Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

SophistiKat

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Eutyphro

Again, the world is not a college campus

I'd like to premise my reply with the point that there is almost nothing in your reply that I inherently disagree with. The issue with your post is mainly that you are providing us a very detailed and well thought out half truth, that is premised on a strawman interpretation of my post, and that misses the other half of the story.

 

It's not all about Nazis vs. Antifa either. It's profit-driven corporatist eunuchs vs everyone else.

It's really both. If you would argue that currently 'profit-driven corporatist eunuchs vs everyone else' is fundamental, and 'Nazis vs. Antifa' is a surface phenomenon, then I'd agree with you. But how I see it, in a certain way this is cyclical. During the period where postmodern victimhood ideology and morality was pioneered by Derrida mainly, and others such as Foucault, it was most definitely the radical left that was fundamental in the process of founding political correctness as a moral foundation.

 

That corporate culture has used political correctness to drive people apart, marginalize them politically, and make them vulnerable to commercial messages, I have in fact argued myself many times. I remember making a detailed post how postmodern identity thinking and neoliberalist corporatism have become allies with shared goals, in an extremely interesting and strange manner. Here is this post I made back then:

 

To get back to the subject whether identity politics is leftist or liberal, I actually think that's a very interesting subject. What it seems to me is that a lot of movements with leftist goals have to an increasingly large extent allied themselves with neoliberals (even center right politicians with some limited progressive ideas like Hillary Clinton), because on the surface they share similar goals.

 

For instance, neoliberals desire open borders because the free movement of people and capital is in the interest of corporate enterprise. Leftists want open borders because they have an idealistic desire for an anarchist utopia. Neoliberals like identity politics, because identity is a useful tool to make people resentful and passive and make people vulnerable to commercialism, and leftism thinks identity politics is a tool to liberate the oppressed from the oppressor. Neoliberalism likes feminism and the idea of the social construct because they see the economic benefits of forcing masculine norms on society as a whole, because masculine competitiveness and creativity are more valuable than classic femininity in an advanced economy. Leftists like feminism and the idea of the social construct because it justifies a battle against what they think is a patriarchal society where a construct of femininity is forced upon women to oppress them.

 

What I would propose you do is read Derrida, and then come back and tell me whether I'm wrong. I advise you to read secondary literature about Derrida first, because Derrida is a pain in the ass. Or read Fredric Jameson.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Then how about stfu and gtfo? You want to throw around big boy words like 'hypocrite' and 'full of sh*t'

 

 

"Full of sh*t" isn't a word.

 

You're an utter coward.

 

 

 

Do you even know who you're dealing with?

 

I ate raw squid once. I even had shrimp with it's skin, legs, and eyes still intact. A coward would never do that sh*t.

 

But for real, I'm a "coward" because I don't want to have the same discussion we had a year ago where you never actually engaged any of my points? Yeah bro, I'm super afraid of debating you or whatever. You're clearly very smart and don't at all come off as a first year philosophy student.

 

the evidence is scant that any of them were actually involved in property destruction--or any real crime.

 

This is f*cking laughable. There was abundant evidence that was thoroughly mentioned.

 

 

Mentioned by whom? I don't remember anyone--not even the Department of Justice--producing any evidence that all 200 arrested were guilty of a crime beyond wearing a mask, which is a misdemeanor anyway.

 

You do know a ton of people have since had their charges dropped completely because there was no evidence supporting the notion they were guilty of any crime, right? If everyone had been participating in vandalism and throwing rocks at cops, it not only would have been cool as f*ck, but it also would have caused significantly more property damage and police injuries. A handful of windows were busted, a limo was set alight, and some trash cans got pushed into the street. It was no Haymarket. Some minor property damage took place, so 200 people were rounded up--one person was arrested in their home despite never attending the demonstration--brutalized by police, threatened with up to 80 years in prison, and had to deal with a lengthy, bullsh*t trial before having their charges dismissed, or being found not quilty by a jury. 59 people, including a journalist, are still facing multiple felony charges. If you do not see this as a 'free speech' issue, you are completely and utterly full of f*cking sh*t, and a hypocrite. That's okay though, it just means you're good at being a liberal.

 

It's funny, because I actually remember you saying something along the lines of "I hope DC cops cracked some skulls" after hearing about some of the vandalism, but here you'd have us believe you can walk on water. Sanctimonious af.

 

You didn't refute sh*t. The fact that they were planning the usual vandalism and assault was well documented in the media

 

 

I never disputed the notion that vandalism and violence were planned ahead of the G20 summit, I disputed the notion that these actions were planned on or by IndyMedia, because IndyMedia is a leftist media collective, and not some sort of insurrectionist network where people organize car torchings, and coordinate who is gonna bring hammers to break up cobblestone. As I stated, these actions are not planned on the internet for security reasons. They are planned amongst autonomous affinity groups themselves, sometimes coordinating with other groups, in gardens, cafes, bars, squats, social centers, or wherever. A huge bulk of actions carried out during black bloc marches, however, are the spontaneous acts of individuals within a mob. The German state's choice to target IndyMedia--just to reiterate, these are journalists and not urban guerillas--was a show of force. A simple act of repression.

