Sunday, November 29, 2015

This Looks A Lot Like Segregation


Segregation was a Democrat device to suppress Blacks; they used it for 100 years.

Now Leftists use it to segregate themselves from being subjected to opinions other than their own. But it is a step toward creating a national or even world-wide safe zone, which they control, of course.

I have a vision of the inside of a safe space, where the delicati come in through the panic door, hyperventilating and barely able to say, "puff, he said, puff puff, the G-word, puff puff" then fainting, barely missing the puppy on the way down to the well padded floor. The lavender patrol quickly breaks a capsule of lavender scent, waves it in the face of the stricken delicati, and the Victim slowly revives, but needs a transfusion, if not an abortion.

12 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

This caricature is almost identical to the great song on a recent South Park episode:
South Park - "In My Safe Space"

Btw, I get what you meant by "SJW" now; from our discussion a few months ago. I still mostly disagree, but I get it. You put me on a path to understand the issues much much better.

Stan said...

Since that time a book has come out that might interest you (or maybe not):

SJWs Always Lie

Are you in favor of human Class distinctions based on ideology? If not, do you believe in egalitarianism of all ideologies, beliefs and behaviors? If so, do you think that ideology can range from beneficial to harmful? Or range from good to evil?

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes I had heard of this book; probably by following a link from your blog to Vox Day's as this is the only reason I go there once in a while. He seems to have good points regarding SJW, but I am not really interesting in reading his book because of his prior material. Other sources would be appreciated if you know any?

To answer your questions: No. No. Yes. Yes. I think this agrees with your views?
Because when I said that I still mostly disagree with you, it's not so much on what the actual SJWs do or say; I now better understand what's wrong with their approach.

What I disagree on is how bad they are on other things and who falls under the category of SJWs. For instance, 'Leftists' is not really a good term in my opinion since it's way too large. I would consider myself a Leftist, by most standard I think, but definitely not on the side of the SJWs of today's college campuses, or online feminists.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism, as most Youtubers and Bloggers on the Atheist camp seem to also not be in favor of SJWs approaches; see Secular Talks, Sargon of Akkad or Thunderfoot for instance. They contrast with Atheists Feminist like Lacy Green. It's also not just about 'Liberals', which I definitely am, as these issues are actually dividing the Liberals. Comedians such as Bill Maher don't go to college campuses to perform anymore; you can't find more leftist-liberal-atheist than him... yet he is strongly against these SJWs and bashes them on Real Time every single week. Even Fred from 'Fred on Everything' that you link to sometimes is not a believer, yet clearly on yours, and mine, side of the SJWs issues.

The other detail I disagree on is the motives you ascribe to these SJWs, when you write about them, and the severity of their actions. Granted, some are ridiculous, such as getting people fired, which is definitely crossing a line. But, in general, I still don't see this as some horrible dictatorship that they are trying to impose. And I don't know if I am right honestly, I can only hope... I guess I just try to stay more optimistic. Perhaps your approach is better to prevent it from getting worst; I don't know.

But that's why I think South Park writes nailed it by using a different term: PC. Their entire current season pivots around that theme and it's brilliant; such good commentary on society. The introduction of their PC principle at the beginning of the season set the tone perfectly. Because it seems to me that Political Correctness is the big issue with SJWs today. They want to censor speech so that people don't have their feelings hurt; this is the very definition of forced political correctness, and a good laugh at the stupid notions of microaggressions and safe space. Did you read this for instance: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ ?

Oh and by the way, regarding microagression, you know how some people say that if you ask an Asian-looking person 'Where are you from originally?', it implies that you think they must be a foreigner, and that's a form of microagression, because they could be born in the USA and be an actual American. The funny thing is that I realized that, as a white male, I am also a regular "victim" of such microagression apparently. Why? Because my native language is French and I do have an accent when speaking English; so and many people ask me 'Where are you from?' when they hear me speak. So that's also microagression apparently, because it assumes that I am not really from 'here', and cannot be a 'real' American (which I am not but that's not the point). It's hilarious because I really don't care! Even after over 4 years of being asked that question, I still think it's just an interesting thing to discuss... people are curious, no problem!

