David Rubin on why todays progressivism has become a faux moral movement

[Deleted]

I'm a completely immoral pile of human garbage and deep down I know it, but I can't admit that my whole life and self-image have been based entirely on lies, so instead I bolster my ego by projecting my delusions on people who are better than myself.

That much is obvious.


[Infracted - Don't edit people's quotes to flame them]

[Zython]

ok honest question....what does this even mean? Whos smugness do i supposedly not have a problem with?

White nationalists, Christian evangelicals, MRAs, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

That much is obvious.

[citation needed]

Edit: This is why the left doesn't engage you guys with civility. Because patiently providing evidence and facts results in us getting abuse from children having temper tantrums.

[Kraenen]

I'm the only one here who has actually provided evidence for their claims. Everyone else just started screaming at me for no reason.

You did say that Rubin said Holocaust denial was good (with no evidence), then when called on it backpedal, then when called on the backpedal play a victim and pretend to be the only one having a serious discussion... this is what I mean by silly. All of this is in plain view of people reading the thread.

[Zython]

You did say that Rubin said Holocaust denial was good, then when called on it backpedal, then when called on the backpedal play a victim and pretend to be the only one having a serious discussion... this is what I mean by silly.

[citation needed]

[Canpinter]

White nationalists, Christian evangelicals, MRAs, etc.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA ok that was funny, if you have ever seen me in a religious conversation you would know i don't have a soft spot in my heart for evangelicals, as for white nationalists i mostly i treat them with a high amount of disdain as well.

[Very Tired]

Seems like the left get framed as the people who want embrace PC cultures, believe in trigger warnings, and ban public speakers they don't agree with... Even though you can seriously struggle to find people that extreme in real life.

[Canpinter]

Seems like the left get framed as the people who want embrace PC cultures, believe in trigger warnings, and ban public speakers they don't agree with... Even though you can seriously struggle to find people that extreme in real life.

depends what circles you run in mostly. while i admit the stereotypical pc sjw is a bit of a vocal minority its not as small as many on the left would claim.

[Zython]

Seems like the left get framed as the people who want embrace PC cultures, believe in trigger warnings, and ban public speakers they don't agree with... Even though you can seriously struggle to find people that extreme in real life.

Funny thing is, I've seen FAR more PC culture from the right and center. "We can't hurt the feelings of fascists, it's just an opinion!", and BS like that.

[xChurch]

Seems pretty similar to saying all conservatives believe some water is turning frogs gay because Alex Jones says so.

[Canpinter]

Funny thing is, I've seen FAR more PC culture from the right and center. "We can't hurt the feelings of fascists, it's just an opinion!", and BS like that.

its more like "we cant physically attack them and we shouldn't ban them from talking as it just makes the problem worse", or "that person you branded a fascist isn't one in any way and here is why"

[Zython]

its more like "we cant physically attack them and we shouldn't ban them from talking as it just makes the problem worse", or "that person you branded a fascist isn't one in any way and here is why"

That sounds like PC whining to me.

[Canpinter]

That sounds like PC whining to me.

it is almost the exact opposite of pc whining. its arguing against branding people as racists/sexist/ islomiphobs/fascists/nazis, without decent reason to

[Kraenen]

it is almost the exact opposite of pc whining. its arguing against branding people as racists/sexist/ islomiphobs/fascists/nazis, without decent reason to

Just stop responding to him, he quite clearly feeds off being dishonest and getting people to react to it

[Zython]

it is almost the exact opposite of pc whining. its arguing against branding people as racists/sexist/ islomiphobs/fascists/nazis, without decent reason to

Except reasons were given. You just want to pretend they're not true or something. I get that it's baffling that people could believe something like Nazism, but they did, and they can.

- - - Updated - - -

Just stop responding to him, he quite clearly feeds off being dishonest and getting people to react to it

See, this is the kind of talk that shuts down civil conversations. I'm the "bad guy", so I MUST be lying. It's really sad.

[Zython]

actually you haven't at all. You are the only one here acting like a child throwing a tantrum tho.

[citation needed]

[KrazyK923]

We're at a point that it doesn't matter what somebody calls themselves, since this is just increasingly used to pretend to have some gotcha moment for the other side.

