Twitter!

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9025
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 10 Apr 2018, 11:06

Warren wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:54
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:15
Here's a great example of offensive lefty shit written by the EIC of a blog at The Root and columnist for GQ: https://verysmartbrothas .theroot.com/20-words-and-phrases-white-people-shouldnt-be-allowed-t-1825104474
Huh? I mean surely that's humor. Getting all "'offended'" at humor is part of the problem with the current state of public discourse.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device that serves a number of functions. The question is whether someone who wrote the reverse of this piece would be welcome as a columnist at GQ (or The Atlantic, or wherever).
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24588
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Twitter!

Post by Warren » 10 Apr 2018, 11:22

nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 11:06
Warren wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:54
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:15
Here's a great example of offensive lefty shit written by the EIC of a blog at The Root and columnist for GQ: https://verysmartbrothas .theroot.com/20-words-and-phrases-white-people-shouldnt-be-allowed-t-1825104474
Huh? I mean surely that's humor. Getting all "'offended'" at humor is part of the problem with the current state of public discourse.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device that serves a number of functions. The question is whether someone who wrote the reverse of this piece would be welcome as a columnist at GQ (or The Atlantic, or wherever).
Ah well. Perhaps not at GQ or The Atlantic, but possibly elsewhere. Then the question becomes, if someone wrote the reverse, what would the response from the left be?
Fuck DST sideways with a splintery fence post. - JD

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6693
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Twitter!

Post by tr0g » 10 Apr 2018, 11:28

Warren wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 11:22
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 11:06
Warren wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:54
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:15
Here's a great example of offensive lefty shit written by the EIC of a blog at The Root and columnist for GQ: https://verysmartbrothas .theroot.com/20-words-and-phrases-white-people-shouldnt-be-allowed-t-1825104474
Huh? I mean surely that's humor. Getting all "'offended'" at humor is part of the problem with the current state of public discourse.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical device that serves a number of functions. The question is whether someone who wrote the reverse of this piece would be welcome as a columnist at GQ (or The Atlantic, or wherever).
Ah well. Perhaps not at GQ or The Atlantic, but possibly elsewhere. Then the question becomes, if someone wrote the reverse, what would the response from the left be?
An attempt to get the person fired and make sure they never work again, duh.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16078
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Twitter!

Post by lunchstealer » 10 Apr 2018, 11:34

Warren wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:54
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 10:15
Here's a great example of offensive lefty shit written by the EIC of a blog at The Root and columnist for GQ: https://verysmartbrothas .theroot.com/20-words-and-phrases-white-people-shouldnt-be-allowed-t-1825104474
Huh? I mean surely that's humor. Getting all "'offended'" at humor is part of the problem with the current state of public discourse.
All righty then.

Would the reverse be funny? A white person telling a black person not to say things isn't mocking anything that deserves skewering, unless done INCREDIBLY well. This is kind of lazy comedy, but it's funny in its way. I often get sick of the whole 'the power divide means that black people can't be racist' but that doesn't mean that the power divide doesn't exist. So the rules are more relaxed for black people than they are for white people, because coded racism is a thing and mocking someone when he's relatively down is kinda shitty and usually not funny.

Yeah, there's a bit of a double standard, and that double standard probably errs on the side of oppressing white people. Boo fuckin' hoo. The world ain't fair, and it's been unfair in my direction long enough that I can live with a little bit going the other way.

It is in no way as offensive to me as calling for women to be hanged for abortions. If it'd been a one-off thing, I'd call it an expression of frustration and give whats-his-face a pass on it, but it seems like he kinda doubled down on it at the same time he lied about it and refused to own it to his bosses.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9025
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 10 Apr 2018, 11:46

I guess I also have to say...I am just not in any way offended by what Williamson said. I disagree with it completely, but I'm just not emotionally affected by it at all. I take it as part of a political-philosophical argument...not as a personal insult. Or maybe I'm just really inoculated against pro-life stuff at this point.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6256
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Twitter!

Post by Dangerman » 10 Apr 2018, 12:13

Yeah Jason, you just don't understand hyperbole. You. You're the one who doesn't understand. Into the woodchipper with you!

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12415
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Apr 2018, 12:38

nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 11:46
I guess I also have to say...I am just not in any way offended by what Williamson said. I disagree with it completely, but I'm just not emotionally affected by it at all. I take it as part of a political-philosophical argument...not as a personal insult. Or maybe I'm just really inoculated against pro-life stuff at this point.
That just may be if you're straight-facedly comparing "execute women who get abortions if we're killing murderers anyway" to a snarky list of "things white people can't say" that includes "moist" and "potato salad".

