• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Bastables
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:51 PM)
Bastables's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil


I also really have no idea what you're trying to say about "political correctness" and it's ties to cultural Marxism. The term didn't originate in Marxism, but that's what the conspiracy theorists think, because they want to tie the term to their marxist-takeover-fantasies. So, the most you can say is that the word is hijacked by a fringe right-wing group for it's conspiracy theory. That doesn't then invalidate all the other ways the word is used.

Dude you're literally ignoring/writing off a quote by a paleo conservative (Lind) connecting political correctness as a part of cultural marxism, a plan in his mind to destroy western civilisation. And how the new conservatives should struggle against it. His hijack of terms has been successful considering how pejorative against the "left" it has become.

Do you also argue that Swastika's have other meanings other than aryan superiority, because it represents others things outside of Nazi/Neo-nazi circles? Because that's what you're trying to argue here; words/symbols have different meanings in other contexts so don't point out the links to their use in hate theory/meme/speech.
Last edited by Bastables; 03-20-2017 at 10:55 PM.
SomTervo
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:52 PM)
SomTervo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

No, they're all very literally the exact same thing. I see no distinction between them at all; they're all fundamentally the same meme repackaged for a new generation.

In the early 90's, conservative intellectuals were faced with a problem due to the collapse of the Soviet Union; they could no longer tar the left as unamerican by association with it. Political correctness, as a term and concept, was pushed by conservative think-tanks in order to try and tar the entire left as part of a dishonest effort to push the conspiracy the that more fringe conservatives much less subtly referred to as cultural marxism.

More recently, the rise of Islam as the bête noire of the far-right necessitated a way to tar the left as sympathetic to Islam (again, in order to replace the red-baiting of the Soviet Union era.) "Regressive left" was concocted by the same impulse that led conservatives to manufacture the memes of political correctness and cultural marxism - in an effort to tar leftists as unduly sympathetic to Islam (and, therefore, intellectually suspect.) All of them also serve the same core role of reassuring right-wing libertarians (who find themselves, constantly, on the same side as genuinely regressive Taliban-style American fundimentalists) that they're on the right side by allowing them to construct a fantasy in which the left is the side that really opposes free speech, free exercise of religion, and so on. (This is also why the people who cling most desperately to all three fantasies are right-wing atheist libertarians - again, they face a constant contradiction in allying with themselves with the religious right. These three concepts, while lacking any real grounding in reality and lacking any sort of statistics or data to back them up, provide an emotionally-comforting bedrock to the atheist right by giving them an out for their constant willingness to side with a censorious and illiberal religious right - the only way they can justify their position is by constructing a fantasy under which the left is even worse.)

It is useful to discuss them as manifestations of the neuroses of the American right and the various branding efforts they have used to attack the left throughout recent history; but none of them have the slightest connection to reality. They represent right-wing fantasies about how it would be useful to mislead the public into viewing their opponents, not anything even slightly real.

That's sick, thanks for sharing
Crossing Eden
Banned
(03-20-2017, 10:54 PM)

Originally Posted by SomTervo

You ain't an idiot man, it's a complex minefield. Don't worry about it.

Jumping to blatantly defend racism while decrying and attempting to silence the side angry with it IS straight up idiotic. There's NOTHING complex about what Jontron said or did, nor about what Matthou did.

*Guy says a bunch of white supremacist shit, naturally gets blown the fuck out*

Dude who has not heard a single thing that was said:I personally think that this is a huge over reaction. This isn't that radical of a response to all of the problems facing America, I feel.

Same dude after everyone rightfully goes what the fuck:I just assumed it was like an offhanded comment or something. I literally didn't see a single thing that was said.

It's pretty clear cut. And fucking insufferable. At least he apologized, but holy shit far be it from me to feel empathy for what seems like a borderline impulse.
Last edited by Crossing Eden; 03-20-2017 at 10:57 PM.
LionPride
Member
(03-20-2017, 10:55 PM)
LionPride's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crossing Eden

Jumping to blatantly defend racism while decrying and attempting to silence the side angry with it IS straight up idiotic. There's NOTHING complex about what Jontron said or did, nor about what Matthou did.

*Guy says a bunch of white supremacist shit, naturally gets blown the fuck out*

Dude who has not heard a single thing that was said:I personally think that this is a huge over reaction. This isn't that radical of a response to all of the problems facing America, I feel.

Same dude after everyone rightfully goes what the fuck:I just assumed it was like an offhanded comment or something. I literally didn't see a single thing that was said.

It's pretty clear cut. And fucking insufferable.

I mean...yeah
Lionel Richie
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:09 PM)
Lionel Richie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mathaou



Nevermind I'm out of this thread I'm a fucking idiot. I don't belong here.

