Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 757

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.

Again, what is the purpose of such a generalization? Once you unpack it, of course you will find reasons to disagree. It would be an absurd pretense that such a statement would be unassailable: that was my point. You happen to think your gay rights example is incontrovertible, like most positions you proclaim on here. I think it difficult to engage in dialogue when you proceed in that way. As you well illustrate with your continued disbelief that anybody could dispute your position.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).

I put “gay rights” in quotation marks in that instance (but not others) to highlight that the term doesn’t have a precise meaning and there is a philosophical dispute about what would be included. We can pretend this is all so simple and everything you would include is an undisputed right because “rights” is in the title, but that’s not correct.

The enforcement of anti-discrimination laws runs straight into the conservative (and libertarian) view that private actors should generally be permitted to discriminate as well as concerns for religious liberty. That philosophical view is not inherently anti-gay. And yet you lump it in as if it is necessarily so. Which brings me back to the unproductive nature of your generalized and imprecise declarations.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.

Again, what is the purpose of such a generalization? Once you unpack it, of course you will find reasons to disagree. It would be an absurd pretense that such a statement would be unassailable: that was my point. You happen to think your gay rights example is incontrovertible, like most positions you proclaim on here. I think it difficult to engage in dialogue when you proceed in that way. As you well illustrate with your continued disbelief that anybody could dispute your position.

I don’t even really know what any of this means.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).

I put “gay rights” in quotation marks in that instance (but not others) to highlight that the term doesn’t have a precise meaning and there is a philosophical dispute about what would be included. We can pretend this is all so simple and everything you would include is an undisputed right because “rights” is in the title, but that’s not correct.

The enforcement of anti-discrimination laws runs straight into the conservative (and libertarian) view that private actors should generally be permitted to discriminate as well as concerns for religious liberty.

Refusing to have your for-profit business serve members of the community because of its owner’s religion isn’t impressive to me. There’s a long history of racism in the Mormon religion that it has kind of walked back on these days, but if a hardcore Mormon didn’t want to cater an interracial wedding I don’t think anyone would be shedding any tears over him getting sued. You also ignored gay adoption, gay marriage, and people like Kim Davis (who aren’t private actors). What about those? Those are far more important rights than the discrimination I think.

That philosophical view is not inherently anti-gay. And yet you lump it in as if it is necessarily so. Which brings me back to the unproductive nature of your generalized and imprecise declarations.

It isn’t inherently anti-gay, but like I pointed out in the Mormon example it is only being used against gays at the moment, so yes I’d say it’s fair to say the religious freedom laws are anti-gay. As for unproductiveness, at least you know where I stand when I make my posts. With you, we all have to make guesses based on what you’re defending because you refuse to elucidate your stances.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/jordan-peterson-does-not-support-equality-of-opportunity.html

Another great article on Jordan Peterson hypocrisy.

Excellent exposé of Jordan Peterson associate, alt-right apologist, and hypocrite Dave Rubin:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-speech-true-believer-dave-rubin-the-top-talker-of-the-intellectual-dark-web-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-his-own-ideas

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As of right now it essentially allows for some states to be far better than others, which is unfortunate for the people living in the worst states. I think it’s important for states to have their own governments run by people that actually know what life is like in those states, but certain things (e.g. gay rights, abortion, marijuana) need to be legalized everywhere and all Americans’ rights to those things need to be uniformly protected. Unfortunately, the states rights platform is basically just an anti-civil liberties platform.

Totally disagree but this isn’t the debate thread.

Not sure what you totally disagree on, but I’ll assume you mean everything. You really think that gay marriage shouldn’t be a protected right everywhere in the country? I don’t understand this conservative position that it’s bad for the federal government to do anything, but it’s totally okay for the state government to lord over you. I’ve never understood that line of reasoning.

Obviously because no one here would want to listen to hundreds of hours of their boring bullshit. If anyone really wants to see Rubin deceptively make alt-righters like Milo, Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Candice Owens, Alex Jones, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux (a cult-leader and racist who believes some races are less intelligent than others and believes women are the primary cause of evil in humanity), and others look less demented than they really are then feel free to subject yourself to it. Like you said it’s all out there and I’ve seen lots of it, and even used to be a fan of some of that shit (not the craziest shit though, I reevaluated myself before that stuff came up a lot), so I know that these posts I’m sharing aren’t smear jobs.

