Harry Styles decides to wear different clothes. Conservofascists freak out.

[TomC]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

But they didn't just "comment negatively".
Somebody pointed out that the dress doesn't suit him. That's commenting negatively.

Owens and Shapiro described a magazine cover as an indictment of western freedom... to wear whatever you want. Why don't they just move to Saudi Arabia where dress codes are clear enough to be enforceable? By law?
Why don't they just go somewhere where men are men, and "freedom" is being free to follow local gender dress norms?
Tom

Bu they didn't indict western freedom. Neither of them said 'men ought be forbidden by law from wearing dresses'.

EDIT: They were, of course, indicting a subculture in the west that seeks to erase differences between men and women. The clothing choices are a symbol of that subculture, but not on their own the actual point of the criticism.

Sorry, but you and I clearly interpret:

From the article:

“The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence,” she added. “It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

differently.

I see that as an indictment of western freedom.
A wannabe pop star gets publicity by wearing clothing that is taboo, because he's a "person of penage". He gets noticed by everyone from Ben Shapiro to Jamil Jameel. It's even talked about on this tiny corner of the Internet, TFT.

Dayum! Even Trump would have a hard time topping that!

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I see that as an indictment of western freedom.

Well, I don't see how that's an indictment of freedom. It seems very clear to me it's an indictment of a cultural trend.

 

[TomC]

I see that as an indictment of western freedom.

Well, I don't see how that's an indictment of freedom. It seems very clear to me it's an indictment of a cultural trend.

Which part of

It's is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

is hard for you to understand?

It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you have a different, more evidenced, explanation for what happened.
Tom

 

[repoman]

I see that as an indictment of western freedom.

Well, I don't see how that's an indictment of freedom. It seems very clear to me it's an indictment of a cultural trend.

This is the thread theme song:

 

[Metaphor]

Which part of

It's is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

is hard for you to understand?

It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you have a different, more evidenced, explanation for what happened.
Tom

The part that's "hard for me to understand" is how what you are quoting is any evidence at all that the author is indicting freedom. If criticising a trend is also an indictment of the freedom that allowed the trend, then everybody who criticises anything is indicting freedom.

If I said "it's so sad that people pay money to watch two men bash each other up", that is not an indictment on the freedom to watch boxing, but a criticism of the tastes of people watching boxing.

If I said "it's sad that people pay $6,000 for a handbag", that is not an indictment on the freedom of people to do so, but a criticism on the priorities and tastes of the people spending $6,000 on a handbag.

I'll bet both Owens and Shapiro endorse the legal freedom for men to wear whatever they want. So telling them to 'move to Saudi Arabia' is a ludicrous suggestion.

Owens thinking the overall American culture would be better off if it 'brought back manly men' does not mean she thinks American freedom is a mistake or that it's worth giving up because there is a cultural trend not to her taste. (I mean, she could think that, but there's no evidence of that from your quote).

 

[Jarhyn]

Which part of

It's is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

is hard for you to understand?

It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you have a different, more evidenced, explanation for what happened.
Tom

Metaphor doesn't understand that indicating "cultural trends", insofar as those trends invoke behavior of people who are not exactly "metaphor", are indictments of freedom; that the culture of any person who is not using that culture to directly excuse an act that unilaterally impose on their freedom to act, is within their freedom to engage in, as such indictment of it is indictment of freedom

I've pointed this out to most of the people I've muted on these forums and the reason they are muted is exactly their inability to accept that they have no right to unilaterally impose on the goals and freedoms of others.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor doesn't understand that indicating "cultural trends", insofar as those trends invoke behavior of people who are not exactly "metaphor", are indictments of freedom; that the culture of any person who is not using that culture to directly excuse an act that unilaterally impose on their freedom to act, is within their freedom to engage in, as such indictment of it is indictment of freedom

Can somebody translate this gobbledygook for me?

I've pointed this out to most of the people I've muted on these forums and the reason they are muted is exactly their inability to accept that they have no right to unilaterally impose on the goals and freedoms of others.

I don't recall "unilaterally imposing on the goals and freedoms of others", but Jarhyn might be able to suggest a way that I have.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Which part of

It's is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

is hard for you to understand?

It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you have a different, more evidenced, explanation for what happened.
Tom

Metaphor doesn't understand that indicating "cultural trends", insofar as those trends invoke behavior of people who are not exactly "metaphor", are indictments of freedom; that the culture of any person who is not using that culture to directly excuse an act that unilaterally impose on their freedom to act, is within their freedom to engage in, as such indictment of it is indictment of freedom

I've pointed this out to most of the people I've muted on these forums and the reason they are muted is exactly their inability to accept that they have no right to unilaterally impose on the goals and freedoms of others.

I've noticed that conservatives, when confronted with any social problem whatsoever, tend to downplay or deny entirely that the problem exists.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

Right. They are authoritarian followers. Fascist leaders can't exist without people like this. And again, these words have definitions that you can look up. There is decades, almost a century, of research on right wing authoritarianism, as fascism is often called these days.

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

This particular instance it feels like some sort of public discourse equivalent to ambulance chasing. They need things to call out to score some social currency with their niche. A teen* idol in a dress is low-hanging fruit for some good ol' fashion, specious bullshit. It doesn't have to be clever. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to hit the right sentiment with the right crowd. If Shapiro, in particular, has one brave thing about him, it's that he displays first and foremost on his twitter page 'Facts don't care about your feelings'. Brazen considering his money-maker and milieu is the corollary: feelings don't care about your facts.

*I believe the perception is Styles's fan base is tweens to early twenties; not sure how that maps to actual demographics.

 

[Politesse]

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

This particular instance it feels like some sort of public discourse equivalent to ambulance chasing. They need things to call out to score some social currency with their niche. A teen* idol in a dress is low-hanging fruit for some good ol' fashion, specious bullshit. It doesn't have to be clever. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to hit the right sentiment with the right crowd. If Shapiro, in particular, has one brave thing about him, it's that he displaces first and foremost on his twitter page 'Facts don't care about your feelings'. Brazen considering his money-maker and milieu is the corollary: feelings don't care about your facts.

*I believe the perception is Styles's fan base is tweens to early twenties; not sure how that maps to actual demographics.

That was ten years ago, some of them are proabbly growing a bit older with him.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

This particular instance it feels like some sort of public discourse equivalent to ambulance chasing. They need things to call out to score some social currency with their niche. A teen* idol in a dress is low-hanging fruit for some good ol' fashion, specious bullshit. It doesn't have to be clever. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to hit the right sentiment with the right crowd. If Shapiro, in particular, has one brave thing about him, it's that he displays first and foremost on his twitter page 'Facts don't care about your feelings'. Brazen considering his money-maker and milieu is the corollary: feelings don't care about your facts.

*I believe the perception is Styles's fan base is tweens to early twenties; not sure how that maps to actual demographics.

I like the ambulance chaser analogy. I agree, what these two and others like them do is just an easy, lazy, opportunist way to opine for attention.

 

[repoman]

Someone a month or so ago was going through all of the top ten songs and Styles' song was the only one that had merit to my taste. From the ground up it had a good melody and was not just a unmelodic overstuffed palette of sound textures like is common now.

 

[WAB]

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

This particular instance it feels like some sort of public discourse equivalent to ambulance chasing. They need things to call out to score some social currency with their niche. A teen* idol in a dress is low-hanging fruit for some good ol' fashion, specious bullshit. It doesn't have to be clever. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to hit the right sentiment with the right crowd. If Shapiro, in particular, has one brave thing about him, it's that he displays first and foremost on his twitter page 'Facts don't care about your feelings'. Brazen considering his money-maker and milieu is the corollary: feelings don't care about your facts.

*I believe the perception is Styles's fan base is tweens to early twenties; not sure how that maps to actual demographics.

I like the ambulance chaser analogy. I agree, what these two and others like them do is just an easy, lazy, opportunist way to opine for attention.

I find it astonishing that you can read or hear Shapiro and Owens and come away with that conclusion. I find Shapiro irritating and so deeply entrenched in his faith that it clouds his judgment, but I don't doubt his sincerity in the least. I doubt Owen's sincerity even less. She is tired of being told how she should think and feel by guilt ridden, well meaning, and condescending white people. She is proud and happy to upset white people who don't approve of how she thinks and behaves. And other black people as well.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I find it astonishing that you can read or hear Shapiro and Owens and come away with that conclusion. I find Shapiro irritating and so deeply entrenched in his faith that it clouds his judgment, but I don't doubt his sincerity in the least. I doubt Owen's sincerity even less. She is tired of being told how she should think and feel by guilt ridden, well meaning, and condescending white people. She is proud and happy to upset white people who don't approve of how she thinks and behaves. And other black people as well.

The issue for me isn't about sincerity of beliefs, but behaviours. I'm hard-pressed to think Owens or Shapiro are actually that concerned or troubled by what Harry Styles wore. And if they hoped to make a cogent argument about some erosion of western masculinity, this sure as hell wasn't the way to go about it. My opinion of Shapiro is pretty low (I just don't know Owens as well to say much), but not so low as to think he can't do better than mountains out of molehills. This was armchair sniping of a media headline on a topic I am hard pressed to believe he gives a fuck about let alone is overly worried about in reality (though who knows; he could be a huge Harry Styles fan). It easily reads as a lame-ass hijack of a trending topic so they could peddle their brand of nonsense rather than an earnest need to call out and criticize Vogue's cover.

 

[Angry Floof]

I like the ambulance chaser analogy. I agree, what these two and others like them do is just an easy, lazy, opportunist way to opine for attention.

I find it astonishing that you can read or hear Shapiro and Owens and come away with that conclusion. I find Shapiro irritating and so deeply entrenched in his faith that it clouds his judgment, but I don't doubt his sincerity in the least. I doubt Owen's sincerity even less. She is tired of being told how she should think and feel by guilt ridden, well meaning, and condescending white people. She is proud and happy to upset white people who don't approve of how she thinks and behaves. And other black people as well.

Yep, she likes to upset people. She doesn't say anything unique or useful, though. She's just another right wing authoritarian follower who likes telling herself she's an independent thinker, when really everything she goes on about depends on someone else providing the talking point. The fact that she's a black woman who thinks like a poor white trump fan is the only thing that makes her stand out as anything different or noteworthy. Shapiro is a bigot who uses his intelligence to justify his baboon world view rather than to examine it. And yes, they are both opportunists.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

"Independent thinkers"... well first of all you've already admitted that religion clouds Ben Shapiro's judgment, so there goes "independent thinker" for Shapiro. Secondly, Cadence Owens, in addition to being a fucking bigot (bigots care a lot about other bigots perceiving them positively), is still claiming election fraud despite the fact it's been proven false. Which means she's a Trump cult follower. So no, they are not independent thinkers in the least.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also, calling anything you don't like "Marxism" doesn't make someone an independent thinker. That's a clear sign of fanaticism.

 

[WAB]

GN:

One can be an independent thinker and yet have one's judgment clouded or befuddled by whatever prejudices or misinformation; one can also be an independent thinker and wind up wrong on just about anything. What makes you suppose that thinking for yourself and not being reliant on others will only lead you to the correct conclusions? I agree with a great many things Shapiro and Owens say, while I strongly disagree about other things they say. It's possible for people to think for themselves, not be mindless followers, and yet still be wrong.

In case you haven't noticed it is extremely common for thinkers throughout the ages to come to wildly disparate opinions and views. Disagreement among highly intelligent and equally knowledgable people is common, and healthy, always has been, always will be. When you see vast groups of people agreeing with one another and imitating one another in the very phrasing of their thought, when you see a dependence on cliches, talking points (please don't tell me the enlightened liberals don't have talking points), and especially when they resort to ad homs and mockery petulantly and regularly, and in a similar fashion, then you should begin to suspect that independent thinking might be lacking in such groups.

I have seen the phrases, "authoritarian followers", and "right-wing authoritarian followers" used so often, that they begin to sound like religious utterances. "Right wing authoritarian followers" impresses me as much as "Jesus loves you."

And how is calling anything you don't like Marxism any different than calling anything you don't like fascism?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And how is calling anything you don't like Marxism any different than calling anything you don't like fascism?

I don't call anything I don't like fascism. I've observed repeated behaviors (SUCH AS DENYING ELECTION RESULTS) by Trump and his followers which indicate to me that they're fascists. There are plenty more examples I can point to. This isn't fucking rocket science.

 

[WAB]

And how is calling anything you don't like Marxism any different than calling anything you don't like fascism?

I don't call anything I don't like fascism. I've observed repeated behaviors (SUCH AS DENYING ELECTION RESULTS) by Trump and his followers which indicate to me that they're fascists. There are plenty more examples I can point to. This isn't fucking rocket science.

I didn't say that YOU did that. The "you" there was a universal, general 'you'.