Yes Benny, you do sound indoctrinated.

Been saying that forever

(August 23, 2018 at 8:38 am)Khemikal Wrote: Yes Benny, you do sound indoctrinated.

I gotta say, bro.  So do you, and much more rabidly so than I could ever be.

Not only that, your flavor of indoctrination allows you to be objectively racist, to disregard an individual's life experiences, and to still express smug self-satisfaction (read: fart-sniffing) at the end of it all. Quite the feat.

I would say that overall, my politics are liberal, and are based on the concept of free will. But by free will, I don't mean the kind you insist doesn't exist-- I mean the ability of an individual to form a plan for his betterment and to act on it.

Overall, the PC Left has promoted this, especially in the States, more than it has harmed it. Clearly, women having the liberty to have their own political ideas and express that in elections is a good thing. Black people, ditto. Clearly, showing understanding to a broader spectrum of people, and protecting their rights to express themselves, favors a liberal view. This is the good of the PC Left, and it is how you view that political orientation.

However, it is equally clear to me that it is in danger of becoming a fascism of the left-- that it attempts, for example, to limit free speech, on the ground that free speech might hurt feelings. It very clearly promotes differential treatment of demographic groups, without reference to the virtue of individuals. I'd be kind of okay with a law against racist speech of any kind; I'd be fine with no laws against speech of any kind. But your philosophy is that due to demographic identity, some individuals are to be protected, and can pretty much say whatever shit they choose to barf up, while other individuals must be castigated if they get anywhere NEAR criticizing any of that. This is a clear and unnecessary violation of the most basic principles of liberty-- that they must be applied equally to all.

I understand why you hold your position-- there has been real and grave harm to minority demographics in the States. Some period of restitution or equilibrium should be tolerated or even encouraged, until a true equality of outcome has been established. Maybe this is true, but only where it encourages the liberties of individuals, not where it is used as a dogmatic excuse to disregard the liberties of another. I would fight to the death, and I believe at this state that Americans probably SHOULD do that, to establish the rule of pedestrian liberty-- that police may not harass citizens without just cause, where just cause is a real and specific threat posed by one person to the safety or liberties of another.

You have been quite smug, and I mean explicitly so, in disregarding my very real stories of personal and individual harm. You've been racist in mocking me, and highly unsympathetic to my own attempts to protect my personal liberties in the face of clearly nonsensical ideas which were clearly rooted in a leftist dogma. In order to maintain your smug racism, you've trotted out a string of fallacies so long that it could serve as a textbook-- No True Scostman, guilt by association, ad hominem, red herring, straw man, the list goes on. You've often pretended to "give me the benefit of the doubt" by constantly saying that while I might be an okay guy, I've fallen under the spell of right-wing ideologues, by which you mean that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either brainwashed or racist.

The sad thing is that I almost let you get in my head. After looking up C-16, and seeing how little it seemed to affect anything at all, I decided that I couldn't agree with Peterson about the pronoun issue; I began to suspect that he may after all just be a human hyperbole. But the insistently ignorant way you and Tiz have raved at me in this thread very strongly entrenches in my mind that the PC Left have very little interest in personal liberty. Certainly, though I don't think I've acted in a racist manner in my real life, and I've had people threaten my livelihood through no fault of my own, this matters little to you-- presumably because you see the greater good of the PC left as so important that a few casualties can be happily disregarded.

Now, you guys KNOW me, to some degree. Tiz, in particular, not only knows me, but can attest that I've stood up for him, and has at least one time in this thread made a pretty good show of acknowledging that fact. But when it comes to demographic politics, all that has gone out the window, and in pretty dramatic fact. Now, Tiz, I don't want another post like that one. I'm not trying to manipulate to agree with me. But just let me ask you this-- comparing that thread with this one, can you really say that I'm sheeple, that I'm brainwashed? Or are you willing to accept that I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and that my opinions (whether you agree with them or not) are honestly held?

And Khem, I can say that the length of my posts has turned out to be a great benefit for you-- you have so clearly cherry-picked that I can say your choice in selecting quotes represents a clear expression of your bias. How many times have I made arguments that DO align with your politics, and had you quietly ignore them? When I said that in the case of natives, I support a blanket demographic support, was THAT also an expression of indoctrination? When I said many pages ago that I felt black people should rise up and take power if that was their goal, and that I would respect them for that, would you say THAT was an expression of indoctrination? When I said that prisoners should be offered financial incentives for success and released from prison, was THAT an expression of indoctrination?

Thing is..I know that, I acknowledge it.  I'm self aware of the fact that I'm completely in the tank for a specific ideology on this matter.  I can point to those political influences which helped me to organize my thoughts on the subject.

My life experience only made me very much aware of the reality of racism and how it played out societaly and institutionally.  Whether or not that was a good thing..well..if I ended up being the person I was raised to be I'd tell you it was just great! I didn't.