That's an extremely disturbing gif.
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:10 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

In the early 90's, conservative intellectuals were faced with a problem due to the collapse of the Soviet Union; they could no longer tar the left as unamerican by association with it. Political correctness, as a term and concept, was pushed by conservative think-tanks in order to try and tar the entire left as part of a dishonest effort to push the conspiracy the that more fringe conservatives much less subtly referred to as cultural marxism.

More recently, the rise of Islam as the bête noire of the far-right necessitated a way to tar the left as sympathetic to Islam (again, in order to replace the red-baiting of the Soviet Union era.) "Regressive left" was concocted by the same impulse that led conservatives to manufacture the memes of political correctness and cultural marxism - in an effort to tar leftists as unduly sympathetic to Islam (and, therefore, intellectually suspect.) All of them also serve the same core role of reassuring right-wing libertarians (who find themselves, constantly, on the same side as genuinely regressive Taliban-style American fundimentalists) that they're on the right side by allowing them to construct a fantasy in which the left is the side that really opposes free speech, free exercise of religion, and so on. (This is also why the people who cling most desperately to all three fantasies are right-wing atheist libertarians - again, they face a constant contradiction in allying with themselves with the religious right. These three concepts, while lacking any real grounding in reality and lacking any sort of statistics or data to back them up, provide an emotionally-comforting bedrock to the atheist right by giving them an out for their constant willingness to side with a censorious and illiberal religious right - the only way they can justify their position is by constructing a fantasy under which the left is even worse.)

It is useful to discuss them as manifestations of the neuroses of the American right and the various branding efforts they have used to attack the left throughout recent history; but none of them have the slightest connection to reality. They represent right-wing fantasies about how it would be useful to mislead the public into viewing their opponents, not anything even slightly real.

Bill Maher had a show called "Politically Incorrect" throughout the 90s. The word had wide use in both liberal and conservative circles. While the right used it more frequently against the left as a talking point, that doesn't then transform it into the term "cultural marxism," which is in itself incredibly loaded. Your analogy is literally just "both words were used by the right against the left, therefore they are the same." This is not convincing.

You say "regressive left" is a fantasy term used to describe two incoherent ideas: that the left opposes free speech, and that the left opposes free exercise of religion. I agree with the later - anyone using the term to describe the free exercise of religion, in terms of being able to freely discriminate against other religions, is off the deep end. But the focus on free-speech is not a non-issue. Colleges increasingly deplatform (there is statistical data) speakers due to leftist student protests. When cartoonists who draw Muhammad are killed, the left is filled with individuals speaking up about how the cartoonists shouldn't have drawn it, and that it was their own fault. In Canada they're putting in place (or have already) "hate speech" laws that give tremendous fines for not using proper gender descriptors including ones like "zie/hir." Kirsten Powers, Jordan Peterson, Maajid Nawaz, and Jonathan Haidt are all liberal/moderate intellectuals, among others, who are worried about this problem, so you characterizing it as libertarian atheist hogwash is more than disingenuous. I mean the term itself was literally coined by a liberal, Jonathan Chait, so it's pretty damn ironic to be thinking it's some conservative plot to undermine liberalism.
Last edited by darksol devil; 03-20-2017 at 11:19 PM.
Neoriceisgood
(03-20-2017, 11:17 PM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

In Canada they're putting in place (or have already) "hate speech" laws that give tremendous fines on not using proper gender descriptors including ones like "zie/hir."

Care to actually source this?
Jebusman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:17 PM)
Jebusman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

In Canada they're putting in place (or have already) "hate speech" laws that give tremendous fines on not using proper gender descriptors including ones like "zie/hir."

I mean this is a blatant lie, but please continue to enlighten us.

If you refer to someone as the wrong pronoun, no one is going to come after you.

If you refer to someone as the wrong pronoun while simultaneously exclaiming that they deserve to die because of wanting to use said pronoun, among other hateful speech, then you might get brought to court.

The law was specifically changed to allow hateful speech "against" trans people to count under our already existing hate speech law. Just simply referring to someone as the wrong pronoun, while a dick move, isn't "hateful".
Last edited by Jebusman; 03-20-2017 at 11:21 PM.
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:21 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neoriceisgood

Care to actually source this?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

I did confuse the NY fine with the canadian legislation, I quickly sourced when trying to type the response, my mistake.
Last edited by darksol devil; 03-20-2017 at 11:23 PM.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:21 PM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

Bill Maher had a show called "Politically Incorrect" throughout the 90s. The word had wide use in both liberal and conservative circles. While the right used it more frequently against the left as a talking point, that doesn't then transform it into the term "cultural marxism," which is in itself incredibly loaded. Your analogy is literally just "both words were used by the right against the left, therefore they are the same." This is not convincing.

