Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Does consent exist?
Yesterday at 01:33 PM

Ask me Anything
Yesterday at 12:43 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 12:41 PM

Hello
Yesterday at 12:04 PM

false?,,,,,,why?
Yesterday at 09:25 AM

UKIP's Anne-Marie Waters ...
Yesterday at 05:52 AM

Finally Done with Islam
Yesterday at 04:27 AM

Explosion at Manhattan bu...
Yesterday at 03:33 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
Yesterday at 01:40 AM

المياة النقية%%%%
December 12, 2017, 01:20 PM

Why are so many exmuslims...
December 12, 2017, 01:06 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
December 09, 2017, 01:22 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Truce in the Culture War

 (Read 2295 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Truce in the Culture War
     OP - May 20, 2017, 04:37 AM

    It seems there's been a recent spate of people searching for an end to the culture war by showing more compassion to their ideological opponents. This doesn't mean that they're suddenly changing their minds or that they no longer hold the positions they used to, only that they've stopped demonizing their opponents and are willing to at least sit down across the table and discuss the ideas instead of throwing Molotov cocktails or social penalties (such as loss of a job) at them. I for one welcome this and would like to extend an olive branch to those on the forum who have previously derided me.

    I don't believe that disagreement with me on cultural issues makes you an immoral person. I think it makes you incorrect, but I think we've all changed our minds on one thing or another during our lives, so we've all at some time been wrong about something. In my opinion, it is your actions, not your words, that are a measure of your morality. That's not to say that someone like Anjem Choudary is in the clear because he only spoke in favor of ISIS, but didn't commit any terrorist acts; direct incitement to violence is itself a form of violence. For example, if I offered someone $2,000,000 to murder someone else, that would still be immoral and make me guilty in their murder even though I didn't pull the trigger.

    The thing I will celebrate regarding the death of Social Justice Warriors as a political group isn't that the people who supported it are losing votes and political power; it's that they will no longer be able to commit flagrantly immoral acts with impunity, such as the ones in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIhpzXZCWtA

    It isn't that they will be silent, it's that they'll stop silencing their opponents. It's not the end of debate, it's the beginning of debate and the end of demonizing ideological opponents.

    Laci Green hasn't given up her views, she's merely agreed to talk to other people.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ1ga8yuM50

    Milo Stewart hasn't decided to stop believing in the ideology, he has simply agreed to stop praising and pandering to people who do immoral stuff:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZi1vCLW1dE

    The end of witch trials in America came not because people stopped believing in witchcraft nor because all the Puritans were exterminated, but because the people involved decided to listen to the voices of people like Thomas Maule, who said it was better to let the guilty live instead of killing the innocent, and when the people involved, people like Samuel Sewall, decided to publicly apologize for their involvement.

    And so, dear forum members who are SJWs, I'm here to say that I'm sorry if I have previously impugned your character and am willing to discuss how to reach a peaceful end to the culture war if you are. I still disagree with you on many of your opinions but I want to see an end to bomb threats being called into peaceful gatherings, police being shot, buildings being lit on fire, smoke bombs, and brawls on the street. I want an end to public character assassinations and crimes against ideological opponents. I want an end to the political violence. If you're willing to take a seat at the table, then so am I.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #1 - May 20, 2017, 08:48 AM

    It depends on what you mean by "SJW". In cases such as the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (which has been discussed extensively on this forum), sometimes any attempt at a dialogue is pointless. If the people have already attempted to have a dialogue with them and they have proven time and time again that they will not relinquish their toxic, dangerous views then this quote applies:


    You cannot compare calling these people what they are to burning witches. These people are not oppressed; they are free to spew their hatred as much as they want (unless they incite violence). Similarly, those of us who do not wish to entertain them and make them relevant are free not to do so.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #2 - May 20, 2017, 11:21 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZFsTGfb4lU&index=19&list=FLOfUJboPl0la10ru2D75nXA

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #3 - May 20, 2017, 05:34 PM

    Not interested

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #4 - May 20, 2017, 06:50 PM

    It depends on what you mean by "SJW". In cases such as the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (which has been discussed extensively on this forum), sometimes any attempt at a dialogue is pointless. If the people have already attempted to have a dialogue with them and they have proven time and time again that they will not relinquish their toxic, dangerous views then this quote applies:
    (Clicky for piccy!)

    You cannot compare calling these people what they are to burning witches. These people are not oppressed; they are free to spew their hatred as much as they want (unless they incite violence). Similarly, those of us who do not wish to entertain them and make them relevant are free not to do so.


    I mean the people who are willing to deny people they perceive as being on the political "right" their voice and prefer instead to slap labels on them: racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, ableist, alt right, etc. Or who say "you as a white person are not entitled to have an opinion", "white lives don't matter", "white people can't be the victims of racism", or any other objectively racist statements.

    As a more darkly skinned ethnic Jew who knows firsthand about antisemitism from my grandparents and also about racism by Jews against Arabs, and as hard as it may be for people like cato to believe, my opposition to racism isn't based on who is being racist to whom. It's not that I prefer white people to have power over other groups. It's that racism in and of itself is harmful and leads to violence, and the people who I see doing the most racism and violence at the moment are SJWs. When that changes and it's the far right doing most of the violence, I'll call them out for it and oppose them. But right now it's the SJWs. I don't care what kind of justifications they give to convince themselves that they're not causing harm by supporting people who are breaking the law or breaking the law themselves, what they're doing is dehumanizing people and contributing to violence. SJWs are infringing on human rights. They are defining people as worthless and unworthy of human rights like the right to have and voice opinions, the right to vote, the right to life and liberty, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the right to bodily autonomy, and more because of the color of their skin, their politics (real or perceived), or their gender. That is wrong. It doesn't matter what group is being denied their rights, the fact that they are being denied rights and people are advocating the denial of their rights is in and of itself the problem. You show me examples of Tommy Robinson or Milo Yiannopolis, or any of the other usual suspects when it comes to people who are attacked by SJW types denying people their rights or unambiguously advocating the denial of rights, and I'll start advocating for appropriate legal penalties, but until then, all I see is the SJWs doing that while claiming that they are the victims. Repeatedly. Without remorse. With a clean conscience. Because of an ideology of hatred and bigotry that has declared itself the doctrine of compassion and love. I refuse to participate or be complicit in the rise of such an ideology. Not because of my membership in any of the groups that they are trying to deny rights to but because I am opposed to denying people of their rights on principle.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #5 - May 20, 2017, 06:59 PM

    So some YouTube videos are "proof" that the SJW racism (there are right-wing SJWs, believe it or not) is more prominent than far-right racism? Weren't you the one demanding conclusive evidence from anyone who made a claim that you did not agree with? Why is it one standard of proof for us and another for you?

    Have you been labelled a terrorist sympathiser for opposing people who fuel anti-Muslim bigotry? Right-wing SJWs have their fair share of smearing tactics that they use to oppose those who they disagree with as well. You may not see too much hatred from them but I have seen and experienced plenty.

    Do your experiences now count as irrefutable evidence?
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #6 - May 20, 2017, 07:31 PM

    gal_from_usa I don't even know what to say. It seems as if you are trying to justify your sympathy for the Right, and I still don't understand it. It seems as if you are saying people should not agitate for their rights or for change because some of them are extremists. Like the Left should shut up because some on the Left refuse to let the Right speak at universities or something.
    Did I hear that right? You are claiming that the Left is denying human rights and the Right is... promoting human rights? Is that correct?
    Your use of SJW might be confusing me. Who are the SJWs to you? The meaning of this term has recently switched from positive to sneeringly negative, and only in the past few years. It used to be a description of anyone agitating for change, especially for bettering the rights of marginalized peoples. It had nothing to do with party affiliation, besides the obvious that one party was more progressive socially than another. It was just a label given to people who were activists and now it is used as a derogatory term to describe someone who is meddling overmuch (in the view of the speaker) in something, and as I now understand it, mostly given to those on the Left with a cause. However, this makes it seem as though there are no SJWs on the Right, when there undoubtedly are. What do we call those with an agenda for change on the Right who are activists? Are they not also SJWs?
    Who are you referring to when you say SJWs? The people who protest speeches by Milo and friends and break things, like Antifa types? That is not very mainstream.
    Why would you use a fringe group (your links) to justify your views? Does that not seem like using ISIS to justify Islamophobia?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #7 - May 20, 2017, 07:32 PM

    So some YouTube videos are "proof"


    I didn't just cite youtube videos. If you scrolled over more of the citations you'd see that. Or perhaps you did see that. Also, for better or worse the internet is the place where most people go to get their news. Whether that's buzzfeed or youtube.

    that the SJW racism (there are right-wing SJWs, believe it or not)

    Name one.

    is more prominent than far-right racism?

