General MFC Discussion 2.0

[stretcharmstrong]

I'm not really that concerned about free speech other than believing that people should be able to voice an opinion without the world melting down, but PC culture and in particular identity politics are a ******* lingering stain that refuses to go away. Obviously I don't think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the coin and that anyone making particular arguments is a certifiable peanut, but the common sense and logical position doesn't appear to be overly popular these days. The other problem is that most people are hypocritical, self-righteous campaigners who endorse double standards for social brownie (shirt) points. Its always important to be on the Right Side of History, after all.

For what its worth, this is what all twitter feeds should look like going forward: Boring James Milner. If only all sportsmen were so boring...

Yeah well, I think it’s a shame you feel so strongly that way. The discussion around this stuff could benefit from more voices from people nearer the middle, imo.

 

[Cannon82]

Yeah well, I think it’s a shame you feel so strongly that way. The discussion around this stuff could benefit from more voices from people nearer the middle, imo.

There's no public discourse to be had when it comes to identity politics, and the middle ground swiftly disappears given the commonly prevalent attitude that if you're not 100% agreeing with me, you must be 100% against me. Modern debate is polarizing debate.

Edit: Debate isn't the right word there. Proclamation is probably more appropriate - all the better to show how Right On someone is.

 

[Ablett2Garland]

 

[stretcharmstrong]

There's no public discourse to be had when it comes to identity politics, and the middle ground swiftly disappears given the commonly prevalent attitude that if you're not 100% agreeing with me, you must be 100% against me. Modern debate is polarizing debate.

Edit: Debate isn't the right word there. Proclamation is probably more appropriate - all the better to show how Right On someone is.

Yeah, I agree. So then, what of your post #7795? Seems like a fairly clear cut example of the problem?

 

[Cannon82]

Yeah, I agree. So then, what of your post #7795? Seems like a fairly clear cut example of the problem?

Convince me that identity politics isn't a shitful stain on the universe. Sadly I think that advocating for racism / sexism / muppetism based on flimsy, fabricated or outdated reasoning is going to come up short as a logical argument, but I'm open to listening if you've got something sensible to say.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Convince me that identity politics isn't a shitful stain on the universe. Sadly I think that advocating for racism / sexism / muppetism based on flimsy, fabricated or outdated reasoning is going to come up short as a logical argument, but I'm open to listening if you've got something sensible to say.

Sorry, I’m confused. I’m not that smart, granted, but I cannot figure out your response. Did you intentionally sidestep my question, or have I missed how your response addressed it?

 

[Cannon82]

Sorry, I’m confused. I’m not that smart, granted, but I cannot figure out your response. Did you intentionally sidestep my question, or have I missed how your response addressed it?

Did I intentionally sidestep your question about my post being a clear cut example of which problem? Polarizing debate? No, I just didn't realize I was on the witness stand all of a sudden. I can see how you might think that my stance is polarizing, but given no one has jumped in to make a moderate or opposing argument, not sure how you can point the finger at me. My stance is that I think certain beliefs are a load of utter bullshit - is that polarizing in and of itself, or is that just where my opinion on that topic happens to lie?

The whole purpose of identity politics is to be divisive. Its inherent. How can it not be if the purpose of the theory is to separate people by traits they have no control over and then assign privilege arbitrarily based on (narrow) perception and averages? I'm open to hearing arguments for it, but its going to be a tough sell to convince me that the answer to perceived and assumed discrimination is to enact actual, systematic discrimination. There are two sides to an argument but its a false equivalence to assume they're equally meritorious. Come at me.

 

[Proper Gander]

No, I get why they let him go. As we've all noticed, its about the brand, and sponsors, advertisers, marketers, etc want the brand to be squeaky clean. We've all got social media clauses in our contracts these days, so posting anything more than bland and mundane messages on your social media account is basically flaunting danger with your profession. It'll only get worse as tracking technology improves and in the future your decades old Bigfooty, Facebook, Reddit posts, etc will end up getting linked to your work profile or something along those lines. Double plus good, I say.

I'm suggesting people need to nut up and not be mortally offended by **** someone says. Outrage merchants combined with media sensationalists means all this stuff gets blown up into the Biggest News Story in the History of Forever and Ever, This Week. Certain people in life think they have a right to wander around and not be offended by anything. If they find something offensive, then Something Must Be Done. Why is that? Why do we cater to certain people but not to others? Its completely daft.

I pretty much agree with this.

Folau ended on the wrong side of a workplace disciplinary issue apparently. Which happens. To lots and lots of people. For all sorts of reasons and lots are likely a way more scandalous than this one.

I’m at a loss as to why zillions of people want to weigh in and condemn him, or support him, in such numbers. As far as I can see he is a religious dude so likely a fruitcake who has a religious evangelical zeal in getting his message out. That’s what evangelicals do - it’s kind of their role. To be honest his message is a toned down version of what I used to hear weekly from Latter Day Saints doorknockers when I lived at my previous rental, so I wasn’t deeply shocked to discover that there are fundamentalist Christians wandering about planet earth with views about how homosexuals should repent. I mean, it’s a pretty standard fundamentalist line.

Also the outrage appears to be on behalf of homosexuals because he said they needed to repent or go to Hell. Cool but are their any homosexuals around who could weigh in about whether his words really hurt them as a person, or is it a bunch of abstract white knights picking up a popular cause and running with it? If anyone was actually devestated or even roundly hurt then I would like to hear from them, because everything I have heard seems to be from randoms weighing in or professional mouthpieces claiming to represent an injured party that doesn’t so far appear greatly injured or even particularly taken aback.

For my part I think Izzy is a dork and his views are silly. But I meet loads of people who are silly dorks with crazy views so it really didn’t rock my world.

I’m over this particular aspect of the internet. The aspect that seems to encourage people to divide into two opposing parties and flick s**t at each other. Things happen every day. Things get said. People disagree. Not everything is a pivotal moment of significance that heralds a new dawn of the great new world. The Folau incident is an amazing example of an insignificant event being elevated to some kind of symbolic significance that it never deserved. And if that’s okay, then I would also like it to be okay for me to clobber the next Mormon who rocks up at my door. At least Iz never interrupted dinner.

 

[Deemanding]

So...about that General MFC Discussion 2.0 eh?

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

So...about that General MFC Discussion 2.0 eh?

3.0 has really taken a turn

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Did I intentionally sidestep your question about my post being a clear cut example of which problem? Polarizing debate? No, I just didn't realize I was on the witness stand all of a sudden. I can see how you might think that my stance is polarizing, but given no one has jumped in to make a moderate or opposing argument, not sure how you can point the finger at me. My stance is that I think certain beliefs are a load of utter ******** - is that polarizing in and of itself, or is that just where my opinion on that topic happens to lie?

The whole purpose of identity politics is to be divisive. Its inherent. How can it not be if the purpose of the theory is to separate people by traits they have no control over and then assign privilege arbitrarily based on (narrow) perception and averages? I'm open to hearing arguments for it, but its going to be a tough sell to convince me that the answer to perceived and assumed discrimination is to enact actual, systematic discrimination. There are two sides to an argument but its a false equivalence to assume they're equally meritorious. Come at me.

Come on man, relax and try to stay focused on the actual discussion.

No I don’t think your stance is polarising. Nowhere have I advocated for the things you’re ranting against. Sorry if I upset you, sigh. I thought I’d chosen my words pretty carefully and was being pretty mild mannered, and you’ve still ended up feeling hard done by. (Think about that...)

I don’t really think you’re wrong, as I’ve said I don’t really hold a firm view, and honestly I probably lean towards the side of which you are a fairly extreme representation. I.e. that for the most part people should be able to express their beliefs without any consequence other than looking foolish if they have foolish beliefs.

All I was trying to point out was that you said something along the lines of nobody (assumedly from the opposite side to yours) is willing to discuss anything, because the attitude (at the noisy extremes) is always if you don’t 100% agree with me then we must 100% disagree; you said that, which I also agree with you is a big problem, but your post #7795 was a perfect example of exactly problem, that approach to discussion. Basically saying this is how it is, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron, there are no genuine arguments on the other side and literally showing no respect, regard or consideration of or for the people who don’t 100% agree with you.

Aaaanyway, how about dem general MFC discussions...

 

[Cannon82]

Come on man, relax and try to stay focused on the actual discussion.

No I don’t think your stance is polarising. Nowhere have I advocated for the things you’re ranting against. Sorry if I upset you, sigh. I thought I’d chosen my words pretty carefully and was being pretty mild mannered, and you’ve still ended up feeling hard done by. (Think about that...)

I don’t really think you’re wrong, as I’ve said I don’t really hold a firm view, and honestly I probably lean towards the side of which you are a fairly extreme representation. I.e. that for the most part people should be able to express their beliefs without any consequence other than looking foolish if they have foolish beliefs.