You say "regressive left" is a fantasy term used to describe two incoherent ideas: that the left opposes free speech, and that the left opposes free exercise of religion. I agree with the later - anyone using the term to describe the free exercise of religion, in terms of being able to freely discriminate against other religions, is off the deep end. But the focus on free-speech is not a non-issue. Colleges increasingly deplatform (there is statistical data) speakers due to leftist student protests. When cartoonists who draw Muhammad are killed, the left is filled with individuals speaking up about how the cartoonists shouldn't have drawn it, and that it was their own fault. In Canada they're putting in place (or have already) "hate speech" laws that give tremendous fines for not using proper gender descriptors including ones like "zie/hir." Kirsten Powers, Jordan Peterson, Maajid Nawaz, and Jonathan Haidt are all liberal/moderate intellectuals, among others, who are worried about this problem, so you characterizing it as libertarian atheist hogwash is more than disingenuous. I mean the term itself was literally coined by a liberal, Jonathan Chait, so it's pretty damn ironic to be thinking it's some conservative plot to undermine liberalism.

You're going to have to source everything there because it's obvious you're just making it up
Jebusman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:23 PM)
Jebusman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

Oh I expected you to quote an actual canadian source, not a really bad interpretation from a US source.

An article which also starts with:

I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

So yeah that's a real unbiased source there.
SomTervo
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:24 PM)
SomTervo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crossing Eden

Jumping to blatantly defend racism while decrying and attempting to silence the side angry with it IS straight up idiotic. There's NOTHING complex about what Jontron said or did, nor about what Matthou did.

*Guy says a bunch of white supremacist shit, naturally gets blown the fuck out*

Dude who has not heard a single thing that was said:I personally think that this is a huge over reaction. This isn't that radical of a response to all of the problems facing America, I feel.

Same dude after everyone rightfully goes what the fuck:I just assumed it was like an offhanded comment or something. I literally didn't see a single thing that was said.

It's pretty clear cut. And fucking insufferable. At least he apologized, but holy shit far be it from me to feel empathy for what seems like a borderline impulse.

Listen, you are exactly and 100% right, but a) I'm not apologising for what the person said, and B) the person obviously realised they really fucked up, and i tried to soften that blow rather than terrify/alienate them out of this and all future threads about the subject. Doing an idiotic thing doesn't mean you're an idiot. People change. And acknowledging when they realise they're wrong and being relatively friendly about it can help keep them in the discussion and change minds in the long term.
Chris_Rivera
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Lionel Richie

That's an extremely disturbing gif.

What, the lack of recoil on the shotgun?
stephen08
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:26 PM)
stephen08's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neoriceisgood

Care to actually source this?

It's a bill that would extend current hate speech laws already in place for religious people, homosexual people, and minorities to include transgender persons as well.

Some quotes of the updated sections to Canadian Human Rights Act:

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

...

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,


It is merely taking the protection we already offer minorities of all kinds and extending the definition to include gender identity. If people want to argue this infringing on free speech then the issue isn't with this bill it is for the concept as a whole.

The whole idea about 'if you call someone the wrong pronoun they can sue you' hysteria is ridiculous. It's the equivalent as if you said something one of those other groups took the wrong way and they sued you over it. That hasn't been a problem so far so I see no reason why it would be so now.

EDIT: Here is the link of the actual bill directly from Parliament.
Last edited by stephen08; 03-20-2017 at 11:29 PM.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:29 PM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

I did confuse the NY fine with the canadian legislation, I quickly sourced when trying to type the response, my mistake.

That is not a reputable source. Try again. Also also of this while you're at it.

Colleges increasingly deplatform (there is statistical data) speakers due to leftist student protests. When cartoonists who draw Muhammad are killed, the left is filled with individuals speaking up about how the cartoonists shouldn't have drawn it, and that it was their own fault.

Jebusman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:32 PM)
Jebusman's Avatar
Ignoring the confusion between Canada and NY, I still take umbrage with your interpretation of the NY fine, because it's not simply "I called someone "him" and now I'm being fined a quarter million dollars", it's

"This person has asked me to referred to them by this name, and I repeatedly refuse to because I believe gender identity to be a sham and politically motivated."

That's a slightly different tone to the reason why you'd be getting fined.
How About No
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:32 PM)
How About No's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mathaou

Thanks a lot. I'm by no means a moral compass I fuck up in life and online quite a bit, but I appreciate the understanding.

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

That's literally satire of you man.

lmao
amiablepercy
Banned
(03-20-2017, 11:33 PM)

Originally Posted by Messofanego

If only that stupid GAME_JAM reality show hadn't failed, and he hadn't met Zoe Quinn there, hadn't gone down the anti-SJW/anti-PC/gamergate, hadn't retweeted a NSFW comic of a gamergate gangbang, hadn't teamed up with alt-righters, hadn't said "retarded" maybe this wouldn't have happened? This scandal has been 3 years in the making.

