Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

professore · 12-04-2017 02:03PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The extremes on both sides - on both the Left and the Right - are really just there to make a lot of noise and distract everyone, from actual/real issues that affect us all - to safely deflect discussion into worthless/meaningless topics.

I mean just look at this - 8 pages of consensus that the extremes on both sides are really twats - and little discussion of any actual worth, just confirmation/consensus on what we already know.

There's a reason the most extreme on both sides, act like utter ridiculous fuckwits, and get given a lot of media-amplified attention - it's because many people would rather you just talk about the fuckwits (and/or their bizarre viewpoints), than things that actually matter.

If you actually try to talk about political/economic issues that actually matter, it's not going to be long before someone applies a label to you, and tries to drag discussion back to the safe territory of fuckwittery.

They think it's all over .... it is now!

Arghus · 12-04-2017 02:05PM

professore wrote: »

There is no context to this. She could have been harassed for 2 hours beforehand.

Exactly. The video shows her shouting and roaring and in a state of some incoherent distress, possibly drunk, but there's no footage or context of what led up to that point.

Though the smug guffaw from the crowd after someone says "triggered" makes me wince a bit.

Ulysses Gaze · 12-04-2017 02:09PM

silverharp wrote: »

but its ok to call this individual a snowflake and make "triggered" jokes? call it a positive form of social shaming if you will :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyEXV5fZTrY

Well that video tells us nothing of what caused that young woman to go off on one at all.

silverharp · 12-04-2017 02:11PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Well that videos tells us nothing of what caused that young woman to go off on one at all.

someone disagreed with her probably

DrPhilG · 12-04-2017 02:11PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

I think SJW ideology is actually going to drive more and more people towards the far right

I have a few American friends, both left and right wing, who believe that Trump's surprise win was a result of the modern intolerant left.

People were fed up with the left becoming intolerant of others and throwing accusations of racism/homophobia/bigotry etc and (a)veered more towards the right and (b)voted Trump in secret because of the fear of being persecuted.

super_furry · 12-04-2017 02:16PM

silverharp wrote: »

but the "SJW's" brought this on themselves , it was their initial tactics and when people were trying to question them there clearly wasn't a conversation allowed. Might as well dismiss them now as "snowflakes" and move on.

"Nu-uh, they started it!"

conorhal · 12-04-2017 02:18PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

If you find yourself using the term SJW, "I'm not racist but...", Snowflake, or "PC gone mad" then you're part of the problem.

You may be part of the problem, but in reality you are reacting to the root cause of the problem.

Sham Squire wrote: »

That problem is the slow, inexorable slide to the right that society in general is experiencing for one main reason: Societies have short memories and too few people alive today remember why world wars were fought or understand the ideology that sprung up after them.

Soooo the real problem is NAZIS!!!!

Yeah, none of the current divisive political discourse is in any way related to the left's pervasive push of intersectional politics and moral relativism into the public sphere, whether people want it or not, and if you don't you certiantly are not allowed to question or disagree with it.
Has it occured to you that the primary cause of nazi's isn't 'forgetfulness'. Has it occured to you that every action has it's equal and opposite reaction, if you don't want extremist politics on the right, don't go shoving the extremist politics of the left down everybody's throat and there by creating the conditions for it. You'd think facism existed only on the right, these SJWs as exactly what Churchill predicted when he said “When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism."

Kraut and Tea offers a very relevant history lesson in this video on Italy's 'years of lead', like our 'troubles' it's a term that describes the period of Italy's decent into tit for tat communist and fascist terrorism and violence that claimed many lives between the late 60's and 80's.
The years of lead began with the 68r's and their Marxist student revolts which birthed the Red Brigades, they launched a campaign of assassinations that even included the kidnap of Italian Prime minister Aldo Moro, who after a brief 'trial by the people' (sic) was murdered and dumped in a bin.

The left wing violence became so bad it managed to resuscitate the flagging fortunes of Italy's fascist party who claimed to offer stability against the anarchy of the violent left, and they did so with a murderous campaign that managed to outstrip the red brigades body count.

