Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: polite disagreement

  1. #1

    polite disagreement

    I'm also a member of a history forum called Historum. You may be surprised to hear (as I remember some on the forum feel history academics are all fervent sjw's) that the pc debate is quite lively there.

    I'd like to put to you a short back and forth I had with a member, before I go to writing my rebuttal. He's in red(of course) and I'm in blue.

    "Conservatives have used “patriotic correctness” to regulate speech, behavior and acceptable opinions.

    For example, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, there was a lot of "patriotic correctness" going on in US, to the point that even a very famous Texas Country band suddenly became hugely unpopular and their Tour was cancelled just because one of the singers said in a concert that she didn't approve Bush decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

    Then you have the ridiculous names like "freedom fries" instead of "french fries" because France refused to support Bush invasion of Iraq.

    Even today you had Conservative forces in US basically denying the right of the 49s quarterback Colin Kaepernick to publicly protest police brutality.

    Around the new right-wing ideology in the West, blaming the liberal or mainstream media and “media bias” is the patriotically correct version of blaming the corporations or capitalism. But of course, you can't say that you don't like capitalism or corporations...using the term "liberal" is more political correct..."


    green is someone who also commented.

    History, as a "mass medium" serves agendas above all. "Patriotic correctness" was a marker of the nation state. Before that, conceptions of history glorified dynastic regimes, and before even that they glorified the Church.

    In modern times, when few people believe in anything, "political correctness" serves the agenda of those who gain from lack of conviction, and who benefit from an absence of an established sense of the rightness of things. That sort of pliability of ideas and concepts abets chaos and the flexibility P.C. gives persons to hide behind nonsense and half baked ideas.

    It also gives autocrats and demagogues cover for their own self serving agendas. It is like political polls. Whatever looks good at the moment is the way they go. Established values and ideas are very inconvenient.


    I think the pc brigade has a worse opinion of corporations and capitalism mate.

    The band you're referring to were called the Dixie Chicks.

    None of the things you talked about are political. The government didn't cancel their concert. The government didn't change french fries to freedom fries. No one is denying Colin Kaepernick his right to publicly protest, because he's still doing it. In fact, most conservatives (that I've heard of) do support his right to protest and free speech to the point where they defend the decision of the team to keep him on, even though they disagree with his opinion.

    Public critique is not the same as political action.

    Just because I disagree with you, does not mean you're being persecuted.

    There's no such thing as a rightwing ideology, just as there's no leftwing ideology.

    I'm a liberal (the original kind)


    The people that resort to political correctness and "safe spaces" in university campus in English-speaking countries and the West as a all do have established values and ideas. They do have a strong conviction and have a real sense of rightness and are very confident about that.

    Professing one kind of ideal/value/virtue, then acting in contradiction with said virtue, excusing your actions when called out by stating it's okay because you were doing it to "the bad guys", all by government fiat...is not what I'd call indicative of a strong moral compass.

    The spread of postmodernism/nihilism, stating that everything is subjective, facts don't exist (unless they're in your favour), every opinion is equally valid is, in my experience, a great cop out of actually understanding the ideas you're putting forth.

    It all smells like opportunism to me...



    So do you agree that so-called "SJWs" are doing nothing bad since they are not the government and they just do public critique as well, right?


    your premise is false, the modern sjw is a direct creation by the political and academic elite. That's why they're protected from crimes more often, that's why everyone who writes/presents for the news these days is a dyed in the wool sjw, it's why politics panders to them, it's why people who speak out publicly against them are slandered and sometimes punished simply for having an opinion that goes against the pc narrative. It's why the EU has it's current form, because the average sjw and the government use each other for personal gain.

    Saying that all they do is critique people is a bit ridiculous at this point. How many more people need to be murdered? How many more public areas burned down and looted? If you don't support this, then why defend the label?


    You are describing any political movement that ever existed in history.

    The new-left is not subjective neither they say they are. There's nothing subjective about feminism, "black lives matter" movement, anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, Anti-fascism, anti-racism, Anarchism, etc, etc.

    Then he told me to elaborate on all my points and I told him I'd get back to him tomorrow or the day after. I sometimes write rebuttals of this nature, but they take a long time to research and write.

    So I'll be writing as of now, while I'm doing so I'll check in to see if you guys have anything to add!

  2. #2
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Well if you have to support all your points surely he should do the same?

    "The new-left is not subjective neither they say they are. There's nothing subjective about feminism, "black lives matter" movement, anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, Anti-fascism, anti-racism, Anarchism, etc, etc."

    That's an assertion, which he backs up with another assertion.

    Feminism has nothing but the complaint that women don't feel equal, despite having greater than equal rights to men. Back when equality of opportunity was guaranteed under the law, many said men would still outperform because men and women have different priorities. What was said then has proven to be true, it was also questioned back then, what would feminists do when faced in national sized real world experiment, men and women had to compete, and men still outperformed them. Well we have the answer, they complain and claim competition is sexist, the world is inherently sexist and there is a Patriarchy that manages to make women feel bad about coming forward and claiming better wages... There is nothing subjective about feminism? He fools only himself.

    Black lives matter condemned the notion All lives matter as denying the subjective pain and experience of black people. They claimed their experience can't be understood from the subjective experience of others. That lived experience is a special form of knowledge. The police accountability movement is about real actions to ensure that police behaviour is within the law and the law fairly applies to all. Black lives matter don't campaign for police accountability but automatic condemnation and persecution of any policeman. Blaming all for the acts of a few, is an act of projected a subjective reality on a group with no reasonable basis to do so. The other words for that are prejudice and bigotry.

    Anti globalisation... Does he mean like breaking down power structures like mass media, the EU, Corporate protecting free trade agreements... Even though some on the left have opposed those things, far more are silent and a substantial amount make the noise then support globalism. Open borders policy is the unholy marriage of global corporatism and left wing internationalist lunacy. Can't oppose a thing by supporting, don'tcha know. Right wing idea on anti-trust and opposition to monopolies and big state tyrannies has dented more globalist fenders than all the toothless whingeing from the left.

    Anti capitalism... Banksterism and corporate capitalism once again get a free ride from these types, who do nothing at all effective, the agenda they have isn't dealing with corruption but simply having an opening to espouse state socialism as the only other option. When no exploration of the problem is offered and no other solution allowed to be considered, one has to assume the decision has been made subjectively. David Harvey pointed out that capitalism moves crises around and changes from one form to another. Which I agree with, it is the nature of capitalism, especially corporate and finance capitalism to do nothing but protect their own interests. Knowing that nature allows state to regulate it, when state isn't corrupted. The stability of capitalist economies comes from their abililty to change, it's not pretty but it persists, and unlike socialist states, which only persist in utopian fantasies, many capitalist economies actually exist. It's easier to condemn something that has real flaws on display, but delusionally subjective to compare to the flawlessness of non existent idealised socialist states. That there isn't a single flagship socialist state is non subjective fact, and any state held up as socialist meccas like Sweden and Canada, are products of and sustained by capitalism. They spend profits earned by others on socialist ideological distribution that can't even handle treating people equally.

    Anti fascism and Anti racism - people actually risked and fought against those things, it is particularly sickening that the did nothing cowards are now claiming they hold the line against those things. When they are the ones doing those tactics. Accusatory and divisive agitation for destabilisation, control by accusation and threat. They have no idea what anti-fascism is, as they hang on to the desperate tactic that raising hell will create openings, rule of fair laws and consent of the governed is the bulwark to fascism, disruption, lies and division making are the historical opening that drives anxious citizens to seek strong leaders. Civilised and uncensored democratic debate only comes about in the absence of threats and fearmongering.

    And Anarchism... these types are the ones who give anarchism a bad name, with their narrow and subjective interpretation of what 'without government or leader' means. Anarchy is meant to be a politically theoretical idea that removing the points of corruption i.e. government removes corruption and allows people to discover their own order. Everything they've done in the name of anarchy is promoting disorder.

    Labels used frivolously and subjectively of course have little meaning, and people end up speaking different languages with the same words. This is the point where our attack only foolish fellows forget something, they have nothing other than the attack to offer. Attack and fear makes it easy to call out the mob, and the mob has power... but not power to build a just society and not the power to topple a ruthless society, merely the power to destroy tolerance in society.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  3. #3
    I've never had someone support any point they made after I'd replied to them in the way I'm cooking up atm. The most I've gotten was "you know feminism just means equality between genders right?" followed by masculinity so fragile. I've gotten "you just don't understand" a few times, ironically from people who didn't explain anything to me. Usually though, they just stay silent and often just delete the thread or comments.

    Really nice comments though, hope you won't mind if I steal them and pretend they're mine?

    Ohh, Once I also got the reply that the discussion group for that subject wasn't the right place to discuss the topic of that subject that they started.

  4. #4
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    I've never had someone support any point they made after I'd replied to them in the way I'm cooking up atm. The most I've gotten was "you know feminism just means equality between genders right?" followed by masculinity so fragile. I've gotten "you just don't understand" a few times, ironically from people who didn't explain anything to me. Usually though, they just stay silent and often just delete the thread or comments.

    Really nice comments though, hope you won't mind if I steal them and pretend they're mine?
    That's what these forums are for, a voice for men . I certainly can't claim them, it's all just stuff I learned from others

    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Ohh, Once I also got the reply that the discussion group for that subject wasn't the right place to discuss the topic of that subject that they started.
    Lol, I think you can call that one a win.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •