|
Frosted Flake posted:Anecdotal but I like talking politics more with Conservatives because they will calmly and rationally try to make their point, and if I disagree they will make a counterpoint or respectfully agree to disagree. Congrats on only knowing shitheaded 'other guys' I guess. I've not found a problem finding any side of the political aisles (give or take nazis) to discuss things with calmly.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Someone post the Hitler "just want to eliminate the Jews" comic. Here you go: 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:That's the thing. I want to dismiss them as shitheaded or bad examples but these are the guys organizing events, running Student's Unions, and presenting at conferences. They're the top people in the local community and the fact that they act like rude assholes turned me off the whole thing. You're at university? Here's a hint mate: all politically minded people at university are without exception shitheads. Sorry, that includes you. It included me! To a one: shitheads. I'm still technically a shithead now but I have to interact with consequences so it's harder to get away with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Here's my call-out story: So you literally live in a world that is exactly like how all the right-wing blowhards imagine everywhere else is like. Huh. Not to say it doesn't exist but can you tell me where it is so I can mark it down as a garbage place to be?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:
Yikes. Please tell me this is just on campus?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:20
|
|
Ottawa
|
the trump tutelage posted:Imagine a general in a real war demanding a stand-up fight against a better organized, more powerful opponent because "history's on our side" and "we shouldn't have to fight in a way we don't want to!" That's every pollyanna on the Left right now who thinks tone, messaging and outreach don't matter. The point of that image isn't to say "being loud is fine" it's to point out that 'sounding' reasonable is different from 'being' reasonable. In case you haven't noticed, I've not actually yelled that anyone here is a fascist, mostly because my combat keyboard needed some polishing first. In reality the people you whine about are a tiny minority of progressives and the people doing the work aren't noticed because they aren't as loud. In fact, the loudness of the supposed 'SJW's only seems loud because they've reached the same volume as the crybabies on the right. Tumblr's moonbats and the alt-right's wingnuts are real and loud and yes very much annoying, but the election of the orange clown man is not the shifting tide of societal change you think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you think Frosted Flake was here just to spread Right Wing Propaganda? I mean there are literal video examples and news stories of the kind of toxic activism being referred to, is that all just propaganda? At what point do you start challenging your assumptions here? The question is, how do you stop assholes being assholes? They're clearly class conscious but opt instead to take an unhelpful method of activism. What can you do to stop them while respecting freedom of speech?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It's not. These people graduate someday right? And go on to be professional activists who hang out with other activists and their endless drama bleeds into the real world when it effects Pride, or Slut Walk or anything else. I'll put it this way - student politics is full of these kind of assholes over here in the UK too. After graduating? They fade into irrelevance. The few who've tried to bleed into mainstream politics are laughed out of the room and end up in fringe political parties with little effect on policy (pronounced: none). The Kingfish posted:I don't think they are class conscious actually. I think they were probably liberals. Well yes, which is why Mao told people to combat liberalism in their own ranks. I don't have a state or guerrilla army at my disposal, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's not about assholes 'existing', it's about enabling assholes, giving them the excuse they need be assholes, without correction. That is what you're granting to them, when you argue, flat out, that tone doesn't matter, or you don't have to explain anything to people (that's their obligation to learn), or whatever other thing you push out here. Those are ideas that are rear end in a top hat-enablers. Conceivably they could be okay in a perfect world, but they're not. I've not made the 'tone doesn't matter' argument, although I will posit that if someone is saying something correct in a rude way, does that make the message bad, or the messenger?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Kraps posted:A few bad apples? http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/womens-march-on-washington-devolves-into-racial-identity-politics-fight/ White people and black people had an argument. Truly, the SJWs have lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:I guess we're just going to talk past each other forever then. I never said this was worth discrediting any movement over, but it is ultimately harmful if you're interested in actually achieving anything. If you want to whittle down your membership to the five activists of most pure heart, you have every right to, but the rest of the world is going to burn while you do. What socially progressive movement has seen freefalling membership such a way? Feminism? Anti-racism? LGBTQ?