White Lives Don't Matter - apparently

[isladogs]

Those who are conservative have a right to be offended by the actions of the political left and to have their viewpoints respected by those on the political left.

I agree with that completely but the reverse is also true
Those who are not conservative have a right to be offended by the actions of the political right and to have their viewpoints respected by those on the political right.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

An interesting question (at least, interesting to me...): In a land of free speech where the goal is a free exchange of ideas, do you actually have the right to be offended by another person's viewpoints during a legitimate discussion of issues? Isn't that claiming a form of "Political Correctness" as a way to shut down your opponent on other than the logical or technical merits of the argument? Isn't that perhaps an attempt to establish inequality through emotion rather than literate discussion?

(Specifically I am not talking about someone expressly going out of their way to TRY to step on toes. Hell, I can do that in a heartbeat.)

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

do you actually have the right to be offended by another person's viewpoints

No - See Dr Jordan B Peterson

claiming a form of "Political Correctness" as a way to shut down your opponent

Yes - See Dr Jordan B Peterson

And another technique I see used often, you pick on people's weaknesses, maybe a spelling mistake, maybe a misquote, maybe point out a lack of knowledge. Anything to discredit the other person as being inferior to you. Therefore you win the argument not through logic AND intelligence but through being a complete dick head!

 

[Isaac]

I agree with that completely but the reverse is also true
Those who are not conservative have a right to be offended by the actions of the political right and to have their viewpoints respected by those on the political right

not to be terribly attached to semantics here, but I would disagree with that. People often use that phrase without really thinking what it means thoroughly in my opinion. If you think someone else's viewpoint is terribly wrong or even dangerous and abusive, saying that you respect the opinion or viewpoint itself is going a little far for me. I respect people's right to have and voice their opinion, without being persecuted or imprisoned etc. But I don't necessarily respect the opinion or viewpoint itself. Sometimes I do sometimes I don't depends what it is.

 

[Isaac]

No - See Dr Jordan B Peterson



Yes - See Dr Jordan B Peterson

And another technique I see used often, you pick on people's weaknesses, maybe a spelling mistake, maybe a misquote, maybe point out a lack of knowledge. Anything to discredit the other person as being inferior to you. Therefore you win the argument not through logic AND intelligence but through being a complete dick head!

Yes that is a good observation

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Therefore you win the argument not through logic AND intelligence but through being a complete dick head!

Technically, what you just described is a more subtle form of argumentum ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

I frequently use this concept in arguments: "You have the right to be wrong. I will defend that right forever even if you are wrong forever. Which at this rate, you might be." Yeah, I know, the last part is cruel, but hey, I never promised that I was Mr. Nice Guy. After all, isn't "curmudgeon" in my signature?

 

[Steve R.]

Another example of the selective use of police power to protect Black Lives Matter over protecting other artwork, including statues. Police Seek 2 White People Who Were Seen Vandalizing Black Lives Matter Mural.

“The community spent a considerable amount of time putting the mural together only to have it painted over in a hateful and senseless manner,” Chief Manjit Sappal of the Martinez Police Department said in a statement. “The city of Martinez values tolerance, and the damage to the mural was divisive and hurtful.”

Yet, many on the left consider this type of destructive action, on artwork that they unilaterally proclaim to be offensive, justifiable. People who created what some now consider "offensive" art also spent a considerable amount of time and effort in putting the art together only to have it destroyed in a hateful and senseless manner. Where is the tolerance?

 

[pbaldy]

Very true Steve. Reminds me of all the conservative speakers that have been shouted down and not allowed to give their speeches. I'd love to see someone return the favor when the liberal wants to speak.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

White privilege isn't real - Jordan Peterson

 

[Steve R.]

Gregg Gutfeld monologue of today (07/06/2020). If the person who could be blamed for something by much of the media is not white, it is not news (1.20 minute mark). Paraphrased "the media can't condemn bad people who might not be white, but will condemn white people". Note the response of Juan Williams, the problem in the Black community, according to him, is guns and systemic racism. Juan in typical (leftist) fashion never mentions that the Black Community should be responsible for their own actions.

Gutfeld on the bloody 4th

 

[Steve R.]

@Jon started this thread on June 25, 2020. In the intervening time, Fox New began having Robert L. Woodson appear on their various news/opinion shows. As an introduction to the narrative below see: The Problem With Looking At Life Through the Prism of Race: Bob Woodson interview by Tucker Carlson.

As a very short summary, Woodson through his 1776 project is refuting the New York Times 1619 Project. By implication, the New York Time's 1619 project appears to be a source of the growing anti-white hysteria currently sweeping this country. In a summary of the 1776 project Charlotte Hay wrote: "The New York Times posits 1619 as the real year of our founding, and it was a founding steeped in racism and oppression, which are still the core of our national character. ... Properly understood, the “1619 Project” isn’t about black history. It’s about today’s racial disparities. It’s about applying current ideologies to past events, in the continuing attempt to blame the past actions of whites for the current problems of blacks. Mr. Woodson understands that this is not only dishonest but damaging. Why doesn’t the New York Times?"

