Politics Thread: Silicon Valley Edition

[Epaminondas]

This Pigeon stuff amounts to an ad hominem attack. Val has apparently cited Pigeon guy in the past. Ben brings up that association as a way to attack Val's overall points. Val, as far as I can tell, takes the bait in some sense and engages with Ben on this subject. I have no stake in that fight. Also, I will point out that I don't really know Val, but he does have similar views on at least a few subjects, and so I will come at this question obliquely. Valsuelm might have what some people consider questionable views on some issues. I don't doubt that virtually everyone here has views that at least some people find questionable. However, in the same way that we should view each other's arguments charitably, we should also isolate disparate arguments each of us makes from his other arguments. Moreover, a person can have different views at different times and those views often change for better or worse according to what the reader wants to believe.

 

"For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation."

 

I would suggest that virtually every person here would applaud the sentiment in this quote. I'm also convinced that every person here despised the person making the statement. He was a bad guy, but apparently there was a point where he wasn't as bad guy as he ended.

 

I'll own that I'm perhaps not thinking quite as clearly as I was earlier this evening. However, I would still contend that this isn't a proper discussion of policy. It's an argument about trivial side-show things that don't really go towards the question at hand, which is public policy as far as I can tell. I'm new here, of course, and so probably not in a position to butt into what appears to be a private squabble, but what Ben and Val think about Pigeon-boy doesn't really intrude over much into an assessment of current policy. I mean, as a general idea of which one you find more credible, sure. That would be a surprise as to whom most people find credible in this joint, but it's irrelevant. The individual arguments about policy, however, are individual arguments that should stand or fall on their own merits.

 

That said, I overall tend to agree more with Val, but I don't agree completely with either one of them. ...And I wish Shaun the best with his youtube page at any rate.

[kirottu]

Dude, I'm not saying politcs aren't bad for you, but have you heard Hocus Pocus by Focus?

 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Yes, crypto-fascist talking points clearly have the same merit as feminist ideas 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Yes, crypto-fascist talking points clearly have the same merit as feminist ideas 

 

 

I know you mean it as sarcasm but it holds some merit, both are extremely authoritarian

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I know you mean it as sarcasm but it holds some merit, both are extremely authoritarian

 

Extremely indeed    After all, feminists would like less sexualized characters in video games, while the kind of people BPS is pandering to believe in "white sharia" (their words, not mine), and those two are clearly the same thing 

[Chilloutman]

 

I know you mean it as sarcasm but it holds some merit, both are extremely authoritarian

 

Extremely indeed    After all, feminists would like less sexualized characters in video games, while the kind of people BPS is pandering to believe in "white sharia" (their words, not mine), and those two are clearly the same thing 

 

 

extreme authoritarian does not mean that goals are extreme, but the fact that they hold power (or want to) over you no matter if you agree with goal or not.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Do feminists hold power over you?

[Chilloutman]

Do feminists hold power over you?

 

do nazis hold power over you?

[Ben No.3]

Feminism is only authoritarian in the sense that it advocates the overturn of certain societal aspects, as it finds them intolerable. It’s suggestions however tend to offer more liberty for the individual, rather than less. “Authoritarian” is therefore a strange and misleading word to describe feminism, and equating it to the authoritarianism of fascism is wrong.

 

An example: Feminists argue that women should enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. This is essentially a liberation in that it enables women to gain a significant amount of control over their lives.

Someone like BPS might call this “authoritarian”, as it comes along with a high degree of intolerance towards the advocation for set up marriages, which he supports. Being exposed to a stark reaction by viewers or perhaps his platform, he mistakes a fight against the authoritarianism he advocates for authoritarianism itself.

[Ben No.3]

@Epaminondas

Criticism of source isn’t the same as ad hominem

[Chilloutman]

Feminism is only authoritarian in the sense that it advocates the overturn of certain societal aspects, as it finds them intolerable. It’s suggestions however tend to offer more liberty for the individual, rather than less. “Authoritarian” is therefore a strange and misleading word to describe feminism, and equating it to the authoritarianism of fascism is wrong.

 

An example: Feminists argue that women should enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. This is essentially a liberation in that it enables women to gain a significant amount of control over their lives.

Someone like BPS might call this “authoritarian”, as it comes along with a high degree of intolerance towards the advocation for set up marriages, which he supports. Being exposed to a stark reaction by viewers or perhaps his platform, he mistakes a fight against the authoritarianism he advocates for authoritarianism itself.

 

They already have to enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. At least where most of us lives. No need for feminism there, get better example

[redneckdevil]

 

Feminism is only authoritarian in the sense that it advocates the overturn of certain societal aspects, as it finds them intolerable. It’s suggestions however tend to offer more liberty for the individual, rather than less. “Authoritarian” is therefore a strange and misleading word to describe feminism, and equating it to the authoritarianism of fascism is wrong.

 

An example: Feminists argue that women should enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. This is essentially a liberation in that it enables women to gain a significant amount of control over their lives.

Someone like BPS might call this “authoritarian”, as it comes along with a high degree of intolerance towards the advocation for set up marriages, which he supports. Being exposed to a stark reaction by viewers or perhaps his platform, he mistakes a fight against the authoritarianism he advocates for authoritarianism itself.

They already have to enter marriage voluntarily and divorce at will. At least where most of us lives. No need for feminism there, get better example

Actually Ben gave a great example. Think of it, when a couple divorces the woman gets half and the man has to fight for his half and usually has to give a portion of his half to her. The more times a woman divorces, the more money (power) she obtains. Edited December 18, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization".

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

Seems a lot more bunk. Usually a claim that X is destroying civilization is some poorly masked axe grinding

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

 

Look I am not arguing about how things were. 

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

 

Look I am not arguing about how things were. 

 

 

Neither am I

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

 

Look I am not arguing about how things were. 

 

 

Neither am I

 

 

so how:

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics)

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

 

Look I am not arguing about how things were. 

 

 

Neither am I

 

 

so how:

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics)

 

 

Because of those laws of the past there are less of female versions of Trump and Koch brothers who use their inherited wealth to lobby laws and become political leaders.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the subjects he touches on are a bit tough for many to tackle. (...)

 

He's often (but not always) definitely an advanced level of content

 

 

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". 

 

 

Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right?

 

 

Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim

 

Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those.

It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased).

It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married.

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

 

Look I am not arguing about how things were. 

 

 

Neither am I

 

 

so how:

 

Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

 

If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics)

 

 

Because of those laws of the past there are less of female versions of Trump and Koch brothers who use their inherited wealth to lobby laws and become political leaders.

 

 

So you think that there is no raise of wealth hold by women compared to 50 years ago?

[Gfted1]

Was everything supposed to snap into equality overnight?

[Chilloutman]

Was everything supposed to snap into equality overnight?

 

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun

[Gfted1]

My bad.

 

EDIT: Its fascinating to me to see the progress that has occurred in civil rights just in my lifetime though.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Do feminists hold power over you?

 

do nazis hold power over you?

 

 

That's a bit of a false equivalence, because we've already seen what happens when nazis get power, while we only have your vague supposition that feminists are totally bad and authoritarian to go by. "It's an authoritarian idea because I envision they'll take away my freedom of speech and probably kill all men if they ever get into power" is not exactly the most shining proof of feminist authoritarianism.

[Blarghagh]

 

Do feminists hold power over you?

 

do nazis hold power over you?

 

 

do hippies hold power over you?

 

do religious oligarchists hold power over you?

 

do ducks hold power over you?