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?

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.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

That is bullshit though. Lots of social norms that used to be universal are universally mocked now.

porfiria posted:

Teenagers overwhelmingly can't vote, and those that can don't.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Yes, it literally was. That's the core function of nonviolent protest.

Talmonis posted:

It's one tactic of many. It also worked well with the target demographic.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Are you saying that nonviolent protest was not an effective, primary method of the civil rights movement?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

No, but it's a start. We don't have a leaderful movement yet, we have BLM and the dregs of Occupy. Widespread, coordinated protest doesn't show up overnight, and mass action was a thing before MLK was involved on the national scale.

Hollywood posted:

The Civil rights movement included active resistance. That resistance just wasn't violent. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If your point was that revolution is equally important, the course of history would bear that out. However, the government isn't susceptible to revolution here. It just doesn't work in advanced societies with strong central governments.

Hollywood posted:

That is, and it formed a very small portion of the civil rights movement that opponents disproportionately focused on and that ultimately did more harm than good. What great societal modification came from it?

Hollywood posted:

I qualified that with the word "great." It had an effect, just not one that moved the cause forward.

Neurolimal posted:

holy poo poo

Discendo Vox posted:

Russian propaganda is not mostly RT and Assange. Setting aside all the other media the government directly controls for domestic use, or the various other foreign dissidents and fringe groups the Russian government supports, there are several outfits whose whole job is to troll and/or flood messageboards and comment sections on conventional media. We know the locations of a couple of these outfits because the media have publicly reported on them, and people who worked for them later did interviews.

Tesseraction posted:

Unless he tells the cops he's probably lying for attention. See the theses of my friend Wi-- ...oh. Hmm. Awkward.

stone cold posted:

stone cold posted:

It totally does, which isn't what you said. You said


Which,
a. sounds like you're blaming women for sexism
b. sounds like you think all women are bad at sex
c. sounds like you have women issues
d. sounds like you think knowing what you don't want in bed=what you are afraid to admit wanting in bed, which, is not only incredibly gross, but a very bad misunderstanding to make. knowing your partners limits is good, and projecting your sexual hangups onto them is frankly, really disgusting
e. please don't refer to women as timid
f. maybe they aren't monotonous and bland; maybe you project a menacing aura or a bad aura and that has resulted in bad sex for you

hope this helps

Talmonis posted:

There is though. One of the current theories regarding radicalization of young western born terrorists is that it's largely due to social isolation. Specifically a sense of purpose and identity and a feeling of self worth.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

But it's also silly to think social isolation is the only cause of radicalization. Make someone live in a society that is terrible for them and you'll end up with people that want to smash that society.

But on the flips side if you make a society cater to one type of person they will also radicalize if they see that as threatened. It's not the 'losers' of society that are becoming alt-right, it's the people (white men) that are.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Also privilege isn't really even supposed to be a dollar value thing. If you are poor the advantages you get outside of terms of money are the big ones. anyway.

Who What Now posted:

Which usage, and by who?

khwarezm posted:

If you're referring to this:


Then we have a massive problem since those poor Americans chose to vote for somebody who loudly and openly stated his intention to victimize non-white or non-male people. Like it or not the fact that they could go out and vote for somebody like Trump with little expectation of getting anywhere near the negative consequences of others as a result of his administration is pretty much the whole point of privilege theory. There's no wide ranging class consciousness at work here, it boils down to a specific segment of the population, even if they aren't well-off, having undue influence that means they can just ignore or even heighten other people's problems without much repercussion.

quote:

In any event anybody who uses the language of privilege but is hostile to the impoverished (as opposed to some of the things that some impoverished sectors of the society might support) is basically a fraud who's not being intellectually honest. Its like trying to use the theory of evolution to argue in favor of young earth creationism, you're basically having to ignore what your chosen theory actually says and cutting out parts at the core of it to make it work. In either event its ridiculous to put the onus on either Evolution or Privilege theory if they're being misused so blatantly.

Who What Now posted:

Where are you actually seeing this happen?

Who What Now posted:

Social and fiscal leftism was presented. Huge portions of Clinton's speeches were about her plans to shape fiscal policy. Stop spreading this lie.

quote:

I don't remember ever seeing a single instance of the concept of privilege being used to silence and rhetorically bludgeon people. Since it apparently happened so often, could you give me specific examples?

ATP5G1 posted:

The problem is that the data doesn't support your rhetoric. Survey after survey has demonstrated racial animus to be a primary driver of Trump voters. And analysis of Clinton's speeches and rhetoric demonstrate they were overwhelmingly about jobs and fiscal policy. The issue is how her campaign was covered--i.e. significantly less than Trump's, with more consistent criticism compared to her primary opponents and an overwhelming focus on emails.

On racial animus, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and a big summary article here. I mean, you can feel any way you want to about Trump supporters, but just because you feel their primary interests are economic anxiety doesn't mean it's true. In fact, here and here and here discuss that Trump supporters themselves tend to be more well off than those around them. They just feel like everything is terrible.

As for coverage of Clinton--you only need to read here and here for analyses of the media coverage to understand how little Clinton's actual words and policy proposals had to do with what was reported about her.

quote:

From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this?

Rush Limbo posted:

Just to clarify, there may indeed be a judgmental aspect tacked onto such a statement, but that's the personal preference of the person making the statement, and not actually implied in the fact the statement has brought to light.

For example, "Climate change is real, you loving cretin"

In this particular statement, the person is asserting that climate change is real. It is. It's existence doesn't actually lend any character judgement on anyone, though, that's entirely on the person who is adding such judgement on.

Likewise, "You're privileged, you rear end in a top hat" is potentially bringing to light the existence of a lack of introspection on that person's privilege, and is making a judgement.

The "You're privileged" doesn't actually say anything about them as a person. The "you rear end in a top hat" is what does that. "You're privileged" on its own would have been just as sufficient, but the initial statement has a greater amount of expression, and we wouldn't want to stifle that, would we?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

In the first example, one might well say "hey I think you're being a bit insensitive, seeing as I can't walk. You might wanna check your privilege."

In the second example, one might well say "hey I can't really relate to what you're talking about to be honest. You might wanna check your privilege there, me and my friends and family can barely afford rent."

I don't see how either is controversial. If either person gets offended by those statements, the fault is not on the person who called them out.

Now, if you say instead "Wow, how elitist are you? Check your privilege, you ableist, one percent piece of filth," then you're obviously the rear end in a top hat. It doesn't matter what words you used, you're just an rear end in a top hat.