Is The Left Of Politics Fractured?

[Friend of Mara]

Change is generational, it takes time. What happens when you throw frozen food in a skillet, without defrosting the food? Why, it burns on the outside and remains raw within. Unrest and aggravation are also at odds with democracy and liberty , as the tools you have to better the world. You can go vote for what you want, and it just might happen, that is democracy. Liberty - I am at liberty to chase the spirituality I want, and no one is likely to come crucify me. I can convince others using reason, and there is likely no one to silence me. I see that if we wait, all the conservative ideas will eventually fade. I see that if you aggravate them, it prolongs things unnecessarily, and accentuates history with more senseless turmoil

The American revolution wasn't a generational change. Slavery didn't end over generations. The civil rights movement didn't happen over generations. Neither did LGBT rights either. I see cultural shift over time but revolution is always tumultuous. Its just a necessary facet of human nature. Its neither good nor bad. Simply inevitable.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hm.. well the only one of those I can listen to sometimes is jordan peterson, and though I disagree with him on a few important things, he's well studied. To me, shapiro and crowder are totally indigestible, and I find rubin pretty uninteresting or not my cup of tea, no offense.. I also can't see how rubin can really be all that much a conservative, because he's not straight.. As for peterson, his biblical interpretations are fairly idiosyncratic, so I can't even be sure if he's a believer really. By the way, I was posting some biblical ideas that were pretty similar to his before he got popular, when I look at threads and postings I made before he became known. I guess he just was able to get famous with that kind of thing

Remember I’m outside of the American zeitgeist so a lot of this is somewhat foreign to me. I agree with you about Shapiro and Crowder as ********
Rubin, you forget that people can support political ideologies that go against them, ostensibly. There were in fact “Jews for Hitler.” And don’t forget the leader of the paramilitary aid to the early Nazi party was openly gay. Look at his fate for supporting the Nazis. Yeah not exactly new.
Look at how the Nazis treated them. As for Lobster Peterson, he may well be respected in his own field. That’s fine. But I always got the sense that outside that field he was considered a buffoon. Although incidentally I own a copy of the Gulag Archipelago and he has a forward in that translation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well I saw all this “facts over feelings” rhetoric from speakers like Shapiro, Dave Rubin, this Crowder guy, Jordan Peterson (yeah, I know he’s Canadian. He’s just “part of that crowd” for better or worse) and the like. I didn’t really have much context for any of it, being non American and all. This was a few years ago. They presented themselves as conservative intellectuals. Giving advice to young men and fighting this culture war thing. On college campuses for some reason.
Battling it out in what appears to be debates. But again no context so for all I know it could be just random uni lectures idk.
Fast forward a couple years and it was like some kind of awakening. The rhetoric didn’t stand up to scrutiny. The propagators doing the exact same thing they accused the “left/SJWs” doing. Using feelings (which is fine, don’t get me wrong but these guys were the ones ridiculing them.) Shapiro got his *** handed to him by a staunchly conservative news Reporter simply asking him standard questions. Peterson has apparently recovered from his rehab visit. I genuinely hope he’s okay, I don’t wish ill upon people.
They’re now all “memes” as the kids say. It was....interesting to see this unfold online and see bits of it on our news.

If you are referring to a certain interview with Ben Shapiro I am thinking about, I think it was hilarious. It was a pretty famous news reporter asking him normal questions and for some reason Shapiro got upset and thought he was left wing when he is actually pretty conservative. Petersen I like for his unpacking of the Bible which opened my eyes to many possibilities of the different authors intent, but I find him incoherent as he jumps from point to point like a person with ADHD. It is as if he is speaking from a stream of consciousness so he is a bad communicator. Dave Rubin I don't care about. I like what Crowder does when creating dialogue with students but other than that he is as bad as those he condemns, jumping to conclusions, adopting a stereotypical narrative and not being able to see nuance. Candace Owens brief discussion with Cornel West in an interview on a news network shows that when confronting people who have actual reasons for what they believe she resorts to shouting down her opponent and arguing against Strawman positions. I definitely disagree with the right in terms of them vilifying the left because of certain left leaning people's ideas influenced by socialism.

I also do not think that the right's constant use of statistics mean much, because they just state them without explaining how they were done.

So yes, I agree, they do use the "left/sjws" tactics that they condemn, but only to an extent.

They are pretty manipulative by targeting college kids and not debating intellectuals in the field who have actual reasons for what they believe (except for Jordan Petersen who actually has discussions with these people). And they manipulate the masses by misrepresenting the other view. But at least they are open to discussion. The "SJW's" (not the whole left) come across as extremely irrational and indoctrinated and their actions actually have a major impact, so I would consider them more dangerous by far.

 

[Left Coast]

Oh besides, Trump wasn't involved in any wars, so Oz should be grateful for all the the peace in the last four years. ;0]

Is this a joke?

US dropped record number of bombs on Afghanistan last year

5 Takeaways on U.S. Involvement in the World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis

The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS - United States Department of State

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is this a joke?

US dropped record number of bombs on Afghanistan last year

5 Takeaways on U.S. Involvement in the World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis

The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS - United States Department of State

I'll rephrase that. Trump didn't start any new wars.

 

[Yazata]

If the Left side of politics is fractured, in your opinion, who do you blame?

I think that both the left and the right are "fractured". I don't blame anyone since that's the nature of the beast. Both sides are in reality loose electoral coalitions composed of very different elements.

The left ranges from old-style working-class union voters to the new-class elites (from media celebrities to university professors) defined by their belief that they are uniquely positioned to tell other people what to think. There are the omnipresent neopuritans who aren't happy unless they are morally condemning somebody ("racist!" "bigot!"), and the ubiquitous race-class-gender identity politics militants (who seemingly want to unite society by dividing it). These categories often have contradictory agendas and many of the democratic party's peculiarities and contortions are due to it trying to keep everyone on board as a viable voting coalition.

