|
JVNO posted:Was Phillip DeFranco ever good? Because I remember enjoying the odd video years ago, but now his whole shtick seems to be 'centrist stirring the drama pot'. Like YouTube TMZ. Did my tastes just improve? I think I made a post much earlier in this thread about how Phillip DeFranco's general demeanor really bugs me, because it always comes off like he's acting overly concerned about everything he says and like he's making a conscious effort to project a "genuine" demeanor or something. It brings to mind the image of a guy walking up to some girl who looks sad and acting faux-compassionate in an attempt to hit on her (I know this is kind of bizarrely specific, but I can't think of any other way to explain it). Just rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:They thought NPR tweeting the Declaration of Independence was a call to commit treason. Turns out when everyone you trust tells you the media is trying to destroy the president, you'll find ways to make that true. Right-wing people thinking NPR is a far-left organization will never cease to amuse me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
I'm not as big of a fan of Hbomberguy's video game videos, because while the points he makes are reasonable enough he frequently treats things that are a matter of taste/opinion as if they're objectively good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Rich people are all basically insane, not just the randos elevated by circumstance. It's really bad for your mind to have functionally absolute power over other human beings and to see them only as tools or means. Even just being "well off" (like making six figures or something) really messes with a person's ability to understand and empathize with people worse off. Even when a well off person genuinely means well, their understanding of the issues affecting the working class is so poor that they don't even know what sort of solutions to aim for. And even then, virtually all well off people aren't actually willing to make any significant sacrifices. Even if on some level they want to fight poverty, if you suggest anything that would involve a significant tax increase, they'll rationalize disagreeing by thinking "well, I want to help the poor, but maybe there's a more ~elegant~ way to do so without heavy government spending!" It's a shame in a way, because it's not like wealthy people have some sort of "bad person" gene. It's just that the very state of being wealthy fundamentally corrupts a person.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Are you sure though? From my experience the kind of person who is driven to make that kind of money is fundamentally broken in some way. Source: my friends' rich parents who are all stark raving loving mad. From my personal experience, the people I know who make that kind of money are just the sons/daughters of well-off professionals and follow what, to them, is the "normal" life path (go to elite schools, get good internship through nepotism, internship starts a chain reaction where you're always ahead of the competition). They don't really work much more or less than anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Why cant people just be polite and respect what gender pronouns people want to be called even if they believe gender is based on biology and not what a person believes what they are? The problems are twofold (with the first point being the most important): 1. Simply expressing that opinion (in a context like this) is pretty hurtful/insulting. A good example is someone who believes something like "black people are naturally less intelligent than white people". Even if they think they're acting polite to them in person, expressing that sort of view is inherently insulting to the group in question. 2. The belief in question that you mentioned is actually a fringe belief, but is often portrayed (like you seem to be portraying it here) as a more mainstream "common sense" idea. Research doesn't really support the idea that gender is just based on biology (in the sense of whether someone is biologically male/female).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:This is something that's been on my mind the past few days, mainly thinking about why there are so many people doing "rational" videos like Sargon and why there don't seem to be as many people making videos rebutting them and putting forward more leftist views. Hbomberguy and Shaun and Jen are great, but they're definitely in a minority when it comes to videos directly talking about these ideas. I think it's mostly that left-leaning people and social justice proponents tend to get their politically-oriented media through different mediums than Youtube. Also, if someone is just "against the alt-right", the mainstream media basically has that covered (while the alt-right doesn't have much presence in newspapers or television).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Yes lets all trust the mainstream media.... What, when did I say anything about the mainstream media being good? I was just making the point that alt-righters have no choice but to resort to places like Youtube to enjoy an echo chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Also, I'm not sure if it's this or if it's about someone sitting down to think about what kind of youtube channel they want to make, and instead of even thinking of carlgon, they decide they want their youtube channel to actually make the world a better place in some fashion, either by educating people or helping to create events for people to come together and accomplish things, and the thought never crosses their mind to just make videos yelling at dumb people, but Carlgon and the septic rationals all decided they needed to make videos screaming about how people are WRONG and that this was a good use of their time. Yeah, I also think another aspect is that people on the left tend to focus more on ways they want to improve the world, while the alt-right is almost entirely defined by its opposition to "SJWs" and feminists and what have you. Liberals (as opposed to leftists) are also often defined primarily along their opposition to Trump and Republicans, but there already exist other avenues to consume that sort of content (both through mainstream liberal media like MSNBC/the major newspapers and websites like DailyKos or whatever).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
