The World is Stupid

[DrZoidberg]

Wow... you responded to a post you didn't even read. I mean you quoted the text that addressed this, but didn't read it. "Blacks can be bigots, but not racists (in America)."

What? Racism just means you think that certain personality traits are genetically inherited and are concentrated in races and that some races are better than others.

No, racism is systemic bigotry in the legal code. You are confusing bigotry with racism.

I think it's on you now to find some support for the opinion. I looked it up. I think you are wrong. None of the definitions I found used your definition

 

[JohnG]

Man the right-wing is desperate to complain about people complaining.

Two GOP governors were stating their opposition to Pres. Biden's non-existent meat plan. And the right-wing is whining about letters from individuals. Talk about sleeping at the wheel folks.

It's amazing to watch rwnj fuss about woke culture. Oh, the irony.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Milo Yianoupolis was bullied into silence. He got his money from speaking at functions and he was deplatformed. He lost his income and went broke. There's more. Sweden has plenty of celebrity's who said something stupid in an interview which destroyed their livelihoods.

So what? Earning a living in a market economy means your income depends on satisfying the market. If the market does not like what you produce, your income falls. Seems to me your problem is with people's tastes and market economics.

If you think there is a some right to earn a livelihood by spouting stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense, then perhaps you should propose that the Swedish gov't provide income support for people who spout stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense.

Yes, my problem is with people's taste and market economics. Which is what we commonly refer to as "culture". I prefer tolerant cultures. I prefer to live in a culture where people are free to say horrible things over a place where everybody always say nice things to one another while keeping their opinions private.

Humans seem to have a universal instinct to want to control what other people say and do. Like an overprotective mother preventing her child to ever do anything that might hurt it, while also preventing it from ever having fun or learn anything. We have to fight that instinct. All the time. We need to repeat to ourselves that it's ok to be offended. It's ok to offend. In the big picture it's the preferred model.

There's also economic reasons to support this. The economist Richard Florida is famous for showing that gay friendliness, ie tolerance, leads to greater innovation and economic growth. We have an incentive to tolerate people saying and doing things that offend us. Tolerance, creativity and innovation are linked in a culture.

 

[Derec]

It's amazing to watch rwnj fuss about woke culture. Oh, the irony.

The rwnj and the lwrj are equally horrible.

 

[KeepTalking]

It's amazing to watch rwnj fuss about woke culture. Oh, the irony.

The rwnj and the lwrj are equally horrible.

lwrj?

left wing rim job?

I have it on good authority that those are quite pleasant.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let's be real about Milo.

Milo was a powerful figure in the alt-right. He was a writer for Breitbart and had a huge following. He got mixed reactions from white nationalists, the most extreme of the alt-right because he said he was part Jewish. Some of them didn't like him. But generally, the alt-right liked him because he was so provocative and could weasel his way into identity politics using it to attack the left and the alt-right loved this about him. For example, he called his college tour "Dangerous Faggot."

Let's not forget that he led the attack against Leslie Jones so bad, she was so terrorized that she fled social media for a time and went into hiding. Talk about canceled...

It's true that a lot of colleges had protests (free speech) regarding Milo and fewer movements to disallow him from touring. However, overall, Milo was NOT deplatformed by the Left. He was deplatformed by the Right, by the market, and by business overall. His biggest mistake was making positive-like comments about PEDOPHILIA, not his Islamophobic, anti-feminist or other alt-right views.

His comments about pedophilia led to his book being canceled by Simon and Schuster. He also had to resign as a writer for Breitbart and had to make it look voluntary. Breitbart is alt-right, nothing to do with the left. AND conservative groups like CPAC rescinded their invitations and general alliance with him.

IF Milo had not gone over the top about his Libertarian views on PEDOPHILIA, then he'd still be a writer for Breitbart screaming about cancel culture, he'd be a successful author, and a popular speaker especially at Reich wing events, though there'd be a few colleges where he might not be able to go (maybe?? I don't even know...), there'd be more where he could go and cause controversy thus making a big name for himself.

Woke is just as bad if it's from the left or right. The confusing thing about the current political climate is that traditionally the right is the wokes. Condemning anybody not conforming to the norm is something we take as natural when it comes from the right. Woke is inbuilt into it's fabric. I understand that I may be using the term "woke" a bit too liberally. But the right does have an equivalent behaviour that I'm trying to contrast.

