The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Heathen Hammer]

It has more to do with the sense of entitlement that plagues all spectrum of life.

Indeed, "if I didn't like it, then nobody should see it" is the disgusting mentality of the current "woke" elitists.

I know what to do if I am ever accused of racism. Certain people are only able to respond by shouting "censorship" and misinterpreting Orwell. (some other day we will talk about racists and their intellectual limitations).

Well censorship and authoritarianism are inherently Orwellian. But given how "woke" ones hardly consider what the term actually means, majority of the world is "racist" according to them.

[alhoon]

Soooo... my American (and UK) friends, I have a question.

If a white person dresses up as MLK or Nelson Mandela (including blackface) to honor them during the Hallowing or whatever masked revelry they have in UK... is that person a racist?

[mishkin]

Since when do people dress up on Halloween to honor personalities?

It is quite weird to nowadays admire a fighter against racism (that person knows what blackface means, right? Tell him if he does not) and paint your face, really. Very weird. I might not say that this person is racist, but surely he is an idiot.

[conon394]

Soooo... my American (and UK) friends, I have a question.

If a white person dresses up as MLK or Nelson Mandela (including blackface) to honor them during the Hallowing or whatever masked revelry they have in UK... is that person a racist?

At least the US you really can't ignore the cultural baggage of black face. Its just not a good ideal as white person.

You don't generally set to honor somebody at Halloween. Google a Nixon or Bill Clinton mask - the intent is satirical in most versions.

That being said if you wanted to be a historical person for real you could go here for example and get essentially a life like mask and even a Nelson Mandela one.

https://www.celebrity-cutouts.co.uk/...k/politicians/

But as a white guy born in Detroit and raised there and around SE Michigan - black face is more or less asking for a kick (and deserving it), unless you are at elite white people party in the Northern Suburbs or hang with the Michigan Militia. Its fundamentally insensitive and really there is no reason to do it.

[alhoon]

Hallowing was an example. Another case would be a Nelson Mandela \ MLK day or something. But I got my answer:

You can't dress in blackface to honor a black person if you're white.
Those things strike me as very very weird.

[PointOfViewGun]

Hallowing was an example. Another case would be a Nelson Mandela \ MLK day or something. But I got my answer:
You can't dress in blackface to honor a black person if you're white.
Those things strike me as very very weird.

Your premise was false and that's what people pointed at. Why you'd alter people's words like that is beyond me. Now, could a white person dress up as Blade and not be racist? Yes, absolutely.

[Love Mountain]

This is akin to asking a German whether dressing up as an SS Officer to "raise awareness" about National Socialism is a good idea. No, it really isn't in the context of German history and modern culture. Be smarter than that.

[alhoon]

This is akin to asking a German whether dressing up as an SS Officer to "raise awareness" about National Socialism is a good idea.

A white person dressing as Nelson Mandela, one of the most influential people in Africa and instrumental in bringing down the Apartheid is akin to dress up as an SS officer, i.e. someone that took part in war of aggression and supported a genocidal dictatorship that plunged the world in 6 years of war?

That's what I mean that the replies I get are very, very weird.

Same with the Blade example. Why on earth dressing as a fictional black person is better than dressing up as MLK, another very influential person?

[PointOfViewGun]

A white person dressing as Nelson Mandela, one of the most influential people in Africa and instrumental in bringing down the Apartheid is akin to dress up as an SS officer, i.e. someone that took part in war of aggression and supported a genocidal dictatorship that plunged the world in 6 years of war?
That's what I mean that the replies I get are very, very weird.
Same with the Blade example. Why on earth dressing as a fictional black person is better than dressing up as MLK, another very influential person?

You're talking about Halloween. Do you realize that?

[mishkin]

Hallowing was an example. Another case would be a Nelson Mandela \ MLK day or something.

better to talk about real situations than very, very very weird examples.