    Name five incidents of far-right racism in the past year. I can easily name dozens, I just selected some of the most obvious ones.

    Weren't you the one demanding conclusive evidence from anyone who made a claim that you did not agree with?

    When? I didn't do it in this thread.

    Why is it one standard of proof for us and another for you?

    It's one standard of MORALITY. Facts of reality is one thing, standards of morality is another. I want people to stop acting immorally, and to that end, I am willing to engage in conversation. I want the people holding the molotov cocktails and smoke bombs to put them down and come to the table like reasonable human beings, put forward their ideas, listen to the criticism of their ideas, and engage in a civil dialogue.

    Have you been labelled a terrorist sympathiser for opposing people who fuel anti-Muslim bigotry?


    I've been labeled everything from a part of the Zionist conspiracy trying to destroy Islam from within to threat to the Jewish people who must be eliminated "by beheading, or if that is not possible, in some other way", to yes, an Islamist sympathizer. If you want examples of me being labeled an Islamist sympathizer, just read the comments on my latest video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNA0t3b6_Dw

    Right-wing SJWs have their fair share of smearing tactics that they use to oppose those who they disagree with as well.

     
    Name one.

    You may not see too much hatred from them but I have seen and experienced plenty.

     

    It's not that I think the far right is incapable of violence, it's that I think the evidence points to them not being the ones doing the majority of it in the past year.

    Do your experiences now count as irrefutable evidence?

    My experiences are relevant only insofar as they explain the basis of my beliefs. I am not saying "this is what everyone should believe and if you don't, you're a bad person", I am saying "this is why I believe what I do."

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #8 - May 20, 2017, 08:30 PM

    It seems as if you are saying people should not agitate for their rights or for change because some of them are extremists. Like the Left should shut up because some on the Left refuse to let the Right speak at universities or something.


    What I want is for there to not be political violence in the streets of every major city. What I want is for people to stop the pattern of escalation that started with character assassinations and is now actual attempted assassinations. I don't want to see buildings and limos burned, people beaten unconscious, bombs and other explosives being set off, and police in riot gear breaking up protests. I don't care whether or not people disagree with me. I care about them not killing anyone over it.

    Did I hear that right? You are claiming that the Left is denying human rights and the Right is... promoting human rights? Is that correct?

    No. The right is not actively denying human rights on the scale and to the extent that the left is at the moment and I want the left to stop doing that. And if, in a few years, the situation changes, I will want the right to stop that. But they're not the ones who did the most political violence in the past year. If you think that's me supporting the right, I can't help you.

    Your use of SJW might be confusing me. Who are the SJWs to you?


    From wikipedia:
    Quote
    Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics. The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.

    The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism. In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one. During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.


    I would add to that that it involves as a necessary prerequisite the social agitation for the rights of minorities or women at the expense of other people with a particular disregard for the rights of the cis white hetero male, who is stereotyped as being a creator and upholder of a mythologized "patriarchy", which can be used as a stand-in for the devil or witchcraft in the social justice warrior zeitgeist.

    The meaning of this term has recently switched from positive to sneeringly negative, and only in the past few years.

    Not so recently as for this change to still be baffling.


    However, this makes it seem as though there are no SJWs on the Right, when there undoubtedly are.

    Name one.

    What do we call those with an agenda for change on the Right who are activists? Are they not also SJWs?

    The radicals at the moment tend to call themselves alt right. However, most of their activities are confined to shitposting on /pol/ and various blogs. Which, as long as it stays off the streets and essentially confined to a few loners in their basements, is less concerning to me than the violence in the streets.

    Who are you referring to when you say SJWs? The people who protest speeches by Milo and friends and break things, like Antifa types?

    Here is a partial list of some of the most famous people and movements that I would classify as SJW:
    • Francesca Ramsey
    • Steve Shives
    • Gazi Kodzo
    • Laci Green (subject to change, given her last video)
    • Smugglypuff aka Valerie Williams, who lied to police about not witnessing an assault by her friend, and later that same day stole and broke someone's camera resulting in criminal charges
    • Justin Trudeau
    • BAMN
    • Melissa Click
    • Anita Sarkeesian
    • BLM or at least their more official statements, whether or not you want to denounce the people on the ground
    • Marissa Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford, the two most prominent women who took the stage during that Bernie rally
    • Basically everyone at Buzzfeed and HuffPo
    • The Young Turks
    • [Kristi Winters/li]
      • Riley Dennis
      • Queer Kids Stuff and their knock off Pop and Olly
      • Zarna Joshi
      • Emma Watson
      • Laurie Penny
      • Bahar Mustafa
      Hillary Clinton doesn't make the list because even though she pandered to SJWs, she will pander to literally anyone as her long and storied history of discarded flip flops will attest. There may be significant overlap between the groups I listed, I'm not going into that right now, I'm just trying to give you an idea of what I mean by SJW. Amy Schumer gets an honorary mention but doesn't get on the list because while she is an outspoken SJW ideologocially, she confines her activity to stand up routines instead of trying to blackmail, malign, imprison, deny rights to, or physically harm people. This isn't a complete list but I think it should be enough to paint a picture for you of the ideological position I'm referring to. And yes, Antifa belong on there too, but they're far from being the only ones.

      Why would you use a fringe group (your links) to justify your views? Does that not seem like using ISIS to justify Islamophobia?


      It's more like using ISIS to justify recognizing that there are interpretations of Islam that call for violence. Not all Muslims are going to go out and kill someone because ISIS exists and not all SJWs are going to go out and kill someone because the ideology exists. People will join ISIS who have a desire to commit anti-social acts and want a moral justification for doing so. People who want a moral justification for their anti-social activities will take part in violent protests and demonstrations and commit other anti-social acts in the name of social justice. However, despite not all Muslims and not all SJWs, an ideology that is actively denying people civil rights still must be opposed, even if it's only a small percentage of adherents committing the violence.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49vnnLGRxpY

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #9 - May 20, 2017, 08:53 PM

    Right SJW's would be those who are pushing for the rights of whomever they believe to be marginalized, like Richard Spencer, who feels whites are being marginalized.

    Why do you think there are none?

    And yeah, the change in the meaning IS baffling. The last couple of years is not much time for me, with so many other years stretching out behind them. I am not young.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #10 - May 20, 2017, 09:13 PM

    Richard Spencer, the guy who is believed to have coined the term alt right? The one who thinks that "peaceful ethnic cleansing" is a good idea and is a "white identitarian"? While I can see the similarity in that his policies would be denying groups rights on the basis of the conditions of their birth, I don't see how he can be lumped in with the people I listed. It's an example of horseshoe theory (with the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum reaching the same conclusions but with different targets for different reasons) instead of them starting from the same point of reference in regards to their goals and diverging on how to carry it out.

    So to compare him to someone from my list, Anita Sarkeesian, she believes that overt sexuality in media is immoral because it objectifies women. The alt right believes that overt sexuality in media is immoral because people get too in love with their waifus to get a real wife, contributing to a decrease in white children, which they consider genocide. Sarkeesian believes that comments on the internet are a powerful tool for social change and that the comments she has received, none of which have been deemed a credible threat by the FBI, contribute to a culture of violence against women and should be banned. The alt right believes that comments on the internet are a powerful tool for social change and that they can draw attention to and slow down the genocide of the white race by talking about it. Sarkeesian deliberately misrepresents historical characters to further her political narrative. The alt right deliberately misrepresents historical characters to further their political narrative. Sarkeesian believes that society can only be strong when women are empowered and independent. The alt right believes that society can only be strong when men are empowered and women are dependent. While they use the same tactics and have mirrored goals, the road they took to get to their respective ideas is completely different.

    I hope that combined with my previous comment explains why I don't see him as an SJW.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #11 - May 20, 2017, 09:23 PM

    Nope. I am completely not understanding why someone agitating for changes is not considered a Social Justice Warrior.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #12 - May 20, 2017, 09:49 PM

    I didn't just cite youtube videos. If you scrolled over more of the citations you'd see that. Or perhaps you did see that. Also, for better or worse the internet is the place where most people go to get their news. Whether that's buzzfeed or youtube.