You can't help but draw parallels to today's political climate in Europe and America. We have a left hell bent on an ideological takeover and are quite prepared to ignore both democracy and the rule of law to achieve it. Already their behaviour has precipitated a right wing backlash in the form of Brexit, LePenn, Wilders and Trump.

Are we headed into our own 'years of lead', or can we reclaim politics from the extremes?

iDave · 12-04-2017 02:30PM

Just discovered Kraut and Tea. Could listen to him all day.

super_furry · 12-04-2017 02:31PM

conorhal wrote: »

Are we headed into our own 'years of lead', or can we reclaim politics from the extremes?

That's simply not happening. Politics in Ireland are nowhere near the extremes we're stuck firmly in the centre between slightly right Fine Gael and very, very, very slightly right Fine Fail, with the slightly left Sinn Fein always looks like making a breakthrough but never managing it.

There are no extremists to reclaim politics from here.

kunst nugget · 12-04-2017 02:34PM

super_furry wrote: »

That's simply not happening. Politics in Ireland are nowhere near the extremes we're stuck firmly in the centre between slightly right Fine Gael and very, very, very slightly right Fine Fail, with the slightly left Sinn Fein always looks like making a breakthrough but never managing it.

There are no extremists to reclaim politics from here.

As a nation that's known terrorism in its recent past, I think we've no real appetite for extremism at the present.

silverharp · 12-04-2017 02:35PM

conorhal wrote: »

You can't help but draw parallels to today's political climate in Europe and America. We have a left hell bent on an ideological takeover and are quite prepared to ignore both democracy and the rule of law to achieve it. Already their behaviour has precipitated a right wing backlash in the form of Brexit, LePenn, Wilders and Trump.

Are we headed into our own 'years of lead', or can we reclaim politics from the extremes?

corrections are always going to happen and its a good thing , in the round nothing so bad has happened until now that cant be corrected through regular democratic politics because it was regular democratic politics that got us here.
Economics will have a part to play too, if the EU or the Euro unravels it would make politics more liable to spin out some

Annasopra · 12-04-2017 02:38PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

If a student of mine submitted an assignment where they asserted a certain view without any data or facts to back it up I would fail them.

Bit weird though considering you use anecdotal evidence with no data or facts to back it up yourself

Arghus · 12-04-2017 02:42PM

super_furry wrote: »

That's simply not happening. Politics in Ireland are nowhere near the extremes we're stuck firmly in the centre between slightly right Fine Gael and very, very, very slightly right Fine Fail, with the slightly left Sinn Fein always looks like making a breakthrough but never managing it.

There are no extremists to reclaim politics from here.

The fact that Donald Trump somehow got elected President of The United States forces me to not take anything in politics for granted anymore.

jmayo · 12-04-2017 02:45PM

professore wrote: »

You're both wrong. Tennis players "earning" the same makes no sense. If I play a thrilling 3 set encounter in the local tennis club with my work colleague, should I "earn" as much as Tim Henman who can attract millions of viewers? Tennis players and their agents should demand to be paid based on how successful they are attracting viewers, not the number of hours they put in - but this is a typical leftist position - or equally what gender they are - which is a typical 3rd wave feminist position. That's why female fashion models get paid far more than male fashion models for the same work.

Ehh I think the poster would be referring to professional tennis where people get paid, rather than comparing you to a professional.

In Wimbledon 2015 the winner of both the ladies and mens singles got
£1,880,000 each and the runners up £940,000 each

Now in the men's final were Novak Djokovic (winner) and Roger Federer.

In the women's final were Serena Williams (winner) and Garbiñe Muguruza.

Novak Djokovic played 24 sets in total working out per set at 78,333
Serena Williams played 16 sets in total working out per set at 117,500
Woman better paid by 50%.

Roger Federer played 23 sets in total working out per set at 40,869
Garbiñe Muguruza played 17 sets in total working out per set at 55,294
Woman better paid by 35%.

Now sets are not as precise as actual hours, but it is an indication of sorts of how more the man has to work to earn the actual same prize money as the woman.

It is not equality at all.

RDM_83 again · 12-04-2017 02:47PM

The idea that SJW is exclusively an American thing is something I don't buy, a lot of the discourse focuses around the USA but there is a strand of the intellectual and fringe "social" left that has a long history of operating in a similar framework within Europe that have not been without influence.

Ivana Bacik is a good example of this, she's been knocking around with a fairly high profile since long before SJW became a buzzword and despite being repeatedly rejected by the wider electorate was constantly pushed as a high profile figure by Irish Labour, similarly in the UK two of the most prominent members of the opposition are Diane Abbot and Harriet Harman*.

Personally I think the debate has evolved to the point it has because people have partially absorbed the theoretical framework "SJW" operate in and are often applying their own ideas to challenge those views.

In terms of the wider world I also think we are seeing major changes in terms of the Right and center Right with a pivot away from the idea of free marketism and non interventionist small government to a more identity and community based focus.

*I know I've just highlighted a number of female politicians but for the record I think John McDonnel and Corbyn are more worrying in terms of their inflexibility as they in the past have literally place a higher emphasis on ideological purity than others lives (both opposed the Good Friday Agreement).

conorhal · 12-04-2017 02:56PM

super_furry wrote: »

That's simply not happening. Politics in Ireland are nowhere near the extremes we're stuck firmly in the centre between slightly right Fine Gael and very, very, very slightly right Fine Fail, with the slightly left Sinn Fein always looks like making a breakthrough but never managing it.

There are no extremists to reclaim politics from here.

Give it time, when has Irish politics been anything but about 15yrs behind the curve? It would be complacent to apply the typically Irish 'ah sure it'll be grand' aproach. That's how you end up the a complete mess.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 12-04-2017 03:01PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The extremes on both sides - on both the Left and the Right - are really just there to make a lot of noise and distract everyone, from actual/real issues that affect us all - to safely deflect discussion into worthless/meaningless topics.

I mean just look at this - 8 pages of consensus that the extremes on both sides are really twats - and little discussion of any actual worth, just confirmation/consensus on what we already know.

There's a reason the most extreme on both sides, act like utter ridiculous fuckwits, and get given a lot of media-amplified attention - it's because many people would rather you just talk about the fuckwits (and/or their bizarre viewpoints), than things that actually matter.

If you actually try to talk about political/economic issues that actually matter, it's not going to be long before someone applies a label to you, and tries to drag discussion back to the safe territory of fuckwittery.

The biggest problem is that the left hold 90% of the power when it comes to education, media, entertainment, and academia. You can be an extremist leftist calling for violence and you'll be openly cheered on by the left:

I, like most people, have moved away from a liberal/slightly left point of view towards a more rational, conservative position in the last few years. The left have utterly lost the plot, and when you're reduced to setting fire to the Martin Luther library in Berkeley to deny someone free speech, well there isn't much more to be said at that point.

We now have lunatics like Una Mulally influencing government policy, and Louise O Neill making a nice career out of playing the victim in the media. If this is a glimpse of what the future looks like, I'd rather not play thank you.

There needs to be a complete de-radicalization of media, academia, and educational facilities. This is the last chance society has to bring things back from the brink, this garbage has been building for the last 30 years in the major institutions and the chickens are now coming home to roost.

But I suspect there are too many snouts in the trough at this point, and I'm fearful that major violence will be a reality between the left and the right in the very near future.

