Board 8 > This is how political correctness dies

(+) Yeah! (+)

Vlado posted...

The left's end goal - whether they realise it or not - is to erase peoples, cultures and races and turn everyone into a grey, materialistic mass of worthless sheep. To dehumanise humans and turn them into cattle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Second, the left is WRONG on most/all of these issues, and saying "economics" is particularly laughable, as socialism and communism have failed or are in the process of failing spectacularly everywhere they've been implemented.

nope. socialism has never been tried.

Seeing as the right is the side that supports its claims with facts, and the left's currency of choice is feelings, that's a rather silly thing to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't get why people are so eager to defend "the left" and "the right". I totally understand identifying with one or the other, but WHY is it so important that everyone agrees "your side" is right and just? They will often throw themselves under the bus just to defend "their team". It's so dumb.

When did you become moderate?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I totally understand identifying with one or the other, but WHY is it so important that everyone agrees "your side" is right and just?

i'd like for everyone to agree with facts.
---

MenuWars posted...

When did you become moderate?

You know there's more than 2 sides?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd like for everyone to agree with facts.

Then why do you spend so much time defending "the left" from stereotypes and other BS?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Then why do you spend so much time defending "the left" from stereotypes and other BS?

because it's a fact that "the left" doesn't adhere to these stereotypes and this other BS?
---

Got to hand it to Vlado for his ability to come in after both sides are having an actual discussion and do his absolute best to erase all good will by being an actual cartoon parody.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MenuWars posted...

When did you become moderate?

You know there's more than 2 sides?

Mind = sploded.
---

Vlado posted...

the left is WRONG on most/all of these issues, and saying "economics" is particularly laughable, as socialism and communism have failed or are in the process of failing spectacularly everywhere they've been implemented

i guess i mean to say that trickle-down economics is complete and utter ass
---

MenuWars posted...

Both sides are terrible at the feels thing, but the left is arguably based more upon feels than any other political party so I'm not entirely sure why Rock's taking this approach, other than to piss you off and make you feel like your enemy.

Feel.

This for the most part. Both "ends" of the political spectrum are all about feelz. Its stupid to put one over the other on that subject.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't get why people are so eager to defend "the left" and "the right". I totally understand identifying with one or the other, but WHY is it so important that everyone agrees "your side" is right and just? They will often throw themselves under the bus just to defend "their team". It's so dumb.

As far as this particular B8 eco system goes, the most notable member of "the right" being legit crazy parodies of their parties most infamous sterotypes has really screwed with the ability to have actual proper arguments.

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?
---

I do like this recent rhetorical trend of "extreme moderates" being the true enemy. That the insane people who hate Trump AND Hillary equally are actually the ones ruining the country. It reveals the sheer absurdity of the two-party mentality, that they would rather ally with the opposite side who they spend their lives fighting, than admit that there might be a possible 3rd (or 4th or 10th) option.
---

Metal_DK posted...

This. Both "ends" of the political spectrum are all about feelz. Its stupid to put one over the other on that subject.

last election the republican candidate was lying way more than the democratic candidate. i think it's fair to say that republicans are more "feels over facts" than democrats at the moment (if they haven't always been this way).
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't get why people are so eager to defend "the left" and "the right". I totally understand identifying with one or the other, but WHY is it so important that everyone agrees "your side" is right and just? They will often throw themselves under the bus just to defend "their team". It's so dumb.

Because tribalism
---

i gotta say, in the past i thought the democrats were the "feels" party and republicans were the "rational" party

but recently i've come to realize that republicans are just as, if not more, based on feels. they're just based on different feelings.

the alt-right (at least) is based on the "feeling" that our white identity is under attack. Or the "feeling" that immigrants are a ravenous horde coming to vandalize our country. The *feeling* that businesses need to be unfettered and ALL regulation is bad, regardless of context. the *feeling* that the government is going to steal our guns.

the *feeling* that certain categories of people are just straight up better, and helping out the bottom rungs of society makes us weaker

the feelings are just stances on issues that "feel" right. it's like comparing religion to science. in science, you collect data and formulate results. in religion, you formulate your results and then collect data to support it. if you know your stance on an issue without having ever looked at a healthy amount of data, you are part of the problem, regardless of your political leanings
---

o yeah, i also didn't think "the left" and "the right" were things until engaging in discussion on this site

i HOPE it's just an easy parlance for people to have discussions, but i get more worried that people are actually starting to believe in those categories
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I do like this recent rhetorical trend of "extreme moderates" being the true enemy. That the insane people who hate Trump AND Hillary equally are actually the ones ruining the country. It reveals the sheer absurdity of the two-party mentality, that they would rather ally with the opposite side who they spend their lives fighting, than admit that there might be a possible 3rd (or 4th or 10th) option.

Huh... I don't think I've heard anyone express this opinion. I was in that boat of hating both the candidate choices you guys were left with and all I did or heard from others was consider myself fucked.

Albeit when stating my opinions on things I tend to find people trying to attribute my view to their side and build it into whatever they were saying previously, despite my previously arguing with that point.

That bits fucking annoying.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Metal_DK posted...

This. Both "ends" of the political spectrum are all about feelz. Its stupid to put one over the other on that subject.

last election the republican candidate was lying way more than the democratic candidate. i think it's fair to say that republicans are more "feels over facts" than democrats at the moment (if they haven't always been this way).

And the democratic candidate got more votes. But there are some key concepts that the left are massively "feels over facts" than the right on, and I wish the left would at least listen to and accept if some evidence exists to back up a statement
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

socialism has never been tried.

Posting quotes the right mocks when bashing leftist strawmen word for word - with a straight face... Wow.
---

Metal_DK posted...

But there are some key concepts that the left are massively "feels over facts" than the right on,

like what?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?
---

Guys let's talk about trains.
---

Notice how Vlado never re-engaged in debate where I cited sources on how Obamacare is stabilizing despite claims of a death spiral by the right?

Just moved on to talking about other things because Vlado will never, ever engage in any meaningful debate when he's made to look a fool.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Metal_DK posted...

But there are some key concepts that the left are massively "feels over facts" than the right on,

like what?

Everytime I bring it up I get yelled at, but I think the right acknowledges that a career is more important to a man's health than a career is for a woman's health. I have gotten in numerous arguments at holidays dinners/get togethers/etc about this. I argue that its because men pretty much get 2 options in this world: work or prison. Women, at least post WW2, get 3. Work, prison, stay at home mom/wife. There are very few women who will put up with a stay at home husband, and it has nothing to do with "once women have the "good" jobs they will!". As evidenced by (what i mentioned earlier that nobody read), that childless millennial women actually outearn men in just about every major city in the USA, and the same thing was the case for gen x women in their 20s/30s. Instead of women celebrating their new options of their success, left leaning sites write this:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bj5yv/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253

This "manifesto" thing is honestly missing out the most key point. First off, plenty of women were coding (or doing the equivalent of) in the earliest days. It was only after it became the most profitable industry was when it became "male". Its because money was there. Men chase money. Why? Is it because we're greedy assholes? Maybe some of us sure. But a lot of it has to do with men have to define themselves through their work more than women have to.

Does it mean harass Leslie Jones on twitter? No. Does it mean vote for Trump? Nope. Defund planned parenthood? Another straw man. But i do think the left is lying to these men about this, and the one thing I agree with the manifesto on is that the male gender role is much less flexible, if at all. Its one of the only things I think the right understands more than the left.

And honestly, I think all those things (and gamergate too!) exist BECAUSE men are being lied to about this.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Guys let's talk about trains.

Men from caveman days genetically love trains FACT
---

Metal_DK posted...

But i do think the left is lying to these men about this, and the one thing I agree with the manifesto on is that the male gender role is much less flexible, if at all. Its one of the only things I think the right understands more than the left.

