Jay

moviefreakedmind said:

Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-laurier-university-asks-court-to-dismiss-jordan-peterson-lawsuit/

What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.

Peterson’s lawsuit against the university is legitimate. The university’s employees attempted to intimidate and punish Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and TA, for showing a clip of a Peterson lecture (with whom she hardly agrees on anything, by the way) during her class. The university employees lied about having received complaints from students when they had received none and told Shepherd she was propagating hate speech. Thankfully, Shepherd recorded the entire exchange and it’s probably the only reason she’s still a student there.

The university deserves to be sued and their employees fired for being liars who tried to push an agenda, damage a student’s reputation, and label Peterson as an extremist with hateful views.

The only thing this situation has to do with free speech is Lindsay’s right to show a Peterson clip during her own class, upon which her university infringed. Peterson is suing to protect his character and reputation, which is valid.

Peterson’s, and every other Canadian’s, free speech was under attack by the “pronoun law”. There’s nothing pretend about it and it had nothing to do with the university where he teaches.

What else did you expect me to say to you about Shapiro that was going to change your mind about him?

What else can I say to convince you that I’m not sympathetic to the right?

I had no idea simply letting it trail off was going to elicit such a response. Next time I’ll post something like “Okay, cool. Good talk.” Sound good?

Watching the videos now, but I’m not sure about labeling anyone ot.com’s favorite or least favorite anything. I run the site and I don’t even do that because I don’t speak for the forum as a whole, nor do I want people thinking we’re endorsing anything officially. I know that’s probably not how you meant it, but still.

Handman said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.

When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.

Are you talking about me?

No. Sorry for the confusion.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.

When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.

I see the center, I just don’t like it. Thanks for ignoring my post, by the way. I remember you doing that last time you quit the thread.

At some point, continuing a ceaseless, line-by-line back-and-forth covering four or five different subjects gets a bit tiresome, so rather than continue going in circles and getting so exhausted that I feel the need to step away, I let it drop. Is there some resolution you see on the horizon that I’ve missed?

And since when is an explicit acknowledgment of every post required? Pretty sure I could go back through not just this thread, but any number of threads in which I’ve posted, and find instances where I haven’t received a direct reply to a comment and didn’t act entitled to a response. Sometimes, people just have nothing more to say on a particular subject.

Besides, when I walked away from the thread previously, that had less to do with our interaction and more to do with the general dynamic of the thread at the time. Participation and overall discussion quality have improved since then, so I thought I’d give it another shot.

Handman said:

To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.

When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

They do, but by that logic you surely can’t deny that the insane fringe is running the right. The Trump crowd controls the White House and Congress. The reason I forget that you’re a centrist is because you have a clear sympathy towards the people on the right doing the exact same thing you chastise the left for. Forgive me for being confused by that obvious bias. I am a leftist. I don’t doubt that my pro-left bias shows and I don’t pretend to be a centrist. If you’ve read this thread, you’d know how I feel about centrists. 😉

I don’t know where you get this idea that I sympathize more with the right than the left. I sympathize with those who present rational ideas and are labeled as extremists by those who disagree with them. When I’m talking about the stuff I see on the left that caused me to walk away, I’m not saying the right doesn’t do the same thing. It saddens me to come to terms with the fact that the left is as bullshit-ridden and disingenuous as the right, which is why I beat on them so hard.

Your defense of their identity politics is a perfect example of sympathizing with them. You don’t present a similarly sympathetic view on leftist identity politics.

Again, I’m not seeing what identity politics I’m defending. When Rubin, Peterson, Owens, etc. bring up race, it’s always to say “race doesn’t matter” or “stop talking about race”. I’m genuinely not following you here.

Rubin consistently brings up his homosexuality to legitimize his opinion. I do get where you’re coming from on Rubin and Peterson, so maybe we’ll just have to have our conflicting interpretations of them, but Candace Owens does not bring up race to say that it doesn’t matter. She brings it up to say that Democrats and liberals are racist. She brings it up to say Democrats were slaveowners as though that means anything now and she brings it up to say that black people need to “get off the plantation” and all sorts of other ludicrous shit.

I don’t see Rubin’s tendency to be self-referential as unreasonable. It’s just a counter to the idea that if you’re gay, you have to think and vote a certain way. He uses his own journey as an example and I don’t see the problem with it.

To be honest my problem with him on that issue is that he, in his comfortable married life in the liberal bastion of L.A., constantly takes the anti-gay side of every issue like states’ rights to discriminate, Christians’ right to discriminate, and he says that gay people living in shitholes like Alabama should just move somewhere else, as though that’s something that anyone could or should have to do. And I just think that that is despicable. That’s my real problem with him on the gay issue. Him saying that he’s okay with allowing businesses to discriminate and then following up with “but I’m gay!” is not compelling to me. If anything it makes it worse, in my mind.

I agree Rubin is a bit clueless in this regard. Poor people can’t just pick up and move someplace else. It’s also not reasonable to expect an entire family to relocate due to discrimination experienced by a family member.

He also is paid by the Koch Brothers and takes guests at their suggestion. I don’t think it’s cluelessness, I think he’s deliberately dishonest.

There’s a lot of stuff on PBS that’s been funded by Charles Koch. Are you worried about their motives, too?

Do you have proof that their contribution is a significant portion of Rubin’s budget and that the Kochs push certain guests? I tried searching for direct evidence and found literally a single JPEG that draws some tenuous connection between Rubin and Charles Koch:

https://i.imgur.com/b5Xl6Gg.jpg

The bulk of the content consists of left-wing blogs and “news” outlets screeching about it, but not offering real details.

Owens does call Democrats racists, true, as in “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. She uses the plantation as a metaphor for freeing black people from the traditional mindset that voting Democrat is the only way for them to succeed because Republicans are racists who want to hold them down. It’s provocative rhetoric for sure and I can see how it would be upsetting to Democrats who view themselves as the exact opposite of racists.

It annoys me because it’s a stupid thing to say and it upsets me because it’s hypocritical to complain about race-baiting and then do it. It also offends me to be hardcore left and then immediately become hardcore right when you realize there’s more money in being hardcore right. She’s also stunningly ignorant. She obviously has no understanding of American history and she also has no understanding of science. I’d encourage you to watch her on Joe Rogan where she literally says “I don’t believe any of this, like, at all,” when confronted with evidence in favor of climate change. The fact that conservatives tout this woman as any kind of intelligent voice is embarrassing in my opinion. At least someone like Ben Shapiro, who I think is a disgusting and repugnant pile of crap, demonstrates an understanding of the issues that he talks about. That’s all I expect from people whether I agree or disagree with them.

