The regressive left needs to stop, the Colin Moriarty controversy.

[Theodarzna]

You know this kind of reminds me of the situation back in ~2000 when Republicans ran around screaming about the Gay Marriage boogeyman. Sure, it got them the votes initially but because of the attention they gave the subject, people investigated and ended up finding out things didn't really matter.

The exposure to differences ends up pushing people to the opposite of the intended corner and the 'white identity' falls under that trend. I don't think differences are wrong but human nature is to react suspiciously to them. While I'm fine with having pride in one's heritage, the question "If they love Mexico so much to wave the flag and have that kind of pride, why are they still in the U.S.?" is one I can't really answer that doesn't seem to go against waving the Mexican flag around.

This might be for two major reasons that are not exclusive,

1) Tribalism is biologically ingrained.

2) Leftist politics tend to act in a replacementist way. I.E. Diversity is presented as "We are replacing/getting rid of the 'white' population" which can seem very threatening if you are in that demographic.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. There's also an interesting localized effect where living around Hispanic people bolsters white identity:

So, while "diversity is our strength" might make a nice slogan (or the cornerstone of a new religion, whatever), it seems like in practice what you wind up with is increasing racial polarization. People in Iowa don't really know shit about white identity politics, but people that live in communities with lots of signs in Spanish start to notice that maybe American whites and Latinos aren't exactly the same in all important ways. They might start to notice that there's some measure of nationalistic solidarity between the folks flying the Mexican flags and that maybe it's not actually a sin to express that kind of solidarity.

So, yeah, I remain skeptical of the "if we import enough Latinos, we can't lose!" belief espoused by Democrat analysts.

They'd have to ensure intermarriage doesn't happen for their strategy to work. And they would have to flood all areas equally. But yes, your graph is interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

And the persons history would have no effect on that? So, say someone that has a history of making sexist jokes at any time happened to say this.

Well, the persons history would depend. I mean you could be a complete Partisan Hack and determine that "Well if a LIBERAL says it its fine, but a Conservative is an inherently racist evil shitlord so they are always evil and malicious!" or you could just you know, act like a normal well adjusted person and notice that if the person has never said in all sincerity "Women are garbage!" then maybe put away the torches and pitchforks.

[Deleted]

And was there legal recourse for that?

No, It was just bad.
People shouldn't be fired for any political opinions they hold.

He's a shitlord, that's an understatement.

So? - You still said that dissent with feminism is 'badthink'.

[Orange Joe]

No, It was just bad.
People shouldn't be fired for any political opinions they hold.

So? - You still said that dissent with feminism is 'badthink'.

Who was fired?

[Deleted]

Nazis are the government.

SJWs are not the government.

The problem with the nazis was not the fact that they held goverment power.

- - - Updated - - -

Who was fired?

I was trying to explain that the whole 'get people fired for political opinions' used to be used to fire people on the left, and undoubtedly will again - Wouldn't it be a better society if it didn't happen?.

[Kolvarg]

Well, his comment WAS blatantly sexist.

First of all it was a joke, not a "comment". A joke is not a statement, just because you say it doesn't mean you condone, support or believe it. In fact, a great deal of humor IS based on things people don't usually do or believe in. Direct example: sarcasm.

My problem with this is that while yes, you "can" technically classify this as "sexism", did it really harm any women?

Because by the same train of thought, I can logicly classify many of the "pro-women" things we have been seeing lately, including the hashtag #ADayWithoutAWoman as sexist. Because they are sexist. Most of the supposed "fight agaisnt sexism" we see nowadays IS sexist as it's trying to gieve certain benefits to women simply because they are women.

It's technically sexist to segregate men from women in sports. But is it not fair?

The trouble with all this is that it severely dilutes the meaning of "sexism", to the point of ridicule. Because then you need to start clarifying between "good" and "bad" types of sexism (or maybe you defend total impartialness, which I personally doubt as to this day I don't think I've seen anyone capable or even willing to do that, nor do I believe it would be better for society or women).

Stereotypes (which some - if not many - times are actually based on "statistical observation/experience") are only harmful at the hands of stupid people, who would likely be harmful and have or generate their own stereotypes no matter what society "tells" them, or when they are ingrained in the law.

Again, did this joke, despite being based on a "sexist" stereotype, actually harm any women? Especially considering how it is obviously a joke.

