(February 20, 2019 at 3:23 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and what you've expressed is that you agree with the alt-reich on this issue, down to the overcompensating crypo-racist accusations, the sjw screeching, the lefts white victimization, the pc world run amok, whiny men, and the grand communist tyranny of objecting to racists and the contents of their hate speech.

Or, that they agree with you..honestly, take you fuckin pick, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

More false syllogisms don't make them more true.

Not liking screechy SJWs is not unique to the alt-right. Many non-neo-nazis don't like screechy hysteria, all caps writing, uncontrolled emotionalism and so on. Many non-neo-nazis prefer measured discourse, supported by facts and values. Many people dislike hypocrisy, which is evident in the absolute intolerance SJWs show for any idea which is part of their trigger-meme dogma, from a group which pretends to promote tolerance.

I consider myself left-of-center. I favor welfare, healthcare, environmental care and so on, and AOC is currently my favorite politician. I mean-- how many vegetarian alt-righters even exist? I've also suggested many plans for the improvement of quality of life for black people, involving things like early release for harsh sentences (or for overturned laws like pot possession in some states), blind sentencing, and so on. I'm no expert on the alt-right, but I don't think any of these positions are typical of that school, are they?

Your technique is pretty obvious-- guilt by association allows you to dismiss arguments based on group membership, rather than arguing actual points or supporting them with facts. But, don't you see-- you are the exact reason why I think free speech is so important-- because when someone tries to use techniques like group demonization, as you do, I get to stand up and make my ideas heard, instead of getting lynched on general principle.

(February 20, 2019 at 4:01 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 20, 2019 at 3:23 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and what you've expressed is that you agree with the alt-reich on this issue, down to the overcompensating crypo-racist accusations, the sjw screeching, the lefts white victimization, the pc world run amok, whiny men, and the grand communist tyranny of objecting to racists and the contents of their hate speech.

Or, that they agree with you..honestly, take you fuckin pick, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

More false syllogisms don't make them more true.

Not liking screechy SJWs is not unique to the alt-right.  Many non-neo-nazis don't like screechy hysteria, all caps writing, uncontrolled emotionalism and so on.  Many non-neo-nazis prefer measured discourse, supported by facts and values.  Many people dislike hypocrisy, which is evident in the absolute intolerance SJWs show for any idea which is part of their trigger-meme dogma, from a group which pretends to promote tolerance.

There are many fine people on both sides, sure.  (couldn't help myself, lol)

Quote:I consider myself left-of-center.  I favor welfare, healthcare, environmental care and so on, and AOC is currently my favorite politician.  I mean-- how many vegetarian alt-righters even exist?  I've also suggested many plans for the improvement of quality of life for black people, involving things like early release for harsh sentences (or for overturned laws like pot possession in some states), blind sentencing, and so on.  I'm no expert on the alt-right, but I don't think any of these positions are typical of that school, are they?

This, here, is actual virtue signalling.  If you're going to whine about virtue signalling endlessly, know it when you see, and know it when you say it.  Good for you, you've established your liberal bonafides.  So what?  You can be all of the above and still agree with or unwittingly repeat the alt-reichs rhetoric.  Frankly, for most of political history libs were pretty godamned racist.  It's unfashionable to be so today but that long relationship goes to show that the three states of being aren't fundamentally incompatible.  

Quote:Your technique is pretty obvious-- guilt by association allows you to dismiss arguments based on group membership, rather than arguing actual points or supporting them with facts.  But, don't you see-- you are the exact reason why I think free speech is so important-- because when someone tries to use techniques like group demonization, as you do, I get to stand up and make my ideas heard, instead of getting lynched on general principle.

I'm telling you that your anxieties about being washed as a racist are credible, even though the rest simply aren't - but only because you say the things that the racists say.  You freely say them, no less..just as they freely say them.  

Is there anything about that which doesn't argue directly against the freeze peach grift or strike you as entirely nonsensical?  People will refer to the things you say when they form their opinion of you or your motivations.  You are free to keep using your mouth..prodigiously, to give them exactly the sort of information that might lead them to conclude that you are a racist, or have been groomed in the racist pipeline.

(February 20, 2019 at 5:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

Quote:I consider myself left-of-center.  I favor welfare, healthcare, environmental care and so on, and AOC is currently my favorite politician.  I mean-- how many vegetarian alt-righters even exist?  I've also suggested many plans for the improvement of quality of life for black people, involving things like early release for harsh sentences (or for overturned laws like pot possession in some states), blind sentencing, and so on.  I'm no expert on the alt-right, but I don't think any of these positions are typical of that school, are they?

This, here, is actual virtue signalling.  If you're going to whine about virtue signalling endlessly, know it when you see, and know it when you say it.  Good for you, you've established your liberal bonafides.  So what?  You can be all of the above and still agree with or unwittingly repeat the alt-reichs rhetoric.  Frankly, for most of political history libs were pretty godamned racist.  It's unfashionable to be so today but that long relationship goes to show that the three states of being aren't fundamentally incompatible.  

Arguing that you're not alt-right by describing the ways in which you're not alt-right isn't virtue signalling. Standing up in a Starbucks and saying "How dare you braid your hair in the traditional native style! That's cultural appropriate, bruh!" is virtue signalling.

You can keep saying that free speech is an alt-right device, and I'll keep explaining why that's a terrible position. Or maybe I can find a book quote and just say "ibid." every time I have to repeat myself, because Matt Damon sounded cool when he said it in Good Will Hunting.

So I'm going to include a link to an article on whitesplaining, because I noticed the way some of us speak seem to reflect our white/whitish privilege (calm down, I'm including myself here as well):

https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazi...d-to-stop/

I found the 4th point particularly interesting as I tend to notice this a lot here in the forums and elsewhere online when talking about racism:

Quote:Speaking of derailments – when I’m talking about a racist act, I don’t have much interest in whether or not the person responsible is “a racist.”

If that sounds counterintuitive, then you could really use this clarification about addressing white supremacy: It’s not about identifying people as racists.

It’s also not about “bashing” white people – but you may interpret it that way if you’re feeling uncomfortable. And then you might whitesplain that people of color are “attacking” you for no reason.

When it comes to things like holding implicit biases and benefiting from white privilege, the question of whether or not someone is intentionally bigoted is completely irrelevant.

So you’re not under attack if a person of color is talking to you about race – not even if they’re calling you out for racism.

I remember one call-out in which writers of color let a white editor know how he’d contributed to racism in the publishing industry, and how he could do better.

Because it’s such a sensitive topic, many people interpret any mention of racism as a conflict – and this discussion was no different.

The editor’s friends immediately rallied to his defense, saying, “He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body!”

But nobody had even said this man was “a racist.” We simply pointed out that his actions had a harmful impact – and his being a good person wouldn’t make that impact vanish.

If you’re called out for racism and you take it as a personal attack on your character, you’re making the situation all about you – not the bigger picture of how all of us can take responsibility for our own role in white supremacy.

Your belief that someone “doesn’t have a racist bone in their body” can lead you to overlook the impact of what they’ve done and focus instead on their intentions.

In other words, you’re oversimplifying the issue, separating yourself from “the bad guys” and saying good people can’t possibly do something wrong.

Unfortunately, good people contribute to white supremacy every day – and if you can’t face the ways white supremacy influences your life, you’ll never be able to change it. That means you’ve got to stop focusing on your good nature and intentions, which has you prioritizing your feelings over people of color’s pain.

You’d have a much more positive impact if instead, you focused on addressing our very real, very valid concerns about how you’re contributing to our oppression.

So rather than whitesplaining the why of insensitive actions, try stepping back and listening to what only a person of color could tell you – how the actual impact of racist actions affect them.

If that makes you uncomfortable, it’s time to practice sitting with and learning from your discomfort instead of assuming that it means you’re under attack.

(February 19, 2019 at 8:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I would die for your right to speak freely-- or for Neeson's or anyone else's.  I think you alternate between good sense and downright screech, but I would never tell you not to express your ideas.

"I would DIE for your right to speak freely..." Please. Spare me the breathless platitudes. 
And false sense of urgency.

I'm not "telling" Neeson not to express his ideas. I'm expressing my own thoughts, ideas, and criticism in response to his.
That's how this works, bennyboy.

Quote:As for paranoia-- I don't think an awareness of history and of human nature is paranoia.  Do you think the communists early on didn't accuse dissenters of paranoia?

See, in times of peace, it's easy to pass off seemingly minor restrictions on freedom-- we don't really need them, things seem smoother without them.  But that's a slippery slope, and has been proven so in conflict after conflict over the past several thousands of years.

Blah, blah, blah...Enough with this idiotic analogy. 
Neeson's critics are not lighting upon Internet operating under the full power and authority and of the United States government and are not imposing legal sanctions upon him. His constitutional right to free speech is not under attack because he's receiving public backlash as a result of his public statements.

Quote:No, you have to maintain freedom jealously, and accept its consequences as graciously as you can, or things go south very quickly.  Don't be eager to support those who are keen to end careers or lives, because as they are given more power, the net draws tighter, until all sensible people are likely to find themselves inside it.

I support free speech, same as you. However, unlike you, I understand that free speech doesn't guarantee freedom from dissenting opinions and negative responses when engaging in the public sphere, nor does it shield citizens from the ravages of the free market.
If Neeson chooses to voice thoughts and opinions that negatively impact him as a brand, that's on him. If folks don't like what they hear, they are FREE to express themselves just as well as Neeson and are FREE to forgo patronage of his brand, and I'm 100% okay with that.

Don't like it? Too bad.
That's the American way.

The issue here is that you and like-minded individuals regard yourselves as the ideal standard/baseline norm, and therefore FEEL you should be entitled to a bit more freedom of expression than everybody else. That's precisely why you insist on trying to sell this alternate, fantasy world in which 'freedom of speech' means YOU guys get to talk and offend at will, and those who are offended/disagree are compelled to stay silent.

Fuck your fantasy, man. I refuse to entertain it.

(February 20, 2019 at 9:52 am)Thena323 Wrote: The issue here is that you and like-minded individuals regard yourselves as the ideal standard/baseline norm, and therefore FEEL you should be entitled to a bit more freedom of expression than everybody else. That's precisely why you insist on trying to sell this alternate, fantasy world in which 'freedom of speech' means YOU guys get to talk and offend at will, and those who are offended/disagree are compelled to stay silent.

Absolutely not. I would never compel anyone else to stay silent in general, though I might tell someone who I find annoying to stfu. If the PC people are really thinking those thoughts, I want them out in the open where I can see them. That I think they are screechy idiots has nothing to do with whether they should be allowed to speak.

I reserve the right, however, to point out that they are screechy idiots.

It's funny that everyone agrees free speech is important and racism is bad. Where they diverge is whether this guy's racism is irredeemable or not, and that warrants positive vitriol apparently. This is exactly the state of American discourse. Maybe it always has been.

(February 20, 2019 at 7:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 20, 2019 at 5:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: This, here, is actual virtue signalling.  If you're going to whine about virtue signalling endlessly, know it when you see, and know it when you say it.  Good for you, you've established your liberal bonafides.  So what?  You can be all of the above and still agree with or unwittingly repeat the alt-reichs rhetoric.  Frankly, for most of political history libs were pretty godamned racist.  It's unfashionable to be so today but that long relationship goes to show that the three states of being aren't fundamentally incompatible.  

Arguing that you're not alt-right by describing the ways in which you're not alt-right isn't virtue signalling.  Standing up in a Starbucks and saying "How dare you braid your hair in the traditional native style!  That's cultural appropriate, bruh!" is virtue signalling.

You can keep saying that free speech is an alt-right device, and I'll keep explaining why that's a terrible position.  Or maybe I can find a book quote and just say "ibid." every time I have to repeat myself, because Matt Damon sounded cool when he said it in Good Will Hunting.

Yeah yeah, whatever you say.  I think that you're just an overcompensating alt-reichist.

Sound silly?

I keep telling you that the freeze peach grift is white supremacist rhetoric, because it is. So, if you run it, people are going to think to themselves "hmn, this guy sounds like a white supremacist". That's how that works, lol. Further, there is no threat to your or their free speech, it's an entirely imagined bit of white victimization that has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. You have somehow™ managed to arrive at the same conclusion that the alt-reich has, even though it's not a conclusion informed by reality.

(February 20, 2019 at 12:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(February 20, 2019 at 7:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: Arguing that you're not alt-right by describing the ways in which you're not alt-right isn't virtue signalling.  Standing up in a Starbucks and saying "How dare you braid your hair in the traditional native style!  That's cultural appropriate, bruh!" is virtue signalling.

You can keep saying that free speech is an alt-right device, and I'll keep explaining why that's a terrible position.  Or maybe I can find a book quote and just say "ibid." every time I have to repeat myself, because Matt Damon sounded cool when he said it in Good Will Hunting.

Yeah yeah, whatever you say.  I think that you're just an overcompensating alt-reichist.

Sound silly?

I keep telling you that the freeze peach grift is white supremacist rhetoric, because it is.  So, if you run it, people are going to think to themselves "hmn, this guy sounds like a white supremacist".  That's how that works, lol.  Further, there is no threat to your or their free speech, it's an entirely imagined bit of white victimization that has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.  You have somehow™ managed to arrive at the same conclusion that the alt-reich has, even though it's not a conclusion informed by reality.

It's amazing the way assholes these days are so self absorbed that they think that obviously self serving rhetoric can be substituted for reason. Social Justice Warriors are going around making the most retarded accusations on the thinnest of pretexts, and then when people tell them that their pretexts are thin and that they are fucking retards, they say "Ooh, that's something that a racist would say. You don't want to sound like a racist do you?". And then they wonder why that keep being called retards. Idiots.

Fun fact, sjw hysteria was actively manufactured by the alt reich and disseminated on every social media platform for it's noted ability to serve as an alt-lite gateway to what they call normies.  People who would reject their arguments and framing if the identified white supremacist theme was blatantly overt. The general notion appears to be that since the narrative of victimization works (the alt reich is certain that what other people call racism is just a false victimization narrative), it's a tool that they could use to frame opposition to their ideology as hypocritical in any number of ways. This is brilliant, from the standpoint of propaganda, because it allows them to avoid being seen advocating for white supremacy or defending white supremacy. A prominent white supremacist can generate media hit after media hit without ever once directly advocating white supremacy using this grift. Hypocrisy is pretty much meth for a whole generation of liberals. The largest generation of liberals ever, in fact - just now coming into their politically active years and having largely stayed away from politics prior to. Ripe marks for a simple scam.

Not that it matters, since we're dealing with a set of enormous coincidences where none of that had any effect on those comments we see today on the boards.