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:The Democratic party, if we can even call it all that socially progressive anymore? If this is the best example you can provide of a freefalling membership I'm not sure there's a problem. Also, it's not a movement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The problem starts when said assholes are given leadership positions, or their behavior is excused because criticizing it leads to character attacks on yourself. At that point, the movement is effectively in decline, and cannot recover until something changes. If you believe the loss of allies from this situation is 'no biggie', because the fact that they left means they weren't really allies in the first place, then you're going to find yourself very lonely, very quickly. But I already questioned this: Tesseraction posted:What socially progressive movement has seen freefalling membership such a way? Feminism? Anti-racism? LGBTQ? ...and that's not necessarily requiring "freefall" but what progressive movement is losing membership in any significant way?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I feel like I made a good post about it here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3804788&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=7#post468209589 Just to check, is this aimed at my last post? I don't think I made an accusation but if I've come across as such I'm willing to explain myself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ah, no, it's at stone cold. The thread moves a little fast. True enough though the election is, I don't consider the Democratic Party an 'activist' group, or outreach - remember I'm a British-based poster, I see the Democratic Party as an overall-right-of-centre but well-meaning coalition. Taking into account personal bias I know they're left-of-centre, especially due to their social liberalism. I don't see the loss of Clinton as a rejection of her policies, necessarily, so much as a problem of messenger. I can appreciate if that seems like I'm trying to move goalposts, but I promise it's not intentional!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Since I'm using me as a stand in for others then your reply is kinda the problem. If you're not trying to reach people why are you even talking? I'm becoming less and less convinced I am going to get through to people, but what possibility remains is the only reason I'm still talking. For what it's worth your posts up until the recent discussion seemed in pretty good faith so I'm willing to answer you in good faith, but I'm not really sure how to reply to your post that sparked this... gathered backlash.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Chelb posted:I think it's reasonable, even, to claim that outreach of whatever form simply wasn't practiced enough in states like the midwest, as can be seen by the articles that came out afterward pointing to the Clinton campaign's fundamental problems and rectifiable failures to properly campaign and canvas in that area - not in an ideological sense but in the sense of basic political infrastructure. The two topics are certainly interlinked - the concept of the culture war is outlined in the OP where it considers the idea of society as being 'SJW's vs 'Deplorables' - which I feel is reductive. But I do feel that a line has to be drawn between the way this election ran and the reality of the 'culture war'
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
I have tried to make it clear that I at least am interested in dialogue. I mean it's near 2 AM and I have to hit the sack sometime, but...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But that's just one interpretation, and I don't think it's right. I also think that the rhetoric of the 'SJW' has, at this point, entered the modern lexicon, and that people are not generally looking on activists with sympathy anymore, or at least less so. That gives an opening for them to be sidelined, which the people in power are going to take. The amount of insane stuff coming out of campuses these days cannot simply be chalked up to 'bad apples', there has to be something that's enabling them to get away with their behavior. I think this takes an ahistorical perspective - student activism in particular has always been perceived as misguided and counter-productive. The reality of US foreign policy despite popular protest is testament to it - and back then the SDS and Weather Underground picked far more shocking and deadly tactics than today. Don't get me wrong, I don't think campus politics is necessarily right nor effective, but student politics has basically always been bright-eyed young'uns yelling loudly and being ignored in places of power. Students will basically never have to worry about dire consequences for poor activist policy... give or take rear end in a top hat campus cops with pepper spray.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
The more the conversation goes on the more I think the OP is wrong in the way they've framed the culture war... but I'm not sure I'd want to try submitting a new thread because this topic is basically guaranteed to break into the argument currently ongoing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Higsian posted:If I got to pull aside each person before time was reversed to just before that point I'd tell the person who said microaggression to not use microaggression and to instead describe the concept directly because their opponent might get pissy otherwise, and I'd tell the other person to not worry if the person uses a word they don't understand and just ask them to explain it and that it doesn't mean they're dumb if they don't know it. Uh. This comes across as suggesting the second person is unreasonable and stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:They probably are. Ignorant at the very least. But that doesn't mean they should be dismissed. So the question is whether that person can only handle being baby-gloved, and if you believe so, on what basis?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Higsian posted:All time travels stories are broken if you look at them too closely. I use my time-turner to solve irregularities. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its not about what that person can "handle" (whatever that means), it's about how 3rd party's view your interactions and how you should talk to people as a matter of principle. Ah, you're talking about not necessarily talking to someone but talking so that other people can see how you talk at someone?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I'm having trouble parsing this, what's the connection? Is economic difficulties caused by... what in the case? One says "poor governmental/business decisions have hosed you over" and the other says "Mexicans are stealing your jobs" ...not to say that's how the election's rhetoric played out