 

 

and you are really a lying deceitful sniveling sh*t.

 

k

 

I thoroughly argued why being unwilling to repeat gory explicit texts is in many cases, and in this case, completely apolitical, and therefore has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with political correctness. But once again, if there is nothing to engage with, you can take the advice to get the f*ck out really.

 

 

 

 

I thoroughly insisted that this is completely apolitical and thus, not political correctness despite limiting discourse to what I consider to be morally appropriate. To illustrate this, I used two examples that aren't even remotely similar, like the details of a crime that actually happened, or pornography.

 

wee woo wee woo PC thought police here with another truncheon blow of an argument.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Then how about stfu and gtfo? You want to throw around big boy words like 'hypocrite' and 'full of sh*t'

"Full of sh*t" isn't a word.

No, but they are words. If you try to be witty, don't fail at reading comprehension.

 

But for real, I'm a "coward" because I don't want to have the same discussion we had a year ago where you never actually engaged any of my points? Yeah bro, I'm super afraid of debating you or whatever.

You're a coward because you are a sh*t talking dumbass who can't defend his words and cowards out. But it's not surprising because Antifa is an organization for cowardly miserable assholes and general failures.

 

the evidence is scant that any of them were actually involved in property destruction--or any real crime.

I see you are moving the goalposts to now defend this utterly laughable assertion, but let's stick to this.

 

The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses, destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-damages-downtown-washington/

 

inauguration-limo-fire.jpg

 

I never disputed that some people were wrongly arrested. I'll repeat: Policing is difficult and messy, and mistakes are made. That doesn't mean we should let scumbags freely destroy property and violently assault police agents by throwing glass or stones and get away with it.

 

If you do not see this as a 'free speech' issue

It is a free speech issue. It's an issue of pricks like you endangering the free speech of other people, by vandalising and assaulting police, and you defending this behavior, with purposeful dishonesty.

 

because I actually remember you saying something along the lines of "I hope DC cops cracked some skulls"

I've never said any such thing, and you are fantasizing.

 

I never disputed the notion that vandalism and violence were planned ahead of the G20 summit, I disputed the notion that these actions were planned on or by IndyMedia

You dispute it, but "Officials found linksunten.indymedia.org's intent and activity contrary to criminal law."

http://www.dw.com/en/interior-ministry-shuts-down-raids-left-wing-german-indymedia-site/a-40232965

 

Why would I really believe anything you say, when it is clear you purposefully lie if you can defend Antifa scumbags by doing so? I also think considering 500 members of the police were injured at the G20, some extra measures became justified. It is sort of like if a forum for pedophiles turns out to not actually cooperate on creating child pornography on that very forum, but in private chat groups distinct from that forum, and we find troves of child pornography they created in these independent chat groups. You'll see noone whinging about shutting their forum down. In fact, it would be a stellar idea to do so.

 

In this example I'm going along with your claim, but it is also very well possible that Indymedia was used for planning illegal conduct, maybe over PM. Maybe inflammatory slogans where published. You do not know for certain this did not happen, and are thus once again, dishonest.

 

despite limiting discourse

How exactly does reposting something explicit, which I already had posted, contribute to discourse? Oh right, it doesn't. You know it doesn't. Just like you know you are dishonest about many other things, clearly.

 

wee woo wee woo PC thought police here with another truncheon blow of an argument.

Why even post in D & D if all you want to do is behave like an incredibly pathetic child? Oh, I know, because a situation has arisen where this is supposedly acceptable to due the social dynamics here. It's incredibly embarrassing.

 

Furthermore, I advise that just as in the Diablo situation, we don't waste this topic on rambling disingenuous sh*t posters, but get back to what TVS and I were talking about, which was promising.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

since much of what you wrote is [as usual] completely taken out of context, I'm going to ignore it and jump down to your conclusion.

 

You pride yourself in being an asshole. I mean, you actually go out of your way to spell around the censor just so you can be even more shocking. It's childish, edgy behavior.

your assumptions are wrong [as usual] but allow me to elaborate.
I pride myself in calling out assholes. like much of the GOP establishment and they're hypocritical supporters such as yourself. if that comes off as being an asshole then it probably says a lot more about your subconscious defensiveness than my explicit offensiveness.

furthermore I don't bypass the censor because I think it's "shocking."
are you twelve years old? naughty words are not shocking.

I bypassed the censor because censorship is childish.
there's literally no children here. this is the most boring part of the forum. we're adults debating political minutiae. the censorship is merely unnecessary and silly. you can try to extrapolate to a larger thesis about how angry or edgy you think I am, but this is a lot simpler than you're making it...

The state should muzzle you

sure.
right after they administer your chemical castration.

 

Furthermore, I advise that just as in the Diablo situation, we don't waste this topic on rambling disingenuous sh*t posters, but get back to what TVS and I were talking about, which was promising.

well I suppose that if you were not spreading lies while trying to make your points, then none of this would've happened, but here we are...