I mean, for real, Nicole and Jason, are you two actually being serious with this whole OMG the Blues are totally...almost... well, nearly just as bad as the Reds right now business? Because we've had people here go around the bend and end up yammering about things like white genocide, before; it's be nice to know that y'all are just fucking with us and not on that trajectory.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Twitter!

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 10 Apr 2018, 12:48

Germans make the best potato salad that I have had, though the potato superiority hypothesis suggests that the best potato salad is probably made in the Baltic states, by the whitest people of all.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26391
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 12:56

What is the Blue equivalent of Trump speaking at CPAC?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26391
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 13:01

KDW is one guy. The differences between Red and Blue are a lot bigger than just him.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9025
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 10 Apr 2018, 13:18

Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 12:38
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 11:46
I guess I also have to say...I am just not in any way offended by what Williamson said. I disagree with it completely, but I'm just not emotionally affected by it at all. I take it as part of a political-philosophical argument...not as a personal insult. Or maybe I'm just really inoculated against pro-life stuff at this point.
That just may be if you're straight-facedly comparing "execute women who get abortions if we're killing murderers anyway" to a snarky list of "things white people can't say" that includes "moist" and "potato salad".

I mean, for real, Nicole and Jason, are you two actually being serious with this whole OMG the Blues are totally...almost... well, nearly just as bad as the Reds right now business? Because we've had people here go around the bend and end up yammering about things like white genocide, before; it's be nice to know that y'all are just fucking with us and not on that trajectory.
I mean...I don't think "are Blues and Reds equally bad" is what we're talking about at all. The ESB analysis is "the right has triggering the libs as a goal, and the left doesn't have triggering the squares as a goal, so you shouldn't be surprised that the right ends up too offensive to be mainstream but the left doesn't." My problem with that analysis is mainly that Kevin Williamson's focus was not on triggering the libs. He spent far, far more time triggering the squares. He was...kind of unpopular on the right. I basically never saw him arguing about abortion with pro-choicers on Twitter, but I constantly saw him arguing about welfare for working class whites with Trumpkins.

And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety. The "mainstream" people doing the judging aren't some kind of unbiased group treating all sides equally, including most of the people on this thread.

And, no, I really do not think "abortion should be treated as a homicide" is like...I mean what am I supposed to think about it? That he wants to lynch me? That I should be afraid of him if we met in person? That would be absurd. That he doesn't respect me, that he wants to limit my rights, that he disagrees with my lifestyle? That's true of all pro-lifers. They're all around us. It's...I don't know, it's just the way life is. He's a pundit, he's not Duterte actually going around murdering people. He's playing a game.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26391
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 13:28

FWIW, I read Nicole as making points more specifically about KDW (typo fixed) and Jason reacting to more general points about Blue vs. Red. Maybe I'm misreading Jason, but Nicole's latest post seems consistent with my impression of her recent posts.

I'm open to the possibility that KDW (or any other individual) is not a perfect example of a more general trend; individuals gonna individuate, ya know? He is obviously extreme in his opinions, but I don't know enough about the rhetorical style with which he states those opinions. Maybe his rhetorical style (not to be confused with substance) is more matter-of-fact extreme than Ann Coulter "Look at me! I'm throwing bombs! See that bomb? I just threw it!" extreme. I don't follow him closely so I don't know.

But the broad trend of Red vs. Blue differences does not hinge on any one individual.

EDIT TO FIX TYPO
Last edited by thoreau on 10 Apr 2018, 13:42, edited 1 time in total.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Twitter!

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 10 Apr 2018, 13:37

Do you mean KDW?

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26391
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 13:42

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:37
Do you mean KDW?
Damn typos.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9025
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 10 Apr 2018, 14:13

thoreau wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:28
FWIW, I read Nicole as making points more specifically about KDW (typo fixed) and Jason reacting to more general points about Blue vs. Red. Maybe I'm misreading Jason, but Nicole's latest post seems consistent with my impression of her recent posts.

I'm open to the possibility that KDW (or any other individual) is not a perfect example of a more general trend; individuals gonna individuate, ya know? He is obviously extreme in his opinions, but I don't know enough about the rhetorical style with which he states those opinions. Maybe his rhetorical style (not to be confused with substance) is more matter-of-fact extreme than Ann Coulter "Look at me! I'm throwing bombs! See that bomb? I just threw it!" extreme. I don't follow him closely so I don't know.

But the broad trend of Red vs. Blue differences does not hinge on any one individual.

EDIT TO FIX TYPO
I think that's true though again I don't necessarily agree with the "triggering" part of the narrative. My personal take is that because mainstream advertisers are more comfortable with the center-left than any other position, that's what ends up being in mainstream publications, and people anywhere else on the spectrum, including all of the right, all of libertarianism, and the far left have to rely on the support of either donations or nonmainstream advertisers, which can lead all of these groups to be more extreme or trigger-happy. I don't really see the mainstream group as in "the middle" in some meaningful philosophical-political way.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12415
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Apr 2018, 14:57

nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:18
And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety.
OK. Let me put it this way to clarify: you and Jason keep citing left-wing things as "equally extreme" to given right-wing extremes...and your examples are, to be very blunt, not remotely as extreme.

How often do anti-gentrification protesters spend weeks protesting in front of realtor offices? How often do they chain themselves in the way of entrances? How often does some random anti-gentrifier walk up to the proprietor of a hipster art gallery and shoot them in the face? I submit that those things happen far less often than with pro-lifers.

You and Jason both make these genuinely bizarre equivalences, then claim there's a double standard applied to right-wingers because other people don't agree with your equivalences.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12415
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Apr 2018, 15:00

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 12:48
Germans make the best potato salad that I have had, though the potato superiority hypothesis suggests that the best potato salad is probably made in the Baltic states, by the whitest people of all.
Dammit, now I'm craving potato salad.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9025
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 10 Apr 2018, 15:27

Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 14:57
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:18
And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety.
OK. Let me put it this way to clarify: you and Jason keep citing left-wing things as "equally extreme" to given right-wing extremes...and your examples are, to be very blunt, not remotely as extreme.

How often do anti-gentrification protesters spend weeks protesting in front of realtor offices? How often do they chain themselves in the way of entrances? How often does some random anti-gentrifier walk up to the proprietor of a hipster art gallery and shoot them in the face? I submit that those things happen far less often than with pro-lifers.
Doesn't that suggest the pro-lifers are less extreme, since pro-lifers protesting in front of abortion clinics is a common fact of everyday life in a lot of places? And that one should treat an abortion clinic protester as more "normal" or "socially acceptable" than radical anti-gentrifiers? I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with the reference to frequency there.
Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 14:57
You and Jason both make these genuinely bizarre equivalences, then claim there's a double standard applied to right-wingers because other people don't agree with your equivalences.
I mean, the original argument by ESB was an argument made by someone on the left about how people on the right do this bad thing and people on the left don't, and the contention is "people on the left aren't being objective about the behavior of the left vs. the right." It's kind of all about people not agreeing about equivalences because none of us is objective.

I mean...let's go back to the ESB quote Jennifer posted on page 70:
You can get famous triggering libs, but if you're really good at it, well...it works? I understand concern over a lack of ideological diversity, being an ideological oddball myself. But I do whatever the opposite of trying to trigger people is, and, like it or not, that actually does make a difference in whether or not a person can be in the mainstream. ... So: we'd like ideological diversity in mainstream media, but rightwing media appears to encourage and/or demand a certain amount of liberal-triggering, which, if done successfully, well...causes liberals to not want to work with you.
Aside from my points about Kevin Williamson not really fitting this profile...Bruenig herself fits it at least as well! How do you think I even heard of her to begin with, because she triggered people at H&R and people on the right that I see on Twitter. I did not encounter Bruenig through people on the left, but through people who thought she was the absolute fucking worst. And I find her work totally obnoxious! But she's mainstream enough for WaPo. Fine -- but what's the actual difference between her and Williamson? They both piss off people on the other side. They both piss off people on their own side. They do it in different tones, but my personal taste strongly favors his over hers -- so is that it? If it's really simply "death penalty for abortion" specifically being beyond the pale, that strikes me as pretty niche considering we're chill with publishing neocons and other hawks all over the place.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22796
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jennifer » 10 Apr 2018, 15:44

JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 08:08
I don’t believe in 100% symmetry, but picking on an abortion stance doesn’t make any kind of point because those people think abortion is murder. Have always thought. Is nothing new. The scale is set so expressing that core belief is extreme in a way that no arbitrarily retarded lefty view is seen as extreme.

The lefty retardation gets an excuses machine built in that allows them to say whatever the fuck they want because of some combination of they are too stupid to know it’s harmful or punching up is always ok, or whatever. I find that tiresome.
I ask again: can you give specific examples of lefties being as bad? Who is the famous post-2000 professional lefty who argued anything equivalent to Michelle Malkin defending the roundup of Japanese-Americans? Or the equivalent of Ann Coulter, writing a book whose premise is that right-of-center Americans all commit treason? Who is the left-wing equivalent of Williamson calling for the state to not merely imprison but execute people who do a currently legal thing said lefty nonetheless disapproves of? You have offered no evidence at all that such people exist; all you do is cite the same assertions over and over again.

Eric's comparison to the alt-right is fearfully apt, for your arguments here are merely a [vastly] less-antagonistic verson of what Randian used to offer before he came out of the racist closet: "My prejudices are so self-evidently true I need not offer ANY evidence in support of them; when asked for evidence I merely repeat my assertion and get angry for being challenged."

You say the professional left wing is as toxic as the professional right with no evidence; Randian and his new ubermensch pals say white people are under attack by all the non-whites of the world with no evidence. You handwave away questions a la "Who specifically are these professonal lefties as bad as these right-wing notables, what specifically did they say," the alt-right handwaves away questons a la "If white men are so terribly oppressed in America, why do they still have the majority of wealth and power?" They don't need evidence, not when they just know certain things to be true. And they're probably sincere in the butthurt victimization they feel, when asked to provide proof. Just like you sincerely believe I'm being rude to you, and possibly even delusional, because I keep asking "Who are these modern left-wing notables who've repeatedly called for mass execution of their political enemies, or the mass roundup of Americans of a particular ethnicity, or other horrible things?"

And your first attempt to offer answers to that question was -- linking to articles by black writers who complain about the racist proclivities of Trump and some of his supporters? FFS, dude.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22796
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jennifer » 10 Apr 2018, 15:53

nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 15:27
Fine -- but what's the actual difference between her and Williamson? They both piss off people on the other side. They both piss off people on their own side. They do it in different tones, but my personal taste strongly favors his over hers -- so is that it? If it's really simply "death penalty for abortion" specifically being beyond the pale, that strikes me as pretty niche considering we're chill with publishing neocons and other hawks all over the place.
I can offer a possible answer, with a caveat: I'm not actually familiar with Bruenig's work, other than that Twitter thread I quoted here. (And IIRC I only posted it after Mo mentioned seeing it too.) So if Bruenig ever wrote/argued anything which contradicts my hypothesis, then I retract it.

Having said that: I think your question is answered by something Eric said upthread: "In my experience, though, Reds are more likely than Blues to believe policies they want will hurt some people and approve of that." WIlliamson's call for women to be legally treated as premeditated murderers, whether through hanging or long-term imprisonment, will undeniably hurt them (even if Williamson believes it's okay because those bad wimmin deserve to suffer.) Malkin's defense of mass internment based on ethnicity or religion will hurt those people who are interned, and she knows it. Joe Arpaio knew his shitty treatment of inmates made them miserable -- and you could tell he took a sadistic glee in doing so. Deportations hurt families of the deported, plus the deportees themselves -- the ICE cheerleaders know this.

Yes, even some/many Blue policies will, if enacted, result in people getting hurt in various ways. We-here all know this, because we're more likely that most people to actually think through the implications of things, for more than two seconds. But "hurting people" isn't the GOAL of the policies, merely the didn't-think-this-through outcome.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22796
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jennifer » 10 Apr 2018, 16:04

Thinking further, about "they know their policies will hurt people, and they WANT that" -- yes, that explains what I was trying to get at yesterday, when I made these two comments:
Jennifer wrote:
09 Apr 2018, 18:44
JasonL wrote:
09 Apr 2018, 17:19
I see very little difference between (Rtfa) the republican coalition including trump are white supremacists, gun owners and the NRA are terrorists, and women who get abortions are murderers.
Do you see any difference between "women who get abortions are murderers" and "women who get abortions should actually be hanged as murderers -- not as an ex post facto law, but certainly going forward form here"?

If not, do you at least understand that most people DO see a distinction -- including a lot of "abortion is murder" types who nonetheless were horrified by Williamson's comment?
And here:
Jennifer wrote:
09 Apr 2018, 19:05
Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Apr 2018, 17:44
That banning something means that people will suffer and die, that The Government can't wave a wand and make it so, is an issue that many Blues can't wrap their minds around.
To be fair, a lot of Reds can't either. Remember the "medical marijuana should remain illegal" legislator who got pissed off when I asked her how long a certain pot-smoking paraplegic professor should go to prison? She was a Republican. Or, for that matter, all the many, many "abortion is murder" types who still were horrified by Williamson's comments. It is not, strictly speaking, "hypocrisy" which makes people shy away from the ultimate implications of what they claim to want -- just as it isn't disingenuous or delusional to assure Jason that repeated references to "NRA terrorists" still aren't the same thing as "explicit calls for the state to execute members of the NRA."
The reason so many "abortion is murder, let's outlaw it" types still shy away from Williamson's "Okay, then, let's prosecute women who have abortions for premeditated murder" is the same as why that "keep medical marijuana illegal" legislator was so sincerely furious when asked how long the paraplegic pot smoker should go to prison -- and why "medical marijuana should be illegal" is considered far less offensive than explicitly saying "Anyone who smokes marijuana should go to prison, including these specific individuals here. Yes, put the paraplegic in jail, And Montel Williams. And all these cancer patients, too." Because the "let's ban it, but I don't wanna hurt anybody" people aren't being hypocrites, they simply didn't think this through. "If we ban medical marijuana, that simply means nobody will use it, right? Problem solved." "If we outlaw abortion, that simply means abortions will henceforth be totally unavailable, and no pregnant woman will seek to terminate her pregnancy ever again, right? Nobody will have to get hurt, especially if I don't think about this from the perspective of the pregnant rape victim or whatever, and I'm so convinced of this I sincerely get offended when you point out how many real-world people will be hurt by my proposals."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22625
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 16:23

I’m getting caught up, but I’ll reiterate, I don’t see nearly the difference Jennifer and Eric do. Calling people white nationalists for existing or picking the wrong candidate is definitely, 100% in the same neighborhood as saying women who get abortions are murderers comma not subject to capital punishment -IF you think abortion is murder. I don’t think one is more evidence of triggering mindset than the other.

There are differences. The current right will say things they don’t believe if it makes people mad. The left wants extreme renderings of things they do believe. The severity of extreme language is not among them.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22625
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 16:27

What I see here is we like abortions a lot but don’t care about targets of lefty shitttalk as much so one kind of language gets most lenient reading and the other does not.

Agree with Nicole that duh abortion protestors don’t like abortion of course that’s part of public discourse.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22625
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 16:29

It doesn’t count if you trigger the right people.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22796
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jennifer » 10 Apr 2018, 19:09

JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 16:23
I’m getting caught up, but I’ll reiterate, I don’t see nearly the difference Jennifer and Eric do. Calling people white nationalists for existing or picking the wrong candidate is definitely, 100% in the same neighborhood as saying women who get abortions are murderers comma not subject to capital punishment -IF you think abortion is murder.
Can you name and quote the paid professional left-wingers who call people white nationalists simply for "existing," as you have asserted here? (FWIW, the alt-right completely agrees with your complaint there: according to them, merely existing and being white is all it takes to be accused of racism! Which is why white people HAVE to band together in the alt-right, for mutual protection, because American society is so dreadfully biased against us white folks.) Can you name the left-wing Coulter/Malkin/Limbaugh equivalents who make these claims? Or is the existence of such people another one of those things you just know to be true, even if you can't name them? The alt-righters mostly blame this on "the Jews," whereas you lay the blame with "left-wingers," I take it? Only you can't actually name who they are.

Also, have you names and quotes of professional left-wing people who actually called people white nationalists "for picking the wrong candidate," as you also asserted here? (Mind you, that's not quite the same thing as, for example, Coates expressing concern over Candidate Trump's explicitly racist comments, and the sort of people who actually support Trump for making such comments.) More importantly, are there professional left-wing people who not only said anyone who voted for not-Hillary must be a white nationalist, but seriously argued that in future they should be imprisoned, or killed, or stripped of their right to vote, or any other "The government should actually take rights away from millions of my fellow Americans here" argument?

There is, admittedly, the "hate speech should not be covered by the first amendment" crowd -- those people exist in verifiable reality, not merely in one's assumptions, most of them tend to be left-of-center, and they can utter this opinion for the most part without professional consequences (though if any of them had said "people who engage in hate speech should be hanged," I daresay it would've turned out differently).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest