Nate Skalman
What’s in the basket?
The whole Portland city council has been in a "freeze up" over race/identity/gender politics for the last 3 terms.
The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
Nate Skalman
What’s in the basket?
The media is bringing attention to a supposed transgender housing crisis in Oregon to cut in line in front of Hispanics for free housing. The weirder you are the higher on the list you go...it's not uncommon here to see a mismatch combination of conflicting ideals some people use to get free living- the transgender, Muslim, using "battered women's" shelters etc...What happened to that fat, 40 something yr. old guy who abandoned his 6 kids to be a "6 yr. old girl" and even had a family "adopt" him so he didn't have to work or pay child support...people were fucking serious about defending this disgusting low-life, too!!- I guess it's hard for liberals to think straight when their doctors got them "functioning" on opioids, damn doctors!
Nate Skalman
What’s in the basket?
Our mayor Sam Adams got caught buggering a 17 yr. old boy working as an intern...liberals rallied around him using the gay card to threaten "discrimination" lawsuits. Then he plowed his car through a fence totally shit-faced wasted...liberals again rallied to his defense threatening more gay discrimination lawsuits. Both times tying up our city's time and resources. Not one disciplinary action was ever taken just because he was gay.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't worship capitalism or something.
You don't have to worship it. I'm saying you're painting this whole thing as simply left-wing extremism run amok, when a large part of it has to with market dynamics and profits. Companies hunt what's cool, and right now what's cool is being PC. I'm not legitimizing, but it isn't some evil plan being extolled solely by that which you keep calling "the left."
They're not using capitalism. You make it sound like someone's in control here. The difference lies in where the targeting comes from (which I explain below).
But you can see the very real historical and functional differences between McCarthyism and what's happening today, whatever it is--yes?
I'm not advocating mob mentality by any means, and anti-communism certainly thrived on mob mentality; but the location of power is reversed in these cases. What's happening today is not an orchestrated government witch hunt, it isn't being dictated by anyone in power (if anything, it's being dismissed by those in power). McCarthyism was a top-down purge, a political blacklist maintained by a powerful congressional official.
No one is forcing companies to operate in a particular way. It's the arrangement of the cultural atmosphere, there's blood in the wind and execs know how to survive. That obviously doesn't mean government officials don't play a role; but they're not back there pulling the strings, they're not hunting down non-PC CEOs and hanging them out to dry or anything. This is capitalism and social media. The government just answers the call. It's no different than businesses cutting ties with Trump because of his buffoonery.
Dak
mentat
I would argue senators were a lot more powerful in the '50s than now. Social media is changing the power structures. That's part of the reason Trump surprised the Republican establishment and the Democratic party had to essentially openly collude to deny Bernie* the nomination.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
Social media is definitely influential, but it doesn't (yet) occupy a position of legislative or judicial authority. Social media isn't a courthouse, although I can imagine someone making the rhetorical comparison. To keep the analogy, you could compare social media today to radio in the 1950s.
As far as influence goes, I would challenge you to provide evidence that social media today is any more influential (contextually speaking) than broadcast radio in the McCarthy era. If you transplanted social media into the 1950s then it would almost certainly have a more pronounced influence than radio; but in the 1950s, radio accomplished basically what social media does today. They filled the same social vacuum with a cacophony of maddened perspectives.
As far as influence goes, I would challenge you to provide evidence that social media today is any more influential (contextually speaking) than broadcast radio in the McCarthy era. If you transplanted social media into the 1950s then it would almost certainly have a more pronounced influence than radio; but in the 1950s, radio accomplished basically what social media does today. They filled the same social vacuum with a cacophony of maddened perspectives.
Dak
mentat
I disagree. Radio still provided a very rigidly controlled centralized perspective to listeners. This is far before the conservative explosion on AM radio.
Nate Skalman
What’s in the basket?
PC is "cool" because of media influence and bandwagonning perpetrated by the left...That's why you see hypocrite companies like Nike, who are massive perveyors of third world child labor and sweatshops send out statements openly "condemning" the actions and words of Trump hoping to sell more popular swag because trashing Trump is "cool"...companies getting involved in political exposure to attempt to jump their sales. Companies like Apple who "condemn" Trumps policies yet have played a huge part in destroying our educational system by removing school text books and replacing them with ipads, and fund "common core" education. Liberalism is certainly attempting to middle-man capitalism.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It was more controlled than social media, but it provided an analogous form of access to information in the mid-twentieth century. John Dewey called radio "the most powerful instrument of social education the world has ever seen" (that was before the internet, of course). In the context of the 1950s, radio was the medium that cultivated populist frenzy.
But regardless of whether we think radio is more controlled than social media, that doesn't make the analogy between social media influence and senatorial or congressional power somehow more accurate.
Dak
mentat
I think your Dewey quote makes my point. Dewey was incredibly Bernaysian in terms of mass persuasion to one elite controlled POV. Social media (and alt media of both right/left forms) are a radical departure.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think your point is that radio is manipulable for political ends, just like social media (which is what Trump did). Social media itself isn't an institution of power and it doesn't possess power, unless we want to discuss a company's stock price as a form of power--which I'd say it is, but the financial power of major social media platforms isn't a direct mandate on the ideological statements of their users. Social media simply reflects and amplifies populist attitudes. This is what populist dictators in the 1930s and '40s did, and it's what Trump did during his campaign.
In the West after WWII, radio actually became less politically manipulable and more democratic (which translates into more populist).
In the West after WWII, radio actually became less politically manipulable and more democratic (which translates into more populist).
Last edited:
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
One is only ever worse than the other when one has more power and influence.
Yes and the left are taking advantage of it, that's the fucking point.
When society and therefore businesses were fine with targeting non-Christians, communists and so on, it was wrong for supposedly principled right-wingers to take advantage of that.
Nate Skalman
What’s in the basket?
The shift from printed text has been a travesty IMO...luckily my two kids are 16 and 17 but the last 4 years in Portlands school system are what I call the "lost years"-they've catered all the state testing to immigrant students as well. My point was these businesses are just as controversial and should have no interest in speaking out on opinion based politics
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I'm sure you've seen it, but you're still using anecdotes. There are studies that show evidence of systemic bias against black people when it comes to hiring, and that carries more weight:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
If we're using anecdotes though, the recent legal issues at Uber and Fox News show that sexual harassment is still a problem, which is why we have these HR policies you hate in the first place. You just choose to ignore one side of the problem.
Last edited:
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Serjeant Grumbles
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2005
- 4,382
- 2,876
- 113
Doesn't matter, it's obviously biased, because Martin Luther King ended racism. I'm the least racist person ever and I don't even see race, I have piles and piles of black friends, and I trust them more than anyone else to shine my shoes. Things were going fine until that Kenyan-born socialist Barack Hussein Obongo started riling up the blacks, so now they're all chimping out about "Black Lives Matter." Like I said, I'm not racist, the libtard dummycrats are the real racists, they invented the KKK!
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Similar threads