While I think Ausmund was being dumb in the earlier argument, it is kinda questionable to say "Trump voters are all racist" and not apply that same logic to everyone else. Like, there was some poll that basically checked for racist opinions towards black people based upon who people voted for in the Democratic and Republican primaries, and while the Trump voters were definitely the most racist, it wasn't really to the extent where it makes sense to say "Trump voters are racist and Clinton (or whatever) voters aren't racist." Like, maybe 35% of Trump voters would think (really racist thing) compared with 25% of Clinton voters. So I guess my issue isn't so much with calling the Trump voters racist as it is using that to whitewash the racism of other people, be they be Democrats, non-Trump Republicans, or whatever. I wouldn't be at all surprised if older Democratic voters (by "older" I mean maybe 50+) are at least as racist as younger Republicans. Their political views may be less racist in practice, but if actually tested for racist biases they wouldn't be much (if any) better. Another thing is that there's an important distinction between someone being racist in the sense that they're willing to tolerate racism due to prioritizing some other issue, and someone actually directly wanting to pursue racist outcomes (the pepes obviously fall into this group). Both of those groups are racist, but in different ways with different political implications. The former group is willing to vote for someone regardless of whether they're racist (and thus shouldn't be written off), while the latter votes for them specifically because they're racist (these people probably should be written off, because there's not much you can do about this). As an example, a bunch of my relatives are fundamentalist Christian southern conservatives. I have no doubt that they wouldn't really care if Republicans suddenly stopped being racist. The racism they do express is largely due to trying adhere to a set of cultural norms and depends upon the specific context of a topic, and regardless it isn't a political priority of theirs. Their priorities are mainly just "I want to be economically stable and healthy", which is then filtered through the lens of conservative ideology (so they end up thinking that things like tax cuts will somehow help them) that ironically makes them worse off. This is definitely dumb in its own way, but many liberals aren't really any smarter; they just happen to have been raised in environments that make them identify with an ideology that is objectively better than the ones conservatives were raised to identify with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Will you find me the specific polls. Here you go:  I'm not saying "they're not really racist" so much as "they're certainly not the only ones and it's very misleading to act like they're always uniquely racist in a way Democrats/liberals aren't." Like that poll definitely indicates Trump voters are significantly more racist on average, but not in some strict binary way, and there's a very non-insignificant portion of Democrats who aren't much better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:you're making some pretty serious accusations; source? like, point to specific spot in a 4-hour-long video where he says these words that you're claiming? While I'm not sure about this specific case, a lot of the time people like that will say stuff that directly implies that without being explicit about it. Like, if someone says "black people commit more crime than whites" while simultaneously rejecting the circumstances imposed on them throughout American history as an explanation, there isn't really any other way to interpret that than "black people are 'naturally' predisposed to committing more crime." Like, they usually leave the conclusion unsaid, but their arguments are attempts to discredit any alternative explanations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:so you got nothing, you're just ~totally sure~ he meant it at one point but you don't know any of what he said because you didn't watch his video I don't know anything about that fox guy; I was just explaining the way many of these people manage to directly imply ideas (which they know to be unacceptable if said explicitly) by rejecting the only reasonable alternative explanations. Like, if someone talks about black people (or whatever ethnic group) committing more crimes while simultaneously dismissing arguments that what difference does exist* is due to historical circumstance, it's really obvious that they're trying use this information to imply some sort of fundamental/innate difference between the ethnicity in question and (usually) white people. There's also the question of "why is this person bringing up this topic?" Any time someone starts talking about how criminal/dumb/whatever an ethnic group is, there's usually an implied "and we should do something about this" attached. You have to ask yourself why someone is invested in the idea of negatively generalizing the ethnic group in question in the first place, particularly when their ideas go against any mainstream interpretations of the facts in question. * since obviously you also have to take into account stuff like the fact black people are more frequently accused and convicted of crimes than their white counterparts
