Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Results 261 to 279 of 279

Thread: The NPC meme controversy

  1. #261
    Ferrets54's Avatar Praefectus Praetorio
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    64,787

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    This is factually inaccurate.. Shirrako did not have his channel deleted "because the video triggered age restricted content automated algorithms." It was deleted because “graphic content that appears to be posted in a shocking, sensation, or disrespectful manner” and that it also does not “allow content that’s intended to incite violence or encourage dangerous activities.”
    *siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

    https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1060348690873774081

    That would be YT's Head of Gaming btw.

    Again, it was live when you posted, and you didn't care. You just wanted another drum to bang.

  2. #262

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    *siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

    https://twitter.com/Fwiz/status/1060348690873774081

    That would be YT's Head of Gaming btw.

    Again, it was live when you posted, and you didn't care. You just wanted another drum to bang.
    When you posted that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    YT made a statement it was because the video triggered age restricted content automated algorithms.
    you did not provide a link to the statement that it triggered "automated algorithms".
    Will you provide the link to that statement?

  3. #263
    Ferrets54's Avatar Praefectus Praetorio
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    64,787

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    When you posted that:

    you did not provide a link to the statement that it triggered "automated algorithms".
    Will you provide the link to that statement?
    Oh semantics. It was automatically rejected, YT temporarily suspended, they reviewed again and it was set live. It was live when BWB posted, who didn't care because he just wanted a drum to bang.

  4. #264
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,042

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by ferrets54
    YT made a statement it was because the video triggered age restricted content automated algorithms. They reviewed that manually, and re-enabled it. The account was available when BWB posted - and he did not care.
    Again I ask you to account for this statement of yours? No such thing appears in the article I posted or the one Aexodus posted. His account was not removed by an algorithm as you claim. The tweet you link indicates the account was banned by a human reviewer.

    Please explain how you came to believe the account was removed by an algorithm.


    My original post was at 5:05pm Nov 7. Shirrako tweeted his channel was restored at 2:49. I don't know why you think it is so important that I was scooped by two and a half hours by events. I would appreciate if you explained me after you explain how it is that you still don't know the basic facts of what happened. I had learned of the story the day before and simply posted the latest information I knew of. For all I know the update that appears at the bottom of the story now was already there.

    I didn't offer any opinion on Youtube's actions, I still haven't other than to praise them for restoring his account.

    You just wanted another drum to bang.
    Read up on cognitive distortions. You are doing them. I thought 'hey here's a story about NPCs, the posters in the Mudpit might be interested.

    Oh semantics. It was automatically rejected,
    No. This is important. His video was not automatically rejected. It went viral and was written about in Motherboard and the Guardian. Then his channel was banned by a person at Youtube.

    In my opinion - YouTube panicked. They didn't want bad publicity so they banned the guy.
    Last edited by Big War Bird; November 11, 2018 at 09:26 PM.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  5. #265

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    Oh semantics. It was automatically rejected, YT temporarily suspended, they reviewed again and it was set live. It was live when BWB posted, who didn't care because he just wanted a drum to bang.
    Does that mean you wont provide a link to the statement which you say youtube made?
    Or is this an admission that youtube did not make the statement you claim youtube made?
    Last edited by Infidel144; November 11, 2018 at 09:25 PM.

  6. #266
    Ferrets54's Avatar Praefectus Praetorio
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    64,787

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    Again I ask you to account for this statement of yours? No such thing appears in the article I posted or the one Aexodus posted. His account was not removed by an algorithm as you claim. The tweet you link indicates the account was banned by a human reviewer.

    Please explain how you came to believe the account was removed by an algorithm.


    My original post was at 5:05pm Nov 7. Shirrako tweeted his channel was restored at 2:49. I don't know why you think it is so important that I was scooped by two and a half hours by events. I would appreciate if you explained me after you explain how it is that you still don't know the basic facts of what happened. I had learned of the story the day before and simply posted the latest information I knew of. For all I know the update that appears at the bottom of the story now was already there.

    I didn't offer any opinion on Youtube's actions, I still haven't other than to praise them for restoring his account.



    Read up on cognitive distortions. You are doing them.



    No. This is important. His video was not automatically rejected. It went viral and was written about in Motherboard and the Guardian. Then his channel was banned by a person at Youtube.

    In my opinion - YouTube panicked. They didn't want bad publicity so they banned the guy.
    You want us to ignore how you posted it all without even checking the account, which was live. Can you acknowledge you posted crap because you don't bother to check anything you like?

  7. #267
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,042

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    I just explained how it is I came to post what I did.

    Please explain how you came to believe the account was removed by an algorithm.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  8. #268
    Ferrets54's Avatar Praefectus Praetorio
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    64,787

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    I just explained how it is I came to post what I did.

    Please explain how you came to believe the account was removed by an algorithm.
    It was "flagged for review" then manually reviewed and then put back live, again by manual review. A non-story.

    Your turn: you going to acknowledge you posted a falsehood because you don't apply any scrutiny to anything you read?

  9. #269
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,042

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Well now we know how you came to believe that - it was a figment of your imagination.

    https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802027?hl=en

    When something is reported, it’s not automatically taken down. Reported content is reviewed along the following guidelines
    Accounts are not banned while being reviewed.


    So what happened here

    1. Ferrets54 doesn't care about the truth and just posts whatever comes to his mind and presents it as fact.
    2. Ferrets54 doesn't care about the truth and didn't bother to do a 2 second Google to check whether his imagination matches reality.

    Your turn: you going to acknowledge you posted a falsehood because you don't apply any scrutiny to anything you read?
    Even though I was a few hours behind events everything I've posted actually happened. You posted an untruth.

    Edit: I think this has been I splendid illustration of the NPC meme. Just keep saying the same thing over and over again even when you know its not true in the hopes that everyone else gives up.
    Last edited by Big War Bird; November 11, 2018 at 10:15 PM.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  10. #270

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    It was "flagged for review" then manually reviewed and then put back live, again by manual review.
    So, then, an admission that youtube did not make the statement you claim youtube made...
    Why did you claim youtube made a statement it did not make?

