds should be to change the way people see themselves and their relationship to the world and our systems, and you can only do that through a compelling moral vision of how the world should be. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I am suggesting that a compelling moral vision of how the world should be has been something that leftists have had for hundreds of years and thus far it has not won very many victories against the overwhelmingly popular alternative of "the world is hosed but you might have a microscopic chance of being on top of the shitheap one day and then you'll be able to gently caress everyone else!" Now I don't know that that's an innate part of being human but it's certainly the "moral" environment in which we operate, and thus it's kind of necessary to at least address that viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:The goal of any debate with these chuds should be to change the way people see themselves and their relationship to the world and our systems, and you can only do that through a compelling moral vision of how the world should be. No, you shouldn't waste time debating chuds because you'll never convince them and the whole "playing to the audience" thing only works if you have a substantial audience, like if you're big on YouTube or something, and not just posting poo poo on Facebook for your tiny circle of friends to look at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
These debates function in a good way by convincing people that the YouTubers they subscribe to are, sometimes, actually full of poo poo. The majority of fans will probably be un-hindered, but I see plenty of comments from people who've watched the No Bullshit debate and say they've stopped subscribing/watching his videos. In the same way, I think I'm going to stop watching Destiny debates. His long format is hard for me to tackle, and I honestly think he looked like a dumbass in the NakedApe debate. NA came off like a smug whiny twerp, and his points were easily counterable, but Destiny got so pissed off right from the start (understandably) and then made a huge rear end out of himself when he mentioned GDP in a point he was trying to make, and then when called on it immediately started saying "I never said GDP!" Destiny was unequipped for that debate because I don't think he estimated just how much of an aggressively smug dipshit NA is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, you shouldn't waste time debating chuds because you'll never convince them and the whole "playing to the audience" thing only works if you have a substantial audience, like if you're big on YouTube or something, and not just posting poo poo on Facebook for your tiny circle of friends to look at. Agreed, but I was talking specifically of a circumstance under which a person has already agreed to debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am suggesting that a compelling moral vision of how the world should be has been something that leftists have had for hundreds of years and thus far it has not won very many victories against the overwhelmingly popular alternative of "the world is hosed but you might have a microscopic chance of being on top of the shitheap one day and then you'll be able to gently caress everyone else!" You don't get to hear leftists' vision for the world very often and by design. I'm talking about what liberals need to pitch if they're going to debate someone from the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Morality is not subjective or relative. It's always wrong to let someone die when you can prevent it. It's always wrong to hate someone based on their race or sexuality. I don't give a poo poo if those people think that their morals are just as good as mine; they're wrong and typically hypocritical. You may feel these things strongly, but that does not make them objectively true or objectively moral. Morals and rights simply do not exist in the realm of facts and objectivity. It doesn't make them unimportant, and it doesn't mean you can't hold onto a set of principles and ideas strongly or defend them admirably. But the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a particular action is contingent upon the values embraced by the society the individual belongs to. Developed countries tend to value a 'right to life', ergo murder is considered immoral and is ubiquitously illegal. But unless you believe in an almighty deity or some philosophically torturous appeal to natural rights, there's no scientific fact that can tell us we ought to value the right to life. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You may feel these things strongly, but that does not make them objectively true or objectively moral. Morals and rights simply do not exist in the realm of facts and objectivity. It doesn't make them unimportant, and it doesn't mean you can't hold onto a set of principles and ideas strongly or defend them admirably. But the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a particular action is contingent upon the values embraced by the society the individual belongs to. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 I don't think you get it. I am saying that they are objectively true. I am claiming they are. I don't care if people claim they're not; they are wrong. You shouldn't have to convince people that it's right and good to keep others alive, happy, and healthy. Our society is just so broke brained and right-wing capitalist thought so pervasive that that's a radical statement. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I don't think you get it. I am saying that they are objectively true. I am claiming they are. I don't care if people claim they're not; they are wrong. That's not really what objective means. Like at that point it's just denial of reality. For something to be objective it must be true regardless of belief or, perhaps, that it is so universally accepted as true as to be functionally undeniable. Neither of those make any sense in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I don't think you get it. I am saying that they are objectively true. I am claiming they are. I don't care if people claim they're not; they are wrong. Conversely, I know you're not getting it, because: OwlFancier posted:That's not really what objective means. Edit: Just saw your edit, Huzanko, and it doesn't make your argument any stronger. And if you think the Dril comment is applicable, you're completely and utterly missing the point. You are a liability to your own causes if you argue with that level of rigour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's not really what objective means. Being alive, happy, and healthy are universally and objectively good on an individual scale. Hence, it's objectively moral to support things that would cause more people to be so. I don't care that a certain amount of people claim that it's not. They're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Being alive, happy, and healthy are universally and objectively good on an individual scale. Hence, it's objectively moral to support things that would cause more people to be so. I don't care that a certain amount of people claim that it's not. They're wrong. So is being rich, but I trust you wouldn't support more people being that. I mean there's other arguments to continue about what objective means but I also take issue with your idea that what is good for the individual is good for the many, that's a very right wing viewpoint as a rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Conversely, I know you're not getting it, because: I am making the claim that these things are objectively moral, you nitwit. I am personally saying they are objectively good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Define "objectively moral." Is killing always objectively bad? What if you're killing Hitler? Morals are subjective, they always have been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would tend to suggest that it's the same reason I'm the way I am. A product of environment that snowballs in response to exposure to groups that reinforce ideas later in life that you've been predisposed to find appealing due to your earlier formative experiences. JVNO posted:You may feel these things strongly, but that does not make them objectively true or objectively moral. Morals and rights simply do not exist in the realm of facts and objectivity. It doesn't make them unimportant, and it doesn't mean you can't hold onto a set of principles and ideas strongly or defend them admirably. But the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a particular action is contingent upon the values embraced by the society the individual belongs to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
I have no idea how liberals and leftists will ever win back power if you can't have the courage of your convictions to say that you believe starvation or dying through lack of healthcare are objectively bad things to allow to happen in modern society. It's no wonder Republicans run everything. LOL @ the "what if you're killing Hitler" canard. You got me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:You're not trying to convince them with your morality; you're trying to convince the audience. My whole point was that these people - objectivists, 'natural rights' libertarians, etc. - make this bullshit up whole cloth to support their immorality and stupidity. You will NEVER talk most of them out of it. What if you knew someone was dying for lack of medicine and you had one dose but by administering it to that person you condemned their twin, who was also sick, to death. What is the moral thing to do in that situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:What if you knew someone was dying for lack of medicine and you had one dose but by administering it to that person you condemned their twin, who was also sick, to death. What is the moral thing to do in that situation? You save whichever life you can save rather than saving zero lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:What about all the Damascene conversions? I agree that a shift in environment is likely to make people doubt and unpick their convictions, but to unravel them entirely? I've known antifa guys who used to be BNP boys before confronting head on how harmful their ideologies were, and most of the 00s Internet Libertarians have now either become anarchists, alt-Right fash, or some kind of ancap weirdos. I don't pretend to understand religious experiences having never, as far as I know, had one. But they do appear to be a thing and there's probably people who have done good research into them. Sometimes people just have massive and radical shifts in understanding and belief as a result of an experience. I can believe that seeing the right thing at the right time in the right frame of mind can spark a revelation in people that can overcome normal reinforcing effects, but I don't know that you can find a reliable way to induce it other than spraying fash with hallucinogens. Huzanko posted:I have no idea how liberals and leftists will ever win back power if you can't have the courage of your convictions to say that you believe starvation or dying through lack of healthcare are objectively bad things to allow to happen in modern society. It's no wonder Republicans run everything. I can have the courage of my convictions to say that I believe those things are bad and will not change that belief as long as I have the capacity to control it, regardless of the fact that the entire concept of objectivity in ethics is nonsense. What I can't do is claim to rewrite the universe to make myself feel better. Your moral preferences are just that, only yours and founded in nothing but your own beliefs. That should not be an obstacle to your enforcing them on other people. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I meant more in an ideological sense than a religious one, but I wouldn't want to say what forms the line between those two  Like causing fascists to suddenly think "hey wait, my ideology really is an indefensible bucket of poo poo, I should stop this ideology from hurting other people" or likewise the how some Internet Libertarians seemed to get fully sucked in by the Dork Enlightenment and fall way into what became the alt-Right, whereas others went Full Bakunin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I meant more in an ideological sense than a religious one, but I wouldn't want to say what forms the line between those two So do I, I just explicitly don't draw a line between the two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:43
|
|