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:obviously the former; apparently there's a map and some people say it's a lie and some other people say it isn't You could always not be at total moron and watch the video in question. I mean seriously, your logic here is "well, some people say one thing and some people say another thing, therefore there's no way to know which is right!" Like, I'm not even exaggerating, that is literally what you are saying. edit: Like, referring to the map in question, Shaun and Jen are unquestionably correct. The guy who initially referred to the map (I believe Kraut and Tea?) just said "look at this map showing how much crime migrants commit!" and Shaun and Jen actually looked at the data points in the map and showed how the vast majority were nonsense for various reasons (such as stuff like an unintentional house fire being treated as criminal arson or a single crime being referenced multiple times). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:nobody in this thread has ever pointed to any of the videos in question Dude, watch some of his videos. The guy is dumb as poo poo and pretty fuckin racist, at least in the sense of "denying or heavily underplaying the impact of racism." Like, just looking at a random selection of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0rTlq0u7A - In which he condemns BLM with such brilliant points as "HEH YOU SAY YOU WANT TO END THE CRIMINALIZATION OF BLACK PEOPLE, SO DOES THAT MEAN YOU WANT A BLACK MURDERER TO GO FREE?!" and just denies that black people are treated that badly in general (like saying higher black crime rates are just due to the breakdown of the nuclear family and absence of a father figure, which is a really common racist talking point) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Opc41Vr9w - In which he makes the brilliant point (among many, many others) - "40% of white Americans support BLM while 65% of black Americans support it; this means more white people support BLM than black people and therefore it's a white movement!" (which is something that would always be true unless the vast majority of white people disliked the movement in question) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qgb9Davqo8 - In which he tries to rules-lawyer the concept of racism by linking to the dictionary definition and arbitrarily deciding it is "more correct" than the the idea of racism involving the combination of prejudice + power (among many, many other dumb points) I honestly find it fascinating that this guy has any following at all. It's not just that his political ideas are terrible, but he's also just genuinely really stupid. Like, in a "does not perform well with cognitive tasks" sense. All his points are the sort of thing a random 16 year old might come up with, but a bunch of people take him seriously because of his accent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Here is another "debate" he did with Michael Brooks of Majority.FM. He keeps working up to a point, but it's a point that he has built over faulty ideas he extracted from the prevailing sentiments in society. I'll admit that Brooks sorta flexed his mic muscles quite a bit, but uh...I don't really care because gently caress Sargon he was going nowhere fast anyway. So I can't really see this guy being any sort of voice for a critique of leftism, academia or what have you. He is honestly just incompetent in every aspect of his philosophy tbh What bugs me is that he rarely even attempts to address most of the obvious counter-arguments to his points. He just says his opinions like they're some obvious truth and moves on. How does anyone watching this stuff not think "hmm maybe this guy is not analyzing these issues in a way that is fair and reasonable"? Avenging_Mikon posted:I want you to understand something: you are a garbage person. Even if you're trolling, you are a garbage person. To even ironically defend Sargon, who laughed while Kristi described a rape scenario during their debate, and he, when asked what analytical framework would replace feminism, said "I don't know, I don't care." He is not interested in constructive dialogue. His is a misogynist and a racist (see the support from the EDL). I think the "laughing about the rape" thing was more just Sargon having a default reaction of thinking anyone who disagrees with him must obviously be stupid. Like, when he hears a point he doesn't have a response to, his mind immediately thinks "haha this person must be dumb, whatever they're saying is definitely also dumb." So he laughs derisively to sort of project this impression that he's some smart ~rational~ guy dealing with a dumb child. I mean, this isn't really any better than what you described, but I just got the impression that it wasn't so much "haha rape is funny" as it was "I don't have any response to this point, so I'll laugh derisively so my audience just assumes the point is dumb." The worst submarine posted:Speedrun to find Sargon being sexist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj2dfxDPbdc&t=57s (latest video) This video was a good example of what Sargon usually does; he'll give some random evidence (that in most cases he obviously just quickly googled) and just treat it as some authoritative truth. Like, the stuff about male variability in intelligence being greater isn't some universal agreed upon thing; there's a lot of controversy and disagreement in the academic study of human intelligence. But that doesn't matter to Sargon, and in the video he just acts like it's common sense that men would get paid more due to them "naturally" having more geniuses or whatever. The funny thing about Sargon is that I don't even get the impression he's purposely being dishonest when he does this. I think he's just honestly really stupid and doesn't understand how to do research and interpret what he finds. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:so by your own admission you watched his video and found nothing racist except a "common racist talking point" that isn't actually in and of itself racist; you just like to imagine that racists use it What do you even consider racist? Several of the things I mentioned are transparently racist. Are you one of those people who believes someone isn't racist unless they explicitly say "I believe race X is inferior to race Y"? Discounting/denying the impact of racism is, itself, racist. Non-racist people are not going to go out of their way to repeatedly condemn minority activist organizations and attempt to refuse any claims that systemic racism is a problem. No one says the kind of stuff I pointed out in those videos except for people who are either racist or advocating ideas with racist outcomes (which isn't much different). Unless you spent your entire life cut off from media and civilization, all of this should be transparently obvious. edit: Like, using your standards the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, aren't racist. But this is clearly nonsense, because in practice most racists have realized that explicitly saying "I hate (racial slur)" doesn't go over well, and instead just give a bunch of negative opinions, perpetuate negative stereotypes about a race, and attack any individuals and organizations concerned with racism/discrimination. Great Metal Jesus posted:Sorry if it's not 100% relevant, I read about this a while ago and was straight up struck dumb by how brazen re-segregation was being given the a-okay. De facto segregation never even ended in the first place. My mom taught at an elementary school for over 20 years that was literally 100% black. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:well there you go, you're rewriting the definition of the word in order to attack people who disagree with you and brand them as racists, so as to justify your hatred of those people The literal definition of racism includes showing/feeling discrimination based on race, and having opinions that involve denying the effects of discrimination that exist (and thus also denying attempts to rectify them) is racist. Or if you really want to be pedantic (though I'm pretty sure you're not even in the right pedantically), we can just call them "terrible people who have opinions that involve denying and perpetuating the existence and effects of racism." The issue with your idea here is that we know from polls that at least ~30% of the country is explicitly racist (in the sense of thinking black people are less intelligent, more criminal, etc). But most of these people realize saying this stuff explicitly doesn't go over well, so they instead just express political views that deny the importance of these issues and attack activist groups concerned with them. Using your logic, you would basically end up ignoring the vast majority of racists, who are smart enough to not go around calling people racial slurs. I'm not even one of the people saying all Trump/Republican voters are trash or whatever. But there's a difference between a random low info conservative voter and guys who go on Youtube and make a bunch of videos talking about how the concerns of minorities and women are dumb and overblown. The latter are absolutely trash people, because they explicitly define their ideology along such lines (as opposed to possibly just being ignorant, like a Trump voter who thought he would bring back coal jobs or whatever). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:it follows as a consequence of the definition he gave; if you have a problem with it then take it up with him No it doesn't? You'd have a point if they were questioning actual misstatements, but (as you can easily from see from any Sargon video) they automatically assume any statement that could remotely be interpreted as coming from an "SJW" perspective is wrong, and their criticism itself is also almost always wrong (and when it's not wrong, it's usually being aimed at some random tumblr person or whatever). Like, watch the Shaun and Jen video on Sargon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9E2iEi6vMY) to see how deliberately dishonest he is. Basically, if someone spends most of their time dishonestly and incorrectly smearing minority/feminist activism and denying - without any valid evidence or explanation - the existence and/or impact of racism/bigotry, it's pretty obvious where they stand. Pittsburgh Lambic posted:nice goalpost shift; he didn't even have to ask you to No, it was pretty obvious that was what I was saying. Like, I said "denying the effects of discrimination that exist", which clearly implies I'm referring to real discrimination, as opposed to someone making incorrect claims of discrimination. I even added the "that exist" just to make it clear that I was referring to people denying stuff that is demonstrably true. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:sorry i didn't watch your video in response to a person who was trying to use your video to state his opinion for him You said you wanted examples of Sargon being racist. Since I am not Sargon myself, I have no choice but to link you to videos in which Sargon is racist. I even mentioned some specific stuff in my earlier post because I anticipated you using this exact argument (which you just went "nuh uh!" to without any real counter-argument). I'll just ask outright so you can't keep vaguely implying things - do you consider it racist for a person to both 1. repeatedly attempt to discredit and/or downplay valid and demonstrable examples of discrimination/bigotry and 2. repeatedly misinterpret information in a way that portrays minorities (or proxies for minorities, like conflating "migrants" with "Middle-Eastern migrants") in a negative light? As a somewhat exaggerated but still valid analogy, would you consider someone antisemitic if they insinuated that the death toll/impact of the Holocaust is actually exaggerated/overblown and that the Jewish people weren't totally innocent either? I mean, they didn't explicitly saying that Jewish people are all inherently evil or inferior, right? So I'm guessing you'd say that isn't racist? The thing you don't seem to understand is that people do not just randomly stumble into repeatedly interpreting information in a way that fits a particular narrative (in this case a narrative where 1. bigotry isn't actually a big deal and is just being overblown by "SJWs" and 2. foreign Muslim migrants are a terrible threat to UK/Europeans). The way someone interprets information/media reflects their underlying ideology. (I'm fully expecting the response to be something along the lines of "but you can't know for sure something is racist unless God Himself comes down and confirms it!")
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
I get the impression Laci Greene is generally well intentioned but not particularly bright. She strikes me as more of a Joe Rogan sort of figure than someone who has (or is likely to gain) any actual commitment towards the more bigoted ideology of the alt-right (I think someone else made this comparison). She seems like the sort of person who will agree with just about anything provided you state it in a friendly tone and doesn't enjoy having strong disagreements with people. So in short, she isn't good but she also isn't likely to become too openly noxious (though her sort of permissive attitude is harmful in its own way).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
The idea that all humor should be permissible is so transparently ridiculous that it amazes me anyone can actually believe that. Throughout history there are, and have been, countless jokes that are transparently racist in nature and were directly intended to maliciously denigrate people of the targeted race/ethnic group. And people even find/found them genuinely funny! The idea that there's some fundamental barrier between the nature of humor and other forms of speech is absurd. There's no meaningful difference between calling someone a racial slur and making a joke that is intended to belittle/insult people of a different race/ethnic group.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Exactly this. And to compound it, people who seem to be very adamant that you should be able to joke about anything sure do seem to get really upset when you make jokes about people and things that they like and care about. So it's just plain disingenuous from front to back. Honestly, the extent to which the alt-right (and conservatives in general I guess) define their ideology by projecting their own feelings onto others is downright uncanny (I mean, everyone does it to some extent, but they take it to a totally different level). They end up reaching all these bizarre conclusions because they assume that everyone else is just as terrible and dumb as they are. On the topic of dumb Youtube rationals/alt-right folks, I think I've decided that my least favorite of them all is Kraut and Tea. He somehow manages to come off as even more bitter and angry than his peers and strikes me as being the closest to going full-Nazi. Most of the others, like Sargon or Armoured Skeptic, just come off like some random dumb rear end in a top hat, but Kraut and Tea seems like the type who could very easily slip into literally wanting to genocide people (if he hasn't already). That one discussion with the other Youtube "rationals" that Shaun and Jen referenced during one of his videos is a good example; even some of his peers were like "what the gently caress dude."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
jfood posted:https://newrepublic.com/article/143926/dirtbag-left-problem-dominance-politics Man, Jeet Heer is really salty about that "bend the knee" thing. It's kinda funny, since mainstream Democrats have been acting that way to leftists (just in a more "polite" way, since they were comfortable in their dominance) since forever. I don't really understand what point he's trying to make here. It makes sense to be angry about the stuff Republicans and moderate Democrats do, and I don't see how being friendly to such people helps anyone. The article also seems to make the mistake of assuming that something like Chapo is aimed at the general public as some sort of socialist advertisement, when it's obviously media intended for leftists (in the same way something like the Daily Show - which you might notice these people rarely complain about - is intended for liberals). The general idea that the issue with the alt-right is its ~attitude~ rather than its noxious and harmful ideology is also super dumb. I don't really have much of an opinion on Chapo itself (I don't listen to it), but I don't see much harm with the current leftist attitude in the US; if anything, this is the most leftists have been able to influence national discourse in decades, so it clearly seems to be working better than whatever people were doing before!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is no conceivable scenario where torturing people prevents deaths. Sam Harris is gonna strap a bunch of bombs to himself, walk into a crowded area, grab a person and yell "IF SOMEONE DOESN'T TORTURE THIS PERSON BEFORE I COUNT TO 20 I'M GOING TO SET THESE BOMBS OFF!" I bet you'll feel so owned when that happens! Monglo posted:It's a hypothetical scenario, I admit, but does that Rob the question of its merits? To illustrate why this reasoning is dumb, consider an example where a person says the following: "If Jewish people really are leading our society towards destruction, then aren't we justified in expelling them?" It's just a hypothetical, right? So there should be nothing racist about that according to your logic? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Didn't you catch the memo? Being called racist is the equivalent for whites to being called the n-word if you're a black person. It's a poo poo opinion, but lots of the lower class has this opinion so it almost always gets brought up.  Plenty of middle class people are also racist. Trump's supporters were mostly middle class whites. I understand that there are some dumb redneck or whatever, but turning that into some greater "poor people are racist and bad" point is absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Getting a college degree really isn't all that difficult especially on the lower rung universities, you can literally just play civilization and Warcraft and graduate with minimal effort, the fact that Carl of Sad wasn't able to clear that low bar in a place like England where college was cheaper when he was college age really says a lot about how fundamentally dumb he is. Yeah, as I've said before Carl isn't just dumb in a "bad opinions" way, but he actually comes off as being genuinely stupid in an "ability to reason and solve problems" sense. But a bunch of young Americans hear him and think "so fuckin intellectual man..." because of his accent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