    And was there not something else that happened in that synopsis you gave? Something about the entire channel being deleted by a youtube employee (who will now be "educated" by youtube)?
    Last edited by Infidel144; November 11, 2018 at 09:54 PM.

  11. #271
    Ferrets54's Avatar Praefectus Praetorio
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    64,787

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    So, then, an admission that youtube did not make the statement you claim youtube made...
    Why did you claim youtube made a statement it did not make?

    And was there not something else that happened in that synopsis you gave? Something about the entire channel being deleted by a youtube employee (who will now be "educated" by youtube)?
    Flagged for review is probably automated, all platforms have automated reviews because of the sheer volume. Not sure why you're trying to make this the focus when you lot have been caught getting overexcited over a nothing yet again.

  12. #272

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrets54 View Post
    Flagged for review is probably automated, all platforms have automated reviews because of the sheer volume. Not sure why you're trying to make this the focus when you lot have been caught getting overexcited over a nothing yet again.
    I.e. youtube did not say what you claimed "YT made a statement it was because the video triggered age restricted content automated algorithms". Youtube said nothing about "automated algorithms". And since you had done the research, you knew that. You could have posted what the youtube dude said, and not made it up. Or just admitted you were wrong.
    Meanwhile you had been been chiding others for what you claim are falsehoods.

    I'm not sure who this 'overexcited you lot' is, until just a couple of hours ago I had said nothing about the incident, and still have not voiced an opinion on it...
    Sounds a bit like projection.

  13. #273
    Praepositus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,643

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    It's not like you cannot do the nuance.
    It's more like you do not want to do it for the sake of your argument.
    That's what one could call intellectual dishonesty but I will give you the benefit of a doubt: Read Patrol 36, a wikipedia article about Israeli Nazis.
    Also: Israel's nightmare: Homegrown neo-Nazis in the Holy Land.
    Wannabe Nazi scum exist, not sure why I would have to debate them in Israel or on line. Also why coin some odd new word when antisemite fits?

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    This is what you get if you disenfranchise people and then tell them that their grievances don't matter because by being white they are privileged and they should stop whining.
    Its a weak argument to say scumbags like neo Nazis only appear because of political correctness, real Nazis appeared without any such stimulus. Economic problems, demagoguery and human nature are behind movements like the intellectually puny and morally abhorrent Nazis, and their sickly imitators.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Cultural marxism is to neo-nazizsm what tobacco farmers are to lung cancer.
    Weak comparisons are to arguments what rotten members are to railway bridges.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I did not say that, you did and your flimsy attempt to attribute this to me is, at best, a half fleshed go at strawmanship.
    I am challenging the thinking of the wannabe Nazi scum that ape the Nazi scum. Unless you were marching with the torch wielding scum then i'm not addressing you.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Are they nazis or "wannabe" nazis? - Make up your mind.
    I've used the term "wannabe Nazis" in that post consistently, your confusion is inexplicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Or dumb.
    You have been given the benefit of a doubt, you may just as well pay that forward.
    Not to Nazis, or wannabe Nazis. They can go to hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    You are jousting against the windmill.
    Like a windmill the principle of Free Speech is a human construct subject to human failure. As a citizen you have to deal with these issues, if you put them in the too hard basket they get used against you.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Not quite: We have agreed that it is preferable not to debate than to be dragged down to the muck by certain people.
    That is not the same as saying pernicious assertions should not be debated when they come from that kind of individuals.
    If you cannot do it without diving in the muck, let someone else do it because pernicious assertions need to be debated in the open rather than be let to proliferate in the dark.
    In such a debate one would not be trying to persuade the vendors of resentment, but the people still sitting on the fence.
    In many cases I agree, not this one though. Its not a debate, its trolls trolling. You don't think the NPC meme is 4chan reaching out do you? Its trolls jeering among themselves, and predictably sliding over into antisemtic ranting about golems.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    No, that's just one way to look at it.
    I believe that free speech allows the manifestation of disagreement and open disagreement is the process by which we think.
    If you are not allowed to hear the opinions which you find offensive, then a whole swath of reality will be hidden from you and with it the intellectual instruments with which to content with it.
    Meanwhile the problem festers.
    This is well OT by now, and I've stated my position. If you chat to the 4chan child porn peddlers about their memes they'll probably label you pwnd, or dox you, or smear you, and then come up with some other nasty stuff. Its predictable they got a reaction on line from the usual suspects, but it wasn't a debate request, just trolling as usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    That's one way to think about it.
    Another way to think about it is that nazis are already in and what is at stake is keeping their numbers visible, low and contained.
    I believe that the only realistic way to go about it is to disregard our disdain for the connotations brought forth by their regalia and address their grievances in a non dismissive, non patronizing way.
    Once more, we are not trying to reverse the proselytization of nazis, just remove from them the plausibility with which to proselytize more empty heads to their ranks.
    Once again, there is not enough breath in the body politic to chat with wannabe Nazis, there's enough timewasters. Wannabe Nazis can GTFO. I've shown you respect in replying, you seemed in genuine pain with you first response to me. Maybe you weren't, and it was rhetorical, but your rhetoric is wasted talking about scumbag porn peddlers and their miserable chattering among themselves, likewise wannabe Nazi scum. You might as well go to the judgemental voices of twitter etc and ask them to be more reasonable.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #274
    paleologos's Avatar Moderator
    Artifex Content Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    6,142

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    I've been doing some artsy stuff the last couple of days, so I was not able to address this as promptly as I'd prefer, apologies.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Wannabe Nazi scum exist, not sure why I would have to debate them in Israel or on line.
    You were the first to mention nazis in this thread, because at the time you felt that it helped your case.
    Not very helpful now that I have demonstrated you can get nazis even in a state of Jews.
    If you want to never mention nazis again in this thread it's fine by me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Also why coin some odd new word when antisemite fits?
    You say antisemite fits all, I say there is room for nuance and nuance requires a nuanced term.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Its a weak argument to say scumbags like neo Nazis only appear because of political correctness, real Nazis appeared without any such stimulus.
    Another superficial reading and effortless misrepresentation of my argument so as to make it look weak.
    A poster case for the strawman logical fallacy.
    Go on reading the next paragraph.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Economic problems, demagoguery and human nature are behind movements like the intellectually puny and morally abhorrent Nazis, and their sickly imitators.
    PC is to be blamed for the deliberate failure to address grievances equally.
    And you may feel inclined to deny that such a deliberate failure is taking place.
    What you cannot deny in a spirit of intellectual honesty is that the oppression pyramid theory alienates straight white males in the USA and thusly allows a lot of room for "demagoguery" to take hold on the "intellectually puny".



