|
Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. TBF, the white race does seem to have a reactionary position born of heredity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. mind staying relevant to the topic, as opposed to being a smarmy rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I guess I'll bite. Who are "they" in this scenario, what's "their" agenda and what motivation do "they" have to silence opposition? A Deacon posted:Google, Facebook, and Twitter were pretty open about supporting Hillary Clinton as well. To expand, most technocrats support establishment (aka third way) democrats because their agendas overlap. When they're donating giant amounts of cash to try to elect Hillary Clinton, it's not in their best interest to be 100% impartial. Especially if they feel like the country is being threatened by a person like Trump. Re: Politifact Call Me Charlie posted:Or PolitiFact rating Hillary wanting open borders (a thing from one of her leaked speeches) as mostly false because "It’s not clear at all what she meant, experts agreed." (because experts can't agree on what open borders means and Hillary said that she was only talking about energy and she didn't say it with a specific timetable so Or for example http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ vs http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ Do I have a definitive New York Times or NPR link that claims from a position of authority that Politifact has lost their credibility. No. (Even if I did, would you believe it? Or would you explain away the idea of the 'truth-o-meter' being subjective as a thing that doesn't matter since they write a full article trying to explain how they reached that conclusion, as if most people wouldn't close the page once they saw 'mostly false' or 'mostly true' in the heading)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 11:13
|
|
)
|
Call Me Charlie posted:All you have to do to understand a guy like Peter Thiel is read his wikipedia. It's not shocking that the anti-authority/angry young republican who created a major business and stumbled into investing in Facebook turned out the way he did. And he'd probably really resent you implying that his sexuality means that he has to support a certain group. All he proves is a need for redemption centers for those against democracy. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. To quote myself from like ten posts ago: I think that is the thing though, the social norm, conversations on line can go really far right without much real complaint until really really far extremes, but if anyone ventures beyond the very very shallowest steps towards the left you immediately get this sort of crybaby "if you think about it most racism is against whites and everyone hates men! I am disengaging in this conversation".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. White people are incredibly sensitive and fragile, and even the most basic discussion of race has many of us threatening to become neo nazis. It would be pathetic if whites weren't so powerful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. It would be nice if the american left had a coherent message they passionately fought for as a whole, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I guess I'll bite. Who are "they" in this scenario, what's "their" agenda and what motivation do "they" have to silence opposition? "They" are anyone who disagrees with him, their agenda is the destruction of this country and everything he holds dear, and their motivation is that they were bribed by the evil globalist one-world Clinton conspiracy. Aside from making fun of Call Me Charlie, that is a serious point - gatekeepers no longer work because people who are determined to believe fake news would rather believe that the gatekeepers are liars. By pointing out blatant lies over and over again, all the gatekeepers and fact-checkers have really accomplished is convincing a significant portion of the country that they're unfairly biased against Trump or conservative news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"They" are anyone who disagrees with him, their agenda is the destruction of this country and everything he holds dear, and their motivation is that they were bribed by the evil globalist one-world Clinton conspiracy. I certainly don't think that Facebook banning sites like GlobalNewsNetworkDailyTruth.com or whatever is going to make people like Charlie stop believing that Google is working with George Soros to maintain the global flouride conspiracy. Those people will always exist, and will find some way other than Facebook to connect with each other. What I do think will happen is that things like Pizzagate will stay contained to 4chan and the weirder subreddits instead of blowing up into a widespread "just asking questions" campaign that ends in nutbags shooting up a pizza joint. Our aunts will stop "finding out" that democrats want to impose Sharia Law in Florida when they log on to post a picture of a kitten on your wall for your birthday. Trump won't be so quick to tweet about paid protestors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Facebook is going to accomplish exactly nothing except for possibly, "curating" away any news critical of Facebook. Because literally the first thing that will happen with this proposed system is a bunch of dumbs will report everything they don't like while clickbait sites just register a new domain every few days to avoid filtering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Or for example http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ vs http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ In your first example, Trump used a number that Politifact was unable to find any reference to, and the Trump campaign refused to respond to a request for