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

well I suppose that if you were not spreading lies while trying to make your points

I haven't lied about anything, and you know I haven't. Meanwhile, I have no interest continuing this disingenuous pissing contest with MTD and you, where MTD wants to cuss and coward out, and you want a giant discussion about your behavior and reputation, which does not matter and I do not care about. Ultimately if everyone would chill the f*ck out, be genuine, and not be a melodramatic troll, it would be great. Some sort of peace, respect, and genuine discussion would be alright. So I don't want another f*cking page about this 'chemical castration' bullsh*t comment by you, really.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I see the level of rhetoric around here has really settled down a lot in my absence!

 

I mean, Jesus wept, fellas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Policing is difficult and messy, and mistakes are made. That doesn't mean we should let scumbags freely destroy property and violently assault police agents by throwing glass or stones and get away with it.

Except it clearly isn't a mistake, they arrested as many random people as they could as a warning to others. They also had no case to make, so they're pulling a 'catch and release' ie bringing cases they're sure will be thrown out to 1) punish people with jail time and lengthy trials that they know will be thrown out and 2) produce headlines like "activist face 70 years in prison for attending protest" again hoping to scare others. This is both incredibly obvious and the conclusion reached by people who actually work to protect free speech that aren't just righty culture warriors. Believe it or not, some pronoun law in Ontario is not the most central issue on Earth to these people.

 

Also if you meant the assaults rather than the arrests: ask yourself why they brought these weapons at all, or why they even have access to them!

 

 

 

It's funny how ridiculously childish you are considering you called yourself a 'full grown man' with the proudness of a three your old some days ago, and keep coming up with the same boring 'edgy' childish schtick.

brb candle lit vigil for a burning limousine.

 

 

 

It's mandated as part of the job, and that is indeed completely fair and normal. We shouldn't allow teachers to needlessly insult students, of course. But this is mandated as part of the job, not as part of law. A teacher needlessly insulting a student should be fired but not criminally prosecuted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+you+be+criminally+prosecutedunder+bill+c-16

 

 

 

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities. American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

Do you really think 40% of people in our generation (and 70% of Germans!) want to criminalise Conservatism? They're likely talking about laws already on the books. Believe it or not, the judiciary has pretty rigid standards for what they will prosecute as hate speech and there is zero chance that Ben Shapiro will go to prison for being a racist goober.

 

Though it's good you've finally admitted that Conservatism runs on white supremacy!

 

 

 

They see "we should murder Republicans" not as hatespeech, and "black people are less intelligent" as hate speech that should be banned. You can't maintain this distinction unless you are simply arguing the right should be criminalized. But don't veil your intent to criminalize the right as opposition to 'hatespeech', because as my examples indicate, that is clearly horsesh*t. You removed this entire context. I argued in favor of Diablo's freedom to say vile idiotic things. I'm arguing in favor of everyone's right to do so.

Saying that black people are less intelligent falls pretty far outside of normal Conservative rhetoric and is pretty insane and socially destructive. But again, I've never claimed that it should be criminalised. I literally don't care. I have no intention or ability to criminalise Conservatism. If you think the judiciary is going to bend over and spread their cheeks for student activists to the extent that they are criminalising right-wingers then you have long since left the planet.

 

If someone is literally and immediately trying to form lynch mobs to go after right-wing voters and they are prosecuted under hatespeech laws, then I don't really care either. But that's not the same as jokes about how it sure is a shame that some horrible politician didn't die.

 

 

 

Clearly you are self loathing if you think masculinity is bad, because you are male.

It's hardly self-loathing to acknowledge in theory that I shouldn't try to fight guys twice my size because they bumped into me and didn't apologise, that crying is a healthy way to release stress and not a form of weakness and that I shouldn't expect women to pick up after me. Also, masculinity is partly undue ego and entitlement, and party a healthy sense of assertiveness that women are denied. So masculinity > femininity anyway. I sure do love being a man! I would kiss my penis if I could reach it.

 

 

 

The people unable to respond to feminist arguments are not self loathing per se. I engage with feminist argumentation all the time, so this has no application concerning me at all.

I mean you don't engage with them internally because you find them threatening.

 

 

 

That just sounds like something a weasly pathetic self loathing pandering white knight would say.

That fragile masculinity tho. That many adjectives makes you sound pretty frantic.

 

 

 

n Western society people in general have all kinds of unreasonable narcissistic expectations, but that is not a specific male thing. It's a cultural general problem.

I mean expectations of women specifically. Men expect women to clean their house, handle all of the child-rearing, to be their best and only friend once they're married and just generally expect to take less crap from them. You'd know what I meant if you bothered actually engage with feminist analysis. You don't even understand what 'male entitlement' actually refers to.

 

 

 

It's also funny to see you saying punching other men is bad, considering the whole Richard Spencer incident.

You mean when I said antifa should stick to people that are immediate physical threats to marginalised groups and not people that are nominal intellectuals representing only a theoretical threat?

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

You're a coward because you are a sh*t talking dumbass who can't defend his words and cowards out. But it's not surprising because Antifa is an organization for cowardly miserable assholes and general failures.

 

 

Antifa isn't an organization.

