Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Wibbs wrote: »

"in one's mouth"? You're putting words in your own mouth? OK. Indeed it is.

Oh it is and it just got more so. Like I said irony bypass. A quality Harley street procured one by the looks of it. This may sound like scintillating rhetoric in your head, but it really isn't.

These are a lot of words for what amounts to *la la la I'm not listening*.

Omackeral wrote: »

Critical analysis is welcome, to me anyway. This Sarah Jeong character, however, has shown a sustained racist streak over the past few years and it deserves to be called out as such.

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Besides, if you're comfortable condemning swathes of the far right then it's fair to say the far left are game for being tarred with one brush too. Applying one set of standards to one side and another to the other is kinda... and you're not gonna like this... hypocritical.

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

But again, I'm condemning them on more than their Twitter feeds.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

These are a lot of words for what amounts to *la la la I'm not listening*.

The irony and self awareness bypass here is truly staggering.

Omackeral wrote: »

They congregate in room 12 straight after The Serious Men of Boards meeting.

Will there be pastries and coffee? If not I'll bring some. I really hope the Serious Men of Boards tidy up after themselves.

Wibbs wrote: »

The irony and self awareness bypass here is truly staggering.

It truly is. You're genuinely oblivious.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Difference being the radicalized right coined that (inaccurate term) and applied it to themselves. Or should I say yourselves. Moderates didn't apply 'leftists' to themselves, it gets used on them by radicalized right such as yourself to dismiss and be reductive about what they're saying. Please do try to follow along. Yiz wannabe yanks.

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

How are you gonna label me a far-right radical when all I've done here is label a racist a racist. Feel free to point out any far-right (or alt-right or whatever it is this week) posts or points I've ever made on this website. I hate racists. Absolutely detest them. This far right nut job can be seen advocating a YES vote for Same Sex Marriage on this website. Ditto for Repeal the 8th. So extreme amn't I? So go on, quote my far right posts. I'll wait. Here's a spoiler, you won't be able to because I never have. You're a liar.

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, everybody else is "extremist" because they don't agree with you. It seems even if they don't quite agree with you, yet show no sign of being an extremist themselves. All dissent is heresy. Sounds pretty extreme to me. Then again another sure fire sign of an extremist of any stripe is a self awareness bypass. Irony and humour bypass also givens. And a near religious sense of being correct. And yep it is present in both sides. Demonstrably so.

Indeed.

I do hope this part is ironic.

I'm am extremist. I'm quite capable of recognising moderates. I'm also quite capable of liking people I don't agree with, as long as the debate remains polite.

Painting all extremists with the same brush is just another lazy generalisation. Another method of disengaging with the actual subject at hand and deflecting the debate into the relative merits of the positions and ideas people espouse.

"No point in listening to those extremists, they're all nutjobs". Hubris.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Difference being the radicalized right coined that (inaccurate term) and applied it to themselves. Or should I say yourselves. Moderates didn't apply 'leftists' to themselves, it gets used on them by radicalized right such as yourself to dismiss and be reductive about what they're saying. Please do try to follow along. Yiz wannabe yanks.

Omackeral isn't a far right radical. It undercuts any serious point you may have to start name calling this way.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Pardon me if I find it up there with believing in creationism that you would be nearly so quick to waffle on about "critical analysis" if these tweets were aimed at any other group. TBH creationism would be ahead by a nose.

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

Something is either setting out to offend, rile up, or negatively point at an identifiable group of people in a prejudicial way, or it's not. It's not rocket surgery. If someone filters out certain groups because of their own worldview position, then yes, that is a bloody good example of hypocrisy. Even if the person is unaware they're doing it, which you seem to be. Hence I wouldn't call you a hypocrite as it's not deliberate, but I would still see it as hypocritical.

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

That's an entirely false equivalence there - socialism is an economic ideology, white nationalists etc are identity politics ideologies.

What you can't do without being a hypocrite is to condemn the identity politics of the far right (KKK etc) without also condemning the identity politics of the far left (SJWs etc). Both are equally hateful, vitriolic and downright scummy, just with their guns aimed towards different groups.

If you find one less objectionable than the other, then the only logical conclusion is that you view one demographic as being less deserving of freedom from hate speech than another demographic. Either #KillAllMen and #KillAllWomen are both unacceptable, or they're both acceptable. Either #WhiteMaleTears and #BlackFemaleTears are both equally acceptable, or they're both equally unacceptable.