clarification, so they rated it false. In the second example. Bernie used a similar, but different number, and his campaign actually explained to Politifact where it came from and why they're using it, so Politifact rated it true. What's the problem here? You're making the claim that Politifact is somehow corrupt, but you seem unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. How did you form this opinion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I certainly don't think that Facebook banning sites like GlobalNewsNetworkDailyTruth.com or whatever is going to make people like Charlie stop believing that Google is working with George Soros to maintain the global flouride conspiracy. Those people will always exist, and will find some way other than Facebook to connect with each other. That's a pretty big jump to make, buddy. Dr. Fishopolis posted:In your first example, Trump used a number that Politifact was unable to find any reference to, and the Trump campaign refused to respond to a request for clarification, so they rated it false. In the second example. Bernie used a similar, but different number, and his campaign actually explained to Politifact where it came from and why they're using it, so Politifact rated it true. What's the problem here? You're right. What's the problem with that? They said nearly the same statement was both 'mostly false' and 'mostly true'. Must be all the colloidal silver clouding my judgement or something. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I certainly don't think that Facebook banning sites like GlobalNewsNetworkDailyTruth.com or whatever is going to make people like Charlie stop believing that Google is working with George Soros to maintain the global flouride conspiracy. Those people will always exist, and will find some way other than Facebook to connect with each other. I think that is right. Claims of bias have existed since the dawn of time. Remember that Fox News basically made an industry by suggesting that every other news source was part of some liberal agenda. I'm much more concerned of the viral nature of fake news; that is different from what was going on prior to the widespread use of social media. Facebook and the like need to recognize the extreme abuse potential of their systems, and curate it to at least some minimal extent. Let them be blamed as liberal shills. Let some company come along and offer a "fair and balanced" Facebook equivalent. That website is so entrenched now, I don't know that anything else can get any traction no matter how heavily Facebook polices the site. Heck, Facebook could become completely biased, heavily favor liberal or conservative opinions, and effectively swing elections if it wanted to. The same impetus that keeps Facebook from doing that should make them prevent others from using their platform to do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:You're right. What's the problem with that? They said nearly the same statement was both 'mostly false' and 'mostly true'. Must be all the colloidal silver clouding my judgement or something. Now you're just selecting the context you want to reply to. Argue in good faith. I'll repeat my entire point in case you honestly somehow missed it the first time. Trump used a number that sounded false. Politifact reached out to Trump. Trump refused to explain where they got their numbers, and Politifact couldn't find any reference to them. Any reasonable person would rate that false. Sanders used a number that sounded false. Politifact reached out to Sanders. His campaign responded with the numbers they were using, where they got them and why. Politifact verified that with the organization that did the research, and rater it true. You're repeating a debunked talking point from zerohedge / newsbusters / the_donald. In fact, if you search "politifact bias trump sanders black", the first page and most of the second is a laundry list of alt-right garbage sites. I don't believe you when you say you don't have sources for this idea, I just think you don't want to link them in this forum because it would out you as a right wing troll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
My theory is that the alt-right wants to drive discourse in any public online space into the gutter. To swarm every comment section, every message board and every social media platform with hateful bullshit and argument, until nobody wants to be there but them. That they either want the internet to themselves, or at least be seen as a monolithic force that needs to be placated by industry and entertainment. They want their bullshit to be "the dissenting opinion" rather than the utter trash that it is, and is rightly treated as such (for now).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You're repeating a debunked talking point from zerohedge / newsbusters / the_donald. In fact, if you search "politifact bias trump sanders black", the first page and most of the second is a laundry list of alt-right garbage sites. I don't believe you when you say you don't have sources for this idea, I just think you don't want to link them in this forum because it would out you as a right wing troll. Calling an article true or false is different from calling it unverifiable and one is wise to hesitate before trusting any individual organization as the final arbiter of truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:My theory is that the alt-right wants to drive discourse in any public online space into the gutter. To swarm every comment section, every message board and every social media platform with hateful bullshit and argument, until nobody wants to be there but them. That they either want the internet to themselves, or at least be seen as a monolithic force that needs to be placated by industry and entertainment. They want their bullshit to be "the dissenting opinion" rather than the utter trash that it is, and is rightly treated as such (for now). As they say, "If you can't dazzle them with wit, baffle them with bullshit."