You've spent this entire thread repeating the lines of others..verbatim, and then trying to convince me that you didn't get them from those others, or anywhere.  That you keep getting things wrong is bad enough...but your complete inability to realize the origin of those talking points is what really sets my "lolwhitey" engine a revvin. The american right has sold you on a few key items of completely non factual propaganda. They began to sing that tune in the 70's, and now their baby is all grown up.

Now, the gulags and the thought control never ended up happening....but the for profit body farms and white supremacist presidency...did. Perfect fifth collumn op, if you ask me.

(August 23, 2018 at 4:11 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You've spent this entire thread repeating the lines of others..verbatim, and then trying to convince me that you didn't get them from those others, or anywhere.  That you keep getting things wrong is bad enough...but your complete inability to realize the origin of those talking points is what really sets my "lolwhitey" engine a revvin.  The american right has sold you on a few key items of completely non factual propaganda.  They began to sing that tune in the 70's, and now their baby is all grown up.

David Duke Wrote:When I said that in the case of natives, I support a blanket demographic support, was THAT also an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said many pages ago that I felt black people should rise up and take power if that was their goal, and that I would respect them for that, would you say THAT was an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said that prisoners should be offered release conditional on contracts with financial incentives for success and released from prison, was THAT an expression of alt-right indoctrination?

I'm telling you that if you look at ALL my arguments, you'll see one common thread. I believe in liberty, defined as the capacity for individuals to form plans for their betterment and to follow them. Where right-wing politics support liberty, I will side with the right wing. Where left-wing politics support liberty, I will side with the left wing. Where any political ideas are expressed in limiting my own liberties, I will speak against them in no uncertain terms.

I also believe in responsibility, because when contracts are made, they are an exchange of services or monies in the promotion of the liberty of each party; each party has an expectation that the agreement will serve to improve his capacity to follow his plans for betterment in his life. So when an employee shows up with no sick note, spouting race-based political memes in lieu of accepting responsibility, then I don't need to be indoctrinated to call bullshit, and to identify what politics that particular bullshit stems from.

Now, to circle around to the OP, I have to say-- what Peterson said about C-16 seemed to be bullshit. But I linked a video (Shepherd's tribunal) which showed it being used as a basis not for promotion of liberty, but clearly (and explicitly, no less) for the limiting of free speech. Unless that was one crazy person, which I doubt, then I have to believe that there are more cases similar to that. The overwhelming confidence which her interview expressed in castigating her shows that he feels he has some support-- an expectation that his expression is shared by a great many people. I'm not saying that they are THE PC Left, but I certainly would say that they are among them. I likened the more militant and closed-minded among the PC left to terrorists, if you'll recall-- in that while only a small group of them are really malicious, they are not lacking in sympathy or support from the group on the whole. That dynamic is dangerous.

Peterson, then, may not just be talking shit out of hatred at all. He may, being a Canadian professor, be aware of other cases like Shepherd's. He may have heard of students' frustrations with regard to their own free speech. I'm not sure. But I've enjoyed some of his interviews, been puzzled by others, and downright disliked some of his positions. I do not know why he apparently calls women a force for chaos, and I'm confused by the number of intellectual women who seem not only to agree with him, but to treat some of the apparently sexist things he says as known facts.

That being said, I do not think that any sensible person can look at him and just see him as an alt-right job. He's not just shouting memes and waving flags-- he has a point in everything he says, so far as I can tell, and he's prepared to substantiate his claims and support his positions.

We're back to the "I met a guy once" theory of ideological classification. You may have met a guy once, Benny, but having met a guy once won't make anything you've said in this thread any more accurate now than it was before.

I get that you think you're supporting the right because liberty, blah blah blah. The vision of liberty they've sold you, that you've shared in this thread... is a con. I've repeatedly pointed out all the ways that it's a con.

Ironically, and fucking heinously, that vision of liberty has been used to created illiberty. Unjustice. Inequality. You clearly have a problem identifying where trends in politics comes from, you've been resisting the origin of your politics for some time. You failed to realize that an acknowledgement that identity poltics is being used doesn't mean that the person who acknowledges it is the one doing it.

But hey, the american right told you that the PC SJW left was comin forya, and making it all about Those People™.

-and you believed em.

(August 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We're back to the "I met a guy once" theory of ideological classification.  You may have met a guy once, Benny, but having met a guy once won't make anything you've said in this thread any more accurate now than it was before.

I get that you think you're supporting the right because liberty, blah blah blah.  The vision of liberty they've sold you, that you've shared in this thread... is a con. I've repeatedly pointed out all the ways that it's a con.

Ironically, and fucking heinously, that vision of liberty has been used to created illiberty.  Unjustice.  Inequality.  You clearly have a problem identifying where trends in politics comes from, you've been resisting the origin of your politics for some time.  You failed to realize that an acknowledgement that identity poltics is being used doesn't mean that the person who acknowledges it is the one doing it.