The right is similarly fractured, most obviously between the Wall Street Republican establishment and the vast majority of Republican voters who are more concerned with preserving their Middle Class communities and values, along with their sense of national identity. Trump's genius in 2016 is that he perceived that split and spoke directly to the voters and their concerns, not to the concerns of the numerically small donor, lobbyist and think-tank class in Washington that had so thoroughly dominated the Bush dynasty.

The most vocal and most active around here has been these characters.

The most aggressive of the neopuritans. Many of them believe so strongly that they are morally right that they feel justified in assaulting and destroying anyone and anything that they disagree with (which must be evil simply by definition). Although in antifa's case, I think that many of these black-clad idiots just like to create chaos and love the feeling of power that it gives them. (Rioting is fun.) In practical political terms though, they have become the equivalent of Hitler's brownshirts, thug enforcers who break up gatherings of anyone that they perceive as opponents and try to terrorize them into silence.

What concerns me more than antifa (who the police could suppress if allowed to) are the supposedly responsible politicians and media who defend them. The entire Portland city government for starters.

Perhaps you believe it is a whole. From my perspective it is terribly confusing, so much so that their own candidates don't know how to manage their own constituents.

Your thoughts?

Do politicians really manage their constituents? In a democracy power is supposed to flow upwards from the people and the politicians ideally are supposed to do the will of the voters. Politicians form voting coalitions by appealing to different groups of voters. That's what Donald Trump did with notable success.

Part of the democrats' problem is that they are the party of the media, and the media tend to amplify small political factions that might not represent huge blocs of voters by putting them on the front page and on TV every day. (How many voters do "transgenders" represent?) The intention is obviously to move society in desired directions. And while many voters dutifully sing and dance as the media demand, many others don't. So fractures occur that political opponents might be able to exploit.

 

[SomeRandom]

If you are referring to a certain interview with Ben Shapiro I am thinking about, I think it was hilarious. It was a pretty famous news reporter asking him normal questions and for some reason Shapiro got upset and thought he was left wing when he is actually pretty conservative. Petersen I like for his unpacking of the Bible which opened my eyes to many possibilities of the different authors intent, but I find him incoherent as he jumps from point to point like a person with ADHD. It is as if he is speaking from a stream of consciousness so he is a bad communicator. Dave Rubin I don't care about. I like what Crowder does when creating dialogue with students but other than that he is as bad as those he condemns, jumping to conclusions, adopting a stereotypical narrative and not being able to see nuance. Candace Owens brief discussion with Cornel West in an interview on a news network shows that when confronting people who have actual reasons for what they believe she resorts to shouting down her opponent and arguing against Strawman positions. I definitely disagree with the right in terms of them vilifying the left because of certain left leaning people's ideas influenced by socialism.

I also do not think that the right's constant use of statistics mean much, because they just state them without explaining how they were done.

So yes, I agree, they do use the "left/sjws" tactics that they condemn, but only to an extent.

They are pretty manipulative by targeting college kids and not debating intellectuals in the field who have actual reasons for what they believe (except for Jordan Petersen who actually has discussions with these people). And they manipulate the masses by misrepresenting the other view. But at least they are open to discussion. The "SJW's" (not the whole left) come across as extremely irrational and indoctrinated and their actions actually have a major impact, so I would consider them more dangerous by far.

The Andrew Neil interview on BBC?
It was the most hilarious self owns I’ve ever seen. At least until the “WAP incident.” Ben read out the lyrics to this Cardi B song I guess. And I don’t know if he was joking or not, but he claimed a women being “wet” was a medical condition. Either way, the internet absolutely eviscerated him over it. Was amusing to watch.
Incidentally through the aforementioned BBC interview I found out that my local book stores sell Shapiro’s book. Which I originally thought was just some generic thriller when I first saw it.

I agree with you about Peterson but I find him creepy. I don’t know why, just something about him has always been off putting for me. Maybe it’s the Kermit voice. Or all the times I’ve seen him associated with Lobsters. Idk

See I kind of think the bigger snowflakes are the anti SJW crowd. I haven’t really seen a legitimate “SJW” in years. The occasional wokescold, maybe. I’m questioning whether or not they were even real. In hindsight they seemed like this right wing imagined boogeyman.
Speaking of “snowflakes” did you hear about this thing called “cancel con?” Prager, I think Rubin and some other guy held a convention and whined in their literal safe space about being censored. My eye roll was such that my eyeballs were in danger of rolling out of my head when I saw that. Like wow.

 

[Milton Platt]

If the Left side of politics is fractured, in your opinion, who do you blame? The most vocal and most active around here has been these characters.

Perhaps you believe it is a whole. From my perspective it is terribly confusing, so much so that their own candidates don't know how to manage their own constituents.

Your thoughts?

Both the left and right are a range, not an absolute point.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Andrew Neil interview on BBC?
It was the most hilarious self owns I’ve ever seen. At least until the “WAP incident.” Ben read out the lyrics to this Cardi B song I guess. And I don’t know if he was joking or not, but he claimed a women being “wet” was a medical condition. Either way, the internet absolutely eviscerated him over it. Was amusing to watch.
Incidentally through the aforementioned BBC interview I found out that my local book stores sell Shapiro’s book. Which I originally thought was just some generic thriller when I first saw it.

I have not seen the WAP incident. But it sounds hilarious!

I agree with you about Peterson but I find him creepy. I don’t know why, just something about him has always been off putting for me. Maybe it’s the Kermit voice. Or all the times I’ve seen him associated with Lobsters. Idk

It might be because of his lack of facial expression. It is very amusing to see other people animated and emotional around him when he is just straight faced. That can be off putting to people as people feel uncomfortable around people they cannot read.

See I kind of think the bigger snowflakes are the anti SJW crowd. I haven’t really seen a legitimate “SJW” in years. The occasional wokescold, maybe. I’m questioning whether or not they were even real. In hindsight they seemed like this right wing imagined boogeyman.
Speaking of “snowflakes” did you hear about this thing called “cancel con?” Prager, I think Rubin and some other guy held a convention and whined in their literal safe space about being censored. My eye roll was such that my eyeballs were in danger of rolling out of my head when I saw that. Like wow.

