The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:27 pm

Santiago Odo wrote: in fact I am not sure about it, but my understanding is that if we accept that 9/11 was an engineered social and economic engineering project, as it certainly appears to have been (though I do not understand how to see it), it seems smart to say that there is noting 'they' will not stop at to maintain control of The Present.

I am also unsure but it definitely does seem that way, nevertheless people like Diebert seem to be anti-conspiracy theory, against any true consideration of something like this, hence why this comment went unmentioned.

Why?

Because the fact is that if one admits it as likely, they must also admit that everything coming from the mainstream media surrounding political parties and government agencies likely hold no legitimacy and should be considered fake bullshit stemming from psychopaths from the get go, and this entire political debate and the relevance of Trump (which people are heavily invested in due to the controversial ideological issues involved) is all nonsense and it would be insane to believe the political stage (such as Trump Vs Hillary) is 'real'.

Considering this topic and related evidence realistically and 'publicly' is the very same thing as considering that they have been fooled by such socio-engineering, were too ignorant to see it, and have essentially been brainwashed. Can't have that now can we? Therefore real consideration of these topics, or other apparent deceptions and 'curiosities', must all be thrown into the 'loony bin' and near-cartoon characters such as Trump must be taken as the 'real'.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:51 pm

David Quinn wrote:Can you clarify what you mean by this?
I've already explained this many times, so I am repeating myself.

I am pro freedom of speech, and anti authoritarian.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:58 pm

David Quinn wrote:As the anti-SJW crowd are finding out, trying to bully women into submission is not going to work
So you obviously believe that women are being bullied by anti-SJWs, such as myself.

Can you provide any evidence that this is happening, or is this just something you believe on faith?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:09 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Can you clarify what you mean by this?
I've already explained this many times, so I am repeating myself.

I am pro freedom of speech, and anti authoritarian.
Sorry, you must have misunderstood. I was asking you this question:
  • You are creating the impression that you have become part of an extreme revolutionary movement that seeks the destruction of the liberal establishment - not just the fringe groups in the extreme left, but the entire structure which forms the basis of modern society. Is that correct? Are you at war with modern society itself? Are you saying that you would prefer to see things return to the Middle Ages rather than continue in the current manner?

    The last time Western civilization was in the grip of fundamentalist Christianity (i.e. Europe in the Middle Ages), it took centuries for us to climb out of that particular hole. Anyone who tried to promote rationality within the culture was quickly persecuted. Galileo was ex-communicated; Bruno was burnt at the stake; Darwin, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were mocked and vilified by the Christian establishment. Indeed, the whole edifice that we call modern Western civilization was created by many brilliant men who sacrificed themselves for the sake of truth and greater rationality. Are you wanting to dismantle what they have built?

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:15 pm

David Quinn wrote:You are creating the impression that you have become part of an extreme revolutionary movement that seeks the destruction of the liberal establishment
No I'm not. You are projecting.

I am liberal myself, believing in freedom of speech, so I wouldn't be trying to destroy anything liberal.

I am however opposed to the culture of the SJWs and the authoritarian left.

I am not opposed to the libertarian left.

Not just the fringe groups in the extreme left, but the entire structure which forms the basis of modern society.
Modern society was based on principles like freedom of speech and freedom of individual expression, but that has changed and is becoming worse by the day. Society is now moving towards greater authoritarianism and less freedom of speech, and I am strongly opposed to that movement.

Are you at war with modern society itself?
Modern society is not a singular entity, but is composed of many different cultures. I'm obviously not against all of modern society - only the worst parts of it.

Are you saying that you would prefer to see things return to the Middle Ages
I repeat what I said previously. I believe that all people should have freedom of speech and freedom of individual expression. Do you believe that all people had these things in the Middle Ages?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:20 am

David Quinn wrote: The last time Western civilization was in the grip of fundamentalist Christianity (i.e. Europe in the Middle Ages), it took centuries for us to climb out of that particular hole. Anyone who tried to promote rationality within the culture was quickly persecuted. Galileo was ex-communicated; Bruno was burnt at the stake; Darwin, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were mocked and vilified by the Christian establishment.
Sorry David, that is alternative fringe history which you just insert here to back up your weak position on this matter. No serious historian, atheist or Christian, will back you up on this vision. Galileo was actually free to publish any hypothesis and the Church promoted science like no other body at the time! The reason of why it ended like it did with the Church were a bit more complex and partly caused by his own more political attacks in other works. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were not inhibited to publish their ideas, neither was Darwin, neither was Galileo! And Bruno was burned for his pretty wild theology, as is generally accepted these days, not for his science or reasoning.