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Weak comparisons are to arguments what rotten members are to railway bridges.
    Only you know what you mean by that but the comparison was strong enough to cause a butthurt albeit ineffectual reaction.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I am challenging the thinking of the wannabe Nazi scum that ape the Nazi scum. Unless you were marching with the torch wielding scum then i'm not addressing you.
    You are not supposed to debate me, to begin with.
    You are supposed to debate the arguments I make.
    Instead, you misrepresent the arguments I make into a strawman version of them.
    That's not challenging, that's avoiding the challenge.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I've used the term "wannabe Nazis" in that post consistently, your confusion is inexplicable.
    I am not confused about this thread not being about nazis.
    I am not confused about you trying to make this thread about nazis.
    I am not confused about why you trying to do that:
    You know that everyone hates nazis and if you manage to misrepresent me as a sympathizer of theirs, you may feel that you are getting the upper hand in this debate.
    You seem to be forgetting that we have yet to see a cyclist win the Tour de France with their training wheels still on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Not to Nazis, or wannabe Nazis. They can go to hell.
    I read sanctimony.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Like a windmill the principle of Free Speech is a human construct subject to human failure. As a citizen you have to deal with these issues, if you put them in the too hard basket they get used against you.
    That's projecting:
    I believe we need to deal with these issues.
    I believe the only viable way to deal with these issues in the long run is to expose the people on the fence to all the arguments there are and let them decide.

    But there are two problems:
    One is that there's a lot of people out there who are not confident about their debating skills and would rather not debate issues that would make their side look weak.
    Though weakness here is only personal.
    The other problem is that the same kind of people tend to treat those who on the fence as intellectual weaklings, who lack agency, judgement and ability to take on personal responsibility.
    And they are justifiably terrified that during a debate this will come out and alienate those still on the fence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    In many cases I agree, not this one though. Its not a debate, its trolls trolling. You don't think the NPC meme is 4chan reaching out do you? Its trolls jeering among themselves, and predictably sliding over into antisemtic ranting about golems.
    No, it is my understanding that the NPC meme is only really mocking (call it trolling if you prefer) the twitter activist types.
    We might just as well be discussing the issue of the skinless, gutless, bubble wrap generation.
    But is seems antisemitism is the only area of this topic you feel at home debating.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    This is well OT by now, and I've stated my position. If you chat to the 4chan child porn peddlers about their memes they'll probably label you pwnd, or dox you, or smear you, and then come up with some other nasty stuff. Its predictable they got a reaction on line from the usual suspects, but it wasn't a debate request, just trolling as usual.
    Ooops!
    I was wrong.
    It's not just antisemitism, it is also "child porn peddlers".
    So this is an instance of the strawman logical fallacy with a nested ad hominem logical fallacy.
    One needs to remember that we don't have this kind in the political mudpit of TWC and that pedophilia is too much of a fringe perversion to make anything a meme.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Once again, there is not enough breath in the body politic to chat with wannabe Nazis, there's enough timewasters.
    Alright, let's agree not to mention nazis again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Wannabe Nazis can GTFO.
    They sure can but their ideas are going to stick around if not thoroughly defeated in civil manner.
    These ideas have the potential to create more carriers of them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I've shown you respect in replying...
    No, you showed me condescension, I found that very disrespectful but I did not respond emotionally.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ...you seemed in genuine pain with you first response to me.
    There are not enough people of color in my country to cause tensions between the fringe-right and the bleeding heart SJWs.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Maybe you weren't, and it was rhetorical...
    It was a rhetorical question in an effort to illuminate one of the mechanisms by which white people in the USA, who may -justifiably or not- feel disenfranchised are also politically alienated from the mainstream.
    I believe you made my case for me, a lot better than I would have been able to make it myself.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ...but your rhetoric is wasted talking about scumbag porn peddlers and their miserable chattering among themselves, likewise wannabe Nazi scum. You might as well go to the judgemental voices of twitter etc and ask them to be more reasonable.
    And there you go talking about nazis and perverts again, talking about being in love with a cookie cutter.
    And what an oreo have we here: nazis on top, nazis and perverts on the bottom and a filling of strawmanship and ad hominem in the middle.
    If that's the best I could do in a debate I would not want to debate them either.

  15. #275
    Praepositus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,643

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I've been doing some artsy stuff the last couple of days, so I was not able to address this as promptly as I'd prefer, apologies..
    Very nice. I try to appreciate artistic ability, I think you've shown good taste and from what your peers say its historically relevant too.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    PC is to be blamed for the deliberate failure to address grievances equally.
    We are back at you complaining about oppression of white men. Its just a very weak argument.

    The US and Australia have many instances of inequality. If you are special pleading for white men, well I am one and I can tell you my society (and I think yours) my position is very privileged. I enjoy substantial opportunities less available to others. I am grateful for my opportunities (they were hard won by my ancestors) and want to share them.

    If anyone believes themselves oppressed by women, black people or Jews I feel sorry for their ignorance and misguided resentment: its mostly white men all the way up. A mate of mine joked "I identify as a 70 year old black woman and I want to start collecting benefits haha", which is a mildly funny joke, we both work hard. I told he was better off identifying as a 79 year old white male former prime minister: the benefits paid to John Howard are staggering.

    The NPC meme is a fairly flat joke that annoyed some inconsequential ninnys on the internet. You don't want to talk about wannabe Nazis? Fine but its hard to discuss the meme without discussing the source as other ITT were. If you're confused about why I'm mentioning wannabe Nazis and paedophiles it because others were lionising 4chan and I was adding some perspective. I was not addressing you (I assumed you're not a paedophile wannabe Nazi from 4chan).