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Holy schnikies you cracked the case on this one!!! Who are you to talk about good faith and then play six degrees of right wing troll? I'm a person on the internet, like you? I don't believe Charlie is arguing in good faith, because he's selectively ignoring context and using arguments from alt-right sources that he knows he can't get away with here. Hence, right wing troll. I don't think that's a crazy assertion. You're right, I don't really like the "true / false" scale either, but that hardly shows evidence of bias. I also don't trust anything as the arbiter of anything, which is why I'm skeptical when someone shows up shouting "bias" without being able to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:You're right. What's the problem with that? They said nearly the same statement was both 'mostly false' and 'mostly true'. Must be all the colloidal silver clouding my judgement or something. As your own citation points out, Trump pulled a number from nowhere but it's true that employment prospects for black Americans tend to be poor. Thus mostly false - but not entirely. Of note: quote:Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to our question about where the candidate got his 59 percent figure. But it appears likely it comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students. So it's using misleading data, but is noting a real issue. So he's right for the wrong reason. Meanwhile it says for Sanders his point is correct but he used the wrong word - unemployment instead of underemployment. quote:The statistic EPI used, known by the wonky shorthand U-6, is officially called a measure of "labor underutilization" rather than "unemployment." EPI itself used the term "underemployment" in its research. So he's right, for the right reason, but misused the term. Thus, mostly true, but not entirely. Politifact does often gently caress up, but these two situations are perfectly valid diverging verdicts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Now you're just selecting the context you want to reply to. Argue in good faith. I'll repeat my entire point in case you honestly somehow missed it the first time. Kind of ironic that you're saying I'm not arguing in good faith while you're calling me names and trying to (poorly) catch me in a GOTCHA because I'm not stupid enough to link to something like http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/ But let's ignore all of that. (And they didn't receive new information but let's imagine they did to simplify this) Politifact received new information about the unemployment rate a month later. Great. Why didn't they update that first article to reflect the new information they have? Why would they leave up an article that says something is 'mostly false' when they run another article a month later saying that something is now 'mostly true'. If the 'fact checker' system was in place at Facebook, would it ever get updated there or would it end up like a situation like this https://mic.com/articles/161840/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-get-more-votes-than-any-candidate-ever where false information is spread through automated systems and algorithms? Also you conveniently left this out of your multiple posts. Call Me Charlie posted:Or PolitiFact rating Hillary wanting open borders (a thing from one of her leaked speeches) as mostly false because "It’s not clear at all what she meant, experts agreed." (because experts can't agree on what open borders means and HIllary said that she was only talking about energy and she didn't say it with a specific timetable so That isn't something from zerohedge/newsbusters/the_donald, that's something I noticed. - edit Bah, should have hit refresh before posting. Tesseraction posted:Politifact does often gently caress up, but these two situations are perfectly valid diverging verdicts. I don't completely agree but you make an interesting point on that example. So thanks for explaining it. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
"That sort of argument is used by right wing sources in this google search, you aren't one of them, are you?" is pretty much the definition of bad faith to me. An argument that might have also once been made by someone  right wing is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"That sort of argument is used by right wing sources in this google search, you aren't one of them, are you?" is pretty much the definition of bad faith to me. An argument that might have also once been made by someone You're right, it's petty and I'll stop. edit: No, I have to clarify this. The issue is not that Charlie is making right wing arguments. The problem is that he's cribbing directly from alt-right news sources while insisting he's not. I have no problem having rational arguments with the right wing. I don't know if Charlie is just not remembering or unclear on where his opinions and arguments come from, or if he's obfuscating them on purpose, but either way it's dishonest. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
News sourced from "right wing" media needs to be independently verified before it can be trusted. Like normal news, but with the added caveat of "can't be by another right-wing source".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:That isn't something from zerohedge/newsbusters/the_donald, that's something I noticed. Ok, I'm assuming you're talking about this article. Breitbart noticed the same thing and wrote a couple articles about it. So did The National Review, Capital Research Center, and a host of other blogs, twitter accounts and left wing sources. Hillary said, in a 2013 speech, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." Trump claimed the speech was a "radical call for open borders, meaning anyone in the world can enter the United States without any limit at all." Clinton claimed "I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined," she said. "And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that will be great benefit to us." Politifact asked experts what she could have meant, since they only had the excerpt of the speech and not the full thing. Given that limited context, nobody could agree on what she really meant. Of course, neither could Trump, so they rated it "mostly false" given that he was making a clear assertion of intent when there was no clear intent. I'm not sure how that's controversial. Incidentally, in no other context has Clinton advocated completely open borders. Her voting record and policy positions on immigration have never reflected any such opinion. Common sense should dictate that it's unlikely that one line from a private speech would indicate that she's secretly an advocate of a policy that's radically different from everything else she's said over the course of her career. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:News sourced from "right wing" media needs to be independently verified before it can be trusted. Like normal news, but with the added caveat of "can't be by another right-wing source". This is also true of news sourced from "left wing" media, as well as "center" media. Really, people - regardless of their ideological bent - should just post their sources if they're going to take an argument virtually verbatim from another site.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is also true of news sourced from "left wing" media, as well as "center" media. Really, people - regardless of their ideological bent - should just post their sources if they're going to take an argument virtually verbatim from another site. Yeah, like even if it has been posted by people you trust only to post reliable sources, figuring out the actual background behind those single images with a chart. People like sharing them because they illustrate something clearly, but there's a methodology behind each and every one, which is either going to make you doubt it because of potential confounding factors, or make you understand it better when you find how its creators have controlled for confounding factors. It's not just where numbers come from, it's how they were obtained, how they might interact with other numbers, where they might be properly used and where it might not make sense to use them. If somebody is sharing a meme with numbers, my first step is to check Snopes. If it's marked as false, I can usually look through their own documentation for verification. If it's marked as true (or it's not on Snopes), then you go to the source of the info and form your own conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Regarding Politifact I don't mind when they get it wrong but have the sources for verification, it's when they blatantly ignore sources that contradict their rating so they're nowhere in the article that it becomes a problem. For example, their recent piece from Podesta about how Wikileaks released the e-mails shortly after the Access Hollywood tape. Podesta's statement as true solely on the fact that wikileaks announcement of the e-mail dump came after the Access Hollywood despite the fact that wikileaks had annouced days earlier that they were releasing something soon and the e-mail dump had been posted to their website with others sending out tweets before the Access Hollywood release, it's just the announcement from Wikileaks, via twitter, didn't come until afterwards. But there is no way to verify that in their article because they've chosen to ignore other sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
nessin posted:Regarding Politifact I don't mind when they get it wrong but have the sources for verification, it's when they blatantly ignore sources that contradict their rating so they're nowhere in the article that it becomes a problem. For example, their recent piece from Podesta about how Wikileaks released the e-mails shortly after the Access Hollywood tape. Podesta's statement as true solely on the fact that wikileaks announcement of the e-mail dump came after the Access Hollywood despite the fact that wikileaks had annouced days earlier that they were releasing something soon and the e-mail dump had been posted to their website with others sending out tweets before the Access Hollywood release, it's just the announcement from Wikileaks, via twitter, didn't come until afterwards. But there is no way to verify that in their article because they've chosen to ignore other sources. Well, they're not wrong about that specific claim. There aren't sources that contradict Podesta's statement. I have questions as to why they chose that quote to investigate, since there's a sort of built-in conspiracy claim in there, but I don't think it's their job to editorialize or contextualize their investigations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The circular firing squad of the left makes a lot of political exiles that join up with right-leaning groups that are in strict opposition to the radical progressives. Gamergate ended up making a whole lot of these mixed communities, opposed to the absurd demands of the far left. "Don't sexually harrass/abuse women" - absurd demands made by those on the radical left
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
