Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Echoes

Team Captain
Joined
May 2, 2019
Posts
485
Likes
582
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well it seems we can agree the far left and far right are both full of ****.

For mind, it’s scumbags like this that are the real problem.

 

Man0gwaR74

All Australian
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Posts
877
Likes
576
AFL Club
Geelong
Proud Boys started off as a harmless group for beer drinking and lols. It grew too quickly, resulting in Nazis and other violent nutters getting on board due to zero vetting or oversight. It's the horseshoe theory, they and Antifa are now essentially the same thing. Disaffected people who think they can fix the world, and go about it in an absurd and dangerous way.
It's completely counter to Jordan Peterson's message of getting your own house in order before trying to change the world. Miserable people think that going out and punching a nazi or commie will help the world and themselves. Tell them to put down the batons and clean their room!
The Proud Boys are founded by Gavin McGuiness, which I briefly followed on Rebel Media until some crude comments on women and other controversial topics, turned me away from him but I acknowledge that from a balance PoV, he prolly hasn't been doing such a bad thing. For example; the Proud Boys being the counter to Antifa and the Far Right stances being the counter to the Far Left insanity. Just one form of extreme for a balancing account of the Far Left extremism that is more broadly accepted. Ultimately, my ideal would be to bring us to the middle of the spectrum for the sake of humanity and that could possibly be Gavin's also? But I've heard him say some really alarming things at a Proud Boys gathering that give the impression that he could have some delusions of grandeur.
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
6,167
Likes
9,453
AFL Club
Collingwood
Just one form of extreme for a balancing account of the Far Left extremism that is more broadly accepted.
This is the thing I don't like. It's not considered socially acceptable or PC for people to wear a maga hat in the US, even though Trump won the election and is president f f s. Antifa have MSM support and are allowed on social media, when their mirror images PB etc are banned.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,961
Likes
7,300
AFL Club
St Kilda
Proud Boys grew too quickly, resulting in Nazis and other violent nutters getting on board due to zero vetting or oversight.
I told you this last year. I plainly pointed out that there was no vetting.
You stated that there was a high level of vetting.
A true alpha would admit they were wrong and I was right. You're always desperate to pretend you're an alpha, so what will you do now?

Are you still a proud ProudBoy?
 

Man0gwaR74

All Australian
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Posts
877
Likes
576
AFL Club
Geelong
I told you this last year. I plainly pointed out that there was no vetting.
You stated that there was a high level of vetting.
A true alpha would admit they were wrong and I was right. You're always desperate to pretend you're an alpha, so what will you do now?
Are you still a proud ProudBoy?
why would it surprise me that nobody listens to you? I doubt that you know how to maintain a plain discussion when all your energy is geared towards trolling.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,961
Likes
7,300
AFL Club
St Kilda
why would it surprise me that nobody listens to you? Somehow, I doubt that you know how to maintain a plain discussion when all your energy is geared towards trolling.
Welcome to BigFooty.

If you have a problem with trolls, please report those posts.

If you have any intention of engaging in discussion, please feel free to quote me again.
If you'd just like to attempt to troll and insult me, as you've just done, please don't quote or tag me.

damp regards.
CM86
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
6,167
Likes
9,453
AFL Club
Collingwood
I told you this last year. I plainly pointed out that there was no vetting.
You stated that there was a high level of vetting.
A true alpha would admit they were wrong and I was right. You're always desperate to pretend you're an alpha, so what will you do now?

Are you still a proud ProudBoy?
Yeah I stuffed that one up. Originally McCinness had control, kept them away from Unite the Right and other bad stuff. But he lost control quickly, particularly of international chapters.
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
73,422
Likes
43,456
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #8,245

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
6,734
Likes
12,493
AFL Club
Carlton
Could you summarise?

Without giving an argument we don’t know what this article is being posted for.
What the article points out is that the left side of politics (or, at the very least, people who are progressive in mindset and/or possess a belief in the idea of progress) is faced with a conundrum created by the inequalities within society: that some individuals are superior to others (either by dint of superior intellect or athletic ability, which are genetic insofar as can be proven at them moment) or that it is the inherent structures within that society that create the inequalities. It then goes on to demonstrate - via surveys conducted within academia - that people of a left wing bent are more likely to blame those inequalities then the inherent superiority of individuals; dismissing the scientific.