So, in short, I think you may agree with most Atheists Liberals... oh the horror ;-)

Stan said...

I have to run, but I'll come back to this. For now, here are some books I quickly grabbed off my shelf:

The Seduction of Unreason; Wolin.
The Vision of the Anointed: Sowell
The Quest for Cosmic Justice: Sowell
Intellectuals and Society: Sowell
A Conflict of Visions: Sowell
The Road to Serfdom: Hayek
The Fatal Conceit-the Errors of Socialism: Hayek
Intellectuals: Johnson
The Treason of the Intellectuals: Benda

Hugo Pelland said...

Thanks!

Stan said...

What are your beliefs that you consider make you a Leftist? As opposed to a Progressive (Hillary has changed her nomenclature from Liberal, to Leftist, to Progressive as I understand it. The words keep changing meanings, and they are tribal signaling which is hard to keep track of from the outside.

“But, in general, I still don't see this as some horrible dictatorship that they are trying to impose.”

Denying the right to speak (protesting speakers, and shouting down dissent); denying access to contrary opinion (censorship of both MSM and campus news outlets); imposing a single ideology on an unwilling populace backed by regulations which are punitive; declaring themselves to the sole arbiter of what is fact and what is moral ("fact': blacks are hunted down in the streets; "fact": 1 out 5 women is raped on campus; both are false) (dissent is immoral – a sin - aggression/assault - as defined by their own moral authority); punishing dissenters (professors fired, CEOs fired, employees fired, and all blackballed) – all of these are present in the PC/SJW crowd. You might not like Vox Day, but he bore the full brunt of the attacks of the SJWs, and he documents that in his book.

In the US gov’t, the IRS attacks conservatives and nothing happens. The DOJ dismisses charges against the black panthers without either investigation or trial and nothing happens. Obama refuses to carry out many laws and nothing happens. He makes up laws and nothing happens. The list of gov’t biases is endless.

If Hillary gets a walk on her illegalities and Benghazi lies/deaths, the national situation will become unbearable for non-Democrats. She will fill the US Supreme Court with (what do you choose to call them? We call them Leftists) and the Constitution will be meaningless.

Did your viewing of South Park change any of your views, or are their views just congruent with your own. I have never watched an episode of South Park; not sure that I care to. I understand that on a recent issue a bear raped Donald Trump…

So, I suspect that your definition of a liberal might be closer to the classical use of the word, which tends closer to individual freedom than to class domination. On the other hand, only you would know that for sure.

The power of class domination is being asserted in American universities and certain industries which are vulnerable (media, advertising, public relations) and any enterprise which is influenced by government rules. In other words, it’s everywhere.

Hugo Pelland said...

I see "Leftists" as encompassing 2 distinct, but quite often related, sets of beliefs: economic left and social liberal.

I definitely lean to the 'Left', economically, as I am pro-socialist measures, big government, higher taxes, etc... but I do say 'lean' because I am far from a Communist who would want the state to own everything. I believe in the free market; I don't see Socialism and Capitalism as unreconciable concepts for instance, but it would take a lot more than just 4,000 characters to go in details on that...

I am a social liberal because my beliefs align more with Liberal social values than Conservatives', when it comes to things like same-sex marriage, abortion, or religion. But the words do keep changing, or perhaps are always too vague to be really useful; after all we are all complex humans so it's hard to put us in boxers with labels. That's why I was so confused about the use of SJWs...

Regarding this:
"Denying the right to speak (protesting speakers, and shouting down dissent); denying access to contrary opinion (censorship of both MSM and campus news outlets); imposing a single ideology on an unwilling populace backed by regulations which are punitive; declaring themselves to the sole arbiter of what is fact and what is moral"

These are all good examples of when a line has been crossed. But my problem with your interpretation here is that even the worst of the worst SJWs are not trying to 'completely' deny the right to speak to entire groups of people. Again, you and I clearly agree on the fact that denying the right to speak, on anything, is already bad; free speech is "sacred" in my opinion. But it's simply not true that these SJWs are literally against free speech.

