Sign In

moviefreakedmind

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
22-Jul-2014
Last activity
24-Sep-2018
Posts
11476

Post History

Post
#1242777
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

I never said anything should be embraced, I just said that it shouldn’t be ignored or covered up. Obviously if you stick your hand in a 500-degree oven, the reality is that you’re burning your hand. That doesn’t mean you should do it, but you should be aware of those consequences. I’m very opposed to intentionally keeping people ignorant, or even unintentionally allowing people to be ignorant, so I think parents are responsible for making sure that their kids don’t end up as ignorant as everyone else is.

Post
#1242767
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

I’m talking about shielding children from the more grim facts of life by shielding everyone from them. For example, “This book shouldn’t be in stores because children might get their hands on it.” If you want to deprive your children of certain media and certain images, then that’s your problem and your children can suffer for it, but don’t do it in a way that affects innocent people, including children that aren’t subjected to terrible helicopter parents.

Post
#1242760
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

I think the people that I hate more than anyone are people that think that their kids are my problem. I was talking to this douchebag that was complaining about how media needs to be policed more so that his precious brat can be more easily sheltered. I’m just thinking, fuck you if you want to shelter your kids from reality then do it in a way that doesn’t affect innocent, responsible people like me that didn’t produce offspring.

Post
#1242722
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1242658
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

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.

He’s funded by Learned Liberty, who he admits provides him with a guest list. He’s also booking almost exclusively rightwing guests.

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?

Of course, but I never said that my people like to build while other people like to destroy and live in open sewage. He’s never walked it back, nor has he every denounced his opinion on murdering civilians. I’m just using that “empathy” shit that I supposedly don’t have. I realize that if I were of Arab ethnicity, then I’d just be another person that likes to live in open sewage whose land should be confiscated by a superior race, according to Ben Shapiro. I also realize that if I were unfortunate enough to live in a country he doesn’t like, it would be me and my family that he has no problem with bombing into oblivion. Don’t downplay ethnic cleansing. Think about how useless your life would instantly become to Ben Shapiro if you simply were born in the wrong plot of land. If you were trans, then you’d be a mentally ill abomination against God to Shapiro. If you were gay, you’d be a mentally ill abomination against God to Shapiro that shouldn’t even have the right to marry. (I’m that abomination to him, by the way.) If you can’t afford healthcare and want some kind of affordable medicine, then you’re an entitled drain on society that doesn’t deserve it because your bank account isn’t big enough, according to Ben Shapiro. If you’re an undocumented immigrant, even if you were only a child when you were brought to this country, then your ass should be rounded up and sent back where you came from, according to Ben Shapiro. I stand by my statements that this man is repugnant to the core. He is utterly amoral and embodies almost everything I hate about mankind. I despise that anyone sees him as anything other than a regressive enemy of the common people.

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.

Who said anything about screeching? I just appreciate actually having an opinion and taking a stance on things. If someone’s a screecher and is right, then I automatically like them a lot more than the non-screecher that’s not right.

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.

It isn’t that, it’s that you always have an excuse and justification for the behavior on the right that you don’t also apply to right, and you act as though the right’s behavior is copied from the left, which I’ve demonstrated isn’t the case. I don’t know why you’re pretending not to have those leanings but I guess I’m just wasting my time pointing it out. Everyone in the thread can tell so it isn’t like we actually think that you’re nonpartisan. I’m just confused more than anything as to why you’re trying to construct that image when it’s plainly obvious to everyone’s lying eyes that it’s not the case.

Post
#1242595
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

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.

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.

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?

Post
#1242572
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

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.

I forgot to give the background on Sam Seder. He’s a leftist and sometimes borders on being a bit of an SJW, so I don’t like all his stuff, but he almost got fired from being an MSNBC contributor because the alt-right, InfoWars crowd started a campaign to get him fired over a joke they found offensive and it worked at first, but in the backlash MSNBC caved and gave him his job back. His channel has been demonitized too. It’s like I said, the corporate monopoly is to blame, not a political agenda. If demonitization had anything to do with deviating from leftist norms, I can assure you that Seder would not have been demonitized. He doesn’t deviate.

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.

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.

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. 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. (Which is funny because his initial claim to fame was people demanding that he be silenced.) Stuff like that can have a chilling effect; that publication may not want to publish critical, scathing assessments of Peterson again because he might try and sue again. This man does not believe in free speech unless it’s his speech, and that hypocritical approach is the worst of all.

Post
#1242552
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Just encouraged me to order Close Encounters. The 4k set is only $15 bucks right now on Amazon.

That’s what got me to do it. I wanted all the different versions and the features in one case and that’s what I got.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay. I think I’ll watch the theatrical first and then the director’s cut.

I can’t argue with this, though I will second Ash’s statement about the DC being the best cut. I actually haven’t watched the theatrical in a while since I watch the DC every time. Should go back to that some time.

My reasoning with watching the theatrical first is because it sounds like both cuts are great, the latter is just an improvement. So I might as well see it how it was originally first. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t like Bladerunner where there is very little reason other than curiosity to watch the theatrical cut.

If I love the movie then I’ll check out the SE too, but I hate studio meddling so I’ll save that one for last.

PLEASE DON’T

But really, the extended ending in the SE can potentially ruin the movie depending on how you feel about it. As a big fan of this movie, I actually regret watching that ending. I’d say just turn it off before the end.

I don’t know, if I really like the movie then my curiosity is going to get me to at least look up the ending. Even if I hated it I don’t think that it could ruin the movie for me. We’ll see.

Post
#1242476
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Warbler said:

I really am sick and tired of all the hate I’ve been getting recently.

I know that you have an internet restraining order against me as an excuse to pretend to ignore my posts, but do you realize that all (and I do mean 100 fucking percent) of the antagonistic posts directed at you over the last few months have been in response to you aggressively annoying other people? I’m just curious if you’ve noticed that. I just genuinely want to know.

Also, as a note, most of the antagonistic posts you complain about have been totally reasonable, even if they’re harsh. You’re also the only one in those exchanges that’s ever broken forum rules, insulted people, or threatened to insult people. That’s another thing I’m curious if you’ve noticed. I know I’ll continue to be curious because you’ll read this and then not respond to it, but this is the bitching thread so I wanted to vent on that for a few sentences.

Post
#1242475
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

screams in the void said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVXekzwkz10

I hate Carlin. Yeah, not voting and instead staying home and masturbating will solve everything, sure.

When you’re in a state or district where the respective candidates are guaranteed to win, there’s no reason to vote. It’s a waste of your time.

EDIT: And once again, your hatred of Carlin doesn’t mean he isn’t right. You didn’t even try to refute him. Then again, that is your m.o.

Post
#1242474
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

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.

I think that given the timing and how tolerant of him they were before, it’s pretty obvious.

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?

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.

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 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.