    Other than YouTube you have linked us to the UNDHR, which I have already studied in great detail. I fail to see how the Declaration itself supports your claim that left-wing SJW racism is worse than far-right racism. You listed people like Emma Watson and the TYT as so-called SJWs, I'm sorry but I fail to see how they are somehow worse and more violent than the EDL and Britain First thugs who roam our streets. Additionally you have an article from Huffington Post, one from ABC and one from a right-wing media source on a couple of extreme incidents. Is that supposed to be your conclusive evidence?

    Quote
    Name one.


    Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar and their ilk (dozens of others). Anyone who opposes these people is either practising taqiyyah, stealth Jihad or is a Jihadi sympathiser. The "taqiyyah" conspiracy theory pushed by these people is far more demonising than many of the things the left-wing SJWs come up with. Try being told that a part of your identity means that you are automatically prone to being a liar and that nothing you say can be trusted, then see for yourself how sweet and harmless right-wing bigotry is.

    Quote
    Name five incidents of far-right racism in the past year. I can easily name dozens, I just selected some of the most obvious ones.


    I am surprised that you are even asking this: are you really so naive as to believe that far-right racism isn't a problem? Here are some that I only got off the top of my head:
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-will-stop-you-man-harasses-muslim-family-in-us/story-TRj9UmmTrDVDe2gAPU0zhM.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39363465
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-hate-crime-london-attack-woman-hijab-headscarf-ripped-off-pushed-injured-chingford-a7479766.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/croydon-hate-crime-latest-police-release-images-suspects-assault-kurdish-iranian-asylum-seeker-goat-a7663691.html
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/753530/Essex-mosque-targeted-arsonist-attack-thugs-Al-Falah-Braintree-Islamic-Centre

    Quote
    When? I didn't do it in this thread.


    But you have done so on other threads. I particularly remember you asking three for conclusive evidence, as her own beliefs and feeling did not qualify as proof. Well, where's yours? Why hold such high standards of proof for others but not yourself?

    Quote
    It's one standard of MORALITY. Facts of reality is one thing, standards of morality is another. I want people to stop acting immorally, and to that end, I am willing to engage in conversation. I want the people holding the molotov cocktails and smoke bombs to put them down and come to the table like reasonable human beings, put forward their ideas, listen to the criticism of their ideas, and engage in a civil dialogue.


    You're forgetting that we have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association too. If I don't want to be buddies with people who think that people like me and my family are subhumans and deserve to have our human rights limited (supporting torture for people who have been placed in prison camps without trial, for starters) I don't have to be. That doesn't mean that I want them to hang or to be placed behind bars, I just don't want to make nice with such people, nor should I have to. Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade now? When a so-called "provocateur" exposes a trans student and bullies her in front of hundreds of other students, how is he the victim when people call him transphobic? Do these right-wingers need a safe space because criticising their behaviour and beliefs is hurting their feelings?

    Quote
    Name one.

     
     015 I did exactly that. What would you rather be labelled as: a racist or a supporter of terrorism? And how is it a silencing/smear tactic to label someone the former but not the latter? And would you like another example? Labelling those who express views that you don't agree with as "SJWs" would be one.

    Quote
    It's not that I think the far right is incapable of violence, it's that I think the evidence points to them not being the ones doing the majority of it in the past year.


    Or you just want to deny its existence/seriousness.

    Quote
    My experiences are relevant only insofar as they explain the basis of my beliefs. I am not saying "this is what everyone should believe and if you don't, you're a bad person", I am saying "this is why I believe what I do."


    I don't care what you believe, I care that you are suggesting that we shouldn't be able to criticise those beliefs.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #13 - May 20, 2017, 11:39 PM

    Other than YouTube you have linked us to the UNDHR, which I have already studied in great detail. I fail to see how the Declaration itself supports your claim that left-wing SJW racism is worse than far-right racism.


    One is not worse than the other morally. One IS worse than the other in terms of the quantity of attacks happening at the moment. They're the same morally, but what I care about is ending the violence on the streets. I think I've made that clear by now.

    You listed people like Emma Watson and the TYT as so-called SJWs, I'm sorry but I fail to see how they are somehow worse and more violent than the EDL and Britain First thugs who roam our streets.


    One is not worse than the other morally. One IS worse than the other in terms of the quantity of attacks happening at the moment. They may not be the ones on the street but they're the ones providing justifications and excuses to the ones on the street. And, on an unrelated note, I bet if you got rid of the shariah patrols the EDL would go away on its own. I don't think they feel that they have a moral imperative to police the streets for the cause of white nationalism, I think they feel they have a moral imperative to police the streets because the police won't.

    Additionally you have an article from Huffington Post, one from ABC and one from a right-wing media source on a couple of extreme incidents. Is that supposed to be your conclusive evidence?


    Someone can be wrong/lying about one thing and be correct about another thing at the same time. Also, I cited sources like that because if I didn't, you'd just dismiss them all as alt right.

    Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar and their ilk (dozens of others).


    Horseshoe, not tree. It's coming to the same conclusions for entirely different reasons instead of branching off from the same base and differing on how to change the goals.

    Anyone who opposes these people is either practising taqiyyah, stealth Jihad or is a Jihadi sympathiser. The "taqiyyah" conspiracy theory pushed by these people is far more demonising than many of the things the left-wing SJWs come up with.

    Yes, I can see how using one single word as an argument that boils down to "I don't trust you" is much worse than minimizing the torture of a mentally ill teenager as "just kids being kids", or turning a blind eye to buildings being burned down with people trapped inside them, or destroying the livelihood of immigrants who started their own business by burning their limos for being too close to DC at the wrong time, or deliberately lying about physical assault, or sending fake suicide notes to someone's family because they disagreed with you on the internet,.....Need I go on? There's a difference in the scale. I don't care if someone doesn't trust me as long as they don't then try to stab me. If these two things are equivalent in your mind, I'm sorry, but either you have been thoroughly brainwashed or have lived a life of extreme privilege. I didn't get PTSD from being called names. I got PTSD from being sex trafficked and tortured. Twitter bullies didn't break my feet by  throwing me out of a moving car. I can't understand how anyone could conflate the kind of physical torture I've been through with people disagreeing with them, and so I can't empathize when you tell me that torture and other forms of physical violence seem identical to people disagreeing with you.

    Try being told that a part of your identity means that you are automatically prone to being a liar and that nothing you say can be trusted

    I'M AN ARAB JEW. LITERALLY EVERYONE HAS TOLD ME THIS MY WHOLE LIFE. Either Muslims and Christians called me a liar for being a Jew or Jews called me a liar for being an Arab. The entitlement and privilege dripping from your comment just hurts. And now you're going to call me a liar because my 1/4 Temani ethnic heritage isn't brown enough to understand what you're going through, but my equal quantity of British heritage makes me a white person and privileged. Even though white nationalists wouldn't call me white, they'd call me a Jew; most Jews wouldn't call me white or a Jew, they call me Arab; and most Arabs wouldn't call me white or Arab, they'd call me a Jew. And now you want to chirp up and add your own opinion on my identity that I am a white person or too white to understand you. Seriously. I can't get past the irony.

    then see for yourself how sweet and harmless right-wing bigotry is.

    One is not worse than the other morally. One IS worse than the other in terms of the quantity of attacks happening at the moment.

    I am surprised that you are even asking this: are you really so naive as to believe that far-right racism isn't a problem? Here are some that I only got off the top of my head:
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-will-stop-you-man-harasses-muslim-family-in-us/story-TRj9UmmTrDVDe2gAPU0zhM.html

    "He was arrested last week and was charged with public intoxication." Someone got drunk and said some things he probably wouldn't have said if he was sober, didn't cause any physical harm to people, though, just yelled at them. I think we can chalk that up to drugs, not right wing extremism.


    This one doesn't say the guy was right wing, but I'll give you one point for it anyway.


    “Whoever attacked her might have other connections with other people, we don’t know”. Might or might not have been right wing. Could have also been Islamists attacking her for some kind of infraction like drinking alcohol. Unless you have any further information on this particular case, no points.


    Two of the three people pictured as wanted for questioning are black. Unless you have some pretty compelling evidence that they're right wing, I think that can be dismissed as "not right wing".