Not gonna lie, it’s kind of hard to take you seriously when your descriptions of those with whom you disagree are hyperbolic and dripping with hate. I disagree with Shapiro, but repugnant pile of crap?

Yeah, he’s revolting.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277?lang=en

“Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock”

That is Nazi-esque rhetoric if I’ve ever heard it, just with a different ethnicity as the target.

https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2002/07/25/enemy-civilian-casualties-ok-by-me-n1391583

Yes, he’s a disgusting man. His utter disregard for human life makes me sick. And I won’t apologize for that feeling. “Repugnant pile of crap” is an understatement. He also doesn’t support my civil rights as an American so I don’t see why I should have some high opinion of him. I know I’m usually hyperbolic but someone who literally admits to not caring about civilian casualties because they’re from a different country is not someone that I think is worthy of any respect.

You had to go back 8 years for an obnoxious tweet and 16 (!) years for an article. I had some dumb ideas in my 20s that I was fortunate not to have written about and published online. Did you?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay, would you be willing to criticize Jordan Peterson’s attempts to shut down critics by the force of the court system?

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-feminist-critic-kate-manne.html

There’s a difference between critique (free speech) and slander (illegal), and Peterson obviously thought this person’s review crossed the line into slander by labeling him a misogynist. I can’t blame him for being fed up with the ceaseless misrepresentation, but it’s not a good look given his constant hammering on free speech as a core value and filing the lawsuit isn’t going to get his critics to change their minds, so I don’t see the point. It comes across as hypocritical and overly dramatic.

You do realize that this is no different than someone suing Candace Owens for her calling them racist, right? You were defending Alex Jones for being banned over slander, which I don’t believe that Owens or the woman criticizing Peterson committed but I do believe that Jones has, because it had to do with liberals coming after a right-winger. This is what I mean when I say that you have sympathies for the right.

Didn’t I just say that I think the lawsuit is a bad idea?

Yes, in a very milquetoast way.

Sorry, I’m not a screecher.

I think you need to get over this mindset that if someone defends someone else, they must agree with everything that person does, or if they criticize someone else, they must hold the exact opposite position. Or that every criticism must be absolute and angry. I get that you’re passionate, but I’m not going to adopt the language you do to describe my feelings because I don’t think it’s productive.

If Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks sued Ben Shapiro for similar criticisms, I’d bet my life that you would not take such a tepid stance on it. I’m glad you see this as hypocritical, but it goes beyond that. It’s dangerous. This woman was very lucky that her employers didn’t just fire her to avoid the lawsuit, because it was one of his demands that the paper retract her article and issue an apology.

Some on the right have decided to fight fire with fire, matching outrage for outrage, drawing upon the mob and loss of income as deterrents for opinions they don’t like. SJWs have mastered this form of attack and many conservatives have responded in kind. It’s wrong whoever does it.

I don’t even understand what you’re saying here. Unless the person he’s suing ever tried to get him fired and shut down, there is no “fighting fire with fire” on his part. It’s just him attacking a detractor. This is what I mean when I say you’re sympathetic to the right. There is always some reason as to why it’s understandable that right-wingers are doing these things that you’re opposed to, even if you say it’s wrong, but for the left it’s nefarious. I think it’s nefarious when both do it. They’ve both been doing these things for much longer than SJWs have even been a concept. Remember when Jerry Falwell (crazed right-winger) tried to sue Hustler Magazine out of existence?

I meant they’re using the same tactics on both sides. That’s not the same thing as “an eye for an eye”.

I’m not sympathetic to the right, sorry. I think the extremes on both sides are crazy, and I’m not going to play the game where every time I criticize the left, I make sure to balance it out by criticizing the right in the same breath.

moviefreakedmind said:

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

They do, but by that logic you surely can’t deny that the insane fringe is running the right. The Trump crowd controls the White House and Congress. The reason I forget that you’re a centrist is because you have a clear sympathy towards the people on the right doing the exact same thing you chastise the left for. Forgive me for being confused by that obvious bias. I am a leftist. I don’t doubt that my pro-left bias shows and I don’t pretend to be a centrist. If you’ve read this thread, you’d know how I feel about centrists. 😉

I don’t know where you get this idea that I sympathize more with the right than the left. I sympathize with those who present rational ideas and are labeled as extremists by those who disagree with them. When I’m talking about the stuff I see on the left that caused me to walk away, I’m not saying the right doesn’t do the same thing. It saddens me to come to terms with the fact that the left is as bullshit-ridden and disingenuous as the right, which is why I beat on them so hard.

Your defense of their identity politics is a perfect example of sympathizing with them. You don’t present a similarly sympathetic view on leftist identity politics.

Again, I’m not seeing what identity politics I’m defending. When Rubin, Peterson, Owens, etc. bring up race, it’s always to say “race doesn’t matter” or “stop talking about race”. I’m genuinely not following you here.

Rubin consistently brings up his homosexuality to legitimize his opinion. I do get where you’re coming from on Rubin and Peterson, so maybe we’ll just have to have our conflicting interpretations of them, but Candace Owens does not bring up race to say that it doesn’t matter. She brings it up to say that Democrats and liberals are racist. She brings it up to say Democrats were slaveowners as though that means anything now and she brings it up to say that black people need to “get off the plantation” and all sorts of other ludicrous shit.

I don’t see Rubin’s tendency to be self-referential as unreasonable. It’s just a counter to the idea that if you’re gay, you have to think and vote a certain way. He uses his own journey as an example and I don’t see the problem with it.

To be honest my problem with him on that issue is that he, in his comfortable married life in the liberal bastion of L.A., constantly takes the anti-gay side of every issue like states’ rights to discriminate, Christians’ right to discriminate, and he says that gay people living in shitholes like Alabama should just move somewhere else, as though that’s something that anyone could or should have to do. And I just think that that is despicable. That’s my real problem with him on the gay issue. Him saying that he’s okay with allowing businesses to discriminate and then following up with “but I’m gay!” is not compelling to me. If anything it makes it worse, in my mind.

I agree Rubin is a bit clueless in this regard. Poor people can’t just pick up and move someplace else. It’s also not reasonable to expect an entire family to relocate due to discrimination experienced by a family member.

Owens does call Democrats racists, true, as in “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. She uses the plantation as a metaphor for freeing black people from the traditional mindset that voting Democrat is the only way for them to succeed because Republicans are racists who want to hold them down. It’s provocative rhetoric for sure and I can see how it would be upsetting to Democrats who view themselves as the exact opposite of racists.