 

 

I see you are moving the goalposts to now defend this utterly laughable assertion, but let's stick to this.

 

The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses, destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-damages-downtown-washington/

 

In what way am I 'moving the goalposts'?

 

But yes, let's stick with the police version of events, even though we can go back and watch footage from that day that show that 400 to 500 people were not destroying property. Again, if that were the case, we would have saw far more extensive property damage rather than a total of maybe 4 windows being smashed out and a limo set alight. This vague description of events doesn't accurately convey what happened. It's not supposed to. It's intended to justify mass-arrests. It's even worded in such a way that it makes it sound as though demonstrators were just attacking random people on the street. It's nonsense.

 

You've already admitted that people were wrongfully arrested, so I don't really understand what point you think you're making here.

 

I never disputed that some people were wrongly arrested. I'll repeat: Policing is difficult and messy, and mistakes are made. That doesn't mean we should let scumbags freely destroy property and violently assault police agents by throwing glass or stones and get away with it.

The DC police didn't carry out mass-arrests by mistake. They didn't charge 200+ people with multiple felonies by mistake. They didn't raid the home of a man that wasn't even at the demonstration, and charge him with multiple felonies carrying a sentence of up to 80 years in prison by mistake. They didn't arrest a journalist and charge him with multiple felonies for documenting the march by mistake.

 

Police actions at J20 were deliberate, not some sort of aberration. The actions of authorities were designed to intimidate and demoralize.

 

That doesn't mean we should let scumbags freely destroy property and violently assault police agents by throwing glass or stones and get away with it.

Is property so sacred that people should face 80 years in prison for allegedly smashing a window, or just for being at a demonstration where someone smashed a window? Are we expected to believe that these trumped up charges aren't politically motivated?

 

 

It is a free speech issue. It's an issue of pricks like you endangering the free speech of other people, by vandalising and assaulting police, and you defending this behavior, with purposeful dishonesty.

Surely it's the police mass-arresting everyone and the prosecutors dragging people into these long unnecessary trials that are actually endangering 'free speech'? After all, pricks like me don't have a monopoly on violence, and pricks like me can't lock people in cages for eternity just for being at a protest.

 

I've never said any such thing, and you are fantasizing.

"I guess anyone making Hitler salutes as a genuine political statement is deserving of karma in the form of physical violence, but I wouldn't mind seeing antifa's that were burning cars getting batted either."

 

http://gtaforums.com/topic/873171-general-us-politics-discussion/?p=1069361484

 

It's not worded how I remembered it, but the sentiment is there.

 

You dispute it, but "Officials found linksunten.indymedia.org's intent and activity contrary to criminal law."

http://www.dw.com/en/interior-ministry-shuts-down-raids-left-wing-german-indymedia-site/a-40232965

Okay, and? Of course the state is going to justify the raid with ambiguous legal jargon.

 

Why would I really believe anything you say, when it is clear you purposefully lie if you can defend Antifa scumbags by doing so?

What have I lied about? You keep accusing me of lying and being dishonest, but these accusations are entirely baseless.

 

It is sort of like if a forum for pedophiles turns out to not actually cooperate on creating child pornography on that very forum, but in private chat groups distinct from that forum, and we find troves of child pornography they created in these independent chat groups. You'll see noone whinging about shutting their forum down. In fact, it would be a stellar idea to do so.

 

>comparing indymedia to a child porn ring

 

How exactly does reposting something explicit, which I already had posted, contribute to discourse? Oh right, it doesn't. You know it doesn't. Just like you know you are dishonest about many other things, clearly.

What I'm saying here is that your moral indignation and shaming of El_D for making a statement you find 'reprehensible' is 'political correctness'. You're limiting discourse to what you find morally agreeable via shaming. It's not the fact that you won't repost it, it's the fact that you thought it was so horrible it couldn't even be repeated.

 

I'm not sure how you don't get this.

 

 

 

"Why even post in D & D if all you want to do is behave like an incredibly pathetic child?"

 

Said the guy that has spent more time insulting me than he has actually addressing my points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

they arrested as many random people as they could as a warning to others

How can one debate someone so evidently disingenuous?

 

 

 

Look at what a horde of black clad agitators there are in this very clip. They had grounds to arrest every single one of the people in that group. If you don't want to be arrested, then don't march with agitators intent on assault and vandalism.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=human+rights+tribunals

 

Though it's good you've finally admitted that Conservatism runs on white supremacy!

About 0% of what you just said was based on what I posted.

 

Saying that black people are less intelligent falls pretty far outside of normal Conservative rhetoric and is pretty insane and socially destructive. But again, I've never claimed that it should be criminalised. I literally don't care.

It's fine that you don't care, but then don't pull things out of context to argue that ol' Diablo, may he rest among the permabanned ones, is misinterpreted regarding the vile disgusting tripe he posted.

 

So masculinity > femininity anyway.

Once again a bunch of irrelevant tripe about how bad guys are. No one cares, and absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yeah, being male is so much better than being female, so lets loath ourselves to level the playing field.

 

This whole process of trying to raise women up by deeming femininity inferior, and telling men to loath themselves is mentally ill really.

