|
semper wifi posted:ok i didnt actually know who that guy was lol i just saw thiel on there oh you mean Theil, the guy spending millions of dollars to try and create a floating libertarian city-state in international waters? i mean, you're talking about Peter “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” Thiel, right? The guy who wrote a rambling, incoherent essay in the Wall Street Journal defending the concept of corporate monopoly? That guy who was all like “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” The openly gay, pro-marijuana immigrant who supports a political party that's openly hostile to all of those things? just making sure we're talking about the same guy.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
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. In what way is Peter Theil anti-authority? Also, should people who belong to a group by birth not oppose a political force overtly trying to destroy that group?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:It doesn't seem as simple as women are liberal, anonymity drives them away. Unless you're saying that liberals are driven away by hostile places, even if they're not the ones being attacked? I don't see where anyone was talking about gender makeup having anything to do with anything. What point are you trying to address? Anecdotally, liberals are certainly driven away from hostile places regardless of the group being attacked. As a person with empathy for other people, I don't want to hang around a community that allows or encourages racism, misogyny or homophobia, even though I'm a straight white guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Liberals don't stand out so much on the internet because saying nice things about people vanishes into the background hum of the world, but unloading a rifle of racial epithets and hate certainly sticks in the mind. This is the crux of it, really. The truth is that center-left liberalism is by far the dominant social viewpoint on the internet, much like everywhere else. Far-right hysteria feels dominant because it's antagonistic to the norm. If the far right were really so dominant, we wouldn't bother talking about it, it would be normal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I honestly think that for a lot of people the actual opinion they hold is something like "you know, white people actually are superior to black people if you got right down to it, but it's rude to say that" and similar far right stuff but with modulation through "but don't be mean about it". Or people that see equality as a luxury thing, like if we have the time and money we should let people have rights but if there is budget cuts only the straight white whatever men REALLY have inalienable rights and just are nice enough to give them to others when they can or whatever. Sure, and I'd go so far as to say that's my majority experience of the american south, and a minority experience of northeastern cities. Not so much on the west coast except Arizona and northern california. But I think urbanization has been slowly chipping away at that mentality as far as the prevailing american narrative goes. It's an easy position to hold when you live in the boonies or a gated community, it's much harder when you actually have neighbors and co-workers and people you see on the subway every day that aren't white or straight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
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. I mean, it's also possible that when people say "hey maybe we should change our behavior to include voices other than white men", or "milo yiannopolus is a horrible troll and we don't want him anywhere near us" or "why are you talking about gamergate? nobody was talking about gamergate" that's not radical or progressive, it's just a normal reaction to your belief system. It's possible that you're the outlier, that a lot of your behavior and ideals are based on a perceived threat to your own privilege and hegemony, that you're the one with fringe beliefs and what you describe as "the absurd demands of radicals" are actually centrists trying politely to explain that they don't want to listen to your poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I don't know how this is considered a good thing. Gatekeepers can't be completely non-partisan and places like PolitiFact already lost their credibility by using poo poo like a 'truth-o-meter' (which is subjective) and having a scorecard. I guess I'll bite. Who are "they" in this scenario, what's "their" agenda and what motivation do "they" have to silence opposition? Do you have evidence to support your claim that Politifact has "lost their credibility" other than your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 07:00
|
|
)
|
Hollywood posted:I'd say that is true, but the south is becoming increasingly urbanized. I'm an Arkansan, and the little farming communities and hill towns are literally dying. As this pushes people to larger cities, said cities are becoming more racially insensitive, rather than the people migrating becoming less insensitive. Yes, there is more interaction, but that seems to somehow make it worse rather than better. It seems that people tend to pigeonhole others into whatever stereotype they believe, rather than observe that they were wrong all along. I'll maintain the assertion that urbanization helps people at least acknowledge racism, there's evidence to support that. Of course, I don't think someone moving from a rural to an urban environment will change overnight. It might even get worse before it gets better, but hopefully it won't take generations for the effects to be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
right wing
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:That wasn't achieved by shaming people expressing those social norms Yes, it literally was. That's the core function of nonviolent protest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Except that there was more to the civil rights movement than nonviolence. You are discounting a lot of important historical figures with this cold take. Are you saying that nonviolent protest was not an effective, primary method of the civil rights movement?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Getting pop stars to talk about how racist and sexist someone is just won't cut it alone. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
hey look it's adam curtis' autistic nephew
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:DDoSing is not a sign of being "better at using computers," and it's difficult to always attribute this to conservatives anyway. Ever heard of a script kiddie? Not even that. DDOSs these days are a measure of how much money you have to rent a botnet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
analogy6 posted:tldr; there are hardly any true lefties in america. More than 12 million people voted for Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
analogy6 posted:I claim that Bernie Sanders is liberal, not leftist. Note the similarity in rhetoric in both the Trump and Sanders campaign. Here is an article from the major Trotskyite organization in the US rejecting Sanders' socialist credentials. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/08/29/pers-a29.html Ok sure, if you define the left wing to the 50,000 people you decided have passed your purity test then there are 50,000 leftists. Today, I have decided that there are only three "true socks" in my sock drawer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I posted that the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 60's were concerned that anti-white rhetoric would alienate white supporters, yes. If you think that's a discrediting statement to the civil rights movement of the 60's, you're going to be very disappointed with Kings sordid relationship with Malcolm X. “White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change of the status quo.” “If they continue to use our nonviolence as a cushion for complacency, the wrath of those suffering a long train of abuses will rise.” "In short, white America must honestly and penitently assume the guilt for the black man's inferior status." “And I contend that the cry of ‘black power’ is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.” The narrative that King was the great peacemaker, ever at odds with Malcom X's militancy is a lie. It's far more complex and intricate than that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
In any case, whatever you think your argument is, referencing King to condemn black violence is patriarchal, demeaning and a common tool of white supremacists. Unless that's your intent, don't do it. Black people are not the problem. The system that white people built to maintain oppression of black people is the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:In any case, whatever you think your argument is, referencing King to condemn black violence is patriarchal, demeaning and a common tool of white supremacists. Unless that's your intent, don't do it. Black people are not the problem. The system that white people built to maintain oppression of black people is the problem. To be clear, I don't think the poster I was replying to was a white supremicist or even necessarily right-wing. It's just exactly what King was referring to when it comes to moderates. Rather than look inward, understand privilege and work with minorities for equality, it's far easier to just say "I don't like being made to feel like a racist" when the conversation gets uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:That's a reason to be louder and get the cops on record loving around. ah yes, the time honored "show the world cops doing bad things" strategy that ended police violence forever A Wizard of Goatse posted:Clearly were we truly moral we would all tell anyone nervous about speaking out "if you speak out the boogeyman will eat you" so rape victims should be required to recount the worst experience of their lives in open court, got it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is actually a really good point, but as I said earlier, this is like a kind of Poe's law of politic speak. An unsaleable and unactionable idea, however good, is indistinguishable from no idea at all. Feminism works because it already has traction. Privilege has the unfortunate rhetorical associations of A) being very recent and B) internet liberalism, and it's the latter connection which totally abuses the concept, and makes it a weak spot to target for the right. You also underestimate, I think, the time it naturally takes for concepts to become mainstream, and your impatience is not sufficient to indict your opposition as racists or whatever else. Progress cannot be forced, as the Trump and Brexit backlash attest. Feminism got traction by being very, very unpopular and divisive for a long time. It won out through dogged determination, direct confrontation, and in some cases violent civil protest. The argument that one should not use the word "privilege" because it offends people with privilege is completely ignorant of the history of civil rights and social change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:So you've got two groups, group A and group B. Group A is treated very badly and group B is treated very well. If you saw this and decided to change it, what would the ideal outcome be? It would be an increase in group A's quality of life. If you're thinking "take away some quality of life from group B and give it to group A", your thinking is disturbing in how it defaults to a zero-sum model. If you're thinking "treat group B worse until the two groups are equal", you're directly valuing "equality" over the quality of life of any human, which is absurd. The reason that Group A is treated very badly is because Group B controls all the resources and freedoms in the equation. You're acting as if institutional racism and patriarchy just popped into existence, apropos of nothing, and white men magically ascended to the top of the pile. White people will absolutely have to give up some privilege and control to level the playing field. Just as rich people are going to have to give up some wealth to raise the quality of life for poor people. There is no situation where you, the privileged, will not have to sacrifice something if you actually care about social, fiscal and political equality.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So being part of the norm is only due to some extra privilege we get, and that everyone at should be treated bady by police and sexualized like women? is the 'norm' without any of these privileges poor housing opportunities for all and everyone being racist and sexist against one another? Is this what a Privilegeless society really is? Do you have the right thread? Nobody in here is making any such argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:So you're saying that white people should be shot by the police under suspicious circumstances more often? Okay, cool, sounds like a sane and reasonable thing a person I want to control our society would say Sure is easier to reduce an argument to the most absurd possible conclusion than it is to actually address it on its merits, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Tell that to the white people employed at wal-mart, and see how they react. If you introduce the concept of white privilege to someone, and they "become alt-right", nothing has changed. They were alt-right to begin with, you just hadn't asked them the question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Privilege is a loaded term in a similar fashion as conservatives saying entitlements. It's meant to shame and silence those who are perceived as privileged. For example... It's certainly a loaded term if you feel like it's an incorrect statement that privilege exists, that white men (for example) have opportunities, freedoms and status that other groups don't. If your worldview is that black people are disadvantaged because they're inherently worse in some way than other people, it would feel like an attack to introduce the concept of privilege. So in that sense, yes it's divisive. It's not a loaded term, and it's not meant to shame or silence anyone, only to acknowledge a fact about humanity. It means exactly what it says. It's not a weasel word or hyperbolic, it just means privilege. It is not like conservatives who use the word "entitlements" to refer to things like Medicare or Social Security, because it's factually wrong to refer to those things as entitlements.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Why can't it be quantitative? Because you say so and because it would break your model? Because it's not a quantitative term, and the only person using as such is you. Why do you want it to be?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:To call people who are stuck in a minimum wage job at part-time hours privileged (because of the color of their skin or the genitalia between their legs) is beyond ridiculous. Of course they'd react badly to that statement. You're belittling everything they're going through. That is not even remotely close to what anyone means when they use the term. Your unwillingness to understand it doesn't change the intent or meaning of the word.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So you want to make the minimum wage white guy feel bad even when his living and job situation are lovely and he knows it? Let's stop pretending for a moment that you're the spokesman for hard luck white america. You're clearly personally offended by the idea of privilege, and by others asking you to consider your own. Why is that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Why does it matter? As we've established above, there's no moral stigma associated with the injunction to check privilege, so it presumably comes down to a matter of personal preference among rational actors or something. I don't hold that opinion. I think it's fairly shocking to be asked to check your privilege. I also think it's important to do it anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah or maybe I do want to stop police shootings but I know that the desperately poor are too poor at the moment to be able to concentrate on the horrible injustices right now. I also know that if you ever did act the way you do on here they would never listen to anyone who geniuniley wanted change again. Let me say this, whatever cause you claim to support, you're its greatest enemy. The best way you would help it would be to play warhammer and never ever talk about it because too caustic for it. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue with this is that it's possible to imply something without outright stating it via context. If I see a weelchair-bound person nearby and start loudly talking about how much I love running, most people are going to intuit that i'm an rear end in a top hat, for example. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I think a closer analogy would be "overpopulation and fossil fuel consumption are of course the major causes of climate change", addressed to a mother of three who needs to use an SUV on a regular basis. If your argument is that you shouldn't shout "PRIVILEGE" at random people over and over again without context or reason, yeah I think we're on the same page. I fail to see how that makes the term itself divisive or unimportant.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's passive aggression, is my point. The first example isn't me not noticing the crippled individual, its me passive-aggressively making fun of them in a way with plausible deniability. Similarly, in the second example the person responding to the first doesn't think that the first would appreciate an intellectual lesson its saying "my issue is more important" in a way that is the verbal equivalent of "im not touching yoooouuu". Well, yes, exactly. And whether you're being purposefully passive aggressive or not, the phrase "check your privilege" is a way to cut that poo poo out in no uncertain terms. Which is why it's important.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 06:32
|
|