The Atlantic, which I normally find too radical, had this article: 1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not. From that article, I have cherry picked some quotes that seemingly affirm that the current anti-white hysteria currently sweeping this nation may have originated, in part, with the 1619 project. I would of course recommend reading it, as my interpretation may not match yours.

Conor Friedersdorf wrote: "Academic historians, conservatives, and Trotskyist socialists rightly reject The New York Times’ reframing of the past." ... "That prompted another round of critical coverage from the World Socialist Web Site and historian Gordon Wood, a leading scholar of the period, who was irked most by the Times Magazine’s doubling down on the claim that a primary reason American colonists favored independence was to protect slavery. “I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves,” he wrote. “No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776.”" ... "Why did a socialist website invest so much time and attention to the 1619 Project? In the view of the site’s editors, The New York Times is engaged in a reactionary, politically motivated “falsification of history” that wrongly centers racial rather than class conflict. “The establishment of a racialist narrative is extremely dangerous,” the Marxist theoretician David North, chairman of the site’s international editorial board, told me in a phone interview. “I cannot think of any action, intellectually or politically, more harmful to the struggle to unite the working class than an argument which asserts the primacy of race as the motivating factor in history.”" ... "Just as confidently, the World Socialist Web Site asserts that the Times project comes from an “affluent petty-bourgeois social stratum, determined to make as much money as possible, regardless of where it is coming from,” and that the 1619 Project’s identitarian politics is “a mechanism for dividing the working class, subordinating it to the right-wing, pro-war politics of the Democratic Party, and a mechanism for carrying out bitter struggles within the top ten percent for access to positions in academia, corporate boardrooms and the state.”" (emphasis added)

The phrase "affluent petty-bourgeois social stratum" seems particularly germane based on the videos of many or the protesters who have been destroying the statues. It would seem that the "affluent petty-bourgeois social stratum" instigators don't comprehend that they are committing cultural sucide.

 

[Steve R.]

Reason Magazine reports: Museum Curator Resigns After He Is Accused of Racism for Saying He Would Still Collect Art From White Men

"Until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster.

The intimidation of those who, for whatever reason, you despise continues.

Not exactly related, as a direct example of anti-white discrimination; but: Dan Gainor: Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan depart and leftist journalism sacrifices two more careers to the mob. In this case, the left wing mob that has been inciting anti-white hysteria has created a hostile workplace environment resulting in two people resigning from the New York Times. Apparently those on the radical left do not tolerate divergent thought.

"She depicted a major shift further left for one of the nation’s foremost leftist news outlets. “Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired,” Weiss explained."

Ben Shapiro: Bari Weiss vs. NY Times 'woke' groupthink – the Great Culture Purge of 2020 marches on

"As Weiss raged: "If a person's ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome.""

Ben Shapiro also noted:

"At Princeton University, professor Joshua Katz wrote an open letter decrying demands from fellow Princeton faculty that the university engage in open racial discrimination in favor of minorities.

He was quickly labeled a threat to decency, with fellow professor Eddie Glaude complaining, "Professor Katz, at times in this letter, seems to not regard people like me as essential features, or persons, of Princeton.""

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since posting, I ran across this anti-white diatribe, from the Smithsonian Institution no less. Talking about race.

"Whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture, and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups of are compared. Whiteness is also at the core of understanding race in America. Whiteness and the normalization of white racial identity throughout America's history have created a culture where nonwhite persons are seen as inferior or abnormal."

So this supposed "talk" on race immediately degenerates into an outright accusation that whites are automatically racist. So how can one have a "conversation" when the other side accuses you of all sorts of wrongs and fails to consider your side? There is no pretense of conversation, those who wrote the diatribe want total submission and the destruction of the "diverse" society they claim to want.

 

[Steve R.]

Ben Shapiro: America is hitting the self-destruct button

It is particularly true today that American society does not deserve the scorn being heaped upon her head. American society is decidedly not racist: According to Swedish economists from World Values, America is one of the most racially tolerant countries on Earth.

American law has banned discrimination on race for two generations and more than half a century; in fact, the only racially discriminatory laws on the books cut in favor of racial minorities, who have been granted special privileges in arenas like college admissions

The police are no longer instruments of racial terror, contrary to popular media narrative: In many of America's largest cities, police forces are either majority-minority or nearly so, and police are not more likely to shoot and kill black Americans than white Americans. (emphasis added)

Shapiro unfortunately did not include affirmative action programs and diversity mandates that favor members of the minority in his discussion.

Shaprio's reference to the "self-destruct button" is appropriate, but he is seemingly late to realizing this. But then I have only recently begun to hear his narrative. To a degree this is quite understandable that he is seemingly late, as those raising the specter of Balkanization years ago in the US, such as Pat Buchanan, were strongly vilified and their advocacy was condemned. Now, the increasing radicalism and intolerance of the left may be sensitizing people to the impending cultural suicide of Western culture.

