ComodoComplex
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
You refuse to argue.... but you're cool with putting your hands over your ears and whining so that everyone else can hear you. Got it
So yeah, the PC people have won once again..
- Thread starter user 37518
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
- Status
You refuse to argue.... but you're cool with putting your hands over your ears and whining so that everyone else can hear you. Got it
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
1) comedy is funnier when it punches UP, not DOWN. Then again, no one's stopping you from laughing at shitty jokes
2) Two things can exist at the same time. It is a problem that people can be falsely accused of a crime and be fired from their job or excommunicated from their groups. It is also a huge problem that women can be raped or sexually harassed/assaulted by a man who then goes on to face zero consequences for his actions, as has been the norm historically. It doesn't escape our attention which one you care about more
3) You might say something offensive, but what about the aftermath? Do you choose to continue to offend when you've been told you are offensive? Do you show remorse? Do you try to take corrective action? It's not that complicated. Nobody has been cancelled in any serious way for saying *one* thing wrong.
4) Your slippery slope fallacy can be applied to any form of social progress including gay marriage leading to pedophilia, as has historically been argued. I guess we'll cross the elitism thing when we get to it yeah?
user 37518 said:
That has nothing to do with the day to day prejudice people face. My point is that you cannot connect the jokes you say in private or what a comedian says to push boundaries to the prejudice people feel in everyday life. You cannot say that because Ricky Gervias, made an offensive joke about trans people, that your local grocer can treat a trans person differently. You cannot say that because your best friend who is black, is not offended when you say the N-word, that you can say it in public. You cannot say that because no-one you know is offended by the Gearslutz name, that no-one is. And to say that they shouldn't change their name because of a few people, is a circular argument because they shouldn't not change their name because of a few people. You have freedom of speech, they have the freedom to run their business however they please.
user 37518 said:
A hockey player was accused of rape. The victim's mother tampered with evidence. No one knows if the rape happened or not. Charges were dropped due to the tampering. All of a sudden, this example is used to prove the false accuser argument. I don't know the Johnny Depp case, I can't stomach to watch his movies so I couldn't care enough to read an article about that bag of syrup. What I do know, is that the false accuser rhetoric is damaging. Less than 10% of rape cases are false accusations. Using a small number of possible false accuser cases to justify rape is not logical. Was Johnny Depp wrongly put in prison? If so, that would be a failure of justice. If, after he was paid to film his movies, Netflix dropped those movies, what happened that was so wrong? They are a business, they are not run by the government. They can decide to do what's in the best interest for their business.
Maybe in the case of Aziz Ansari you'd have an argument. He had a show with Nexflix, they could almost be considered his employer. Maybe you could argue that cancel culture prevented him from selling a third season of Master of None to Netflix. Maybe. Again, one person being falsely accused does not mean that Harvey W is all of a sudden innocent. Or that Americans should be okay with putting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court.
user 37518 said:
This kind of absurd rhetoric does not do well to support your argument. Much like the "if gays can marry then people will marry animals" argument, absurdity just puts a wedge into the discussion and turns it into an argument.
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
Delta Sigma said:
Really excellent arguments all around. The "anti-woke" conservatives really are as whiny as they think the "SJW's" are and have no sense of nuance.
I also should say that I recognize that I won't change any minds here as some seem very closed. That's okay and it's very human.
If you're curious about why you don't want to change your mind especially when it's a new idea from someone young, check out the podcast Hidden Brain. There's an episode called the Easiest Person to Fool that refers to your "internal dictator". It's pretty cool stuff. It's mostly about conflict and how relationship conflict can slow productivity but task conflict will increase productivity but the internal dictator part was very interesting.
There's another episode called Radically Normal: How Gay Rights Activists Changed The Minds Of Their Opponents. That one is really interesting. It talks about how slowly prejudice due to race and gender will disappear vs how fast society has changed its mind about gay rights.
Yes, the podcast started on NPR, don't dismiss it because of that. You also don't have to change any of your opinions to listen, the information is fascinating regardless of what you believe politically.
If you're curious about why you don't want to change your mind especially when it's a new idea from someone young, check out the podcast Hidden Brain. There's an episode called the Easiest Person to Fool that refers to your "internal dictator". It's pretty cool stuff. It's mostly about conflict and how relationship conflict can slow productivity but task conflict will increase productivity but the internal dictator part was very interesting.
There's another episode called Radically Normal: How Gay Rights Activists Changed The Minds Of Their Opponents. That one is really interesting. It talks about how slowly prejudice due to race and gender will disappear vs how fast society has changed its mind about gay rights.
Yes, the podcast started on NPR, don't dismiss it because of that. You also don't have to change any of your opinions to listen, the information is fascinating regardless of what you believe politically.
rob_gould
Well-known member
Thoughtful and well reasoned series of posts, Delta Sigma. Thanks.
Amazing how this eludes so many people.
Amazing how this eludes so many people.
ComodoComplex said:
I gotta quote this too so people can read it three times!
If you can read my mind, what am I thinking right now. :ComodoComplex said:You refuse to argue.... but you're cool with putting your hands over your ears and whining so that everyone else can hear you. Got it
JR
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:If you can read my mind, what am I thinking right now. :
JR
This is the level of discourse for conservatives
It's all just 5th grade playground dynamicsuser 37518
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
I think I agree with JR and abbey, from what I've seen, quite some people on this forum agree with me however they have decided not to fully participate in the discussion for whatever reason they may have or not to pursue it any further, the way I see it, is that now there are 5 or 6 leftist, wokeys, or whatever you want to call yourselves, who are just padding on each others back and I am the only one trying to have a discussion with you, Its now a game of refuting everything each other say.
I think I have expressed my opinions and proven my point. The thread has completly derailed from the original post I made, we went through PC, feminism, LGBTQ, Racism, White Supremacy, Cancel Culture, Free Speech, Islam, Religion, MLK, Comedy and now we are back full circle into PC and cancel culture. You are obviously from the far-left, and I am obviously of the far-right, I think 15 pages have proven that we are not going to reach consensus or middle ground with these issues, I mean if the world hasn't come to a consensus, we, in an Internet forum will surely won't do it either.
So the way I see it is this: We either continue with this futile excercise of refuting each other over and over, or we just stop, I just realized that I spent almost all of yesterday's afternoon debating ComodoComplex without going anywhere, we didn't achieve anything, and now, more people are chiming in bringing back stuff we discussed 8 pages ago.
So I think that the healthiest thing is to bring this thread to an end, I believe we can at least agree on that.
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
I guess if your point is that conversations can wind through various subjects, then yes, your point is well taken good sir! I may be being petulant at this point, but the truth is I don't care what you think of me. I saw a circle jerk of far-right folks pontificating about the rise of Islam, and I decided to pitch in my two cents, since this is an open forum and anyone can view it. I didn't want your silly, outdated beliefs to go unchallenged. It also saddened me to see folks like Gyraf chiming in (whom I respect and admire professionally) with comments like "when did race and religion become one in the same? Oh, Sometime in 2017", which demonstrate a lack of understanding of these complex issues. Of course, even our heroes can disappoint us.
I've known from the very beginning that you are not someone who can be "convinced" of anything, and I wasn't trying to. I just wanted to show any curious readers that you really don't have any good points to make and that you're stuck in an outdated mode of thinking, informed by your false understanding of history and society as a whole. While you may believe you are a good person with honest intentions, your beliefs are ignorant and uninformed. That's not to say you wouldn't save a puppy from a burning building -- it does seem that discussions about systemic issues and implicit bias are taken very personally by conservatives -- but sometimes things aren't so black and white (excuse the pun).
Take care
user 37518
Well-known member
ComodoComplex said:
Right, again, we are the ignorants with silly outdated views, and you are the wise one with modern and better ideas, so sorry to hear that your hero dissapointed you. Ok, lets leave it like that, thanks for doing the community a great service for chiming in and defending them (isn't that the definition of a SJW?) anyway, it takes at least 2 to argue.
I am not doing it anymore, this is my last and final comment, you can take it as you want.
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings with my arrogance, user 37518. In the future I'll try to keep in mind that GroupDIY Brewery is a safe space for neocons and reactionaries and respect your right to say whatever you please with no opposition
It looks like the PC people have won once again
Bye!
user 37518 said:
I'm definitely not woke. I don't pay attention enough to be. I paddle with some university students that try very hard to be "woke". It can be annoying at times but I don't see how listening to them with an open mind makes me a leftist or a wokey. It really is okay to converse with someone who has a different opinion, keep an open mind and possibly learn. I don't retain or understand as much as some others because that's not how my brain works and that's okay.
I don't understand the political idea that because you chose at random your team (say Republicans in the US), you can't listen to reason on social issues because your party decided they don't want to. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe there's some people out there that study psychology, social issues, race, etc and decide we shouldn't be inclusive, that it's better for society to pick a few races, one sex, etc to take the shit end of the stick, and one to get most societal benefits.
But I doubt that's the case. My view, and wrong it may be, is that if someone is an expert on social issues, they've studied it, are employed in a related field, and share ideas with other like experts, they would have a better understanding of what can be done by society to be more inclusive. Better understanding than me since my brain is used for being an audio nerd, a little music, outdoor rec and watching hockey.
Now, someone like us, voicing our opinions to them is fine. But telling experts they are wrong and you don't believe them when you have no background knowledge seems excessive. It's okay that you question why Gearslutz has to change its name. But imagine you're designing a microphone, and someone who took women's studies, or a lawyer, or a politician asked you why you can't have the XLR connector coming out of the grille. Then you explained why it's a bad idea, and then they insisted that you had to have it come out of the grille, even though they have extremely little electronic knowledge compared to you. Wouldn't that seem a little absurd?
Really though, listen to those Hidden Brain podcast episodes. It won't turn you into a lefty loonie, it's just information.
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
Delta Sigma said:
Good try, but they don't think women's and gender studies are remotely valid fields of study.
You might think you're not woke, but that just goes to show how far down the rabbit hole these guys are.
ComodoComplex said:
Maybe. But maybe they really like to challenge progressive thought. There's nothing wrong with that. Like user 37518 pointed out these threads get off topic and people tend to become more entrenched in their views.
I think that most people think that those of the opposite political are brainwashed. The pessimist in me agrees with you, extreme thought has become normalized and in many circles centrist views are considered extreme left/right. The optimist in me hopes that challenging of ideas like Gearslutz changing its name should be healthy. It's okay to challenge these things. I hope they just learn to not make up their mind before taking in any information on the very subject they're challenging.
rob_gould
Well-known member
Delta Sigma said:
And here's the very thing.
With hindsight, it's clear that this thread was not intended to be a debate on whether the name change was a good idea, but a place where like-minded people could scoff at how stupid the name change was. Careful what you wish for, eh.
The one thing that's run through all user 37518's posts has been this notion of them Vs us - two people, two parties, two mindsets in battle with each other. A competition or fight that is either won or lost. Earlier on in the thread, the idea of zero sum games and zero sum thinking was mentioned - that there has to be a winner and a loser. Well, while people focus on the differences between themselves and their neighbours, my guess is that we will all lose.
What I'm really quite disappointed by is that overt transphobia in the thread has gone completely unchallenged. Perhaps that's because people chose not to challenge it, rather than that they missed it or even agreed with it.
Don't feed the trolls, this is right out of the rules for radicals playbook...
Let them break their arms patting themselves on the back.
JR
Let them break their arms patting themselves on the back.
JR
boji
Well-known member
+1 Ideologue's job is to poison linguistic territory at the cost of making enemies. They shall get their rewards.
ComodoComplex
Well-known member
boji said:
How have I poisoned the linguistic territory? By saying Islam is not something to be feared?
Love how if someone disagrees with you they're just "trolling"
- Status