Take for instance 2 examples where the 2 camps were different: the battle over same-sex marriage, or the issue of legalizing abortion. Here, the pro-life and anti-ssm crowd was definitely on the anti-liberty, or anti-freedom, side. They did not want certain people to get married; they did not want people to get abortion. That's imposing a view, a choice, on others. And I don't know why I say 'did' because it's still true; you still agree with these 2 camps, right? So my point is that it would be wrong to claim that pro-life/anti-ssm people are completely against freedom of choice, of any choice. You are an obvious example. I disagree with you on these 2 issues, but I don't see you as someone who is trying to force his opponents into submission over every single aspect of their lives. You don't want to 'choose' for them on everything; you just don't want them to be able to choose to have a baby or not, or to be able to choose someone of the same sex to get married. Nothing more can be inferred from these 2 positions. Basically, these are just cases where you disagree with the choices of certain individuals; but that does not make you want to rule over their entire lives.

Regarding the rest, don't really have time to go over all the details and I will have to skip what I am not familiar with... so very quickly:
- Benghazi was complicated... I don't know much, but that video gave a good simplified summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btlqXbH1mCM I don't believe the anti-Hillary rhetoric anymore.
- South Park did not change my views; they don't really express clear views anyway, they caricature everything. Superficially, it looks very juvenile and often gross, but it's often clever representation of current affairs. I have not seen Trump being raped but that's totally their style!
- I like that definition of 'classical liberal' that you used, it does seem to fit, yes. Class domination is really not something I could stand by. But again, labels are tricky...

Hugo Pelland said...

"it's hard to put us in boxes* with labels"
...not boxers obviously... well that was a funny typo :)

Stan said...

Hugo,
I’m glad you have stuck around and now feel free to comment. If my response is uncivil, then call me on it. Thanks for responding.

”But my problem with your interpretation here is that even the worst of the worst SJWs are not trying to 'completely' deny the right to speak to entire groups of people. Again, you and I clearly agree on the fact that denying the right to speak, on anything, is already bad; free speech is "sacred" in my opinion. But it's simply not true that these SJWs are literally against free speech.”

But they are. They refused to allow conservative commencement speakers on campus, including former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, by threatening to riot. Virtually all the Leftist campuses forced the retraction of conservative commencement speakers. That was two years ago. Last year NO conservative commencement speakers were even invited. Why won’t comedians go on campus? Now you might assert that the SJWs actually DO allow free speech, and they do, but only for certain classes. Not for everyone. Just themselves.

” Here, the pro-life and anti-ssm crowd was definitely on the anti-liberty, or anti-freedom, side. They did not want certain people to get married; they did not want people to get abortion. That's imposing a view, a choice, on others. And I don't know why I say 'did' because it's still true; you still agree with these 2 camps, right?”

Your issue seems to be imposing a view, a choice, and that, sui generis, is wrong. But that is the same as complete anarchy, where, well beyond libertarianism, no view may be imposed – period. The issue in a civilized (non anarchic) society is not that. Some sort of view must be imposed if civil relationships are to be maintained. So the real issue is where the line is drawn. The line which the Left wants to draw moves in accordance with Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The Left’s objectives are ever-changing but, along with your position, include the destruction of religion, private property, personal health decisions, disparity in pay and wealth, recognition of differences (cultural, sexual, racial), all at the expense of liberty.

Why does Planned Parenthood fight, in court, both having ultrasounds and having to meet health code inspections? They are not encouraging “choice”, nor are they providing “health care”. Two humans enter, one human exits.