It annoys me because it’s a stupid thing to say and it upsets me because it’s hypocritical to complain about race-baiting and then do it. It also offends me to be hardcore left and then immediately become hardcore right when you realize there’s more money in being hardcore right. She’s also stunningly ignorant. She obviously has no understanding of American history and she also has no understanding of science. I’d encourage you to watch her on Joe Rogan where she literally says “I don’t believe any of this, like, at all,” when confronted with evidence in favor of climate change. The fact that conservatives tout this woman as any kind of intelligent voice is embarrassing in my opinion. At least someone like Ben Shapiro, who I think is a disgusting and repugnant pile of crap, demonstrates an understanding of the issues that he talks about. That’s all I expect from people whether I agree or disagree with them.

Not gonna lie, it’s kind of hard to take you seriously when your descriptions of those with whom you disagree are hyperbolic and dripping with hate. I disagree with Shapiro, but repugnant pile of crap?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay, would you be willing to criticize Jordan Peterson’s attempts to shut down critics by the force of the court system?

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-feminist-critic-kate-manne.html

There’s a difference between critique (free speech) and slander (illegal), and Peterson obviously thought this person’s review crossed the line into slander by labeling him a misogynist. I can’t blame him for being fed up with the ceaseless misrepresentation, but it’s not a good look given his constant hammering on free speech as a core value and filing the lawsuit isn’t going to get his critics to change their minds, so I don’t see the point. It comes across as hypocritical and overly dramatic.

You do realize that this is no different than someone suing Candace Owens for her calling them racist, right? You were defending Alex Jones for being banned over slander, which I don’t believe that Owens or the woman criticizing Peterson committed but I do believe that Jones has, because it had to do with liberals coming after a right-winger. This is what I mean when I say that you have sympathies for the right.

Didn’t I just say that I think the lawsuit is a bad idea?

I think you need to get over this mindset that if someone defends someone else, they must agree with everything that person does, or if they criticize someone else, they must hold the exact opposite position. Or that every criticism must be absolute and angry. I get that you’re passionate, but I’m not going to adopt the language you do to describe my feelings because I don’t think it’s productive.

If Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks sued Ben Shapiro for similar criticisms, I’d bet my life that you would not take such a tepid stance on it. I’m glad you see this as hypocritical, but it goes beyond that. It’s dangerous. This woman was very lucky that her employers didn’t just fire her to avoid the lawsuit, because it was one of his demands that the paper retract her article and issue an apology.

Some on the right have decided to fight fire with fire, matching outrage for outrage, drawing upon the mob and loss of income as deterrents for opinions they don’t like. SJWs have mastered this form of attack and many conservatives have responded in kind. It’s wrong whoever does it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Can you provide some more info on them or point to specific videos so I don’t have to watch all their content in order to figure out what they said that got them demonetized?

There are no specific examples because Youtube doesn’t explain why people get demonitized. The Amazing Atheist is and always has been extremely controversial. He makes anti-religion videos and political content. Secular Talk is a much more professional leftist outlet. He’s part of the Young Turks network and he’s been demonitized for no specific reason. Thunderf00t has been demonitized even though he’s primarily a science channel, but occasionally makes liberal content, including videos against climate change deniers. David Pakman is an extremely professional, not vulgar at all political commentator. Jimmy Dore is pretty extreme and is part of the Young Turks. All these people suspect that they’ve been demonitized for covering controversial subject matter, like war and others. Again, nothing to do with deviating from leftist norms. The woman that shot up Youtube did it because she made no money on the hundreds of thousands of views she got on totally apolitical content like exercise videos. Demonitization has been across the board. I don’t know how else to phrase that. No side of the political aisle has been targeted more or less than the other. For every gun video that gets demonitized, there’s a gun-control video that gets demonitized. Youtube is demonitizing entire subjects, no matter which side of it you’re on. I see a lot of leftists, including Jimmy Dore, that claim demonitization is targeting the left. He, just like the people on the right, is wrong. It’s targeting every independent outlet on the platform. Rightists and leftists should realize that they’re in the same boat here, but they don’t.

I suppose I’ll have to look into their content more. Thanks for the extra info.

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

They do, but by that logic you surely can’t deny that the insane fringe is running the right. The Trump crowd controls the White House and Congress. The reason I forget that you’re a centrist is because you have a clear sympathy towards the people on the right doing the exact same thing you chastise the left for. Forgive me for being confused by that obvious bias. I am a leftist. I don’t doubt that my pro-left bias shows and I don’t pretend to be a centrist. If you’ve read this thread, you’d know how I feel about centrists. 😉

I don’t know where you get this idea that I sympathize more with the right than the left. I sympathize with those who present rational ideas and are labeled as extremists by those who disagree with them. When I’m talking about the stuff I see on the left that caused me to walk away, I’m not saying the right doesn’t do the same thing. It saddens me to come to terms with the fact that the left is as bullshit-ridden and disingenuous as the right, which is why I beat on them so hard.

Your defense of their identity politics is a perfect example of sympathizing with them. You don’t present a similarly sympathetic view on leftist identity politics.

Again, I’m not seeing what identity politics I’m defending. When Rubin, Peterson, Owens, etc. bring up race, it’s always to say “race doesn’t matter” or “stop talking about race”. I’m genuinely not following you here.

Rubin consistently brings up his homosexuality to legitimize his opinion. I do get where you’re coming from on Rubin and Peterson, so maybe we’ll just have to have our conflicting interpretations of them, but Candace Owens does not bring up race to say that it doesn’t matter. She brings it up to say that Democrats and liberals are racist. She brings it up to say Democrats were slaveowners as though that means anything now and she brings it up to say that black people need to “get off the plantation” and all sorts of other ludicrous shit.

I don’t see Rubin’s tendency to be self-referential as unreasonable. It’s just a counter to the idea that if you’re gay, you have to think and vote a certain way. He uses his own journey as an example and I don’t see the problem with it.

Owens does call Democrats racists, true, as in “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. She uses the plantation as a metaphor for freeing black people from the traditional mindset that voting Democrat is the only way for them to succeed because Republicans are racists who want to hold them down. It’s provocative rhetoric for sure and I can see how it would be upsetting to Democrats who view themselves as the exact opposite of racists.

I think part of the problem is that you keep referring to the Trump crowd as the fringe when the man got 60+ million votes. That’s not fringe. The fringe definitely supports him, but people don’t become president with only fringe votes. His support among Republicans is insanely high. Seems to me that being on the left and having an irrational hatred of Trump go hand in hand, which makes any Trump supporter “fringe” in comparison.

Trump and his supporters are fringe. Trump voters aren’t necessarily fringe.