Not to mention I did share some primary sources exposing Peterson and his worshippers’ insanity a few pages back.

EDIT: On Rubin, those are just the alt-righters, he has tons of other far right people and climate change deniers that he just legitimizes and allows to lie compulsively while Rubin nods. He did that with Glenn Beck, who lied repeatedly about Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive movement of the 1900s and compared them to Nazis, etc. It was all bullshit but Rubin just treated it like fact. I could go on and on with these examples.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said stupid right-wing shit on Twitter and now the show is cancelled. It sucks because now TV is just going to become more unwatchable than it already is.

That assumes the show Roseanne was making TV less unwatchable.

Good on Disney for shutting that crap right down, I say. Roseanne Barr should return to the has-been obscurity that she deserves.

Roseanne actually was a very progressive show, and was great. They revived the show knowing that Roseanne was a psychopath, their only problem now is that she said more anti-semitic, racist, and anti-islam shit on a public forum. None of that was reflected in the show. Shutting down talented people for their dogshit opinions accomplishes nothing. They did this to Gilbert Gottfried too after 9/11 and Kathy Griffin after her stunt. Basically, this is just going to motivate the corporate overlords (who don’t care about progressive values, by the way) to go with safer people to create shows rather than just talented people. And when “safe” gets put ahead of talent that always leads to shittier entertainment. If all artists throughout history got de-platformed the second they made offensive drug-fueled psychotic comments then we’d have almost no good media. Elvis Costello, Lou Reed, John Lennon, Joan Rivers, and a million others that I could list would’ve been shut down before giving us valuable work. By the way, I don’t consider Kathy Griffin’s stuff valuable work. She’s not funny at all, but she was in the same situation where she made a mistake and now no one will touch her. Her mistake was less insulting than Roseanne’s in my opinion, but it’s the same problem.

SilverWook said:

Well, you can’t find reruns of The Cosby Show on tv anymore either. And it was pulled long before the current court case ended.

Well, Cosby is a serial rapist who knocked unknowing victims unconscious and penetrated their near-lifeless bodies and did so for decades. Big difference between that and stupid Twitter comments.

Gilbert Gottfried got fired from doing the Aflac duck commercials for making a stupid tweet after that tsuamni hit Japan.

I was actually referring to his 9/11 jokes, but that’s a good example too.

Everyone else you mentioned said things before social media instantly broadcasted brain farts around the globe at the speed of light.

Exactly. I don’t believe in defining people based on single comments. Either way, I actually don’t care about the comments themselves, I care about getting in the way of entertainment over it. That’s all I care about.

The one episode I saw of New Roseanne seemed to stop everything to give the audience a defense of Trump, and made a joke of the lib’ral response by another character, so it’s not like the revived show was doing anything progressive anyway except for the grandson that wore a skirt or whatever.

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

moviefreakedmind said:

SilverWook said:

Well, you can’t find reruns of The Cosby Show on tv anymore either. And it was pulled long before the current court case ended.

Big difference between that and stupid Twitter comments.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

If someone is in the public eye and makes a spectacle of themselves in a negative fashion (in whatever manner that is), I’m not at all surprised at people not wanting to be associated with them or their opinions. Being talented or popular should not make one exempt from the consequences of bald-faced idiocy.

Look at my avatar. That Sinead O’Conner stunt was considered one of the most offensive things broadcast on television. It pretty much ruined her career. Now, this is a totally different example because her statement was altruistic and very important, but the consequences were the same. I’d rather the stupid people get some leniency so that we don’t have to walk on eggshells all the time instead of getting outraged at everybody. It also doesn’t help that social media exists purely to broadcast stupidity to the world, but that’s a different topic.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

SilverWook said:

Well, you can’t find reruns of The Cosby Show on tv anymore either. And it was pulled long before the current court case ended.