    I feel we're in agreement on a few issues from the start, have understandable differences about free speech (quite OT btw) but I can't take your basic premise that there's significant oppression of straight white men seriously. I don't have anything more to say really.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  16. #276
    paleologos's Avatar Moderator
    Artifex Content Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    6,142

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    We are back at you complaining about oppression of white men. Its just a very weak argument.
    I have made the statement that oppression is the baseline of the human condition so many times in this thread, that to accuse me of proposing a hypothesis of special oppression of a particular group can only be explained as a delusion: You are actually debating an imaginary version of me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The US and Australia have many instances of inequality.
    It could not have been any different.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    If you are special pleading for white men, well I am one and I can tell you my society (and I think yours) my position is very privileged.
    "Privileged" in relation to whom? Immigrants? It's not their country.
    If you are privileged, it's because you were born in that country, not because of your parents' race.
    If you feel that you owe something to the aboriginals then the thing that you owe them is their continent.
    And if you want to make it up to them, kill all Euro-Australians and move back to England.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I enjoy substantial opportunities less available to others.
    Less available to whom?
    Oh, let me guess: Immigrants.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I am grateful for my opportunities (they were hard won by my ancestors) and want to share them.
    "Hard won" fighting the armed-with-sticks aboriginals, yes.
    Who would believe the aboriginals would resist being dispossessed?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    If anyone believes themselves oppressed by women, black people or Jews...
    People actually feel oppressed by a system they perceive taxes them without giving them benefits that correspond to the monetary onus that has been placed on them.
    That is how the perception of oppression is created and as a cultural marxist you ought to know that perception is all that matters.
    But if it is only the perception of people of color that matters to you then you create the perception of unequal treatment to other groups.
    You are encouraging them to do their worst to spite you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ...I feel sorry for their ignorance and misguided resentment:
    "Sorry" isn't helping them, though.
    What would help the situation is addressing their grievances on a case by case basis, without mentioning "white privilege".

    By the way, do you have any idea how arrogant the part above reads?
    You really can't expect other people to acknowledge you the authoritativeness to decide for them without them who is "ignorant and misguided" and who is knowledgeable and intellectually sure-footed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ...its mostly white men all the way up.
    It seems you are arguing that as long the "oppressors group" is made up only of "white men" and even though not all white men are members of the "oppressors elite", only non whites should get to have grievances at being oppressed.
    This statement reveals the nested-in-it existence of such concepts as group guilt (which is what justifies the characterization of cultural marxism).
    I require of you the minimum intellectual honesty of admitting at least that you prescribe to that concept, of "group guilt".



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    A mate of mine joked "I identify as a 70 year old black woman and I want to start collecting benefits haha", which is a mildly funny joke, we both work hard. I told he was better off identifying as a 79 year old white male former prime minister: the benefits paid to John Howard are staggering.
    And here it seems that you are admitting just that, albeit implicitly:
    What you are saying is that just because one of the former Prime Ministers who are receiving "staggering" benefits happens to be a white male, then all similarly aged white men ought to be treated as communards of John Howard's privilege.
    Now, if you consider that any 70 year old black woman is a communard to the benefits reserved for 70 year old black women, but only the former Heads of State are communards to the benefits reserved for former Heads of State you may begin to realize how nonsensical your response might have sounded to your friend. (Why don't you ask him by the way?)

    And since we are talking about our anecdotal experiences I would like to share one of mine.
    I was told once by a feminist that she "wanted to be equal to men" and I asked her:
    "Which men?
    The ones who pick up your garbage?
    The ones who declog the gutter in front of your apartment building before the autumn rains?
    The traffic cops who are out at night, in bad weather making sure the traffic doesn't stop so that the organically grown food that you consume finds it's way to the grocery shelves?
    The compressed fuel engineers and technicians who make sure that natural gas ceaselessly flows to your apartment in winter?
    The power company technicians who repair the broken power lines after storms or forest fires, so that the SJW publication that employs you continues to print?
    The CEOs who work 19 hours a day, including weekends, and get to see their kids once a month for trying to make sure that everyone else have the material resources they need to continue doing their jobs?
    - Or is it that you think CEOs don't ever get to feel oppressed, or overwhelmed by the requirements of their profession?
    Which men do you want to be equal to?
    Because men are certainly not equal to each other and -with the exception of rentiers- they all make sacrifices for the benefits they receive.
    Or perhaps you only want to be a rentier?"
    She responded honestly.
    In that she remained silent.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The NPC meme is a fairly flat joke that annoyed some inconsequential ninnys on the internet.
    "Inconsequential"?
    Twitter accounts were terminated.
    A precedent has been created.
    We are discussing how this may affect our societies' ability to discuss and resolve their issues in the future, in an environment of increased political, social and ideological polarization.
    It seems adequately consequential to me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    You don't want to talk about wannabe Nazis?
    I have repeatedly made the case that the merits and demerits of an argument are independent of the merits and demerits of the arguments' vendor and ought to be treated as such.
    We need to consider the worst person imaginable as if they are capable and likely to make an intellectual contribution, not because they are, but because none of us has the right to take it upon themselves to a priori disregard the humanity and intellect of anyone else.
    That's not the same as saying that every argument is good and useful by default, only that the merits and demerits of arguments are to be evaluated on a case by case basis without prejudice.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Fine but its hard to discuss the meme without discussing the source as other ITT were.
    I understand how hard it is because it is hard to separate one's intellect from the way we feel about certain things and people.
    But if a person does not separate their intellect from their feelings before they begin their internal dialogue, then their intellect will be separated from them during their external dialogues.
    So you have to do it and in any case, your intellect is invited in the mudpit, the way you feel about nazis and pedophiles is not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    If you're confused about why I'm mentioning wannabe Nazis and pedophiles it because others were lionizing 4chan and I was adding some perspective.
    No, you were not "adding some perspective", you were trying to add your perspective, which in and of itself is fine by me, and I believe is also fine by anyone in an honest quest for an ever increasing variety of perspectives.

    The problem is in the way you were attempting it:
    The people "lionizing 4chan" you were talking about, were attempting to lionize the NPC meme itself by virtue of it coming from 4chan.
    This is a positive version of the ad hominem logical fallacy: "The meme is good because the people who made it are not swayed by the mainstream media".

    If you read my posts in this thread from the beginning you will see that I have repeatedly locked horns with them, well before I lock horns with you.
    And then you went on and you followed them right down in their rabbit hole (a hole I tried so hard to plug by the way).



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I was not addressing you (I assumed you're not a paedophile wannabe Nazi from 4chan).
    This sentence reveals explicitly that the guess I made in the beginning of this post has merit, though not the exact merit I had guessed:
    You are admitting that you were not trying to debate me, or the arguments that I were proposing, but someone else and their arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    ...I can't take your basic premise that there's significant oppression of straight white men seriously.
    I think it ought to have been obvious long before now that this was never my premise.
    And this is my premise:
    Oppression is the baseline of the human condition.
    Everyone is oppressed.
    Everyone has grievances.
    Any grievance may have merits and demerits.
    The merits and demerits of a grievance are to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

    To disregard a grievance because the person who brings it forth is categorized by you in a group to which you ascribe privilege, is to shirk the rightful onus of intellectual due diligence:
    The duty of the enlighten individual to examine the veracity of someone's claims without prejudice.
    Last edited by paleologos; November 14, 2018 at 05:37 AM.

  17. #277

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    That's your opinion, I believe "cultural marxism" is a perfect description of the behaviors of identitarian leftists, but I can also use "cultural Stalinism".
    Sure, if you want to act like a partisan hack. It won't change the fact that very few on the Left in the US care about Marx and even fewer care about Stalin.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    The bottom line is that when I say "cultural marxism" or "cultural Stalinism" you know what I mean and you are acting as if it's causing you some sort of butthurt.
    Deal with it yourself.
    I thought I knew what you meant, but now I am less sure. Especially now that you are throwing "Cultural Stalinism" into the mix, maybe you are coming from an anti-semitic/conspiracy place. What's next, Cultural Bolshevism? If you want to talk like a right-winged pundit, expect to get treated like one.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Nazis - Shmazis, it's preferable that we debate them in public, lest we push them underground, where they can recruit more empty heads.
    It depends much on the when and where.
    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    From their tendency to copy-paste tactics for political pressure.
    You mean like using a term you don't understand popularized by partisan hacks? Wait, are you a Cultural Marxist?
    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Communists believe that a proper communist is and ought to behave as a soldier for the global proletarian revolution and a soldier must sacrifice his/her individuality to the cause.
    Cultural marxists believe that every person is by default a member of a group and has by default sacrificed his/her individuality to the cause of promoting group interests.
    Good thing Communists in the US are an incredibly tiny minority. That's also not what "Cultural Marxism" is, you are just describing things you don't like and throwing scary sounding labels on them. The exact same description could apply to the Nazi party of the 1930s, were they Cultural Marxists?

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I don't allow conspiracy theorists command my use of language and "Three Arrows" is a YouTuber who is entitled to his opinions.
    Sure you do, you are using their language. And you clearly didn't view the video at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    It just so happens I find "Cultural Marxism" a "fairly accurate" description, considering the propriety of connotations and I believe "Identity Politics" to be an intentionally over-flattering euphemism.
    Well, let's throw up the actual definitions of the words on the board real quick and see which fits better with your original complaint:
    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    It goes on to assert that the only thing that matters about the individual is group affiliation and if you are a member of a privileged group then you are benefiting from the oppression, which makes you an evil and vile individual, unless you signal your virtue by "actively" taking the side of the oppressed (and where you read "actively", think of activism).
    Cultural Marxism: The critique of popular culture, framing culture as being imposed by Capitalism and consumed passively by the masses

    Identity Politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.


    Which definition fits better, in your opinion? Practically ever trait of "Cultural Marxist" you have described, I have also seen among the Right. It's tribalism given political form.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Challenge me on my positions all you like and more but just because they are a cause of butthurt for you doesn't make them BS.
    What, you think you are "triggering" me or something? You give yourself too much credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I'm sure you think it's better.
    I am pretty sure you do too; if you take a moment to step away from your incredibly partisan mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    The more you insist, the more I like "Cultural Marxism".
    How childish. Do you usually pick your political language based on spite?

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    No, you gave me a euphemism that hides the perniciousness of encouraging groupthink in the stead of individual reflection.
    I am pretty sure euphemisms have to be less accurate/descriptive of the concept they are, uh, euphamizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Opinion is not an argument but is respected nonetheless.
    And what does this mean, that all opinions are equally valid or something?


    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    My political profile places me at the center and I don't believe in "isms".
    Except when blanket labeling people which a poorly-defined term, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I heard it being used by a person with whom I do not always agree and the connotations the term brought made sense to me.
    Ok, so it was sourced from right wing pundits. Possibly Pat Buchanan or Paul Weyrich.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    They are, ergo the NPC meme.
    And by the way, people on the right -or center- don't believe everyone on the left is a cultural marxist, just the ones who engage in cultural marxism.
    The alt-Right are certainly called Nazis, probably because they are, even by their own identity, Nazis. I don't know of many (or as large) groups on the Left that identify themselves as Cultural Marxists. Do you not see the difference? The alt-Right labeled itself as Nazis, Cultural Marxists are told they are such by political opponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Sure it is.
    There is also another difference for you to appreciate, though:
    Everyone is oppressed, it's one thing to acknowledge that, but it's a totally different thing to take it uppon yourself to decide who is more oppressed and grand them benefits payed by the tax money of the "less" oppressed.
    That is extremely divisive and it is the reason for identity politics on the right.
    You can also see here the other difference: The alt-right engage in identity politics but the left engage in identity politics and cultural marxism.

    I believe I said it before that oppression is the base line of the human condition.
    Ok, so then I guess you are on my side? You interjected in a conversation in which I responded to someone saying that oppression was over. You also agree oppression isn't over. Thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    The law is badly written.
    If the lawmakers had predicted that homosexuals would be trying to game the system then the statute of the law would have been differently worded.
    Gaming the system? You mean like heterosexuals? That is nothing to say about, you know, the actual rights involved in marriage such as medical rights. I am sure Sally Ride's partner really appreciated not being able to collect on her pension after Sally died. Damn gays trying to game the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Sure, that was a legislative oversight.
    And that...justifies unfair treatment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    Have you considered the possibility that he is certain that there is oppression because he is an oppressor?
    Hm, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Identity politics is people of a similar social group or background forming political alliances. Although it is sometimes but not always a prerequisite, it doesn’t actually have anything to with seeing society with a cookie cutter worldview of privileged and non privileged. For example Hispanic Americans can oppose lower immigration in a political alliance (identity politics) without the oppressor/oppressed rubbish.
    Identity politics is tribalism dictating politics instead of policy. Again, the Right complains about being oppressed all the time. Thank god they won that war on Christmas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Gay individuals are perfectly nice and decent people in of themselves, but gay couples don’t start families.

    Ask yourself if this is really about equality or if it’s about equity.
    It is about equality. You have certain rights and privileges given by the government for registering your marriage with them. No conditions of child rearing are required for those benefits. Heterosexual couples receive those benefits without rearing children. Homosexual couples didn't because they were homosexual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Ask yourself if you support polygamous marriages.
    Oh, you are one of those people. That explains a lot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Pretty much this. Better be encouraged to get married in order to then be able to start a family, than have child benefit whoch is a worse system that pays per child had.
    Ok, you guys are ing with me. There was no serious discussion at the time that marriage benefits should be rewritten to only rewarding birthing children. It was, explicitly, don't let homosexual couples receive these benefits heterosexual couples get because they are gay. This weird child-strawman needs to get the on out of here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So do you now retract your claim that majority of leftists are pro-capitalist?
    I never said they were "pro-capitalist", you can't quote me saying that. Do you not see the difference in referring to something as "pro-capitalist" and "not anti-capitalist"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    We just happened to notice that you never ended up posting evidence to your claiming so above.
    Uhuh, well, we just happened to notice that you all happened to notice that 9/11 was an inside job by pedophiles.

    See, simply posting words doesn't mean you are saying anything.
    Last edited by The spartan; November 15, 2018 at 07:52 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #278
    paleologos's Avatar Moderator
    Artifex Content Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    6,142

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Sure, if you want to act like a partisan hack.
    Name calling is a slur, not an argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It won't change the fact that very few on the Left in the US care about Marx and even fewer care about Stalin.
    Sure, but the characterization of "Cultural Marxism" is for their methods and the pretexts for their methods, not the actual politics of state enforced bolshevism.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I thought I knew what you meant, but now I am less sure.
    No, you are not.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Especially now that you are throwing "Cultural Stalinism" into the mix...
    That was sarcasm.
    I admit it was not an argument but you did rush to pick up on it nonetheless.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...maybe you are coming from an anti-semitic/conspiracy place.
    Good thing you said "maybe", because otherwise it would be the strawman of the century.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    What's next, Cultural Bolshevism?
    That's what they are striving to achieve and it seems they have achieved it in academia: A state of political things where only people who subscribe to Cultural Marxism are allowed to speak their minds.
    Do familiarize yourself with the plight of Lindsay Shepherd. (Also)



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    If you want to talk like a right-winged pundit, expect to get treated like one.
    I don't know how they talk, I never watch these people and I doubt they know what you mean by "treated like one", as they only operate within an echo chamber.



    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Nazis - Shmazis, it's preferable that we debate them in public, lest we push them underground, where they can recruit more empty heads.
    I regret the wording but not the gist.
    It would have been better if I had posted:
    "Nazis - Shmazis, it's preferable that we debate their positions in public, lest we push them underground, where they can recruit more empty heads."
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It depends much on the when and where.
    Any place, any time is good to debunk nazi theories, I am certain that this much you know.
    It's not a matter of when and where, it is only a matter of how.
    The answer is:
    "Respectfully, without reference to the crimes committed by nazi Germany (because the debate will degenerate into an argument about denials), without name calling or the evocation of strawman arguments and without behaving like you are trying to slay an evil dragon with words."
    Though there might just as well be an evil dragon there, you always need to remind yourself that it is not people you are trying to defeat, but their ability to recruit more to their ranks.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You mean like using a term you don't understand...
    You don't get to tell me -or anyone else for all that matters- what I understand and what I don't.
    It is an extremely arrogant thing to do and that's how it is perceived.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...popularized by partisan hacks?
    The concept was introduce to me by Jordan Peterson.(Link)



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Wait, are you a Cultural Marxist?
    No, I don't believe that power is all that there is, there are more things than just power.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Good thing Communists in the US are an incredibly tiny minority.
    Communists have always and everywhere been a cult.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That's also not what "Cultural Marxism" is...
    You continue to argue semantics, lets agree to disagree.
    You may tell me that you are right and I am wrong but that's no argument inasmuch as I can just as well throw it back at you.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...you are just describing things you don't like...
    What's to like about Cultural Marxism?



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...and throwing scary sounding labels on them.
    "Scary" to whom?
    In all honesty man, I am sure there are a few people who are so intellectually weak that they may find the sound of Cultural Marxism "scary".
    It is nonetheless required by intellectual honesty that we admit such people are indeed very few and rather far apart as well.

    This part of your post contains and reveals the implicit belief that everyone can be potentially "scared" by the sound of Cultural Marxism and through that fear of theirs be politically manipulated.
    You don't seem to realize how many people you are infantilizing by that, especially now that the Marxist critique of capitalism (with which I agree) is gaining traction in the USA.
    This has always been the pretext of authoritarian censors: "We won't let you say this or that because the people are not wise enough to hear it without being swayed".