Can you explain the difference between a “Trump supporter” and a “Trump voter” in practical terms? He got the votes and in pretty much every poll he has high approval from Republicans across the board. When you talk about Trump and his supporters, you don’t seem to draw any such lines between the fringe (i.e., the minority) and everyone else who voted for him.

I would say that a Trump supporter is different from a Trump voter in the same way that a Hillary supporter is different from a Hillary voter, or any other politician. When I think of a Trump supporter I’m thinking of the conspiratorial, Trump-can-do-no-wrong type of Republican. Not close to all of his voters were like that.

It’s good to acknowledge the difference.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay, would you be willing to criticize Jordan Peterson’s attempts to shut down critics by the force of the court system?

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-feminist-critic-kate-manne.html

There’s a difference between critique (free speech) and slander (illegal), and Peterson obviously thought this person’s review crossed the line into slander by labeling him a misogynist. I can’t blame him for being fed up with the ceaseless misrepresentation, but it’s not a good look given his constant hammering on free speech as a core value and filing the lawsuit isn’t going to get his critics to change their minds, so I don’t see the point. It comes across as hypocritical and overly dramatic.

I agree with his lawsuit against Wilfred Laurier University. What those profs and admins did to Lindsay Shepherd was way out of line and labeling a brief clip from a Peterson lecture as hate speech is nonsense.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I think part of the problem is that you keep referring to the Trump crowd as the fringe when the man got 60+ million votes.

May I remind you that he did not win the popular vote?

60+ million votes isn’t fringe, regardless of the popular vote.

The new Predator movie or the new 4K release of the original?

The blu-ray.com review is very positive. I just got my Oppo 205 and need to pick up a few discs for testing. Might grab this one since it’s relatively cheap and I love the movie.

dahmage said:

If developers are threatening to remove code from the kernel because of they feel offended by a new code of conduct then they are definitely man babies and quite frankly I don’t give a shit.

Not offended. Threatened. With loss of status. In a business where reputation is everything, possibly their livelihood. Just like what happened to Damore.

This is what happens when you prioritize your personal feelings and politics over real life. Loss of perspective.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The deplatforming of Alex Jones
Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort by major media companies. Agree with him or not (I don’t watch the guy, I know him mostly from the whole Sandy Hook thing and some memes), having corporate entities who are powerful enough to instantly erase someone’s online presence because the company’s management doesn’t agree with their views should concern everybody, regardless of politics or personal feelings.

Who cares though, right? It’s Alex Jones. That guy’s insane! The point is that everyone should care when major publishing platforms can shape political discourse by silencing or amplifying certain voices. Anyone who claims to be concerned about Russian interference in our elections via social media and isn’t concerned about what happened to Alex Jones is making their decisions based on ideology and not law or right vs. wrong.

I agree that the coordinated banning of Jones was disturbing for all the reasons that you pointed out, but let’s be honest about why he was banned. He repeatedly slandered people. He claimed that the parents of Sandy Hook were participating in a hoax shooting. His platform falsely accused an innocent man of committing the Parkland shooting (whose survivors he also slandered by claiming were crisis actors). He sells scam, false-hope supplements. He’s seemingly called for the death of Mueller at least once, among other people that he claims (by name and without evidence) are child-molesters. I find the coordinated ban disturbing, but there’s a case to be made that Alex Jones’ content may not even be legal, which is why they banned him. It had nothing to do with him being conservative or with management not agreeing with his views. And I don’t see how corporate interests in this case are evidence of wackos controlling the left. I, as with some other leftists, are advocating that the first amendment be applied to massive platforms like Youtube. I don’t see any solution like that coming from anyone on the right, who support those corporations’ ability to coordinately shut people down, even if they don’t like it.

Some people on the right are talking about forcing First Amendment protections on social media (I’ve seen it mentioned on Twitter quite a bit), but it shouldn’t be surprising that the idea would get little traction in the mainstream since it goes against practically everything Republicans support: free market solutions, minimal regulation, etc.

Right, that’s a flaw of Republicanism. Their ideology doesn’t have an answer to this problem.

I have mixed feelings about it. Do I think YouTube and Twitter are large enough that banning content producers causes undue harm not only to the content producer, but people in general? Yes. Would I ever want that type of regulation applied to myself as someone who runs an online community? Probably not, although I imagine a feeling of relief washing over me knowing that I’d never have to police another forum post 😉

If Jones were convicted of a crime, I might feel differently. He hasn’t been, though. My concern lies with the notion that it’s only the “bad guys” who will be shut down. I don’t trust Google and YouTube to filter my content. That’s what my brain is for. If they want to be publishers, then be publishers, not censors. Let audiences and advertisers decide what content survives.

I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why the incident disturbed me. My point, however, was that the censorship was not based on political ideology or personal disagreement, but the legal implications of Jones’ insanity.

To be fair, we don’t know that. He was banned for what he said. Whether it was because of ideological differences or legal concerns (or both), no one knows.

YouTube demonitization
The frequent and unexplained demonitization of YouTube videos in order to rob them of their income should also be concerning. Many videos by “conservatives” (i.e., anyone not openly left) are flagged as problematic either by community reports or YouTube’s own moderators. Conveniently, they remain flagged—and therefore unable to earn advertising revenue—until a further manual review is performed. The videos often have advertising revenue reinstated, but they don’t get the revenue they missed while they were flagged, only future revenue. Most videos from popular YouTubers get most views right after they go live, so most revenue is lost.

When I say “overrun”, it’s kind of a sloppy way of saying that real people’s lives are being affected by emotional assholes with an axe to grind; even if the “wackos” are a minority, they’re loud enough that some companies are listening and the position of the party is shifting.

How is this leftism? I’ll give you some great left-wing examples that have been demonitized. The Amazing Atheist, David Pakman, Secular Talk, Thunderf00t, The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore, among others. You’re framing this issue inaccurately; you’re leaving out half of the demonitization’s victims, and I get why, because those “classical liberal” outlets have framed it that way too. I used to think the same way, but those guys that I mentioned are far leftists that got destroyed by demonitization. The narrative that the right wing is singled out doesn’t hold up when you examine who all gets affected. Demonitization doesn’t discriminate and has been across the board on Youtube, even in apolitical channels. The only survivors have been corporate outlets. Claiming that only your side is affected, as the rightwing is doing, is dishonest no matter which side is doing it. Realizing that we’re actually all in the same boat in this case is the only way to put a stop to it.

I don’t see how those examples, only one of which is even arguably an example of leftist bullshit, could possibly lead anyone to thinking that the leftwing is overrun by wackos. I think it’s held back by corporatists, if anything.

I’d be willing to bet that most of the content producers you mention found themselves demonetized for saying
things that run counter to left-wing ideology.