Anyone who does not believe this, is part of the problem. Being directly exposed to "this person gets to hit you with a stick, but you don't get to hit them with a stick, because reasons" directly breeds resentment, contempt, and ultimately hatred. This is particularly true when it begins at a young age, hence the growth of bitter, resentful TRP style men whose grievance against women began with "never hit a girl, even if she hits you first, just because she's a girl".

Human beings have an ingrained and entirely natural negative reaction to double standards directed against them. Normalise a double standard and you enrage an entire demographic, with unpredictable and often disastrous consequences.

Omackeral wrote: »

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

How are you gonna label me a far-right radical when all I've done here is label a racist a racist. Feel free to point out any far-right (or alt-right or whatever it is this week) posts or points I've ever made on this website. I hate racists. Absolutely detest them. This far right nut job can be seen advocating a YES vote for Same Sex Marriage on this website. Ditto for Repeal the 8th. So extreme amn't I? So go on, quote my far right posts. I'll wait. Here's a spoiler, you won't be able to because I never have. You're a liar.

I honestly think you're owed an apology. I may disagree with you on this subject, but that name calling isn't on.

Will I Am Not

“Yiz are all radicalized, triggered, snowflakes using all these American buzzwords” :pac:

Keepaneye

Complains about lazy generalisations.

Calls people he doesn't agree with "alt right".

pickarooney

This is the worst thing I have ever read and yet I have continued through 13 pages.

What the **** is wrong with me?

TomSweeney

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm about as liberal as they come and, yes. She's quite blatantly a racist. I'd also add that I think she's the worst kind of attention seeker who uses social injustice to feed her own spiteful, self-centred agenda regardless of the damage it does to good causes. Basically, a human tapeworm.

I am printing this,framing it and hanging it up!

its a big day when I agree with ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Would you be as quick to critically analyse all people who claim that they were only being satirical? If yes, then fair play. I'd doubt it though.

Brian? wrote: »

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

Yes it is nonsense because I never said that. Read it back Mr Critical Analyst. I said,

Omackeral wrote: »

if you're comfortable condemning swathes of the far right then it's fair to say the far left are game for being tarred with one brush too.

I also have said that the far right and far left are as bad as each other. Two sides of the same coin was the term I used i.e they're both bad. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with condemning the far right as I'll happily do it myself. I agreed with you before you needed to bring up the KKK or Aryan Nation.

Omackeral wrote: »

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

1. You said it, not me.
2. Never heard fascists say that.

Try again?

Wibbs wrote: »

Pardon me if I find it up there with believing in creationism that you would be nearly so quick to waffle on about "critical analysis" if these tweets were aimed at any other group. TBH creationism would be ahead by a nose.

Based on what? What have I done to earn this contempt exactly?

Something is either setting out to offend, rile up, or negatively point at an identifiable group of people in a prejudicial way, or it's not. It's not rocket surgery. If someone filters out certain groups because of their own worldview position, then yes, that is a bloody good example of hypocrisy. Even if the person is unaware they're doing it, which you seem to be. Hence I wouldn't call you a hypocrite as it's not deliberate, but I would still see it as hypocritical.

What do you mean by "their own world view" exactly? My world view is formed by my education, the news sources I digest and my every day experiences with people.

This world view allows me to filter such groups. That's called an educated decision. I don't know enough about Ms. Jeong to make and educated decision. That's not brain science. I want to know more. That's all I've said, repeatedly without anyone providing me with any further information.

Keepaneye wrote: »

Complains about lazy generalisations.

Calls people he doesn't agree with "alt right".

Is that aimed at me?

Brian? wrote: »

Omackeral isn't a far right radical. It undercuts any serious point you may have to start name calling this way.

Thank you. I'd gladly take one of those pastries you're bringing to the SMofB meeting

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

I'm am extremist. I'm quite capable of recognising moderates. I'm also quite capable of liking people I don't agree with, as long as the debate remains polite.

Painting all extremists with the same brush is just another lazy generalisation.

And yet you as a self identifying extremist fit pretty well into my lazy generalisations.

Brian? wrote: »

Omackeral isn't a far right radical. It undercuts any serious point you may have to start name calling this way.