[Love Mountain]

Well, I did think Trudeau's blackface incident was just absurd. I wouldn't apologize for anything I did that long ago besides, "Sorry, I was young and I was being immature." Trudeau is obviously not a racist and his political record clearly displays that. In my opinion, the only way to disarm the "hysterical left" that publishes ridiculous diatribes on Gizmodo and whatnot, is to simply respond with steadfast logic instead of automatically entering the "deep apology mode".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Well, I did think Trudeau's blackface incident was just absurd. I wouldn't apologize for anything I did that long ago besides, "Sorry, I was young and I was being immature." Trudeau is obviously not a racist and his political record clearly displays that. In my opinion, the only way to disarm the "hysterical left" that publishes ridiculous diatribes on Gizmodo and whatnot, is to simply respond with steadfast logic instead of automatically entering the "deep apology mode".

Apologies for doing dumb, racist stuff is a matter of basic cost/benefit analysis for most public figures. Once caught, do you A) apologize and hope everyone forgets within the next news cycle B) leverage the publicity of your apology to talk about being “woke” and “learning lessons,” or C) go the Trump/alt right route of “I’m not racist, YOU’RE racist?” 99 times out of 100, seems like people opt for A. Path of least resistance. Or just don’t wear blackface and post prejudiced stuff online in the first place, like a normal person.

[Love Mountain]

I suppose you're right, but one can also pre-emptively admit their mistakes. Reformed racists for example. At the same time, I think its difficult to be completely clean in this day and age. Forty years from now, I'd say every politician is going to have something dumb on their Facebook or Twitter feed. We've all said stupid things, and the prevalance of social media use makes it hard to avoid doing so. I think the idea that you just shouldn't do dumb things and then put it online is certainly valid, but at the same time, I think realistically, standards are just gonna have to change and become more compassionate.

To give it a bit more credence, the way in which Trudeau's blackface "controversy" was covered makes it pretty clear that most people don't really care and are happy with the quick apology.

[alhoon]

Obama: Twitter is not activism.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/barac...b0bb1ea3716bb7

Yeap, Obama thankfully joined the "stop progressive idiocy" group or simply "Sane person's group".

[mishkin]

Yeap, Obama thankfully joined the "stop progressive idiocy" group or simply "Sane person's group".

Do you really draw this conclusions from his statements? I only see him criticizing the superficiality of twitter and those users not at all willing to dialogue, just looking for the slightest reason to insult or humiliate the other. Edit: hey, thats exactly what you have done here, right? you have simply clung to a couple of sentences to attack "the progressives" and incidentally say that they are not sane, without any reasoning.

[Love Mountain]

I also think that it's a laughable characterization of Obama's statement. He's not anti-progressive, he's criticizing about the manner in which many young people approach politics and current problems. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the current political reality does not favor compromise. Compromise should be the very last option we take. Republicans have shown us the power of "No."

[alhoon]

Do you really draw this conclusions from his statements? I only see him criticizing the superficiality of twitter and those users not at all willing to dialogue, just looking for the slightest reason to insult or humiliate the other. Edit: hey, thats exactly what you have done here, right? you have simply clung to a couple of sentences to attack "the progressives" and incidentally say that they are not sane, without any reasoning.

Yes, because I thought it was quite clear that I meant the Twitter warriors and the slacktivists, and the snowflakes (kinda on progressive and conservative side) that scream "Evur, raacisst, Naziopathic, phallocratauthoritarian pig!!!!1111oneoneone" to those with slightly different opinion.
I am not talking about people that discuss and exchange opinions trying to change the mindset of the other side, I talk about those that try to overshout the other side to silence. I also talk about exaggerating buttholes that don't realize they have more or less achieved the equality they wanted but they choose to focus on the remaining 5% difference in a very, very obnoxious manner that often hits back at the other side.
I am not talking about those that see that 5% difference and try to correct it through means that I may disagree with but they are not full of screams and evul rassism and Patriarchophallocratism.

Also, this is a rant thread, of course I would rant.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the current political reality does not favor compromise. Compromise should be the very last option we take. Republicans have shown us the power of "No."

And that kind of wrong and dangerous argument Obama rallied against, asking people to return to sanity and refrain from irrational and dangerous views like the above.