 

[Isaac]

The left wing idea of "tolerance" has often manifested itself as an oxymoron, since it is strongly intolerant of those who don't agree with 100% of its prescribed applications.
It would be like preaching "love everyone", but then actually applying it to only love everyone who loves everyone. (While we're speaking of pedantics in cartoons). : )

 

[isladogs]

Whilst I agree that some on the left can be intolerant, I also see a lot of intolerance from the right.
In my opinion, that includes several of the regular contributors to this forum who identify themselves as being on the right.

For what its worth, I am centre-left and can see the faults on both sides.
If in this forum I express a view it is usually to try and provide a bit of balance

 

[Isaac]

Whilst I agree that some on the left can be intolerant, I also see a lot of intolerance from the right.
In my opinion, that includes several of the regular contributors to this forum who identify themselves as being on the right.

For what its worth, I am centre-left and can see the faults on both sides.
If in this forum I express a view it is usually to try and provide a bit of balance

I wouldn't disagree with your first statement. The way I see it is, the fundamental difference between the left (who mostly espouses a very broad-based, if not close to universal, tolerance) vs. the right, is that the right don't profess universal tolerance in the first place. The viewpoint of some of us toward the right is simply that No, we don't tolerate universally. And of course, that is often seen as absolutely wrong by the left. So maybe another way of saying it is that, many on the left view any form of intolerance as simply wrong. Many on the right view some forms of intolerance as not wrong, and based in reasonable desired outcomes. I'm trying not to inject "myself" in that statement, more just an effort to describe the way things are and such. I won't even bring up examples because I fear it would devolve into an argument on those specific topics, whereas I am truly just trying to separate out what is or isn't. So there are those on the right who try to avoid certain outcomes by practicing some form of exclusionary policies. Some of those exclusionary policies might be things I would agree are just 'wrong'. I don't prefer to frame it as a Tolerance issue in those cases because as stated, Right & Wrong (respectively) aren't necessarily synonymous with Tolerance & Intolerance (respectively)--and I guess that as a thesis statement is where I will stop, on that.

I will say that I try to be aware of myself having made "conclusions" about things without all the information and occasionally there is a discussion here that leads me to self-examine. And often play devil's advocate, just for the exercise in self honesty. An example was the recent Biden-related thread where I was all on the "science" side, but felt compelled to bring Steve's point up for at least some amount of defense.

I must say, it is a good thing to be exposed to all viewpoints - in some form or another of exposure.

 

[Steve R.]

Time for one of "those" clarification posts. Words, such as "intolerance", at time times, can unintentionally become the focus of those responding to a post. True, I said that "the increasing radicalism and intolerance of the left may be sensitizing people to the impending cultural suicide of Western culture." The increasing intolerance of the left can't be denied, but that was not the intended topic. (Yes, those on the right can also be intolerant, but this was never supposed to be a left/right review of which side is the most intolerant.) The intended theme of the post is the "impending cultural suicide of Western culture". Shapiro, may now be a new voice raising the alarm to the public.

 

[isladogs]

Time for one of "those" clarification posts. Words, such as "intolerance", at time times, can unintentionally become the focus of those responding to a post. True, I said that "the increasing radicalism and intolerance of the left may be sensitizing people to the impending cultural suicide of Western culture." The increasing intolerance of the left can't be denied, but that was not the intended topic. (Yes, those on the right can also be intolerant, but this was never supposed to be a left/right review of which side is the most intolerant.) The intended theme of the post is the "impending cultural suicide of Western culture". Shapiro, may now be a new voice raising the alarm to the public.

@Steve
Your posts only ever state a very narrow viewpoint where you relentlessly attack 'the left' and often quote selectively from right wing media such as Fox News. The point you said can't be denied is your view. It is not fact and indeed can be argued against.
On several occasions, I have posted a rebuttal where I have directly reversed your argument. On each occasion you have just ignored my reply.

The reality is that overall the US population do not share your views. A significant number may do so but perhaps not enough to re-elect the current occupant of the White House. Granted Biden is not an appealing alternative but, if I had a vote, he would very much be the 'better' of two poor candidates

 

[Steve R.]

Not totally valid. I just cited a CNN based article. Yes, my posts have been selective, but then your responses have been equally selective. Thus we plod-on.

 

[isladogs]

I'm talking about your posts in numerous threads over a long period of time.
I'm not the only person to have made that comment about your posts.
As I said earlier today, where I express an opinion its usually done to try and provide some balance from the increasingly frequent right wing viewpoints expressed here by yourself and others.

Where you do quote from what you describe as left wing media e.g. CNN, it is done only to criticize for its supposed bias.
A little bit more objectivity would possibly make your arguments have greater impact.

I don't know the real balance in views in the US media but, in the UK. almost all of our national media is right wing.