But hey, the american right told you that the PC SJW left was comin forya, and making it all about Those People™.

-and you believed em.

Yeah, I'm a champion of the fucking right.  Until you acknowledge the things I actually say, I'm just going to keep reposting this:

Hitler's Dog Wrote:When I said that in the case of natives, I support a blanket demographic support, was THAT also an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said many pages ago that I felt black people should rise up and take power if that was their goal, and that I would respect them for that, would you say THAT was an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said that prisoners should be offered release conditional on contracts with financial incentives for success and released from prison, was THAT an expression of alt-right indoctrination?

I promoted identity support for natives precisely because it is their identity which is under attack-- not just their persons, but what it means for them to be native. You can't express yourself in action (i.e. act according to my definition of liberty) if even your sense of self-identity is taken away from you.

I support black people standing up in arms if they choose to do so, because I believe the constitution of the US allows for the possession of arms with the intent of standing against tyranny, and the abuse of positions of privilege, both in police and in government represent tyranny, i.e. the polar opposite of liberty under my definition. Nobody ever had a plan to be pulled over for a broken tail light, ripped out of his car because his timing in reaching for ID scared some fuckwit cop, and then thrown in jail for obstruction of justice when he struggled against the cop's unwarranted attempts to restrain him.

I support incentives over entitlements, because I think it is infinitely more likely to cause people to make goals and to pursue them, i.e. I believe it's the best way to promote liberty as I define it. Unless people have a reasonable expectation that they'll be given a chance to be productive, and then amply rewarded for the value of that production, they don't really have liberty-- whether they're behind bars or not.

What I do NOT promote is thought policing, guilt by association, stereotyping, and most especially limitations on free speech. I fucking HATE white racists, but I would die for their right to say stupid shit, so long as it doesn't constitute a threat to the liberty of others. I dislike the PC left, but I would die for their right to say stupid shit, so long as it doesn't constitute a threat to the liberty of others.

We've been going through those examples of thought policing, guilt by association, stereotyping, and limitations on free speech.. and have found each of them to be fatuous misrepresentations...leveraged by right wing shitwads, to blame the left..for what the right has taken up as it's own strategy to divide and conquer the working class...as a fifth column in the left.  That it's worked... is undeniable.

I understand that you're very angry at the idea that you might have been hoodwinked, but....didn't it begin to dawn on you that this could be the case when we were still discussing Peterson? I can only tell you that I find the presence of these narratives in you interesting precisely -because- I think you're a generally left leaning and non racist person so many times, Benny. I can only smooth your white anxiety so much. I didn't produce it, the left didn't even produce it.

Guys like Peterson put that fear inya, man. You dislike the PC left for reasons fed to you, in error..and frankly, intentionally..by rightwing shitwads.

(August 23, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We've been going through those examples of thought policing, guilt by association, stereotyping, and limitations on free speech.. and have found each of them to be fatuous misrepresentations...leveraged by right wing shitwads, to blame the left..for what the right has taken up as it's own strategy to divide and conquer the working class...as a fifth column in the left.  That it's worked... is undeniable.  

I understand that you're very angry at the idea that you might have been hoodwinked, but....didn't it begin to dawn on you that this could be the case when we were still discussing Peterson?

Acknowledge.

Benito Mussolini Wrote:When I said that in the case of natives, I support a blanket demographic support, was THAT also an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said many pages ago that I felt black people should rise up and take power if that was their goal, and that I would respect them for that, would you say THAT was an expression of alt-right indoctrination? When I said that prisoners should be offered release conditional on contracts with financial incentives for success and released from prison, was THAT an expression of alt-right indoctrination?

Benito Mussolini\s Handsome  Lover Wrote:I promoted identity support for natives precisely because it is their identity which is under attack-- not just their persons, but what it means for them to be native.  You can't express yourself in action (i.e. act according to my definition of liberty) if even your sense of self-identity is taken away from you.

I support black people standing up in arms if they choose to do so, because I believe the constitution of the US allows for the possession of arms with the intent of standing against tyranny, and the abuse of positions of privilege, both in police and in government represent tyranny, i.e. the polar opposite of liberty under my definition.  Nobody ever had a plan to be pulled over for a broken tail light, ripped out of his car because his timing in reaching for ID scared some fuckwit cop, and then thrown in jail for obstruction of justice when he struggled against the cop's unwarranted attempts to restrain him.

I support incentives over entitlements, because I think it is infinitely more likely to cause people to make goals and to pursue them, i.e. I believe it's the best way to promote liberty as I define it.  Unless people have a reasonable expectation that they'll be given a chance to be productive, and then amply rewarded for the value of that production, they don't really have liberty-- whether they're behind bars or not.

Not for nothing..there's plenty to dislike the pc sjws for.  Like minimum wage increases.  

Maybe you got the wrong example but you don't have to get the right example to dislike the idea of minimum wage increases.  

Though, I have to ask...do you see minimum wage increases as incentive or entitlement?