    Drunk people picking up garbage and setting it on fire, then hurling it into an empty building. Again, if you have no evidence that these guys were right wing, I think this can be chalked up to the alcohol instead of organized political violence.

    So you've provided 1 of 5 requested citations of right wing violence. In the interest of fairness, I will provide five more violent attacks or justifications/incitement of violence by SJWs. I can probably add five more each time you fail to provide the other four.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834490/Four-black-men-arrested-beating-white-Alabama-teenager-Facebook-posts-supporting-Blue-Lives-Matter.html
    http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32814897/men-chant-black-lives-matter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2P2qiINSng
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/01/25/mizzou-professor-melissa-click-charged-with-third-degree-assault-in-quad-clash/?utm_term=.e1e7013c601b
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvwr1TpKznk


    But you have done so on other threads. I particularly remember you asking three for conclusive evidence, as her own beliefs and feeling did not qualify as proof. Well, where's yours? Why hold such high standards of proof for others but not yourself?

    What do you want proof of? I've given specific examples of stuff I see as bad *and* as stuff I will take into consideration as proof of your assertion that this is the wrong thing to worry about. Could you ask a specific question about what would qualify to you as proof that you're wrong and we should oppose left wing violence until they stop being so violent, and then we can get back to telling the right wing not to be violent?

    You're forgetting that we have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association too.

    I'm not though. I don't care who you hang out with or what you think as long as there is no physical violence happening as a result.

    If I don't want to be buddies with people who think that people like me and my family are subhumans and deserve to have our human rights limited (supporting torture for people who have been placed in prison camps without trial, for starters) I don't have to be.

    Name one. The "news" channels are all full of people arguing with other people about someone else's opinions of the political ramifications of a tweet. That's not news. That's not journalism. That's opinion fluff. I don't care what some random commentators say that they think the political ramifications of some guy they never interviewed's tweet is. I care about what is happening in the real world. You know, that one where the murders and hate crimes happen? Where people go hungry because of bad government policies while the rich sit on TV with diamond earrings and a $300 jacket debate whether or not someone they've never spoken to and have only been told about third and fourth hand is a racist?

    Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade now? When a so-called "provocateur" exposes a trans student and bullies her in front of hundreds of other students, how is he the victim when people call him transphobic?

    Milo is transphobic. However, I don't think he exposed the trans student. He showed clips from local news outlets. The student had already made their transition public and had their legal struggles resulting from it public. He was not outing someone, he was stating his opinions on a news story. Same as all the other political commentators. If he had instead sought out someone, doxxed them, encouraged an attack on their home or a letter campaign to their place of employment, used gossip (whether true or not) to harm their relationships with family and friends...then you might have a point.

    Do these right-wingers need a safe space because criticising their behaviour and beliefs is hurting their feelings?

    I don't know, you'd have to ask them.
    What would you rather be labelled as: a racist or a supporter of terrorism?

    Whichever is accurate, assuming I were actually doing the thing I'm being accused of. When did you stop beating your wife?

    And how is it a silencing/smear tactic to label someone the former but not the latter?

    Literally who.
    And would you like another example? Labelling those who express views that you don't agree with as "SJWs" would be one.

    I disagree with Richard Spencer but I wouldn't call him an SJW because it's not an accurate description of his position. I disagree with Jordan Peterson on religion but I wouldn't label him something disparaging because of it. I disagree with Lauren Southern about trans people but I wouldn't physically assault her over it. I disagree with you but I wouldn't physically assault you or advocate that others do so.


    Or you just want to deny its existence/seriousness.

    I don't care what you believe, I care that you are suggesting that we shouldn't be able to criticise those beliefs.


    That's a nice strawman you built, here's a hat for him:

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #14 - May 21, 2017, 03:50 PM

    What do you want proof of? I've given specific examples of stuff I see as bad *and* as stuff I will take into consideration as proof of your assertion that this is the wrong thing to worry about. Could you ask a specific question about what would qualify to you as proof that you're wrong and we should oppose left wing violence until they stop being so violent, and then we can get back to telling the right wing not to be violent?

    Quote
    One is not worse than the other morally. One IS worse than the other in terms of the quantity of attacks happening at the moment. They're the same morally, but what I care about is ending the violence on the streets. I think I've made that clear by now.

    Quote
    One is not worse than the other morally. One IS worse than the other in terms of the quantity of attacks happening at the moment.


    ^^That is what I want proof of. You claim that SJW racism is worse in quantity that far-right racism. Since you made the claim, the onus is on you to support it with evidence. And I would expect the same kind of high-quality evidence that you demand of others, not just some YouTube videos. Give me some reliable stats.

    Quote
    I don't think they feel that they have a moral imperative to police the streets for the cause of white nationalism, I think they feel they have a moral imperative to police the streets because the police won't.


    So the actions of far-right SJWs are justifiable, while the actions of left-wing ones are pure evil. Got it.

    Quote
    Someone can be wrong/lying about one thing and be correct about another thing at the same time. Also, I cited sources like that because if I didn't, you'd just dismiss them all as alt right.


    Did I say that though? The reason why I dismiss your sources is that they do not support your claim that there is more left-wing SJW racism than far-right racism, and that the latter isn't a real problem

    Quote
    Yes, I can see how using one single word as an argument that boils down to "I don't trust you" is much worse than minimizing the torture of a mentally ill teenager as "just kids being kids", or turning a blind eye to buildings being burned down with people trapped inside them, or destroying the livelihood of immigrants who started their own business by burning their limos for being too close to DC at the wrong time, or deliberately lying about physical assault, or sending fake suicide notes to someone's family because they disagreed with you on the internet,.....Need I go on? There's a difference in the scale. I don't care if someone doesn't trust me as long as they don't then try to stab me. If these two things are equivalent in your mind, I'm sorry, but either you have been thoroughly brainwashed or have lived a life of extreme privilege. I didn't get PTSD from being called names. I got PTSD from being sex trafficked and tortured. Twitter bullies didn't break my feet by  throwing me out of a moving car. I can't understand how anyone could conflate the kind of physical torture I've been through with people disagreeing with them, and so I can't empathize when you tell me that torture and other forms of physical violence seem identical to people disagreeing with you.


    Whataboutery is a logical fallacy. We are discussing smear tactics used by SJWs to silence opposition. You asked me to name right-wing SJWs who use similar smear tactics to silence those who they don't agree with. I provided you with examples of far-right SJWs who do worse than brand people who they don't agree with as racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If it was violent crime that you wanted to discuss, you should have said so and I would have brought better examples of far-right crime. But right now your arguments are all over the place. And I love how you water down dehumanising an entire group of people as scheming liars to merely "disagreeing" with them".

    Quote
    I'M AN ARAB JEW. LITERALLY EVERYONE HAS TOLD ME THIS MY WHOLE LIFE. Either Muslims and Christians called me a liar for being a Jew or Jews called me a liar for being an Arab. The entitlement and privilege dripping from your comment just hurts. And now you're going to call me a liar because my 1/4 Temani ethnic heritage isn't brown enough to understand what you're going through, but my equal quantity of British heritage makes me a white person and privileged. Even though white nationalists wouldn't call me white, they'd call me a Jew; most Jews wouldn't call me white or a Jew, they call me Arab; and most Arabs wouldn't call me white or Arab, they'd call me a Jew. And now you want to chirp up and add your own opinion on my identity that I am a white person or too white to understand you. Seriously. I can't get past the irony.


    I know what you are  Roll Eyes, so make up your mind. Either racism against ethnic minorities isn't really an issue, or it is and you have experienced it first-hand. But stop contradicting yourself on the topic.

    Quote
    "He was arrested last week and was charged with public intoxication." Someone got drunk and said some things he probably wouldn't have said if he was sober, didn't cause any physical harm to people, though, just yelled at them. I think we can chalk that up to drugs, not right wing extremism.


    Plenty of us get drunk and do not go around hurling racist abuse at others. Alcohol lowers your inhibition, it doesn't mean that you are no longer responsible for your actions. You would have to be a racist to abuse random strangers like that, with or without alcohol. You asked for evidence of right-wing racist attacks (which is usually against ethnic minorities), as you believe that it's not a real issue. I provide you with examples and you attempt to defend almost all of them with "ah well, they were drunk". Are you for real?

