If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I realize you never said that, but it's inextricable from your other positions on free speech. You're all over the board with this, making it impossible to really have a consistent debate.

 

[CiG]

No one is silencing you. What are you doing right here, right now? You're complaining. Mort has criticized you, Dak, and other posters numerous times. It hasn't silenced you one bit. If anything it's made you all more vocal.

Being purposely dense?

Anyway, SJW's/3rd wave feminism's demands or "suggestions for dealing with problematic pop culture" line up so perfectly with much of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

Examples like this are everywhere.

 

[Einherjar86]

Being purposely dense?

Just trying to speak your language.

 

[CiG]

Just trying to speak your language.

You need to drink a lot more booze if you want to get on my level of retardation pal.
Stick to what you know.

Back to the point, I wasn't implying that I was being silenced via debates, disagreements etc nor is anybody being silenced by this.

What I am saying is that there is a very blatant streak of censorious, authoritarianistic thinking running through much of the SJW/feminist movement in 2015 and quite often it materializes as a witch-hunt.

 

[Dak]

there is a very blatant streak of censorious, authoritarianistic thinking running through much of the SJW/feminist movement in 2015 and quite often it materializes as a witch-hunt.

I agree, but the point being that no particular group has sole claim to witch hunting or authoritarian leanings. A key difference is that traditionalists admit being authoritarian, while progressives are delusional about their own nature - in this aspect. There are few traditionalists left in the West though it seems. Most are conservatives, which are just progressives who are too late to the party to even be fashionable.

Louis CK did a bit about how "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy", which I think perfectly sums up modernity in the West. Granted, many people don't have access to all the amazing things (I know I don't), but life for even those with little access isn't generally faulted by a lack of access to material goods as it is dealing with assholes, who have been dealing with assholes, who have been dealing with assholes. Low trust culture is a killer and creates those urban wastelands everyone clucks about but no one does anything about (until they do, which generates more complaining). Witch hunts are part of the engendering of low trust culture.

Edit: I realized my comments about assholes could be misconstrued: I'm not referring to things like refusal of service. I'm referring to being ripped off, attacked, beaten, vandalized, denigrated, abused, neglected, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

You need to drink a lot more booze if you want to get on my level of retardation pal.
Stick to what you know.

Okay then, I will.

Back to the point, I wasn't implying that I was being silenced via debates, disagreements etc nor is anybody being silenced by this.

What I am saying is that there is a very blatant streak of censorious, authoritarianistic thinking running through much of the SJW/feminist movement in 2015 and quite often it materializes as a witch-hunt.

But there is a censorious, authoritarian strain to be found in those of the opposite side too! Suggesting that gays and transgender folks have something to gain by keeping silent - or by keeping their preferences to themselves - simply illuminates the tendency toward self-censorship imposed upon those subjects by the culture they live in. Individuals on all sides would prefer not to listen to those they don't agree with; Mort telling you guys to shut up, or fuck off, or crawl away and die isn't censorship. It's him venting. Stop blowing it out of proportion.

I enjoy listening to differing opinions, although I also enjoy arguing with them and occasionally making fun of them. I actually watch FOX News semi-regularly. The noise coming from both sides certainly wears the mark of censorship, but it is isn't activated or instituted in any programmatic way. It's simply the irrational drive of opinionated human beings, which we are all guilty of.

 

[Dak]

Good quote on your sig btw.

 

[rms]

Suggesting that gays and transgender folks have something to gain by keeping silent - or by keeping their preferences to themselves - simply illuminates the tendency toward self-censorship imposed upon those subjects by the culture they live in.

Who is actually advocating for this outside of Dak thinking sexuality, overall, should be private? I haven't seen him say "Society must be this way!"

 

[CiG]

Okay then, I will.



But there is a censorious, authoritarian strain to be found in those of the opposite side too! Suggesting that gays and transgender folks have something to gain by keeping silent - or by keeping their preferences to themselves - simply illuminates the tendency toward self-censorship imposed upon those subjects by the culture they live in. Individuals on all sides would prefer not to listen to those they don't agree with; Mort telling you guys to shut up, or fuck off, or crawl away and die isn't censorship. It's him venting. Stop blowing it out of proportion.

I enjoy listening to differing opinions, although I also enjoy arguing with them and occasionally making fun of them. I actually watch FOX News semi-regularly. The noise coming from both sides certainly wears the mark of censorship, but it is isn't activated or instituted in any programmatic way. It's simply the irrational drive of opinionated human beings, which we are all guilty of.

I feel like you're arguing points I haven't made.

I'm drunk so maybe I'm being vague as fuck or something.
When I wake up hopefully I'll make more sense ha ha.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good quote on your sig btw.

Thanks. It's from Naked Lunch.

Who is actually advocating for this outside of Dak thinking sexuality, overall, should be private? I haven't seen him say "Society must be this way!"