It then points out how completely at odds that point of view is with the left wing's full endorsement of climate change action.

It's worth a read, if you've got the time.

As far as things go, I don't think this is an either-or proposition. Individuals are perfectly capable of being smarter/stronger/thinking faster etc than anyone else is, but it's completely pot luck most of the time determining this kind of thing from a genetic level, or attributing things to race or to gender. Per capita, men might be physically stronger than women, yet that does not immediately entail that I could beat Rhonda Rousey in a no holes barred smackdown. However, that this is true does not detract from the embedded inequalities that can be proven exist within most governmental systems. A mixture of both - individuals of superior attributes rising to the top, regardless of where they're from, and status and/or money creating an easier path to the upper classes than experienced by someone of different attributes/beginnings - seems to me to be a more reasonable take.
 

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,554
Likes
4,783
AFL Club
Sydney
What the article points out is that the left side of politics (or, at the very least, people who are progressive in mindset and/or possess a belief in the idea of progress) is faced with a conundrum created by the inequalities within society: that some individuals are superior to others (either by dint of superior intellect or athletic ability, which are genetic insofar as can be proven at them moment) or that it is the inherent structures within that society that create the inequalities. It then goes on to demonstrate - via surveys conducted within academia - that people of a left wing bent are more likely to blame those inequalities then the inherent superiority of individuals; dismissing the scientific.

It then points out how completely at odds that point of view is with the left wing's full endorsement of climate change action.

It's worth a read, if you've got the time.

As far as things go, I don't think this is an either-or proposition. Individuals are perfectly capable of being smarter/stronger/thinking faster etc than anyone else is, but it's completely pot luck most of the time determining this kind of thing from a genetic level, or attributing things to race or to gender. Per capita, men might be physically stronger than women, yet that does not immediately entail that I could beat Rhonda Rousey in a no holes barred smackdown. However, that this is true does not detract from the embedded inequalities that can be proven exist within most governmental systems. A mixture of both - individuals of superior attributes rising to the top, regardless of where they're from, and status and/or money creating an easier path to the upper classes than experienced by someone of different attributes/beginnings - seems to me to be a more reasonable take.
Some people are superior in intellect or ability but its true some others suffer because of inequality... given an equal chance those suffering inequality could also showcase some superior attributes. Many of those with superior abilities will rise upwards anyway.
Its not inequality hilding many people back. Its their lack of abilities
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
73,422
Likes
43,456
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #8,248
What the article points out is that the left side of politics (or, at the very least, people who are progressive in mindset and/or possess a belief in the idea of progress) is faced with a conundrum created by the inequalities within society: that some individuals are superior to others (either by dint of superior intellect or athletic ability, which are genetic insofar as can be proven at them moment) or that it is the inherent structures within that society that create the inequalities. It then goes on to demonstrate - via surveys conducted within academia - that people of a left wing bent are more likely to blame those inequalities then the inherent superiority of individuals; dismissing the scientific.

It then points out how completely at odds that point of view is with the left wing's full endorsement of climate change action.

It's worth a read, if you've got the time.

As far as things go, I don't think this is an either-or proposition. Individuals are perfectly capable of being smarter/stronger/thinking faster etc than anyone else is, but it's completely pot luck most of the time determining this kind of thing from a genetic level, or attributing things to race or to gender. Per capita, men might be physically stronger than women, yet that does not immediately entail that I could beat Rhonda Rousey in a no holes barred smackdown. However, that this is true does not detract from the embedded inequalities that can be proven exist within most governmental systems. A mixture of both - individuals of superior attributes rising to the top, regardless of where they're from, and status and/or money creating an easier path to the upper classes than experienced by someone of different attributes/beginnings - seems to me to be a more reasonable take.
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
6,734
Likes
12,493
AFL Club
Carlton
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
Like I said, I don't disagree.

However, included in the article are a number of examples of 'shout out' culture attacking people for making scientific comments that are essentially true.
 

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,554
Likes
4,783
AFL Club
Sydney
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
Doesnt really explain then why black athletes make uo approx 70% of american football and basketball
 
Top Bottom