    Quote
    Name one. The "news" channels are all full of people arguing with other people about someone else's opinions of the political ramifications of a tweet. That's not news. That's not journalism. That's opinion fluff. I don't care what some random commentators say that they think the political ramifications of some guy they never interviewed's tweet is. I care about what is happening in the real world. You know, that one where the murders and hate crimes happen? Where people go hungry because of bad government policies while the rich sit on TV with diamond earrings and a $300 jacket debate whether or not someone they've never spoken to and have only been told about third and fourth hand is a racist?


    Again: whataboutery is a logical fallacy. If you want me to name one then I will. If you cared about hate crime as you claim you do, you would not be attempting to trivialise right-wing hate crime.

    Name one? Sure. Didn't Donald Trump say that he supported placing more people in Guantanamo Bay and that he supported torturing people who are put in those facilities "because they deserve it"? The vast majority of Guantanamo inmates have not had a trial, yet because they are the wrong race or religion, their lives are worthless to the likes of him and those who support his policies. Those men could be my father or brothers. Now, why exactly should I be buddies with such people in the name of tolerance? They are free to express their support for taking human rights away from others and I am free to criticise them for it.

    Quote
    Milo is transphobic. However, I don't think he exposed the trans student. He showed clips from local news outlets. The student had already made their transition public and had their legal struggles resulting from it public. He was not outing someone, he was stating his opinions on a news story. Same as all the other political commentators. If he had instead sought out someone, doxxed them, encouraged an attack on their home or a letter campaign to their place of employment, used gossip (whether true or not) to harm their relationships with family and friends...then you might have a point.


    The student was in the room at the time and had to watch as Milo mocked and bullied her while his supporters jeered. My point is that he is no victim when others label him as a transphobe. It doesn't make them "SJWs" or whatever it is you like to label left-wingers who you don't agree with. It's calling a spade a spade.

    Quote
    I don't know, you'd have to ask them.


    Well, you appear to be advocating that those of us who you call SJWs (a term I would take with a grain of salt after seeing your list of offenders) should start being nice to them. I simply wanted to know why.

    Quote
    Whichever is accurate, assuming I were actually doing the thing I'm being accused of. When did you stop beating your wife?


    Way to dodge my point. You are pretending that there are no right-wing SJWs who use smear tactics to silence those who oppose their views. I was refuting that claim.

    Quote
    Literally who.


    What exactly are you asking? Who gets called those names or who does the name-calling?

    Quote
    I disagree with Richard Spencer but I wouldn't call him an SJW because it's not an accurate description of his position. I disagree with Jordan Peterson on religion but I wouldn't label him something disparaging because of it. I disagree with Lauren Southern about trans people but I wouldn't physically assault her over it. I disagree with you but I wouldn't physically assault you or advocate that others do so.


    So in your view, SJWs can only be left-wing while right-wingers with worse behaviour than those on your list with regards to silencing others are not? And I didn't ask who you would physically assault, I was pointing out that it is very hypocritical to call out left-wing SJWs for labelling people who oppose them as racist, sexist, homophobic and so forth, while simultaneously doing a similar thing when you labelled all of those people on the list you posted earlier on this thread as SJWs because they are liberals who you don't agree with.

    Quote
    That's a nice strawman you built, here's a hat for him:


    Do you even know what a strawman is?
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #15 - May 21, 2017, 05:04 PM

    Hello

  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #16 - May 22, 2017, 03:57 AM

    ^^That is what I want proof of. You claim that SJW racism is worse in quantity that far-right racism. Since you made the claim, the onus is on you to support it with evidence. And I would expect the same kind of high-quality evidence that you demand of others, not just some YouTube videos. Give me some reliable stats.


    OK. I'm putting together a spreadsheet with all the incidents from 2016-2017 that I can find. It's going to be hard for one person to do alone but the weaponized autism of the combined internet can hopefully help me, so I've opened anonymous comments. I don't know what quantity of incidents it will take to convince you, but hopefully once I've got several hundred you'll concede that at least SOME violence has happened. Your failure to even present five incidents of premeditated, deliberate violence is obviously not proof to you that you're wrong about the extent of right wing violence, though, so I won't hold my breath.

    You can see my progress here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HraLWe4H-Vaq97NCjR0hu18-u5RykRVg5PsUKo6JE2I/edit#gid=0

    So the actions of far-right SJWs are justifiable, while the actions of left-wing ones are pure evil. Got it.

    Sometimes the right's actions are justifiable, sometimes they're not. However, since you've failed to provide evidence of even five premeditated attacks by the far right, I'm not going to say that the far right's violence is at epidemic proportions.

    Did I say that though? The reason why I dismiss your sources is that they do not support your claim that there is more left-wing SJW racism than far-right racism, and that the latter isn't a real problem

    You dismissed them as "just youtube videos", even though some of those videos were OF ACTUAL VIOLENCE. Like, do I need to link to a news agency's website to show you a violent act occurring before you will believe it occurred? And I've seen many members of the forum dismiss Brietbart and other sources as "far right", so, if you could give me a list of publications you will accept an incident of violence from, that would be great.

    Whataboutery is a logical fallacy. We are discussing smear tactics used by SJWs to silence opposition.

    Maybe you are discussing smear tactics, but I'm trying to discuss how to end the riots and violence happening on the street and to get the people justifying that violence to stop doing that, because I don't give a fuck about people calling other people names as long as no one is hurting anyone over the name calling.

    You asked me to name right-wing SJWs who use similar smear tactics to silence those who they don't agree with.

    I had to scroll up to check; you're right. Sorry about that. I didn't notice that the conversation had been redirected from my original point:
    Quote
    I want to see an end to bomb threats being called into peaceful gatherings, police being shot, buildings being lit on fire, smoke bombs, and brawls on the street. I want an end to public character assassinations and crimes against ideological opponents.

    So if we could get back to the topic of physical violence, that would be great.

    If it was violent crime that you wanted to discuss, you should have said so and I would have brought better examples of far-right crime.

    Sorry that wasn't clear to you. I do want to discuss violent crime and the people who are running ideological interference to justfiy acts of violence against people who are not committing acts of violence against you.

    And I love how you water down dehumanising an entire group of people as scheming liars to merely "disagreeing" with them".

    Everyone does it to everyone else anyway. And as I said,
    I don't care if someone doesn't trust me as long as they don't then try to stab me.


    I know what you are  Roll Eyes, so make up your mind. Either racism against ethnic minorities isn't really an issue, or it is and you have experienced it first-hand. But stop contradicting yourself on the topic.

    It exists, but it's not an issue as long as no physical violence results from it. Do you understand the difference between someone having an opinion you don't like and someone trying to physically assault you/kill you? Like literally do you understand the concept that I am trying to convey when I discuss the difference in scale between someone saying "if you see someone who thinks X, you should commit assault against them" and someone saying "I think X"? Do you understand the difference between someone having an opinion and someone trying to break someone's bones, destroy or otherwise deprive them of their property, kill them, or put them in danger of serious bodily harm? I'm asking this sincerely. I need to know if you can make the distinction. If you can't, then the conversation is over because there is no way to reach a reach a mutually agreeable solution and I'll probably download my comments and delete my account.

    Plenty of us get drunk and do not go around hurling racist abuse at others. Alcohol lowers your inhibition, it doesn't mean that you are no longer responsible for your actions. You would have to be a racist to abuse random strangers like that, with or without alcohol.

    However, neither of the two incidents you linked was of a premeditated assault where the party had knowingly decided to take a weapon and go to a place where a person or people they disliked was and cause them serious bodily harm, nor did the incidents involve an individual attempting to create a rational case for why such an assault is morally justifiable on the basis of the other person's perceived identity or beliefs. Which is what all my examples did show. Again, do you understand the concept I'm trying to convey about the difference in scale?

    You asked for evidence of right-wing racist attacks (which is usually against ethnic minorities), as you believe that it's not a real issue. I provide you with examples and you attempt to defend almost all of them with "ah well, they were drunk". Are you for real?

    I said two were drunk. The other two I said you didn't provide any evidence that they were right wing. Good job trying to obfuscate that.
    .
    Name one? Sure. Didn't Donald Trump say that he supported placing more people in Guantanamo Bay and that he supported torturing people who are put in those facilities "because they deserve it"?

    After a few minutes of google searching, which is longer than I thought it would take to find an original source instead of speculative arguing three times removed from his own comments, I didn't find a direct source saying he wanted to send more people there. What I did find is an alleged leaked draft of an executive order to send ISIS fighters there. However, the latest of those articles is from February 9th. So it looks like if the executive order was being drafted, he has changed his mind and shelved the project, perhaps after having his advisers consult him and say that it was a bad idea. His comments that "they deserve it" come from a 2015 rally. Additionally, according to this article, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former Bush Justice Department official, “I am confident that the report that Trump gets from his top intelligence officials will advise him that a return to the bad old days [of torture] is not legally available,” adding that “I am also confident that if President Trump ordered waterboarding, neither the CIA Director nor the Secretary of Defense would carry out the order.”  Tl;dr: he has expressed an opinion; this opinion, however, has not caused physical harm to anyone and it is unlikely to do so in the future..

    Now, why exactly should I be buddies with such people in the name of tolerance? They are free to express their support for taking human rights away from others and I am free to criticise them for it.

    I don't care if you hate him. I care if you incite or participate in violence. Similarly, I don't like him. However the facts are that he hasn't sent more people to Gitmo and is not authorizing torture. If torture was happening, I would protest and write my congressmen to complain. However, since I have no evidence that it is, Trump's personal feelings on the matter are not a priority to me.

    The student was in the room at the time and had to watch as Milo mocked and bullied her while his supporters jeered.

    Source?

    My point is that he is no victim when others label him as a transphobe.

    You're right. He's not. I labeled him a transphobe in this very thread. He IS a victim when people bring improvised explosives to his events, set fire to the building he is in, or physically assault him and his supporters. All of which have happened.

    It doesn't make them "SJWs" or whatever it is you like to label left-wingers who you don't agree with. It's calling a spade a spade.

    How is calling them a warrior for their personal sense of what constitutes justice in the social sphere, such as Milo not being allowed to voice his personal opinions without credible fear of assault, not calling a spade a spade?

    Well, you appear to be advocating that those of us who you call SJWs (a term I would take with a grain of salt after seeing your list of offenders) should start being nice to them. I simply wanted to know why.

    No, I'm advocating that you open a dialogue. I don't care that you hate them, I care that there's violence happening.

    What exactly are you asking? Who gets called those names or who does the name-calling?

    Who is violence being inflected by and upon?

    So in your view, SJWs can only be left-wing while right-wingers with worse behaviour than those on your list with regards to silencing others are not?

    What actions are they taking to silence their cirtics?

    And I didn't ask who you would physically assault, I was pointing out that it is very hypocritical to call out left-wing SJWs for labelling people who oppose them as racist, sexist, homophobic and so forth, while simultaneously doing a similar thing when you labelled all of those people on the list you posted earlier on this thread as SJWs because they are liberals who you don't agree with.

    Most of the people I listed have self-identified as an SJW (or at the very least as victims of anti-SJWs, which would make them SJWs using the simple logic of  "if a = b, b = a") anyway, so it's not just me imposing a label.

    Do you even know what a strawman is?

    I don't care what you believe, I care that you are suggesting that we shouldn't be able to criticise those beliefs.


    I never said that I don't want you to criticize them. I want you (collectively, as the far left, not you as individual) to stop the physical assault. I don't care if you still say "I hate this person and I think their opinions are wrong", but I don't want you to say "violence against this person is justified because he has opinions I don't like, so if you see him walking down the street, you should assault him", saying that you do not disagree with the people who are saying that about their having said that, or participating in actually assaulting people. Again, I really need to know whether or not you understand the difference.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #17 - May 22, 2017, 10:26 AM

    What about that guy screaming on the beach in Miami at the Muslim family, does that count as pre-meditated?
    Or do we have to have blood?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #18 - May 22, 2017, 11:39 AM

    OK let's drop all the other questions until we get an answer to this one--do you or do you not understand the difference between someone on the one hand saying "I don't like x" and someone on the other hand saying "I think it is sometimes or always morally justified to kill x because they are x"/actually physically assaulting or killing x/robbing or setting fire to their houses/etc?

    So let's say you've got this one guy over here, Mr. Stickman:


    and Mr Stickman says "I don't like blue people, I don't trust them, I don't really know why but they're just unnerving to me. I'd prefer they didn't live too close to me and it kinda bums me out that they're in my neighborhood." Mr. Blue here overhears that decides to punch him.


    Mr. Blue then follows Mr. Stickman home and pickets his house. Pretty soon a angry people get together. One of them breaks the windows of Mr. Stickman's car and another person sets Mr. Stickman's house on fire. The news interviews Mr. Blue and asks about the protests and the violence that resulted, and he tells them what Mr. Stickman said.

    Do you think that what Mr. Blue and co. did is a morally acceptable response to Mr. Stickman? Would you listen to that story on the news and say "Well, obviously Mr. Blue was doing what he had to do to protect himself, and so were his friends"? Is there any difference in your head between Mr. Stickman's actions and the response he received? Does that question even register in your head as reasonable?

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #19 - May 22, 2017, 09:38 PM

    So no blood required, then?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #20 - May 22, 2017, 11:23 PM

    So no blood required, then?


    Is that your way of saying that the question does not register in your head as reasonable? It's a simple yes or no question, either "yes I can see a difference' or "no I can't (subset--it depends on: "culture", "political power", "historical oppression")." Are you attempting to convey that you do not see a difference? Because that's what I take away from what you said.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #21 - May 23, 2017, 01:04 AM

    You said you wanted proof of attacks by those on the Right. I asked you if they had to be bloody. Do they?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #22 - May 23, 2017, 01:21 AM

    You said you wanted proof of attacks by those on the Right. I asked you if they had to be bloody. Do they?


    And then I said that we need to table that discussion until we can come to a conclusion about the case of Mr. Stickman and Mr. Blue. Because if your conclusion on that case is that you see no difference between Mr. Stickman's actions and Mr. Blue's, then we can't reach a resolution to any of the other discussions in this thread. I'm completely serious. If you see no difference, then we are not arguing from a basis of a shared moral code and so no discussion of morality can be had until one of us is converted to the other's moral framework. I came to the table believing that we were arguing from a position of a shared moral code. If I am incorrect in that assumption, then the entire discussion is moot. It's like if we were both asked to build components for a building and we were both told that the frames were to be 10x20 and you thought it was meters and I thought it was yards. When we put our frames side by side, there would be a huge gap because while we both used 10x20, there was a fundamental difference in what we thought we were building. If you come to the table seeing no difference between Mr. Stickman and Mr. Blue, then we might use the same words to discuss the moral framework of the current political landscape and we might both look at the exact same evidence, but there will be a huge gap between our two conclusions because we're not starting with the same measuring rod. So we need to table all the other discussions until we can reach a consensus on this one.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #23 - May 23, 2017, 01:46 AM

    Yeah I don't even know what side you are on, really. It's like you picked the individual over the masses. As if the right of one hateful little man matters more than the rights of most everybody else. When one sees someone who actively wants one to go without healthcare, without relief, without equal rights, who advocates the separation of mothers from children, one does get pissed off. There could be repercussions for hate. Maybe hate ought to be on the down low. You can dictate it however you like.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #24 - May 23, 2017, 01:57 AM

    jesus fucking christ....ok....i'm going to go have a cry because i'm still emotional about my ptsd episode earlier, then i'm going to see I can make an attempt at an explanation that can convert you to my way of seeing things or at least to understand what I think has gone wrong here...and if that fails, I'm not going to even try to have a discussion about this anymore because we don't share enough common ground for that to be productive.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #25 - May 23, 2017, 02:54 AM

    Hey, better to have the PTSD where you can cry than the kind where you can't. You just take care of you. Not much else matters.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #26 - June 23, 2017, 09:29 AM

    OK, I'm back. I went on vacation then I got food poisoning etc. I did some brainstorming and I think I've laid it all out well enough now. So enjoy this here wall of text. I'll try to highlight the bits I think are most important.