He asked people to not be Republicans scream at those they disagree with and not be Republicans divisive buttholes, but try to compromise.
SJWs using the same tactics and logic as the worse kinds of Republicans (The Trumpeteers) shows that they are hypocritical and share vomit-worthy views with them - they are practically the same kind with their worse enemies.

[Love Mountain]

Yes, because I thought it was quite clear that I meant the Twitter warriors and the slacktivists, and the snowflakes (kinda on progressive and conservative side) that scream "Evur, raacisst, Naziopathic, phallocratauthoritarian pig!!!!1111oneoneone" to those with slightly different opinion.
I am not talking about people that discuss and exchange opinions trying to change the mindset of the other side, I talk about those that try to overshout the other side to silence. I also talk about exaggerating buttholes that don't realize they have more or less achieved the equality they wanted but they choose to focus on the remaining 5% difference in a very, very obnoxious manner that often hits back at the other side.
I am not talking about those that see that 5% difference and try to correct it through means that I may disagree with but they are not full of screams and evul rassism and Patriarchophallocratism.

Also, this is a rant thread, of course I would rant.

Can you at least make it cogent? I also think it's pretty clear you meant progressives in general, and not people who embrace unproductive discourse (on either side).

And that kind of wrong and dangerous argument Obama rallied against, asking people to return to sanity and refrain from irrational and dangerous views like the above.

He asked people to not be Republicans scream at those they disagree with and not be Republicans divisive buttholes, but try to compromise.
SJWs using the same tactics and logic as the worse kinds of Republicans (The Trumpeteers) shows that they are hypocritical and share vomit-worthy views with them - they are practically the same kind with their worse enemies.

You're arguing against reality. Also, whether you scream, feign outrage, or talk quietly, a no is a no. You don't need to scream to refuse to compromise and Mitch McConnell is one of the most soft-spoken men I've ever watched. Republicans refuse to compromise on any issue, this is why they've been winning. Adopting the same tactics as your enemy does not make you morally equivalent to them. That's absurd. Morality of your tactics will vary significantly on the context.

[alhoon]

Can you at least make it cogent? I also think it's pretty clear you meant progressives in general, and not people who embrace unproductive discourse (on either side).

I meant the annoying progressives. You all know who I mean.

Adopting the same tactics as your enemy does not make you morally equivalent to them. That's absurd. Morality of your tactics will vary significantly on the context.

Of course it does. The firebombing of Dresden was a warcrime etc. If the Israelis genocide the Germans or the Armenians butcher the Turks it would make them morally equivalent to them etc.
And Obama agrees.

Obama is a sane person. Obama is a not-evil person.
Progressives should try to be more like Obama.

PS. McConnel being a soft-spoken non-screamer is one of the main reasons the Republicans win, not because they say no to everything. They can say no to everything (at least so far) because they are not screamers. The non-screaming Republicans (McConnel) shows you the power of not-screaming, not the power of no. That's why McConnel wins while Trump (screaming republican) loses.
Had the progressives not pushed purple-haired Feminazis and easily-triggered idiots in Universities that protest sombrero and tequila parties as insensitive, Republicans wouldn't control the senate.

The Republicans will probably lose the senate majority in 2020 not because of saying no to everything but because their screamers scream too loud and are becoming half-as-annoying as the progressives. They should have been more like McConnel if they wanted to stay in power.

[Cope]

Obama: Twitter is not activism.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/barac...b0bb1ea3716bb7

Yeap, Obama thankfully joined the "stop progressive idiocy" group or simply "Sane person's group".

Obama has made similar statements in the past, but these comments are still very welcome. It's high time that we start the process of marginalizing progressive identitarianism and social puritanism.

I also think that it's a laughable characterization of Obama's statement. He's not anti-progressive, he's criticizing about the manner in which many young people approach politics and current problems. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the current political reality does not favor compromise. Compromise should be the very last option we take. Republicans have shown us the power of "No."

Your increasing radicalization is concerning.