I don't think Milo was condoning pedophilia. His argument was that people's sexuality is messy and complex, especially in the gay world. That surely isn't a controversial statement? He accused the mainstream narrative to be overly simplistic and universally saw the children/teenagers as innocent victims, no matter what the scenario, with an extreme fallout no matter the severity of the crime. Which also should be a pretty uncontroversial, even though not particularly profound, statement. He wasn't arguing for anything or said he wanted the laws to change.

It was a throw away comment in one interview which he later regretted. He's also himself a survivor of sexual abuse. Perhaps he was only speaking aloud about his own inner process in getting to terms with his conflicted emotions about it?

Him getting kicked out into the cold for this was absurd. And speaks volumes about how intellectually impoverished the current debate climate is.

While I'm happy about pedophilia being illegal, I'm all for talking about it. That's not me being for pedophilia. It's me being open to a conversation where we're given the opportunity to explore our own views on it and perhaps dig a little deeper on why we think it's wrong. It's a strong near universal taboo. I think it's always interesting to discuss strong taboos.

I don't want to come across as me supporting Milo. I'm politically in the opposite extreme end of the spectrum. But I want people like him in the media. If there's smart people on the right attacking us, our arguments and ideas will get better. Everybody wins.

No, I don't think Milo was a shining example of intelligence. But he was interesting IMHO.

 

[KeepTalking]

I understand that I may be using the term "woke" a bit too liberally.

Understatement of the year candidate.

 

[laughing dog]

Milo Yianoupolis was bullied into silence. He got his money from speaking at functions and he was deplatformed. He lost his income and went broke. There's more. Sweden has plenty of celebrity's who said something stupid in an interview which destroyed their livelihoods.

So what? Earning a living in a market economy means your income depends on satisfying the market. If the market does not like what you produce, your income falls. Seems to me your problem is with people's tastes and market economics.

If you think there is a some right to earn a livelihood by spouting stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense, then perhaps you should propose that the Swedish gov't provide income support for people who spout stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense.

Yes, my problem is with people's taste and market economics. Which is what we commonly refer to as "culture". I prefer tolerant cultures. I prefer to live in a culture where people are free to say horrible things over a place where everybody always say nice things to one another while keeping their opinions private.

Humans seem to have a universal instinct to want to control what other people say and do. Like an overprotective mother preventing her child to ever do anything that might hurt it, while also preventing it from ever having fun or learn anything. We have to fight that instinct. All the time. We need to repeat to ourselves that it's ok to be offended. It's ok to offend. In the big picture it's the preferred model.

There's also economic reasons to support this. The economist Richard Florida is famous for showing that gay friendliness, ie tolerance, leads to greater innovation and economic growth. We have an incentive to tolerate people saying and doing things that offend us. Tolerance, creativity and innovation are linked in a culture.

So bigotry against gays causes economic harm according to your interpretation of Richard Florida's results. Which suggests that tolerance of some ideas and views is not only counter-productive in a moral sense but from an economic point of view.

Futhermore, I think you miss the point. Having the legal right or social permission to say anything you want does not logically, ethically or commercially translate into making a living.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, my problem is with people's taste and market economics. Which is what we commonly refer to as "culture". I prefer tolerant cultures. I prefer to live in a culture where people are free to say horrible things over a place where everybody always say nice things to one another while keeping their opinions private.

Humans seem to have a universal instinct to want to control what other people say and do. Like an overprotective mother preventing her child to ever do anything that might hurt it, while also preventing it from ever having fun or learn anything. We have to fight that instinct. All the time. We need to repeat to ourselves that it's ok to be offended. It's ok to offend. In the big picture it's the preferred model.

There's also economic reasons to support this. The economist Richard Florida is famous for showing that gay friendliness, ie tolerance, leads to greater innovation and economic growth. We have an incentive to tolerate people saying and doing things that offend us. Tolerance, creativity and innovation are linked in a culture.

So bigotry against gays causes economic harm according to your interpretation of Richard Florida's results. Which suggests that tolerance of some ideas and views is not only counter-productive in a moral sense but from an economic point of view.

Futhermore, I think you miss the point. Having the legal right or social permission to say anything you want does not logically, ethically or commercially translate into making a living.

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited. He only used the number of openly gay men in a city as a proxy to calculate with. His theory isn't about homosexuality or even progressiveness. It's about openness to different opinions, intellectual flexibility and not feeling threatened by people living near you who have different values than you. It's about curiosity and to avoid knee jerk assumptions about other's depravity. You know, like people who can't be arsed to use non-binaries chosen pronoun. It doesn't necessarily make them evil. But following the woke logic, this is what we're led to believe and why Jordan Peterson (regrettably) is necessary.

At no point in this thread have I talked about the law. I'm talking about culture.

Milo Yianopoulis was interesting. He's a gay alt-right guy. That's inherently interesting. He had a lot of fresh perspectives. We kept talking about him. I'm not saying that it's a basic human right to have a job as a journalist (or any job). But I always think it's a shame when available voices are silenced. The right aren't exactly blessed with a vast number of interesting people.

Fun fact. The Ottoman empire was famously tolerant (brutaly enforced from above) and they were one of the most powerful empires in human history. After peaking in power they gradually become intolerant in the 16'th century. After this it all went to shit.

 

[laughing dog]

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited.

Hold on - if it is a finding, he used data. If he found that tolerating stupidity or hatred promoted economic progress, then his research is incredibly stupid. Openness as guiding principle makes sense. Openness as mindless acceptance of anything is not only incredibly moronic, it is dangerous.

 

[Swammerdami]

Yes, my problem is with people's taste and market economics. Which is what we commonly refer to as "culture". I prefer tolerant cultures. I prefer to live in a culture where people are free to say horrible things over a place where everybody always say nice things to one another while keeping their opinions private.

Humans seem to have a universal instinct to want to control what other people say and do. Like an overprotective mother preventing her child to ever do anything that might hurt it, while also preventing it from ever having fun or learn anything. We have to fight that instinct. All the time. We need to repeat to ourselves that it's ok to be offended. It's ok to offend. In the big picture it's the preferred model.

There's also economic reasons to support this. The economist Richard Florida is famous for showing that gay friendliness, ie tolerance, leads to greater innovation and economic growth. We have an incentive to tolerate people saying and doing things that offend us. Tolerance, creativity and innovation are linked in a culture.

So bigotry against gays causes economic harm according to your interpretation of Richard Florida's results. Which suggests that tolerance of some ideas and views is not only counter-productive in a moral sense but from an economic point of view.

Futhermore, I think you miss the point. Having the legal right or social permission to say anything you want does not logically, ethically or commercially translate into making a living.

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited. He only used the number of openly gay men in a city as a proxy to calculate with. His theory isn't about homosexuality or even progressiveness. It's about openness to different opinions, intellectual flexibility and not feeling threatened by people living near you who have different values than you. It's about curiosity and to avoid knee jerk assumptions about other's depravity. You know, like people who can't be arsed to use non-binaries chosen pronoun. It doesn't necessarily make them evil. But following the woke logic, this is what we're led to believe and why Jordan Peterson (regrettably) is necessary.

At no point in this thread have I talked about the law. I'm talking about culture.

Milo Yianopoulis was interesting. He's a gay alt-right guy. That's inherently interesting. He had a lot of fresh perspectives. We kept talking about him. I'm not saying that it's a basic human right to have a job as a journalist (or any job). But I always think it's a shame when available voices are silenced. The right aren't exactly blessed with a vast number of interesting people.

Fun fact. The Ottoman empire was famously tolerant (brutaly enforced from above) and they were one of the most powerful empires in human history. After peaking in power they gradually become intolerant in the 16'th century. After this it all went to shit.

I found much to agree with in this quote by the good Doctor Z, along with the Doctor Z quote nested deep!

[Off-topic: What year DO you take for the peak of the Ottoman Empire?]

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, my problem is with people's taste and market economics. Which is what we commonly refer to as "culture". I prefer tolerant cultures. I prefer to live in a culture where people are free to say horrible things over a place where everybody always say nice things to one another while keeping their opinions private.

Humans seem to have a universal instinct to want to control what other people say and do. Like an overprotective mother preventing her child to ever do anything that might hurt it, while also preventing it from ever having fun or learn anything. We have to fight that instinct. All the time. We need to repeat to ourselves that it's ok to be offended. It's ok to offend. In the big picture it's the preferred model.

There's also economic reasons to support this. The economist Richard Florida is famous for showing that gay friendliness, ie tolerance, leads to greater innovation and economic growth. We have an incentive to tolerate people saying and doing things that offend us. Tolerance, creativity and innovation are linked in a culture.

So bigotry against gays causes economic harm according to your interpretation of Richard Florida's results. Which suggests that tolerance of some ideas and views is not only counter-productive in a moral sense but from an economic point of view.

Futhermore, I think you miss the point. Having the legal right or social permission to say anything you want does not logically, ethically or commercially translate into making a living.

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited. He only used the number of openly gay men in a city as a proxy to calculate with. His theory isn't about homosexuality or even progressiveness. It's about openness to different opinions, intellectual flexibility and not feeling threatened by people living near you who have different values than you.

No, it is not. It is very clearly about bigotry. It's not about openness to being a bigot, or not opposing bigotry, it is about not being a bigot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited.

Hold on - if it is a finding, he used data. If he found that tolerating stupidity or hatred promoted economic progress, then his research is incredibly stupid. Openness as guiding principle makes sense. Openness as mindless acceptance of anything is not only incredibly moronic, it is dangerous.

I think you see this completely backward. Wokes socially excluding a person based on them failing to use the right pronoun is stupidity and hatred in action. It's not the only example of stupidity and hatred. Your's is a very windy glass house.

Richard Florida's theory/measurement index is about the number of people in a city who value creativity higher than generating wealth. This leads the city to excel in generating wealth. In these cities qualities that lead to curiosity, creativity and innovation have higher status than just being rich. This leads to rich people wanting to socialize with poor creative types. Novel ideas and money mix freely generating innovative companies and wealth.

Ie, you don't assume that a person who uses the wrong pronoun, think that Jews control the banks or think that Islam is the only way to virtue, is evil and ostracize them. Perhaps you ask them why, or you don't assume malice and move on to another topic of conversation to find something to bond about. That's a type personality who keeps learning new things and expand their perspectives and deepen their understanding of human psyche in general.

Or to sum it up pitchforks, no matter who is wielding them, are bad.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[Off-topic: What year DO you take for the peak of the Ottoman Empire?]

In hindsight the germ for the fall of the Ottoman empire came earlier than it's peak.

As far as I know, Before Bayezid II Sultans had elected their successor out of any of his sons, or adopted sons. The most competent would rule. Similar to how the Roman empire worked (when it worked well). But after this guy, increasingly sons of sultans who weren't elected started rebellions to fight for the throne. This created a culture of patronage among nobles, with increasingly complicated bands of loyalty. So the empire diverted energy away from strengthening, expanding and protecting the empire, towards strengthening ones personal position within the empire.

The empire went from dynamic and flexible. To increasingly rigid and reluctant to change. Noble families became reluctant to give up what privileges they had managed to acquire, no matter if it made sense to the empire. Earlier sultans could rearrange the entire empire on a whim if something wasn't working. Nobles were promoted or demoted all the time. The late Ottoman empire was quite static and resistant to change.

The situation among the ruling classes travelled downward to the people. So from being cosmopolitan, liberal and open, it became inward looking and conservative. From institutionalizing the protection of religious minorities they, over time, shifted to, increasingly persecuting religious minorities.

This inward looking culture led to scientific and technological stagnation. In 1683 they were one battle away from completely overrunning all of Europe. Most people are today unaware of just how close the Ottoman empire came to conquering us. At this point in history nothing could rival Ottoman might.

A hundred years later the Ottoman empire was hopelessly backward compared to the rest of Europe. Two hundred years later they were a complete joke (literally "sick man of Europe"). The Western powers were for a long time trying to pull them into any war just so that they could get the easy pickings. The Ottomans knew it. But the corruption and institutional rot had been allowed to go on for so long they failed to turn it around in time. After getting manipulated into WWI by a trigger happy German captain The, once greatest, Ottoman empire was easily ripped apart by the colonial powers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited. He only used the number of openly gay men in a city as a proxy to calculate with. His theory isn't about homosexuality or even progressiveness. It's about openness to different opinions, intellectual flexibility and not feeling threatened by people living near you who have different values than you.

No, it is not. It is very clearly about bigotry. It's not about openness to being a bigot, or not opposing bigotry, it is about not being a bigot.

Do you agree that the wokes are bigots?

 

[KeepTalking]

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited. He only used the number of openly gay men in a city as a proxy to calculate with. His theory isn't about homosexuality or even progressiveness. It's about openness to different opinions, intellectual flexibility and not feeling threatened by people living near you who have different values than you.

No, it is not. It is very clearly about bigotry. It's not about openness to being a bigot, or not opposing bigotry, it is about not being a bigot.

Do you agree that the wokes are bigots?

No, I do not. I agree that someone who is woke can be a bigot, but it is not necessarily so.

I will also note that you earlier admitted to being too liberal in your usage of the term "woke", so why don't your drop that term and use one that more accurately describes who you are talking about?

 

[TSwizzle]

It's worse than stupid, it's full blown retard;

A Sacramento high school teacher has been placed on leave after displaying the Nazi flag during a World War II history lesson, school officials said Wednesday. In a letter to parents, Rio Americano High School Principal Brian Ginter said that the teacher will be on administrative leave until the investigation is over. The teacher teaches English and Social Science at the high school. Raj Rai, spokesperson for San Juan Unified School District, said students told staff about the flag on May 13 and that the flag came down the next day. She added that the students who alerted staff were passersby and not part of the class. It's not known how many days the flag was displayed before the district became aware. Rai said the issue at hand is not about a history lesson, but instead, she said it is about students being made uncomfortable by the flag, the flag's prominent presence in the classroom, and that symbol being in the classroom.

ABCNews

“While images and symbols representative of hate may be used in textbooks and resource materials to provide historical context, displaying a flag with a swastika in such an egregious manner was unnecessary and created an unsafe environment for students,” Ginter said in the letter.

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools in California and go private and homeschool.


Oh, and it you watch the video of the report which shows the flags on display, the swastika is actually BLURRED OUT !

Weapons grade morons.

 

[thebeave]

It's worst than stupid, it's full blown retard;

A Sacramento high school teacher has been placed on leave after displaying the Nazi flag during a World War II history lesson, school officials said Wednesday. In a letter to parents, Rio Americano High School Principal Brian Ginter said that the teacher will be on administrative leave until the investigation is over. The teacher teaches English and Social Science at the high school. Raj Rai, spokesperson for San Juan Unified School District, said students told staff about the flag on May 13 and that the flag came down the next day. She added that the students who alerted staff were passersby and not part of the class. It's not known how many days the flag was displayed before the district became aware. Rai said the issue at hand is not about a history lesson, but instead, she said it is about students being made uncomfortable by the flag, the flag's prominent presence in the classroom, and that symbol being in the classroom.

ABCNews

“While images and symbols representative of hate may be used in textbooks and resource materials to provide historical context, displaying a flag with a swastika in such an egregious manner was unnecessary and created an unsafe environment for students,” Ginter said in the letter.

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools in California and go private and homeschool.

I heard about this yesterday on a local talk radio show. It's insane. Reminded me of 8th grade history when we were learning about WWII. Our teacher asked if anyone heard of the "goosestep". I was sitting in the front row and raised my hand, figuring most of the class had heard of it as well. I was the only to raise his hand. The teacher massively coerced me (I was very shy then) to get up in front of everyone and walk the goosestep. I can only imagine the chaos if I were to do that today and some busybody SJW walked by the classroom with me marching the goosestep. No doubt I would be expelled and the teacher put on leave for promoting Nazis.

Come to think of it, I can remember doodling in that class and drawing swastikas. Maybe I really am evil deep down inside?!

 

[TomC]

No, I do not. I agree that someone who is woke can be a bigot, but it is not necessarily so.

You've hit on among the biggest problems this conversation, and many like it, have.

The important words are vague, the meaning in any given context has more to do with connotation than clarity of communication. Woke, bigotry, liberal, racism, conservative, patriot, American, socialism, the list is just endless. Words with less meaning than connotation.

The result of this miscommunication is what we see going on, around the globe, today. The same old same old violence and oppression and elites enjoying their privilege.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Florida's finding is that any bigotry of any kind is harmful, regardless of who bears the brunt of the oppression or what speech is limited.

Hold on - if it is a finding, he used data. If he found that tolerating stupidity or hatred promoted economic progress, then his research is incredibly stupid. Openness as guiding principle makes sense. Openness as mindless acceptance of anything is not only incredibly moronic, it is dangerous.

I think you see this completely backward. Wokes socially excluding a person based on them failing to use the right pronoun is stupidity and hatred in action. It's not the only example of stupidity and hatred. Your's is a very windy glass house.

Your response is a ridiculous straw man. It has nothing to do with your whining about someone losing their income.

Richard Florida's theory/measurement index is about the number of people in a city who value creativity higher than generating wealth. This leads the city to excel in generating wealth. In these cities qualities that lead to curiosity, creativity and innovation have higher status than just being rich. This leads to rich people wanting to socialize with poor creative types. Novel ideas and money mix freely generating innovative companies and wealth.

In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Ie, you don't assume that a person who uses the wrong pronoun, think that Jews control the banks or think that Islam is the only way to virtue, is evil and ostracize them. Perhaps you ask them why, or you don't assume malice and move on to another topic of conversation to find something to bond about. That's a type personality who keeps learning new things and expand their perspectives and deepen their understanding of human psyche in general.

Cool story, bro.