    Issue 1--Speech vs. hate speech: One of the most fundamental questions with regards to hate speech is "what is hate speech, anyway?" Is it hate speech to simply include the word hate in a sentence? I mean, if I said "I hate apples" is that me attacking the identity of apples and their right to exist? I think the obvious answer is no, I'm just expressing my personal preference and opinion. If, on the other hand, I wrote a treatise on why apples must be eradicated for the greater good, citing perhaps examples of apple trees growing in the middle of roads or other inconvenient places, stating that they contribute to climate change (maybe because of the cost of shipping them from place to place), saying that they're damaging to the ecology of the places that they're brought to by replacing the indigenous plants and wildlife, that farming apple trees causes starvation by taking valuable land away from growing more nutritionally effective crops, and that they are only useful in a very small number of recipes and are nutritionally inferior to other fruits, then even though at no point did I use the word "hate", i could be seen as inciting violence against apples. This is especially true if my readers then go out and burn down an apple orchard because of their being convinced by my pamphlet of the evils of apples. Simply hating something is not, in and of itself, the same as inciting violence against that thing. It's just expressing a personal preference.

    If I say "I hate apples", you might disagree with me. You could try to convince me that not all apples are bad, that I've only tried bad apples, that I'm arrogant if I think my view of apples is the only acceptable one, or that you like apples and that you no longer wish to talk to me because you find my hatred of apples unacceptable. Any of those is a valid response. What would NOT be a valid response is to punch me and chop down my cherry tree. My stating my preference has not caused any kind of harm to apples. It hasn't denied them their right to exist. It hasn't denied them of their basic fruitness. It's just a statement of my personal opinion on the topic of apples.

     
    Issue 2--what is violence: Violence is overused in the current political discourse to the point of being reduced to a buzzword. What I mean by violence (and what I think the correct opinion on the topic is) is an act that is done with the sole intended purpose of causing permanent or temporary injury to one's person, relationships, personal property, or to one's psyche by claiming to have done one of the previous types (whether actually having done so or not) to the person's loved ones.

    Here are some examples of thing I do not consider to be violence:
    1. Saying "I don't like you."
    2. Saying "I disagree with your opinions."
    3. Saying "You make me feel uncomfortable."
    4. Sending more than one message to an individual.
    5. Offering data that disagrees with an individual's opinions or that suggests that a group is more represented in crime than one might otherwise assume.
    6. Contacting the family of an individual who you believe to be a minor or a danger to themselves or others to inform them of the individual's reckless or illegal activity.
    7. Referring to someone else using words they consider derogatory or offensive.

    Here are some examples of things I do consider to be violence:
    1. Contacting someone else's family and telling them that you will harm them or have harmed their family member, or impersonating an individual and claiming to have cheated on a partner or to be committing suicide.
    2. Contacting someone to inform them that you will reveal their identity unless they comply to your demands, or that you will contact their family/friends unless they comply with your demands, or other forms of extortion or blackmail.
    3. Requesting, demanding, or offering compensation to someone to cause harm someone else. eg. hiring a hitman, telling people that they will go to heaven if they kill infidels, offering money to someone's survivors if they commit a murder/suicide, or telling someone that you will harm them in some way unless they commit an act of violence against another individual.
    4. Committing an act of physical violence or organizing with an intent to do so, such as punching someone, bringing bricks to a protest with the intention of throwing them through windows, bringing a smoke bomb or other explosive device (whether commercial or improvised) to a social engagement with the intent to detonate it.
    5. Encouraging someone to commit an act of physical violence, such as encouraging or ordering them to punch someone else or break something, or interfering with attempts to punish those who have done so, such as by lying to police or by attempting to justify acts of violence using sophistry.

    There are times when violence may be justified, such as to defend one's self or another person. However, one must both before and after analyze the situation and one must strive to limit violence as much as possible. If it's possible to end a confrontation without violence, then it is a moral imperative to do so. It is inevitable that someone will misread a situation a certain amount of the time and will believe there is a need for violence when there isn't. After that happens, it is crucial for the individual who initiated the violence's comrades, whether fellow police officers, fellow activists, fellow community members, family or whatever to not attempt to justify the violence. They should state that the situation was misread by the person who initiated the violence, that the violence was regrettable, and that they do not support further violence as a result of this incident. It is also imperative that the people who the violence was enacted upon do not escalate the violence. They should seek civil (and if applicable, criminal) damages in a court of law. Mob justice is a deterrent to permanent peace and always will be.

     
    Issue 3 -- Dehumanization: Sometimes an individual or group will deem it necessary to dehumanize another person or group to achieve their goals. It can be very hard to identify this in one's own thinking after it has become a banality. However, to an outsider for whom this has not yet happened, it is terrifying and often shocking. Someone who has been brainwashed will rationalize this as the outsider attempting to maintain their unearned privilege, status, or wealth.

    To find out if this has happened to you, use this simple experiment: Fold a piece of paper in half. Think of something bad that has happened to you or a member of your in-group. Write down the emotions you are feeling on one side of the paper. Write down what you think of the person who did the action. Write down what you think their motives were and whether or not they were justified. Flip the paper over. Imagine the same bad thing happening to a person in your out-group. Write down the emotions you are feeling. Write down what you think of the person who did the action. Write down what you think their motives were and whether or not they were justified. Put the two halves side by side. If the responses are negative on one side and neutral or favorable on the other, you have dehumanized the out-group. If your responses are negative on both sides, you're a normal human being. If your responses are positive on both sides, you have a personality disorder and need more help than I can give you.

     
    4 -- Absolution of crimes via ideology: One of the things i find most concerning about the present political situation is the absolution of violent crimes on an ideological level because the victims were the wrong kind of people or held the wrong ideas.

    After the aggravated assault of Richard Spencer, many articles and videos were posted by various celebrities justifying punching him with titles such as "If you see a nazi, punch a nazi". Richard Spencer, no matter how much I may disagree with him or find his views distasteful, was not engaged in violence. Therefore, violence against him was not justified. However, this is far from the only incident where this has occurred. Melissa Click's assault on a student reporter, the murder of police officers by BLM activists, the kidnapping and torture of an 18 year old mentally handicapped young man, and far more incidents of crimes have been absolved in this way.

    This situation reminds me of a story I read when I was young of someone approaching a priest Martin Luther had been arguing against to buy an indulgence for a robbery he would commit later that evening, and on having purchased it, proceeded to rob the priest. No one has the power to forgive the crimes of another done against a third person. if Joe stabs Bob, Mary can't be the one to forgive Joe or drop the charges against him. It has to be Bob. And if Mary then goes and writes an article explaining why stabbing isn't all that bad a crime in some circumstances, such as when you don't like Bob or Bob has weird ideas about the world being flat, that doesn't absolve Joe either. It just makes Mary an apologist for Joe's crimes. In fact, it doesn't matter how many people agree with Mary's article, it's still Bob who has been harmed and so it still has to be Bob who can forgive or fail to forgive Joe for the stabbing. I find it incredibly dangerous that people are attempting to give indulgences to others for crimes that they have committed or are planning to commit as long as the potential victims are the "right kind" of victim. Again, if you would not be ok with a thing happening to a member of your in-group and you are ok with it happening to a member of your outgroup on the basis that they are in the out-group, you have dehumanized people and need to entirely deconstruct your moral code and re-form it properly because you are the evil you claim to oppose.

    I have written before about people taking the wrong lesson from the holocaust. If the lesson you take from it is "Jews need our protection so this never happens to them again", then you're taking away the wrong thing. If you think that but about gays or gypsies, again, you've learned the wrong lesson. The correct lesson to learn from the holocaust is: "we must not allow a group to become so widely dehumanized and demonized that violence against them is acceptable to a large part of society." It doesn't matter what the group being demonized is. It doesn't matter if it's the Jews, whites, Catholics, Japanese, SJWs, or far right. We cannot allow a group to become the scapegoat for all we see wrong in the world, we cannot justify violence against a group because we dislike them, we cannot allow generalizations and stereotypes of groups to blind us to the humanity of our fellow man, we cannot justify harm against a person because of their membership in a group we dislike. It doesn't matter who the victim is and who the oppressor is, the oppression is what is wrong. We can't simply replace one scapegoat with another and then lay the punishment on the new scapegoat instead of the old one. It doesn't work like that. The individual must be seen as an individual, not as a representative of their group both in terms of praise and blame, and their actions must be judged as the actions of an individual. If that means judging a particular black man as guilty for having shot a cop, that what we have to do. If that means judging a particular cop as guilty for having shot an unarmed black man who was not posing a threat to him, that's what we have to do.

