Reply With QuoteThis video has also been around for a while now:
We posted this within seconds of each other, but I said pretty much the same thing in tl;dr form:
Originally Posted by demagogue
This video has also been around for a while now:
The part where both sides of an argument spend all their time being angry at a hyperbolic idea of the other side seems especially apt.
And you think you're so clever and classless and free...
Stumbled on this article while researching the US education system. It's quite lengthy, but I thought it's an interesting look into the rise of a new aristocracy in the US and how they are gaming the system (including education) in various ways.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/
You see, when educated people with excellent credentials band together to advance their collective interest, it’s all part of serving the public good by ensuring a high quality of service, establishing fair working conditions, and giving merit its due. That’s why we do it through “associations,” and with the assistance of fellow professionals wearing white shoes. When working-class people do it—through unions—it’s a violation of the sacred principles of the free market. It’s thuggish and anti-modern. Imagine if workers hired consultants and “compensation committees,” consisting of their peers at other companies, to recommend how much they should be paid. The result would be—well, we know what it would be, because that’s what CEOs do.
[...]
In my family, Aunt Sarah was the true believer. According to her version of reality, the family name was handed down straight from the ancient kings of Scotland. Great-great-something-grandfather William Stewart, a soldier in the Continental Army, was seated at the right hand of George Washington. And Sarah herself was somehow descended from “Pocahontas’s sister.” The stories never made much sense. But that didn’t stop Sarah from believing in them. My family had to be special for a reason.
The 9.9 percent are different. We don’t delude ourselves about the ancient sources of our privilege. That’s because, unlike Aunt Sarah and her imaginary princesses, we’ve convinced ourselves that we don’t have any privilege at all.
Agreed 110% with this. I actually was going to mention it in my first post, but I thought I'd just be repeating myself as I've said as such in other threads, that too many of us are surrounding ourselves with only people that have the same beliefs and views on things. So when someone with a different opinion comes along then OH SHIT LOOK OUT, it's on like donkey kong. No debate, just pure heated argument.
People over time are starting to move away from social media, and I see that as only a good thing.
I remember watching a TED Talk a while back where the presenter talked about how recommendation algorithms, such as the one on YouTube, keep slowly pushing you towards more and more extreme content on a topic you are interested in, specifically with the goal of keeping you on the site longer.
For me as times gone on, I've seen more and disliked more from the more extreme of both sides.
It's just like in the Shin Megami Tensei games. Absolute law (far left) = absolute rule of law. Any breaches of said law / rules of faith = immediate harsh response. Absolute chaos (far right) = The absolute opposite, where anything goes, persecution of minorities, murder, death, mayhem. Neither is right. Best is somewhere down the middle.
Over here in Melbourne today we actually had a far right rally in support of men's rights. Had both women and men marching. Saying that men were being discriminated against. Soon after big far left anti-rally showed up, saying that men didn't need any better treatment and that women were the ones needing better treatment. Cops barely managed to keep them apart.
Last edited by icemann; 25th Aug 2018 at 14:08.
Well, this seems vaguely timely:
That's more like absolutely authoritarianism vs. absolute libertarianism.
Like an authoritarian left would be Stalinist Communism, with its enforced atheism, no enforced social stratification (everyone is equal in the factories), and an expectation of absolute authority of the state. An authoritarian right would be like Saudi Arabia or the Taliban, all heavily theocratic, heavily enforced social roles, and absolute authority of the state and the faith.
Last edited by Renzatic; 25th Aug 2018 at 15:38.
The way I see it, there is really no equivalence between the two extremes, as they have been put here in this thread. When you have Nazis marching on one side and people protesting them on the other side, these are not two sides of the same coin, not by a long shot.
The same with MRAs. They are fighting for the old ways, to put women back in their place. It's a reactionary antifeminist movement above all else.
This is not to say that there aren't issues concerning men, but men demanding "their rights" in this context is like the child complaining on Mother's Day that there isn't a Children's Day, not realising that every other day is Children's Day.
Last edited by Starker; 25th Aug 2018 at 17:12.
I'm actually something of a believer in the horseshoe theory, that diametrically opposed ideologies begin to resemble each other in actions and policy the farther they drift towards their extremes. It doesn't matter if you're whisked away in the dead of night by the stazi for subversive thoughts against the state, or dragged from your home by church militants for heresy, the end result is about the same.
Though this theory doesn't quite apply to libertarian leaning extremes, which don't have much in common with each other at all.
The way the dichotomy is laid out is implying that opposing Nazis is just as extreme, which it is not. They are not equal, with "fine people on both sides".
A counterprotest against Nazis is not two extremist groups clashing with each other. There may be some extreme people in that counterprotest, but it's not extremist in the same way Nazi ideology is extremist.
Yup. The far right and far left often agree on a lot of things, for different reasons.