2014:









To white nationalism in 2017:

But his freedoms! But His videos are so funny! But other YouTubers say he is such a nice guy. JonTron can go fuck himself and his self-victimizing YouTube friends can go fuck themselves too. H3H3 and Boogie included and I actually liked those dudes,

It is especially disappointing with Ethan and Hila especially because Ethan went after Joey Salads for race inciting and baiting, who is a genuine fucktard I'll admit, but then defends JonTron because they are buddies. WT everloving F
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:33 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jebusman

The law was specifically changed to allow hateful speech "against" trans people to count under our already existing hate speech law. Just simply referring to someone as the wrong pronoun, while a dick move, isn't "hateful".

That isn't exactly correct.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.136def465711
Jebusman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:34 PM)
Jebusman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

That isn't exactly correct.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.136def465711

1. I was talking about Canada in that post, since that was your initial assertion. You seemed to be asserting the simple act of calling someone their wrong pronoun was hateful and would be fined. Its with repeated intent that you are asserting a hateful attitude, rather than just ignorance.

2. See post above for why you're still wrong.
Neoriceisgood
(03-20-2017, 11:34 PM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

I did confuse the NY fine with the canadian legislation, I quickly sourced when trying to type the response, my mistake.

Looking into it, isn't the entire bill based on repeated harassment & malicious intent by employers, landlords and business professionals?

The actual Bill sourced on the NYC government site is no longer available; so I can't comment beyond the cited parts, but malicious intent seems to be key to the entire thing.


Like it seems to be the equivalent of fining someone's boss for repeatedly going "Hey F*GGOT" any time they greet an employer.
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:34 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by guybrushfreeman

That is not a reputable source. Try again. Also also of this while you're at it.

It's nice of you to disqualify a source as reputable at-will. Such sublime argument.

And here's the other one, while I'm at it.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/02/...s-part-2-of-2/
Übermatik
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:35 PM)
Übermatik's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lionel Richie

That's an extremely disturbing gif.

Not real dude. That blood splat is very 'Action Essentials'.
SolidSnakex
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:37 PM)
SolidSnakex's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

Bill Maher had a show called "Politically Incorrect" throughout the 90s.

Interestingly it would be the right that got his show cancelled simply because he said something that fit the name of the show. I'd say in the 90's and early 2000's we saw a lot more of the right trying to shut people down for saying things they didn't like. Howard Stern was a common target because they didn't like how openly he spoke about sex. Marilyn Manson was another because of the how anti-Christianity angle.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:38 PM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's nice of you to disqualify a source as reputable at-will. Such sublime argument.

And here's the other one, while I'm at it.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/02/...s-part-2-of-2/

Heterodoxacademy?!?! You can't actually be serious. I'm asking for well respected sources with independently verifiable information. You can't see that these are just random blogs making things up? What kind of source would you use for a university essay for example?

Edit: Those aren't sources in any form of the word. They are blogs posting opinion
Jebusman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:40 PM)
Jebusman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's nice of you to disqualify a source as reputable at-will. Such sublime argument.

And here's the other one, while I'm at it.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/02/...s-part-2-of-2/

Alright I made it exactly a single paragraph before I had to write this post.

They start with fucking Milo in their opening example.

Are you going to seriously make the argument here that it's a problem that people object to someone like Milo speaking?

REALLY?

This site (blog) is literally "both sides" the website. That the idea of opposing viewpoints is inherently better, even if that viewpoint is "I think certain races are subhuman".
Last edited by Jebusman; 03-20-2017 at 11:42 PM.
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:40 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by guybrushfreeman

Heterodoxacademy?!?! You can't actually be serious. I'm asking for well respected sources with independently verifiable information. You can't see that these are just random blogs making things up? What kind of source would you use for a university essay for example?

It's run by Jonathan Haidt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's run by Jonathan Haidt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

So? I asked for reputable sources your just giving me random blogs you happen to agree with
Aquillion
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
Aquillion's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

Bill Maher had a show called "Politically Incorrect" throughout the 90s. The word had wide use in both liberal and conservative circles. While the right used it more frequently against the left as a talking point, that doesn't then transform it into the term "cultural marxism," which is in itself incredibly loaded. Your analogy is literally just "both words were used by the right against the left, therefore they are the same." This is not convincing.

You say "regressive left" is a fantasy term used to describe two incoherent ideas: that the left opposes free speech, and that the left opposes free exercise of religion. I agree with the later - anyone using the term to describe the free exercise of religion, in terms of being able to freely discriminate against other religions, is off the deep end. But the focus on free-speech is not a non-issue. Colleges increasingly deplatform (there is statistical data) speakers due to leftist student protests. When cartoonists who draw Muhammad are killed, the left is filled with individuals speaking up about how the cartoonists shouldn't have drawn it, and that it was their own fault. In Canada they're putting in place (or have already) "hate speech" laws that give tremendous fines for not using proper gender descriptors including ones like "zie/hir." Kirsten Powers, Jordan Peterson, Maajid Nawaz, and Jonathan Haidt are all liberal/moderate intellectuals, among others, who are worried about this problem, so you characterizing it as libertarian atheist hogwash is more than disingenuous. I mean the term itself was literally coined by a liberal, Jonathan Chait, so it's pretty damn ironic to be thinking it's some conservative plot to undermine liberalism.

All of your examples are anecdotal. You say "there is statistical data"; produce it. Show me a peer-reviewed study - something genuinely high-quality - that indicates that this is an increasing problem, or that it is specific and unique to the left. I do not think you can. The data isn't there, because this is, indeed, a fantasy - pure hogwash pumped out (largely) by a conservative machine determined to discredit the opposition via whatever lies it can.

It is convenient for some liberals who want to be seen as "reasonable" to buy into this fantasy, to present themselves as the "good liberal" in the landscape of that vapid fantasy hopes of winning some readership among conservatives; since the accusations are entirely groundless fantasy, after all, it involves no real sacrifice beyond And, of course, there are always dumb people at all points of the political spectrum that ideologues can pull together into anecdotal smears that are eagerly swallowed by anyone who wants an easy answer; but there is no evidence whatsoever that that kind of silliness is on the rise, or that it's any more common among the left than the right.

For the record, you are incorrect about who coined the term. It was coined by Maajid Nawaz, an anti-Islamic activist, as a way to tar the political left for being insufficiently anti-Islamic, and adopted by (as I said) right-wing libertarians looking for a way to present the left as "other" in order to substitute for the increasingly-tired accusation of Marxism. In short, it is pure, unadulterated hogwash spun by bloggers and think-tanks to trick rubes into agreeing with them. Its functional purpose in an argument is to give conservative-leaning atheists a thin veneer of intellectual-sounding cover by giving them bits of meaningless, important-sounding jargon they can pull over their attempts to clobber their ideological opposition. It doesn't even take much investigation to turn up how vapid the accusation is - there's literally nothing behind it beyond red-faced conservative talking heads vaguely waving at whatever the stupidest people Fox News could drudge up to throw onto the screen as a strawman against the left. There's no data supporting it, no coherent framework describing what the conservatives freaking out over it are actually afraid of, and no connection whatsoever to anything the left as a whole actually does or believes.

You're also whitewashing what the term means; it is specifically an anti-Islamic slur (saying that the left is too accepting of Islam), not a general statement about no-platforming or whatever the buzzword floating around on the blogs you read today is.

It doesn't have even the tiniest relation to reality. Like the breathless obsession conservative think-tanks had with their manufactured controversy over "political correctness" in the 90's, the accusations you're talking about are pure spin, nothing else.

(Again, don't you feel even the smallest twinge of concern that you are presenting your buzzwords about what-you-think-the-left-actually-believes to, well, leftists, and being told that it has no relation to reality at all? If it was a serious accusation - if it reflected reality in any meaningful way - you would find people willing to defend it, not people pointing out that you're full of shit and your buzzwords are dumb.)

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's nice of you to disqualify a source as reputable at-will. Such sublime argument.

Come on, man. "Here is a blog that agrees with me!" isn't a reputable source. Anyone can pull any blog they want out of their ass.

We can legitimately disagree about a lot of stuff, but if we want to talk seriously about political-science in a way that can cross the aisle, you need to be willing to put in the actual work, which means going to peer-reviewed journals and listening to what they say (and, ideally, not just taking one or two studies out of context, but reading a lot of them to get a general sense of the state of a particular field.) It's hard work and it tends to not produce easy answers or snappy memes like you were trying to slap people with above, but it gives you better answers, too. "Some blogger is mad at the left for something" doesn't tell us anything. You're trying to make sweeping statements about an entire political perspective that encompasses a huge chunk of the country.

This gets back to what I was saying above about why these kinds of memes are so popular with a certain segment of geek culture - again, there's the desire to sound like you have a deep, thorough understanding of a hugely-complicated issue, so it's tempting to seize on a snappy meme that happens to fit into your existing prejudices. But it's all right to just say "I don't know" now and then, you know?
Last edited by Aquillion; 03-20-2017 at 11:59 PM.
Johnny Ryall
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:43 PM)
Johnny Ryall's Avatar
So basically he saw his sub count tank and decided he wanted to revert to being apolitical. Too late, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube you creep.
Chie Satonaka
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:44 PM)
Chie Satonaka's Avatar
Oh wow.