Contrast that with a world where publication of new ideas might come to a halt! Where a Nietzsche would be banned from social media, receive multiple death threads, receive fines etc. That's the world you seem so willing to defend, confusingly.
Indeed, the whole edifice that we call modern Western civilization was created by many brilliant men who sacrificed themselves for the sake of truth and greater rationality. Are you wanting to dismantle what they have built?
It's way more seriously being dismantled by people who talk authoritatively about subjects without much knowledge. A minor example: Donald Trump.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:38 am

David Quinn wrote:If you mean that Trump will happily allow himself to become a lame duck president, that is not going to happen either.
Please reread the part where I said that the quote is six months old, i.e., from February when you first descended on us with diatribes about how Trump and the "Breitbart philosophy" will engulf the world in unprecedented terror and chaos. Are you a fan of scifi/fantasy? It seems your worldview is informed entirely by epic stories about ad hoc forces of light, dark, light-grey, dark-grey and grey. Very cute when expressed by fake-breasted votaries of fantasy novels/authors, but shravaks not so much.

Trump was always a lame duck president, like all the lame duck presidents before him. The face of certain lobbies/special interests with no independent goal of his own. The reason you still won't acknowledge that is because Kevin isn't validating your precious opinions about current affairs.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:57 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:My primary source for media information is Twitter.
The same source that the mainstream media uses.
It's as though you're saying something, and yet, not. I can only assume your experience with, and use of, Twitter is limited. It's all about who you follow. The variety of access to information is not matched by anything like Twitter. It's especially useful as a means by which to circumvent the 24/7 news cycle where information of import gets buried before it's even had a proper life. Breitbart stories not on their front page. Democracy Now and PBS reports of very significant State news that the majors don't report. What politicians and pundits are actually saying. It's endless but does not amount to infoxication for someone with half a brain in their head.
Even then, if the source says that 2 + 2 = 4, the media will report that 2 + 2 = 5. That's what they call "informed reporting".
This level of cynicism is simply irrational.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:16 pm

Dan Rowden wrote: The variety of access to information is not matched by anything like Twitter. It's especially useful as a means by which to circumvent the 24/7 news cycle where information of import gets buried before it's even had a proper life.
That's what Trump discovered as well and exactly the reason of why he claims to use it as he does! Twitter of course illustrates the truncated form of information mud sling which is the hallmark of foaming alt-right just as much as SJW, 15 year old girls, transsexuals, gender activists etc.

And yes, I'm actually on Twitter with way more followers than you ;-) But I hate most of it and I use it only for quicker updates and varied feedback on one specific topic. It doesn't seem like a good resource at all for any widening understanding or the world! Especially because one surrounds oneself way too easily with self-similarity. A personalized cult of ideas is created! If anything Twitter is at best a chaotic type of barometer for a short-attention span society. The medium has become indeed the message: the shallowing.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:49 pm

How you use Twitter is little different to how you use Google if you're looking for validation. I'm not going to bother arguing for use of Twitter because if you're using it 'properly' you know how useful it is.

How most people use it is irrelevant to this discussion.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:57 am

https://crowdsondemand.com/

Are you looking to create a buzz anywhere in the United States? At Crowds on Demand, we provide our clients with protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events and other inventive PR stunts. These services are available across the country in every major U.S city, every major U.S metro area and even most smaller cities as well. We provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas. You can come to us with a specific plan of action and we can make it happen. OR, you can approach us with a general idea and we can help you plan the strategy then execute it.

We’ve made campaigns involving hundreds of people come to action in just days. We have a proven record of delivering major wins on even the toughest campaigns and delivering phenomenal experiences with even the most logistically challenging events.


(Self) testimonials:

Impressions for a Software Company
Applications:
-Corporate Publicity Events

A medium sized software security company hired Crowds on Demand to generate attention at a technology conference in San Francisco. They wanted their logo prominently placed within the conference, but without having to pay the high price tag of event sponsorship. We came up with the idea of greeting conference attendees arriving at SFO Airport with people holding signs with the company’s logo. Well-dressed performers held up the company’s logo for three full days at every terminal. In addition, Crowds on Demand performers held banners outside the convention center. Our unique approach generated far more impressions than event sponsorship at less than one tenth of the price. The software company received widespread attention at their booth, at the conference, and an article in an industry publication.

Publicity for a Start-up
Applications:
-Corporate Publicity Events
-Political Rallies
-Public Relations

A start-up digital media advertising firm, hired Crowds on Demand to build hype at the Advertising Week Conference in New York City. They wanted a catchy campaign that would grab attention in a way that would focus on their product, an alternative to Internet banner advertisements. Together, we developed a plan for a protest against banner ads, featuring 50 protesters holding signs. The rally was held in front of the conference center on the opening day of the conference and featured speeches from executives. The event led to a popular hashtag, industry media coverage and an increase in sales of 500 percent immediately following the conference.

Bringing a New Vodka Brand to Market
Applications:
-Corporate Publicity
-Celebrity PR
-Paparazzi/A-list Experience
-Public Relations

A start-up vodka brand hired Crowds on Demand to generate more buzz and thus break into selling product at bars and nightclubs. First, we focused on developing celebrity appeal for the product by surrounding the founder by paparazzi and organizing event sponsorships at nightclubs in Miami and Los Angeles. Second, we created a YouTube series involving models who were aspiring entrepreneurs. They were mentored by the founder as they navigated the challenges of alcohol sales. The models learned how to build up their own businesses and sell products through this process. These tactics led the brand to break into being sold in the urban nightclub market in Los Angeles and Miami. The YouTube series is now being adapted into a pilot to pitch television networks.

VIP Gala
Applications:
-Galas
-Employee Recognition
-Paparazzi/A-list Experience

A high-end event planning firm hired Crowds on Demand to add flair to a red-carpet gala at a luxury hotel in Miami. We put together a scene complete with paparazzi and fans to give attendees at the gala a celebrity flair. Guests were complimented on their attire and given HD photos as a souvenir of the occasion.


I can confirm this is totally legit because acquaintance of mine actually works in a similar field, except it deals with publicity erasure rather than creation. Basically, he's your man if you become more fabulous than you'd care to be.

There is also something to be said here about the relationship between the rise of SJW-ism vs anti-SJW-ism within a bubble that can only sustained in an (physically and socially/legally) unsustainable bubble of post-industrial decadence. As far as I can see SJW-ism and much of self-conscious social democrat/progressive ideology will simply disappear as economic conditions change and no one has any reason to believe in or study their nonsense anymore. Their "rise" was simply a side effect of virtual, "sentiment" driven value/utility creation backed up by increasing "efficiency", all enabled by shifting actual production to labour that operates within predominantly industrial conditions which are incompatible with said value. Women's and LGBT studies for example are useful only for people who can get into industries that have to pander to vain, selfish white women and are often run by (and are suitable for) equally vain and selfish trans-type men. Media/advertising/retail on the one hand, fashion/hospitality/leisure on the other.

Unemployed people elected Trump, not alt-rightists/anti-SJWs. When the feminists and trans-folk become unemployed, they'll probably join the anti-SJWs against a third enemy, like "too big to fail" or Sharia law maybe. It's a myopic and unrealistic dialectic that thrives on pomp and circumstance. Sort of like the European nationalist vs socialist "culture war" around 1848, both existing within the Romantic context. "Resolution" to such conflicts can only come from music, poetry and fantasy literature, which are ideally suited to expression of the febrile, foggy abyss between sepulchral realism and unmitigated salvation, e.g. Ring cycle, Narnia and LoTR series. The sans-culottes will ignore both and adapt to the new reality, which in our case will be "less". We need another quasi-genius like Tolstoy to write a modern day "War and Peace" - a work of art that regurgitates the spirit of the age without choking on it.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:13 am

I'm going to be getting on Twitter soon myself. I am going to fucking trounce all of you with my following.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:50 am

Dan Rowden wrote:How you use Twitter is little different to how you use Google if you're looking for validation. I'm not going to bother arguing for use of Twitter because if you're using it 'properly' you know how useful it is.

How most people use it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Well you did introduce the topic with "My primary source for media information is Twitter" and claiming the variety of access to information is "not matched by anything like Twitter". It's very unclear what you wanted to say with it apart from indicating you think it's the perfect way to get all your "media information".

It seems quite relevant then "how most people use it", considering the topic here was SJW as the disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation (the virtue signalling) is known to thrive so well on Twitter. It seems to be the main scene even! And for several other hysteria. It would open up the question if being on Twitter for ones "information" or "validation" is not influencing the ones being on there, whatever the initial reason might have been. No really, especially in the intellectual corners the level of commentary or link dumping is becoming more and more meaningless.

Twitter is a profoundly nihilistic social medium in which the social itself quickly disappears, like a mother eating her own cubs. Philosophy as well as philosophizers too -- it just eats up, flattens the brain and spits it out. But after David promoting the guiding and reassuring of women so that they can become, in a smooth, painless way, more masculine (and by GOD lets not even spook them) we can understand Dan Rowden valuing Twitter as information source for his views. It's akin to Nietzsche hugging the horse on Turin square, I suppose. The bow cannot be drawn that far forever.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:57 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote: The last time Western civilization was in the grip of fundamentalist Christianity (i.e. Europe in the Middle Ages), it took centuries for us to climb out of that particular hole. Anyone who tried to promote rationality within the culture was quickly persecuted. Galileo was ex-communicated; Bruno was burnt at the stake; Darwin, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were mocked and vilified by the Christian establishment.
Sorry David, that is alternative fringe history which you just insert here to back up your weak position on this matter. No serious historian, atheist or Christian, will back you up on this vision. Galileo was actually free to publish any hypothesis and the Church promoted science like no other body at the time! The reason of why it ended like it did with the Church were a bit more complex and partly caused by his own more political attacks in other works. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were not inhibited to publish their ideas, neither was Darwin, neither was Galileo! And Bruno was burned for his pretty wild theology, as is generally accepted these days, not for his science or reasoning.
As far as I can see, the historical consensus is that Galileo was indeed persecuted by the Church. From the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
  • As opposed to Aristotle’s, Galileo’s approach to cosmology is fundamentally spatial and geometric: Earth’s axis retains its orientation in space as Earth circles the Sun, and bodies not under a force retain their velocity (although this inertia is ultimately circular). But in giving Simplicio the final word, that God could have made the universe any way he wanted to and still made it appear to us the way it does, he put Pope Urban VIII’s favourite argument in the mouth of the person who had been ridiculed throughout the dialogue. The reaction against the book was swift. The pope convened a special commission to examine the book and make recommendations; the commission found that Galileo had not really treated the Copernican theory hypothetically and recommended that a case be brought against him by the Inquisition. Galileo was summoned to Rome in 1633. During his first appearance before the Inquisition, he was confronted with the 1616 edict recording that he was forbidden to discuss the Copernican theory. In his defense Galileo produced a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine, by then dead, stating that he was admonished only not to hold or defend the theory. The case was at somewhat of an impasse, and, in what can only be called a plea bargain, Galileo confessed to having overstated his case. He was pronounced to be vehemently suspect of heresy and was condemned to life imprisonment and was made to abjure formally.
And Bruno was indeed burnt at the stake for espousing views that the Church did not like:
  • Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano (born 1548, Nola, near Naples [Italy]—died February 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.......

    During the seven-year Roman period of the trial, Bruno at first developed his previous defensive line, disclaiming any particular interest in theological matters and reaffirming the philosophical character of his speculation. This distinction did not satisfy the inquisitors, who demanded an unconditional retraction of his theories. Bruno then made a desperate attempt to demonstrate that his views were not incompatible with the Christian conception of God and creation. The inquisitors rejected his arguments and pressed him for a formal retraction. Bruno finally declared that he had nothing to retract and that he did not even know what he was expected to retract. At that point, Pope Clement VIII ordered that he be sentenced as an impenitent and pertinacious heretic. On February 8, 1600, when the death sentence was formally read to him, he addressed his judges, saying: “Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it.” Not long after, he was taken to the Campo de’ Fiori, his tongue in a gag, and burned alive.
Darwin, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard all had to struggle with an oppressive Christian regime, although admittedly they did not suffer from any political prosecution. Fortunately for them, the authority of the Church had significantly weakened by the 19th century - thanks, in part, to the courageous work done by the likes of Galileo and Bruno in earlier times.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Contrast that with a world where publication of new ideas might come to a halt! Where a Nietzsche would be banned from social media, receive multiple death threads, receive fines etc. That's the world you seem so willing to defend, confusingly.
Of course, I am not defending or advocating such a world. The madness on the extreme left is just as bad as the madness of the extreme right. They are both as cancerous as each other. But if my opposition to the left-wing cancer is supposed to require me to become involved with the madness which is the right-wing cancer - then forget it. I will never do that. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Indeed, the whole edifice that we call modern Western civilization was created by many brilliant men who sacrificed themselves for the sake of truth and greater rationality. Are you wanting to dismantle what they have built?
It's way more seriously being dismantled by people who talk authoritatively about subjects without much knowledge. A minor example: Donald Trump.
Exactly. If the Islamic jihadists wanted to install their own puppet government in the White House with the express intent of undermining American and Western society from within, then they couldn’t have picked a better dupe to lead it than Donald Trump.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Twitter is a profoundly nihilistic social medium in which the social itself quickly disappears, like a mother eating her own cubs. Philosophy as well as philosophizers too -- it just eats up, flattens the brain and spits it out. But after David promoting the guiding and reassuring of women so that they can become, in a smooth, painless way, more masculine (and by GOD lets not even spook them) we can understand Dan Rowden valuing Twitter as information source for his views.
Woman’s proneness to being spooked is a reality that has to be dealt with. We can’t just ignore it, not if we actually want to resolve the issue. If we continue to pretend that this feature of feminine psychology doesn’t exist and continue to confront these left-wing women in a hostile manner, then they will simply dig their heels in and refuse to budge. No amount of reasoning will change their minds.

The way I see it, the extreme right is feeding the extreme left, and vice versa. It is a mutual war that not only further entrenches a conflict that is already deeply polarized, but it also undermines the possibility for rational dialogue to take place. This is not wisdom. This is people venting uselessly at each other and creating karmic conditions for even more violence to take place.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:26 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Are you at war with modern society itself?
Modern society is not a singular entity, but is composed of many different cultures. I'm obviously not against all of modern society - only the worst parts of it.
That is good to hear. I am like that as well. There are parts of modern society I like, parts I don’t like, and of course the militant political correctness coming from the extreme left is utterly despicable. So far, so good. I am fully on board with your project to this point.

Where I start to have difficulties is this idea of having to go over to the side of the fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy nut-jobs that comprise most of the modern Republican party. Why does opposing one form of irrationality (i.e the militant political correctness) require one to lend support to another form of irrationality (the militant anti-intellectualism of the right-wing)? Can you help me out here? I don’t get this at all.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:46 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:How you use Twitter is little different to how you use Google if you're looking for validation. I'm not going to bother arguing for use of Twitter because if you're using it 'properly' you know how useful it is.

How most people use it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Well you did introduce the topic with "My primary source for media information is Twitter" and claiming the variety of access to information is "not matched by anything like Twitter". It's very unclear what you wanted to say with it apart from indicating you think it's the perfect way to get all your "media information".
And it fucking well is! Jesus H. There is no other place on the Internet where such a variety of quick access to stories and individuals is available. I can scan Twitter in 10 minutes and get access to stuff that'd take me days if I went looking for it individually. You seemingly do not know how to utilise Twitter for information purposes.
It seems quite relevant then "how most people use it",
No, it's 100% not relevant. The vast majority of people on Twitter are partisan nitwits with no brains to speak of. But that's not relevant to either us or twitter's actual potential. If you're looking for information and an insight into the views of people like GOP and Democrat Congresspersons, alt-right figures and outlets like Breitbart, interesting individuals like Hoff Sommers and even Milo (actually his new account is likely fake) etc etc etc etc etc - it's all right there on Twitter. It isn't necessary to follow everyday folk who are there for the aforementioned validation and social aspects. In some ways Twitter is like Facebook, but I wouldn't be seen dead of Facebook. Twitter is also a way to follow atheists who've taken an anti-theist approach but whose arguments are, as we all have experienced, rather sophomoric. It's an opportunity to open their eyes to a better approach, however limited that is by the format.

In short, you must be doing Twitter wrong. I couldn't possibly list the media outlets I follow because there's just too many. But they range from PBS and Democracy Now to Breitbart and various Fox productions. It's also, btw, a means by which to get an insight into the political bias of various journalists who seem quite incapable of remaining truly professional once they get on Twitter. It's revealing and therefore very useful. Following Govt departments and various social organisations is also useful (if you target well), especially the feminist ones as it gives you a genuine insight into what some of the crazy SJWs are up to, unfiltered - i.e. not filtered through the interpretations of alt-right or MRA or Gamergate folk.

But by all means stay with your cynical approach. It kind of suits you.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:51 am

The obvious problem with Twitter is that it's very easy to lie - both for the writer and the reader. It's possible to interpret a tweet to mean just about anything you want. That's why the media love it so much. It's like printing money.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:29 am

The obvious problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, Kevin. Obviously people can lie anywhere, in any context. For all I know you're lying right now. It's hardly the point.

I frankly don't know why I bothered mentioning it since people around here have adopted some sort of bizarre radical scepticism wherein anyone but those saying things they totally agree with are probably lying.

I think I'm done here.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:48 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I think I'm done here.
If you can't make a rational argument then I agree. It seems that David and yourself have nothing to offer on this subject than name calling. Anyone can call others ignorant. It's not an argument.

The particular format of Twitter lends itself to lying and deception - both for the writer and the reader. The few words that make up a tweet are not enough to reliably convey subtlety and context.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:44 pm

You have lost your mind, Kevin. You can't even acknowledge when you're ignorant of something. Your characterisation of Twitter is utterly fatuous and insulting and a gigantic strawman.

Your hypocrisy is galling and depressing.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Dan, you mean just claiming how wonderful it is would be sufficient as discussion these days? Does it fit in 144 characters?

Perhaps I'm crazy but Kevin makes at least some kind of valid argument here about the format not being good enough to reliably convey subtlety and context. This is a commonplace criticism, hardly anything "ignorant". And any argument on news "updates" or getting faster access to more hyperlinks does not address the larger problems of information compartmentation and meaningful social interaction on any topic.

So I've to say Kevin is right. You have nothing to offer on this subject than name calling and simplistic dumping of truncated claims presented as some self-evident truthism. If you're going to argue, at least present an argument or link to someone who does make them. Or just skip this discussion

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:41 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:You can't even acknowledge when you're ignorant of something.
Dan, you need to demonstrate that I'm ignorant of the thing in question. As I've said previously, your simply calling people insane all the time, or in David's case calling people misogynists, haters of women, and sub-human, isn't going to get you anywhere.

I'll grant you that "You are insane", "You are a misogynist", "You are a nazi" and "You are sub-human", are all valid tweets, but that's all they are. They don't convey any substance, except possibly for what they might say about the person doing the name calling.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:59 pm

The Future Will Be Filtered (Youtube video)

Got that from Julian Assange's tweet ending with the ominous "...each person will live in an undetectable filterverse of one".

Yeah, it's irony there, of course. One could argue Twitter could be used in good and bad ways. Usually that means most people will end up abusing it by ending up using it for the things it's not supposed to be used for. Like remaining informed of the world and/or informing the world.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:45 pm

David wrote:Where I start to have difficulties is this idea of having to go over to the side of the fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy nut-jobs that comprise most of the modern Republican party. Why does opposing one form of irrationality (i.e the militant political correctness) require one to lend support to another form of irrationality (the militant anti-intellectualism of the right-wing)? Can you help me out here? I don’t get this at all.
I'll attempt my own answer...

To 'help you out' would amount to helping you to address your own comprehension problems. To help out might mean holding a mirror up to your own self so that it could better see itself. To help out quickly turns into a laborous, complex effort to introduce a whole range of ideas which are new and unfamiliar to you, and to pull you into a conversation you are quite unprepared to have.

It is true that fundamentalist Christians, that is the classic form, operate within a closed idea-loop. Yet on the other side of that observation there are far more thoughtful and far-thinking Christians who are better able to reveal the essence of the Christian metaphysic. It could be said to be unwise to see things in terms of complete capitulation and 'going over to the side' of the Christians, but wise to understand those who live through that metaphysic and understand how they imagine the world and comprehend value and meaning. I think it is also wise to reduce the Christian metaphysic to a simple 'world-picture' in order to understand it. Taken at a metaphysical level (a Johannine synthesis) it is a model that can be seen as having a good deal of sense.

'Rationality' in the sense that you use the word, and your crude and even brutal use of reason as a club, is in my view part of your problem. It is interesting for me to notice that you regard Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as 'rationalist' when, as seems to be more true, they were intelligent men who resolved to give themselves over to 'irrationality' (as you might define it). The issue therefor of the conflict between the 'rational mind' and something more basic, more primal, more dangerous, but also more creative in the capacities of man, is a topic that is outside of your understanding. For Nietzsche that involved a comprehension of something primordeal, the will to power. For Kierkegaard a 'leap' into something other than the mere mind and its false understanding that it is the sovereign faculty. I have not gotten the impression that you understand how each of these figures was not 'rationalist' in the sense that you erroneously imagine.

Therefor, once again, to get to the bottom of the problem, one has to locate the problem in you, and then begin to investigate how it is that you have come to so many mistaken positions. One has to 'unravel' you.

It is a complete misapprehension to use the term 'supremacist' in the way that you are using it. By using it in that way you instantly step into misapprehension. In order to understand the position of race-realists and those who are opposed to the creation of enforced multi-ethnic culture, you will have to devote time to the study of their positions. But by using that term, along with 'racist' and 'fascist' you indicate having been coopted into a false-assertion structure. Once again, to get to the bottom of that problem one has to turn to you as problem. You become the problem that has to be worked on! And what has to be worked out is your misconception, your mischaracterization. Doing that, one will quickly notice how deeply enmeshed you are in a whole set of predicates and how intricately these are bound up with what I call 'hyper-liberalism'. You make yourself its spokesman and therefor you as problem have, one again, to be unraveled. This is time consuming.

'Conspiracy nut jobs', you say? Very well, surely there are erroneous conspiracy theories. But the larger issue involves something more important, more fundamental: interpretation of the world. To propose that *the world* is in truth an intricate web of 'Maya' and that deception is, as it were, the name of the game, am I describing a truth or am I indicating that I have a conspiratorially inclined mind? To propose delusion as a category, and to propose clear-seeing (whatever opposes delusion which is 'enlightenment' for you I gather) involves intricate value-assertions and entire metaphysical predicates as well as interpetive structures. These are, in fact, on the same order as that of the Christian with his metaphysical overstructure.

The problem with you, David, is now and has always been that you do not recognize your own determining, inner structures, and your religious insistance on your own grasp of 'ultimate reality' and 'the absolute'. These definitions correspond to the systems of those you critique! You are therefor just as much involved in them as anyone. I see you, right now, as emblematic of a man and a mind that is just on the point of approaching awareness. You correspond, as I see things, to a whole segment of people within hyper-liberal culture that now will have to confront and deal with deep-set and deeply-engrained misunderstandings about their world. This is painful no doubt. Perhaps they will succeed in not doing it. But crises tend to produce self-awareness.

Francis Parker Yockey is a theorist with interesting critique of liberalism. Worth considering. The 'right-wing nuts' you refer to, in my own view, are beginning to become more aware and more understanding of meta-political issues. I recommend 'Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism' by George Hawley to better understand the crisis in America right now. (University Press of Kansas, 2016).

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:43 am

David Quinn wrote:As far as I can see, the historical consensus is that Galileo was indeed persecuted by the Church.
But not entirely, or even primarily, for religious reasons. The excerpt you posted adduces that. The Pope's authority was under attack at the time (30 years war began in the early 1600s), so he couldn't let the recipient of his patronage impugn his ideas. Astronomers like Kepler and Thomas Digges faced little or no persecution, and Kepler arguably equals Galileo in contributions to astronomy. Bruno was a career polemicist who invited persecution with his alt theology, not for scientific discoveries/theories.
Woman’s proneness to being spooked is a reality that has to be dealt with. We can’t just ignore it, not if we actually want to resolve the issue. If we continue to pretend that this feature of feminine psychology doesn’t exist and continue to confront these left-wing women in a hostile manner, then they will simply dig their heels in and refuse to budge. No amount of reasoning will change their minds.
And here you're asserting that being hostile to "Woman" and pretending she can't be "spooked" is an incontrovertible fact that applies to everyone on the right, and everyone on this forum who disagrees with you. I never liked this usage of "Woman" anyway.

It seems like you're trying to retrofit premises to your comments about Kevin's and the right's hatred of women, science and rationality.
There are parts of modern society I like, parts I don’t like, and of course the militant political correctness coming from the extreme left is utterly despicable. So far, so good. I am fully on board with your project to this point.
Who *isn't* on board with anybody else's project to this point? I mean disliking only certain parts of society.
Why does opposing one form of irrationality (i.e the militant political correctness) require one to lend support to another form of irrationality (the militant anti-intellectualism of the right-wing)? Can you help me out here? I don’t get this at all.
You are the one calling us brainwashed and misogynists because we don't agree with you, and claiming that the progressive left has fostered rationality since the middle ages. Kevin's focus seems to be free speech, which he has made abundantly clear. I disagree with him on the singularity of that focus, but Kevin's interest in specific current affairs isn't a significant affair in my eyes. Why is it so in yours?

Post Reply