And yeesh, people, for folks who get so upset about people being "triggered" by an indirect sweeping insult like this, your getting upset is the same kind of triggering. It just has a lot less merit, since you're upset that a sexist was identified as a sexist, based on a sexist remark he made in public and won't retract or apologize for.

Well I can't speak for everyone else, but as for me, I'm not upset that they're calling him a sexist. Honestly it doesn't even make me twitch anymore, because with the liberty people use these buzzwords like sexist, racist, fascists, nazi, alt-right, homophobe, so on, they completly lost its meaning to me, and are more likely to mean "I don't like this person" more than they do what they are supposed to mean.

If anything, I'm upset that - unlike his joke - these "witchhunts" actually have real world consequences. If anything, I'm upset that it's considered acceptable that "news" websites report on these things and spread pure misinformation without any evidence or logical thought.

I don't want those people to stop saying he's sexist or whatever they want to think. That's their right. I'd just like if this "Social Inquisition" trend doesn't become mainstream, and that people stop pushing this authoritarian thought-control ideology.

Although in the end I wouldn't describe myself as "upset", really I'm just mostly disappointed that "this" is what the left seems to be becoming. I'm disappointed that "this" (upholding this silly and unreal virtuous image of "goodness" and correctness online, and reinforce it by publicly judging and/or trying to get fired anyone that you percieve to be a "worse" person than you) is what being a good/decent person seems to be becoming nowadays.

Also, as seen above, I simply find the use some (many? certainly seems so at least online) people give to these buzzwords absolutely stupid and counterproductive. That's just my opinion, no judgement. I'm sure many of these people actually have good in their hearts and are actually trying to be good people. I just think they have been misguided and fall short with their intentions because for the most part they're just virtual signaling. And that, I think, is one of the major differences between (some, at least, won't say all) the people being "triggered" by these comments and the people "triggered" by the joke. I might be wrong/misjudging, but it seems to me there's only one side predominantly being judgemental and classifying and grouping people into certain types of "bad" simply because of tiny instances like this joke.

[Deleted]

So you're just stating that you don't like what they're saying, but you don't oppose them saying it?

No he said that he was opposed to using force to silence them.

Then attack them on the (lack of) merit to their position, not that they had the gall to express it.

They don't have a position, they have a tantrum.

[Noxx79]

No he said that he was opposed to using force to silence them.

They don't have a position, they have a tantrum.

Like what the ant-SJWs are doing? You don't have a position, you have a tantrum.

[anon5123]

SJWs speak out against misogyny

the problem is that they claim EVERYTHING is misogynist

they go to the most idiotic extremes to claim that something is sexist or racist or otherwise offensive, and scream their fucking heads off about it

that's what people take issue with

[Noxx79]

the problem is that they claim EVERYTHING is misogynist

they go to the most idiotic extremes to claim that something is sexist or racist or otherwise offensive

that's what people take issue with

The problem is that they claim NOTHING is bad. It's the most idiotic extremes to claim that nothing is sexist or racist or otherwise offensive.

That's what people take issues with.

[anon5123]

The problem is that they claim NOTHING is bad. It's the most idiotic extremes to claim that nothing is sexist or racist or otherwise offensive.

That's what people take issues with.

and you take my argument to the extreme opposite

thanks for proving my point

[Orange Joe]

and you take my argument to the extreme opposite

thanks for proving my point

So you admit your point was extreme too.

[Noxx79]

and you take my argument to the extreme opposite

thanks for proving my point

What's your point? That both sides are idiots? Why dont you just say that instead of blaming one side with ridiculous extremes?
I believe my point has been proven.

[Kolvarg]

So you admit your point was extreme too.

No because that wasn't his point.

His point was "they claim EVERYTHING is misogynist", which in no way means that he himself believes or claims "NOTHING is bad" as Noxx79 said.

The difference is that anon5123 does have a point (you can argue that it's wrong, but it's still a point) while Noxx79 is basicly doing the written equivalent of repeating what the other says in a mocking voice.

[Orange Joe]

No because that wasn't his point.

His point was "they claim EVERYTHING is misogynist", which in no way means that he himself believes or claims "NOTHING is bad" as Noxx79 said.

