But there's a path from just being a "grumbler" to becoming an active supporter.
There is the slippery slope analogy and the slippery slope fallacy. I'm thinking you are more on the fallacy side, as there isn't widespread resentment among any groups (Jews still top the list of hate crimes in the US despite all the talk of Islamophobia).
Anyways, it's a good case study AGAINST isolation of your more radical ideas. After all, if it wasn't for the economic reparations and general isolation of German interests post-WWI, would the grumbling reach its fevered pitch? As they say, learn from history or repeat it.
any place at all where speech is truly free is going to be flooded with hatred trying to drown out everything else.
It's unfortunate, and I don't have a solution, but it is an incontrovertible fact of life.
I totally disagree. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and more speech is always better. The issue comes in echo chambers that are cut off from one another either voluntarily or by force. These allow extreme ideas and sentiment to exist. Some of the best research on getting rid of extremism states that two people talking will do more than nearly any amount of censorship.
It's a lot harder to use the n-word when a friend will smack you in the back of the head. It's a lot harder to breed resentment when people close to you say "not cool" when you post about white genocide. Virtue signalling usually gets you odd looks when you do it on the bus. But get into a community of like minded people who enforce such behavior and that all goes out the window.
Being social and interacting with others is a muscle like any other (even the "brain muscle")... without training and exercise one can easily become an NPC.
Absolutely, the amount of actual white nationalists on there was probably very small. Most people aren't racist. They might at worse grumble and hold some prejudice views, but wouldn't discriminate. A lot of trolls which... hey! Why not!
I'm more worried about the left identitarian stuff. That has a bigger chance of actually implementing policy changes with far reaching consequences.
You say that like it's somehow a bad thing. Getting the weirdos out of mainstream channels and into their own private echo-chambers means vulnerable people (teens, mentally challenged and unstable people, etc) aren't exposed to their weirdness and are far less likely to join them.
... And how are we to expose people to more ideas and break them of the habit of "weirdness"? There are multiple studies of how exposure to groups that you might hate is one of the best ways to get rid of that hate.
Not sexist. Stupid and virtue signaling, yes. Sexist, no.
Plus the "reverse the genders" thing only really works when people are complaining about too many of one thing: "there are too many white males in computer science" turns into "there are too many black females in computer science".
Exactly, rejecting bigotry ("CIS white male" as used by the far left in much the same way the old casual racists used "those rascally negros"). Rejecting anti-free speech (which is the number one way of identified and deraticalizing people, instead of screaming at them and chasing them off into their own little echo chambers). Rejecting stereotypes (the gay movement really took off when so-called normal members of society came out, showing that being gay WASN'T an identity, but just who they were attracted to). Rejecting conflating identify with people (people blaming Chelsea Clinton for criticizing all Muslims instead of... Ilhan Omar?)
Oh wait, the radical left isn't doing any of that? HUH.
Outrage is popular in normal news media as well. How quick you forget Covington and Smollett getting major coverage. Terry Crews had to apologize for saying fathers are important on the View.
I find it telling that the group who complains about "dog whistling" has the tendency to dog whistle the most.
Once I've noticed it a single time, I can't stop seeing anyone complaining about "CIS white men" in the same light as mildly racist people who talk about "those blacks" in condescending tones.
As far as I understand, from the scant amount of sociological experimental research I've done, is that media can PRIME us for certain topics, but doesn't actually influence our opinions on that subject. Meaning that media can, for example, get us talking about guns but won't exactly be the driving force for how we feel about them.
Granted, if a presidential candidate ticks every box except for their gun stance and media is only focusing on that gun stance, you will miss the rest and might vote against them on the issue (even if their gun stance wouldn't outweigh the rest).
So if a candidate has one controversial thing about them, and all you hear about is that thing, of course that is what is going to be focused on. Look at the Kavanaugh thing... the media wouldn't shut up about the rape allocations so he got in based on that rather than his voting and statement history (which I personally don't like, I didn't want him in).
Basically it takes two to tango, and both side are lapping up the priming instead of looking at what really matters.
Isn't that a bit "cart before the horse" thinking? Maybe the reason Google was underpaying men was because they didn't want to bring down the shame mobs if it was found out that guys made more...
Well, this little quote is from the "Girls Who Code" website:
“At Girls Who Code, I wanted to do something that would focus on the hyper-sexualization of women in video games. I proposed my idea to Sophie Hauser and she wanted to do something with me to address social justice. She made a joke saying, ‘Why not have a game where you throw tampons at people?’ At first, we laughed, but after talking about menstruation and how embarrassed we were about it, we realized that it could be worth exploring. In video games, we see blood all the time, but menstrual blood is stigmatized.” ~Andrea Gonzales
Yet I'm the one who is a sicko for suggesting drive by bukkakes...
Menstrual blood is a waste product. I mean us guys might brag about clogging the toilet every once in a while but we generally don't discuss how shit should be de-stigmatized.
....You do know the history of child custody, correct? Men used to be the primary caregiver until someone made arguments that women are the "natural" caregiver and it snowballed into what it is today. Didn't hear from women wanting an equal split then! So no, in a patriarchy men would still be given preferential treatment.
Hell, using the same logic I can claim we live in a matriarchy. Men do the dirty jobs, men die in wars, men commit suicide more, men are more likely to live in the streets. Women gain preference in courts and women's issues are aired more than mens. The only reason why some men rise so high is because that's what is expected of them in a matriarchy (not to mention the only way to stand out in the female led dating pool).
One, we live in a patriarchy and these women are oppressed. Two, they were boring as shit and the show can only be so long. Three, the producers/editors of 60 Minutes are sexist assholes. Four, they are Smolletting it up.
I've never done any research on it myself, but I have a feeling any ideology/religion/cult needs 'original sin' and a way to cleanse oneself so that one can divide the in-and-out groups. With the bonus of shaming those who fall outside.
Christianity etc take this literally with the apple, extreme feminists have the patriarchy (and internalized patriarchy) and people who take the worse of intersectionalism claim we are all racist.
It's the SJW example at work. Talk bad about an individual / group as long as they are CIS/white/man/above you on the oppression ladder. Then, as soon as they start to punch back, claim to be the victim! Bonus points for taking the 1 post in 1000 that tells you to kill yourself and apply that nastiness to the entire group.
Also, the whole surveillance state thing, at least in the US, is hardly exclusively backed by the Left. In fact, many of our "right" are staunch supporters of the NSA and its domestic spying.
It's horseshoe theory at work; the more radical the group the more authoritarian they are. Doesn't matter if it is the left or the right.
The right, at least in the US, has had religion. The left was more individual. This shifted a bit when libertarians/tea party people divided the right and intersectionalism (which is communism where privilege replaces class) invaded the left. The irony is both the extreme right and extreme left are vocal minorities...
The far was always fringe... infowar versus the young turks. As long as the main stream news have learned from Covenington and Jussie Smollett at least... though I doubt they have yet.
Slashdot Mirror
We are in a post-critics world right now. There are no critics, there are only people who love the movie and *evil CIS white men*.
So...they're racist, you're saying.
There is a difference between racism and prejudice, so you are wrong.
But there's a path from just being a "grumbler" to becoming an active supporter.
There is the slippery slope analogy and the slippery slope fallacy. I'm thinking you are more on the fallacy side, as there isn't widespread resentment among any groups (Jews still top the list of hate crimes in the US despite all the talk of Islamophobia).
Anyways, it's a good case study AGAINST isolation of your more radical ideas. After all, if it wasn't for the economic reparations and general isolation of German interests post-WWI, would the grumbling reach its fevered pitch? As they say, learn from history or repeat it.
any place at all where speech is truly free is going to be flooded with hatred trying to drown out everything else.
It's unfortunate, and I don't have a solution, but it is an incontrovertible fact of life.
I totally disagree. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and more speech is always better. The issue comes in echo chambers that are cut off from one another either voluntarily or by force. These allow extreme ideas and sentiment to exist. Some of the best research on getting rid of extremism states that two people talking will do more than nearly any amount of censorship.
It's a lot harder to use the n-word when a friend will smack you in the back of the head. It's a lot harder to breed resentment when people close to you say "not cool" when you post about white genocide. Virtue signalling usually gets you odd looks when you do it on the bus. But get into a community of like minded people who enforce such behavior and that all goes out the window.
Being social and interacting with others is a muscle like any other (even the "brain muscle")... without training and exercise one can easily become an NPC.
Absolutely, the amount of actual white nationalists on there was probably very small. Most people aren't racist. They might at worse grumble and hold some prejudice views, but wouldn't discriminate. A lot of trolls which... hey! Why not!
I'm more worried about the left identitarian stuff. That has a bigger chance of actually implementing policy changes with far reaching consequences.
You say that like it's somehow a bad thing. Getting the weirdos out of mainstream channels and into their own private echo-chambers means vulnerable people (teens, mentally challenged and unstable people, etc) aren't exposed to their weirdness and are far less likely to join them.
... And how are we to expose people to more ideas and break them of the habit of "weirdness"? There are multiple studies of how exposure to groups that you might hate is one of the best ways to get rid of that hate.
Colder than a witches teat
I've known some hot witches, so I propose to change the quote to "colder than an anti-vaxxers kid".
Not sexist. Stupid and virtue signaling, yes. Sexist, no.
Plus the "reverse the genders" thing only really works when people are complaining about too many of one thing: "there are too many white males in computer science" turns into "there are too many black females in computer science".
You shouldn't personify the Earth, she hates that.
Exactly, rejecting bigotry ("CIS white male" as used by the far left in much the same way the old casual racists used "those rascally negros"). Rejecting anti-free speech (which is the number one way of identified and deraticalizing people, instead of screaming at them and chasing them off into their own little echo chambers). Rejecting stereotypes (the gay movement really took off when so-called normal members of society came out, showing that being gay WASN'T an identity, but just who they were attracted to). Rejecting conflating identify with people (people blaming Chelsea Clinton for criticizing all Muslims instead of... Ilhan Omar?)
Oh wait, the radical left isn't doing any of that? HUH.
Outrage is popular in normal news media as well. How quick you forget Covington and Smollett getting major coverage. Terry Crews had to apologize for saying fathers are important on the View.
I find it telling that the group who complains about "dog whistling" has the tendency to dog whistle the most.
Once I've noticed it a single time, I can't stop seeing anyone complaining about "CIS white men" in the same light as mildly racist people who talk about "those blacks" in condescending tones.
As far as I understand, from the scant amount of sociological experimental research I've done, is that media can PRIME us for certain topics, but doesn't actually influence our opinions on that subject. Meaning that media can, for example, get us talking about guns but won't exactly be the driving force for how we feel about them.
Granted, if a presidential candidate ticks every box except for their gun stance and media is only focusing on that gun stance, you will miss the rest and might vote against them on the issue (even if their gun stance wouldn't outweigh the rest).
So if a candidate has one controversial thing about them, and all you hear about is that thing, of course that is what is going to be focused on. Look at the Kavanaugh thing... the media wouldn't shut up about the rape allocations so he got in based on that rather than his voting and statement history (which I personally don't like, I didn't want him in).
Basically it takes two to tango, and both side are lapping up the priming instead of looking at what really matters.
Isn't that a bit "cart before the horse" thinking? Maybe the reason Google was underpaying men was because they didn't want to bring down the shame mobs if it was found out that guys made more...
Well, this little quote is from the "Girls Who Code" website:
“At Girls Who Code, I wanted to do something that would focus on the hyper-sexualization of women in video games. I proposed my idea to Sophie Hauser and she wanted to do something with me to address social justice. She made a joke saying, ‘Why not have a game where you throw tampons at people?’ At first, we laughed, but after talking about menstruation and how embarrassed we were about it, we realized that it could be worth exploring. In video games, we see blood all the time, but menstrual blood is stigmatized.” ~Andrea Gonzales
Yet I'm the one who is a sicko for suggesting drive by bukkakes...
Menstrual blood is a waste product. I mean us guys might brag about clogging the toilet every once in a while but we generally don't discuss how shit should be de-stigmatized.
....You do know the history of child custody, correct? Men used to be the primary caregiver until someone made arguments that women are the "natural" caregiver and it snowballed into what it is today. Didn't hear from women wanting an equal split then! So no, in a patriarchy men would still be given preferential treatment.
Hell, using the same logic I can claim we live in a matriarchy. Men do the dirty jobs, men die in wars, men commit suicide more, men are more likely to live in the streets. Women gain preference in courts and women's issues are aired more than mens. The only reason why some men rise so high is because that's what is expected of them in a matriarchy (not to mention the only way to stand out in the female led dating pool).
There are a couple options...
One, we live in a patriarchy and these women are oppressed. Two, they were boring as shit and the show can only be so long. Three, the producers/editors of 60 Minutes are sexist assholes. Four, they are Smolletting it up.
I've never done any research on it myself, but I have a feeling any ideology/religion/cult needs 'original sin' and a way to cleanse oneself so that one can divide the in-and-out groups. With the bonus of shaming those who fall outside.
Christianity etc take this literally with the apple, extreme feminists have the patriarchy (and internalized patriarchy) and people who take the worse of intersectionalism claim we are all racist.
When you think about it, anti-vaxxers are just performing really REALLY late term abortions.
It's the SJW example at work. Talk bad about an individual / group as long as they are CIS/white/man/above you on the oppression ladder. Then, as soon as they start to punch back, claim to be the victim! Bonus points for taking the 1 post in 1000 that tells you to kill yourself and apply that nastiness to the entire group.
It worked for many people involved in Gamergate.
I just use it for porn, and to try to trigger people on both sides of the aisle.
As an actual communication medium though? Yeah, pretty useless.
Quite, removing the cost and time loss of shipping is become more and more of a big deal.
Also, the whole surveillance state thing, at least in the US, is hardly exclusively backed by the Left. In fact, many of our "right" are staunch supporters of the NSA and its domestic spying.
It's horseshoe theory at work; the more radical the group the more authoritarian they are. Doesn't matter if it is the left or the right.
The right, at least in the US, has had religion. The left was more individual. This shifted a bit when libertarians/tea party people divided the right and intersectionalism (which is communism where privilege replaces class) invaded the left. The irony is both the extreme right and extreme left are vocal minorities...
The far was always fringe... infowar versus the young turks. As long as the main stream news have learned from Covenington and Jussie Smollett at least... though I doubt they have yet.
At least Stan Lee is dead, otherwise he'd be rolling in his grave.
Wait...
Extreme left: See racism in Amerikkka.
Extreme right: IBM is just using it to hire cheaper minorities and take our jobs.
Normal people: What does race have anything to do with recruitment in the first place.