Either I didn't know Jon has been a massive piece of shit eating trash this entire time, or I had forgotten about it. Those 2014 tweets are something else.

It bums me the fuck out that he's so popular and that Continue isn't. I'm going to plug Continue here. Go watch Continue.
ScientificPizza
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:45 PM)
ScientificPizza's Avatar

Originally Posted by Messofanego

If only that stupid GAME_JAM reality show hadn't failed, and he hadn't met Zoe Quinn there, hadn't gone down the anti-SJW/anti-PC/gamergate, hadn't retweeted a NSFW comic of a gamergate gangbang, hadn't teamed up with alt-righters, hadn't said "retarded" maybe this wouldn't have happened? This scandal has been 3 years in the making.

i'm happy to see neil cicierega being a Good Dude

Originally Posted by Chie Satonaka

Oh wow.

Either I didn't know Jon has been a massive piece of shit eating trash this entire time, or I had forgotten about it. Those 2014 tweets are something else.

It bums me the fuck out that he's so popular and that Continue isn't. I'm going to plug Continue here. Go watch Continue.

Yes please watch Continue it's very very good
Maron
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:45 PM)
Maron's Avatar
This will have no impact on his career anyway (and the numbers have proven this so far too) so there's really nothing to do I feel but unsubscribe and not give it more attention if one took what he said to cross their line. The more attention or aggressive witchhunts people do or find themselves in the process of doing towards Jon, the more valid any arguments of victimization on his end become as a result.

Best thing to do I feel (if you were offended by his statements) is to stop paying him any attention, and that includes not giving him the power that comes your voice and attention. He wouldn't have a career if folks weren't talking about him and paying attention to what he does.

Wishing Jon the best, really hope he gets to learn, do better, and rewire himself. The type of mindset he revealed himself as having feels like such a miserable one.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
(03-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
Eppy Thatcher's Avatar
My favorite part about all of this is now I have a legitimate reason to hate h3h3 beyond him just be annoying and stupid as all holy fuck.

And I wanna echo the thought that while this is disappointing and ridiculous on so many levels it's pretty amazing to see a subreddit group so quickly and naturally use their brains and not look collectively morally repugnant for once. Good group there...
Lionel Richie
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
Lionel Richie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Übermatik

Not real dude. That blood splat is very 'Action Essentials'.

I know, but it's well done enough to make me look again to confirm at first lol.

Originally Posted by Chris_Rivera

What, the lack of recoil on the shotgun?

Maybe that thumb is just strong as fuck.
RinsFury
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:53 PM)
RinsFury's Avatar

Originally Posted by Messofanego

If only that stupid GAME_JAM reality show hadn't failed, and he hadn't met Zoe Quinn there, hadn't gone down the anti-SJW/anti-PC/gamergate, hadn't retweeted a NSFW comic of a gamergate gangbang, hadn't teamed up with alt-righters, hadn't said "retarded" maybe this wouldn't have happened? This scandal has been 3 years in the making.

2014:









To white nationalism in 2017:


Ugh. Fuck this piece of shit.
Maron
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:54 PM)
Maron's Avatar

Originally Posted by Eppy Thatcher

My favorite part about all of this is now I have a legitimate reason to hate h3h3 beyond him just be annoying and stupid as all holy fuck.

And I wanna echo the thought that while this is disappointing and ridiculous on so many levels it's pretty amazing to see a subreddit group so quickly and naturally use their brains and not look collectively morally repugnant for once. Good group there...

What did Ethan do...? And yeah the subreddit megathreads were really good to skim through, it was so interesting to see such an incoherent and unabashed shitposting subreddit actually align itself in an open dialogue with each other. Felt like a totally different place for a couple of days.
Soul of the Beast
Banned
(03-20-2017, 11:55 PM)

Originally Posted by Messofanego

If only that stupid GAME_JAM reality show hadn't failed, and he hadn't met Zoe Quinn there, hadn't gone down the anti-SJW/anti-PC/gamergate, hadn't retweeted a NSFW comic of a gamergate gangbang, hadn't teamed up with alt-righters, hadn't said "retarded" maybe this wouldn't have happened? This scandal has been 3 years in the making.

2014:









To white nationalism in 2017:

Jesus fucking christ, how can anyone defend this guy.
Neoriceisgood
(03-20-2017, 11:56 PM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's nice of you to disqualify a source as reputable at-will. Such sublime argument.

And here's the other one, while I'm at it.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/02/...s-part-2-of-2/

Just a little side note after actually slogging through all the data presented.

The fact that Milo was included actually indicates that the people collecting that data basically assimilated "Political views" & "Literally singling out students and harassing them" as belonging to the same category.