The difference is that anon5123 does have a point (you can argue that it's wrong, but it's still a point) while Noxx79 is basicly doing the written equivalent of repeating what the other says in a mocking voice.

That is how opposites work. If one side is extreme the opposite is also extreme.

example. The opposite of extreme cold is extreme hot.

[I Push Buttons]

If exaggeration and generalization are fair when he does it, they should be just as fair when someone else does it to him.

Only there is evidence of one and no evidence of the other.

There are basically enumerable examples of SJWs amidst their perpetual offense taking. Can you provide even a single example of your position?

[Kolvarg]

If exaggeration and generalization are fair when he does it, they should be just as fair when someone else does it to him.

It's not generalization because he's talking about a specific group of people. The "subject" is literally "people who do this".

Exaggeration? Perhaps, but certainly not as much as claiming him (or even any ammountable group of people) find "NOTHING is bad".

Because the truth is there ARE a lot of people online continuously looking for the next thing to be offended about. And while obviously they don't believe literally "everything" is misogynist, they do indeed clearly overuse the word.

It's not really equivalent to saying him specifically believes "NOTHING is bad", especially based on one post alone.

Edit:

Only there is evidence of one and no evidence of the other.

There are basically enumerable examples of SJWs amidst their perpetual offense taking. Can you provide even a single example of your position?

This.

That is how opposites work. If one side is extreme the opposite is also extreme.

example. The opposite of extreme cold is extreme hot.

Sure. The problem is that this is not the case.

The equivalent here would be:

Person A: "I don't like people who believe ALL water is extremely hot"

Person B: "So that means you believe ALL water is extremely cold"

Do you not see the flaw in the logic?


Me (or anyone else) criticizing one extreme, doesn't mean I believe or support the opposite extreme. THAT is the kind of extremism he is talking about, and the type of extremism Noxx79 used which indeed proves his point.

[Machismo]

No, It was just bad.
People shouldn't be fired for any political opinions they hold.

So? - You still said that dissent with feminism is 'badthink'.

People should be able to be fired for whatever their employer wants. Otherwise, no employer should should be able to fire an employee who says racist shit, or refuses to serve police officers.

[melodramocracy]

The subject was not literally "people who do this." It was "SJWs," which is a label routinely carelessly hurled at anyone who ever objects to anything said about women or minorities. Don't waste my time lying to me when I can scroll up five posts and see what the subject was. Regardless, it's pretty clear that Noxx's point was only to point out how utterly absurd his post was for the reasons I highlighted, which it absolutely was and it's nothing more than feelings based whining about people doing things they don't like. All you're doing is bending over backwards to be charitable to one post–the one you agree with–even going so far as to invent shit that didn't happen, while being incredibly uncharitable towards the other and taking it as literally as possible to make the person seem stupid, rather than understand what they were going for.

The truth is also that there ARE a lot of people online who throw a fit if anyone objects to anything said about women or minorities that's less than positive. While obviously they don't believe literally "nothing" is misogynist, they are overly quick to slap down any objections as little more than "hypersensitivity."

You guys see what you want to see, but have your heads so far up your own asses which are themselves located in insular thought bubbles that you actually need to ask me for examples of this when you're on MMO-C, a never ending example of exactly that. I mean we're in a thread where people are trying to argue that a blatantly sexist joke isn't sexist because they can't actually figure out how to distinguish between something being sexist and being something not worth getting upset over. I'm not going to deny that there are people out there who get too upset. It's a thing, sure, but "regressive leftists" don't have a monopoly on it and if you actually manage to think that they do, it's likely because you're not bothering to question for even one second what you accept as true. This entire thread is a testament to the love of insipid whining "anti-PC" types have, even over a total nontroversy, so long as it disagrees with them.

Do you believe every example of taking offense to a statement is legitimate or worthy of consideration / action?

[Tijuana]

@OP

I have no idea who either of these men are. However, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the gaming community doesn't know how social interactions work, to a hysterical degree that they would be outraged over basic gender stereotype humor. As evidence of my claims, I present to you every single thread on MMO-C.

[I Push Buttons]

This is kind of a weird question to pose to me, given that my stance throughout this thread has been a combination of this is not worth worrying about and you all should get off Twitter and go outside, while the people I disagree with have been insisting this is a tragedy and people need to take action.

Funny, I have only insisted this is absurd and idiots of the regressive left need to stop taking action.