"I'M A LIBERAL BUT HERE LET ME REGURGITATE ALL THESE RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS!" Then you're not a liberal. If you espouse all these conservative opinions then you're a conservative calling yourself a liberal. Which is fine, be delusional all you want, but that's not why Rubin is doing it. He does it to pretend to give credence to the other side.

Him appearing on laughable Dennis Prager's channel and espousing a bunch of right-wing talking points is the final nail in the coffin. Rubin is just full of shit. He's not a liberal. I don't know if he ever was one, going back and looking at his earliest content on his own after seeing all this bullshit. He's been playing pretend, much like Sargon and his ilk.

[Canpinter]

We're at a point that it doesn't matter what somebody calls themselves, since this is just increasingly used to pretend to have some gotcha moment for the other side.

"I'M A LIBERAL BUT HERE LET ME REGURGITATE ALL THESE RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS!"

what issues of substance has dave rubin taken the right wing stance on?

[Notshauna]

its more like "we cant physically attack them and we shouldn't ban them from talking as it just makes the problem worse", or "that person you branded a fascist isn't one in any way and here is why"

The anti-fascism thing is certainly one of the most divisive issues in the modern left. Many people espouse the virtues of non-violent protest and allowing everyone to speak their voice, but others don't think those rights should apply to fascists. It's not an easy issue, with a lot of these alt-right talkers finding themselves espousing dangerous beliefs but not so dangerous that they are within the confides of criminal law. This leaves people in a very uneasy situation, where you are stuck with individuals with dangerous views spouting them publicly but the authorities can't do anything about it. So therein lies the split, either let the views propagate and challenge them or try and curtail the spread of them via various means, both can be seen as immoral and both have their risks. It kind of sucks.

[Canpinter]

The anti-fascism thing is certainly one of the most divisive issues in the modern left. Many people espouse the virtues of non-violent protest and allowing everyone to speak their voice, but others don't think those rights should apply to fascists. It's not an easy issue, with a lot of these alt-right talkers finding themselves espousing dangerous beliefs but not so dangerous that they are within the confides of criminal law. This leaves people in a very uneasy situation, where you are stuck with individuals with dangerous views spouting them publicly but the authorities can't do anything about it. So therein lies the split, either let the views propagate and challenge them or try and curtail the spread of them via various means, both can be seen as immoral and both have their risks. It kind of sucks.

the issues is the "pro nazi punching crowed" has this awful tendency to view way to much as "dangerous" up to and including branding people who don't support violence as "fascists" as well. the ability to chain guilt by association to absurd degrees is getting ridiculous.

[Aphrel]

I avoided the question because the answer is obvious, no they shouldn't, and they don't.

How is my question irrelevant? Rubin's example of the bakery being forced to make the cake is what the discussion is about and you whip out the fireman and ambulance driver strawman which is not only absurd, but entirely unrelated... People are being forced, through government intervention, to partake in something they fundamentally disagree with on a religious level. How do you not see that as a problem? And I am not saying forced to accept it, that's a given, no matter what they do, gay marriage is the law of the land now... But they are forced to actively facilitate and participate in it... And the only way they can avoid that is to literally close their business.

They goverment doesnt specificly force those people to participate or facilitate anything. The goverments made it illegal to discriminate against people based on sexuality. Which in this case means that a firm that provides a service of baking a wedding cake does not have the right to refuse baking the damn cake because of reasons of sexuality.
Their faith doesnt even matter in this case tbh, an atheist baker doesnt have the right to refuse service to anyone based on sexuality either. Nor does a jewish baker have the legal right to refuse baking a weddingcake for a rightwing nazi couple.
If these "poor" bakers cant stand making wedding cakes for everyone then they can find another job.

The law is there to protect people from discrimination it was voted in by a majority.
Until such a time where the majority thinks that discrimination based on sexuality should be allowed the law will stay active.

and as for "People are being forced, through government intervention, to partake in something they fundamentally disagree with on a religious level."
Do i see this as a problem? No, not at all. I am very happy that laws that are meant to apply to everyone actually do apply to everyone.

When you phrase things like that its as if you think some idea or opinion is somehow more valid or important if its a religious one. Do you hold the same reverence for the ideas and opinions of ISIS? Should they also get to ignore certain laws "they fundamentally disagree with on a religious level." ?