Nope, that’s not what happened. They’ve been demonitized because, unlike corporate outlets, they say what they want. It’s not just them, it’s apolitical channels that aren’t left or right. Everyone is getting demonitized and it isn’t because they deviate from leftist thought patterns.

Can you provide some more info on them or point to specific videos so I don’t have to watch all their content in order to figure out what they said that got them demonetized?

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

They do, but by that logic you surely can’t deny that the insane fringe is running the right. The Trump crowd controls the White House and Congress. The reason I forget that you’re a centrist is because you have a clear sympathy towards the people on the right doing the exact same thing you chastise the left for. Forgive me for being confused by that obvious bias. I am a leftist. I don’t doubt that my pro-left bias shows and I don’t pretend to be a centrist. If you’ve read this thread, you’d know how I feel about centrists. 😉

I don’t know where you get this idea that I sympathize more with the right than the left. I sympathize with those who present rational ideas and are labeled as extremists by those who disagree with them. When I’m talking about the stuff I see on the left that caused me to walk away, I’m not saying the right doesn’t do the same thing. It saddens me to come to terms with the fact that the left is as bullshit-ridden and disingenuous as the right, which is why I beat on them so hard.

Your defense of their identity politics is a perfect example of sympathizing with them. You don’t present a similarly sympathetic view on leftist identity politics.

Again, I’m not seeing what identity politics I’m defending. When Rubin, Peterson, Owens, etc. bring up race, it’s always to say “race doesn’t matter” or “stop talking about race”. I’m genuinely not following you here.

I think part of the problem is that you keep referring to the Trump crowd as the fringe when the man got 60+ million votes. That’s not fringe. The fringe definitely supports him, but people don’t become president with only fringe votes. His support among Republicans is insanely high. Seems to me that being on the left and having an irrational hatred of Trump go hand in hand, which makes any Trump supporter “fringe” in comparison.

Trump and his supporters are fringe. Trump voters aren’t necessarily fringe.

Can you explain the difference between a “Trump supporter” and a “Trump voter” in practical terms? He got the votes and in pretty much every poll he has high approval from Republicans across the board. When you talk about Trump and his supporters, you don’t seem to draw any such lines between the fringe (i.e., the minority) and everyone else who voted for him.

dahmage said:

Jay, what trouble in Linux land are you alluding too.

I read about linus’ stepping away to work on his acerbic leadership style, but it seems like you are saying he was better that way? That sometimes to be great we need to be verbally abussive? Or put another way, that being verbally abussive is fine as long as you are great?

But you say that there is trouble brewing…

This is why relying strictly upon mainstream media for news means you get half the story.

Yes, Torvalds issued a blanket apology for his previous behavior, and no, I don’t think verbally abusing colleagues is fine. I never said that. I’ve worked for/with verbally abusive people and the stress can be unbearable.

The problem is that in his remorse, he decided to implement a CoC written by a social justice activist that incorporates the kind of thought/speech policing I’ve come to expect from that crowd, and now there are some on Twitter who are poring over old tweets and mailing lists written by code contributors in order to find material they deem offensive so they can attack these contributors and get them retroactively disciplined and possibly removed from the core team. Remember what happened to James Gunn? If you had a problem with that, you should have a problem with this.

The real trouble is that the GPLv2 license under which Linux is maintained allows developers to rescind previous code commits from the repository. The idea being floated around is for devs to threaten to remove huge chunks of code written over many years in retaliation for any sanctions, leaving gaping holes in the kernel and basically nuking it. Anyone running Linux would be obligated to remove that code from their machines under the license or face copyright lawsuits. This kind of uncertainty and instability can have a very negative effect on Linux as a whole. How many devs who aren’t currently a target will walk away because they don’t want to risk having their careers ruined over a possible future accusation? How many potential future contributors will decide not to participate in the project because they don’t want their politics used against them?

Frankly, I don’t want people who prioritize their politics over code quality maintaining the software that we all depend on to safely and securely transmit our personal data. I don’t give a shit if they’re offended by a rape joke made on a mailing list 10 years ago. If they don’t have the mental fortitude to withstand an off-color joke, they have no business writing critical software the entire world depends on.

Also, anyone who called Sandy Hook a hoax and did all the shit Alex Jones did is a complete price of shit and shouldn’t be waived off like you just did. Seriously.

I didn’t wave it off. Its offensiveness just isn’t relevant to the free speech discussion. If what he said isn’t illegal, then it falls under free speech protections, regardless of how you or I feel about it.

SilverWook said:

Where’s the middle ground then? Letting these morons run amok without any checks on the vile sewage coming out of their mouths seems like a bad idea to me.

You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the limit on free speech.

Whether anything Alex Jones has said is equivalent to that is up for debate. One could argue his conspiracy theories incite violence, but that same criticism has been applied to activists. I don’t know where the line is, but it’s the oft-referenced slippery slope.

Regarding possible regulation of social media:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-22/draft-order-for-trump-would-crack-down-on-google-facebook

The White House has drafted an executive order for President Donald Trump’s signature that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open investigations into the business practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc. and other social media companies.

…

The document instructs U.S. antitrust authorities to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.” It instructs other government agencies to recommend within a month after it’s signed actions that could potentially “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.”

Sessions is holding a meeting with state AGs to discuss social media:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/sessions-is-said-to-be-open-to-probe-of-social-media-giants
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/sessions-agrees-to-include-democrats-in-meeting-on-social-media

SilverWook said:

Deplatformed is not being muzzled. Youtube isn’t the only video sharing service out there. I’m sure somebody will bankroll an alternative service for all those crying over the big mainstream companies that won’t let them easily spew hate and FUD.

This isn’t just about the fringes spewing hate. You’re fooling yourself if you think the employees at these companies only have Alex Jones in their crosshairs.

Rights are eroded in degrees. Silencing questionable speech is the first step.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I bet it’s in response to people on the right identifying as “classical liberals” and such. The phenomenon I’m referring to started on the center and right about three or four years ago.

It’s more about disillusioned lefties who are done with identity politics and mainstream media than righties trying to rebrand as something less conservative.

A lot of those people that are “done” with identity politics are playing it just as much as the left does. I used to be one of those disillusioned lefties that didn’t see that hypocrisy. I used to be a guy that watched Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro and Sargon and those other hacks. I know the crowd. They can’t go more than a couple sentences without mentioning identity. Jordan Peterson is obsessed with identity. He can’t stop talking about gender identity and how society disadvantages men and how people need Christian morals to be good and all that shit. He and his ilk play the identity politics game. The idea that these people are against identity politics is dishonest. They’re against the left’s identity politics, but that’s it.