 

fragile masculinity

lol

 

I mean you don't engage with them internally because you find them threatening.

I engage with your arguments on how to be pathetic, miserable and useless regularly, so that's clearly false.

 

I mean expectations of women specifically. Men expect women to..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

 

Women expect men to earn money, and many other things. The chance a man gets married is directly proportional to his income. But I'm getting bored of your pathetic nonsense.

4f31464269beddb17e00003c-480-418.jpg

 

But lets be clear. I'm not arguing women are more entitled than men. I'm arguing people in the Western world are entitled and narcissistic in general.

 

You don't even understand what 'male entitlement' actually refers to.

Are you actually lecturing me on tumblr feminism and deeming me inferior for not reading delusional tripe? lmao

 

Antifa isn't an organization.

Movement then.

 

In what way am I 'moving the goalposts'?

 

It's not as much moving the goalposts I guess, as just talking pure tripe. You deny any crime took place, then admit vandalism took place. You deny assault on police, though that evidently happened and has been documented.

 

at a demonstration where someone smashed a window?

 

If you keep lying that is all what happened then talking to you is an utter waste of time.

 

In the violence, knots of activists in black clothes and masks threw rocks and bottles at officers wearing riot gear, who responded with volleys of tear gas and stun grenades as a helicopter hovered low overhead

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests/violence-flares-in-washington-during-trump-inauguration-idUSKBN1540J7

 

You're an utter liar.

 

It's not worded how I remembered it, but the sentiment is there.

 

It's bullsh*t.

 

What I'm saying here is that your moral indignation and shaming of El_D for making a statement you find 'reprehensible' is 'political correctness'.

 

"I am discouraging people from making vile violent threats though. But if you think that that is 'pc', and the same thing as prohibiting someone from saying "minorities are overrepresented in crime" "men and women are different" etc.. Then your perspective is out of whack."

 

Surely it's the police mass-arresting everyone and the prosecutors dragging people into these long unnecessary trials that are actually endangering 'free speech'? After all, pricks like me don't have a monopoly on violence, and pricks like me can't lock people in cages for eternity just for being at a protest.

 

Except as pointed out, it was clear there were literal hordes of agitators with bad intentions present. It's these hordes of bad intentioned blac clad agitators that endanger other protestors in their safety and right to protest. It's also very well possible that indeed the trials and sentencing is problematic, but as of yet I haven't really made a claim about that.

 

Said the guy that has spent more time insulting me than he has actually addressing my points

 

Let's be honest, you rarely even attempt making any points.

 

I don't feel like engaging with lies about Antifa is going to be very productive from now on. So you two can take it away, and make a final post full of lies defending Antifa, and arguing loathing yourself is virtuous. If anyone wants to talk about political correctness, its origins, it's supporters, and free speech, then I'm still in.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

How can one debate someone so evidently disingenuous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIjWu06//qQ30

 

Look at what a horde of black clad agitators there are in this very clip. They had grounds to arrest every single one of the people in that group. If you don't want to be arrested, then don't march with agitators intent on assault and vandalism.

 

Yeah I also saw a bunch of medics, journalists and peaceful protesters without any kind of face covering and like three dozen at the very most black blockers trying to escape from assault from the pigs and their sci-fi weapons.

 

But way to cut out my link to ACLU's statement on the matter which clearly aligns with me: that they arrested random people as a show of force. This is why the chargers were dropped on so many people so quickly, because they knew it wouldn't see a court room.

 

We're in agreement then! It's a civil matter.

 

 

 

About 0% of what you just said was based on what I posted.

It was a direct response to what you said. You said people were out trying to criminalise Conservatism, I said they were supporting pre-existing laws that criminalise hatespeech but with a very high standard for prosecution, and that the judiciary will never play ball with (again, non-existent) attempts to criminalise the right. Most of those are probably civil matters as well.

 

 

 

It's fine that you don't care, but then don't pull things out of context to argue that ol' Diablo, may he rest among the permabanned ones, is misinterpreted regarding the vile disgusting tripe he posted.

RIP El Diablo, you prince among posters!

 

But my point was obvious and you ignored it, so whatevs.

 

 

 

Once again a bunch of irrelevant tripe about how bad guys are. No one cares, and absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yeah, being male is so much better than being female, so lets loath ourselves to level the playing field.

 

This whole process of trying to raise women up by deeming femininity inferior, and telling men to loath themselves is mentally ill really.

lol again the point is obvious: that it's not self-hating if you think masculinity equips you for social life better, but has problems. You yourself admit that there are problems associated with our modern, Western character that doesn't mean you hate yourself or that you'd rather be a tribal from Papua New Guinea, or that you're trying to raise up tribals from Papua New Guinea, whatever that means.

 

 

 

I engage with your arguments on how to be pathetic, miserable and useless regularly, so that's clearly false.

lol okey

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/nice person

 

 

 

Women expect men to earn money, and many other things. The chance a man gets married is directly proportional to his income. But I'm getting bored of your pathetic nonsense.

lol earning and controlling the household income is far more of a privilege than doing all of the cooking, cleaning and child-rearing. You may as well say the working class feel entitled to have the bourgeoisie handle all of society's paper pushing.