    Your opponent failing to uphold these morals (or your perception of your opponent having failed to do so) does not justify you failing to uphold them. Your moral standing is not judged as a comparative measurement against the evils of your opponent. It is judged based on your own actions. You may think that throwing mud makes you cleaner, but it doesn't, it just makes you a mud thrower. To make the area cleaner you must clean off the mud, both off yourself and if necessary your opponent. That's not fun or glamorous, but it's the only way to actually get cleaner.

     
    5 -- Summary
    The line between strong disagreement and incitement to violence can be a bit blurry, but I want to suggest some ways to discern which is which. The first would be the legal standard of a "reasonable person". If I told you "Jane is an asshole and I really hate her", that would not be incitement to violence for a reasonable person. Most people would say "I agree" or "I disagree, I think you need to get to know her better", but barely anyone would say "I'll go shoot her for you." Someone might possibly go shoot Jane because I said I hate her, but that's not what a reasonable person would do. I can imagine a situation where a person with schizophrenia was hearing voices telling him to kill Jane and when he heard me slag her off, he decided that I was confirming what the voices were telling him, and then he goes and shoots Jane. However, it's not what a reasonable person would do. So saying "I hate x" isn't the same as incitement to violence.

    However, if I said that it was a moral act to kill Jane because, for example, she was committing a particularly egregious crime, and I built up a crowd of people who all believed what I was saying about Jane's criminality/immorality, it is reasonable to assume that violence against Jane will result. From a religious standpoint, I could say that anyone who kills Jane guarantees himself a place in heaven because Jane has committed blasphemy or whatever. I could say that God wants us to kill Jane because of her sins and that we will be punished by God if we refuse. I could deny Jane's ability to repent and change her ways because her sin is unforgivable and insist the only way to rectify the situation is Jane's death. Even though in all that paragraph I didn't say I hated Jane, I didn't say that I found her actions distasteful, and I didn't direct a particular person to commit a particular crime, I'm still culpable in Jane's death because I was the one who removed Jane from the sphere of human morality. I was the one who declared that Jane was so immoral that addressing her in a moral way was no longer an option and that only the immoral can solve the problem.

    We all have a sphere of morality; those spheres aren't all the same, but the basic concept is the same. We have actions (particularly with regards to others) we see as immoral in most or all circumstances, and we have a sphere of people who are, we believe, like us and should be treated according to our moral principles. So to get a normal person to do those actions they deem immoral, they have to be convinced that another person belongs outside that sphere instead of inside it. That they are so irredeemable and repugnant that they do not deserve to be treated in a moral way. When asked "would you, given the chance, go back in time and kill Hitler?" most people would say yes because he has been successfully removed from our sphere of morality (whether or not that was justified--I think it was and I probably would go kill Hitler). But given the same question with a different person, eg. "Would you, given the chance, go back in time and kill Martin Luther King Jr.", most people would say no. Removing someone (or a group of people) from the sphere of morality is incitement to violence, even if I don't order you personally to go pick up a gun and shoot someone, because it is a necessary prerequisite for a reasonable person to commit a violent act.

    This is why Hitler had to remove Jews from the moral sphere of the German people before the Holocaust could happen. It's why Japanese Americans had to be removed from the moral sphere of Americans for them to be interred. It's why potential jihadis need to be convinced of the fact that the west is immoral. And that is the problem I am having with groups like BLM, BAMN, and social justice warriors in general. They are removing a group of people--white men--from their moral spheres. Even though I am not directly effected by this, since I'm not a white man, I see it as immoral because pushing an entire demographic outside your moral sphere simply because of the circumstances of their birth has a proven track record of causing violence. And that's why I blamed BLM for the kidnapping of that guy; they are pushing white men outside the moral sphere, making any action, no matter how barbaric, committed against any individual white man, no matter how politically uninvolved, incapable of self defense, or handicapped, justifiable because white men are allegedly oppressing them.

    The way to bring people back into your moral sphere is to talk to them. You have to rehumanize them. You have to swallow your pride and admit you may have been wrong about them. And that's why I started this thread. I want to bring you back into the moral sphere the rest of us outside the cult are in. I want you to treat people equally, regardless of their skin color or gender, like the rest of us in the mainstream moral sphere try to do. I want to invite you to challenge the justifications you've given yourselves. I want you to rehumanize the people you hate. The only way to get someone out of a cult is to offer them forgiveness and a path out, and I firmly believe that social justice is a cult. I want you to leave the cult. I'm inviting you to leave the cult. The rest of us aren't as bad as the cult has told you we are. We're nice people and we want to see an end to the violence, but we can't achieve that alone. We need you to put down your bike locks and explosives. We need you to put away the ideologies that have driven you to violence. Please, come back to the moral sphere. We will welcome you back and forgive you. Just please, please, please--walk away from the cult.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #27 - July 14, 2017, 11:19 PM

    Since I went and did a bit of research for a person on another site, here's some stats:

    In 2015 (the most recent year for which data has been published), there were 4,029 racially motivated hate crimes. Of those, 734 were anti-white. Let's assume all 3,295 of the others were committed by white people and that each crime was committed by one white person. Then using rounded numbers of 77% of 323,000,000 Americans to calculate the number of white Americans, there were 248,710,000 white Americans at that time. Using this information and assuming that all white people in America are racist, we can conclude that only 0.00001% of (racist) white people in America will commit a crime motivated by their racism. That seems like something there's no reason to care about to me. I mean, if I was told I had a 0.00001% risk of being hit on the head by a meteorite, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it. So tl;dr: if you truly believe that all white Americans are racist, then just looking at the numbers, you shouldn't be worried about it.

    Sources for the numbers:
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/tables-and-data-declarations/4tabledatadecpdf
    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/

    If you want to compare 2015 to other recent years:
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime


    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #28 - July 22, 2017, 06:11 PM

    Yeah. Let's only look at reported (convicted) crime and assume that's all there is. Great idea! I am so glad you don't have to run into these people like I have.
    I have had to deal with them for decades. Less now than before, because I am not in public as much now and I live in a better area.
    So far in my own life I have seen white supremacist crime like this:
    1 near fatal shooting
    2 murders- random "let's go kill non-white people"
    1 attempted murder with a tyre iron
    5 gang (white supremacist vs anti/punk) fights with multiple persons, where the supremacists (baldies with many loyalties) were instigators.
    1 made up and elaborate detailed story about a fictitious black man being responsible for the property damage (vehicular) another (caucasian, non-european) had done
    All witnessed by me. More than your .0001, by quite a bit. That totals about twenty-two perps.
    It's hard to imagine that we live in the same country. I left off all the shoving, the insults, slurs, the spit, and the blatant discrimination- because that takes too long to list, sadly enough.
    Maybe it's a street thing.



    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Truce in the Culture War
     Reply #29 - July 23, 2017, 04:04 AM

    Yeah. Let's only look at reported (convicted) crime and assume that's all there is. Great idea! I am so glad you don't have to run into these people like I have.
    I have had to deal with them for decades. Less now than before, because I am not in public as much now and I live in a better area.
    So far in my own life I have seen white supremacist crime like this:
    1 near fatal shooting
    2 murders- random "let's go kill non-white people"
    1 attempted murder with a tyre iron
    5 gang (white supremacist vs anti/punk) fights with multiple persons, where the supremacists (baldies with many loyalties) were instigators.
    1 made up and elaborate detailed story about a fictitious black man being responsible for the property damage (vehicular) another (caucasian, non-european) had done
    All witnessed by me. More than your .0001, by quite a bit. That totals about twenty-two perps.
    It's hard to imagine that we live in the same country. I left off all the shoving, the insults, slurs, the spit, and the blatant discrimination- because that takes too long to list, sadly enough.
    Maybe it's a street thing.





    For the sake of argument, I'm going to take this as completely true and assume none of the people involved ever faced any criminal charges. So you've seen 22 examples of white supremacy. How many white people have you seen or interacted with over the course of your life? Is that number also 22 (or close to 22)? Think about the number of white people you've seen or interacted with while driving, riding on a bus, shopping, working, going out to restaurants...what would you say a rough estimate of that number is? 220,000 is the number you'd have to have seen or interacted with for those 22 to be one in every 10,000 of the non-violent ones over the course of your life. That averages to 20 per day over the course of 30 years. At some points you probably would have seen less and at some points you'd probably have seen considerably more (like maybe at a concert), but as an average, 20 per day isn't many. So yes, that information is still consistent with the argument I am making.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »