Who's grievances the anti-pc? Elaborate, i'm interested in hearing this.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Who's grievances the anti-pc? Elaborate, i'm interested in hearing this.
steven crowder
But he wasn't the one of the weapons though! You seemed to think it was funny when I compared the nutters at Charlottsville with those who protest Ben Shapiro.
By throwing terms like Nazi, racist and fascist around, it allows these people to dehumanize their targets and feel justified in using violence or intimidation to silence them. It's not on, it's vile and it needs to stop.
Is this a parody?
it actually rules
They.. are the ones...who...called themselves.. Nazi's in the first place. They wear it with pride. What others do in retaliation to them, doesn't justify the actions of Nazis.
What kind of madness is this.
He clearly isn't talking about right wingers in Charlottsville being called Nazi's. That is fairly clear,
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking about people calling Ben Shapiro a Nazi, not the the Nazi's at Charlottsville. I used the Charlottsville example to compare the behaviour of Nazi's there with those who protest Shapiro event.
this is also funny
Is calling Shapiro a Nazi, a movement in some way?
In that video I saw few dozen protestors - how is this a leveller or even proportionate to the Nazi's in Charlottesville? As per your original post.
I can agree that calling everyone a Nazi isn't helpful - but this idea that it's comparable to actual racists is beyond stupid.
Firstly I'd say the way you phrase it is ridiculous, as if universities are full of 75 year old Southern racists all pining for the days minorities didn't have a voice.
There are a number of things, the rampant racism and sexism from people on the far left. The fact that the assumption of privilege means that groups taking efforts to combat things like male suicide rates or boys failure in education are roundly mocked sometimes derided. Religion being attacked on all sides, open and honest political discourse being roundly discouraged/ruined. A lot of baseless character smearing.
Too much to list honestly, I mean the fact that actual universities are teaching "anti whiteness" courses is insanity.
More from my personal perspective I think it has an incredibly detrimental effect on the left but I have already been through that.
So intelectual
I don't know if I'd use the word "movement" as opposed to "tactic." There is definitely a tactic of falsely labeling dissenting voices or opposition voices in order to justify using violence and intimidation in order to silence people.
By calling someone a Nazi you are dehumanizing them to the extent that taking violence against them is seen as acceptable. You are effectively giving them a label that says they aren't worth as much as you, which really is similar to Nazi behavior.
These oversensitive snowflakes need to stop calling me hurtful names.
calling someone a nazi is similar to being a nazi
I'm not talking strictly about universities, and I do believe that political correctness was borne out of minorities not having a voice or representation in the past.
Political correctness and the off shoots from it aren't new at all - the opinions of the various groups aren't new, we just have more access to hearing them because minorities are no longer viewed as less than white people. Well, not to the rise of the new Nazis of course.
Racism, sexism and all the ism's aren't confined strictly to 'the far left' i'm not even sure why political leanings is even relevant on that topic.
Privilege is a separate conversation, which 9/10 people assume has to do with money or economic synonyms to the word 'privilege' which isn't the case at all and is highly misunderstood and wrongfully reported.
Religion has been attacked for centuries, and I think we can all agree that Muslisms in recent history are at most threat of religious attacks.
Open and honest political discourse was thrown out when the GOP spent 8 years trying to limit everything Obama did, including the rise of the Tea Party, primarily because of the colour of his skin - pandora's box was opened then, and under Trump they seem to be doubling down this rhetoric including trying to ban all muslims calling illegal immigrants rapists.
Character smearing isn't new, and certainly isn't baseless considering in the digital age finding out a persons history is just a quick google search away.
How many universities are teaching "anti whiteness"? What's the curriculum based around, and do you have a source for this?
Why are these conversations always talked about as detrimental to the left, when the right have years of baseless dehumanisation and character smearing?
Who is called a Nazi who isn't actually a Nazi or racist bigot, to the point where they are targeted with these tactics?
I hear this argument often, but I don't actually see a lot of people who are wrongfully called out?
Calling someone a Nazi purely because they are a white guy is racist and sexist.
its a good thing no one is actually doing that
It happens reasonable frequently. Just go on line after any big name conservative speaks on a university campus.
The reason I brought it up in this thread is because it happens at Ben Shapiro events. The video I posted above was protesters getting ready for a Ben Shapiro event.
No there is lots of racism and sexism on the right also. Irrelevant obviously given the question. The fact that people view white men as naturally blessed and occasionally guilty for their ancestors actions means that it is seen as more acceptable coming from the far left.
Of course your financial situation throughout your upbringing can be a privilege. I'd say the most practically important one.
Religion has been under attack for years but the progressive nature of the last couple of decades has meant Christians are now a minority (whether that is a good thing or not) and I am sure you would say it is a little harder to deal with sustained attacks when you are in the minority. Muslims are victims of more unfair opinion than just about anyone, again irrelevant in this context.
43..How on earth am I meant to know that?
The University of Wisconsin Madison is teaching it amongst others. And because I don't particularly care if the right do things that are harmful to their party.
Big name conservatives in recent years have said plenty of racist things, so it's not like it's without basis.
Is there a particular one you have in mind who actually hasn't been involved with racism or bigotry?
No there is lots of racism and sexism on the right also. Irrelevant obviously given the question. The fact that people view white men as naturally blessed and occasionally guilty for their ancestors actions means that it is seen as more acceptable coming from the far left.
Of course your financial situation throughout your upbringing can be a privilege. I'd say the most practically important one.
Religion has been under attack for years but the progressive nature of the last couple of decades has meant Christians are now a minority (whether that is a good thing or not) and I am sure you would say it is a little harder to deal with sustained attacks when you are in the minority. Muslims are victims of more unfair opinion than just about anyone, again irrelevant in this context.
43..How on earth am I meant to know that?
And because I don't particularly care if the right do things that are harmful to their party.
When people talk of "white privilege" the financial situation has literally nothing to do with the phrase, which is why I said the overwhelming majority don't understand this phrase properly at all.
So yes "privilege" in a traditional view of course, your financial situation has a significant bearing, but on the topic of white privilege it has nothing to do with it.
I wasn't aware that Christianity was under attack to begin with, as far as I can see in the western world - Christianity is seen as the religious norm?
I went to the University of Wisconsin's website: https://african.wisc.edu/content/problem-whiteness
They're actually teaching "The problem of whiteness" not "anti-whiteness"
tl;dr - they are breaking down the history of white supremacy. It's completely different to being anti-white.
It's actually very misguided to say that this is anti-whiteness. It's anti white supremacy, which everybody should support.
Sorry for not adressering the whole post & for going on and on about something that's probably easy to sum up in a few words or lines. Completely understand if people can't be bothered to read it. And I'm likely too tired to go into a big discussion, but I'll try if there is a invitation for it.
This part on my end though, has more to do with me politically being aligned with people on the far left. I just have a strong dislike for silencing differing views. Where they see it as sensible as they see themselves silencing or calling out something inherently wrong I see it as just a tool to silence people we should be listening to & debate so we can change minds instead of divide people.
A short example, that is not supposed to be rude (take it as me being mentally weak):
I find myself agreeing with Silva a lot on actual political stuff. But I can't stand reading his stuff when it comes to threads like these because I find him more interested in shutting down people and the discussion than to take the debate.
Then again, we have very, very few people on the caf that will discuss right-wing ideas from a right-wing perspective, so most often he has to deal with people who are leftist that are tired of seeing other leftist ruin (in our eyes) potential discussions that helps us understand right-wingers and debate them in the future.
Naturally we often fall into traps where we defend someones right to speak and be heard when that person is someone who is just awful.
People like Shapiro don't get us in awe over his amazing intellect, stances on issues or stuff like that.
But he tries to keep it civil from our perspective with not turning emotional and trying to stick to what he considers to be factual and inviting the opposition to a actual debate.
I think one of the good rebuttals (based on very little research on my end) on Shapiro is that he usually debates people who haven't really got a clue on the subjects he's comfortable with, and his ideas would be more easily picked apart by someone who isn't emotionally unstable or out of their depth in the topic.
As you said, the bar has been lowered considerably, and that is unfortunate, but people like Shapiro gets their highlights because the bar is lowered and they are above it where as others on both sides often go into emotional tantrums. I'd be more happy with people like Shapiro being just random people you'd hear at a pub talk bollocks in a civil way than him being a highlight guy from the right just for his ability to keep his cool & saying he'll listen to you if you can provide sources for your opinion.
Also, for whoever mentioned it, Obama is clearly a far, far superior debater. But it's a struggle to find people on the right that doesn't get shut down or silenced with ist/isms that are willing to show us why they believe what they believe.
People like myself who are still trying to find our feet on a ton of issues, need to hear from both sides to be comfortable on where we land on stuff.
I for example disagree massively with him on health-care, which is a emotional topic for me, supposedly being best made through open market to drive prices down instead of a taxed & state-supported/driven health-care system that takes care of those in need. But because I listen to what he says, I can tell people I discuss with around me that I don't believe the open market way is sufficient because it takes time & a leap of faith in the people that are in the business of earning money to try and do the right thing once they are in a position to do so, as opposed to my views on it meaning that it costs quite a bit for the community as a whole but that it gives a safety net for everyone that isn't judged on where they are on the social-ladder.
Before, I'd be able to tell them what I believe to be right, but wouldn't be able to or have felt the need to try and understand why they believe in the things they do, and I'd more easily fall for the belief that they aren't interested in helping the people lower down on the social ladder.
I just gave you an example of Ben Shapiro being called a Nazi. It's pretty ridiculous.
This girl got pepper sprayed in the face because they thought she was a fascist.
Here she is being interviewed, do you think she should be violently attacked for her views?
I find it hard to believe people can't see what is happening with regards to leftist tactics. It's shouldn't be tolerated.
I talk in regards to what I see as the most important privilege. Is your home life stable? Can you obtain a good education? etc. "The traditional" meaning of the word as in the actual meaning of it, if the definition of the word deviates so far from what you are trying to represent then you are representing it incorrectly.
When I say under attack I mean the ideology. Easy to see with the rapidly dropping numbers of self identified Christians.
A. Research the courses a little more. B. If you think that is all they are then why are they not called "The problem with white supremacy?" C. It is enough that the name is found acceptable, Imagine the response to a course called "the problem with blackness". I am shocked you tried to defend it.
These are the things that lead to issues like Evergreen.
It does make me think it has to be intentionally appearing oblivious rather than actually facing the issue. It is too prevalent to be this unaware.
http://whitegenocideproject.com/bla...ntinuing-its-course-the-problem-of-blackness/
I'd be pretty embarrassed if I was parroting this lot.
I'd be pretty embarrassed if I was parroting this lot.
If you're going to keep claiming it's an anti-whiteness course, I'm going to assume it's because you have taken it/know someone who has taken it, and thus know what is actually being discussed in class. If not, then all we have to go on is the description of it on the universities webpage, and there's nothing anti-white about it based on that.
You were the one who brought it up, the onus is on you to prove that it is what you say it is. If you're unwilling to, stop using it as an argument.
For what it's worth - I enjoy having the likes of Shapiro around who provide a differing opinion, an echo chamber is dangerous and only produces idle minds and a lack of free thought.
You have to hear what the other side think, in order to strengthen your position or expand your knowledge.
You're just picking out random people (aside from Shapiro) who have been attacked by a small group of far-left extremists - how does this represent a tactic of The Left?
In any group you'll find individuals who act out and aren't representative of the entire group.
Yes that's the most important privilege to you. However, if you are a trans person, black person, disabled person - all of these things are that much harder to obtain because of your societal status - and that's where white privilege comes in.
You're trying to deny it doesn't exist based on your own perceptions, and ignoring how it affects the very groups who don't benefit from it.
Christianity is one of the oldest religions around, it's bound to decrease over time, especially when you've got an increase in scientific evidence, and decreasing population rates in the western civilisation.
Since I replied to you - I've done just that, again all I can find is conservative pages reacting to the name of the course and the idea that this is an attack on white people.
Funnily enough i've read almost every book that's listed in the readings on the university homepage, so I have a general idea of the road they are travelling down.
Secondly, the name isn't the problem. The lack of critical thinking is, ironically in a thread which advocates for political discourse and differing opinions.
Finally, "the problem with blackness" wouldn't work because black people have been historically seen as problem, lessor than white people, lessor than human beings for hundreds of years.
Frankly, I'm shocked you don't understand the distinction.
See point C. Research Evergreen.
It's worth a lot to me to know that a fair lot on the caf still want to give people of differing beliefs time to talk and debate. So yes.
I assume most of us disagree with him on most topics, myself absolutely included.
I just always worry about the potential of ending up in a echo-chamber.
I feel like my adjustment on who to bother with and who to not has come more down to their way of discussing rather than what they stand for.
With the odd people out I think are too extreme of course in their views, but I try my best to ignore instead of try to silence them If i don't feel like taking the debate.
According to the FBI stats for 2016, Jews are still the biggest victims of religiously based hate crimes in America, both in absolute terms and, it looks to me, proportionally. Be interesting to see how Europe compares. Looking beyond the West, I think you'll find very different results.
(Edit): link - https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/victims
Last edited:
Part of the problem is that a lot of white dudes see anything that promotes people who are not white dudes as an attack on white dudes.
I'm familiar with Evergreen and the shit that's been going on. Researching it to find out how it supports your point, however, is not our job. And how does it back up your point about universities teaching anti-whiteness, or that the specific course in question is anti-white? You made the specific accusation that UW-Madison's Problem Whitness course was anti-white. You have yet to provide anything other than your assertions to back up that claim, even when challenged. As I said; put up or shut up.
I am not ignoring anything if I was I would specifically say "The only one that matters" not "The most important". If you were a homeless white person then financial privilege would feel the most important for you. Obviously which is why I only speak for myself.
Doesn't account for the numbers, the big bang was discovered in the 1920's. You are essentially arguing the idea that atheism is a progressive view.
The courses were the last point of my post and pretty much a throwaway as the most insane thing you'll see people defending. I am getting bored of debating something so ridiculous. Part of the course being to "Consider" the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” I mean Jesus Christ.
Whatever though, all these people on the right are terrible racists with no real grievances and we as a political party have no issues whatsoever.
You're just picking out random people (aside from Shapiro) who have been attacked by a small group of far-left extremists - how does this represent a tactic of The Left?
In any group you'll find individuals who act out and aren't representative of the entire group.
.[/QUOTE]
Because it's happening frequently and the far left are part of the left.
Let's not forget Robert Creamer did resign from the DNC after being filmed discussing tactics for baiting violence at rallies. He's not exactly fringe or far left. It's a tactic.
In any group you'll find individuals who act out and aren't representative of the entire group.
.[/QUOTE]
Because it's happening frequently and the far left are part of the left.
Let's not forget Robert Creamer did resign from the DNC after being filmed discussing tactics for baiting violence at rallies. He's not exactly fringe or far left. It's a tactic.
That would make total sense if I had any type of issue with say black history month. "The problem with". Not an attack, no Sir.
A bunch of crazed kids holding people hostage screaming about the issues with "whiteness" has nothing to do with the issues attached to a "Problem with whiteness course". Right.