I suspect that what you consider Wokescold I consider SJW. They are definitely real from what I have seen unless they were planted by the right to make a point which I think might be true in some cases but definitely not true in others. I certainly do not think that they are a boogeyman having seen people's posts on social media. But then the social media comments section is the bane of logics existence.

Regarding Cancel Con I would question whether they were actually censored. I know that there are people who wish to "cancel" others (SJW/Wokescold) but how successful they are is questionable. One successful example of being cancelled is Alex Jones, who is super entertaining, and I don't know why HE of all people is cancelled but other people whose words and actions have more worse impact were not. But I think that all these people on both sides are complaining about first world/rich people problems. There are WAY more important problems in the world. I think that these right commentators hardly, if ever, look at the positive of the left, choosing very specific incidents that suit their agenda to comment on.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have not seen the WAP incident. But it sounds hilarious!.

Oh It was. People immediately put his video into remixes and I mean maybe Ben missed his calling as a rapper lmao! Straight fire.

It might be because of his lack of facial expression. It is very amusing to see other people animated and emotional around him when he is just straight faced. That can be off putting to people as people feel uncomfortable around people they cannot read..

Hmm maybe you’re right. He’s kind of robotic ngl

I suspect that what you consider Wokescold I consider SJW. They are definitely real from what I have seen unless they were planted by the right to make a point which I think might be true in some cases but definitely not true in others. I certainly do not think that they are a boogeyman having seen people's posts on social media. But then the social media comments section is the bane of logics existence..

More than likely. I tend to stay away from things like Twitter. It is the plague where brain cells go to die lol
So maybe I have inadvertently and mercifully spared myself the regular company of SJWs/Wokescolds.

Regarding Cancel Con I would question whether they were actually censored. I know that there are people who wish to "cancel" others (SJW/Wokescold) but how successful they are is questionable. One successful example of being cancelled is Alex Jones, who is super entertaining, and I don't know why HE of all people is cancelled but other people whose words and actions have more worse impact were not. But I think that all these people on both sides are complaining about first world/rich people problems. There are WAY more important problems in the world. I think that these right commentators hardly, if ever, look at the positive of the left, choosing very specific incidents that suit their agenda to comment on.

I kind of see why Alex Jones was canceled he did say some very outlandish things. Don’t get me wrong he is indeed hilarious. But doesn’t he also sell like protein pills or something?
That said I legit thought he was a satirical character when I first encountered Alex “they’re turning the freaking frogs gay” Jones. I was honestly convinced he was just an American version of Sacha Baron Coen (Borat, Ali G etc.)Lol!
Cancelling is a concept thrown around a lot these days.
I mostly see it applied to all these rich celebrities for saying something insulting and I’m like, well it’s hard to feel sympathy for super successful millionaires crying on Twitter in their mansions, you know?
No doubt there are those trying to cancel people for innocuous stuff. That’s kind of ****ty.
More often than not I see it applied to jerks who say slurs. Which again makes it hard to sympathise.
I agree with you about the Right commentators.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Oh It was. People immediately put his video into remixes and I mean maybe Ben missed his calling as a rapper lmao! Straight fire.

I must definitely check this out!

More than likely. I tend to stay away from things like Twitter. It is the plague where brain cells go to die lol
So maybe I have inadvertently and mercifully spared myself the regular company of SJWs/Wokescolds.

I think comments section on all social media is where brain cells die. Especially regarding religious or idealogical topics, the sections often become either an echo chamber or an attack. This is the problem I see with social media. It tends to polarize people by keeping them in their own bubble through algorithms rather than trying to expand people's horizons or suggesting content from the opposing view. It doesn't aim to make people think but aims to capitalise on what people tend to watch. But these environments become toxic, which is why I would rather watch videos between people who are cordial and pro logical discussion rather than those who display indoctrinated tendencies.

I kind of see why Alex Jones was canceled he did say some very outlandish things. Don’t get me wrong he is indeed hilarious. But doesn’t he also sell like protein pills or something?
That said I legit thought he was a satirical character when I first encountered Alex “they’re turning the freaking frogs gay” Jones. I was honestly convinced he was just an American version of Sacha Baron Coen (Borat, Ali G etc.)Lol!
Cancelling is a concept thrown around a lot these days.
I mostly see it applied to all these rich celebrities for saying something insulting and I’m like, well it’s hard to feel sympathy for super successful millionaires crying on Twitter in their mansions, you know?
No doubt there are those trying to cancel people for innocuous stuff. That’s kind of ****ty.
More often than not I see it applied to jerks who say slurs. Which again makes it hard to sympathise.
I agree with you about the Right commentators.

What I like about Alex Jones is that he is like a gunner with very bad aim. Yeah, most of the time he will hit nothing, but he does hit a target on occasion. I always find it fascinating listening to him as he has loads of knowledge and evidence for his claims, but the conclusions he comes to are pretty crazy. So I will take the evidence of what he has and come to a completely different conclusion to what he does. Thing is, using incredulity to dismiss an argument is a logical fallacy, which is what Alex's critics use to denounce him. No matter how outlandish the claims might sound, if the evidence leads one in that direction then we should go there. That being said, him and conspiracies in general are very entertaining as I like the mystery that surrounds them. Some conspiracy theories that have proven to be real is stuff like criminals controlling the government in the 1920's, the CIA experimenting with mind control in the MKUltra program, the Unabomber having undergone psychological experiments by a university before he became a terrorist, etc. Thing is, when it comes to governments, we only know what they wish us to know. We do not know what schemes they are concocting behind the scenes and between each other.

The problem with cancelling is that it aims either to prevent dialogue or prevent freedom of speech. Which is why it is a problem. Often the celebrities are saying minor things or supporting who or what they wish and people are trying to shut them up. These "Cancellers" are trying to shut down everyone and everything that is against their idealogy, which is a cult tactic.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Oh It was. People immediately put his video into remixes and I mean maybe Ben missed his calling as a rapper lmao! Straight fire.