All I was trying to point out was that you said something along the lines of nobody (assumedly from the opposite side to yours) is willing to discuss anything, because the attitude (at the noisy extremes) is always if you don’t 100% agree with me then we must 100% disagree; you said that, which I also agree with you is a big problem, but your post #7795 was a perfect example of exactly problem, that approach to discussion. Basically saying this is how it is, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron, there are no genuine arguments on the other side and literally showing no respect, regard or consideration of or for the people who don’t 100% agree with you.

Aaaanyway, how about dem general MFC discussions...

I'm not angry. Why would you think that? I got the impression that you were tip-toeing around something and I'd rather you just spat it out.

The issue is more with public discourse. This is a conversation on a forum. Take the James Damore internal memo saga at Google for example - that's a case where the only stance to take on it is that its a horrible, misogynistic, evil and oppressive document. Never mind that reading it, it's thoughtful, well articulated and cites various research and sources, if you don't denounce it as being the doctrine of demon worship that it is, then You Are Part Of The Problem. The guy lost his job over it when it was posted to an internal forum specifically earmarked for discussing such ideas. To come out and support the ideas he put forward publicly would be to put your own job at risk for Wrongthink. There is no middle ground in that debate. People get de-platformed or publicly denounced for not being on the right ideological side of a debate (like Meryl Streep suddenly going in to bat for the other side - whoops!). Bit of a difference between that and not giving some arguments their due credence, which I'm happy to admit I do.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

I'm not angry. Why would you think that? I got the impression that you were tip-toeing around something and I'd rather you just spat it out.

The issue is more with public discourse. This is a conversation on a forum. Take the James Damore internal memo saga at Google for example - that's a case where the only stance to take on it is that its a horrible, misogynistic, evil and oppressive document. Never mind that reading it, it's thoughtful, well articulated and cites various research and sources, if you don't denounce it as being the doctrine of demon worship that it is, then You Are Part Of The Problem. The guy lost his job over it when it was posted to an internal forum specifically earmarked for discussing such ideas. To come out and support the ideas he put forward publicly would be to put your own job at risk for Wrongthink. There is no middle ground in that debate. People get de-platformed or publicly denounced for not being on the right ideological side of a debate (like Meryl Streep suddenly going in to bat for the other side - whoops!). Bit of a difference between that and not giving some arguments their due credence, which I'm happy to admit I do.

Yep, again I mostly agree. Fair enough. Let’s leave it

 

[Cannon82]

Yep, again I mostly agree. Fair enough. Let’s leave it

No. You stay.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

No. You stay.

Lol, I don’t have the time or the energy mate. Shame, it would be quite enjoyable to discuss this stuff in person. It’s too painful online, especially using this tiny little ******* smartphone keyboard

 

[Cannon82]

Lol, I don’t have the time or the energy mate. Shame, it would be quite enjoyable to discuss this stuff in person. It’s too painful online, especially using this tiny little ******* smartphone keyboard

I was being a dick, wasn't serious.

I prefer to have time to digest things. I'd rather read something and then let it roll around in the back of my head for a while. Better to get your point across after some thinking time than stumble over a half-chewed response. I'm a very slow thinker, when the cogs spin at all.

 

[Demon 16]

You guys have been watching too much Milo Yiannoppoulos and Ben Shapiro on YouTube.

 

[Cannon82]

You guys have been watching too much Milo Yiannoppoulos and Ben Shapiro on YouTube.

Not at all. Milo is a shock jock, but the fact you're throwing Ben Shapiro out there presumably as some kind of extreme source is an example of someone being tarred with a certain brush for going against the narrative. What's your beef with Shapiro?

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Not at all. Milo is a shock jock, but the fact you're throwing Ben Shapiro out there presumably as some kind of extreme source is an example of someone being tarred with a certain brush for going against the narrative. What's your beef with Shapiro?

He reminds me too much of Charlie Spargo.

 

[Cannon82]

He reminds me too much of Charlie Spargo.

Spargo is a giant by comparison.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Spargo is a giant by comparison.

Caleb Daniel?

 

[Cannon82]

Caleb Daniel?

Brobdingnagian.

 

[Topkent]

Shapiro is probably the best example of science vs mentality. He speaks in facts while people get offended by reality

 

[Sellout Scully]

The moves at 4:25. What even.

 

[Topkent]

What in the actual * was that.

She's hot if she shut the * up, he's aware his missus is watching and is awkward as *.

All I could think was that is the fearless leader of a club in 2019