Author Topic: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington  (Read 80191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Skybison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #375 on: January 16, 2017, 05:53:23 pm »
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #376 on: January 16, 2017, 06:38:16 pm »
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual, and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor,
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 06:43:08 pm by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #377 on: January 16, 2017, 06:47:51 pm »
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts. What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights. You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want. Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #378 on: January 16, 2017, 10:30:07 pm »
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual, and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor,

Yes, there are racists among Trump's support base. Plenty of them, in fact. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make such broad accusations. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, but would you call a rake or hoe a spade?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights. You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white. How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 10:33:55 pm by Lana Reverse »
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Skybison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #379 on: January 16, 2017, 10:53:22 pm »
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay.  You're using the same talking points almost word for word.  You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question.  Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?



Quote
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.



Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame.  The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.


Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #380 on: January 16, 2017, 11:05:59 pm »
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

It's a false equivelance, one has statistics to back up the claim the other was pulled out of thin air. 58% of white voters across all demographics, 67% of whites without a college degree and 53% of males across all demographics voted for Trump if gang membership is anything to go by black men aren't even the largest group in gangs. Not that this is topical as your other claim is just a strawman.

Queens statement is a topical fact about the election, it's not a call to arms against whites, men or the uneducated. If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #381 on: January 16, 2017, 11:12:03 pm »
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights. You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white. How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016. Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.

Nothing to really contradict, everyone but Paragon is picking up what I'm putting down.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #382 on: January 17, 2017, 12:32:27 am »
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay.  You're using the same talking points almost word for word.  You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question.  Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?

Why don't you turn back a few pages? My article established that.

And why are you so obsessed with this paragon guy? To the point of accusing me of being him based solely on some (supposedly) similar opinions. Do you two have unresolved issues?

Quote
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.



Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame.  The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.

Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

Well, when I hear "as a group", it sounds like you're blaming the group, which is a hop, a skip, and a jump away from collective guilt. Sorry about jumping to conclusions.

And what evidence do you have that I'm paragon?

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights. You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white. How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

That's true, but it's cold comfort for those individual white people who live in poverty. And there are millions who do. The fact that people who share their skin color are less likely to be poor doesn't negate their suffering.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out (admittedly somewhat rudely) that you said "white people" without any qualifiers, which I found somewhat misleading.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016. Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

Ah, I was thinking of something else you posted.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #383 on: January 17, 2017, 12:54:07 am »
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4</a>
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 12:55:54 am by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7993
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #384 on: January 17, 2017, 12:58:01 am »
I've gotta get to work but just a quick MOD action:

LAAAAANAAA!





Good way to prove that you aren't Dogmatic Paragon is to start acting like an adult and reading your own links before you post em and actually debating your points rather than moving the goalposts when you are losing.

And for the rest of you:



Enough with the joke, the jury is still out whether Lana is just UP dogding ban again but focus on the debate rather than the person.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Even Then

  • Guest
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #385 on: January 17, 2017, 04:56:33 am »

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.


And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"? And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"? And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 05:04:16 am by Even Then »

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #386 on: January 17, 2017, 06:19:59 pm »
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4</a>
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

And Askold, could you please tell me how I moved the goalposts?


Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.


And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"?

Doxing, threats, trying to get people fired, etc. As for "stupid reasons", I'd say "drawing Rose Quartz too thin" is one of the dumbest.

And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"?

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way. It's saying that fiction corrupts, or that it has a negative impact on society, based on questionable, spurious or even nonexistent evidence. It's trying to prevent the distribution of these products for no reason other than one personally does not like them. Fiction policing comes from everywhere on the political spectrum, whether it's Jack Thompson raving about "murder simulators" or a radfem making giant leaps in logic to say that porn promotes sex trafficking.

And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

Or maybe they don't like being told that they're inherently privileged because of their skin color while struggling to make ends meet, and decide to vote against the party that (directly or indirectly) promotes such nonsense.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.

Funny you should talk about Mexican immigrants, because Trump did surprisingly well among Latino voters.

But with that said, labeling all Trump voters as racist is not only unfair and simplistic, it's dangerous. If somebody is called racist based solely on how they voted, would they be more or less likely to vote the way the name-caller wants? These days, trying to shame people into doing something is more likely to have the opposite effect.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #387 on: January 17, 2017, 06:26:25 pm »
But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".



Spoiler: the picture is a link.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 06:28:14 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #388 on: January 17, 2017, 06:52:22 pm »
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4</a>
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members. Black people are frequently tasked with taking responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.
Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Yeah.



That's what people are worried about being crushed under the wheels of.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 07:03:51 pm by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #389 on: January 17, 2017, 09:46:38 pm »
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4</a>
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members. Black people are frequently tasked with taking responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

Because it didn't come up. If it had, I would have. Like I said, I'm against collective responsibility in general.

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.
Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.