Autonomous Cowherd · 12-04-2017 03:02PM

brevity wrote: »

I've been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson recently. He is very good of making sense of the current situation

Surprised it took so long for him to be mentioned. He is an interesting commentator, risking his career by engaging publicly in his struggles with identity politics, showing honesty and authenticity and vulnerability (whether he is right or wrong is another matter, can anyone be entirely either?) He seems to me to be confronting and challenging many emerging issues in modern society and politics, issues which for some crazy reason suddenly and inexplicably came to considered - automatically - as being 'beyond debate'.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-04-2017 03:02PM

I'm watching milo on bill maher... Jaysus both sides are painful

iDave · 12-04-2017 03:06PM

Milo served a purpose until it turned out he is an utter cnut. Rational academics like Jordan Peterson is who we should be listening too.

infogiver · 12-04-2017 03:10PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm watching milo on bill maher... Jaysus both sides are painful

Milo has a lot of umm...issues.
When you a gay-hating gay man, it's not going to end well.

RDM_83 again · 12-04-2017 03:13PM

iDave wrote: »

Milo served a purpose until it turned out he is an utter cnut. Rational academics like Jordan Peterson is who we should be listening too.

Nah I would argue that Milo still serves a purpose, if his former champions are willing to abandon him because he comes out with things that offend their morality* it highlights that their support for the ideals of dialogue and free speech were strictly oppositional rather than based of a deeper regard for those issues.

* I agree that what he said should be argued against though

brevity · 12-04-2017 03:22PM

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Surprised it took so long for him to be mentioned. He is an interesting commentator, risking his career by engaging publicly in his struggles with identity politics, showing honesty and authenticity and vulnerability (whether he is right or wrong is another matter, can anyone be entirely either?) He seems to me to be confronting and challenging many emerging issues in modern society and politics, issues which for some crazy reason suddenly and inexplicably came to considered - automatically - as being 'beyond debate'.

I'm not sure i agree with everything he says but he says it in a coherent and understandable manner which helps immensely.

Arghus · 12-04-2017 03:24PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Nah I would argue that Milo still serves a purpose, if his former champions are willing to abandon him because he comes out with things that offend their morality* it highlights that their support for the ideals of dialogue and free speech were strictly oppositional rather than based of a deeper regard for those issues.

* I agree that what he said should be argued against though

I always thought it was obvious that the likes of Milo and his former champions didn't really care about free speech. They may have cared a bit, but only when it suited and it gave a veneer of intellectual respectability to their rhetoric - but it wasn't their raison d'etre.

12-04-2017 03:28PM

Let's be real here - a lot of the time, those that claim to want free speech don't actually want free speech, especially when it is something that might be against their own narratives. People claim they do, but then shout down any disagreeing parties.

super_furry · 12-04-2017 03:28PM

Your man Milo is basically the male Katie Hopkins. He has outrageous opinions for money, the only problem for him is he didn't know where to draw the line and went full gob****e with all that paedophilia stuff. He was tolerated at best by the movers and shakers on the right and that was the perfect excuse for them to cut him loose.

brevity · 12-04-2017 03:32PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's be real here - a lot of the time, those that claim to want free speech don't actually want free speech, especially when it is something that might be against their own narratives. People claim they do, but then shout down any disagreeing parties.

People don't really understand the term - they think they should be allowed to say whatever they what without confrontation or reprocussions.

12-04-2017 03:33PM

brevity wrote: »

People completely don't really understand the term - they think they should be allowed to say whatever they what without confrontation or reprocussions.

And then they get annoyed when boards actually steps in, without realizing that this is a privately owned business, where free speech doesn't exist.

And yet people keep posting & keep complaining. If you don't like it, go somewhere else or.. well.. just go outside.

super_furry · 12-04-2017 03:36PM

brevity wrote: »

People don't really understand the term - they think they should be allowed to say whatever they what without confrontation or reprocussions.

And again, make arguments for it that have nothing to do with Ireland, with people all across the spectrum parroting the arguments that their favourite American blogger or twitter personality makes about American free speech.

Free speech in the fullest sense does not exist and has never existed in Ireland. It says in the constitution itself that your cannot say anything to " undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State". That's without even getting into the whole blasphemy nonsense.

Arghus · 12-04-2017 03:37PM

brevity wrote: »

People don't really understand the term - they think they should be allowed to say whatever they what without confrontation or reprocussions.

A lot of people, especially those who base their career around it, don't want to understand the term.

Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

Comments