However, when the pendulum swings it rarely stops in the center. I fear an over-reaction to the right. Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination.
I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world.
The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.
Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
Your advocation of your belief system lies entirely in characterising any other position as "crazy ideological zealotry". I omitted the "crazy zealotry" part because they don't have very much substance (other than appealing to what you consider to be rational and reasonable), so I focused on the "ideology" part.
>Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
This is extremely uncharitable. Zizek is a serious philosopher, and people take him seriously. Just because you don't understand the points he's making (or don't agree with them), it doesn't mean he's purveying nonsense. Very few (if any) of his critics and fellow philosophers accuse him of being nonsensical. He frequently talks about topics I can't even attempt to understand, but I'm sure high-level physics can sound like nonsense to people too. He has 164,015[0] citations counted by Google Scholar, and along with Althusser considered important in the philosophy of ideology and socialism. He's by no means a hack.
[0] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=...
In a way, Zizek and his forebears represent the problem with the modern left: they left reality behind in favour of nonsensical “theory” that intimidates most people because it sounds authoritative, despite being empty.
For balance, I’m entirely certain that you could make similar claims of being out of touch with reality of the right, but they do not, for example, try to couch their ideas in an impenetrable fog of deconstructivism and psychoanalysis.
I wonder to what degree that relates to our subjective submersion for so long into the collective percolated ideas of Hume and Hobbes and Kant and Locke and (with the extent latter-day capitalism has adopted some variant of 'the end of history) Hegel. That is to say, were any of these works being actively purveyed to the public now, rather that forming a sort constituent background radiation in which even the prenatal are bathed, whether the foundation works of what is called western-enlightenment wouldn't be viewed in the same light. (In fact, I would wager one could start publicly reading from any of the above mentioned [excepting Hegel, for obvious reasons] and be sure of getting at least a few denouncements along the lines of 'postmodern trash'.
Also, I'm tempted to say that idea or only penetrable when they're not considered at all, that is, when they are merely that constituent background radiation of our lives. (Much like how we tend to know the answer to something right up until we're asked the question.) And upon the act of engagement, that is trying to understand any of this, we're left with Adam Smith being as seemingly impenetrable as Freud.
(NOTE) Agree with Zizek / Chomsky or not, that terminal paragraph is just such a fantastic burn.
It's interesting how asynchronous this kind of thing can be. To me, and I think many other people that have been overexposed to relentless criticism of the radical left for years now, it seems to be becoming unfashionable again. For me, that's because you can only deconstruct something so much before continued deconstruction becomes boring (and a convenient harbor for crypto-rightists) and before you start pining for some construction instead.
The pendulum swings (in a limited sense, that is; I feel more charity toward the radical left rather than some awakened sympathy for the right).
In the Me Too social justice movement, for instance, Things You Can't Say come in two varieties: Just as men feel their nuanced opinions are misinterpreted and shamed, women too feel their experiences are doubted or ignored.
I think it's also important to note that exactly one of the two "sides" of this movement has historically been a marginalized group. That in of itself is not sufficient to make an opinion, so do your own research of course.
According to social justice ideology.
Is your belief that women have never been marginalized? Or that they used to be, but in quantitative terms this group by now in 2018 has attained an equal amount of power?
And? I didn’t have the right to vote until I immigrated to America.
> Is your belief that women have never been marginalized?
Throughout history lots of people have had a shit time. Some groups worse than others.
I think there is a lot to unpack in your statement.
Marginalized as compared to who?
The poster I am replying to claimed:
> important to note that exactly one of the two "sides"
I.e. they were making a mutually exclusive claim.
Because otherwise, I still don't understand your point.
Which group do you think black men belong to?
You've neatly sidestepped addressing this on the times that I've brought it up, which is why I keep on harping on this point. There are two possible reasons you're doing this: one is that you legitimately didn't realize that marginalization has multiple levels, in which case maybe you should take a moment to think about the history of the world and the various forms oppression has taken, and the other is that you're deliberately making a bad-faith argument. I'd certainly hope you're not arguing in bad faith, because that would be incredibly rude, but I wanted to make sure I called out what you were doing (and failing to do) to make it clear to anybody who wanders by and reads the argument.
No. My argument is that some women have used their privilege to falsely accuse men in the past and that assigning privilege based on social justice groupings is both stupid and immoral.
I literally cannot follow your reasoning at all. I’m the one saying privilege is both relative and context specific.
You seem to be trying to apply some strange kind of privilege averaging?
Ok let’s back up a bit then:
Why exactly, in the context of the metoo movement, is it important to consider that on average women have been historically more marginalized than men?
What does historically lacking the right to vote have to do with the veracity of sexual assault allegations?
Phil Donahue's popular show was cancelled and he was therefore fired from MSNBC, because of Iraq war opposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
Ashleigh Banfield's career was derailed at NBC news and her profile lowered. They didn't fire her but what they did was truly shitty. She said:
> I was office-less for ten months ... No phone, no computer. For ten months I had to report to work every day and ask where I could sit. ... I will never forgive him for his cruelty and the manner in which he decided to dispose of me.
She eventually quit and joined CourtTV(?) because of it.
And Chris Hedges at NYT maybe. Wiki:
> Hedges was an early critic of the Iraq War. In May 2003, Hedges delivered a commencement address at Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois, saying: "We are embarking on an occupation that, if history is any guide, will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security."[24] His speech was received with boos and his microphone was shut off three minutes after he began speaking.[25]
> The New York Times, his employer, criticized his statements and issued him a formal reprimand for "public remarks that could undermine public trust in the paper's impartiality".[26] Shortly after the incident, Hedges left The New York Times to become a senior fellow at The Nation Institute, and a columnist at Truthdig, in addition to writing books and teaching inmates at a New Jersey correctional institution.
Not fired fired, but perhaps kicked out, or leaving before the axe came. A little more here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/american-patr...
I'm sure there are other journalists I'm forgetting who were fired or had some level of career destruction because of their criticism. 2004 was a truly bad time to have interesting opinions plus a career on the line. And it feels like that again to be honest, though in very different areas.
Care to name any examples? The only ones I can think of are well deserved (e.g. someone making racist comments and/or descriminating based on race, gender, etc)..
EDIT: Brandan Eich and Lawrence Summers popped into my head as well.
For example: “Women must veil their form to obscure its contours out of charity towards men...To know that women in pants have this effect on men and to wear them is thus a sin against charity as well as modesty.”
He calls a woman’s leaving the home to work “another false promise of the devil come to pass.”
So no he did not resign because of a book he wrote on Catholicism, rather the beliefs he espoused in that book made his job untenable. How could any female student be judged fairly by an administrator who doesn't feel like they are meant to be in the workplace, or even wear pants?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-claremont-marche...
Here's the offending email:
https://claremontindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/...
Just recently, while he wasn't fired, Scott Kelly apologized to an angry mob for daring to quote Winston Churchill.
In one case, that person was upset and ashamed of themselves for having possibly caused distress of people they respected.
In another case, it caused them to dig their heels in to the opposite side of the debate.
In both cases, I can't help but think those were great opportunities to educate those people. Pull them to the side and patiently say, "Hey, what you said was offensive and hurtful and here is why...". I'm certain that the one who dug in their heels would've received that conversation in a more constructive way. As it was, firing that person for such a relatively minor offense created a new Republican.
i understand sometimes people make mistakes, but sometimes those mistakes could've been avoided if they spent any time learning about current issues. in not spending time learning about these things they are putting themselves up to say some dumb shit.
obviously its hard to say what should happen in these cases, and i do think we should try and educate people when they want, but its also not the job of marginalized people to educate others on how what they said was offensive.
or we can go w/ Brendan Eich getting booted from Mozilla.
The list can go on and on and on.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
https://www.facebook.com/garry/posts/10102671732962523?pnref...
> All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling bullshit and shove it.
> I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.
> I could give a shit less about your respect for me or anyone else's. Build the wall is exactly what the fuck it means: build the wall.
At almost any office job in America this is not an acceptable way to talk to your colleagues. At what programming job am I allowed to call people cucks for disagreeing with my politics?
2. His own testimony was that "John Levy called me and said that because I said "build the wall" I am now removed from the network."
2. I don't know much about this person, but I'm going to need something more than his word on this one. The much more obvious explanation that it was his behavior towards other founders.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-booted-...
Specifically, he resigned due to protest/pressure relating to his 1000 dollar donation in support of prop 8 (which would have banned gay marriage in CA).
It seems inconceivable to me that his resignation was unrelated to this. An excerpt from his resignation announcement:
> I have decided to resign as CEO effective today, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of u, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader.
It seems like there are many social circles where this is expected, not unfashionable. In the world we live in, all these “norms” are context dependent.
It's neat though... it's always funny to hear some duder talking about how he can't even say something that he's saying.
"I think the immigration flows into Europe are over the top, the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests"
This is not even a racist statement, at least not in my opinion. But it is definitely "something you can't say". Let's see how quickly this post gets downvoted.
One might argue "but surely nobody would be baited out that easily and transparently", right ? Let's see.
I leave myself fully open to being shown to be very wrong here. I'm making it real easy. All that has to be done is that such a statement must be left alone when it's an obvious bait, and in facts repeats 3 times that it is bait.
Let's see.
> the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests
This statement makes no sense. People don’t like it, therefore it’s bad? Not an argument against it.
:)
Who, when, and where? Have you seen who's running the U.S. government lately?
Of course, it's also a way to phrase something like "support the war" while being hard to argue with. Like "pro life" and "pro choice". Both deliberate naming schemes to make a position seem hard to argue with.
From what I've read, C-16 wouldn't likely result in sentencing jail time for something such as pronoun usage. The Canadian Human Rights Act's central focus has to do with topics such as employment, services, and housing. [1]
>These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses.
The rally that you're referencing was pretty volatile because of attendees, mainly your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) 2018, were shouting slurs and engaging in physical violence. See the following report:
* In one confrontation with BLC protesters, a man shouted, “We need more Michael Browns,” in reference to the 2014 fatal shooting of the 18-year old unarmed black man by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.
* One attendee brought three dogs to the event and was openly criticized by many people for what was interpreted as an aggressive move.
* Steven Ainneta wore a “Support Local 81” jacket — the Downtown Toronto chapter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club
* told The Varsity that he “was accosted by two separate older men with no affiliation to the university. One was wearing Hell’s Angel’s clothing, and the other, along with his wife, seemed to be identifying themselves as white supremacists. Both shoved me unprovoked, while my hands were up, and used racial, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and epithets with myself and other protestors on separate occasions
>This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time.
Out of all the things that have never happened online or in real life, this has never happened the most. How can you be so angry over something that isn't even happening? I don't understand the ilk that surrounds Peterson. It's a literal cult of personality.
Here's the wikipedia article of the bill you're trying to lie about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
Here is the section you're lying about:
>The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.
So no. No one is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Let me know when SJW's start running over people with their cars just because they don't like their existence.
http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C... it is literally an amendment that describes gender expression as literally anything you want to label yourself, than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct. Clause #4.
You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect, but the way in which you chose to engage with me is very immature and makes it difficult to hold a discussion with you.
Please read the HN rules first before making future replies.
Would you care to specifically point out what about my post is relatable to the behavior you were talking about? You yourself actually attacked an entire group of people with opposing view points and used straw man's to do so. I merely bluntly called this out.
>Please refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent,
I read it. Please don't violate HN guidelines by insinuating I haven't read what was necessary. You provided no proof that this is even the case.
>than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct.
It says nothing of the sort.
>You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect
This isn't a debate. You have not presented anything that is arguable. You lied about a very basic event that was recorded and has public records contrary to your "interpretation." You also lied about what the law says. It cannot be read even remotely close to the way you are "interpreting" it and indeed it is impossible to enforce it in any manner you are attempting to describe.
Notice your post got flagged by the community. Please take a moment to consider why.
2. I did make an assumption about you being emotionally charged due to:
- "your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) "
- "You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic"
- "you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing"
You also brought in a number of points lacking citation that I could not find any evidence of occurring at the protest I was saying I saw footage of. I googled and found the source footage, the whole talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28
I did not see any dogs, or anyone screaming about Micheal Brown or any of the other key points you mentioned. The whole talk is recorded including the kids trying to break the windows.
Maybe I was wrong in assuming you where emotionally charged, and maybe you just have a naturally hostile-seeming way of expressing yourself including calling names and quoting and claiming without citation. If so I apologize for suggesting it was emotionally charged.
3. It literally spells out those three things in the amendment. Could you read through the amendment and explain how it does not describe what I said above?
4. I don't care if my post is flagged. I went through the due process of actually watching the clip to see if anything you claimed happened occurred which I did not. I believe you should be capable of doing the same. Don't try to witch hunt or bring on a tribal mob just to win an argument. Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.
2. There's nothing emotionally charged about any of that. It's a pretty satirical take on the reality you attempted to present in your first post. IF that makes you uncomfortable then fix your statements being easily satirized.
3. That's not how arguments work, or even how law gets interpreted.
4. You can't really attempt to weaponize HN guidelines when the evidence that you in fact were not following them is visible for everyone to see. You were not respectful to me, to the community (by lying), and certainly not to anyone else who you don't agree with.
>Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.
I did. This is the veneer I was referencing. You were in fact the person to reference having superior reasoning skills, but did nothing to demonstrate their presence or even mastery.
I also don't have any idea what you mean by "a member of an un-protected class so-to-speak".