I think it is too late to get back to the other tread, so I figured I would join you in this one.
You don’t think that this has more to do with the impact of globalism and automation on the opportunities these gamers and others used to have? I don’t believe that in general age brings about a political view. I think that people can be given and led through certain narratives, given a language that create new ways of viewing the world they inhabit. This goes both ways, from the creation of terms like “microaggression” by an academia dominated by psychology-babble to the “alternative facts” being created as we speak.
So let me see if I understand your meaning here-- “homophobia” is held as a serious offense because it was received and internalized in a way the other terms could not? If so, very interesting. I think that, as you argued previously, this may also have to do with the arbitrarity of these terms. “Homophobia” had a moment when it was the accepted and academic way of describing something that was recognized over time. “Transphobe” is just not a thing for me when you have the perfectly understandable “homophobia”. It used to be the “LGBT” community, now it is the “LGBTQ” without so much as a discussion about the “Q”–but you can lose your job over it, that’s for damn sure.
I think you give to much credit to human reason here. I think that these terms often come as accusations and so they point a finger either at you or from you and so one is prone to defend the terms on much more than just the facts, especially since the facts are often hypotheses about other minds. If it was a mere consideration, discussion, then the result should not always be a rejection of the SJW idea. But the discussion is ties to a self-identity and so, sure, rejection (and rationalization of that rejection) is the normal course.
That does sound quite liberal. I believed it was Freudians that believed in having a psychologist for themselves. There is a similar ingredient in your quest for self-examination which is the assumption that the mind can be laid bare, its contents identified and categorized as X, Y, and Z, and rightfully, in my opinion, you place this as a question, as a problem.
But wait a second Ucci-- Is there really that much distance between you and a SJW? You should be able to defend a site wrongly described as “hatespace” to most people, even if not to the SJW. But just as the SJW stands at one end of the equation, surely you recognize that there really might be some sites rightfully described as “hatespace”, fringe movements of people without any self-awareness, or desire for self-examination (as problematic as that itself might be). Bill Maher is a liberal-- doesn’t mean that he could not agree with you about P.C. bullshit.
Reinterpreted maybe. But what is man made of? Literature? Maybe you and I are different on this sort. I wasn’t an avid reader in school. I read to get a grade, not because I enjoyed it. I believe that YouTube would be a better tool to find the origins of our current national controversies. The Mighty Roman Catholic Church was mighty because it controlled information. The creation of television and the internet, and cable tv, increased exponentially the levels of information one would be exposed to. In pushing the envelope, niches where created where once there had been a meta-narrative. Once, romances described as “fairy tale romance”, meaning that printed narratives informed, or suggested ways to interpret one’s life events (the romance). Today others interpret their particular life as gay adopting again available narratives (Ellen, Modern Family, etc).
I served in the military during the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and it was controversial because it changed nothing, leaving the alternative life-style in the shadows. Today LGBTQ defenders equal their struggle with civil rights-- this in the short span of 25 years. There was no discussion, deliberation, controversy-- one day it simply became a norm in some circles creating automatic enemies in others. I believe that the Supreme Court has avoided being a final authority on many issues and thus the Nation cannot move on to a new universal status quo. We are left “divided”.
I agree and that is what is worrisome. Civil rights, as envisioned by MLKJr were about meritocratic values, consistent with the Constitution’s value that “all men are created equal”. White Nationalism, to be clear, is not always about racism but also about racialism. But that narrative that tells young white males that they are better by virtue of accident rather than merit is dangerous because it could lead to a decline in in self-improvement, instead promoting a sense of entitlement that without merit, would only be satisfied by other means.