I don’t agree with your assessment of most of that crowd; the main reason they bring up identity is to refute what’s being said by the left, and I’ve never heard them argue in favor of a particular identity or offer up one’s identity as an excuse for their behavior or beliefs. I’m just not hearing what you’re hearing when these people present their views.

Isn’t that just an excuse? Crowder particularly can’t even talk to a gay, female, black, mexican, or even handicapped guest without constantly bringing up their respective identity. Do a drinking game where you take a shot every time he brings up his minority guests’ identity, you’ll have alcohol poisoning before the segment is over. It’s the same thing with Rubin and the absolute worst is this Candace Owens character (and I call her a character because her politics do a total 180 depending on who’s paying her) who is incapable of not crying about perceived racism. She is a total “SJW” by typical standards.

One of the worst videos I’ve ever seen on Youtube was when Crowder posted a screed about how the AIDS epidemic was a hoax because gay people were suffering from it (and of course it’s their own fault, right?). The white, Christian victimhood narrative drives a lot of the right wing. Keep an eye out for it, because it’s there and just as pathetic as some of the leftwing victim narratives.

I haven’t seen much of Crowder, so I can’t speak to the examples you cited. I find his interview style annoying (condescending tone, talks too fast and too long) and his jokes mostly unfunny, which is why I haven’t followed him.

Owens strikes me as an opportunist, but I don’t find a shift in politics all that unusual since I also kind of woke up one day and realized I wasn’t what I thought I was. I don’t know who’s paying her; follow the money though, as they say.

I’ve watched plenty of Rubin and don’t share your assessment of him at all. He welcomes any guest from any background, asks some interesting questions, and lets them answer fully without interrupting. Any interviewer that lets their guest do most of the talking is fine by me.

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Random political thought:

I’ve seen a lot of “leftists” vs. “liberals” stuff lately, and I wonder, since when did “liberals” become synonymous with specifically center-left democrats? I always thought “liberal” was just a general term that encompassed the entire left.

moviefreakedmind said:

A lot of center-right and even straight-up rightwing people have been trying to make some distinction between “liberals” and people that are more socialistic as a way to co-opt the term liberal.

Just as the right has the alt-right, whose views are too extreme or racist for the typical conservative, the left has been overrun with wackos who have as much in common with their far-right “enemies” as they do with their own party (see: Horseshoe Theory).

I agree, but I’m going to need examples of how the left is “overrun” by these wackos. I’ve asked you many, many times for evidence of this and you’ve yet to give it to me so please do. I think it’s an important conversation.

Some recent examples:

The firing of James Damore
Google’s firing of Damore was completely unjustified. He presented a reasoned argument regarding not just why women are underrepresented in tech, but how Google could change their policies to encourage more women to enter the field. I read the memo and while some argued against his data and conclusions, nothing he wrote would be considered radical or incendiary in scientific journals and the dude is rational almost to a fault. He was smeared by the mainstream media as alt-right and misogynist and he lost his job.

He lost his job before being called alt-right. Him losing his job was what the whole story was in the first place. I didn’t read the memo so I won’t comment on the details because I’m ignorant now. But the reason he’s called alt-right is because he immediately started going onto all of the alt-right’s main outlets as a guest. Stefan Molyneux, the cult leader that’s been linked to at least one suicide, for example. How is this solitary instance from over a year ago evident of the left being overrun by wackos?

Maybe this was a solitary event to you. Perhaps if you worked in tech, you’d understand that this is an ongoing problem and conservatives know to keep their mouths shut about their politics at the office. You’d also know about the trouble brewing with the Linux kernel due to their new Code of Conduct and the injection of politics into their working group. “Activists” are already digging through old tweets of contributing devs and trying to get them kicked out. I don’t want the quality of the code that drives the OS responsible for almost all modern servers to be driven by ideology and outrage. This shit is pervasive.

The memo went public on August 5th and Damore was fired on August 7th. Whether Google had planned to fire him already or they caved to pressure after the media firestorm and used their Code of Conduct as an excuse, the result was the same. Damore lost his job because he expressed scientifically valid ideas about gender differences—not female inferiority, but generalized differences between the typical male and typical female—that are incompatible with leftist and extreme feminist ideology. He then spoke with those he thought would provide fair coverage; why should he interview with a network that supported the narrative that he was alt-right and misogynist? Was he supposed to go on CNN or MSNBC and get lobbed leading questions that would end up getting used against him? Maybe talk to the NYT and get the same fair and honest coverage Jordan Peterson got with the whole “enforced monogamy” thing? The entirety of the mainstream media, minus Fox News, tore that kid to pieces.

The deplatforming of Alex Jones
Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort by major media companies. Agree with him or not (I don’t watch the guy, I know him mostly from the whole Sandy Hook thing and some memes), having corporate entities who are powerful enough to instantly erase someone’s online presence because the company’s management doesn’t agree with their views should concern everybody, regardless of politics or personal feelings.

Who cares though, right? It’s Alex Jones. That guy’s insane! The point is that everyone should care when major publishing platforms can shape political discourse by silencing or amplifying certain voices. Anyone who claims to be concerned about Russian interference in our elections via social media and isn’t concerned about what happened to Alex Jones is making their decisions based on ideology and not law or right vs. wrong.

I agree that the coordinated banning of Jones was disturbing for all the reasons that you pointed out, but let’s be honest about why he was banned. He repeatedly slandered people. He claimed that the parents of Sandy Hook were participating in a hoax shooting. His platform falsely accused an innocent man of committing the Parkland shooting (whose survivors he also slandered by claiming were crisis actors). He sells scam, false-hope supplements. He’s seemingly called for the death of Mueller at least once, among other people that he claims (by name and without evidence) are child-molesters. I find the coordinated ban disturbing, but there’s a case to be made that Alex Jones’ content may not even be legal, which is why they banned him. It had nothing to do with him being conservative or with management not agreeing with his views. And I don’t see how corporate interests in this case are evidence of wackos controlling the left. I, as with some other leftists, are advocating that the first amendment be applied to massive platforms like Youtube. I don’t see any solution like that coming from anyone on the right, who support those corporations’ ability to coordinately shut people down, even if they don’t like it.

Some people on the right are talking about forcing First Amendment protections on social media (I’ve seen it mentioned on Twitter quite a bit), but it shouldn’t be surprising that the idea would get little traction in the mainstream since it goes against practically everything Republicans support: free market solutions, minimal regulation, etc.