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Both are important. I have more political conversations with 3+ participants than with only two people. Online discussions are always both about the actual discussion and the way the discussion is likely to be perceived by third parties. I agree, but your words seemed to suggest an intention not to argue with someone but to make points at them with a wry glance at the camera to say "look at this rear end in a top hat" with no intention of fostering a genuine challenge of ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Part of his point is that social justice as practised by white liberal elites is a total loving sham used to deflect from their oppressive role so I think you and he totally agree on that point. This reminds me of the author (e: I should mention, author of a different piece) pointing out that rather than address the inequality of access to higher education between rich and poor, the Good Thing of Affirmative Action is used as the line in the sand to fight on by the right-wing because it keeps people from addressing the other structural difficulties in getting poor people and minorities from attending higher education, because they're on the defensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Higsian posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NW3RLnXmTY But the question is how this opportunity arises... it's hardly likely someone will walk around with a T-shirt saying "open minded but slightly racist" on it. How do you find soft targets in an environment where they'll be receptive?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:... you don't assume this describes pretty much every American ever? Mate I live in Britain, "slightly racist" is a safe assumption. I had a guy at the bus stop just casually tell me that the problem with Britain today is there's "too many Pakis" - all I could say was that I'd be a little biased against that point of view, what with being Indian (and mentally noting he probably doesn't know or care about the difference between the modern states of Pakistan and India), leaving him looking stunned and then changed his complaint to being about "the ones that don't work" and use public services without paying into it. After assuring him that the vast majority of immigrants do, in fact, work, and he seemed to accept it, I doubt it lasted any longer than him going to sleep that evening. His desire to blame an external 'enemy' for problems in his life isn't going away because he picked a bad choice for a conversational partner, especially when he gets up the next day and the newspaper headlines go back to reinforcing the idea that foreigners are scrounging layabouts. Back to the US, Fox News is still the most popular TV network. CNN asked "Are Jews human?" and MSNBC has hired Megyn "Don't worry kids, Santa is definitely white" Kelly. It's hard to counteract racial bias in everyday thought when such things are being beamed at your sensory organs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yeah, I think I know that one pretty well (although I'm as German as it gets). Whenever I have a discussion with an old lady on the train, she'll eventually venture into how the problem is the immigrants, and when I say something like "my brother in law is Muslim and I think Merkel did a good and humanitarian thing" or whatever, they adapt their position by the smallest increment they assume is necessary to return to common ground with me and do go on. And on. Pretty much. You can reach a common ground but it's rather like an elastic band - you'll pull them a little bit but as soon as you walk off the elastic does its job and pulls them back to their original shape. Really it takes something more significant to change their mind, and it's usually something more drastic than a conversation - see the Republicans who decide that maybe The Gays are human after all after their kid comes out to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can somebody quickly define "tone policing"? I thought I understood the concept, but this thread has robbed me of that delusion. It refers to declaring an argument invalid because you didn't feel it was delivered in a satisfactory manner, regardless of the content of the message.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:If tone no longer matters because changing one persons mind is meaningless and a waste of time, then what exactly is the plan? And if it is pointless, then what is the point of calling individuals out on their bigotry and micro aggression? Even if they change their behavior despite the tone, it's just one person and thus, pointless. Basically that you don't effect change by reasoning with single people, you do it via societal and political pressure. Telling someone to go gently caress themselves doesn't have much of an effect on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Arch-liberal Lena Dunham can't stop talking poo poo about Asian people on Twitter:  I mean, is she saying that's a bad thing to think in general? Did she admit that she'd genuinely thought that and was trying to say "look how woke I am spotting my own prejudice"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Higsian posted:People who think that are ignoring local politics. Real changes that affect people's lives get made through arguing with individuals all the time. The big societal changes might be sexier, but a lot gets done at a smaller scale. But Democrats don't even turn out in force for mid-terms so yeah, not surprising that an even smaller scale is overlooked. Local politics creates political pressure as well though?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 17:04
|
|