Would absolutely be willing to probe this idea more. Could you go into more detail?
---

*Posts bait warning*

*Sees 10 more people take the bait*
---

pjbasis posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?

They're bad faith arguments. You can't talk to someone who refuses to be serious.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Everytime I bring it up I get yelled at, but I think the right acknowledges that a career is more important to a man's health than a career is for a woman's health. I have gotten in numerous arguments at holidays dinners/get togethers/etc about this. I argue that its because men pretty much get 2 options in this world: work or prison. Women, at least post WW2, get 3. Work, prison, stay at home mom/wife. There are very few women who will put up with a stay at home husband, and it has nothing to do with "once women have the "good" jobs they will!". As evidenced by (what i mentioned earlier that nobody read), that childless millennial women actually outearn men in just about every major city in the USA, and the same thing was the case for gen x women in their 20s/30s. Instead of women celebrating their new options of their success, left leaning sites write this:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bj5yv/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253

This "manifesto" thing is honestly missing out the most key point. First off, plenty of women were coding (or doing the equivalent of) in the earliest days. It was only after it became the most profitable industry was when it became "male". Its because money was there. Men chase money. Why? Is it because we're greedy assholes? Maybe some of us sure. But a lot of it has to do with men have to define themselves through their work more than women have to.

Does it mean harass Leslie Jones on twitter? No. Does it mean vote for Trump? Nope. Defund planned parenthood? Another straw man. But i do think the left is lying to these men about this, and the one thing I agree with the manifesto on is that the male gender role is much less flexible, if at all. Its one of the only things I think the right understands more than the left.

And honestly, I think all those things (and gamergate too!) exist BECAUSE men are being lied to about this.

I actually hit upon this on page 1 bro. The problem is that this is the case but it doesn't necessarily have to be. If pursuing status is desirable then it should be desirable for women as well over being pretty or whatever else you think is their current paradigm. If it's undesirable for men then we should work to achieve parity on that as well. But you shouldn't just assume it's biotruths and roll with 'men work, women are pretty' and never waver from that.
---

MenuWars posted...

Huh... I don't think I've heard anyone express this opinion

It's mostly from the extreme statists, like those who really love police or think war is necessary. But if you say you voted 3rd party (or god forbid didn't vote) then nearly 100% of people will say you're terrible and you "need to pick a side".
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Metal_DK posted...

But i do think the left is lying to these men about this, and the one thing I agree with the manifesto on is that the male gender role is much less flexible, if at all. Its one of the only things I think the right understands more than the left.

Would absolutely be willing to probe this idea more. Could you go into more detail?

I will but I'm at work right now and can do so more effectively later tonight. I'll try to do so then
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Notice how Vlado never re-engaged in debate where I cited sources on how Obamacare is stabilizing despite claims of a death spiral by the right?

I'm sorry, is "Obamacare was marginally less of a failure than 2 years ago" supposed to convince me, or any thinking individual, that it shouldn't be repealed?

Anyway, I shouldn't have expected anything different from the usual suspects here. Though trdl has disappointed me in refusing to comment on the truths in the original article. This is one case where you can stand out among the extreme leftists.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Everytime I bring it up I get yelled at, but I think the right acknowledges that a career is more important to a man's health than a career is for a woman's health.

uh, even if this is true this hardly seems like a super hot issue that gets debated constantly by both sides. even if right-wing people end up being right about it more often i don't think it's fair to say "the left is massively feels over facts on this."
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

pjbasis posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?

They're bad faith arguments. You can't talk to someone who refuses to be serious.

I guess I didn't read it as "how can you have a discussion with them." But that's even dumber then. Who cares about having arguments with people who aren't willing to argue? It shouldn't prevent discussion from happening.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MenuWars posted...

Huh... I don't think I've heard anyone express this opinion

It's mostly from the extreme statists, like those who really love police or think war is necessary. But if you say you voted 3rd party (or god forbid didn't vote) then nearly 100% of people will say you're terrible and you "need to pick a side".

Yeah okay that makes more sense I've definitely encountered the latter.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

I actually hit upon this on page 1 bro. The problem is that this is the case but it doesn't necessarily have to be. If pursuing status is desirable then it should be desirable for women as well over being pretty or whatever else you think is their current paradigm. If it's undesirable for men then we should work to achieve parity on that as well. But you shouldn't just assume it's biotruths and roll with 'men work, women are pretty' and never waver from that.

I never once said its not desirable for women. Its just more desirable for men. I will never tell a person (man, woman, whatever we are these days) not to pursue what they define as "status". Hell I'm a coder, and I'm a major reason why my sister got into coding (she has since moved to product management but still), as she couldn't find a job better than $13/hr with her English degree (working for a woman who we later found out tax dodged numerous times).

However a failed man who doesn't achieve is much more likely to be casted out to the dustbin of society than a failed woman. Its why male unemployment is the number one sign of divorce (see below, and this echos the stuff I have done with marriage and divorce records at my job), and some studies have shown that a woman who loses her job can strengthen the marriage.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/husbands-job-predicts-divorce.html
---

The problem is, pj, that those people that deliberately argue in bad faith warp perceptions of their entire viewpoint.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, even if this is true this hardly seems like a super hot issue that gets debated constantly by both sides. even if right-wing people end up being right about it more often i don't think it's fair to say "the left is massively feels over facts on this."

If you go against the concept of "everything is the exact same between men and women its all social constructs" attitude the left tends to get pretty pissed off in my experiences, and become pretty "feelz". Maybe its younger (say under 35 or so) left leaning people, but as somebody whose in his early 30s I've experienced it everytime I have brought it up.
---

Espeon posted...

The problem is, pj, that those people that deliberately argue in bad faith warp perceptions of their entire viewpoint.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Just leave bad faith arguers alone.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, even if this is true this hardly seems like a super hot issue that gets debated constantly by both sides. even if right-wing people end up being right about it more often i don't think it's fair to say "the left is massively feels over facts on this."

If you go against the concept of "everything is the exact same between men and women its all social constructs" attitude the left tends to get pretty pissed off in my experiences, and become pretty "feelz". Maybe its younger (say under 35 or so) left leaning people, but as somebody whose in his early 30s I've experienced it everytime I have brought it up.

Are you suggesting that the relationship of a career between a man or woman isn't a social construct then?
---

I never once said its not desirable for women. Its just more desirable for men.

Yes, but should that be the case? Like...the point isn't what is. The point is what should be, because that's what informs policy going forward.
---

pjbasis posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

pjbasis posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?

They're bad faith arguments. You can't talk to someone who refuses to be serious.

I guess I didn't read it as "how can you have a discussion with them." But that's even dumber then. Who cares about having arguments with people who aren't willing to argue? It shouldn't prevent discussion from happening.

But these are the people who get the most responses here. They're the ones who always start the most shit and get people pissed. You say "who cares". The answer is "B8". Nothing makes a topic explode like Seph, Ulti, Corrik, Vlado, etc.
---

pjbasis posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

pjbasis posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?

They're bad faith arguments. You can't talk to someone who refuses to be serious.

I guess I didn't read it as "how can you have a discussion with them." But that's even dumber then. Who cares about having arguments with people who aren't willing to argue? It shouldn't prevent discussion from happening.

You can't have arguments with a shitposter in the premises. It makes it hard to respond because it's like having a moron going 'OOGABOOGABOOGA' in your face IRL. Yes, you COULD have a serious conversation under such constraints, but not in practice.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Yes, but should that be the case? Like...the point isn't what is. The point is what should be, because that's what informs policy going forward.

The only way to change it is to change what women find attractive in men. Men have no power in that. The gender roles exist primarily due to the romantic and sexual desires of the opposite gender. The whole "men enforce the male gender role" might be true in like....middle and high school (maybe college too these days tbh). But after that puberty era of people's lives it tends to be based around doing what maximizes your chance to get dates, romance, casual sex, happy wife/husband, stable family life etc. You tend to care most about who you wake up next to in the morning, and thats your husband/wife, not your college drinking buddies.

You cant get rid of a "patriarchy" through gov't legislation. It has to be done at the stable family unit level. There is really no evidence that the stay at home dad is attractive. Even in these Scandinavian countries that are praised for their gender equality, only like 15% of stay at home parents are dads. And I'm pretty sure their government pays them to do it.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

I never once said its not desirable for women. Its just more desirable for men.

Yes, but should that be the case? Like...the point isn't what is. The point is what should be, because that's what informs policy going forward.

Depends really, we're living in a world where men still do the most dangerous jobs, have far more instances of depression and suicide, and are also failing in school, yet the general consensus of the extreme left is boo men, patriarchy, women are oppressed in education and are actively coerced into going into "lesser" fields. All the while more and more women enrol in social studies/gender studies, and men are left working hard and being told they're assholes for it.

Now don't get me wrong there's plenty of oppression both ways and women have a lot of shit to deal with. But when a bunch of facts are suppressed in order to suppress a narrative that actively adds to worsening life for people when it's attempting to do good. You have to go hang on a minute, who the fuck is this helping?
---

pjbasis posted...

Are you suggesting that the relationship of a career between a man or woman isn't a social construct then?

I'm suggesting that the career for a man makes him more attractive in the eyes of women, and its not because "women dont have the good jobs yet" (again, childless millennial women out earn men). Its due to sex appeal, which for the most part is biological.

Both men and women need a career to be as financially independent as possible. Men also seem to need one to be attractive to women. Women dont. Even women who are doctors, lawyers, business executives have a higher demand for their spouse's career choice/path/etc.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

pjbasis posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

pjbasis posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

How can discussion take place when you've got Vlado screaming that Liberals don't believe in gender and Seph saying being a Republican in New York deals with the same segregation as a black man in the 60s?

How do those things prevent discussion?

They're bad faith arguments. You can't talk to someone who refuses to be serious.

I guess I didn't read it as "how can you have a discussion with them." But that's even dumber then. Who cares about having arguments with people who aren't willing to argue? It shouldn't prevent discussion from happening.

You can't have arguments with a shitposter in the premises. It makes it hard to respond because it's like having a moron going 'OOGABOOGABOOGA' in your face IRL. Yes, you COULD have a serious conversation under such constraints, but not in practice.

I mean for God's sake, look at the Vlado tower from like an hour ago.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Both men and women need a career to be as financially independent as possible. Men also seem to need one to be attractive to women. Women dont. Even women who are doctors, lawyers, business executives have a higher demand for their spouse's career choice/path/etc.

I agree, and I get the whole premise of sexual selection and evolutionary biology playing into that.

What's the final point here though? This seems like obvious enough that I'm still waiting to get to the punchline, unless I missed it.
---

Metal_DK posted...

pjbasis posted...

Are you suggesting that the relationship of a career between a man or woman isn't a social construct then?

I'm suggesting that the career for a man makes him more attractive in the eyes of women, and its not because "women dont have the good jobs yet" (again, childless millennial women out earn men). Its due to sex appeal, which for the most part is biological.

Both men and women need a career to be as financially independent as possible. Men also seem to need one to be attractive to women. Women dont. Even women who are doctors, lawyers, business executives have a higher demand for their spouse's career choice/path/etc.

Why are you so sure it's biological rather than a vestigial relic of our culture?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

But these are the people who get the most responses here. They're the ones who always start the most shit and get people pissed. You say "who cares". The answer is "B8". Nothing makes a topic explode like Seph, Ulti, Corrik, Vlado, etc.

I feel like you're missing the entire point. If everyone did not engage with someone they thought was a shitposter, then you wouldn't have to bemoan the lack of "real" discussion.
---