A prime example of that would be Brexit in the UK. The right are for it because they hate immigration and freedom of movement, and people like Corbyn are for it because they hate globalisation (or whatever you'd call the smaller-scale version that only covers a continent.)
I got to go with this. There may be those in Antifa who stand up to violence with violence and some who are dicks and do it first but overall the Nazis are the real dicks. It's sort of in the charter.
That's globalization (I think).
I see the middle (of far left and far right) as a force all of it's own that says "I don't agree with either of you. Your both wrong."
We're often told that you can only be on side A or side B. Well what if you don't agree with either? Side C?
In practice, the middle of the spectrum isn't a happy medium, so much as an ideology that culls from both the left and the right. Strange as it may seem, there is such a thing as centrist extremists. They called themselves Fascists, and their beliefs could be easily described as the worst of everything.
Interesting.
Well, Antifa are extremists, not doubt about this, even if they aren't on the level of Nazis, but my point is more that there are way, way more people who stand against Nazism who are not Antifa. Pointing to Antifa violence in this conflict is basically nutpicking the crazies. Antifa may show up to those counterprotests, but they aren't the main force behind those counterprotests. Meanwhile, there is very little doubt what the Unite the Right and alt right in general is all about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoY...tu.be&t=26m13s
I think it's very easy to look at this and say, "See, this is leftists suppressing the right", but it's not "the right" that the "leftists" are up in arms about. It's not "free speech" that they are protesting. They are there to protest white supremacists and their buddies. It wasn't "free speech" that drew tens of thousands of counterprotestors to the Boston free speech rally of 2017, it was Charlottesville and Nazis proudly marching and chanting slogans out in the open just the week before.
I disagree based on what's been happening at attempts at debates. If you even try and voice that your against a risky topic. Say your not in favor of gender neutrality / gender neutral pronouns, or that your against gay marriage, then oh shit look out. MASSIVE response from those of far left present in such debates. Much shouting and refusal to let people speak results. Debate often shutdown soon after. Well unless the far left are thrown out.
To use one example I've seen on TV. On a debate show, shown every Monday night on ABC called "Q&A", they were debating university funding. Government politician on the program was discussing his views on why he thought funding should be reduced. Bunch of student protesters began angrily chanting soon after. Refused to back down. TV show had to go on standby for a few minutes, whilst they had the protesters removed. Problem solved? Nope. More protesters hidden in the crowd. So when televising resumed, he tried to speak on it again. Same result. More kicked out. They did get the show to eventually follow through to the end, but many protesters had to be kicked out first.
Last edited by icemann; 26th Aug 2018 at 13:49.
The way it looks to me, they were not trying to shut down one specific person (who was not even speaking at the time, it was the woman's turn), they were just wanting to get their message heard on TV. Also, does this really have all that much to do with left vs right? Or is it a matter of students vs the government trying to take something away from the students? And it's not like student protestors are known for behaving, left or right.
Here's the incident in question, I assume:
Mass shooting at Madden 19 tournament.
Okay. Here goes. First, someone will blame the availability of guns, because the guns shot the people. Eventually, this will be deflected by blaming everything else. Videogames will likely be the most likely culprit this go-round. It may also be music, or the fallen standards of our society. Feminism is probably to blame, because cuckism bottles up our natural need to be alpha males, and eventually all that bound energy causes someone to snap. Sooner or later, someone will eventually blame the parents, because it's always the parents. Kid wasn't raised right. Then it'll return to the gun argument. At this point, some dipshit will probably post their collection of AR-15s right into the middle of the discussion as protest. This is usually followed by someone bringing up all the shootings in Chicago, and HOW THE MEDIA NEVER REPORTS ON THAT! This usually marks the point where the discussion starts dying. Five people will offer up thoughts and prayers, five more people will point out that thoughts and prayers do nothing, and hey, see you all again in a couple of months.
Last edited by Renzatic; 26th Aug 2018 at 18:05.
And this new one only 5 miles from my house. How exciting.
It happens so often now, we might as well quit discussing it. It's all blame, no action. Welcome to the new normal.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...826-story.html
No larger political motivation behind it, if Steveyj can be believed. So unless this dude was an illegal immigrant or something, this shooting will only hold people's attention for the next couple of days, probably. I guess maybe you could go for the "mental health" angle, as productive an angle as that would be.The shooter was a gamer who was competing in the tournament and lost, according to Steven “Steveyj” Javaruski, one of the competitors.
The shooter “targeted a few people” and shot at least five victims before killing himself, Javaruski told the Los Angeles Times in a direct message on Twitter.
I've been to the pizza place next door to this bar, btw. The pizza isn't really worth their prices.
Don't forget how everyone will bring up the 2nd Amendment, as if the US Constitution is some holy writ that can never be changed, even though amendments in the past have already removed previous ones (e.g. the 21st repealing Prohibition.)
Posting Permissions