Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Yep, if he ain't black and wears a dress it doesn't count:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHWPfmkyV74
Last edited:
Ben Shapiro
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
Yep, if he ain't black and wears a dress it doesn't count:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHWPfmkyV74
Just to be clear, I couldn't care less what people wear and how feminine/masculine they are. I have no problem with men wearing dresses or make up or anything like that. And I find the idea that society has been feminized, as if masculinity is humanity's default state, to be sexist and insulting.
I am simply pointing out the fact that progressiveness has become about fitting a very specific mold of what is correct-thought. Stray too far from the accepted model in any direction, and you're labelled as either a lunatic or a stone age reactionary.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
I agree with your second point made, progressiveness often falls into the square-box thinking that they so often accuse others of. The point being made in the video is more about how left-controlled Hollywood targets a certain race than it is about the effeminization of society (effeminization doesn't even appear to be a word), which some argue that it is a thing. But that sets grounds for a whole different kind of debate that could have a thread of it's own.
I don't think that's actually true. I think it's being covered more frequently. We had some pretty absurd protests over Michael Horowitz when I was in college and that was 10+ years ago. I'm pretty sure that wasn't covered at all because the internet wasn't quite what it is now.
The United States has a troubled relationship with the concept of free speech. It's frequently conflated with the right to be a jerk. That's why we've had some problems just excising xenophobia from our culture while that kind of rhetoric is simply out of bounds in other western democracies.
There are some pretty interesting economic arguments that discrimination is a luxury good. I believe those are some of the latest examples proving the point.
You're not really going to get traction with me on the idea that "intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerant." It's just not particularly compelling to anyone who doesn't want validation for why it's ok to be a jerk in the first place.
This is not a serious issue, nor are those people being taken seriously.
"Intolerance of intolerance" thing is a cliche, and it is not what I'm talking about. Similarly, you'll never hear talk about how I'm not religious, but spiritual. My argument has little to do with pop-cliches. What I'm saying is, the left has set the standard on what is and isn't to be tolerated, and everyone who disagrees will be bullied into silence. This isn't a case of people banding together to drown out the drivel of a fringe element, like a Neo-Nazi. It is the removal of speech as a tool for any person who does not share their values, which they consider a product of pure logic that cannot be disputed. And it has little to do with combating "intolerance". Take protests against Western Civ classes at colleges. This has nothing to do with having an intolerant position. It is about what is acceptable to talk about, and what should be buried. Additionally, the progressive stances that are tolerated are narrowly defined within the momentary zeitgeist. If I take a pro-incest position, I would be torn apart by the progressives, merely because it is not currently one of their issues.
Says who? They take themselves seriously, and they are not a minor element. You can see such mentality all over mainstream publications with progressive leanings. This is one example:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11133080/sam-smith-speech-ian-mckellen-lgbt-academy-awards-2016
I'm sorry to discount your opinion but I'm going to discount your opinion. This just reads like talking points to me. I find it neither insightful nor particularly descriptive of our actual reality.
The argument that Sam Smith was factually incorrect when he wondered if he was the first openly gay man to win an Oscar is many degrees removed from whatever bizarre cis-privilege thing you spouted earlier was.
First, you did not read the article, and just looked at the headline. Second, I'll agree to the opinion discounting deal as I feel as the same about yours.
GVC
Well-Known Member
More precisely, social media wasn't what it is now. The frequency of these militant authoritarian-Left events is not the only issue, however. With social media, the intensity of these events seems to be growing (at least in some cases), if only because of the sheer number of people who can get involved. Because extreme voices tend to be loud, active, stupid and uncompromising, it's incredibly important to defend liberal values in the age of social media.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I completely disagree. Dal used to be one of my favorite posters. I was very impressed with his maturity (for his age) and his ability to engage in productive discussion. I was always interested in his opinion even though I often disagreed. Now, more often than not, he comes off as angry and toxic. It's too bad. I hope he is eventually able to re-balance. I believe that he will.
Yeah, I think Dal has become more prone to the "You're dumb and your ideas are hardly even worth mocking" type of response. I hardly ever see him really lay out his argument because it seems he thinks it's all axiomatic and all the smart meaningful people already agree with him and everyone who doesn't is nearly evil in their stupidity.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Dal, have you been posting a lot more from a mobile device now that you are not in school as much? I used to envision you posting from a giant macbook pro that you carry around in a stupid hipster satchel, bit now I see you posting from an iPhone 5 that is too small to be thoughtful on.