In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
jace, that's not a denunciation of science, not remotely, especially when you read the whole thing. so you're just making yourself look more like a partisan hack again (note making your self look like is different from being); rather than looking at the details and complications in the underlying science. please go back and read the earlier pages way back when we went over this issue in depth.
as you chose only a tiny part of my statement to argue with; i'll take that as you conceding on all the other points I'd raised.
if you want to do a lot of reading on the topics in generla I can point you to a couple things; but I assume you're not interested in that.
On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote: Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that.
The point of Antifa is to dress in all black with masks, and assault people that they arbitrarily label as "white supremacists". People on the left don't need a wing of thugs when protesting.
I don't like Neo-Nazis at all, and I absolutely think their views are abhorrent, along with the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, and so on. Despite this, I have never said that any individual or any group should ever be banned from public discourse or have their views censored. As long as there is no intent to commit acts of violence, I also have no problem with Antifa protesting. Same with all these right-wing groups. Same with the Westboro Baptist Church.
If the larger picture, from an Antifa standpoint, is to create an atmosphere of intimidation for right-wing groups -- as Antifa alleges that right-wing groups do for marginalized groups of people -- then they themselves are becoming that which they hate. Not everyone accused of being a 'white supremacist' is a white supremacist. Therefore, what Antifa is doing is creating a larger specter of terror for conservatives, libertarians, and even centrists, who question the motives and political stances of the far-left.
If an idea is inherently 'bad', it should be able to be broken down in a public forum easily. However, from my personal experience, the people I've seen on the far-left are unable to express or debate an idea in a public forum without resorting to personal insults, and simply declaring their opposition to be uneducated. Such condescension does not fare well in an open debate. I will not, of course, say that right-wingers don't also sink to the same level of mud-slinging without making any actual point, but I often find that right-wingers will attempt to explain (even if what they are saying sounds utterly insane to me) why they believe what they believe. An actual white supremacist will take the time to send me a link to Justice Department statistics for crime among African-Americans to attempt to make their point that black people are inherently more crime-prone. Naturally, while I disagree, and would put forth a counter-argument, the fact of the matter is that they bothered to back their view up with evidence or what they believe to be evidence. Yes, I have had arguments with conservatives where they just go "Get educated" and ask me about my level of education, and "I bet you think communism is good", but the discourse I have had with the far-left has been virtually non-existent, because they refuse to debate.
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion.
In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
@ zlefin: The rest of your statement was nonsensical. I had literally just said that they fired him because of the bad press and that I am criticizing the press for this and you respond to that by saying "You are wrong he was fired because of bad press". I assume you misread me.
On August 17 2017 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Also, possibly, worth noting. Pence is leaving his International Tour early to attend a meeting at Camp David.
Weird... no?
Yes. That is very weird. I'm expecting Bannon might be out.
On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote: In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
On August 17 2017 02:58 Jacenoob wrote: @ zlefin: The rest of your statement was nonsensical. I had literally just said that they fired him because of the bad press and that I am criticizing the press for this and you respond to that by saying "You are wrong he was fired because of bad press". I assume you misread me.
well, then I don't get whta you're saying nideed. if you agree he was fired for causing the company trouble, then i'm not sure why you brougth up all the irrelevant nonsense claims about leftists/liberals; which were fairly nonsensical smear campaign claims you made. so, upon review, yeah, I do get what you ewre saying, and you're not paying attention to your own points; and stop claiming nonsense about liberal media. go and reread your statement:
"They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous."
the bad press isn't the fault of the press, it's because the guy is kindof a jerk. you're improperly blaming the press for the fact that what he did looked bad. and making spurious claims of it being a campaign. you're just engaging in the nonsense victimhood narrative; and claiming some vile "liberal" effort against him.
On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote: In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
farva had a great sartre quote about that, actually
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
there is precious little honest debate to be had with some people.
On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote: In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
I'm not going to argue the point as it pertains to fascists, the KKK, and Nazis, but you have no real basis for lumping the Alt Right in there. It'd be like me arguing that everyone on the Left is a communist just because there happen to be some communists on the Left. It's intellectually lazy at best. And to Nina's point, and contrary to popular belief, there is quite a bit to talk about intellectually as it pertains to the Alt Right. Vox Day came up with one of the better formulations of what it is with his 16 points:
The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Now, how many of those are compatible with National Socialism? Would it surprise you that he refers to Nazis/fascists as "Alt Reichtards" and even rejects the idea that Nazis are on the right at all?
On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote: In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
It's becoming tough nowadays. Normally journalists could easily push those far right movements out of the political field by asking them simple questions which would expose their non sense. Now that people have a disdain towards journalism and prefer to directly watch what the far right produces through their own medias without them being confronted to their contradictions, it's risky to simply ignore them. We need some tools to show people how wrong they are, not simply telling them to shut up because it's too easy to have a voice with our modern technologies.
On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote: In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
I'm not going to argue the point as it pertains to fascists, the KKK, and Nazis, but you have no real basis for lumping the Alt Right in there. It'd be like me arguing that everyone on the Left is a communist just because there happen to be some communists on the Left. It's intellectually lazy at best. And to Nina's point, and contrary to popular belief, there is quit a bit to talk about intellectually as it pertains to the Alt Right. Vox Day came up with one of the better formulations of what it is with his 16 points:
The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Now, how many of those are compatible with National Socialism? Would it surprise you that he refers to them as "Alt Reichtards" and even rejects the idea that Nazis are on the right at all?
Xdaunt, I’ve been following the rise of the “alt-right” since 2014, well before you were ever aware of it. They are just the rebranding of the KKK, Nazis and other anti-democratic groups in the US. And to be honest, its been a real bummer to see how sold themselves as just another political view points to conservatives like yourself. I know that was their plan, but it is really troubling how effective it has been. There is no debate with these folks, including Bannon. They don’t respect our system of democracy.
I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example.
But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him!
I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point.
A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions.
The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them.
He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it.
This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize:
Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him."
Welcome to corporate life.
The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him.
They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous.
Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home.
He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries.
But you see, if we replaced women with “blacks” that memo becomes super racist and no one would argue that he should be fired. So I feel safe in saying that it is super sexist.
Well, except that if you replaced women with "blacks", you couldn't find the scientific papers to back it up (independently on whether or not you believe these to be reliable or not).