Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415
Results 281 to 293 of 293

Thread: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

  1. #281

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    If the worst thing that comes to your mind is a racial slur that's a sign of racism. People who are not racists do not think of the n-word in such a moment. We're merely making logical conclusions the same way we do every day. Somehow just because common sense provides a conclusion that you don't like doesn't suddenly make it a bad thing.
    1) How does knowing that racism is a bad thing make it common sense that one's a racist?!
    2) Why is this speculation over people's opinions necessary in the first place? Do you honestly expect positive results from accusing as many people as possible of being racist, even if you cannot know that for sure (to put it mildly)?
    A conclusion made on the basis of very shaky, not really common sense speculation can be a very bad thing. As is evidenced time and again. E.g. with the Covington kids. Do you think that was handled swell by so called "progressives"?
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Why would people be racist because they thought someone was telling the truth? They would be so if they didn't believe when a white man made the same claim.
    Well, they quite literally refused to believe the white men/children, didn't they? They insisted on believing one side, in spite of all sound judgement, and even resisting video evidence for a long time. Doesn't the "we have to believe everything POC's say without question" mentality indicate a underlying racist belief in the noble savage trope?

  2. #282

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    1) How does knowing that racism is a bad thing make it common sense that one's a racist?!
    2) Why is this speculation over people's opinions necessary in the first place? Do you honestly expect positive results from accusing as many people as possible of being racist, even if you cannot know that for sure (to put it mildly)?
    A conclusion made on the basis of very shaky, not really common sense speculation can be a very bad thing. As is evidenced time and again. E.g. with the Covington kids. Do you think that was handled swell by so called "progressives"?
    It's not "knowing that racism is a bad thing" as I didn't argued that. Strange that you needed to alter reality. Knowing that a word has a negative connotation and using that word for that negativity is two different things. This is not really speculation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Well, they quite literally refused to believe the white men/children, didn't they? They insisted on believing one side, in spite of all sound judgement, and even resisting video evidence for a long time. Doesn't the "we have to believe everything POC's say without question" mentality indicate a underlying racist belief in the noble savage trope?
    Not really. The public doesn't exist as a singular mind. Some didn't really refute to believe the white men/children, some did. Sure, many bigoted people sticked to one side or the other. Just like many people believed the assault story in the first place. There is no one-sided discrimination story here for you.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #283

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Oh my god.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  4. #284

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    It's not "knowing that racism is a bad thing" as I didn't argued that. Strange that you needed to alter reality. Knowing that a word has a negative connotation and using that word for that negativity is two different things. This is not really speculation.
    Which, as Aexodus already has pointed out, must mean most of the English speakers have a deep-rooted hatred for children born out of wedlock and female dogs.
    But skipping the part that context apparently does not mean anything anymore, you still haven't answered the rest of my questions that you quoted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod
    2) Why is this speculation over people's opinions necessary in the first place? Do you honestly expect positive results from accusing as many people as possible of being racist, even if you cannot know that for sure (to put it mildly)?
    A conclusion made on the basis of very shaky, not really common sense speculation can be a very bad thing. As is evidenced time and again. E.g. with the Covington kids. Do you think that was handled swell by so called "progressives"?
    I have asked you that before as well. What do you expect to get out of accusing people of thought crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Everyone's a little bit nutsi apparently.

    Is it racist for me to wish for a meteorite to eradicate all human life asap? Because I kinda do.

  5. #285

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Which, as Aexodus already has pointed out, must mean most of the English speakers have a deep-rooted hatred for children born out of wedlock and female dogs.
    The example Aexodus gave actually supports my position. You use the slur "bastard" because you see being a bastard as a bad thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    But skipping the part that context apparently does not mean anything anymore, you still haven't answered the rest of my questions that you quoted:
    I have asked you that before as well. What do you expect to get out of accusing people of thought crime?
    I didn't really skip it. My response could have not satisfied you but I didn't skip it.
    Knowing that a word has a negative connotation and using that word for that negativity is two different things. This is not really speculation.
    I'm not really expecting to gain anything by pointing out that people have discriminatory tendencies. However, people's choice of words do have consequences. What do you expect to gain anything by denying it?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  6. #286

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    The example Aexodus gave actually supports my position. You use the slur "bastard" because you see being a bastard as a bad thing.
    I have news for you. It's the 21st century. No one cares what the marital status of your parents during your conception was. But according to your logic, and there's no two ways about it, the use of the word "bastard" proves one hates children born out of wedlock.
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I didn't really skip it. My response could have not satisfied you but I didn't skip it.
    Knowing that a word has a negative connotation and using that word for that negativity is two different things. This is not really speculation.
    That quote wasn't answering the question. The following one does. But before we move on: Language is a living thing. It's ambiguous, and heavily based on context.
    That's what common sense should tell you. And if it does not, I refer you to e.g. Wittgenstein.

    Trying to infer the speakers thoughts is most of the time nothing but speculation. Except here I could agree with you that given that you didn't even check the context it wasn't so much speculation, and more a blind guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I'm not really expecting to gain anything by pointing out that people have discriminatory tendencies. However, people's choice of words do have consequences.
    It's the wife beater mentality: "See what you made me do to you?!"
    No! Just no! Only what a person says is in his control. He has no control over what you make of those, and no control over how you react. I'll point out once more that you didn't even care what the context was. You immediately decided that he was racist for using the N-word here.
    Quick question that comes to mind: What if the speaker of the n-word was black? Is he a racist then as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    What do you expect to gain anything by denying it?
    Quite many things actually:

    1) I love languages. I learned 7 of them. It's a living, ambiguous, changing thing. Just because you attribute one meaning into it, doesn't mean others do it as well.
    That love is reason enough to hate those presumptuous enough to think they have a right to police it.
    2) I hate unfounded accusations, especially false ones. Note that you didn't even ask what the circumstances were in the case that I referred to earlier.
    You immediately jumped to the conclusion that he must be racist. Context matters. If it doesn't to you, it does to others. Neither you nor anyone else have any way of knowing what the intent of the speaker was, if you don't even care about the context in which it was said.
    I hate this virtue signalling call-out culture with every fiber of my body. It's hollow. It's fake. It's totalitarian. And very often it's the result of psychological projection.
    It's the same phenomenon as with vigorously anti-gay people. Those are often facing with their own their own repressed sexuality. There's no reason to obsess over something and see it everywhere, except if you have it in you.
    3) I prefer racists to be out in the open, I'm absolutely sure that ostracising people radicalises them even more, and I know that they'll never run out of words to express their racism anyway. Banning words is therefore stupid from the get go. The proper response to racists is to ridicule them when it's appropriate and take words away from them, not gift them to them. The only realistic way to remove negative words from your language is by giving them a positive meaning. That's what'd happen anyway if it wasn't for speech police.
    4) I love humour. Especially the offensive type. And I'm personally from a multicultural background. The fact that I make jokes about Swedes, Swiss, Germans etc. on an almost daily basis doesn't mean I hate them. It means I deal with them very frequently, and our bantering is a form of appreciation.
    Here in Denmark we have a politically incorrect term for people from MENA background: Perker. When I moved to Denmark I obviously didn't know that term yet. I quickly became close friends with lots of people of that background, and they cheekishly did their best to hide it's racist origins and make me say it as often as possible. I suspected it quickly but played along, since it was fun. To this day we use this word very frequently. It's only ever white people who get upset and say: "That's a bad word! You're not allowed to say that!" I always laugh at them. In the US it's the very same thing with the N-word and the black communities. According to you that must mean black people are the ones hating black people the most.
    Except that again, context matters to most people.
    5) Racism is a very serious thing and should be taken seriously. I therefore do not like what you and Spartan are doing by inflationing it so much that it loses all meaning. By saying that everyone's a racist you make that term meaningless. It's quite ironic given that this postmodernist take is in stark contrast to your absolute resolute take on the n-word.
    By what term do you want to determine actual racists, now that the term itself apparently is just a synonym for human?
    Do you think there should be consequences for racists? Yes or no? If so, don't you think unfounded accusations are an irresponsible thing to do?
    What do you think should be the consequences for people making these accusations
    , e.g. against the Covington kids?
    If you were to accuse someone falsely of being racist and thereby have a severe negative impact on his life. Should you face consequences or not?
    Do you disagree with my opinion that accusations of racism are serious and should thus only be voiced with caution?
    6) I have had family members in the GULAG, in Nazi concentration camps and in underground resistances. Speech and thought policing is always how it starts.

    Are those 6 reasons enough for you? I made it easy for you and underlined my questions to you. Please do respond.

  7. #287

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    ...
    Sigh... So many words to say so little... We do live in the 21st century but our biases and prejudices do persist. You'd probably report a post that would call you a bastard, but not because its false and someone name-calls you, but because you find it offensive. If you use it against someone else you equally use it for that offensiveness value that the word is associated with in your brain. It's a not world breaking issue but it still exist. When the word in question is "n-word" people will obviously point that out. There is no reason to whine about that.

    I see that speculation is fine when it suits and not fine when it doesn't. That's fine. I'm not really sure what kind of sick logic you're using there to equate what I said to a wife beater's mentality. People and languages do not exist in a vacuum. There is no speculation or inference here. There is context. The guy did not use the word "n-word" randomly out of a random set of words. He used it because the negative connotation already existed. Sure, racism applies to people's own race as well. A black person could be a racist against blacks, an Arab could be a racist against other Arabs, same with white people, Asians, etc. They do exist in abundance.

    You seem to miss the point of denial. If you're denying something then you're already acknowledging the failure of your position. I'm not really gonna entertain your tangents in order for you to blur logic so that you can fit your position in a defensible place. They don't seem to fall in line with what I asked either. So, nice rant.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  8. #288

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Sigh... So many words to say so little... We do live in the 21st century but our biases and prejudices do persist. You'd probably report a post that would call you a bastard, but not because its false and someone name-calls you, but because you find it offensive. If you use it against someone else you equally use it for that offensiveness value that the word is associated with in your brain. It's a not world breaking issue but it still exist. When the word in question is "n-word" people will obviously point that out. There is no reason to whine about that.
    You said before that even if one said the n-word to a table that'd still mean he'd be racist against black people. Hence if you say bastard that means you hate people born out of wedlock.
    I take your response here as a yes. So even though I thought I didn't care and never ask anyone about the circumstances of their birth I still hate those people.
    Come to think of it, you did say the b-word. You really do hate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I see that speculation is fine when it suits and not fine when it doesn't. That's fine. I'm not really sure what kind of sick logic you're using there to equate what I said to a wife beater's mentality. People and languages do not exist in a vacuum. There is no speculation or inference here. There is context. The guy did not use the word "n-word" randomly out of a random set of words. He used it because the negative connotation already existed. Sure, racism applies to people's own race as well. A black person could be a racist against blacks, an Arab could be a racist against other Arabs, same with white people, Asians, etc. They do exist in abundance.
    I don't argue that all people can be racist against all ethnicities including their own. What I don't agree with is that context doesn't matter apparently.
    Chris Rock is apparently one of the worst racists out there. He just kept saying the word again and again and again:

    And those laughing and clapping in the audience hate black people too. Do I get that right?

    You say people are responsible for the reactions of other people. I say no, not necessarily, not beyond what's reasonable. Racism to me is a serious issue. Wildly accusing people of being that without any care whatsoever is the sick thing in my opinion. Doing so when there's no grounds for it and then blaming others for it is the wife beater's mentality.
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    You seem to miss the point of denial. If you're denying something then you're already acknowledging the failure of your position. I'm not really gonna entertain your tangents in order for you to blur logic so that you can fit your position in a defensible place. They don't seem to fall in line with what I asked either. So, nice rant.
    lfmao. Just because I was overbearing and answered your question doesn't mean I accept your premise. But nice exit there man.

    You're the one in the indefensible position. Other people are supposed to be responsible for the consequences of their words, yet you have not one care for the consequences of wild accusations. You argue in favour of inquisition and thought criming, yet if one were to return the favour, he'd be very perplexed by how little racism seems to mean to you, given the fact that you're ready to call people racist without any consideration.

