Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

How We Talk to Each Other About Politics

YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.
Tsar of DDO
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs

You have no understand of what socialism actually is, obviously. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the workers and surplus is redistributed as they see fit. It seems a little more democratic than 1% having nearly all of the money.

Libertarianism is a general scepticism of all authority and has always been the term for left-anarchism until Ron Paul misconstrued it for his conservatism and social darwinism
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:23:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:21:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs

You have no understand of what socialism actually is, obviously. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the workers and surplus is redistributed as they see fit. It seems a little more democratic than 1% having nearly all of the money.

Libertarianism is a general scepticism of all authority and has always been the term for left-anarchism until Ron Paul misconstrued it for his conservatism and social darwinism

Lol no

Look at bernie
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:23:47 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:21:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs

You have no understand of what socialism actually is, obviously. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the workers and surplus is redistributed as they see fit. It seems a little more democratic than 1% having nearly all of the money.

Libertarianism is a general scepticism of all authority and has always been the term for left-anarchism until Ron Paul misconstrued it for his conservatism and social darwinism

Lol no

Look at bernie

Bernie? Sorry, mate, he isn't a socialist. He's a liberal, at best
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:26:16 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:23:47 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:21:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs

You have no understand of what socialism actually is, obviously. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the workers and surplus is redistributed as they see fit. It seems a little more democratic than 1% having nearly all of the money.

Libertarianism is a general scepticism of all authority and has always been the term for left-anarchism until Ron Paul misconstrued it for his conservatism and social darwinism

Lol no

Look at bernie

Bernie? Sorry, mate, he isn't a socialist. He's a liberal, at best

Using the No True Scotsman till the very end aren't ya

He says he is a democratic socialist
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:30:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago

Using the No True Scotsman till the very end aren't ya

He says he is a democratic socialist

And North Korea calls itself democratic, and the United States calls itself free, God says he loves us, and Milton Friedman believes he has all the solutions. It doesn't make it true. If he was a democratic socialist he would believe in totally shutting down all functions of the market through a vanguard party and total liberation of the working class, you may, however, have noticed that he is in support of various gun control legislation and has a very positive view of some privatisation. I would, at a stretch, call him a social democrat
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:30:49 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:

Using the No True Scotsman till the very end aren't ya

He says he is a democratic socialist

And North Korea calls itself democratic, and the United States calls itself free, God says he loves us, and Milton Friedman believes he has all the solutions. It doesn't make it true. If he was a democratic socialist he would believe in totally shutting down all functions of the market through a vanguard party and total liberation of the working class, you may, however, have noticed that he is in support of various gun control legislation and has a very positive view of some privatisation. I would, at a stretch, call him a social democrat

Except the fact that north korea has no democratic principles while sanders retains somesocialist policies
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago

And North Korea calls itself democratic, and the United States calls itself free, God says he loves us, and Milton Friedman believes he has all the solutions. It doesn't make it true. If he was a democratic socialist he would believe in totally shutting down all functions of the market through a vanguard party and total liberation of the working class, you may, however, have noticed that he is in support of various gun control legislation and has a very positive view of some privatisation. I would, at a stretch, call him a social democrat

Except the fact that north korea has no democratic principles while sanders retains somesocialist policies

The operative word being "some". There is no such thing as a half-socialist. We call those social democrats. Socialism is advocacy not only of collective ownership of the means of production but total disbanding of the market. Bernie, I don't know if you've noticed, hasn't advocated the destruction of the market, nor any kind of abolition of fiat money and exchange value currency
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:36:02 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:

And North Korea calls itself democratic, and the United States calls itself free, God says he loves us, and Milton Friedman believes he has all the solutions. It doesn't make it true. If he was a democratic socialist he would believe in totally shutting down all functions of the market through a vanguard party and total liberation of the working class, you may, however, have noticed that he is in support of various gun control legislation and has a very positive view of some privatisation. I would, at a stretch, call him a social democrat

Except the fact that north korea has no democratic principles while sanders retains somesocialist policies

The operative word being "some". There is no such thing as a half-socialist. We call those social democrats. Socialism is advocacy not only of collective ownership of the means of production but total disbanding of the market. Bernie, I don't know if you've noticed, hasn't advocated the destruction of the market, nor any kind of abolition of fiat money and exchange value currency

Yet he still supports some and that makes him a socialist and he calls himself one
Im not a Nazi
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:39:23 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:36:02 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:

And North Korea calls itself democratic, and the United States calls itself free, God says he loves us, and Milton Friedman believes he has all the solutions. It doesn't make it true. If he was a democratic socialist he would believe in totally shutting down all functions of the market through a vanguard party and total liberation of the working class, you may, however, have noticed that he is in support of various gun control legislation and has a very positive view of some privatisation. I would, at a stretch, call him a social democrat

Except the fact that north korea has no democratic principles while sanders retains somesocialist policies

The operative word being "some". There is no such thing as a half-socialist. We call those social democrats. Socialism is advocacy not only of collective ownership of the means of production but total disbanding of the market. Bernie, I don't know if you've noticed, hasn't advocated the destruction of the market, nor any kind of abolition of fiat money and exchange value currency

Yet he still supports some and that makes him a socialist and he calls himself one

But he isn't one. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 7:22:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:27:20 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:26:16 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:23:47 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:21:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:16:07 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:15:09 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:33:14 PM, Capital wrote:
At 9/10/2016 4:30:12 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

Please, be very careful when saying SJWs, are 'leftist'. They're centrist at best, though even that is understating how right-wing and authoritarian many of them are. I am a Marxist and the way we talk about politics to each other is only a symptom of how childish our modern population is. The media of 60s changed politics from a high-brow very interesting topic into Us vs Them

Right wing and authoritarian are not synomous. In fact as you become more leftist you become more authoritarian while as right wing you become you delve into anarchism

You talk about childish but you support Marxism which states we should all be equal and all have the same amount of wealth. Theres a reason Karl Marx never kept a job and had to be supported by his mother

1) No. The left-to-right spectrum comes from the French parliament which had the progressives, anarchists and liberals on the left (anti-authoritarian) and the conservatives, monarchists etc on the right (authoritarian). Riggenbach, a great Libertarian writer, has said all anarchists, no matter how capitalist or communist etc, are left-wing, and all authoritarians are right-wing, no matter how capitalist or communist.

2) I do not advocate Karl Marx's lifestyle, nor do I think your ad hominem attack on him his necessary. I just find many agreements with his views on social analysis. I actually find myself in a much more Libertarian Socialist position

Libertarian socialism? Honey theres no such thing. If there is not much government then they cant take my money and use it for social programs

You have no understand of what socialism actually is, obviously. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the workers and surplus is redistributed as they see fit. It seems a little more democratic than 1% having nearly all of the money.

Libertarianism is a general scepticism of all authority and has always been the term for left-anarchism until Ron Paul misconstrued it for his conservatism and social darwinism

Lol no

Look at bernie

Bernie? Sorry, mate, he isn't a socialist. He's a liberal, at best

Using the No True Scotsman till the very end aren't ya

He says he is a democratic socialist

He's what Europe would call a social democrat. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

The problem isn't the facts. Most people, but not exclusively all, have a reasonable command of the facts.

Unfortunately, most of the time, facts on their own mean nothing. You can have a comprehensive set of facts describing the world, and they don't provide any wider meaning unless you can pull all those facts into a narrative that explains them.

What tends to happen, is a LOT of people use facts superficially, there are a lot of websites, "news" sites, web pages, that play fast and lose with facts.

For example, the ReligionOfPeace website, lists all the terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11. While there are many genuine terror attacks in there, it also includes examples that wouldn't be called terrorism using even the most broad definition of the word.

As well as this type of thing, there are also many example of people selectively using facts. They will cite facts that do not agree with them, and will attempt to dismiss out of hand, or dismiss with either faulty or poor reasoning the facts that disagree with them.

What is causing the poisoning of discourse, is people not wanting to accept that they could be wrong; not willing to critically examine the arguments of people who disagree with you and to do so in good faith.

Humans are bad at doing that, hell, I am bad that, and I really, really try not to. It's one of the hardest things to do, to be open to changing your mind, and while I feel I try, and indeed succeed more often than a great number of people here, I am still not nearly as good as I should be at it.

Now, with respect to Social Justice Warriors, and Political Correctness. This has been portrayed as a left wing issue; but in reality, the exact same thing is happening on the right as well, it's just not called SJW, or Political Correctness.

The NRA, for example, is one of THE original right wing equivalents of the lefts "Social Justice Warriors", and some of the lobbying they have done, is FAR worse than anything done by BlackLivesMatter.

There is the War on Christmas, repeated mantras about small government, and not being able to talk about social programs and tax relief programs in anything but negative terms.

There is the seeming inability of everyone on the right to say "You know, black lives do matter", instead what is said in reply is almost invariably "all lives matter".

I think the conversation is shut down by people on both sides; for the same reasons; many of which you outline. But I don't believe it's exclusively down to SJWs, it's both sides responsible.

Most importantly, part of what is going on in society in general is a reflection of the poisoning of the national discourse.

If the politicians were able to work with each other, and to find common ground, we wouldn't be having that discussion.