I have mixed feelings about it. Do I think YouTube and Twitter are large enough that banning content producers causes undue harm not only to the content producer, but people in general? Yes. Would I ever want that type of regulation applied to myself as someone who runs an online community? Probably not, although I imagine a feeling of relief washing over me knowing that I’d never have to police another forum post 😉

If Jones were convicted of a crime, I might feel differently. He hasn’t been, though. My concern lies with the notion that it’s only the “bad guys” who will be shut down. I don’t trust Google and YouTube to filter my content. That’s what my brain is for. If they want to be publishers, then be publishers, not censors. Let audiences and advertisers decide what content survives.

YouTube demonitization
The frequent and unexplained demonitization of YouTube videos in order to rob them of their income should also be concerning. Many videos by “conservatives” (i.e., anyone not openly left) are flagged as problematic either by community reports or YouTube’s own moderators. Conveniently, they remain flagged—and therefore unable to earn advertising revenue—until a further manual review is performed. The videos often have advertising revenue reinstated, but they don’t get the revenue they missed while they were flagged, only future revenue. Most videos from popular YouTubers get most views right after they go live, so most revenue is lost.

When I say “overrun”, it’s kind of a sloppy way of saying that real people’s lives are being affected by emotional assholes with an axe to grind; even if the “wackos” are a minority, they’re loud enough that some companies are listening and the position of the party is shifting.

How is this leftism? I’ll give you some great left-wing examples that have been demonitized. The Amazing Atheist, David Pakman, Secular Talk, Thunderf00t, The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore, among others. You’re framing this issue inaccurately; you’re leaving out half of the demonitization’s victims, and I get why, because those “classical liberal” outlets have framed it that way too. I used to think the same way, but those guys that I mentioned are far leftists that got destroyed by demonitization. The narrative that the right wing is singled out doesn’t hold up when you examine who all gets affected. Demonitization doesn’t discriminate and has been across the board on Youtube, even in apolitical channels. The only survivors have been corporate outlets. Claiming that only your side is affected, as the rightwing is doing, is dishonest no matter which side is doing it. Realizing that we’re actually all in the same boat in this case is the only way to put a stop to it.

I don’t see how those examples, only one of which is even arguably an example of leftist bullshit, could possibly lead anyone to thinking that the leftwing is overrun by wackos. I think it’s held back by corporatists, if anything.

I’d be willing to bet that most of the content producers you mention found themselves demonetized for saying things that run counter to left-wing ideology. I don’t follow them, but I’m going to look into them now that you’ve brought them up. My point isn’t that only conservatives are affected, but that anyone who deviates too far from accepted leftist thought patterns gets unpersoned and cast out.

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

They do, but by that logic you surely can’t deny that the insane fringe is running the right. The Trump crowd controls the White House and Congress. The reason I forget that you’re a centrist is because you have a clear sympathy towards the people on the right doing the exact same thing you chastise the left for. Forgive me for being confused by that obvious bias. I am a leftist. I don’t doubt that my pro-left bias shows and I don’t pretend to be a centrist. If you’ve read this thread, you’d know how I feel about centrists. 😉

I don’t know where you get this idea that I sympathize more with the right than the left. I sympathize with those who present rational ideas and are labeled as extremists by those who disagree with them. When I’m talking about the stuff I see on the left that caused me to walk away, I’m not saying the right doesn’t do the same thing. It saddens me to come to terms with the fact that the left is as bullshit-ridden and disingenuous as the right, which is why I beat on them so hard.

I think part of the problem is that you keep referring to the Trump crowd as the fringe when the man got 60+ million votes. That’s not fringe. The fringe definitely supports him, but people don’t become president with only fringe votes. His support among Republicans is insanely high. Seems to me that being on the left and having an irrational hatred of Trump go hand in hand, which makes any Trump supporter “fringe” in comparison.

I understand not supporting his policies and finding him gross and classless, but most of what comes out of the left right now just sounds like insane screeching in response to rhetoric that’s doing exactly as it’s designed to do. I’ve found that separating Trump’s rhetoric from his policies helps me process what’s going on in politics without losing my mind and painting all Trump supporters with the same brush. Politics has always been mostly bullshit; Trump’s bullshit is just right out there in the open rather than masked with a charming disposition and well-rehearsed oration.

dahmage said:

Re:deplatforming

By existing and giving every tom dick and Harry a platform, big tech companies changed politics, and our society.

Absolutely. Do you trust them to decide who has the right to be heard? What happens if their politics run counter to yours?

SilverWook said:

Or they can do what every loonatic fringe person did before the internet. Print out some leaflets and pass them out on a street corner, and write batsh*t crazy letters to the editor. Private companies don’t owe them a damn thing. I’m sure such people will find alternative means to spew their crap on the internet. Isn’t there already a twitter alternative catering to the people twitter is kicking off?
None of these cranks complained when they couldn’t get on anything other then public access cable tv.

The problem is that only the right-leaning lunatics are the ones being deplatformed. It’s naive to think that thought policing won’t spread to more conventional conservative thought over time. I’m not interested in a media landscape dominated by left-wing nutjobs any more than right-wing.

It’s fine to say private companies can do what they want, but liberals only seem to agree with that when it suits them. Ask them if a company should be forced to include access to birth control on the company health plan and it’s a different story.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I bet it’s in response to people on the right identifying as “classical liberals” and such. The phenomenon I’m referring to started on the center and right about three or four years ago.

It’s more about disillusioned lefties who are done with identity politics and mainstream media than righties trying to rebrand as something less conservative.

A lot of those people that are “done” with identity politics are playing it just as much as the left does. I used to be one of those disillusioned lefties that didn’t see that hypocrisy. I used to be a guy that watched Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro and Sargon and those other hacks. I know the crowd. They can’t go more than a couple sentences without mentioning identity. Jordan Peterson is obsessed with identity. He can’t stop talking about gender identity and how society disadvantages men and how people need Christian morals to be good and all that shit. He and his ilk play the identity politics game. The idea that these people are against identity politics is dishonest. They’re against the left’s identity politics, but that’s it.

I don’t agree with your assessment of most of that crowd; the main reason they bring up identity is to refute what’s being said by the left, and I’ve never heard them argue in favor of a particular identity or offer up one’s identity as an excuse for their behavior or beliefs. I’m just not hearing what you’re hearing when these people present their views.

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Random political thought:

I’ve seen a lot of “leftists” vs. “liberals” stuff lately, and I wonder, since when did “liberals” become synonymous with specifically center-left democrats? I always thought “liberal” was just a general term that encompassed the entire left.

moviefreakedmind said:

A lot of center-right and even straight-up rightwing people have been trying to make some distinction between “liberals” and people that are more socialistic as a way to co-opt the term liberal.