Meh that poster is now at the you smell, no you smell level of the schoolyard. And completely oblivious to it, among a great many things. Never mind they're seeing nazis everywhere. Suggesting of all people someone like Omackeral is "radicalized right" is both hilarious and ridiculous.

TBH O, I'd not worry about it. Name calling only hits home if there's any truth to it. The more ranting a reply the more likely a nerve has been hit a bit too close to home. Like you I was also a yes for SSM and the 9th and divorce and all such votes. We're practically damned commies to some. And nazis to others. A fairly good sign we're somewhere in the middle with an old style "liberal" bias.

Billy86

professore wrote: »

I agree, however Katie Hopkins writes for the Mail Online which doesn't pretend to be fair and impartial and a paper of record, unlike the NYT. If she stayed with the huff post or whatever then let her rant all she wants.

I would on one hand agree there that they have zero place on a paper of record, but on the other I'd rather not even see the likes of her, Hopkins or the pedo lover on DM, HuffPo, Breitbart, etc. They're what happens when you take a reality TV type approach to politics in a very heightened time of tension - a part of which their ilk is responsible for, which is hardly surprising given it's what that types feed off of with f*** all care that they're just making those matters worse. Actually 'f*** all care' is the wrong way of putting it as they actively encourage it due to their careers depending on these divisions.

Regardless of what side of the political spectrum someone is on, that's just pouring poison down the well and it's one of the most disheartening developments of the last 20 years just how quick major publications, outlets and even media in general are to pander to this in the name of clickbait (be it online, on TV or in print). I would even go so far as to say that as long as these types are around and given such prominence, the current divisions will never, ever be fixed while new ones will be 'developed' by these same cretins, and the same masses that 20 years on swallow reality TV en masse and continue to tell themselves it's not entirely scripted will continue to do so with this as well.

Call it politics as sports, call it politics as reality TV, call it what you want... it's one of the surest fire ways to damage society at an incredible rate.

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly think you're owed an apology. I may disagree with you on this subject, but that name calling isn't on.

Fair play to you. I won't wait around for one though nor will that poster take my offer to find any far-right postings I've made because there simply are none. He'll just ignore it as if it never happened would be my guess but ya never know, surprises happen!

I like a good debate myself and even though you might not be on the same side of an argument, an honest style of back and forth can be very eye opening at the very least and it's quite satisfying to find common ground on occasion. There are one or two posters on here who I butt heads with plenty but also find myself seeing things from their POV and seeing how they see it in the way that they do. It's interesting.

pickarooney wrote: »

This is the worst thing I have ever read and yet I have continued through 13 pages.

What the **** is wrong with me?

You're an alt-right leftist, the worst of them all.

Omackeral wrote: »

Would you be as quick to critically analyse all people who claim that they were only being satirical? If yes, then fair play. I'd doubt it though.

I hope so. It's the standard I hold myself to. I may not always live up to it, but I try my best to.

Yes it is nonsense because I never said that. Read it back Mr Critical Analyst. I said,

Do you need the petty name calling? I'm happy to debate this to the death if we keep it polite.

What are you saying? To me the far right are the Nazis, Aryan nation etc. There is not equivalent philosophies the left IMO.

I also have said that the far right and far left are
as bad as each other. Two sides of the same coin was the term I used i.e they're both bad. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with condemning the far right as I'll happily do it myself. I agreed with you before you needed to bring up the KKK or Aryan Nation.

I disagree they are as bad as each other and don't fully understand why you think they are.

On the far right you do have the Aryan nation, the KKK, various neo Nazi groups. Horrific hate peddlers.Who are their left wing equivalents? I don't think they exist.

You slide in a little on the spectrum and you have the alt right. Still peddling hate in a slicker form. Who are their left wing equivalents? Possibly some Antifa elements who are stupidly violent.

TomSweeney

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Unbelievably, earlier today, as she was eating breakfast, Antifa showed up and chanted 'Fcuk White Supremacy' at her :P

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1026458985967153153

Incredible, just incredible - the mental illness here is astounding, AntiFa are nothing but thugs - they are the new blackshirts.

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet you as a self identifying extremist fit pretty well into my lazy generalisations.

How so? You don't get the throw that out and walk away.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Try again?

You said I was on the extreme far, or alt right. Post one thing I've ever said that will lend legitimacy to that claim. Go on, still waiting.