4chan, memes, language, Trump, alt-right, etc.

Neapolitan · 02-27-2017, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

I appreciate your misplaced pedantry.

How so? When myopia is taken directly from a medical condition and no one ever uses "hyperopia" to mean too much discernment or too broad a view of something. Face it you said you were grown but then slide right back into your old ways and slighted people with a medical condition by using a word to mean something it never was meant to mean.

edit: I appreciate your irony.

riseagainstrocks · 02-27-2017, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

How so? When myopia is taken directly from a medical condition and no one ever uses "hyperopia" to mean too much discernment or too broad a view of something. Face it you said you were grown but then slide right back into your old ways and slighted people with a medical condition by using a word to mean something it never was meant to mean.

edit: I appreciate your irony.

I don't know if you're trolling or if this is your thing (hoping it's the former). Legally, people with glasses aren't a protected class; morally, it's obvious I was referring to the common use in argument of philosophical narrow sightedness; and forum-ly, this whole digression is off-topic. Not to mention, pedantic.

edit: 'just ****ing kill yourself' was like every 7th post I made 8 years ago. My oh my how my contributions have changed... Yet another reason I'm sad/scared that 30 year olds behave like this still.

Spoiler for Goofle response:

Quote:

Segments of the Alt-Right do go into white nationalism and identity. There's no evidence that these beliefs extend to Trump's administration. If Mexicans and people in the middle east where as white as paper, the same policies would be proposed. We can call it "Islamophobia" and whatever you call disliking Mexicans irrationally, or look into other reasons why people and a President would want to take those actions but, as I said, there's nothing that links these actions to race.

This is a non-answer, and I think you know it. Campaign rhetoric, while often extreme, sets expectations for policy. Add inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric to an inner circle of advisors with noted ties to hysterically Islamophobic organizations and you have an administration that implements ideaological bans. The differences between Obama's 2011 implementation and Trump's 2017 fiasco are well documented elsewhere. They also don't matter in a way, because Trump repeatedly said that he was calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering America". Intent matters, especially from the Twitter President. So there are direct links to Islamophobia. As for anti-Mexican sentiment, the angst here is more economic. Mexicans are a convenient other. NAFTA, for it's flaws, reduced the flood of immigration, because it moved well-paying jobs to Mexico, where labor (because of the cost of living) is cheaper. Poor Americans still like their cars, their TVs, etc. I'm not saying they must do without, but economics is heartless. Live in an American town where those things are part of the standard of living and I'll show you a Mexican barrio where they can package food/assemble electronics/make widgets as well as their unskilled American counterpart, for 20% of the wage. So the economic and racial resentment is articially manipulated by many of the same people that benefit from it. The millionaire/billionaire class a have it easier when they aim poor white ire at Mexican immigrants and complex trade agreements than the alternative.

Quote:

Most of the issues MRA's talk about are ignored, so it's just a matter of living in reality.

Also a non-answer. You can't just assert I'm not living in reality. I asked you to explain your beliefs. Don't point me to a YouTube video. Type them out, learn how to express them. If you don't want to fine, but not being able to argue your positions makes you the rube too many of my friends assume people like you are. I don't, I really want to dialog. Only way I'll survive the next 2-4 years... By the way, sourcing is fine for a conversation like this. I'm being pre-emptive here, but your quick non-answers aren't encouraging.

Quote:

I believe that the word "justice" is fine all by itself. As soon as you start tagging words at the beginning or end of perfect concepts, you open up a worm hole. Going from pure truth and morality, to coerced and ideological ways of dealing with things.

Privileged people have a privileged position in American society.

But justice can have many shadings. Legal, societal, tribal, etc. Doesn't mean they're all moral in the same way. Pure truth in a moral or philosophical sense isn't objectively attainable. I don't know if you're religious, and that's an entirely separate argument, but all but the most stringent of codes recognize circumstance as, at least, influencing action. Regardless, I completely agree that coercion is almost never the answer (outside lawful imprisonment, and the like). Certainly not over things as petty as 'Gamergate'.

I get it. You didn't own slaves. Neither did your parents, or your grandparents, or your great-grandparents. Maybe you're family isn't well-off. Maybe your job sucks. You hear 'white privilege' and you think 'rich privilege'. That's not what white privilege means and any serious thinker will tell you that you shouldn't feel guilty for being white or feel bad for being told that you don't have it as bad as black folk. I get angry when I hear that and rightfully so. It's about the aggregate. It's about the lifetime. Of everyone. In the country. STATISTICALLY, you will have a better life than people of color. The straight line is this is due to slavery. Not your fault. Not my fault. My people were in Ireland until the early 1900's. But as a white man, I will make more money and live longer. If I get arrested for possession of narcotics, I'll likely serve less time.

What you do with this knowledge, I don't know. I'm still recovering from my rejection of the idea of white privilege, which I only seriously thought about within the last few years. But your statement is a meaningless tautology.

This is getting long. Happy to continue (takes me a day to digest and gather my thoughts, so long form correspondence) if you want to take this to email or something.

Neapolitan · 02-27-2017, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

I don't know if you're trolling or if this is your thing (hoping it's the former). Legally, people with glasses aren't a protected class; morally, it's obvious I was referring to the common use in argument of philosophical narrow sightedness; and forum-ly, this whole digression is off-topic. Not to mention, pedantic.

edit: 'just ****ing kill yourself' was like every 7th post I made 8 years ago. My oh my how my contributions have changed... Yet another reason I'm sad/scared that 30 year olds behave like this still.

Didn't you open the thread talking about how you use to use inappropriate words? All I am doing is talking about how a word should be properly use, to understand how and why it is being misused. So I think it is germane to the topic at hand.

"Language" is part of the title, no? If you going to say "it is off-topic and don't talk about it," I would have to say that 'that is just another form of censorship' and "censorship" is the control of "language" and isn't that what the topic of this thread is about?

Understandable, people with myopia and hypermetropia aren't a protected class under the law. I am not speaking from a legal point of view. I hope you are not saying people with eye problems are fair game because they are not protected under the law. You talk about "morally," so shouldn't you be concerned with the philosophical principles of right and wrong and be able to do that without looking to the law to provide you with morals and ethics?

so let's recap:
Hindsight ability to clearly understand events after they unfold.
Foresight ability able to predict events before the unfold, or understand who a situation will unfold.
Insight the ability to have a deep understanding of people or things, the ability to perceive beyond the surface.
Nearsighted or myopia is the ability to see near things more clearly.
Farsighted or hypermetropia is the ability to see things at a distance.
Narrow sightedness isn't too commonly used, it's probably mix of "narrow-mindedness" and "short-sightedness."

riseagainstrocks · 02-28-2017, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Didn't you open the thread talking about how you use to use inappropriate words? All I am doing is talking about how a word should be properly use, to understand how and why it is being misused. So I think it is germane to the topic at hand.

"Language" is part of the title, no? If you going to say "it is off-topic and don't talk about it," I would have to say that 'that is just another form of censorship' and "censorship" is the control of "language" and isn't that what the topic of this thread is about?

Understandable, people with myopia and hypermetropia aren't a protected class under the law. I am not speaking from a legal point of view. I hope you are not saying people with eye problems are fair game because they are not protected under the law. You talk about "morally," so shouldn't you be concerned with the philosophical principles of right and wrong and be able to do that without looking to the law to provide you with morals and ethics?

I was going overboard in my explanation of why your contribution was meaningless and hyper-sensitive. So you wear glasses. So you were teased. I knew neither of those things, obviously was not contributing to your persecution complex, and this thread is officially derailed.

OK, everyone, no one say lame, cancerous, insane, depressing, or angry, because they all have specific medical meanings and you're contributing to illness-shaming.

I really hope I'm just getting trolled. Nearsighted and Farsighted are not positives. You're not going to spin that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Narrow sightedness isn't too commonly used, it's probably mix of "narrow-mindedness" and "short-sightedness."

So you understand that language can be molded to represent new or more complex ideas...

**Goofle** · 03-07-2017, 07:21 AM

Spoiler for riseagainst:

**Frownland** · 03-07-2017, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

1. My argument was that he isn't being racist (as you hinted at in your initial question), he's being openly opposed to radical Islam and Islam by association. He's also openly against illegal immigration from Mexico. People who claim he seems to be focused on "preventing people of colour" from entering the USA need to provide evidence for that claim. And the fact that most Mexicans and Arabs are slightly more brown than your average white person isn't evidence.

I think that the idea is that Trump's over-inflated concern with these regions that are essentially non-issues for the US is fueled by a racist/xenophobic/unjustifiably prejudiced perspective of the people and their countries. Why does he have that ass-backwards perspective? Because he only appears to understand white America, and that's what he's sought to preserve with his whole campaign. So it might not be that crazy to assume that he's unfairly targeting minorities.

The argument has the same amount of objective, scientific weight to it as firmly saying that he's not racist, fwiw.

**Frownland** · 03-07-2017, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

3. You're explaining a problem that simply can't be solved through "justice" of any kind. Play out any scenario where we have to transfer justice by force in your head:

So you're going to make Whites (and Asians I guess?) pay a Black Tax? That'll go down well. Way to stoke racial tension, make Black people feel more oppressed and victimized etc.

Quote:

So we are going to make it easier for Black people to get into college and University even if they have worse grades and take the place of a more suitable student? That went down well. And this could extend to hiring policies.

You are pointing to the issue that affirmative action attempts to solve as the reason that affirmative action doesn't work lol. Plus I'm sure you know that you're strawmanning the concept by defining it by slippery slope scenarios that are so far outside the norm that they're essentially nonexistent.

Lastly, as I'm sure you've picked up on here, stupid people will bitch about anything and blame their problems on anyone but themselves, so that discrimination article doesn't really hold that much weight either.

riseagainstrocks · 03-13-2017, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

Probably easier to just show the images because this quote game is weird.
Image A.

Image B.

Response:

1. My argument was that he isn't being racist (as you hinted at in your initial question), he's being openly opposed to radical Islam and Islam by association. He's also openly against illegal immigration from Mexico. People who claim he seems to be focused on "preventing people of colour" from entering the USA need to provide evidence for that claim. And the fact that most Mexicans and Arabs are slightly more brown than your average white person isn't evidence.

2. I've explained my arguments for Men's rights plenty of times. Bringing up simple facts about genital mutilation, divorce court disparities, jail time disparities, parental time disparities etc. doesn't seem to have any impact. Here's a link with links if you want to look through them: https://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/

3. You're explaining a problem that simply can't be solved through "justice" of any kind. Play out any scenario where we have to transfer justice by force in your head:

So you're going to make Whites (and Asians I guess?) pay a Black Tax? That'll go down well. Way to stoke racial tension, make Black people feel more oppressed and victimized etc.

So we are going to make it easier for Black people to get into college and University even if they have worse grades and take the place of a more suitable student? That went down well. And this could extend to hiring policies.

As I said, you can't just force equality when it comes to outcome (equality under the law being a totally different issue). It's not possible. Yes, there are some issues that Black Americans have to overcome which they have no control over, but there comes a point when you simply have to take responsibility for your own actions.

Just gonna take things out of the spoiler tag at this point. We should show off our conversation, which has been quite fun so far!

1. You're right in the 'there's more smoke than there's fire' sense. Outside of broad statements regarding 'Mexicans', there aren't overt paeans to racism in Trump's speeches. His downplaying of white nationalism, his targeting of ethnic groups that are historically non-white, and the series of housing discrimination lawsuits brought against him by the DOJ indicate that the amount of smoke means there's a least a little fire. Can I prove Trump is racist? No. Outside of people who say, "I am racist", you're going to have a tough time. His words, his policies, the people he surrounds himself with, his assumption that a black reporter could hook him up with the Congressional Black Caucus - all of this leads people not blinded by MAGA to say, huh, his actions sure do seem to target non-white, non-Christians. Others have talked about how illogical a physical wall is and how much a travel ban will backfire, spectacularly, so I won't re-iterate here. Whenever you wonder why liberals get so angry and irritated over his comments, just flip it to Obama. If he said that radical Christianity was responsible for the murder of dozens of American citizens, most of the right would flip its collective ****. But I digress...

2. I've gone through these arguments many, many times before. The best I can do here, because I'm frankly not going to type out refutations that have been made by smarter people than I, is an analogy. Feminism (not the male genocide types, but the other 99.8% of feminists) presents as a serious, but not necessarily fatal condition, let's say Ebola. Feminism goes to a hospital, let's call it, Human Attention and Governmental Redress (HAGR). HAGR says, "woah, Feminism, that's a pretty nasty case of Ebola you've got there, let's get started on fixing this before it gets any worse." Suddenly, Men's Rights Activists show up. "Hey, HAGR, we were just on a run and my nipples got chaffed. I feel really uncomfortable in my shirt. Can you help me?" HAGR says, "sure MRA, but I need to sort out this Ebola thing first. By the way, we'll have a vaccine for Ebola at the end of this process, so both of you will benefit!" MRA then walks slowly outside (the nipple chaffing, you see) and sets fire to the hospital. Because HAGR is only fair, in their mind, if they treat both Ebola and chaffed nipples at the same time.

MRAs aren't invalid by definition. But in the scheme of human tragedy, human failing, and human oppression, women have been given short shrift for thousands of years. If you have a specific topic you're passionate about, I'll debate that. I just don't have the energy to take on the entirely of Molyneux's fanbase.

3. The strawliest of strawmen. I never said tax white people. I never said reparations. I never said anything other than PERSONAL acknowledgement that, IN THE AGGREGATE, being a white man will result in better material outcomes in the United States of America.

Affirmative Action, when applied appropriately and as intended, would result in the following:

College Application - Candidate 1 - Dan Smith. White, 18, 3.9 GPA from Wellington Prep, Somewhere, Vermont. Lacrosse team 3 years. Debate team 1 year. Eagle Scout.
Candidate 2 - De'Lonte Jackson. Black, 18. 3.8 GPA from PS 148, Bronx, NY. Basketball team 2 years. Big Brothers program 2 years.

Yale should take Candidate 2. Why? Despite the disadvantages one faces living in a highly urbanized area, De'Lonte has achieved nearly identical schooling marks, and participated in after-school activities. Who's the better student? Hard to say. Could very well be Dan Smith. But holistically? Considering the challenges endemic to De'Lonte's neighborhood, it very well could be him. It's also important to note that this isn't a case of 'this school or no school'. Dan Smith will have other opportunities. Where you went to school is less important than what you did while there anyway.

On a case by case basis, Affirmative Action can really suck. Again, I get it. Individual circumstances should dictate our impressions and decisions. But when it comes to national legislation on areas such as race or gender, the simplest application of these principles is (usually) what needs to be codified. There are historical reasons for this. Many of them involving black people. Hmmm, something about a Crow, and 3 Constitutional Amendments, and the National Guard needing to be deployed on multiple occasions, and domestic terrorism or something. Hmmm...

Goofle, I think I understand you. You're young, probably right around 21, if not younger, right? I'd bet we have very similar views on what is fair. I too think you should be judged on the, to quote Dr. King, the content of your character, rather than the color of your skin. And the good news is, we're getting there. Post-racial America is a real possibility. But we're not there. Political gerrymandering, disparity in journalism covering crime (thug vs. troubled youth, etc.), prison sentencing, etc. Affirmative Action is not a perfect solution. But it beats reparations. And it sure beats doing nothing.

Neapolitan · 02-27-2017, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Wtf Nea this is stupid even for you

How so? People who have myopia are teased and bullied. I don't agree with adding to their laundry list of how they are mistreated the redefining of the medical term for their condition to mean a "lack of discernment." There are people who wear glasses that have plenty of discernment. FYI

The Batlord · 02-27-2017, 05:00 PM

@ Nea - You're boring us now. Find better schtick.