Posts by bohm

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

Simon: Watch this and tell me some people are not suffering mental issues.

Some of them ARE suffering from mental issues! Some of them ARE crackpots!

That's true of ANY group!

20

SJW thinking on the right: The lack of agency

by bohm in

jw
friends

the nut-left got a dilemma with islamic terrorism: on one hand their natural instinct is to defend muslims from any (perceived) attack on islam and on the other hand radical islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: the nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed sharia law.. how do you fix the cognitive dissonance?

well, the standard script includes the following items:.

first, you don't really defend sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, israel.

bohm

LUHE: "Talking about Burkas or the systematic oppression of women in Islam is not helping: It is EXACTLY talking about those things that CREATE violence - you've lost me."

It is an example of speech found on the nut-left (I can provide examples). My point of the post is that the arguments used by the nut-left and nut-right rely on the same fallacies.

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

bohm: You are doing mental gymnastics to try and delegitimize valid criticism. The left is doubling down on their identity politics and it will fail because of it.

One of us is happy there was a 4M peaceful march against a very compromised president, the other is trying to find reasons to discredit the protests..

I accept some of the women in the march are not reasonable.. ofcourse I do! I said that from the onset!

But using that to discredit the entire march is just silly... in that way the WTBs can claim we are all satanists (some are!) or crackpots (some are!) or liars (some are!).

The alt-right media is fueling a very intense propaganda campaign against everything that smells like the left: That is why I could predict days in advance this march would be declared as wrongthink and I could even point out the reasons; that turned out to be true.

The techniques they use are techniques you would instantly recognize as illegitimate if they were used on other subjects and the techniques are not applied consistently.

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

I have a question:

my wife bought stakes for dinner but i ate both for lunch.

she then got mad at me when she got home.

I reminded her that many women in saudi arabia have no stakes at all and she isnt protesting that

she accepted this logical argument and mentioned many men in the vatikan have no sex

Can someone explain why she think that is relevant?

4

Women's March in Germany: Allah Akbar!

by Saename in

i just found something interesting... i found a video of a group of people shouting, "allah akbar!

" while protesting in berlin, germany.

it was the women's march.. praise allah for this one-minute recording:.

bohm

VI: The protests must be delegitimized. The only people that can exist on the left are SJWs and their idiotic enablers. This will in the coming weeks and months be done by pouring over examples of violence and idiocy during the protests. This will be successful.

I recommend you to watch the video by Sargon of Akkad on this thread (i have indicated the relevant sections)

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5994914305277952/anatomy-delegitimizing-anti-trump-protest-am-prophetic

...unrelated to this is how the SJWs believe that the only people who are conservative are racist white supremacists and their idiotic enablers. But that is just because they live in an echo-chamber.

20

SJW thinking on the right: The lack of agency

by bohm in

jw
friends

the nut-left got a dilemma with islamic terrorism: on one hand their natural instinct is to defend muslims from any (perceived) attack on islam and on the other hand radical islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: the nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed sharia law.. how do you fix the cognitive dissonance?

well, the standard script includes the following items:.

first, you don't really defend sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, israel.

bohm

Simon: I want to know, when you say "the left" who do you mean?

I am part of the left because, well, that's what I vote. Do you think I am acting like a fascist, a thug and present a threat to you?

You elsewhere write we should not generalize. When you generalize (such as you do here) do you think that is an okay exception because your generalization is true?

My point in the OP (which I am also making elsewhere) is that now that I have followed the left/right break-out segments of what used to be the atheist community (I am sure you are familiar with the big elevator gate shit feast where Pharyngula went up its own arse and sprouted the slymepit) I can't help to notice what I see as very strong parallels in rhetoric. I would really invite you to look at youtube SJWs, make it clear to yourself what they are doing wrong, and then try to look at e.g. Sargons videos.

There are also differences. For instance, the right-wing SJWs don't have witch hunts within their own ranks the same way.

20

SJW thinking on the right: The lack of agency

by bohm in

jw
friends

the nut-left got a dilemma with islamic terrorism: on one hand their natural instinct is to defend muslims from any (perceived) attack on islam and on the other hand radical islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: the nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed sharia law.. how do you fix the cognitive dissonance?

well, the standard script includes the following items:.

first, you don't really defend sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, israel.

bohm

The nut-left got a dilemma with Islamic terrorism: On one hand their natural instinct is to defend Muslims from any (perceived) attack on Islam and on the other hand radical Islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: The nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed Sharia law.

How do you fix the cognitive dissonance? Well, the standard script includes the following items:

First, you don't really defend Sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, Israel. The purpose is often not really to say western value has the same moral Islamism (but some go that far), but rather that there are serious problems with western culture. Often that critique is correct (albeit exaggerated) or at least not irrational.

Then you get to the important points:

When a Muslim drive a car into a crowd of people, it is important to recognize he does so for a number of reasons that do not derive from Islam. He has been subject to ridicule by those in power (i.e. the white community), unfair discrimination and a society who sees him with suspicious. He is marginalized, without political or economic powers. When he airs his frustrations he is called an angry Muslim and he continuously have to fight a system unfairly rigged against him: he has no job, no prospects, no real influence on society (well, he does in a formal sense, but not practically). Isn't it obvious such a person lashes out? Sure we don't condone what he does, but we got to recognize that he is a symptom of a much larger problem of systemic oppression which will continue to rob Muslims of basic rights and give them no other outlet than taking to their guns within the only counter-culture that listens to them and takes them serious is only what we should expect.
When people criticize his beliefs (i.e. points to his video where he drones on about the virgins and jihad), they are reacting to the last, severe symptoms of what is really systematic oppression.
Attacking Islam is, therefore, counter-productive. Talking about Burkas or the systematic oppression of women in Islam is not helping: It is EXACTLY talking about those things that CREATE violence.
It does not matter that it is really only a minority on the right who are really going after the Muslims ("and by the way, we don't think it is a minority"). After all, the entire society is rigged (implicitly) against them, and all it takes to react are the few bad apples on the right who spread their racist propaganda. To fix the problem, we got to fix the systemic issues with our society (not possible in practice...) and make sure the most extreme elements on the right do not create problems (not possible either). Anyway, THOSE are the issues we should focus on, not blaming Islam or have a conversation about Islamic vs. liberal values.

Does any of that sound familiar?

I think the above analysis contains grains of truth but that it is ultimately mistaken: It is incredibly smug and counter-productive. It is also deeply pessimistic: It is a form of racism to think Muslims don't have the agency to make decisions and claiming they are not responsible for what is obviously very conscious choices is simply denying reality. I have seen that point being made time and time again on this forum.

...that gets us to the right-wing version fo the above script...

Trump is a liar, a bully, and a fraud. A serial sexual harasser accused by his wife of rape who ticks all boxes for an antisocial disorder. On top fo that he is a science-denier and an anti-vaxer; he supports war crimes such as torture and the killing of families of militants. Etc. etc. etc.

...but we can't agree with the left/HRC supporters so what are we to do?...

The script is familiar:

First, we can't really defend Trump, but we can certainly talk about the many problems of Hillary (emails, podesta, robotic, political establishment, SJW, "the left" yadda yada yadda). As for the nut-left, the point is not to say: Trump is a better candidate than Hillary (because as for Sharia few people can say that and believe it too), but to lay the groundwork for the next item:
When people voted Trump, it is really because of N contingent reasons out of their control: They are left out by globalism, the left/center, mainstream media and powers in Washington do not respect them. They don't have jobs. They are considered as a lower class in society. Nobody is speaking for their concerns except in a very superficial manner and most often they are simply dismissed as racists or hill-billies. That leads us to conclude:
When "the left" criticise them for voting Trump because of their hard-felt beliefs in Trumps ideas (for instance, that global warming is a hoax or that Obama is not a Kenyan Muslim or that Obamacare won't destroy the fabric of society), gosh golly, that's just giving these poor marginalized folks the middle finger! Moreover, members of the elitist left go as far as saying they are backward, perhaps subscribing to antiquated ideas (like, the idea that the US can't really be a mining country), and that is a lack of respect for their deeply-held values. (Sounds familiar? "If you say that Islam is an antiquated ideology of course they won't listen to you!"). And the left even has the audacity to insinuate their values are not good enough! (like, everyone who doesn't accept gay marriage is not keeping up with moral progress, something that pisses off both camps).
Who can really blame these poor simple folks for revolting, for voting and rallying behind the person who comes along and finally says the things they feel are true? (even if it isn't strictly true from our enlightened perspective, like global warming is a hoax, that crime is going up, or that Muhammad flew on the horse,...)
When "the left" talk about "the left" ideas, such as global warming, gay rights or Obamacare, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS CREATING THE PROBLEM. These people are just REACTING to what the left does.
It does not matter that it is really only a minority on the far-left that are really saying nutty things ("and by the way, it is not a minority"; cue Jordan Peterson and the 4M SJWs that have infiltrated society...): After all, the entire society is rigged (implicitly) against them, and all it takes to react are the few bad apples on the far left who spread their idiotic ideas such as toilet-laws or strange pronouns. To fix the problem, we got to fix the systemic issues with our society (not gonna happen in a looong time) and make sure the most extreme elements on the left do not create problems (not possible either). Anyway, THOSE are the issues we should focus on, not blaming the people who voted Trump or have a conversation about Trumpism vs. liberal values.

In my view, the above contains some grains of truth, but it is misguided: People who vote Trump does so for reasons that are not good. Blaming the left, especially the most misguided elements on the left and general features of the society that are not going to change in 50 years, for a group's conscious choice is not productive.

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

Let's try to discuss some of the things SJWs do wrong and what we might learn from it:

Instead of focusing their claims about systematic oppression on large-scale studies they tend to focus on particular cases of oppression and use these (as well as the emotional response they evoke) to garner support and outrage.
Does that mean this type of focusing on particular examples of what a group does is a bad thing?
Their argumentation is build around catch-phrases and cliches meant to evoke a particular response: (the patriarchy, rape-culture apologist, white man tears, racist, white privilege)
Does that mean we should do our best to avoid similar cliche language? (SJW, cuck, special snowflake, regressive left)
Their worldview is black and white: You are either with us or against us. People are labeled very quickly based on their opinion on certain hot-button issues (i.e. what is your view on police brutality?) in a manner that leads your thoughts to witchhunts. If you belong to the wrong group, you are at best a useful idiot
...SJW...regressive left....
Their argumentation lends heavily on outrage and ridicule: White men who object to them are ridiculous, hypocritical racists who don't understand their own privilege (another loaded word). You can't just disagree, you are then part of the patriarchy. Youtube videos by SJWs are full of snark, ridicule, "reading between the lines" (if he says we don't have a rape culture he is denying that women suffer rape more often than men), hyperbole and adding "implicit" context to someone's argument.
any video of sargon of akkad
SJWs often just know things. For instance, we live in a society permeated by white privilege. What exactly does that mean? What is the factual basis for that claim? At most, it is strenuous and relates to personal opinion, special cases or other circumstances that do not point uniquely to white privilege (as opposed to other explanations). Yet the claim is made with great certainty even though it cannot be backed up with specific pieces of evidence.
The general lesson here is that specific claims made with certainty should be backed up with exact and objectively verifiable pieces of evidence that uniquely support those claims
Male tears: A very interesting aspect of this culture is the preoccupation about how "the other side" reacts. The best thing is that if they are "sad" or somehow does something that can be seen as an emotional reaction ("crying"). Those reactions are then exaggerated and spread. I don't really know why this is seen as important, but it is.
Nearly every day breitbart.com has a similar story about someone who is "crying" or "sad". It seems like a very dark aspect of human psychology...

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

JRK:

A "social justice warrior" is a term used for a particular type of advocate for feminism. I don't know who invented the term; it is used by some in a highly derogatory fashion to mean a "crazy feminist" and by some to mean something positive ("a very engaged feminist").

The typical person who would be called a SJW is someone who believe that the patriarchy is a real thing influencing in a very negative way the lives of women (and men), that we have a systemic rape culture and who often subscribe to marxist ideas as well as postmodern notions of gender and gender identity. Note there is a huge range of opinions and persons that fall under the umbrella term.

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

bohm

Simon: I still don't understand exactly what aspect of "gender misuse" JP and others are objecting to.

I think it is relevant to have a debate about hate crimes (i.e. if there should be hate crimes in the penal code), but quite frankly that only affects JP if he goes on and murder someone on campus, etc.

Could you explain in your own words what new "gender misuse" crime you are worried about?

Whenever I try to dig into that issue (and JP made it very clear that gender misuse was a very serious concern to him in his first video) the discussion is diverted into generalities...

Another way to ask this question is if this writeup of C16 is wrong:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/