 

 

 

Are you actually lecturing me on tumblr feminism and deeming me inferior for not reading delusional tripe? lmao

I think it should be pretty clear at this point that the feminism I support is a radical and in fact highly orthodox feminism distinct from the stuff you find on tumblr. And yeah, it's pretty insane that you've never read any feminist analysis but want to spout off about it constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

About 0% of what you just said was based on what I posted.

It was a direct response to what you said. You said people were out trying to criminalise Conservatism, I said they were supporting pre-existing laws that criminalise hatespeech but with a very high standard for prosecution, and that the judiciary will never play ball with (again, non-existent) attempts to criminalise the right. Most of those are probably civil matters as well.

I'll respond to this, because in fact it is on topic.

 

Concerning your point that criminalization of conservative speech won't happen in the United States, you are completely right. But we were not talking about just the United States. As f*cked up a country as the United States is, they quite possibly have the most significant amount of freedom of speech in the world. I already pointed out several pages ago that the United States, as opposed to many other Western countries, does not have hate speech laws.

 

But the fact remains that if you walk to a college campus and ask a range of SJW's whether "minorities have a higher contribution to violent crime" and "African Americans score lower on IQ tests than whites" (which is different from blacks are less intelligent than whites..) are hate speech, they'll probably say yes, eventhough both of these are facts. If you ask them whether hatespeech should be criminalized, 40% of milennials will say yes. If it were up to the social justice oriented of our generation, certain thruths will even be criminalized, possibly. But generally things Ben Shapiro says are deemed hate speech all the time.

 

But is the United States the country where criminalization of speech will least likely occur? Sure. Because the conservative opposition is in fact powerful

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

 

Look at what a horde of black clad agitators there are in this very clip. They had grounds to arrest every single one of the people in that group. If you don't want to be arrested, then don't march with agitators intent on assault and vandalism.

 

 

At this point in the demonstration, the police had formed a kettle and were moving in on the bloc from both sides. The people that broke through the police lines successfully avoided arrest. If they hadn't broken through, cops would have arrested everyone instead of just 200 people. Wedging police lines is good praxis.

 

>'black clad agitators'

Can you speak like a normal person and not like a Daily Mail article?

 

 

You deny any crime took place,

 

No, I didn't. I said I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the 200 defendants were guilty of any crime short of being at a rowdy demonstration. This is not the same thing as denying any criminal activity took place.

 

 

 

You deny assault on police, though that evidently happened and has been documented.

 

I never denied this.

 

at a demonstration where someone smashed a window?

 

If you keep lying that is all what happened then talking to you is an utter waste of time.

 

I like how you're intentionally ignoring the point I'm making here and instead are accusing me of lying. I thought you wanted an honest discussion? You complain that I never really offer any real points, but when I do, I'm just continually insulted and accused of being a liar.

 

In the violence, knots of activists in black clothes and masks threw rocks and bottles at officers wearing riot gear, who responded with volleys of tear gas and stun grenades as a helicopter hovered low overhead

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests/violence-flares-in-washington-during-trump-inauguration-idUSKBN1540J7

 

You're an utter liar

>Still not addressing my points

 

It's not worded how I remembered it, but the sentiment is there.

 

 

It's bullsh*t.

 

 

It's an endorsement of violence.

 

 

 

"I am discouraging people from making vile violent threats though.

 

 

 

 

I don't remember anyone making 'violent threats'.

 

 

 

But if you think that that is 'pc', and the same thing as prohibiting someone from saying "minorities are overrepresented in crime" "men and women are different" etc.. Then your perspective is out of whack."

I wasn't aware that people were prohibited from saying either of those things. But yeah, limiting speech to what you deem morally acceptable is, again, political correctness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

But if you think that that is 'pc', and the same thing as prohibiting someone from saying "minorities are overrepresented in crime" "men and women are different" etc.. Then your perspective is out of whack."

I wasn't aware that people were prohibited from saying either of those things.

I didn't feel like making another response to your chain of posts full of internal contradictions, ironic petulance, repitition, and failure to engage with counterarguments, was going to be meaningful, but this does need to be cleared up in my opinion, though it has been cleared up several times already I guess. What political correctness is is "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". What does not fall under this definition is explicit text, images, or video that does not 'insult disadvantaged/discriminated groups', such as depictions of violence and sexuality.

 

If there is a political debate, and one of the participants yells 'I would be happy if my political opponents were murdered', and he is then banned from the debate, then this is not political correctness. That's a ludicrous and false use of the term.

 

What I would ask you MTD, is whether it is also political correctness run amok that sivispacem has banned several people making fascist posts? It seems that just as in the free speech case, where you argued that unlike fascists, the freedom of leftist extremists to organize assault and vandalism should be part of a consistent idea of freedom of speech, you conceive of such a notion in a weaponized and opportunistic manner. So as it turns out you are quite a hypocrite and a disingenuous opportunist.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

postmodern victimhood ideology and morality was pioneered by Derrida mainly, and others such as Foucault, it was most definitely the radical left that was fundamental in the process of founding political correctness as a moral foundation.