I don’t fully agree. One can say Nazism is horrible-- doesn’t mean that you are a defender of human rights (Arendt), or that you don’t support, in turn, something as horrible and vile like Communism (Sartre), even while serving as part of the progressives genealogy. I believe that too many times people are consuming information rather than learning proper critical thinking. What is historical fact is replaced by an idea of it that bears little resemblance in order to maintain the name without any reference to what it used to mean. Achilles’ ship, except that the refurbished ship is now a little boat. Ben Carson has compared slavery with Obama care and recently to immigration. What will be next? I take it from all of this that for him slavery is the worst thing he can think of, and I get that, but he has made many mistakes because slavery DOES have a meaning that is contrary to some of his political points imbedded in the comparisons. Very often there is no tradition. We are more worried about kids being taught about evolution than about slavery. But again this goes back to the SJW situation and how certain things cannot be viewed objectively because they cause psychological discomfort because an invisible finger is pointed at you just as it is pointed at others. When (if) the time comes that the sons of former slaves sit together with the sons of former slavers at the table of brotherhood it will be because they have found a greater narrative that defines and unites them (like “american”) rather than because they forgot their history
I disagree in that you are placing a phenomenon that you have traced all the way back to the 1970’s squarely under the responsibility (and authority?) of one side of the political spectrum. Really? I don’t think that a phenomenon as old can be reduced to the activity of progressives or the media, especially since the GOP today is more different today than the Democrats in the 1970’s. Just because some are being called “nazis” does not mean that they are victims. What else is going on? I wish, seriously, that people would study Hitler, and WW2, more so that they could better discuss what constitutes or why something is not, nazi. Just to use that example.
Someone, some man, might have grown up believing that women are usually the ones who are mistreated by men. And he also thinks that he is special, a good guy, compared to other men. The thing is, he is not special, he is just one dope among many who bought into this idea that women are generally mistreated by men, that that’s the issue, the worthwhile concern for society at large. Most other men think the same way he does because they all have been taught to think that way. That man is also taught that many men don’t think the way he does, that he is indeed special for being one of the good guys.
Same thing with racism, I am one of the good white boys who is not a racist, I’m sensitive to their issues and all that.
You gotta give people something to redeem themselves.
First you tell them they or their kind have this original sin and then you give them a way how to redeem themselves. That’s the behaviour which is then deemed virtuous.
So why does the muh racism s(h)tick not work anymore, except among those liars who are gaining from it in some way or form?
1)Because there are no ways to redeem yourself anymore for most white boys. So no carrot anymore.
2)The hypocrisy has become increasingly obvious - You can’t sell yourself as the poor victim very well if you commit too many hate crimes yourself, even if the media tries to hide it and play it down. (see rise of social media and fake news hysteria)
3)Spreading of diversity to formerly homogeneous white communities who actually believed the lies about racial equality because they had not enough real personal experience with it themselves.
People don’t buy into the muh racism shtick anymore because it doesn’t work for them anymore.
Same with something like feminism. Even women are increasingly turning their back on it because it doesn’t work for them anymore.
It’s like with a pyramid scheme, there comes a time where there are more losers than winners in it and then it loses its appeal for newcomers.
I can mostly agree with that. This all works via media. There is still a huge interest in feminism (comparable with all kinds of socialism). If feminism get’s lost, a certain power get’s lost too, albeit this power is not and has never been a female power.
Truth is, purporters of equality don’t bring about a world of equality.
Not that that would be a worthwhile ideal anyway but the world is not even moving towards it.
It’s just that they try to hamper and destroy those who they have been taught to hate, which is their betters. And frankly a lot of those betters are found among the Europeans. That, and it’s the better Europeans who they are exposed to. They are those who remind them daily of their feelings of inferiority.
We could say that all this equality screaming is going to bring about a world with more acid attacks (I’ll spare you the pictures), more child molestations and so on…
But, we should also not forget that it’s Europeans who brought about the abomination of the shitlib. And if you put that on the scales… Well, I guess we still have to go with promoting Europeans and their proliferation. Hey, it’s not perfect and we need a different eugenics program, counter to what brought forth the shitlib but it’s still better than the other options. The word is, superior.
Where Im from which is gayparade central you have faggots and transgenders that come out but guys who are gay but still want to seem male they dont come out ever. Everyone knows this friend of a friend is hyper gay…but he keeps getting girlfriends. But one day I decided to talk to him about gayness and he began trashing the bar and ran out and his friend said he has never seen him like this. He is gay.