Just as the right has the alt-right, whose views are too extreme or racist for the typical conservative, the left has been overrun with wackos who have as much in common with their far-right “enemies” as they do with their own party (see: Horseshoe Theory).

I agree, but I’m going to need examples of how the left is “overrun” by these wackos. I’ve asked you many, many times for evidence of this and you’ve yet to give it to me so please do. I think it’s an important conversation.

Some recent examples:

The firing of James Damore
Google’s firing of Damore was completely unjustified. He presented a reasoned argument regarding not just why women are underrepresented in tech, but how Google could change their policies to encourage more women to enter the field. I read the memo and while some argued against his data and conclusions, nothing he wrote would be considered radical or incendiary in scientific journals and the dude is rational almost to a fault. He was smeared by the mainstream media as alt-right and misogynist and he lost his job.

The deplatforming of Alex Jones
Alex Jones was deplatformed in a coordinated effort by major media companies. Agree with him or not (I don’t watch the guy, I know him mostly from the whole Sandy Hook thing and some memes), having corporate entities who are powerful enough to instantly erase someone’s online presence because the company’s management doesn’t agree with their views should concern everybody, regardless of politics or personal feelings.

Who cares though, right? It’s Alex Jones. That guy’s insane! The point is that everyone should care when major publishing platforms can shape political discourse by silencing or amplifying certain voices. Anyone who claims to be concerned about Russian interference in our elections via social media and isn’t concerned about what happened to Alex Jones is making their decisions based on ideology and not law or right vs. wrong.

YouTube demonetization
The frequent and unexplained demonetization of YouTube videos in order to rob them of their income should also be concerning. Many videos by “conservatives” (i.e., anyone not openly left) are flagged as problematic either by community reports or YouTube’s own moderators. Conveniently, they remain flagged—and therefore unable to earn advertising revenue—until a further manual review is performed. The videos often have advertising revenue reinstated, but they don’t get the revenue they missed while they were flagged, only future revenue. Most videos from popular YouTubers get most views right after they go live, so most revenue is lost.

When I say “overrun”, it’s kind of a sloppy way of saying that real people’s lives are being affected by emotional assholes with an axe to grind; even if the “wackos” are a minority, they’re loud enough that some companies are listening and the position of the party is shifting.

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

Classical liberalism is a laissez-faire, conservative ideology. That’s not a recent evaluation of it. The people using it as a way to separate themselves from the left are misusing it because if they’re actually classical liberals then were never on the left. I also agree that there is an irrational segment of the left, particularly the one that cares more about culture and language than policy and economics, but how is that any different than the right? How is the left more irrational and emotionally driven than Trump’s portion of the rightwing?

It’s not. I’m a centrist, remember? The biggest change in my political views over the last several years is the realization that the left isn’t automatically “on the right side of history”. Both sides have their insane fringes, and the fringes have shifted the boundaries of what’s conservative vs. liberal. The fringes are destroying our ability to meet in the middle and progress as a society. Add dying traditional media who are desperate for clicks into the mix and you have a disaster.

moviefreakedmind said:

I bet it’s in response to people on the right identifying as “classical liberals” and such. The phenomenon I’m referring to started on the center and right about three or four years ago.

It’s more about disillusioned lefties who are done with identity politics and mainstream media than righties trying to rebrand as something less conservative.

DominicCobb said:

Random political thought:

I’ve seen a lot of “leftists” vs. “liberals” stuff lately, and I wonder, since when did “liberals” become synonymous with specifically center-left democrats? I always thought “liberal” was just a general term that encompassed the entire left.

moviefreakedmind said:

A lot of center-right and even straight-up rightwing people have been trying to make some distinction between “liberals” and people that are more socialistic as a way to co-opt the term liberal.

Just as the right has the alt-right, whose views are too extreme or racist for the typical conservative, the left has been overrun with wackos who have as much in common with their far-right “enemies” as they do with their own party (see: Horseshoe Theory).

Those who are left-leaning but have some views that are traditionally (or even more recently) seen as conservative often adopt the label of “classical liberal” to separate themselves from a left wing that is increasingly irrational and emotionally driven.

If you’re a civilian and you assault someone, you go to jail, then court, then maybe to prison. Even if you don’t go to prison, the jail and court time have probably already cost you your job, and possibly ruined your life, regardless of outcome.

If you’re a cop and you assault someone, you go home, maybe go to court, but the taxpayer will foot the bill, and you almost certainly won’t go to prison. You’re placed “on leave” until it all blows over, then you go back to work, reminded that the next time you assault someone, it shouldn’t be on camera.

I think the majority of cops are good people, but police organizations go out of their way to protect the bad ones, which is why the system is broken.

moviefreakedmind said:

South Dakota “Trooper of the Year” brutally assaults man and fraudulently claims that the victim was resisting arrest. The state is now buying off the victim:

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2018/09/17/south-dakota-highway-patrol-cody-jansen-state-settles-brutality-case-graphic-video/1305093002/

I’m glad that the victim is getting some restitution but I’d much rather see the attacker behind bars. I also find it incredibly disturbing that this violent madman is considered one of South Dakota’s best lawmen.

I like how the technician looks up at the camera after the body slam. She knew this cop crossed the line.

Sorry, I have two of these requests in the queue and haven’t gotten to either of them yet. It’s a bit more of a manual process than you’d think, but I’ll get to it as soon as I can.

paja said:

The GOG Back To School sale is here

500+ games, up to 90% off.

Despite my massive backlog, I couldn’t resist giving Dragon Age: Origins a go for $4.99.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I have as just as much to protest via boycott as those that protest via disrespecting the Anthem.

Fuck. You. You miserable self centered entitled asshole.

Well over the line. Temp ban.

Hayden Christensen offers Kelly Marie Tran some advice on dealing with hateful fans (interviewer is tough to hear, might need to turn it up).

Nice to see him acknowledge that it’s a vocal minority rather than paint half the fandom with that brush.

Creox said:

My last words on the topic is that there will always be such issues from time to time because, as you say, film makers borrow all the time from each other. It is my hope that they will take a little extra time to minimize the potential problems their creations can produce.

It’s my hope filmmakers set those concerns aside rather than compromise their creativity in order to satisfy white people who see racism everywhere.

I’ll defer to Dom since he’s the OP, but perhaps this discussion is better suited to the culture/politics thread than this one:

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Culture-politics-and-diversity-in-Star-Wars/id/61333

Nobody can read a private topic to which they haven’t been invited, not even a moderator or administrator.

If someone shares a link to a private topic with you and you haven’t been invited to that topic, you’ll see an error message if you try to read it.

Nobody is reading your messages, Warbler.