I watched the full original video. Shapiro was making a satirical analysis of WAP (he has a certain section on his show in which he makes satirical reactions to stuff). The medical condition part is hilarious XD. That was gold. I dunno how he says it with mostly a straight face and only a slight occasional smirk. I like how he got a medical analysis of the "condition" from his wife who is a doctor.

 

[SomeRandom]

I watched the full original video. Shapiro was making a satirical analysis of WAP (he has a certain section on his show in which he makes satirical reactions to stuff). The medical condition part is hilarious XD. That was gold. I dunno how he says it with mostly a straight face and only a slight occasional smirk. I like how he got a medical analysis of the "condition" from his wife who is a doctor.

You can trust him, his wife’s a doctor.
Omg Benny boy. Wet *** P Word was stuck in my head for like a week when this went down lmao

 

[SomeRandom]

I think comments section on all social media is where brain cells die. Especially regarding religious or idealogical topics, the sections often become either an echo chamber or an attack. This is the problem I see with social media. It tends to polarize people by keeping them in their own bubble through algorithms rather than trying to expand people's horizons or suggesting content from the opposing view. It doesn't aim to make people think but aims to capitalise on what people tend to watch. But these environments become toxic, which is why I would rather watch videos between people who are cordial and pro logical discussion rather than those who display indoctrinated tendencies.

Couldn’t agree more.

What I like about Alex Jones is that he is like a gunner with very bad aim. Yeah, most of the time he will hit nothing, but he does hit a target on occasion. I always find it fascinating listening to him as he has loads of knowledge and evidence for his claims, but the conclusions he comes to are pretty crazy. So I will take the evidence of what he has and come to a completely different conclusion to what he does. Thing is, using incredulity to dismiss an argument is a logical fallacy, which is what Alex's critics use to denounce him. No matter how outlandish the claims might sound, if the evidence leads one in that direction then we should go there. That being said, him and conspiracies in general are very entertaining as I like the mystery that surrounds them. Some conspiracy theories that have proven to be real is stuff like criminals controlling the government in the 1920's, the CIA experimenting with mind control in the MKUltra program, the Unabomber having undergone psychological experiments by a university before he became a terrorist, etc. Thing is, when it comes to governments, we only know what they wish us to know. We do not know what schemes they are concocting behind the scenes and between each other.

Fair enough. Thing about Alex Jones crying censorship is he’s posting on what is essentially a private platform. RF has rules, we agree to those rules when we sign up.
We break those rules, ain’t no ones fault but our own. Right?
YouTube has ToS policies. Even Twitter has rules, cesspit that it is.
You can make the argument that YT have become increasingly strict over the years and I would agree with you. But as a private company Google/YouTube are well within their rights to tell Mr Jones to pack his bags.
His anti vaccination promotions, various school mass shooting conspiracies, 9/11 insider job conspiracies, COVID misinformation and (allegedly) promotion of the white genocide conspiracy aren’t exactly going to endear him to many advertisers. I remain unsurprised at his “cancelling.”
Amusing as he is to watch, it was really only a matter of time. Imo.

The problem with cancelling is that it aims either to prevent dialogue or prevent freedom of speech. Which is why it is a problem. Often the celebrities are saying minor things or supporting who or what they wish and people are trying to shut them up. These "Cancellers" are trying to shut down everyone and everything that is against their idealogy, which is a cult tactic.

Well, okay, I can see that.
But Idk, the American Right Wing have been doing that for ages though. They even burned books, (Harry Potter) which was a bit odd to witness on the news, ngl.
Arguably they do it now. The targets are usually some rando without the backing to survive the so called cancelling.
I’m all for free speech. But to pretend speech doesn’t have consequences in broader society? Celebrities have been scandalised out of the spotlight since Hollywood’s been a thing.
We do not allow people to say slurs in polite society anymore. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Can this go too far? Sure.
Though I think a lot of the time these “wokescolds/SJWs” are just well meaning kids stumbling through this concept. Except it’s done through the internet these days. Which arguably intensifies their voices.
But I just can’t get on board that this is some threat to free speech. The so called cancelled are all beyond filthy rich and haven’t really had long term consequences. They may disappear from the spotlight for a bit. Then come back once the “mob” gets bored as if nothing had happened. (Unless the scandal is a bit too unforgivable. Kevin Spacey for instance.)
If I shout from the rooftops that I dunno I find black people to be nothing more than baboons. I have exercised my right to free speech. Would you not agree?
If others drown me out with voices of disgust, they too have exercised their right to free speech.
I guess I’m less of an absolutist on free speech these days.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You can trust him, his wife’s a doctor.
Omg Benny boy. Wet *** P Word was stuck in my head for like a week when this went down lmao

He had to say P-word, N-word and F-word constantly XD

 

[Samael_Khan]

Fair enough. Thing about Alex Jones crying censorship is he’s posting on what is essentially a private platform. RF has rules, we agree to those rules when we sign up.
We break those rules, ain’t no ones fault but our own. Right?
YouTube has ToS policies. Even Twitter has rules, cesspit that it is.
You can make the argument that YT have become increasingly strict over the years and I would agree with you. But as a private company Google/YouTube are well within their rights to tell Mr Jones to pack his bags.
His anti vaccination promotions, various school mass shooting conspiracies, 9/11 insider job conspiracies, COVID misinformation and (allegedly) promotion of the white genocide conspiracy aren’t exactly going to endear him to many advertisers. I remain unsurprised at his “cancelling.”
Amusing as he is to watch, it was really only a matter of time. Imo.