  9. #289

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Everyone's a little bit nutsi apparently.
    Is it really so crazy that racism isn't a binary? Like, no single attribute makes one a racist or not, you can just have racial prejudices to varying degrees. Most people only have minor racial prejudices, some are incredibly racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Is it racist for me to wish for a meteorite to eradicate all human life asap? Because I kinda do.
    That sounds more misanthropic to me.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  10. #290

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Is it really so crazy that racism isn't a binary? Like, no single attribute makes one a racist or not, you can just have racial prejudices to varying degrees. Most people only have minor racial prejudices, some are incredibly racist.
    I don't disagree with you that there are many degrees of racial prejudice. But when you slap the label racism on everything the result is that essentially nothing is racist anymore, as the word becomes meaningless.
    Because there is real racism in the world and this speech & thought police attitude does nothing but make it worse.
    If everyone's being called a Nazi, it's becomes far less bad to be one. Which to me is a horrible, horrible idea.

    Furthermore, the calling-out culture isn't just trying to give some nuanced criticism. I'm not saying you or PointOfViewGun are doing it, but the mindset today not just in the US but across our Western world for so called "progressives" has become to not just call out people for their racism, but actively do everything in their power to destroy them for minor perceived infractions. For which the Covington kids are a comparatively harmless example (though still disturbing).

    And like you said yourself: There's a difference between arguing and pontificating. Lecturing people on what they should and shouldn't say instead of pointing out where they are wrong is clearly the latter. It is by debate, not by censorship that people are won over.

    Fair enough that we all have some prejudices we need to work on. But do you truly believe you get people to do that by insulting them? I expect people to dig their heels in if they're attacked that way.

    That's why I asked PointOfViewGun what he was trying to achieve by calling people that. His answer: Nothing. But he isn't doing nothing. He's making it worse.

  11. #291

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/1-ill...153136260.html

    So is this black privilege or israeli privilege?

  12. #292

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    I don't disagree with you that there are many degrees of racial prejudice. But when you slap the label racism on everything the result is that essentially nothing is racist anymore, as the word becomes meaningless.
    I agree, overuse of the term 'racist' probably isn't a good thing because it dilutes the label. However, let's not omit the fact that there are a lot of people out there that get the label 'racist' because they genuinely deserve it and they will resist the label. This even gets abridged by the common phrase "I am not racist, but..." as a means to distance oneself from a label that is viewed negatively while it is also an accurate label.

    The problem we really have with it as a label is that it means lots of different things to lots of different people (referencing different parts of the "racism scale").
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Because there is real racism in the world and this speech & thought police attitude does nothing but make it worse.
    There is real racism everywhere, it is just on different scales. That is the point. And the horribly racist people will claim they are a target of thought police regardless to come off as more acceptable. Do you see the issue here? If the minorly racist people provides refuge to the horrifically racist rather than excising them, there is going to be social issues. The rest of us aren't going to just let the horrifically racist people attempt to expand their ideology unchallenged just because there are not-as-bad people trying to stand by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    If everyone's being called a Nazi, it's becomes far less bad to be one. Which to me is a horrible, horrible idea.
    Except not everyone is being called a Nazi by any means. Look, if you are for responsible terminology usage, I am for that as well, but it is often cast aside in public and political discourse by everybody. Are some people being labeled as Nazis unfairly? Sure. Is there a significant number of people out in political discourse that are genuinely deserving of the label "Nazi"? Sure are. The amount of public support for a literal ethnostate is much higher than it used to be in the US. Many of it's proponents deserve the label "Nazi". Maybe if you offer a solution on how to handle those people in addition to complaints about unfair labeling we can actually get somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Furthermore, the calling-out culture isn't just trying to give some nuanced criticism. I'm not saying you or PointOfViewGun are doing it, but the mindset today not just in the US but across our Western world for so called "progressives" has become to not just call out people for their racism, but actively do everything in their power to destroy them for minor perceived infractions. For which the Covington kids are a comparatively harmless example (though still disturbing).
    I think what you are actually referring to is the overall sense of social paranoia that exists in many Western nations today. For example; in the US the Left really closed ranks and found common purpose after Trump was elected in 2016 (similar thing happened when Obama was elected in 2008) and the Right complained that the Left suddenly became more aggressive in their rhetoric (which is true). They never really seemed to ask why, though. Many on the Left, and Center to some extent, saw candidates like Trump or public figures like Richard Spencer/Milo Yiannopoulos/David Duke as something the US citizens have culturally grown past and could never have significant popularity. Then came the election results and the shock. It became clear that despite social progress being made during the Obama years, it wasn't as if the people who opposed those progresses actually changed their minds, they just hid them better. Now it is clear that even some rather extreme sentiments (again, ethnostates being seen as good) appeal to many more people than previously thought but that none of these people are going to be honest about their extreme beliefs. The horrible racists hide in the reeds of the mildly racists for cover and now it feels like Vietnam War where the VC are hiding in plain sight and communicate through dog whistles. It's terrifying to confront that, and the mildly racist people more towards the center won't make any effort to remove the horribly racist people from their "group". The online "Skeptic" community comes to mind as an example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    And like you said yourself: There's a difference between arguing and pontificating. Lecturing people on what they should and shouldn't say instead of pointing out where they are wrong is clearly the latter. It is by debate, not by censorship that people are won over.
    I strongly disagree with the bolded part; people are won over with pleasing narratives, not debate or argument. Arguing or debating is about hashing out ideas until some kind of consensus or compromise ("I disagree with your conclusion, but see your point of view") over a contentious topic. When done professionally and properly, most people find it boring which means it is also an inferior way of winning people over. Most people don't care much about facts or objectivity, they just want a story that makes sense to them. So if you are both savvy and amoral enough to do so, you can exploit actual arguments and debates by ignoring the opposing party altogether and just use the debate platform to pitch narratives to the observers that the bad faith debater would like them to believe. The debate itself is almost always a show where no ideas could be scrutinized because the bad faith debater was not interested in scrutinizing any of the ideas, coming to a compromise, consensus or even minor understanding; it was all a sales pitch to observers. That is why there are people who just post soundbites and slogans yet won't concede on even the most minor of points about them. They aren't here for discussion.

    An immediate example of this on the forums would be like what is happening in the current climate change thread. Genava has provided ample sources for his points as one would do in an actual argument: here is my position and credible outside support to affirm it. B.W. chimes in with a link to a source that politically pleases him in the hopes of providing a narrative he want's others to believe: "academic studies are all flawed and don't believe scientific authority". B.W. has no interesting in addressing Genava's sources and points or even scrutinize his own points, he just wants to hand wave them and replace the narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Fair enough that we all have some prejudices we need to work on. But do you truly believe you get people to do that by insulting them? I expect people to dig their heels in if they're attacked that way.
    Insulting mildly racist people? No, lifelines need to be thrown the moderates and reasonably minded people to get them out of the reeds and into a broader social fold. But by all means, insult the crazy bad faith actors. Independent of moral reasoning such as "they deserve it", crazy extremist people need to stand out as crazy extremist people within the society, and making them seem socially ridiculous is how you do that. It is how the "codifying" of the literal Nazi party as abhorrent became a thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    That's why I asked PointOfViewGun what he was trying to achieve by calling people that. His answer: Nothing. But he isn't doing nothing. He's making it worse.
    If he is pushing moderates away then yes, he is making things worse. If he is just making the social environment more hostile to genuinely dangerous ideologies, then I would argue that is a good thing.
    Last edited by The spartan; March 26, 2019 at 05:13 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  13. #293

    Default Re: Lying Liberal Media, episode 1: the kid with the MAGA hat and the native American

    And like you said yourself: There's a difference between arguing and pontificating. Lecturing people on what they should and shouldn't say instead of pointing out where they are wrong is clearly the latter. It is by debate, not by censorship that people are won over.
    It isn't just a sign of bad faith, it is also a sign of intellectual defeat. The side(be it an individual debating or a mainstream media outlet) who engages in such behavior (be it calling anyone to the right of neocons as "Nazis" or calling people who want functional borders and less uncontrolled immigration "racist") knows very well what he/she is doing, they know, for the most part, that they are arguing in bad faith, but for them this is the only way to argue at all since the goal isn't to prove the opponent wrong but to silence him. It isn't just modern "progressive" left that shows such signs - looking back at evangelical conservatives in US a few decades ago we can see exact same trends, except that instead of being called a Nazi one would be accused of Satanism or something of that sort.

Posting Permissions

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