You would be able to hear politicians saying "I think this person is going a bit far, but I know it's because there are legitimate issues that are making them angry, and we need to deal with them" about whichever SJW is in the news.

The reason we can't have that discussion is, in my view, down to 24 hour news, and the increasing bias in the media, and the overwhelming insanity in "news" organizations outside the mainstream.

People watch the news not to be informed, but for entertainment, so they will generally gravitate to news channels that reflect their opinion. Fox news, in this respect, has been so biased, that it has effectively shaped the right wing narrative, pushing it to be more extreme, less willing to compromise with it's almost all-pervasive treatment of everything liberals, or the left do as evil, stupid or without any merit; it is no surprise that over 20 years, that has grown into what you've seen today.

Moreover, what has been even worse to some degree, is that as your representatives reflect voter opinions, the representatives on the right are less willing to compromise, and are getting more extreme.

In that regard, I disagree with you when you say the nature of the national discourse has been poisoned by SJW's, I feel that the discussion has been shutdown by how the right wing has been changing and presenting their case in the last 20 or so years.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 6:39:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/30/2016 11:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
How we talk to each other about politics is bad, and I have many theories as to why it's bad. It's mostly the progressive SJW left's fault, but there are equivalents of that on the right as well (like on /r/the_Donald).

We can't even talk about facts anymore; it's just one side's "narrative" versus another side's, and a whole lot of feigned indignation and self righteousness, married with snideness, condescension, and judgement.

There is nothing more pathetic than to see someone say something to the effect of "It's not my job to educate you about [some SJW bullsh!t]," or someone on the right talk about how we should round up all illegal aliens and deport them.

It's sad, on three different levels. It's sad on a global level, because the level of commonality of this species of "discourse" (and I use that word loosely) is nothing less than a harbinger of critical thought's decline in the west and the profundity of anti-intellectualism's triumph on both the left and the right. It's sad on the interpersonal level, because it means that I cannot have real discussions with people who disagree with me--which so often destroys any respect people may have for another, and any hope of cordiality with those who do not see the world as they do. It's also sad on an individual level, because people who do that have an incredibly unsophisticated, shallow, view of the world and they are prisoners of their own stupidity.

What it means to be an SJW, or whatever right wing equivalent of that is out there (though I don't have a moniker for it) is that you subsume yourself into perpetuation of a narrative in response to some type of occurrence, and then charge in defense of that narrative to advance the "validity" of your worldview (e.g. "institutional racism exists" or "police wage war on black bodies" or whatever) with reckless disregard for the truth. By reckless disregard, what I mean is that you subjectively know that what you are saying does not represent how the world is, but you go forward with your "advocacy" anyway. And your "advocacy" materializes in the form of conspicuously and ostentatiously condemn anyone who disagrees with you as some "thing" you don't like. Essentially, you make the case that anyone who does not share your world view is morally or ethically inferior because they're a racist, or whatever.

It's so sickening to see. It's why you get idiotic college students supporting terrible ideas like European-style censorship laws, wannabe "intellectuals" producing "intellectual literature" (read: intellectual trash) to the effect that "microaggressions exist" or any other similarly stupid manifestation of what is nothing greater than a kind of cognitive pathology oriented towards the destruction of anything you individually chose to target.

I think "scorched earth discourse" is a fitting way to characterize it, and it's bad. It's bad in any form, to every extent, and in every context. You can't "destroy" the ideas of people who disagree with you, and if you go about trying to "destroy" them, you're not going to change their minds... just make them more acerbic and motivated to destroy you. Human persuasion just doesn't work that way. And, to even engage in that kind of dialogue makes you look like a fool.

There are some communities where everybody can all come together and b!tch about Republicans or whatever, and then they get off on how much of a bloviating idiot Donald Trump comes across as, and then use that to tear down the entire Republican party, suggestive of how 'totally racist' everyone who ever voted for a Republican is, and the like. That stuff doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy, and no one outside of the most perverse and dishonest postmodern progressive 'academic' communities (read: university student populated hipster coffee shops) gives a fvck about it. Oh, and tumblr, too. Tumblr loves that stuff.

What I would ask anyone is this: Is this really the best you can do? I know for some people it is. You can have a double digit IQ and still find your way into an SJW graduate program of sociology, psychology, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't like that. So, try to do better, if for no other reason than not to embarrass yourself.

It's hard to play nice with a group that rolls their eyes at 9/11, declares white privelege(but won't give it up), and supports a mass murdering psychopath who works for foreign governments.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 10:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
How ever you want to define left and right doesn't matter much. You have a group who knows what's best for everyone and wants to enforce it on all. Other group wants to be left alone. While that's a bit symplistic, that's why there's so much butting of heads.