Assuming the numbers are correct, the categories selected don't tell us a lot about the actual issues at hand if Milo's targeted harassment is simply another notch for "protests over political disagreement".
darksol devil
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 11:56 PM)
darksol devil's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aquillion

All of your examples are anecdotal. You say "there is statistical data"; produce it. Show me a peer-reviewed study - something genuinely high-quality - that indicates that this is an increasing problem, or that it is specific and unique to the left. I do not think you can. The data isn't there, because this is, indeed, a fantasy - pure hogwash pumped out (largely) by a conservative machine determined to discredit the opposition via whatever lies it can.

I linked Heterodox, which while not peer reviewed is reputable. Do you really think colleges, which have objectively much higher rates of liberal professors than moderates or conservatives, are going to fund studies on which political party does the most disinvitations? It's an obvious fact that the left is doing way more disinvitations, I really don't see how that can be disputed, even anecdotally.

But you are incorrect about who coined the term. It was coined by Maajid Nawaz, an anti-Islamic activist, as a way to tar the political left for being insufficiently anti-Islamic, and adopted by (as I said) right-wing libertarians looking for a way to present the left as "other" in order to substitute for the increasingly-tired accusation of Marxism.

You are correct it was Maajid, should've looked it up. Though I do find it ironic that you frame Nawaz as "anti-Islamic" despite him identifying as as culturally Muslim, and actively works to convert extremists to moderation. I mean, he used to be an extremist recruiter. And when you label him "anti-Islamic", as most of the extreme left does, you really can't see the forest for the trees. Here is a person who is Islamic who is literally working to end extremism, but because he criticises some particular doctrines of Islam as violent and bigoted and misogynistic, as are other ancient texts, he is now labelled "anti-Muslim." The irony is incredible.

You're also whitewashing what the term means; it is specifically an anti-Islamic slur (saying that the left is too accepting of Islam), not a general statement about no-platforming or whatever the buzzword floating around on the blogs you read today is.

I mean, I gave you my definition of the word and the examples of it. You reject my definition and examples, because you want it to fit into your own box so you can neatly swat down the strawman. That's fine, but it's not an argument.

Like the breathless obsession conservative think-tanks had with their manufactured controversy over "political correctness" in the 90's, the accusations you're talking about are pure spin, nothing else.

This doesn't sound, smell, or look like "pure spin."

The rest of your words were very flowery, but I couldn't find much substance, so I don't feel compelled to respond to them.

Originally Posted by Neoriceisgood

The fact that Milo was included actually indicates that the people collecting that data basically assimilated "Political views" & "Literally singling out students and harassing them" as belonging to the same category.

I think Milo was likely his own unique terribleness for that particular category, or else there'd be more news stories swirling about all the other disinvitations.
Last edited by darksol devil; 03-21-2017 at 12:08 AM.
Choomp
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:57 PM)
Choomp's Avatar
Yeah Jon, this doesn't really change anything lol.

I hate to reference an old JonTron joke, but this is the Space Ace guy falling to his death, his choice words being "Hmm Hmm". "Hmm Hmm" Jon!? Seriously?
Son.Ralph.Funk
Member
(03-20-2017, 11:59 PM)
Who the hell is this guy, and why does anyone care enough about what he says to start a thread about it?
Neoriceisgood
(03-21-2017, 12:00 AM)
Neoriceisgood's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I linked Heterodox, which while not peer reviewed is reputable. Do you really think colleges, which have objectively much higher rates of liberals than moderates or conservatives, are going to fund studies on which political party does the most disinvitations? It's an obvious fact that the left is doing way more disinvitations, I really don't see how that can be disputed, even anecdotally.

Would you agree that simply jotting someone like Milo down as being protested over 'political disagreement' is grossly misrepresenting why the protests against him have such severity?

There's a difference between "controversial opinions" & "literally singles out students to mock them publicly".


I think Milo was likely his own unique terribleness for that particular category, or else there'd be more news stories swirling about all the other disinvitations.

It makes the data kinda bunk though, doesn't it? If their idea of political disagreement is broad enough that Milo can take up 14 of the 46 notches (+-, I did notice each case involving Milo was counted seperately) for 2016 it's actually impossible to say how many of the succesful attempts were over actual academic disagreement rather than a completely inappropriate guest.



/edit

After looking into it a bit, the growth if disinvitations in 2016 is largely to thank due to Milo making up nearly 30% of the data.
Last edited by Neoriceisgood; 03-21-2017 at 12:05 AM.
guybrushfreeman
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:01 AM)
guybrushfreeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I linked Heterodox, which while not peer reviewed is reputable. Do you really think colleges, which have objectively much higher rates of liberals than moderates or conservatives, are going to fund studies on which political party does the most disinvitations? It's an obvious fact that the left is doing way more disinvitations, I really don't see how that can be disputed, even anecdotally.



You are correct it was Maajid, should've looked it up. Though I do find it ironic that you frame Nawaz as "anti-Islamic" despite him identifying as as culturally Muslim, and actively works to convert extremists to moderation. I mean, he used to be an extremist recruiter. And when you label him "anti-Islamic", as most of the extreme left does, you really can't see the forest for the trees. Here is a person who is Islamic who is literally working to end extremism, but because he criticises some particular doctrines of Islam as violent and bigoted and misogynistic, as are other ancient texts, he is now labelled "anti-Muslim." The irony is incredible.

The rest of your words were very flowery, but I couldn't find much substance, so I don't feel compelled to respond to them.



I think Milo was likely his own unique terribleness for that particular category, or else there'd be more news stories swirling about all the other disinvitations.

How can you say something for which you have produced no evidence whatsoever is "obvious fact"? You aren't even trying to be honest here

Edit: you have produced no evidence of any kind for any of your assertions. You may want to rethink why you're so sure of yourself when there is no evidence available to back up even a single one of your claims
Last edited by guybrushfreeman; 03-21-2017 at 12:10 AM.
23qwerty
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:02 AM)
23qwerty's Avatar

Originally Posted by Son.Ralph.Funk

Who the hell is this guy, and why does anyone care enough about what he says to start a thread about it?

he's an immensely popular gaming/internet personality who used to be half of game grumps

I don't get the point of posting to complain about not knowing a popular thing/person. happens way too often
Izuna
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:05 AM)
Izuna's Avatar

Originally Posted by Son.Ralph.Funk

Who the hell is this guy, and why does anyone care enough about what he says to start a thread about it?

Any of the links would tell you

so...
Wandering Robot
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:07 AM)
Wandering Robot's Avatar
I'll be staying unsubscribed, then! ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
I'm even more disappointed now than I was before. What an ass. :(
Mael
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:10 AM)
Mael's Avatar

Originally Posted by darksol devil

I linked Heterodox, which while not peer reviewed is reputable.

Why?

Originally Posted by darksol devil

Do you really think colleges, which have objectively much higher rates of liberal professors than moderates or conservatives, are going to fund studies on which political party does the most disinvitations?

Source?
And how does Math teachers being unrepentent Marxists have any pull in your argument anyway?

Originally Posted by darksol devil

It's an obvious fact that the left is doing way more disinvitations, I really don't see how that can be disputed, even anecdotally.

Source?
If it's obvious then clearly you have ALL the disinvitations and the reason for such in a quick and digestible form for all to see.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:11 AM)
Zaraki_Kenpachi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mathaou

Thanks a lot. I'm by no means a moral compass I fuck up in life and online quite a bit, but I appreciate the understanding.

Originally Posted by Mathaou

The logic behind it was part of my own moderate political ideology and general attitudes towards intolerance from both the left and the right.

In the world I lived in before I watched that video I thought it was just a guy who was scared and worried for the future of our country.

Now I take my statement back. Ignore my comments as I am in the wrong here. The prize goes to the more informed and I most definitely am not it.



I appreciate people like you. Thanks for understanding.

Originally Posted by Mathaou

I'm fairly left myself I just hate people on the left bashing the right because they have different things they think are important. Those things may be short sighted, but pointing that out won't do anything towards changing their mind so I try and just end left-bashing or right-bashing if I see it.

Sometimes that right-bashing turns out to be justified.

Sometimes one of your favorite youtubers is a racist.

Sometimes you make an ass of yourself online.

All in a days work.



In my ideal future all communication is done with gifs. Lol.

Except it's none of those or any type of "mistake". You're not unique, you're like the 200th person between this thread and the last thread to barge into spout your garbage of "both sides are the same", "some times the right is wrong but the left is a bunch of unbending crazies!", "people too sensitive and over exaggerating again!". No, you knew what you were doing in trying to do by coming without knowing anything and give your spiel of how much you hate the left and how they're all SJW and overreacting losers over everything. Congrats you felt the need to rush to the defense of a blatant bigot in a thread about the disgusting shit he's said, just so you could get that little self satisfy smug remark about how terrible the left truly is. Congrats.

Originally Posted by guybrushfreeman

That is not a reputable source. Try again. Also also of this while you're at it.

Dude, the left has always had a boner for murder and justifying the killing of other people. Why do you think they're so rabidly pro-death penalty?
ScientificPizza
Member
(03-21-2017, 12:13 AM)
ScientificPizza's Avatar

Originally Posted by Son.Ralph.Funk

Who the hell is this guy, and why does anyone care enough about what he says to start a thread about it?

If only there was a thread full of information to help you

Thread Tools