JVNO posted:It's also very disingenuous to say 'Men choose higher paying jobs, women choose to stay home, and that explains the gap!' and assume that's the end of the conversation. Even if it were the case (it isn't - the gap tends to remain in most analysis even when controlling for a wide range of variables), it only leads to more questions. Like, 'why do predominantly male occupations tend to be better paid?', or 'Why do women choose to stay home and look after children more often?' and all kinds of cultural inquiries. Eventually, they'll have to concede cultural influences, which ought to be fixed, or they'll be forced to argue men are simply more competent and valuable than women. Uh, clearly women are born with a gene that causes them to make sub-optimal career decisions. This general topic is a good example of how, despite priding themselves on being ~rational~ people who form their opinions based upon data/research, they're really super lovely at actually understanding and interpreting research at any level of complexity beyond "doing a google search for 'statistics that prove the wage gap doesn't exist'". Fangthane posted:This. I have a guy on Facebook that does essentially this kind of reasoning. I once asked "OK then: Why is that the end of the conversation for you?" because there are only a few places to go from here: either women are "too stupid, man" to choose the jobs that (objectively remember. Women have access to the same information men do!) pay more, or it's Yes; to them being "rational" is just a matter of painting over their default opinions and gut feelings with some sort of science-y explanation that lets them feel they're objectively correct. If you explain why their understanding is flawed, they just interpret it as a silly SJW flailing around because they realize they're wrong. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 08:18
|
|
. His response was a lot of dodging hem-hawing in much the same way Carl does. I often tell him he is less interested in being correct (in the context of having scientifically informed opinions) and more interested in being "right" (winning the argument at hand, whatever that may take).
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:"Uh...poo poo, this guy's actually doing Nazi poo poo a lot...uh..uh... HE'S JUST BEING EDGY, I'M SICK OF DEFENDING HIM." Well, I think he's right in the sense that Pewdiepie probably isn't a literal Nazi and probably doesn't believe Jews should be put to death or whatever. It seems like standard "privileged white person saying stuff that is hurtful and not realizing why it might hurt other people" and then doubling down due to a fragile ego after being called out on it. But that's a separate issue from whether people who make jokes like this should be censured, which they should. Even in the "worst" case that the person isn't ideologically a bigot, they just end up realizing that the joke they made is considered unacceptable by society. It's not like we're talking about throwing people in prison for this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Virtue signalling is just the dumbest loving buzzword. I mean, the act of accusing people of virtue signalling is itself virtue signalling (to everybody that you're the type of person to accuse people of virtue signalling). The thing about virtue signalling as a concept (in the way it's used by the alt-right anyways) is that it technically exists in the sense of "someone expressing virtuous views in order to look good to others" is obviously a thing, but 1. it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove and 2. it's only really harmful if it exists concurrent with some form of hypocrisy (i.e. someone talking about how bad racism is while doing racist things). And in the latter case the hypocrisy is the problem more so than the virtue signalling, so there's not much point to attacking the issue from that angle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I think when alt-right people call others white knights it's yet another example of projection. They can't imagine why anyone would say those things for any reason other than trying to get laid, so they assume that others must also have the same motivations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Warrior Signalling.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
I forget if someone mentioned it in this thread, but aren't most of George Takei's tweets and Facebook posts written by other people?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
My impression of Shoeonhead is that she's the sort of person who has just found some degree of acceptance and support within the alt-right (or whatever) community and feels invested in it as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Entirely fine. Political party is not a protected class, not should it be. You get to have free speech, but so does the platform you are interacting with. As a note, I'm entirely fine with IGD getting hosed over as well-- anarchists and other similar types aren't needed in reasonable society. There should be limits to this, though. If a platform is more or less ubiquitous and doesn't have any fully equal alternatives (Facebook is a good example), I think that this sort of thing should be less allowed. I mean, taken to its extreme conclusion, what you said could be extended to stuff like private businesses banning black customers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:That's why you have civil rights law. Being black is a protected class, but being a racist yokel isn't. And you have to have a powerful state to enforce civil rights law anyway. I'm not saying the government should tolerate racism. I'm just saying that the justification shouldn't be "because privately owned platforms have the right to limit the speech people use on them"; it seems like ideally you'd just have the government directly regulate ubiquitous platforms like Facebook, Youtube, etc. (While this has its own problems, there's no solution that doesn't have its share of issues. Allowing complete freedom of speech carries its own harm, as does giving powerful private entities the freedom to control the speech used on their platforms.