A factor in the toxicity of online communication is paid propaganda, which is A Thing that Russia (and probably a few other countries, in more narrow and targeted ways) funds and does. This effects both extremes (Russia tries to destabilize US political discourse by feeding conspiracy and conflict at both ends of the spectrum), but it's had more success in that from the right in recent years, precisely because we had a Democratic president.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Congrats on being incredibly pedantic, but you're still missing the point. The left does have a group that's just as dominant on the internet. Yet the far right was able to translate their dominance into actual power. Could it possibly be because the far right used everything OP described to criticize their opposition and get people riled up to vote, while the far left used the same techniques to criticize their own party and get people discouraged enough to stay home? Lol Discendo Vox posted:A factor in the toxicity of online communication is paid propaganda, which is A Thing that Russia funds and does. This effects both extremes (Russia tries to destabilize US political discourse by feeding conspiracy and conflict at both ends of the spectrum), but it's had more success in that from the Right in recent years, precisely because we had a Democratic president. Russian propaganda isn't very good. It's mostly related to RT and Assange (latter being dubious). Israel has a far more effective system than Russia's which crowdsources to people who genuinely hold their beliefs and directs them to highly visible areas. If we're going to start xenophobing there's way more significant targets than a frozen slab with drunkenly scribbled roadlines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Lot's of "white people are the problem" up in here. I think that the left should double down on this rhetoric since it is working so well for them. If we killed all white males it would solve a great number of our problems. It might create some new ones but we can deal with those later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
just like "yas queen", yelling "kill all white men" doesnt actually display solidarity or a cultured mind, it just makes you look really embarassing and unwilling to confront yourself about why you're so hilarious in-the-wrong-way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:If we killed all white males it would solve a great number of our problems. do you also complain when white people vote republican or say horribly uneducated racist stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Russian propaganda isn't very good. It's mostly related to RT and Assange (latter being dubious). Israel has a far more effective system than Russia's which crowdsources to people who genuinely hold their beliefs and directs them to highly visible areas. If we're going to start xenophobing there's way more significant targets than a frozen slab with drunkenly scribbled roadlines. I can agree that it isn't very good. However, people have believed stupider, and any increase in volume of propaganda is going to shift the voter base somewhat. I am far more concerned that Russia's relatively unsophisticated hacking was so successful. Are people so daft that they have to ask if an e-mail asking you to change your password by clicking a link is real? This is 2016, that's not particularly excusable. Israel has done exceedingly well in propaganda, of that there is no doubt. But they already had a base of support here, so of course it worked. If they were REALLY good at propaganda, then their neighbors would support them just as much as the US and Europe does. Which comes back around to the predisposition to listen to propaganda that converts weakly held suspicions into strongly held beliefs. That's where it really matters. Suspicious of Hillary Clinton? Well, this news story from a seemingly real website about her killing puppies with her bare hands may just put you over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Hollywood posted:I can agree that it isn't very good. However, people have believed stupider, and any increase in volume of propaganda is going to shift the voter base somewhat. I am far more concerned that Russia's relatively unsophisticated hacking was so successful. Are people so daft that they have to ask if an e-mail asking you to change your password by clicking a link is real? This is 2016, that's not particularly excusable. What are you talking about? Russia convinced millions of people that Evil Clinton stole the election from Saint Bernie, while Israel can barely get Obama to pay any attention to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
B
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Hollywood posted:Are people so daft that they have to ask if an e-mail asking you to change your password by clicking a link is real? You don't want an answer to that. Trust me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:One of the things I have seen in a community that is half alt-right/half-exiled progressive is that the constant calls for ideological purity and hatred of the Cis White Male as well as differing levels of value that people place racism/sexism issues on creates a lot of exiles in the progressive community. People who suddenly lost a lot of friends because of their view on allowing Milo Yiannopolus to speak, or other thorny issues radical progressives scream about. The tension between the rule of law/freedom of speech/how harmful speech is/presumption of innocence and progressive ideology is also a thing that gets people tossed out of progressive circles. Also, liberal tactics of maintaining orthodoxies with shaming or social exclusion will really only work among their in-groups, like in academia or their internet subcultures; a certain small number of people will feel good about it, since adopting a self-effacing bias can promote feelings of collective identification. But the far right can't be silenced or intimidated by liberals weaponizing moral shame against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:39
|
|