Big difference between that and stupid Twitter comments.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

If someone is in the public eye and makes a spectacle of themselves in a negative fashion, I’m not at all surprised at people not wanting to be associated with them or their opinions.

I’m not either, and I don’t blame Wanda Sykes for not wanting anything to do with her anymore, but I’m talking about the soulless corporate hacks that pretend to care about this.

Being talented or popular should not make one exempt from the consequences of bald-faced idiocy.

Being talented is actually a great virtue that not enough people value. I value it a lot more than others do. Most people, believe it or not, are really fucking stupid. And the vast majority of those idiots are totally untalented and almost devoid of any kind of value. A little talent goes a long way in my eyes.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’d rather the stupid people get some leniency so that we don’t have to walk on eggshells all the time instead of getting outraged at everybody.

In my opinion, people who would call others “snowflakes” (not saying that you did) are themselves even more sensitive than those they accuse. They should pull the log out of their own eye first, so to speak.

Certainly, learning to not immediately assume offense was intended is a useful skill. But when people call others out for it, it just sounds to me like they’re upset that they can’t say whatever-they-damn-well-please and get away with it. Well, I don’t think they should be able to say whatever-they-damn-well-please because, to quote Billy Madison, “everyone is now dumber for having listened to it.”

In sum, learning to be polite and civil is a good goal. Both being over-sensitive and complaining about over-sensitivity doesn’t help at all. It’s just a way to try to shut opposing view down.

It also doesn’t help that social media exists purely to broadcast stupidity to the world

I can not argue with that.

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

But then the show, by definition, was safe, as it was an outlet made, at least in part, to defend the establishment.

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

These seem like two very different issues to me, but perhaps I misread.

I wasn’t saying anything about the establishment. I brought up Kathy Griffin as an example of someone who got shut down for offending conservatives and same with John Lennon who drew the ire of the Christian right fifty years ago. Thankfully the Beatles had enough fame to overcome that shit. Like Dom said, we all knew Roseanne was like this before the show, so obviously the corporate people didn’t care about her being a deranged alt-right nut until people on Twitter noticed. People in general want their media to be safe and that’s why they suck and that’s why media sucks. I saw a commercial for Thundercats getting revived and it looks like just another cutesy animated pile of garbage like all children’s entertainment these days. It all just exists so parents can show their kids inoffensive, bland, tepid, boring programming so that their kids can grow into inoffensive, bland, tepid, boring adults.

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do. Youtube is censoring anyone that is a corporate outlet including many leftists. I’ll give you another example of someone even shittier than Roseanne, Steven Crowder. Crowder made a disgusting video claiming that AIDS was never an epidemic and that research money is wasted because most people that die of AIDS are gay. Crowder is a disgusting pile of dishonest shit and I hate him, but I don’t want him to get removed from YouTube for not representing Youtube’s values. That’s a little different because Crowder’s show is a propaganda outlet and Roseanne’s was actually a real show and her offensive comments were made outside of the show, but again, these are just more examples of the media sucking and being terrible. People that are far dumber than Roseanne surround us already. They’re your neighbors, they’re your coworkers, they’re your family, although they actually have no redeeming qualities while Roseanne actually has at least one. So ultimately, I don’t care. Again, this is just going to lead to these dying TV corporations aligning with people that they suspect won’t do anything remotely offensive, and that’s going to lead to safer programming, and as we all know safe programming sucks horribly and is unwatchable dogshit.

SilverWook said:

Well, you can’t find reruns of The Cosby Show on tv anymore either. And it was pulled long before the current court case ended.

I know I saw it on network TV at least late last year if not more recently.

It’s been on some channels on and off over the last couple years.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

These seem like two very different issues to me, but perhaps I misread.

I don’t think they’re that different. In any event, goes to mfm’s point about safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people.

I think ABC (and media outlets in general) shouldn’t be so sensitive and fearful. They can disavow Roseanne’s tweet and maintain a popular show providing employment to many people and presenting a unique perspective.

Maybe this will be confusing to some, but I’ve always hated that show, think Roseanne is terrible, and had morbid curiosity about the revival but not enough to watch.