 

Unlike the liberals you group them in with, "radical leftists" are neither calling for corporate nor state enforcement of politically correct speech. Even given your broad interpretation of the left, the socialist sense of victimhood is primarily defined in terms of economic status. Cherry picking left-leaning postmodernists is irrelevant to this fact. Idpol and morality are some extra sh*t tbh.

 

 

 

What I would propose you do is read Derrida, and then come back and tell me whether I'm wrong. I advise you to read secondary literature about Derrida first, because Derrida is a pain in the ass. Or read Fredric Jameson.

 

Nobody needs to read a load of highfalutin theory to understand that what you're calling "postmodern victimhood ideology and morality" is a distraction from the primary source of today's political correctness. What you are attributing to pomo is really just a bunch of PR & marketing guys running the numbers and realizing that pissing off XYZ group is bad for business. None of them have read Derrida or Foucault.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

In regards to the initial question of this thread: What is political correctness? I feel that too often we view it in narrow terms as an issue of censorship.

Take a larger view. The internet has allowed these ideas to spread, by giving a platform to various social groups who - in public discourse - were previously neglected, spoken for and spoken over. Sadly, such groups lack cohesion, and so we get varying degrees of rhetoric, which pollute the larger whole.

However, regardless of inter-community schisms, they still represent various segments of society who have been emboldened by this public forum and want a bigger slice of the cake - both in academia and entertainment.

 

So, rather than just being an issue of prudishness, what we call political correctness is more a conflict between an old order and a new. What we see now, with the censorship and squabbles about diversity in casting, are merely growing pains. In time, the extremes of both sides will settle into an equilibrium, creating a future which is neither as retrograde or as radical as some would perhaps desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caysle

 



Videos that are titled like this are usually crap but this one is rather entertaining. All she said was that man is taller than woman and has more muscle mass (both on average). Apparently some students who didn't like this scientific fact called those people "fascists" and said "nazis" has no place in a civilized society (lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Well that's gonna be a really funny anecdote at someone's wedding in the future. Such misguided frustrations! (Although I'll grant I'm watching this video completely devoid of context)

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YanUK

Political correctness reflects the use of language that changes over time. What is acceptable language and descriptive dialogue today may be inappropriate tomorrow. Classic examples include "coloured", "wheelchair bound", "spastic", "OAP" ..... These terms today are offensive and inappropriate.

 

Also, the use and use of language by person A does not legitimize it for person B. If A is the peer of B and uses language towards him in a certain way, it does not create an open licence for person C to do the same.

 

The problem occurs when we move away from language. As an example, as a proud Englishman it annoys me when my nations flag is interpreted in a negative way or hijacked to represent an alternative meaning. E.g. the symbolic use in football hooliganism.

 

Also, just because something is "traditional" does not make it valid in modern times. For example "gollywogs" on marmalade jars may well be traditional but are viewed as offensive. The fine line is when we take things to the extreme. For instance, Merry Christmas is rarely used in the public eye on TV - instead people say "Happy Christmas".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

 

Videos that are titled like this are usually crap but this one is rather entertaining. All she said was that man is taller than woman and has more muscle mass (both on average). Apparently some students who didn't like this scientific fact called those people "fascists" and said "nazis" has no place in a civilized society (lol)

 

That is quite possibly the most cringey political video I've watched this year, and I made it through the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newpeople exchange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Well that's gonna be a really funny anecdote at someone's wedding in the future. Such misguided frustrations! (Although I'll grant I'm watching this video completely devoid of context)

 

The full panel is below. Context: James Damore, writer of the controversial Google Echo Chamber Memo last year, is the featured panel guest. A bunch of ass clowns bypassed an opportunity to engage his shaky conclusions via dialogue and instead mounted a counterproductive tantrum masquerading as a protest.

 

 

 

 

This particular panel was an intellectual circle jerk and unmoving because it A.) over complicates the rather simple message of 'to hell with oversensitive twats obstructing discourse' and B.) it enables echo chambers by the simple fact that there are no intellectual equals included on this panel to produce counter arguments and thus a productive discussion.

 

Any dissent would come from the audience, which would oddly enough reproduce the same professional intellectuals vs. unrefined working people dynamic that has led to such a disillusionment towards social science to begin with. Not to mention the standard "questions no comments please" protocol. To be regarded as anything other than a passive-aggressive rally, these panels must included dissenting voices of learned folks. But we all know that's not the intention. So as you could imagine, this function comes across as disingenuous. In terms of publicity, that disruption was the best thing that could've ever happened to this half-baked panel.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

So... the scientific facts of sexual dimorphism were being cited to bolster pseudo-scientific pet theories. Sounds oddly familiar back here, no? ;) And explains a little bit about why they cried Fascism.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Women expect men to earn money, and many other things.

 

Women expect men to conform to virtually every single patriarchal gender role society can think of but we sure as hell cannot expect women to do the same. It's why society has such a negative view of men who refuse to get married. Men aren't supposed to be aware of their situation in life, because society relies on our complacency and our willingness to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good in order to function. Men being socially and politically aware and demanding fair treatment from society and from the government scares the absolute crap out of conservatives and feminists.

 

But lets be clear. I'm not arguing women are more entitled than men. I'm arguing people in the Western world are entitled and narcissistic in general.

 

Women are more entitled than men, because we allow them to be. We're the ones that validate women, give them attention, spend money on them, justify their behaviour and make excuses for them. And when someone criticises this we team up as the Gallant Band of White Knights and come to their rescue and protect them from criticism. This entitlement won't go away until we stop thinking with our penises and start thinking with our brains.

Edited by G's Ah's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

This entitlement won't go away until we stop thinking with our penises and start thinking with our brains.

 

Probably won't happen for another 120 years or so.

 

 

We generally vent our frustration with having to make behavioral adjustments while some women eat their cake and have it too, but then run right back to the pussy. Dumb feminists date dumb men. Smart feminists date smart men. Marriage in the West is damn near obsolete, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

 

 

So... the scientific facts of sexual dimorphism were being cited to bolster pseudo-scientific pet theories. Sounds oddly familiar back here, no? ;) And explains a little bit about why they cried Fascism.

 

Basically. Silicon Valley and the IT professions more generally are a sausage fest. So instead of acknowledging the concern, the panel would rather get bogged down in semantics while pretending that technocrats are somehow doing more masculine work that doesn't appeal to women. James Damore doesn't look it, but maybe he's a real roughneck. Those Google guys be buckin' on fools lol.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

We generally vent our frustration with having to make behavioral adjustments while some women eat their cake and have it too, but then run right back to the pussy.

 

We go back because we're hard wired for procreation, and this is reflective in society's attitudes towards men and relationships. Men who fail at relationships are considered to be lesser men because they don't have what it takes to keep a mate around long enough to copulate (and also fall within the conservative ideals of raising a family and having a decent job). Failing in a relationship once is therefore a redeemable sin because people recognise that they're complicated affairs. Failing multiple times is not. It's why society generally doesn't look too fondly of men who have been married multiple times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

...is that true? Does society look unfavorably on men who've been married multiple times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Not as much as they look unfavorably on women who've been married multiple times, or who have had multiple partners, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

...is that true? Does society look unfavorably on men who've been married multiple times?

 

Yes. I figured this was well established fact.

 

Not as much as they look unfavorably on women who've been married multiple times, or who have had multiple partners, at the very least.

 

Multiple marriages less so than multiple partners. Society as a whole looks unfavourably on women who are considered to be promiscuous as a whole for one reason: it threatens men's reproductive success. Men introduced the idea to punish women's natural promiscuity in order to ensure that the elevated numbers of men who could reproduce to be able to reproduce successfully. Promiscuous women increase the chances of a single male partner raising someone else's offspring as opposed to their own, thus resulting in reproductive failure for that man, assuming he has no offspring of his own. Promiscuous women also threaten other women who already have partners by offering easier access to sex, thus potentially drawing that male away. It's why women are the primary antagonisers when it comes to modern-day "slut shaming".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

That argument (the biological imperative) seems somewhat incongruent with the notion that society looks unfavorably on un/remarried men, however. I know quite a few life-long bachelors who are quite popular among their peers, but more on the point, I know a few multiple-marriage survivors who haven't a single chink in their public persona.

 

Being the product of divorce myself might have shifted my perspective some, but - at least in my adoptive middle-class peer group in my neck of the woods - divorce and remarriage often seem like foregone conclusions, and definitely not a mark on your social record.

 

 

Edit - are we wildly off topic at this point? :p

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Political correctness applies to discussions about gender relations as much as it does about other things. In my outspoken discussions I've found that women and relationships are a sacred cow in society, moreso than race or sexuality.

Edited by G's Ah's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

"the socialist sense of victimhood is primarily defined in terms of economic status.. Nobody needs to read a load of highfalutin theory to understand that what you're calling "postmodern victimhood ideology and morality"

 

If you're unwilling to study the ideological origins of postmodernist political correctness, then this confusion will remain, and our discussion will be completely pointless.

On the Damore thing:
"his shaky conclusions" "pseudo-scientific pet theories"

This has been discussed in depth by me and sivis, but there is nothing 'pseudo-scientific' about Damore's proposals. His ideas are not indubitable scientific fact, but unscientific they aren't either. In the in depth discussion I had about this an array of scientifically relevant people were cited that supported Damore's points partly or fully. Furthermore, Damore's memo wasn't a scientific publication. It was merely a set of proposed ideas and critiques. Damore isn't qualified to publish in the field of psychology and sex differences.

"And explains a little bit about why they cried Fascism."

They 'cried fascism', because they are a bunch of completely deluded fully grown babies.

"are we wildly off topic at this point?"

It's rather hard to discuss political correctness and stay strictly on topic, I have found. On previous pages it turned into a discussion about free speech. But it can easily slide into many other topics. PC is a cultural thread woven through almost everything that is currently debated politically.

Too lazy to use quotes this time.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.