Milo Y. advocates for it. That guy is a lunatic and a half, from what I can tell.

 

[rms]

I read that one article where he says that but couldn't really tell if that part was serious, if it was I don't think anyone agrees with that. You've said that comment twice now though, was assuming you were in direct response to someone in this thread

 

[Einherjar86]

You can't just pick and choose which articles are serious and which aren't, especially when it's published on a non-satirical site. After all, it's been suggested earlier in this thread that liberals can't pick and choose which minority figures to take seriously. Furthermore, a LOT of people agree with it, or would prefer that gay/transgender people (to use Dak's terminology) keep their sexuality "private."

 

[Dak]

Milo Y. advocates for it. That guy is a lunatic and a half, from what I can tell.

Maybe he's 1.5x a lunatic arguing with 2x lunatics. But why doesn't that make you an anti-gay bigot? OTOH I look at a pride parade and say "those people are uncouth" and I'm a homophobe, or I look at Miss Sulkowicz and call her a "lunatic" and a liar and I'm a victim blaming misogynist who participates in the in rape of all rape victims (because it doesn't matter if she is lying, she's a symbol for all the actual rape victims and only women are rape victims ).

There's a difference between private and hidden. Milo was talking about hiding it.

 

[Einherjar86]

The way I see it I'm not an "anti-gay bigot" because I'm not faulting him for his beliefs; I'm faulting him for how he arrives at them. I have a friend who claims to not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but he doesn't make arguments against it. I don't consider myself bigoted toward him because he doesn't presume to make any attack on gays that's based on reason or argument. He just sits back and minds his own damn business. He feels no need to say anything publicly, nor does he fear being called out because he would never make that comment to a gay person, nor does he feel the need to.

When you look at a group of people marching in a pride parade and accuse "those people" of being "uncouth," you're not addressing any kind of argument they're making. You're just expressing your distaste toward their lifestyle. The parade itself expresses no distaste or discomfort, toward anyone, in any capacity whatsoever. So why feel the need to call them "uncouth" in the first place?

The parade may be public; but then it can't be an invasion of anyone's privacy.

EDIT: but, supposing I am an "anti-gay bigot," I'm less interested in whether that's a logically substantive position (since I'm also of the position that there is no logically substantive position ) than I am in why these differing spheres of influence, media manipulation, political identity, systematic organization, etc. are forming and engaging with each to the degrees that they are. My political affiliations lie with pro-gay and -transgender circles, but this is more from a sentimentalist and empathic angle than from any logical angle.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Camille Paglia being her typically awesome self.

This is fantastic. Not only does she compare the Bill's Cosby and Clinton to necrophiliacs but also muses on how we've essentially stepped into a cultural time machine and traveled back to the early 90's and how most college graduates are unprepared for the realities of the real world. This is the first of three parts and I eagerly await the next two.

 

[rms]

You can't just pick and choose which articles are serious and which aren't, especially when it's published on a non-satirical site.

After all, it's been suggested earlier in this thread that liberals can't pick and choose which minority figures to take seriously. Furthermore, a LOT of people agree with it, or would prefer that gay/transgender people (to use Dak's terminology) keep their sexuality "private."

I didn't say the article wasn't serious, I said that part. From the article I read, and trying to remember, it was more centered on how gay people aren't going to reproduce because it is no longer shameful to be gay, thus not biologically reproducing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Correct; and there's no reason at all to take that portion as somehow less than serious.

Not only does Milo commit the egregious error of reducing all manifestation of homosexual behavior to genetics, but he suggests that somehow the proliferation of the homosexual gene outweighs enjoying your own life. Why should homosexuals care about reproducing at all?

There are so many shortcuts, elisions, fallacies, and crude assumptions in his writing that to unpack it all would take a far lengthier intervention.

Re. Camille Paglia: if she thinks there's no good art being made today then she hasn't bothered to look for any. That's my two cents. I'll read her, but I think she's more provocative than thought-provoking.

 

[rms]

Well if his belief is all about supporting society/the greater good, then his statement is "correct" in his world view. A lot of people believe in that, I think.

Sure he ignores cultural impact on homosexuals, but main debate always seems to be either all genetics or all social impact, never a shared answer.

 

[rms]

Camille Paglia being her typically awesome self.

This is fantastic. Not only does she compare the Bill's Cosby and Clinton to necrophiliacs but also muses on how we've essentially stepped into a cultural time machine and traveled back to the early 90's and how most college graduates are unprepared for the realities of the real world. This is the first of three parts and I eagerly await the next two.

I really, really enjoyed this. Long as hell, but good.

And Ein, only one line about art, everything else is feminism/comparing Clinton and Cosby.

 

[CiG]

Camille Paglia, the political and cultural critic, has been a brave and brilliant provocateur on Salon for almost 20 years now.

It's unnatural to laugh so much so early into an article.