Did you only talk to him about gayness or were you gay with him?
…Which made him violently reject your advances, starting to ’trash’ that bar.
LOL,
Just kidding,
… I guess…
When you are open about gayness, even open for gayness, then you will probably feel that there is nothing wrong with your homosexual practices and the mindset which accompanies that.
So when you come across somebody who disapproves of homosexual acts and all the faggot mindset surrounding it then you will probably have a more difficult time to relate to this.
“What could anybody find disgusting about homosexual practices?”, thinks such a person.
So, what’s great about the “closet homosexual who disapproves of homosexuals” narrative is that you find a convenient way to explain away what you can’t and/or won’t relate to. And more importantly, you get to be clever and put the other on the defensive. It’s the joys of a defiler.
As for the cases of something like hyper-masculinity - If somebody falls into the category of hyper-masculinity then I find it reasonable to assume that they are very self-conscious about their masculine appearance in a social setting and since the “closet homosexual” narrative is quite prevalent, at least in popular appearance, I suspect that most men who’d fall into the hyper-masculine category would play the “I’m so secure in my masculinity, I’d even perform homosexual acts as proof of my feeling secure as a man” angle.
I’m gonna refrain from making my “You know why people hate Nazis?” joke now.
But maybe you meant something else, who knows.
Thanks for raising this issue though.
Hi Ys de Open are you a postmodernist? I am not. So try to make real, bio-sense.
I would not stick it inside your shriveled wormhole, but that dont make me gay. It just makes me tasteful. And maybe it hurts you, but I am not a Democrat, I dont believe you are entitled to good feelings just because you are a woman, or black, or gay, or transgender, or just plain atrocious to look at.
Don’t edit your posts when I’m in the middle of my reply.
Merit…
That’s that cohenservative talking point.
Are you a fellow cuckservative like me, J.?
Well then it’s alright, Jack.
As long as the merit of being a merry faggot will suffice, I’m fine with your merit plea.
Merit, lol. Based on our faggot values of radical inclusiveness.
But hey, at least you are not a Democrat. Gives you brownshirt points with me…
No, it doesn’t.,
And let all the worms flow forth from your canned good-s.
At the moment a very common attack on White Identitarians who oppose immigration is to say, “You just don’t like the competition.”
While what it actually means is, “You just don’t like to be an atomised individual competing with an assembled collective opposing you.”
You have to compete as an atomised individual with no group identity.
You demoralise your enemy by saying he should be an atomised individual and see himself without having a group or he should think on such a large scale, like humanity, to include the enemy in his own group.
Both have the same effect.
The reality is competing groups because assembling as a group provides advantages. Both angles of attack are designed to disrupt the opposing group.
Same line of attack is the “Us Vs Them” thinking.
It’s about disrupting the opposition.
The cuckservative has internalised this virtue of group disassembly.
We shouldn’t expect any of those cuckservatives to come around about their suicide pact. They have been on that ideological trajectory for much too long.
Posterity will judge them as incredible dummies or as traitors, depending on their affiliations.
What’s especially hilarious about this thread is the way alt-rightist Uccisore is lumping ‘the Left’ altogether in the exact same way he accuses ‘the Left’ of doing.
Almost like he has no self-awareness at all. But then, this is a person who previously argued that because these black people over here committed some crimes that it’s ok for the police to shoot those black people over there who didn’t commit any crime.
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen a real schism since the Brexit/Trump votes between neoliberals (who are centrists, not leftists, but the alt-right calls them alternately ‘liberals’ and ‘cultural Marxists’ as though those two are one and the same) and socialists. Most socialists don’t give a toss about identity politics, and see the damage it has done to the left. Most neoliberals have simply said ‘OMG!!!’ on a loop because they were so blinkered they didn’t realise this could happen.
But even that isn’t as lame as the alt-right, a movement which is dying on its arse ever since its de facto leader (a gay Greek sociopath immigrant) outed himself as an apologist for paedophiles.
But please Ucci, tell me more about how the Right understands the reality of sex and gender. While giving their friends zero jail time for raping their 2 year old stepdaughter, and the like…
Why aren’t I just regular right? Why alt? I was on the right decades before the term even existed.
See, right off the bat you’ve just established that ‘alt-right’ is nothing more than a slur liberals use to denigrate and silence anybody they don’t care for. This sets the stage for exactly what I’m talking about. If you want to consider any ideas that aren’t liberal dogmatism, you’re branded the worst kind of bigot. So if somebody was curious about my ideas,and all they had to go on was somebody like you, they’d Google ‘alt-right’, and suddenly,
thanks to you
They’re reading about Richard Spencer instead of Russel Kirk. And that, I propose, is why the far right is on the rise.
That’s the point of my thread here; by the actions you take in which you declare everybody to the left of Rawls is a nazi, you make it impossible for people to explore moderate and conservative ideas without conflating them with the far right.
So you do get it, then. The part that you’re missing, though, since you didn’t think about what I wrote or probably even read it is that if a liberal is lumped together with people he disagrees with, all he needs to do to sort it out is take any high school social studies course, attend any university, watch any news channel, visit any subreddit, or subscribe to any social media.
Where?
Socialism is identity politics. It just assigns idenity by economic status instead of biology.
But that’s not what this thread is about. You seem to be somebody with a chip on his shoulder about some past conversation. COnsidering you have 7 posts in your history, I guess that makes you somebody that got banned once before, right?
Once there was a clever wench, or so she thot at least.
She came to me and whispered in my ear.
“You are just like the thing you hate!”
I asked her then, “Who is it that I hate?”
“You hate your rivals, you hate those who you fight!”, she said with a grin on her face.
“Aye”, I said, trying to sound like a man from the hills in the North.
“Let them be strong like me and worthy of my hate.”
“Speak! Do you hate those who are like you?”
The wench replied, “I am a flower like none other. I am beyond reproach! None shall have power over me with their words!”
Then I grabbed her face with my palm and pushed her away and laughed at her.
Moral of the story - Don’t take people seriously when they say you are just like your enemy, just like your political opponent, just like your rival, whatever. Just a silly attempt at basic bitch manipulation.
I am like my enemies? I hope not, let’s hope I am like my enemy times 10 to make my victory count.
Another parlour trick is the “I’m not this and not that, I defy all labels” BS.
Broken people who have given up and try to play it cheap, that’s all.
Btw. this Michael Jackson imitation reminds me of the Colonel from the Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets.
Huh, so my enemies are authoritative and have a vision for society.
I guess I have to cuck out and not stand up to them, else I might end up being just like them.
Checkmate for me there.
Michael Jackson, Uccisore isn’t alt-right he is at best alt-light. Milo Yiannopolous, the flamboyant race-mixing faggot the leader of the alt-right? You’re a fucking retard. And Trump isn’t anywhere near being alt-right.
I am alt-right. Alt-right is: Gas the kikes. Race war now, kill all niggers. Hitler did nothing wrong. I’m not a holocaust denier, I’m a holocaust wisher - I wish holocaust happened. THAT IS ALT-RIGHT.
If Milo was alt-right he wouldn’t be a fag sucking nigger dick, would he? And if Trump was alt-right he would have gassed the kikes and exterminated niggers already, or at least started both of these processes, wouldn’t he? But he didn’t, so fuck off.
Trump is just another neocuck. Milo is a liberal, obviously. You can’t be all this and claim to be alt-right, or even a basic conservative:
I’m sure the people running ILP are proud that this is now the level of political discussion you’ve engendered by putting a bigoted, nasty, sexually frustrated loser in charge of the politics forum. But I’ve had my fun, so I’m leaving now. Just thought I’d check in and see if things had descended to an even lower level than the last time I popped in here, and they have.
Seriously, I’d just shut this place down if it were up to me. It’s become just another cesspool where underemployed white guys who can’t get laid blame homosexuality, feminism and the Left for their personal failings in life. Admittedly, that’s about 30% of the internet at this point in time, but there’s no good reason to give these people a platform under the banner of philosophy…