The problem here with Youtube, Twitter and Facebook is that they have gained the power to shape the minds of everybody in the world who has access to the internet. And with great power comes great responsibility. They simply have too much influence on shaping minds to the point that they can condition society. If that is the case then is censoring someone ethical or not? If you have that much power you should be representing all views because to ommitt some is to take those people out of the realms of commentary. So yes, I agree that as a private company they can do whatever they want, but I also disagree that they should silence people because of the power that they have. As for the many many claims that he makes, all one has to do is present counter evidence to refute his points. Censoring him just gives him and his followers a persecution complex which is the worse thing to do. If you attack the person and not the argument then the question is, were you silencing him because he actually is getting too close to the truth? Especially when you aren't silencing others who make the same claims but with less documentation to back them up?

Well, okay, I can see that.
But Idk, the American Right Wing have been doing that for ages though. They even burned books, (Harry Potter) which was a bit odd to witness on the news, ngl.
Arguably they do it now. The targets are usually some rando without the backing to survive the so called cancelling.
I’m all for free speech. But to pretend speech doesn’t have consequences in broader society? Celebrities have been scandalised out of the spotlight since Hollywood’s been a thing.
We do not allow people to say slurs in polite society anymore. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Can this go too far? Sure.
Though I think a lot of the time these “wokescolds/SJWs” are just well meaning kids stumbling through this concept. Except it’s done through the internet these days. Which arguably intensifies their voices.
But I just can’t get on board that this is some threat to free speech. The so called cancelled are all beyond filthy rich and haven’t really had long term consequences. They may disappear from the spotlight for a bit. Then come back once the “mob” gets bored as if nothing had happened. (Unless the scandal is a bit too unforgivable. Kevin Spacey for instance.)
If I shout from the rooftops that I dunno I find black people to be nothing more than baboons. I have exercised my right to free speech. Would you not agree?
If others drown me out with voices of disgust, they too have exercised their right to free speech.
I guess I’m less of an absolutist on free speech these days.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from CERTAIN consequences to be more accurate. To cause a person to be afraid to speak their mind because of the consequences is what happens in cults, and is a step towards societal indoctrination. In the ideal environment everybody should feel comfortable to speak their mind and state their opinion. The proper way to respond would be through dialogue so that the ignorant can be educated and change their mind. Alienating people because of their thoughts is childish and doesn't change minds, causing more polarisation and animosity in the long run.

That being said, I think freedom of speech should only extend to concepts and views of reality, and that is probably not enough of an extension. I agree that certain words should be banned because of not being of any benefit and only causes pain, such as the K word in South Africa, as they do not accomplish anything.

I think that the wokescolds and SJW''s are indoctrinated into an ideology and a lot might be mentally unstable. They show signs of serious indoctrination and I am not sure where it comes from. I think that college kids are indoctrinated because they are the "most fertile" because they are still inexperienced yet have enough vitality to fight for a cause.

When it comes to who and what is being cancelled, I am not referring to celebrities calling black people baboons, as that is something even the right would condemn. Obviously, I would not agree with that statement but I would not say that you must shout them down, because I would rather reason with them and change their mind because that is the goal. Shouting down achieves nothing. Education achieves everything. My problem is that they want to shut things down for saying that a movie culturally appropriates, a man who supports men's rights is anti-feminist, that a person who supports Trump is a White Supremacist. It is just the most obsurd thing. It is definitely not limited to celebrities. On Youtube you can check out videos of men being shouted down and saying that they can't state their opinion just because they are "privileged white males". Its a ridiculous environment they create.

So, where I am coming from regarding free speech is that I want an environment in which indoctrination is not possible. This means that people should be comfortable freely expressing their thoughts.

 

[SomeRandom]

The problem here with Youtube, Twitter and Facebook is that they have gained the power to shape the minds of everybody in the world who has access to the internet. And with great power comes great responsibility. They simply have too much influence on shaping minds to the point that they can condition society. If that is the case then is censoring someone ethical or not? If you have that much power you should be representing all views because to ommitt some is to take those people out of the realms of commentary. So yes, I agree that as a private company they can do whatever they want, but I also disagree that they should silence people because of the power that they have. As for the many many claims that he makes, all one has to do is present counter evidence to refute his points. Censoring him just gives him and his followers a persecution complex which is the worse thing to do. If you attack the person and not the argument then the question is, were you silencing him because he actually is getting too close to the truth? Especially when you aren't silencing others who make the same claims but with less documentation to back them up?

Well I can agree with you there. Social media and in particular YouTube (arguably more so Facebook if we’re talking boomers) does have an incredible influence. Probably more so during lockdowns when we pretty much have nothing better to do right now lol
And young kids being radicalised online is unfortunately nothing new.
Thing is, from my point of view, we already tried to just let people say whatever they wanted. And as a result we got the so called “Alt Right pipeline.” We allowed Nazis (and I am not being hyperbolic when I say that, like actual honest to god Nazis) to infiltrate and proliferate their toxicity in a myriad of geek subcultures. We allowed very harmful groups from Incels to MGTOW types to anger young insecure men who would otherwise be open to discussion and perhaps need actual legitimate mental health care. Nothing wrong with fighting for men’s rights. But some of those “MRA” communities are beyond toxic. It doesn’t have to be like that, which is why it upsets me to see.
Also Prager U, but they amuse me more than anything else.
And they have inspired some video essay responses that I happen to enjoy. So eh, swings and roundabouts I guess:

I have seen the consequences up close of this “market place of ideas.” It’s where what’s been dubbed “BreadTube” originally came from, as users reacted to the hate and anger.
Hell, there’s even a playlist on YouTube literally called the Alt Right playbook by a content creator going by I think Innuendo Studios. Not being American I can’t vouch for it’s authenticity but it seems to ring true for many of the users I have encountered in various circles. Make of that what you will.

And that’s not to say I necessarily always agree with “SJWs” either. I think there are legitimate grievances to be discussed. The affect this heightened almost, as you say. cult like (I’d say more mob like) mentality and the tactics that are employed. Usually online, ngl. It does create a very toxic and hostile environment. It doesn’t always speak for or help people who are in a minority groups. Minorities aren’t monoliths, everyone has their own unique opinions and ideas.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from CERTAIN consequences to be more accurate. To cause a person to be afraid to speak their mind because of the consequences is what happens in cults, and is a step towards societal indoctrination. In the ideal environment everybody should feel comfortable to speak their mind and state their opinion. The proper way to respond would be through dialogue so that the ignorant can be educated and change their mind. Alienating people because of their thoughts is childish and doesn't change minds, causing more polarisation and animosity in the long run.

I can agree with this. I also think capitalism doesn’t help. When a person voices their opinions, they shouldn’t fear reprisal from their employers. Unless they’re doing so within working hours and in front of clientele, of course. But a lot of the time, thanks a lot to social media, company’s fear what their employees are saying outside, because it can negatively affect their public image. As such there are people being fired as a result. Sometimes warranted. But a lot of the time I feel like it’s a bit too harsh. Though part of me thinks this might also be a result of the US having really bad unions. I mean yikes guys! At least where I live most company’s would settle for “sensitivity training” and maybe a couple of formal warnings before sacking someone. Usually anyway.

That being said, I think freedom of speech should only extend to concepts and views of reality, and that is probably not enough of an extension. I agree that certain words should be banned because of not being of any benefit and only causes pain, such as the K word in South Africa, as they do not accomplish anything.

That seems reasonable to me.

I think that the wokescolds and SJW''s are indoctrinated into an ideology and a lot might be mentally unstable. They show signs of serious indoctrination and I am not sure where it comes from. I think that college kids are indoctrinated because they are the "most fertile" because they are still inexperienced yet have enough vitality to fight for a cause.

Can you explain to me why it is you have come to this conclusion?
I think US politics in particular has become so divided that I can apply such a conclusion onto both sides of their politics. Conversely I have encountered very articulate and educated self identified “SJWs.” And I have encountered young conservatives who are very reasonable, level headed and very rational.
People can surprise you. Or they can confirm your worst fears about them lol. One’s mileage may vary.

When it comes to who and what is being cancelled, I am not referring to celebrities calling black people baboons, as that is something even the right would condemn. Obviously, I would not agree with that statement but I would not say that you must shout them down, because I would rather reason with them and change their mind because that is the goal. Shouting down achieves nothing. Education achieves everything. My problem is that they want to shut things down for saying that a movie culturally appropriates, a man who supports men's rights is anti-feminist, that a person who supports Trump is a White Supremacist. It is just the most obsurd thing. It is definitely not limited to celebrities. On Youtube you can check out videos of men being shouted down and saying that they can't state their opinion just because they are "privileged white males". Its a ridiculous environment they create.

I agree with this. Though perhaps I have just grown a bit cynical from my own time on social media. There are times when I think I can extend an olive branch to someone “on the other side.” And I have found that both of us have grown in a positive way as a result.
There are other times where I had no choice but to leave the discussion, as it was utterly fruitless. I think people need to want to actually be open for debate. But as often happens, people can become too attached to their “team” and become defensive or even too stubborn to even concede one point, no matter how logical the opposing side was.
I think that can happen for myriad of reasons. Being in an echo chamber. Being too old and stuck in their ways. Being too young even and arguing more emotionally.

So, where I am coming from regarding free speech is that I want an environment in which indoctrination is not possible. This means that people should be comfortable freely expressing their thoughts.

I can agree with this.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well I can agree with you there. Social media and in particular YouTube (arguably more so Facebook if we’re talking boomers) does have an incredible influence. Probably more so during lockdowns when we pretty much have nothing better to do right now lol
And young kids being radicalised online is unfortunately nothing new.
Thing is, from my point of view, we already tried to just let people say whatever they wanted. And as a result we got the so called “Alt Right pipeline.” We allowed Nazis (and I am not being hyperbolic when I say that, like actual honest to god Nazis) to infiltrate and proliferate their toxicity in a myriad of geek subcultures. We allowed very harmful groups from Incels to MGTOW types to anger young insecure men who would otherwise be open to discussion and perhaps need actual legitimate mental health care. Nothing wrong with fighting for men’s rights. But some of those “MRA” communities are beyond toxic. It doesn’t have to be like that, which is why it upsets me to see.
Also Prager U, but they amuse me more than anything else.
And they have inspired some video essay responses that I happen to enjoy. So eh, swings and roundabouts I guess:

I have seen the consequences up close of this “market place of ideas.” It’s where what’s been dubbed “BreadTube” originally came from, as users reacted to the hate and anger.
Hell, there’s even a playlist on YouTube literally called the Alt Right playbook by a content creator going by I think Innuendo Studios. Not being American I can’t vouch for it’s authenticity but it seems to ring true for many of the users I have encountered in various circles. Make of that what you will.

And that’s not to say I necessarily always agree with “SJWs” either. I think there are legitimate grievances to be discussed. The affect this heightened almost, as you say. cult like (I’d say more mob like) mentality and the tactics that are employed. Usually online, ngl. It does create a very toxic and hostile environment. It doesn’t always speak for or help people who are in a minority groups. Minorities aren’t monoliths, everyone has their own unique opinions and ideas.

I think that letting people say whatever they want reveals what they truly think, which is better than them believing something in their heart, because if they say it out loud we can take action to change their mind. In the South African context, Lauren Southern, a white American on the right, who seems to be a pretty OK person but a conservative none the less, made a video about the "White Genocide in South Africa", which is the vicious murder of White farmers in South Africa, which has many logical flaws and lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the country, but the point is that the very racist white South Africans, who are making as if Apartheid was a good thing, that warp history and make as if all black people are vicious savages, are now cropping up in the comments section and making their voices heard. They do NOT share these views in public which shows that there is still a racist problem in South Africa. On the other side we have the far left EFF political party, who are causing disruption in the country on occasion, and are organising through social media.

I have looked into Incels and MGTOW and they are men who have really been hurt by women, but their biggest issue is that they are not taking accountability for their part in the problems they are experiencing. They have a very black and white view of women which I see true in some women but not true in others. It seems like they themselves were around women who were mentally unstable.

I can agree with this. I also think capitalism doesn’t help. When a person voices their opinions, they shouldn’t fear reprisal from their employers. Unless they’re doing so within working hours and in front of clientele, of course. But a lot of the time, thanks a lot to social media, company’s fear what their employees are saying outside, because it can negatively affect their public image. As such there are people being fired as a result. Sometimes warranted. But a lot of the time I feel like it’s a bit too harsh. Though part of me thinks this might also be a result of the US having really bad unions. I mean yikes guys! At least where I live most company’s would settle for “sensitivity training” and maybe a couple of formal warnings before sacking someone. Usually anyway.

Here in South Africa we have lots of Unions and a labour law that prevents people from being fired for stupid reasons. But that doesn't mean that unfair dismissals do not happen. I do not think that Capitalism per se is a problem, it is the ethics of the people involved that is. But I haven't thought about it much.

Can you explain to me why it is you have come to this conclusion?
I think US politics in particular has become so divided that I can apply such a conclusion onto both sides of their politics. Conversely I have encountered very articulate and educated self identified “SJWs.” And I have encountered young conservatives who are very reasonable, level headed and very rational.
People can surprise you. Or they can confirm your worst fears about them lol. One’s mileage may vary.

This in itself requires a deep explanation which I cannot do here, but I will try and explain in a succinct way. There are signs that reveal that someone is indoctrinated, meaning that they aren't using critical thinking and their conclusions and ways of countering arguments are almost exactly the same as a certain group:

- Black and White thinking
- Shunning those who appose them
- Not allowing dialogue
- Being intolerant of another person's views
- Employing logical fallacies in arguments, such as the No True Scotsman, Strawman and Circular Reasoning.
- Intolerant of opinions and information that opposes their view
- Extreme emotional responses, mostly anger, to criticism
- All those in the group believe the same ideology and those who do not they say are the enemy
- All those in the group use the same arguments again and again, making them predictable to those who encounter them often.

These are just some of patterns you will see in indoctrinated groups. They are similar to what occurs in well known cults, such as The People's Temple and Scientology. Any group that displays these characteristics are a cult and often dangerous.

This doesn't mean that there isn't truth to their viewpoints though. What it does mean is that they believe those things for the wrong reasons and not through critical thinking. So then for what reason are they believing them? This separates them from the intellectuals who originated or study these ideas, who actually hold these views through an actual understanding of the reasoning behind these viewpoints. And these intellectuals act completely different to the indoctrinated, often disagreeing with each other on finer details but not condemning each other, enjoying discourse with the opposition, promoting free speech etc.

Those articulate and educated self identified "SJW's are not who I would consider SJW's. They are not indoctrinated.

There are conservatives who are definitely indoctrinated. Even the commentators who I sometimes listen to show degrees of indoctrination, like Steven Crowder who, even though he dialogues with others, tends to focus on what is pro conservative and anti progressive, and he attacks strawmen and doesn't deal with those who can actually reason properly. At least he is trying but he fails, yet I would support him over the wokescold left. Your Nazi's would definitely fall into the indoctrinated bracket. Even in the 1940's, Hitler clearly was a cult leader and Germany was clearly an indoctrinated country, the same as what North Korea is today.

What I find weird is that you have groups of these clearly indoctrinated college students who believe the same things and use the same arguments, yet don't seem to have a clear leader at all, which is often the case with cults. That is why I am unsure how they became the way they are. And that is worrying. Was it perhaps the education system that is the method of indoctrination and the professors the indoctrinators? Or is it a natural grass roots cult?

I agree with this. Though perhaps I have just grown a bit cynical from my own time on social media. There are times when I think I can extend an olive branch to someone “on the other side.” And I have found that both of us have grown in a positive way as a result.
There are other times where I had no choice but to leave the discussion, as it was utterly fruitless. I think people need to want to actually be open for debate. But as often happens, people can become too attached to their “team” and become defensive or even too stubborn to even concede one point, no matter how logical the opposing side was.
I think that can happen for myriad of reasons. Being in an echo chamber. Being too old and stuck in their ways. Being too young even and arguing more emotionally.

Yeah, I have encountered this myself. That is why I am on RF, to have discussions with actual reasonable people. I hate discussion on social media for the reasons you stated.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think that letting people say whatever they want reveals what they truly think, which is better than them believing something in their heart, because if they say it out loud we can take action to change their mind. In the South African context, Lauren Southern, a white American on the right, who seems to be a pretty OK person but a conservative none the less, made a video about the "White Genocide in South Africa", which is the vicious murder of White farmers in South Africa, which has many logical flaws and lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the country, but the point is that the very racist white South Africans, who are making as if Apartheid was a good thing, that warp history and make as if all black people are vicious savages, are now cropping up in the comments section and making their voices heard. They do NOT share these views in public which shows that there is still a racist problem in South Africa. On the other side we have the far left EFF political party, who are causing disruption in the country on occasion, and are organising through social media.

I see merit in your way of thinking. And to a large extent I agree it’s better to have people air out their dirty laundry so to speak. So we know what we’re really dealing with. Perhaps why we differ comes down to our own personal experience. I watched many kids and even a couple of friends fall down various “rabbit holes” because of this approach. The propagandists who would usually be disciplined were allowed to run rampant under the guise of “free speech.” Thanks social media! So I am a bit more willing to have limits and push extreme content underground, as it were. Or at least confine the Nazis and “Nazi lite” to their corner. Like *****ute or whatever they’re using these days.

I have looked into Incels and MGTOW and they are men who have really been hurt by women, but their biggest issue is that they are not taking accountability for their part in the problems they are experiencing. They have a very black and white view of women which I see true in some women but not true in others. It seems like they themselves were around women who were mentally unstable.

I agree with this assessment. For the MGTOW types at least. Incels seem to me to put sex on such a high pedestal that even if they were to get laid, they’d be miserable. They also seem to have a massive amount of entitlement which seems to be encouraged by their fellow members. I think those spaces would benefit from actual legitimate mental health help. They seem so full of anger and hate and sometimes even downright depression. I genuinely feel bad for them. I want to extend an olive branch but I’m also a bit afraid to. You know, being a “feeemale” and all.

Here in South Africa we have lots of Unions and a labour law that prevents people from being fired for stupid reasons. But that doesn't mean that unfair dismissals do not happen. I do not think that Capitalism per se is a problem, it is the ethics of the people involved that is. But I haven't thought about it much.

I think capitalism (especially the hyperactive version the US seems to have) encourages putting profit ahead of people. It rewards extreme greed and the wealthy are not held to the same standards as a result.
It also incentivises businesses to be ruthless, imho. Also the US seemingly treats businesses and corporations like people and that weirds me out a bit, ngl.
But that’s an outsiders opinion, so take that for what it’s worth.

This in itself requires a deep explanation which I cannot do here, but I will try and explain in a succinct way. There are signs that reveal that someone is indoctrinated, meaning that they aren't using critical thinking and their conclusions and ways of countering arguments are almost exactly the same as a certain group:

- Black and White thinking
- Shunning those who appose them
- Not allowing dialogue
- Being intolerant of another person's views
- Employing logical fallacies in arguments, such as the No True Scotsman, Strawman and Circular Reasoning.
- Intolerant of opinions and information that opposes their view
- Extreme emotional responses, mostly anger, to criticism
- All those in the group believe the same ideology and those who do not they say are the enemy
- All those in the group use the same arguments again and again, making them predictable to those who encounter them often.

These are just some of patterns you will see in indoctrinated groups. They are similar to what occurs in well known cults, such as The People's Temple and Scientology. Any group that displays these characteristics are a cult and often dangerous.

This doesn't mean that there isn't truth to their viewpoints though. What it does mean is that they believe those things for the wrong reasons and not through critical thinking. So then for what reason are they believing them? This separates them from the intellectuals who originated or study these ideas, who actually hold these views through an actual understanding of the reasoning behind these viewpoints. And these intellectuals act completely different to the indoctrinated, often disagreeing with each other on finer details but not condemning each other, enjoying discourse with the opposition, promoting free speech etc.

Fair enough. I have noticed that a lot of “lefty” intellectuals do come out in direct opposition to “SJW behaviour.” Which is rather interesting.

To be honest with you, I kind of see what you describe happen on both sides of the (US) political spectrum. And thus far it seems to be mostly young kids, and really old people. So I tend to give a bit of leeway, insofar as I give the benefit of the doubt of maybe just youthful enthusiasm. The really old I think are just stuck in their ways idk.
Maybe it’s because their politics are a bit extreme. In Australia it’s a little less intense. I mean we don’t always engage in politics from a young age like Americans seem to. Indeed we are practically bribed with a free sausage sizzle just to get us to vote lol. But I’m from the “sleepy suburbs,” perhaps it’s different in the “big smoke” (city) or the outback.

Those articulate and educated self identified "SJW's are not who I would consider SJW's. They are not indoctrinated.

Interesting. Tbh I think the moniker actually originated in lefty spaces as a way to mock over eager and belligerent wokescolds. Then people took it as a badge. But again, not being an American, take that with a grain of salt. I do feel like I first heard the term being used, rather derisively for what it’s worth, from exasperated leftists.

There are conservatives who are definitely indoctrinated. Even the commentators who I sometimes listen to show degrees of indoctrination, like Steven Crowder who, even though he dialogues with others, tends to focus on what is pro conservative and anti progressive, and he attacks strawmen and doesn't deal with those who can actually reason properly. At least he is trying but he fails, yet I would support him over the wokescold left. Your Nazi's would definitely fall into the indoctrinated bracket. Even in the 1940's, Hitler clearly was a cult leader and Germany was clearly an indoctrinated country, the same as what North Korea is today.

I agree. Incidentally I have a rather dark morbid curiosity regarding Hitler and the Third Reich. Just out and out evil ******** they were. I just want to know why, just why. You know? Their existence hurts my soul. Several books later and I’m none the wiser. Though the everyday citizen accounts are very fascinating to read about. From both sides of the fence. I just got the two volume biography of Hitler by Kernshaw. Supposed to be among of the most esteemed in historical/academic circles. I’m quite worried that I’m pretty excited about this....
Sorry for the tangent.

What I find weird is that you have groups of these clearly indoctrinated college students who believe the same things and use the same arguments, yet don't seem to have a clear leader at all, which is often the case with cults. That is why I am unsure how they became the way they are. And that is worrying. Was it perhaps the education system that is the method of indoctrination and the professors the indoctrinators? Or is it a natural grass roots cult?

Maybe. Americans seem to regard college as a way to explore one’s ideas and a formative way to get young people to solidify their identity and often political ideas. And get degrees for jobs, of course. I mean that’s just my impression going by the amount of political “debates” I see happen in random US colleges. I could be just seeing that extra participation in politics we don’t really have here, idk.

So maybe it does have something to do with culture. Maybe there are grassroots movements starting in college/uni.
Though one complaint I have often heard from Americans regarding their educational system as a whole is the lack of teaching critical thinking. So perhaps this is a result of that?
Also the sense of being “righteous” is a powerful drug. And that’s how a lot this discussion is framed. The “SJWs” or what have you are defending the downtrodden and they are righteous in doing so. And conversely the “anti SJW” is nobly defending the human right of free speech. Both seem to regard themselves as being the righteous ones. That can manifest itself in some pretty bad ways if you allow it.
I know I have probably been a bit too emotional on topics where I felt that I was “righteous.”

Yeah, I have encountered this myself. That is why I am on RF, to have discussions with actual reasonable people. I hate discussion on social media for the reasons you stated.

I admit I have been guilty in the past of not being reasonable. I feel like that was influenced by my social media usage and my own immaturity. Hopefully I’ve outgrown that.

 

[InChrist]

Anti-fascists.

They appear to be behaving more like fascists, though.