As for homosexual marriage and the concept of choice, why not include group marriage? In Europe people are already marrying objects – one woman married a bridge. My opinion has always been that the government should butt out of defining and rewarding marriage. Civil unions can provide the same benefits. Holy matrimony is the business of religion, not government.

What has really happened is the continuation of the Hegelian attack on religion. Any government regulations that appear to have been derived from moral precepts that originated from a religious sense are to be destroyed. The result is a morality-free government which is corrupt to its very core, yet doesn’t recognize corruption as a problem, because all principles have been rejected.

Joke from a previous post:
Why does Bill Clinton wear boxers?
To keep his ankles warm.

I have to leave again, but I will return to this thread.


Stan said...

The South Park rape of Donald Trump is described HERE.

I personally find no redeeming value in this, neither political commentary nor humor. But I do not advocate for censoring it. It seems to emanate from the minds of 14 year old prepubescents, who are awash in adult concepts which dominate the culture, but are actually outside of their mental maturity. So, being children, they take it to stupid and immature extremes and laugh heartily at it.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan, thanks for welcoming the comments. I don't recall ever reading anything uncivil from you so I am not worried about that :)

Regarding South Park, now I do know exactly what rape scene this was about; there was no bear so that's what confused me. It's true that this particular piece of humor is juvenile. But it's only 5 seconds of the 20-min show and actually part of a bigger, clever, narrative. So even if that one piece looks superficially immature, the fact that it's actually tailored to an adult audience who enjoys more because of the real-life references. It's what South Park does; they laugh at everything and caricature everything, and yes, sometimes to the extreme. When someone gets killed, they don't just get a bullet in the head, they get thrown out buildings, explode in pieces and so on...

As a Canadian, this particular episode was actually both an hilarious and a clever way to combine the disdain my fellow Liberal Canadians had for ex-Prime Minister Harper, who was cleverly represented by an obvious caricature of Trump, who Liberals in the US today don't like. And again, it's a caricature... it's meant to be exaggerated.

Yesterday, I watched this week's episode and it was brilliant, again. This season is the first one in 20 years where they made it more into a long continuous story instead of a week-by-week sitcom. Since we had mentioned it here already, I was actually thinking about some of the references I had heard you talk about, while I was watching it. For instance...
- An incredibly ugly Katlin Jenner hits people every time she drives, leaving bloody traces behind, and refuses to wear a mustache as a disguise; to which her co-passenger says 'Oh really, that's where you draw the line? That's too much costume for you?'
- A scene cuts to the end of a joke, when someone says "... and then I told her, but you’re the one who should be worried about AIDS, you're married to Bill Clinton after all!"
- A group of people go to investigate the PC "Bros" frat house (who are essentially the caricature of real-life SJWs) only to find ribbons all around saying 'Safe Space', so one character explains how you cannot enter that sacred space; others look baffled and he goes on to say 'yes , yes, that's really a thing...' And the reason why they went there in the first place is because they started a hunger strike so that someone get fired; nobody knows who or why, but they just want people to get fired.

All of that works in the context of a giant conspiracy where ads are now self-aware entities that are injecting themselves into every aspects of our lives. They give a timeline of how they started to appear on cable, so people moved to TiVo, but they showed up there too, and then as Internet Pop-ups, and more recently as fake news article, and now actual people who run the PC crowd for some yet unknown evil purpose (stay tuned for next week...). In the show, old school newscasters with their buttery voices are trying to stop them... So yes, they really push it far, but start with real-life premises, and that's what's so hilarious about it...

Anyway, that was kind of long just regarding South Park, but I hope that was informative :) It's definitely not a show for everyone, and it's just dumb comics in the end, but the references, the extremes, the plot twists, the characters' personalities and traits are what makes me laugh so much, and actually think, quite often. Especially after following them for maybe 10 years now.

Stan said...

OK. Well I'll have to take your word for it; they don't seem to show up on broadcast TV which is all that we have (or want). But thanks for the explanation. Actually it's hard for me to visualize an actual rape-death scene as containing humor, but then I don't have the full context either.