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:maybe starting off with the ISIS beheading videos or the softcore porn videos would be a good start This post is funny because it should be transparently obvious to anyone who isn't a total moron that alt-right videos are, in fact, a hell of a lot more harmful than whatever constitutes softcore porn on Youtube. I would much rather a child come across a video with some titties than a video saying it's cool and good to hate women and minorities. The fact that you would ever think the point this post is making is reasonable reveals a lot about how dumb your perspective on this stuff is. Heck, you could even argue ISIS beheading videos are less harmful by virtue of there being widespread public agreement that such a thing is wrong. I wouldn't want a child to see them, but at least I wouldn't have to worry about the child suddenly thinking beheading people is cool as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:If my understanding of the law is correct, its illegal to burn the cross with the intention of intimidate, so no, that's not what I see as a peaceful demonstration. This is what I see: You're not using a consistent definition of "peaceful" here. Either you include intimidation in your definition of "not peaceful" - which case stuff like the modern KKK definitely apply, since any such group protesting in public areas is inherently intimidation - or you don't, in which case the burning cross would be considered "peaceful."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Public protest by a group such as the KKK, even including a cross burning, is not classified as intimidation unto itself. Hate speech is constitutionally protected.This isn't new, nor is it controversial. It's really, really not controversial. Yes, my point is that even if this isn't legally the case, logically there shouldn't be any difference between cross burning and any other sort of public protest by hate groups. Either you consider both to be intimidation, or neither; you can't just arbitrarily say one is and the other isn't. Now, if you want to say one form of intimidation deserves protection as a form of free speech and others don't, that's a separate argument. fallenturtle posted:I don't like either of them, but the law has decided that burning crosses crosses (hee-hee) that line. Yes, and the law isn't an arbiter of what is morally right. In the context of this argument the question is "what is right/wrong", and simply citing the law isn't sufficient (otherwise you end up with a bunch of bizarre conclusions, since there are a bunch of dumb/bad laws).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Lotta folks happy to substitute their unexamined intuitions about the social ramifications of state-sanctioned internal political violence for any actual source of legal or moral authority in this thread. We're headed down the same track as the last one. I think the people who think punching Nazis will effectively stop them don't have a very strong argument, but I also find both the slippery slope of "but this will make the Nazis escalate!" and the argument it's morally wrong to be very weak. The idea that punching Nazis is somehow the first step towards something terrible happening seems to just as based off of unexamined intuitions than the idea it'll effectively stop them. edit: It's also important to distinguish between punching Nazis and changing the laws to make punching Nazis legal. The latter I can understand being a problem, but private citizens deciding to do this thing doesn't seem to be much of a problem as long as we leave "don't punch people" laws on the books and don't start changing them to apply selectively to different groups. (And you could also argue that "fighting words" exceptions could be written to exist for certain situations like this, though that presumably wouldn't really apply to something like antifa planning a Nazi-punching attack.) Fados posted:It's both funny and sad how some posters here really believe that some tech giants banning these assholes from Tweeter or Youtube is gonna make any difference in the medium or long term, because the fact is that this trend (ethnic nationalists) is getting more and more common everywhere (just look at Modi's India or China's Capitalism with "Chinese Characteristics"). This liberal hand-wringing over laws and free-speech or whatever is pretty much fun and games, and all the anti-sjws feed on this, which amounts to keeping people perpetually entertained in pretty much scholastic and fundamentally irrelevant bullshit. It's no coincidence that many of the non alt-right shitlords come together under the "classical liberal" banner. If your greater point here is "this stuff happens for broader and deeper reasons and can't be counteracting just through negative social push-back (if it ever had the chance of becoming a real danger, anyways)" I would probably agree, though this still doesn't necessarily make punching Nazis (or banning them from social media) bad, and it's plausible such things could at least slow their rate of growth. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 21:29
|
|