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The exact same description could apply to the Nazi party of the 1930s, were they Cultural Marxists?
    You are beginning to catch up.
    The only intellectual difference between Nazism, Bolshevism and Cultural Marxism is the methodology of assigning people into groups.
    For the Nazis it was ethno-racial, for the Bolshevists it was ownership and position in the relations of production and for Cultural Marxists it is intersectionality identitarianism.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Sure you do, you are using their (conspiracy theorists) language.
    That's what I call a half fleshed attempt at strawmanship and ad hominem, but I'll give you a full point for the achievement of an intersectional logical fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    And you clearly didn't view the video at all.
    I have not problem admitting that.
    A YouTubers that go by an alias, whose credentials are invisible and probably non existent, are just people with opinions like everyone else.
    They are no more authoritative than you or me.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Well, let's throw up the actual definitions of the words on the board real quick and see which fits better with your original complaint:

    Cultural Marxism: The critique of popular culture, framing culture as being imposed by Capitalism and consumed passively by the masses

    Identity Politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    Which definition fits better, in your opinion? Practically ever trait of "Cultural Marxist" you have described, I have also seen among the Right. It's tribalism given political form.
    By continuing to argue semantics in a thread and forum that is not about semantics you are getting borderline off topic.
    But since I originally posted this thread on the Political Academy forum -it was moved here by another moderator- I will not protest the "academic" linguistic extensions of this debate.

    This much I will tell you: it is the hallmark of any regime that intends to engage in thought control, to attempt to control language.
    Language offers the vehicles to meaning and by objecting the use of certain "vehicles" is to come out as fearful of the potential conclusions of others.
    Again you are effectively borrowing a page of the authoritarian censors' book:
    "We won't let you use language in this or that way because the people are not wise enough to resist being led on to reaching certain (forbidden) conclusions".



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    What, you think you are "triggering" me or something?
    Calling one's positions "BS" is not an agument, it's a derisive remark.
    I hope I'm not triggering you and if you are not triggered it's better that you look like not triggered.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I am pretty sure you do too; if you take a moment to step away from your incredibly partisan mindset.
    Let me stress once more that it's a hollow argument if one can just throw it back at you.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    How childish.
    "Whimsically teasing" is the term I would choose but if you feel like engaging in neurolinguistic programming, you may just as well have a go at it.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Do you usually pick your political language based on spite?
    Not usually, you are exceptional.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I am pretty sure euphemisms have to be less accurate/descriptive of the concept they are, uh, euphemizing.
    They are and it was.
    I pretty sure I got your motivation right for attempting to debate semantics, what I am not sure of yet is whether you are doing in consciously.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    And what does this mean, that all opinions are equally valid or something?
    No, it only means that neither you or I, are not authorized by anyone else to issue verdicts on which opinion is more valid than the other.
    What we can and must do is contest and debate opinions and respect the right and duty of everyone else to reach their conclusions individually.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Except when blanket labeling people which a poorly-defined term, apparently.
    That is a better attempt at strawmanship by you but strawmanship it is nonetheless.
    I never meant the term "Cultural Marxism" as an ad hominem slur, but it seems you find it convenient to treat it in such a way.
    Cultural Marxism is just a way of looking the the issues of society and organizing political action.
    I will argue against it the same way I will argue against any "-ism".



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Ok, so it was sourced from right wing pundits. Possibly Pat Buchanan or Paul Weyrich.
    No, as I mentioned above in this post it was Jordan Peterson.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The alt-Right are certainly called Nazis, probably because they are, even by their own identity, Nazis.
    The alt-iright is a minority within the right and they are the ones who coined the term "cuckservative".
    The "neo-nazis" and "classic" nazis are minorities within the alt-right.
    One of the hallmarks of cultural marxism is the aversion of nuance between the different schools of thought in the right, alt-right or even center for all that matters.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I don't know of many (or as large) groups on the Left that identify themselves as Cultural Marxists.
    Nazis and neo-nazis are not large groups. In this year's Charlottesville's march, there were about two dozens of them, correct me if I'm wrong.
    This part of you post (I mean the comparison of sizes) reads like you are implying that everyone in the alt-right is a nazi, or neo-nazi.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The alt-Right labeled itself as Nazis...
    There it goes, this is explicit now.
    Well, no they did not label themselves as nazis, though I wouldn't put it past nazis to claim that all of the alt-right is them.
    Compare the numbers of the alt right crowd of the Charlottesville march of 2017 to that of 2018.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Normally I shouldn't have to declare my position on this but since it is the natural tendency of cultural maxists to demonize their intellectual adversaries it seems I have to:
    I believe monuments of the Confederacy are lionizing the cause of the slavery states in the American South during the American Civil War.
    Their removal is long overdue.

    It's not like the motivation of the alt-right people to participate in the march in Charlottesville somehow vanished over the period of a year.
    The difference in the numbers of the crowd on the right gives you the percentage of the people there that do not identify as nazis, do not want to be associated with them and certainly do not want to let the nazis claim that their numbers are that high.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    ...Cultural Marxists are told they are such by political opponents.
    I don't speak for all who use the term "Cultural Marxism", simply because it means different things for different people.
    I posted what it means for me.
    If it does not describe you then you are only debating the semantics of it.
    It's not up to you to preemptively defend other people's feelings, that's what a Cultural Marxist would do.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Ok, so then I guess you are on my side?
    If "your side" is that oppression is the baseline of the human condition and there is no such thing as a racially or gender defined group of oppressors, then yes, that's my position.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You interjected in a conversation in which I responded to someone saying that oppression was over.
    I interjected in the conversation to add the nuance that oppression is not caused by one group of people trying to keep down a race, or a gender, or a gender expression.
    Rather, oppression is caused by the condition of being alive itself: We need to consume in order to survive and that which we must consume will not fall out of the sky.
    We must work for it in a world of finite resources.
    We are by nature necessitous and necessitous people are oppressed by default.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You also agree oppression isn't over. Thank you.
    You are welcome.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Gaming the system? You mean like heterosexuals? That is nothing to say about, you know, the actual rights involved in marriage such as medical rights.
    Let me put this to rest.
    There is no such things as "marriage rights" like there are "medical rights".
    What there is instead, is benefits for married people.
    These benefits were written into law a long time ago.

    Marital law was first enacted at a time when it could and would go without saying that the purpose of marriage is to have children.
    The purpose of marital law itself was to allow society know whom to hold accountable for the sustainance and well being of the children and their mother.

    It was a time when work out of the household -as well as lots of chores within it- was grinding dredgery.
    A woman alone could not have possibly been able to cope.
    So, if she was to be widowed and her children orphaned of father, it would have been attrociously uncivilized to let them go utterly destitude.

    It was also a time when it was impossible for people to become parents while in homosexual relations.
    Today we have such things as artificial insemination and the idea that we can let children grow up believing that it's normal to have two dads instead of a father and a mother.
    Heck, there are parts of the world today, where it is easier to adopt a human baby than chimpanzee baby as if babies are pets.

    If the legislators of the time knew this would change, they would have preempted these abnormalities, not just in the wording of the law, but constitutionally as well.
    And the people would have agreed.
    It would then be up to modern societies - and not up to some high court judge- to decide if they want to update these constitutional clauses.

    It is surely an interesting thing to watch SCOTUS justices swinging from Originalism (in such matters such as gun rights, or corporate personhood), to Textualism, in such matters such as the extention of taxation and inheritance benefits to all the nation's multi-billionaires, regardless of context.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I am sure Sally Ride's partner really appreciated not being able to collect on her pension after Sally died.
    The very mentioning of Sally Ride and her partner Tam O'Shaughnessy as an example of injustice, demonstrates the double standards and twisted understanding of what oppression is on the part of cultural marxism.
    Was Tam O'Shaughnessy the "dependant" member of a family? NO
    Was she a stay-at-home mom, charged with the duty to raise Sally Ride's chidren, while Ride was gallivanting into space? NO
    Did Tam O'Shaughnessy sacrifice the chance of having a career and most importantly a livelyhood for the sake of being the significant other of an overworked partner? NO

    If Sally Ride hadn't divorced her first partner and husband Steven Hawley, would he be entitled to her pension?
    Should he be entitled to her pension?
    "Not in my opinion" is the answer that I would give in both of the last two questions.
    Apparently a cultural marxist believes that a childless lesbian with a brilliant career, should be enitled to the benefits a widower is not, on the grounds that women are oppressed by virue of being womem, gays are oppressed by virue of being gay and so gay women are doubly oppressed.
    That's your intersectionality theory, right there, also one of the hallmarks of cultural marxism.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Damn gays trying to game the system.
    That's right.
    If the system excepted the super rich of any sexual orientation and gender expression from the reduced inheritance tax benefit and reserved that benefit to widowed dependants of less affluent means there would have never been this well financed activism behind the "gay rights" movement.
    And by the way, there is no such thing as gay rights.
    There is only human rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    And that...justifies unfair treatment?
    Who decides what treatment is "fair"?
    Surely not you.
    If we are talking about an authoritative decision, a verdict, if you will, then in the case of the USA it is the SCOTUS.
    And in my opinion, the SCOTUS ought to be called out on their mercurial swingings between the two equally extreme positions of originalism and textualism.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Identity politics is tribalism dictating politics instead of policy.
    I absolutely agree.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Again, the Right complains about being oppressed all the time.
    People feel entitled to the right to live in the context of their own culture.
    If a culture that is alien to them is forced on them they will claim "oppression".
    And, by the way, if they voluntarily become communards of the "other" culture they will be accused by cultural marxism of "cultural appropriation".
    They really can't win the swordfight against the fart.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Thank god they won that war on Christmas.
    That's more like a token concession to Dr.Evil saying: "Throw Me a Frickin' Bone".



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It is about equality. You have certain rights and privileges given by the government for registering your marriage with them.
    And a society through it's majority, ought to have been afforded the right to tell their government which relations are to be acknowledged as "marriage" and which not.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No conditions of child rearing are required for those benefits.
    That is the textualist interpretation of the law.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Heterosexual couples receive those benefits without rearing children.
    The distinction ought to have been made between childless couples that are both employed and childless couples where one of the spouses is a homemaker.
    In jurisdictions where this distinction is not made family law is a caricature of itself and a pretext for tax shirking, but that's just my opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Homosexual couples didn't because they were homosexual.
    Indeed and it was wrong, but this is because of a badly written law.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Oh, you are one of those people. That explains a lot.
    Would it have been so much trouble for you to let the rest of us know which people are "those" people?



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    There was no serious discussion at the time that marriage benefits should be rewritten to only rewarding birthing children.
    That's because the people on the religious right are not rally serious.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It was, explicitly, don't let homosexual couples receive these benefits heterosexual couples get because they are gay.
    The political position of the religious right was deliberately designed to be self defeating.
    That's how the leadership of the GOP lead their constituents on to believing that an alien culture is being forced upon them.
    So they rally around a leadership which economically wrongs them.
    You see, social justice issues are deliberately divisive so that constituencies on both ends of the political spectrum are distracted from the real issue: the economy.

    There is also the issue with the GOP people that they could not possibly have said that homosexuals should not receive tax benefits since they are against taxes anyway.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    This weird child-strawman needs to get out of here.
    It's not a strawman to the moderately conservative.



    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I never said they were "pro-capitalist", you can't quote me saying that. Do you not see the difference in referring to something as "pro-capitalist" and "not anti-capitalist"?
    Personally, I understood what you said and what you meant and I agree, you won't get any contestation from me on that one.

    As a matter of fact, it just so happens I believe cultural marxism is the way progressive people are led on to feel righteous while at the same time being distracted from the real source of undue and avoidable oppression, which is economic disenfranchisement.
    It's the method by which corporate Democrats get out their votes, without making any economic concessions.
    And it's the reason why they lost the 2016 elections and are very likely to lose the 2020 election as well, especially in the case of a war with Iran:
    It will cause conservatives to rally and get out their votes just like they rallied in 2004 (remember the 2004 admonishion not to switch horses in the middle of a race).
    Last edited by paleologos; November 16, 2018 at 10:50 AM.

  19. #279

    Default Re: The NPC meme controversy

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I never said they were "pro-capitalist", you can't quote me saying that. Do you not see the difference in referring to something as "pro-capitalist" and "not anti-capitalist"?
    Nice semantics. But do you have evidence or not?
    See, simply posting words doesn't mean you are saying anything.
    Sooo, no evidence then?
    By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms -- elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest -- will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial [...]. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.
    -
    Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •