Support NeoGAF

[PtM]

Oh come on, he laid out a couple of detailed arguments for why guilty by association shouldn't be used in this case (or any for that matter, ever heard of McCarthyism?) and you reply with that?

Could you actually address his points please?

On what basis could I do that if the semantics of alt-right, white supremacist and nazi are up in the air? Pretty sure Breitbart was known as a shithole back then already.
Plus, if the KKK were to speak kindly of you, shouldn't you have an audible problem with that?

You’re the only one who thinks so.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[llien]

...morons joking about aborting white boys.

Morons, joking? Check this, the very last sentence. I hope her essay is not where "the future is" quote voiced not long ago comes from.

On what basis could I do that if the semantics of alt-right, white supremacist and nazi are up in the air? Pretty sure Breitbart was known as a shithole back then already.

You know, that's the whole issue with it. Steve Bannon thread instead of criticizing his arguments went into discussing how ugly a face he had.
It shouldn't be that hard to be able to pin down his unnaceptable views.

 

[Vicetrailia]

.
It shouldn't be that hard to be able to pin down his unnaceptable views.

That would be beating a dead horse, as was done all during and after the election until they got rid of him.

But looking back at this interview, he's mostly full of shit so it's even worse. "Drain the Swamp".

 

[llien]

That would be beating a dead horse, as was done all during and after the election until they got rid of him.

I beg to differ.
If I say "X is Y", I won't have problems saying why I think so, which seems to be the case here.

 

[Relativ9]

I beg to differ.
If I say "X is Y", I won't have problems saying why I think so, which seems to be the case here.

So far it appears to be "X is Y because Y says it likes X".

Don't get me wrong, from what I can tell Bannon doesn't seem like my cup of tea, and I don't like most if not almost all of his politics. But everyone keeps saying he's a Nazi or a white supremacist yet I haven't heard him say anything specifically to prove that. Sure you can draw conclusions based on some of the policy he's for that he's not overly concerned with the well-being of the black community, but that doesn't take a racist, just a narcissist.

 

[TheGraykid]

If you want to achieve equality, you don't start talking about how shitty a particular group is, blaming all the world's problems on them. It doesn't matter if both sides are equally bad or not. At best you could argue "well, at least they haven't killed millions yet!" which is hardly a compliment. White supremacists are trash, and so are these morons joking about aborting white boys. Those comments are not okay, doesn't matter who says it or which group it targets. Get outta here with that trash.

Of course, when starting a dialogue, you don't start talking about how shitty a particular group is. This isn't the starting point though. We've been talking about this for a long time. No one's blaming all the world's problems on them, people are just asking for their fair share of the pie. By listening to those people, that's how you achieve equality.

The abortion thing is trash, because I don't think people should talk about aborting people like that, it's too real, but that's placed right next to someone joking that we should create a male-only hunger games which is at the opposite of that scale. "It's too real" that's my line in the sand for when a joke is okay or not. Saying "maybe we gather around all the white/black people and catapult them into the sun" isn't awful to me, saying "maybe we should gather the white/black people and stick them into gas chambers" is awful to me. Most jokes I hear from feminists don't cross that line. Pointing at a couple of jokes that small subset of these people make, so that you can go "we don't have to listen to any of those people, they're just as bad as white supremacists", that's where I call bullshit, because if that's you, it seems like you never wanted to listen to begin with.

 

[Renna Hazel]

First of all never try to argue with a wikkipedia article that is the first thing you learn in school.

Secondly even that description is basicall everyone who does not agree with the so called "progressive" side. So yes the term al-right is pretty meaningless. Also Living in Germany I think you have no idea what Nazis even are. Even more Trump will never be Anti semetic. Even more so since his family is jewish too or the fact that he just reccently supported the jewish people by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Trump is surely right but he is far from being a Nazi. But again these Definintions have become so meaningless. Words like Racist, sexist, Nazi, etc actually meant something until everyone who does not agree with others was being called that. The Thing I would call Trump is a Nationalist

Didn't you just use Twitter to support your argument? I don't see how that is any better than Wikipedia.

As I said before, if we don't agree on what the definition of the alt-right is, then there really isn't any point in arguing over whether or not Trump is a part of it. Though claiming the definition is "everyone who doesn't agree with progressives" is kind of silly. Here are the groups listed in the definition

composed chiefly of white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups.

If you're going to defend these groups as being picked on because they "don't agree with the progressive side" then we will never come close to agreeing on anything other than the tweets you posted were stupid.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Aw, too bad it's all so nebulous... You're probably right, Trump just didn't know what he was doing. That makes all the difference.

Are you trying to ignore both my objections? There's no clear connection that's made to say Bannon is either a neo-nazi, white supremacist or white nationalist. That's not to say he isn't, but I require more than flimsy connections - and so should you. Reality tends to be more complex than our minds want to accept, especially when we live in a bubble. A good example is the completely different views on Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union that's been espoused between the traditionalists and revisionists. It's not just something that regards only historical debate either, as it's a big issue in terms of splits in Ukraine's relation to the Soviet Union, namely the holodomor. From Robert Conquest's extremely high death count to some revisionist death counts into the thousands/tens of thousands, it's easy to just want to accept the position that's convenient.
One could easier focus on more founded criticisms of Bannon, like him being anti-muslim and him being a nationalist (if you dislike it) or his disregard for minority issues. Or him being socially traditionalist. Heck, one can even make the argumentation that his traditionalist views harken back to a white nationalist fantasy.

The argumentation "Trump just didn't know what he was doing" is also a bit disingenuous, as Trump could certainly believe that Bannon is not a "neo nazi". That makes the insinuations in "Trump endorse and hiring neo nazis" misleading. There's also an ongoing conflicting regarding Trump, whether he's a bumbling incompetent moron or a strategic manipulator. Although I'll say they're correlation is low, it's not necessarily contradictory, but it sure puts into doubt intentional argumentation in regards to Trump.

It's just a weird thing that I've noticed a lot of americans focus on, generally with little evidence, instead of focusing on more legitimate criticism of Trump or instead of fronting their own policy. There's enough argumentation to be had regarding flaws of Trump without turning to hyperbole in regards to fascism and nazis. Colin Moriarty tried to tell people about the stop mechanisms built into the whole american system in regards to the utter hysteria some displayed after the election - as if it was the end of the world. Trump is certainly in practice not the threat he's being perceived as, though I can certainly see the argumentation for that "he's bad for the country and the progressive cause" as I seem to interpret the view amongst democrats outside of the hyperbole.

I mean, I've read era now and then, and people literally feel like disagreeing with any decision made by Trump just by nature of it being him. That's not very fruitful and to me observing things from the outside, it just seems like the existence of Trump as president is the biggest problem for democrats, rather than something like republicans being in control of both congress and the presidency. Having thought the democrats to be the more level-headed party in the US, it's been pretty weird to see how they've acted in regards to dealing with the election loss. It almost seems like a whiplash effect from the surprise defeat and it seemed to intensify the rhetoric on GAF from the start of the election until the exodus. Reading the old election night thread really saw the switch from raging optimism to rage and anxiety. I think perhaps it's the focus on the presidency that's the cause of it, because you seem the same thing in the republican camp in regards to Obama.

 

[TheGraykid]

So far it appears to be "X is Y because Y says it likes X".

Don't get me wrong, from what I can tell Bannon doesn't seem like my cup of tea, and I don't like most if not almost all of his politics. But everyone keeps saying he's a Nazi or a white supremacist yet I haven't heard him say anything specifically to prove that. Sure you can draw conclusions based on some of the policy he's for that he's not overly concerned with the well-being of the black community, but that doesn't take a racist, just a narcissist.

Breitbart is not a good place. Like real bad. I'm not calling Steve Bannon a white supremacist because I don't know what's in his brain. However, he has run a website which pushes white supremacist ideas. It's a website which constantly publishes misleading news in order to forward a very specific agenda. They've also had white supremacists write on there multiple times, and Buzzfeed (I know, I know, but this seems to actually be a good piece of journalism) last year posted a bunch of emails where you can clearly see people like Milo and Steve Bannon communicating with white supremacists in order to source and coordinate article ideas.

I don't care what he is, I care what he does, and he's probably one of the most influential people pushing a white supremacist agenda.

 

[Renna Hazel]

Are you trying to ignore both my objections? There's no clear connection that's made to say Bannon is either a neo-nazi, white supremacist or white nationalist. That's not to say he isn't, but I require more than flimsy connections - and so should you. Reality tends to be more complex than our minds want to accept, especially when we live in a bubble. A good example is the completely different views on Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union that's been espoused between the traditionalists and revisionists. It's not just something that regards only historical debate either, as it's a big issue in terms of splits in Ukraine's relation to the Soviet Union, namely the holodomor. From Robert Conquest's extremely high death count to some revisionist death counts into the thousands/tens of thousands, it's easy to just want to accept the position that's convenient.
One could easier focus on more founded criticisms of Bannon, like him being anti-muslim and him being a nationalist (if you dislike it) or his disregard for minority issues. Or him being socially traditionalist. Heck, one can even make the argumentation that his traditionalist views harken back to a white nationalist fantasy.

The argumentation "Trump just didn't know what he was doing" is also a bit disingenuous, as Trump could certainly believe that Bannon is not a "neo nazi". That makes the insinuations in "Trump endorse and hiring neo nazis" misleading. There's also an ongoing conflicting regarding Trump, whether he's a bumbling incompetent moron or a strategic manipulator. Although I'll say they're correlation is low, it's not necessarily contradictory, but it sure puts into doubt intentional argumentation in regards to Trump.

It's just a weird thing that I've noticed a lot of americans focus on, generally with little evidence, instead of focusing on more legitimate criticism of Trump or instead of fronting their own policy. There's enough argumentation to be had regarding flaws of Trump without turning to hyperbole in regards to fascism and nazis. Colin Moriarty tried to tell people about the stop mechanisms built into the whole american system in regards to the utter hysteria some displayed after the election - as if it was the end of the world. Trump is certainly in practice not the threat he's being perceived as, though I can certainly see the argumentation for that "he's bad for the country and the progressive cause" as I seem to interpret the view amongst democrats outside of the hyperbole.

I mean, I've read era now and then, and people literally feel like disagreeing with any decision made by Trump just by nature of it being him. That's not very fruitful and to me observing things from the outside, it just seems like the existence of Trump as president is the biggest problem for democrats, rather than something like republicans being in control of both congress and the presidency. Having thought the democrats to be the more level-headed party in the US, it's been pretty weird to see how they've acted in regards to dealing with the election loss. It almost seems like a whiplash effect from the surprise defeat and it seemed to intensify the rhetoric on GAF from the start of the election until the exodus. Reading the old election night thread really saw the switch from raging optimism to rage and anxiety. I think perhaps it's the focus on the presidency that's the cause of it, because you seem the same thing in the republican camp in regards to Obama.

But what you're asking for would be political suicide for just about anyone. No politician runs around proclaiming to be a Nazi or white supremacist, it would be very difficult to do that and win an election in this day and age. Breitbart News kind of speaks for itself, it gives a platform to alt-right figures like Milo (who is also smart enough to claim he's not part of the alt-right) and has a continuous record of fabricating news in order to push a very particular agenda. This is how propaganda works and it's really not difficult to see what the agenda is.

You say guilt by association shouldn't matter but why is a fabricated news site like Breitbart one of the most commonly cited sources by people like David Duke and other KKK leaders? If the stories that are fabricated always push an agenda suitable for the KKK doesn't that tell you something about the organization?

 

[Battlechili]

You’re the only one who thinks so.

I would argue that Era is just Neogaf 2012-2017 but significantly worse
I do not pretend to have been here since the olden days, having only made an account in 2014.
But I've seen the older threads.
And old threads had here are threads that would not fly in Era.

 

[Blam]

I would argue that Era is just Neogaf 2012-2017 but significantly worse
I do not pretend to have been here since the olden days, having only made an account in 2014.
But I've seen the older threads.
And old threads had here are threads that would not fly in Era.

Well yeah I mean some of the mods wouldn't be able to do their insanely strict policing in GAF at the time so ERA is their playground for that.

 

[Renna Hazel]

Well yeah I mean some of the mods wouldn't be able to do their insanely strict policing in GAF at the time so ERA is their playground for that.

Was GAF really much better? I consider myself pretty progressive but I'm almost positive I would have been dog-piled and banned had I posted my thoughts in the off topic section prior. Both sites just seem like you shouldn't bother posting in off topic unless you agree with what the community was saying.

 

[PtM]

The argumentation "Trump just didn't know what he was doing" is also a bit disingenuous, as Trump could certainly believe that Bannon is not a "neo nazi". That makes the insinuations in "Trump endorse and hiring neo nazis" misleading.

Fair enough. I was half joking, to be honest, Trump probably knew well enough who Bannon was, the head of Breitbart, which is a legitimate lens to judge him through.

Well yeah I mean some of the mods wouldn't be able to do their insanely strict policing in GAF at the time so ERA is their playground for that.

Except that it's a whole bunch of new mods over there?

 

[Vicetrailia]

So far it appears to be "X is Y because Y says it likes X".

Don't get me wrong, from what I can tell Bannon doesn't seem like my cup of tea, and I don't like most if not almost all of his politics. But everyone keeps saying he's a Nazi or a white supremacist yet I haven't heard him say anything specifically to prove that. Sure you can draw conclusions based on some of the policy he's for that he's not overly concerned with the well-being of the black community, but that doesn't take a racist, just a narcissist.

Breitbart and other things:

Source:
The former chairman of Breitbart News helped run Trump's campaign and is a senior White House adviser. Bannon once proudly described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right," and under his leadership the site published an infamous article that celebrated the work of several white supremacists, including Richard Spencer, who was one of the leaders of the Charlottesville rally and who made headlines for using Nazi slogans and gestures at a Washington celebration of Trump's inauguration. (Breitbart also famously posted some of its stories under the heading "Black Crime.") Bannon has repeatedly and publicly endorsed The Camp of the Saints, a novel popular in white-pride circles in which black Americans, "dirty Arabs," and feces-eating Hindu rapists (among others) destroy civilization. The book refers to black individuals as "niggers" and "rats." Bannon has also reportedly praised a far-right French writer named Charles Maurras who was sentenced to life in prison after World War II for collaboration with Nazi occupiers. And he's complained publicly that too many tech CEOs are Asian American. And he reportedly told his ex-wife that he didn't want their children attending schools with significant Jewish enrollment.

Source is Wikipedia:
Bannon was a founding member of the board of Breitbart News, a right-wing news, opinion and commentary website. Philip Elliott and Zeke J. Miller of Time say the site has "pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material into the vein of the alternative right". Bannon said that Breitbart's ideological mix included libertarians, Zionists, the conservative gay community, same-sex marriage opponents, economic nationalists, populists, as well as alt-right, the alt-right comprising a very small proportion overall. Conceding the alt-right holds views with "racial and anti-Semitic overtones," Bannon said he has zero tolerance for such views.

In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chair of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach toward its agenda. In 2016, Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right".Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."

In 2016 Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Breitbart's management, together with writer Milo Yiannopoulos, solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals. After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns denouncing the site's controversial positions.

On August 18, 2017, Breitbart announced that Bannon would return as executive chairman following his White House employment. On January 9, 2018, he stepped down as executive chairman.

You can split hairs about his proper titles, but he's associated with supremacists for a reason. Now about Bannon, he was useful for solidyfing the alt-right's support for Trump.

 

[Blam]

Was GAF really much better? I consider myself pretty progressive but I'm almost positive I would have been dog-piled and banned had I posted my thoughts in the off topic section prior. Both sites just seem like you shouldn't bother posting in off topic unless you agree with what the community was saying.

Well pre-split sure, but not as bad as ERA. You can't even make a sudden joke or as much as a whimper to anything the site does not allow or you're gonna be banned.

ERA at this point won't let you say anything negative in the slightest or you're gonna get warned, banned or the post deleted.

GAF now well look at this thread seems to show much more leniency towards conversation on a controversial topic.

 

[BraveOne]

Was GAF really much better? I consider myself pretty progressive but I'm almost positive I would have been dog-piled and banned had I posted my thoughts in the off topic section prior. Both sites just seem like you shouldn't bother posting in off topic unless you agree with what the community was saying.

The main issue was saying something that went against the status quo of the site at that time. i'll use era as an example, you can be very progressive in thought, but if you say something out of ignorance or misspeak you get dogpilled, instead of people asking you to clarify your point or expand on your thoughts , you will get very aggressive messages that do nothing but end any discussion from happening. It gets to the point where the only level of discussion you can have is to only agree with everyone's statement. As i said before if you want to sail through off-topic with no issues look for the "Power-Users" on the site and just agree with whatever they say while maybe adding in your own critical thought, but nothing to drastic. GAF at one point in time was like that, but i think this thread is a testament to how much its changed over the years. This thread on era would be locked within seconds.

 

[Renna Hazel]

The main issue was saying something that went against the status quo of the site at that time. i'll use era as an example, you can be very progressive in thought, but if you say something out of ignorance or misspeak you get dogpilled, instead of people asking you to clarify your point or expand on your thoughts , you will get very aggressive messages that do nothing but end any discussion from happening. It gets to the point where the only level of discussion you can have is to only agree with everyone's statement. As i said before if you want to sail through off-topic with no issues look for the "Power-Users" on the site and just agree with whatever they say while maybe adding in your own critical thought, but nothing to drastic. GAF at one point in time was like that, but i think this thread is a testament to how much its changed over the years. This thread on era would be locked within seconds.

lol that sounds entirely pointless. I'm not saying you're wrong but I just find it silly to think anyone is actually doing that. Granted, I haven't had any personal issues with Era, but I tend to avoid posting in off-topic there just as I did here before. I appreciate both sites trying to be progressive and inclusive, but there sure were a lot of bans dished out that made me roll my eyes over here.

I hope GAF changes for the better and doesn't veer too far to either side of the political spectrum.

 

[RokkanStoned]

But what you're asking for would be political suicide for just about anyone. No politician runs around proclaiming to be a Nazi or white supremacist, it would be very difficult to do that and win an election in this day and age. Breitbart News kind of speaks for itself, it gives a platform to alt-right figures like Milo (who is also smart enough to claim he's not part of the alt-right) and has a continuous record of fabricating news in order to push a very particular agenda. This is how propaganda works and it's really not difficult to see what the agenda is.

Just because it would be political suicide, doesn't give you fair grounds to believe you know what a person is or is not without clear evidence. "It's not really difficult to see what the agenda is" sounds to be more like "I see the agenda I want to see". Milo is a big provocateur and the best thing that could've been done is to pay him no mind, because he's largely the type that thrives on attention.

You say guilt by association shouldn't matter but why is a fabricated news site like Breitbart one of the most commonly cited sources by people like David Duke and other KKK leaders? If the stories that are fabricated always push an agenda suitable for the KKK doesn't that tell you something about the organization?

Short answer: not necessarily.
Long answer:
Association fallacies are usually employed in order to bypass argumentation. The fact that Breitbart is commonly sourced by the extreme right is because they have placed themselves as anti-left. More so it gets further strengthened by the opposition calling them the extreme right and putting them in focus.
It's all a matter of convenience, in terms of using sources that validate your perception and the polarized position. First of all, is there Breitbart articles that espouse key tenants in the agenda of KKK. If not, it's just being used because it fits their agenda due to being extreme right and having very few known media outlets that would be close enough for them to use that would fit parts of their agenda. When everything is "either or" it tends to move people towards extreme, meaning defining themselves in opposition. Just look at CNN - who has made anti-Trump their position, making them pull towards the left. The polarization has hit media like The New York Times pretty hard, as any recognition of Trump or dampening of the perceived danger of Trump, makes people disown them on the left, while attack on Trump makes the right disown them. Era has hilarious examples of the former and I don't need to tell you about the latter, right?
Btw, the KKK is like between 3000 and 6000 people, which makes the use of them more a rhetorical device rather than a force in politics. If a left-wing terrorist organization or an islamist terrorist organization quoted CNN or some other known outlet a lot because certain parts of the newspaper's agenda fits their "fight" or agenda, it's not necessarily a sign of the character of the newspaper or the journalists.
Studying the bias/angle in newspapers is really interesting, although it was much easier in the past where the number and distribution of newspapers were more limited. Like between a working class newspaper and a bourgeoise newspaper, or a minority newspaper and a more nationalist newspaper.

 

[Renna Hazel]

Just because it would be political suicide, doesn't give you fair grounds to believe you know what a person is or is not without clear evidence. "It's not really difficult to see what the agenda is" sounds to be more like "I see the agenda I want to see". Milo is a big provocateur and the best thing that could've been done is to pay him no mind, because he's largely the type that thrives on attention.

It's honestly hard to take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like this. It should sound like what it says, the agenda isn't difficult to see to anyone who is looking. You can keep pretending that Breitbart doesn't fabricate stories to push an agenda, and if that's your stance then I'm not going to try to change your mind. As for Milo, I agree that the best thing that could have been done would have been to ignore him, too bad Breitbart made him a star contributor instead.

Short answer: not necessarily.
Long answer:
Association fallacies are usually employed in order to bypass argumentation. The fact that Breitbart is commonly sourced by the extreme right is because they have placed themselves as anti-left. More so it gets further strengthened by the opposition calling them the extreme right and putting them in focus.
It's all a matter of convenience, in terms of using sources that validate your perception and the polarized position. First of all, is there Breitbart articles that espouse key tenants in the agenda of KKK. If not, it's just being used because it fits their agenda due to being extreme right and having very few known media outlets that would be close enough for them to use that would fit parts of their agenda. When everything is "either or" it tends to move people towards extreme, meaning defining themselves in opposition. Just look at CNN - who has made anti-Trump their position, making them pull towards the left. The polarization has hit media like The New York Times pretty hard, as any recognition of Trump or dampening of the perceived danger of Trump, makes people disown them on the left, while attack on Trump makes the right disown them. Era has hilarious examples of the former and I don't need to tell you about the latter, right?
Btw, the KKK is like between 3000 and 6000 people, which makes the use of them more a rhetorical device rather than a force in politics. If a left-wing terrorist organization or an islamist terrorist organization quoted CNN or some other known outlet a lot because certain parts of the newspaper's agenda fits their "fight" or agenda, it's not necessarily a sign of the character of the newspaper or the journalists.
Studying the bias/angle in newspapers is really interesting, although it was much easier in the past where the number and distribution of newspapers were more limited. Like between a working class newspaper and a bourgeoise newspaper, or a minority newspaper and a more nationalist newspaper.

You didn't need to tell me any of that to be honest, as the NYT is one of my primary sources of information and I don't like the response they've been getting for reporting facts. As for Breitbart, they've done far more than place themselves as anti-left, and it's not as if they're considered a credible news organization, even by the right. When your fabricated stories all cater to a certain agenda I'd say that's enough evidence for me to give them a label. If it's not for you, that's fine.

 

[TheGraykid]

Just because it would be political suicide, doesn't give you fair grounds to believe you know what a person is or is not without clear evidence. "It's not really difficult to see what the agenda is" sounds to be more like "I see the agenda I want to see". Milo is a big provocateur and the best thing that could've been done is to pay him no mind, because he's largely the type that thrives on attention.



Short answer: not necessarily.
Long answer:
Association fallacies are usually employed in order to bypass argumentation. The fact that Breitbart is commonly sourced by the extreme right is because they have placed themselves as anti-left. More so it gets further strengthened by the opposition calling them the extreme right and putting them in focus.
It's all a matter of convenience, in terms of using sources that validate your perception and the polarized position. First of all, is there Breitbart articles that espouse key tenants in the agenda of KKK. If not, it's just being used because it fits their agenda due to being extreme right and having very few known media outlets that would be close enough for them to use that would fit parts of their agenda. When everything is "either or" it tends to move people towards extreme, meaning defining themselves in opposition. Just look at CNN - who has made anti-Trump their position, making them pull towards the left. The polarization has hit media like The New York Times pretty hard, as any recognition of Trump or dampening of the perceived danger of Trump, makes people disown them on the left, while attack on Trump makes the right disown them. Era has hilarious examples of the former and I don't need to tell you about the latter, right?
Btw, the KKK is like between 3000 and 6000 people, which makes the use of them more a rhetorical device rather than a force in politics. If a left-wing terrorist organization or an islamist terrorist organization quoted CNN or some other known outlet a lot because certain parts of the newspaper's agenda fits their "fight" or agenda, it's not necessarily a sign of the character of the newspaper or the journalists.
Studying the bias/angle in newspapers is really interesting, although it was much easier in the past where the number and distribution of newspapers were more limited. Like between a working class newspaper and a bourgeoise newspaper, or a minority newspaper and a more nationalist newspaper.

But Milo and Bannon actively asked White supremacists for their input on articles they wanted to run. This is way more of a loose association or do you disagree?

 

[Vicetrailia]

I don't like the response they've been getting for reporting facts.

Don't people usually get upset with them for the opinion pieces?

 

[Dunki]

Maaaaaaaan.

These are jokes. In the same way that there are jokes about killing people who walk too slowly on busy pavements, and killing people who repeatedly finish the last of the milk. Jokes about doing negative things to people aren't automatically bad. They become bad when they come from groups who actually make moves to hurt the groups involved, or who have actually made moves to hurt those people in the past. I can joke about punching a baby in the face, and people might find that funny, people would find that way less funny if I had punched a baby in the face before. That's why your "every side has shitty people and extremists" thing rings hollow to me, because only one side has actually actively hurt people. If the feminist joking that "all men should die" actually supported policies that killed men or had done so in the past, I wouldn't find it as funny.

Here are 3 reasons why this kind of argumentation does not work for me.



1. These tweets especially but also other examples are never written in a good mood. They are written in anger and frustration due to the #metoo movement. And beside this so "funny" joke there is nothing funny there otherwise. These are not parody accounts these are verified Twitter accounts from left wing/feminism "journalists" some who even write for the Teenvogue. A magazine for teens...



2. Lets just imagine these were written by the other side. In an even more jokingly manner. We just change the white in black and boys in girls. What would you think would happen? And we are not even talking about the lame argument that it is OK when you punch up. Because this is bullshit. No we are talking here about not even yet born children which only crime it is to be white and male. Yeah sorry. This does not fly especially not when these people take everything the other side says seriously. Even these stupid Gifs about CNN which Trump posted were taken seriously. Stuff like Pepe was taken seriously which of course will mobilize the trolls even more. Therefore the kekistan meme. So no Double moral and standards are absolute awful when you even think you have the moral highground here.



3. And last but not least. My parents told always be better than the ones you despise. Always stay on your moral highground. Never get down to their level etc. Meanwhile on old gaf and social media people celebrated violent attacks at Trump voter. They celebrated the vandalism of Statues like Christoph Columbus. They celebrated a highly dangerous movement called ANTIFA. Which as a German is an ridiculous thing to do. These terrorists are not anyone's Friends. And yes they are terrorists.



So no I am sorry but the absolute hypocrisy of the left these days is disgusting to me. Even more so than the right. Because they are normally the bad guys.

 

[Renna Hazel]

Don't people usually get upset with them for the opinion pieces?

People get mad at the NYT for everything. There was recently an article about Hilary Clinton shielding someone accused of sexual harassment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...ssment-in-2008.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

People took issue with this because they think the right will use the news to distract people from things Trump is doing. Not only does this article have nothing to do with Trump, the Times shouldn't have to bury stories because it might make one side look bad or give another side ammunition. It seems as if the Time isn't allowed to be critical of the left, and the right has already wrote them off.

Among the large new organizations I find the NYT to be the most fact based publication.

 

[prag16]

You didn't need to tell me any of that to be honest, as the NYT is one of my primary sources of information and I don't like the response they've been getting for reporting facts. As for Breitbart, they've done far more than place themselves as anti-left, and it's not as if they're considered a credible news organization, even by the right. When your fabricated stories all cater to a certain agenda I'd say that's enough evidence for me to give them a label. If it's not for you, that's fine.

You keep talking about fabricated stories. Moderates or conservative leaning members here are being asked for reams of evidence for every claim. Let's see a list of these fabricated stories, including sources proving that they are fabrications (and ACTUALLY fabrications, beyond just the usual spin any article may be subject to).

Breitbart has its issues and biases, but so does CNN et al. Back to what I mentioned earlier about the issue with how many liberals like to argue: They hold all their "truths" (read: opinions) to be self evidently true, and refuse to discuss further.

 

[RokkanStoned]

It's honestly hard to take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like this. It should sound like what it says, the agenda isn't difficult to see to anyone who is looking.

Except what you're speaking of is functionally a more reflection of you, as you're not actually saying anything, but implying a hidden agenda that doesn't need to be pointed out. That Breitbart is right-wing doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but it seems - and excuse me if I'm misrepresenting you - like you're trying to indicate that they're secretly also nazis/alt-right. Perhaps they are, but you need more evidence before trying to associate them with what you're proposing. I've just done some searches of Breitbart in the periode and the only things I can see being focused on is: anti-immigration, anti-islam and anti-left. So I'm wondering what the agenda I'm not seeing is.

You can keep pretending that Breitbart doesn't fabricate stories to push an agenda, and if that's your stance then I'm not going to try to change your mind.

Except I haven't said that.

As for Milo, I agree that the best thing that could have been done would have been to ignore him, too bad Breitbart made him a star contributor instead.

Less that and more the reactions to him, I would say. YouTube is filled with videos of it.

 

[Dunki]

As for Milo, I agree that the best thing that could have been done would have been to ignore him, too bad Breitbart made him a star contributor instead.

Milo was made big by the reactions of the left and Berkley. After Berkley we even got articles about it in Germany which positioned Milo as the victim here. But this is also how this happens all the time. Lets Take Anita S. for example she was only made big because the has marketed the reactions against her. Just like Milo she became a Monster the other side basically created.

 

[RokkanStoned]

But Milo and Bannon actively asked White supremacists for their input on articles they wanted to run. This is way more of a loose association or do you disagree?

Citations please. I have no idea whether to agree or disagree when I don't know the facts of the case.

 

[PtM]

Citations please. I have no idea whether to agree or disagree when I don't know the facts of the case.

I reckon it's about this.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/buzz...llabed-directly-with-nazis-for-years.1443641/

 

[MDSLKTR]

From what I’ve seen, Era is OldGAF 2.0.

The so called civilized people are eating each other? Who would have tought.

 

[Renna Hazel]

You keep talking about fabricated stories. Moderates or conservative leaning members here are being asked for reams of evidence for every claim. Let's see a list of these fabricated stories, including sources proving that they are fabrications (and ACTUALLY fabrications, beyond just the usual spin any article may be subject to).

Breitbart has its issues and biases, but so does CNN et al. Back to what I mentioned earlier about the issue with how many liberals like to argue: They hold all their "truths" (read: opinions) to be self evidently true, and refuse to discuss further.

Whether Breitbart reports false information or not is not a matter of opinion.

I personally haven't asked moderate, conservative or liberal members here for anything. However I generally don't feel the need to provide basic evidence that one can look up for themselves. Breitbart not being a credible news source is pretty common knowledge on the left, right and in the middle, so I didn't think it was necessary to prove it, but we have plenty of websites that fact check in relation to news outlets

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/breitbart/
https://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/
http://www.politifact.com/search/statements/?q=Breitbart

You can sort through these and other fact checking sites if you really care, I personally don't care to change your mind so I wont go through much effort to do so.

And why do people keep bringing up CNN as a defense of Breitbart?

 

[Vicetrailia]

People get mad at the NYT for everything. There was recently an article about Hilary Clinton shielding someone accused of sexual harassment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...ssment-in-2008.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

People took issue with this because they think the right will use the news to distract people from things Trump is doing. Not only does this article have nothing to do with Trump, the Times shouldn't have to bury stories because it might make one side look bad or give another side ammunition. It seems as if the Time isn't allowed to be critical of the left, and the right has already wrote them off.

Among the large new organizations I find the NYT to be the most fact based publication.

Yeah I remember this. NYT sticks to the facts. People can g.et mad, but it's moot

 

[Dunki]

I reckon it's about this.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/buzzfeed-exposé-milo-breitbart-collabed-directly-with-nazis-for-years.1443641/

Before the whole pedophile fiasco with Milo I also thought he would become a very big future rightwing politicians. Especially why he represents something the left does not know how to argue against. The fact that he for example is gay has a black friend etc is something they never could attack because he is a minority who "loves" a minority. So the attention he could it would be only logical for him to contact Milo.

So does the Guardian or especially Buzzfeed. The Washington post etc. Journalism has become such minefield and this is the reason newsmedia these days is the most untrustful Industry in the World. But looking at Social MEdia right now. These nut cases now describe NYT as Nazi Newspaper because they published the Hillary Clinton story. Its pretty funny to be honest.

 

[Renna Hazel]

Yeah I remember this. NYT sticks to the facts. People can g.et mad, but it's moot

This thread on Era probably better explains the concern

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ma...imes-who-dont-watch-fox-news-heres-why.19180/

And obviously not everyone there agrees with the sentiment, but it's a bit concerning that reporting the facts is controversial. I just hope it doesn't hurt the Times financially, because that may force them to alter their reporting style.

 

[TheGraykid]

Here are 3 reasons why this kind of argumentation does not work for me.



1. These tweets especially but also other examples are never written in a good mood. They are written in anger and frustration due to the #metoo movement. And beside this so "funny" joke there is nothing funny there otherwise. These are not parody accounts these are verified Twitter accounts from left wing/feminism "journalists" some who even write for the Teenvogue. A magazine for teens...



2. Lets just imagine these were written by the other side. In an even more jokingly manner. We just change the white in black and boys in girls. What would you think would happen? And we are not even talking about the lame argument that it is OK when you punch up. Because this is bullshit. No we are talking here about not even yet born children which only crime it is to be white and male. Yeah sorry. This does not fly especially not when these people take everything the other side says seriously. Even these stupid Gifs about CNN which Trump posted were taken seriously. Stuff like Pepe was taken seriously which of course will mobilize the trolls even more. Therefore the kekistan meme. So no Double moral and standards are absolute awful when you even think you have the moral highground here.



3. And last but not least. My parents told always be better than the ones you despise. Always stay on your moral highground. Never get down to their level etc. Meanwhile on old gaf and social media people celebrated violent attacks at Trump voter. They celebrated the vandalism of Statues like Christoph Columbus. They celebrated a highly dangerous movement called ANTIFA. Which as a German is an ridiculous thing to do. These terrorists are not anyone's Friends. And yes they are terrorists.



So no I am sorry but the absolute hypocrisy of the left these days is disgusting to me. Even more so than the right. Because they are normally the bad guys.

To try and address your issues.

I feel like you're missing my argument here.

"No we are talking here about not even yet born children which only crime it is to be white and male." feels like a complete strawman of my position. I said it's okay for people to make stupid jokes about white men, I don't know how you can compare that to criminalising being a white man.

As I said earlier in this thread.

"It's too real" that's my line in the sand for when a joke is okay or not. Saying "maybe we gather around all the white/black people and catapult them into the sun" isn't awful to me, saying "maybe we should gather the white/black people and stick them into gas chambers" is awful to me.

It just so happens that men have done a lot of awful shit to everyone else, so those jokes coming from a man might feel too real.

At the end of the day I get the sense what you want is a form of debate/vocal equality where we all get treated the same, where your voice is treated just as anyone else's. That form of equality cannot exist in the world treats people in all other ways with such inequality. In a world where major companies and industries protected and promoted sexual abusers at the cost of the women they damaged, I find it to crazy that so many people are so fixated on the fact that some feminist's jokey responses as if that's a big problem here. Especially, when some people use that to essentially say that feminism is just as awful as its opposite on the right.

Telling women that they should verbally be nicer to men feels like trying to put a veil of civility over something which is anything but that.

 

[Dunki]

To try and address your issues.

I find it to crazy that so many people are so fixated on the fact that some feminist's jokey responses as if that's a big problem here. Especially, when some people use that to essentially say that feminism is just as awful as its opposite on the right.

Telling women that they should verbally be nicer to men feels like trying to put a veil of civility over something which is anything but that.

No they should not be nicer to men but they also should not victimize themself when the opposite happens. And for Femininsm more and more people saying this about the modern feminsm and I agree with this. They desperately trying to stay relevant IMO. Less and less people consider themself Feminists because how absolute crazy some famous leaders have become.

If you want to punch you should be ready to be punched. And this goes for discussions and not for actual violence.

And I willsay this again THERE IS NO INDICATION that this was a joke. Not one. AGain these were written in anger and she even tried to defend this opinion. She never stated this as a joke.

What the left does the "best" right now is to silence everyone they do not agree with. Like Peterson for example. They are trying to put in some Nazi Stigma and if its not Nazi is sexist, racist MRA in the hope to silence everyone. But this is backfiring more and more these days and thank god for that.

 

[TheGraykid]

Citations please. I have no idea whether to agree or disagree when I don't know the facts of the case.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbern...-nationalism?utm_term=.bggr1nNRZj#.it5NV62KkE

Please do read and let me know what you think

No they should not be nicer to men but they also should not victimize themself when the opposite happens. And for Femininsm more and more people saying this about the modern feminsm and I agree with this. They desperately trying to stay relevant IMO. Less and less people consider themself Feminists because how absolute crazy some famous leaders have become.

If you want to punch you should be ready to be punched. And this goes for discussions and not for actual violence.

And I willsay this again THERE IS NO INDICATION that this was a joke. Not one. AGain these were written in anger and she even tried to defend this opinion. She never stated this as a joke.

The twitter post where someone was talking about creating a hunger games for men appears to be a joke, or are you talking about one of the other ones?

I feel like again you're repeating the need for equality, but like I said before the world treats women very differently. Case in point, this entire wave of sexual abuse/harassment confessions. If this was coming out equally for men and women I would feel in favour of your "If you want to punch you should be ready to be punched" motto. Instead this is an issue of majority male industries protecting pretty much all male abusers, and this hasn't just started now, this has been going on for decades.

And I feel like it is difficult to say that feminism is struggling for relevance in an era of massive feminist marches, and an era where "are you a feminist?" is a question actually posed to the US president in an interview.

 

[Dunki]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbern...-nationalism?utm_term=.bggr1nNRZj#.it5NV62KkE

Please do read and let me know what you think



The twitter post where someone was talking about creating a hunger games for men appears to be a joke, or are you talking about one of the other ones?

I feel like again you're repeating the need for equality, but like I said before the world treats women very differently. Case in point, this entire wave of sexual abuse/harassment confessions. If this was coming out equally for men and women I would feel in favour of your "If you want to punch you should be ready to be punched" motto. Instead this is an issue of majority male industries protecting pretty much all male abusers, and this hasn't just started now, this has been going on for decades.

And I feel like it is difficult to say that feminism is struggling for relevance in an era of massive feminist marches, and an era where "are you a feminist?" is a question actually posed to the US president in an interview.

The first tweet was not a joke tweet but someone tried to make it more funny. Just like the right does. Again they use both the same tactics and social interactions.

And of course are women are treated differently. But also because of Feminism who has professionalized victimhood to perfection IMO. And I am not talking about actual victims of violence, sexual harrassment etc. Meanwhile in reality. Women have better justical protection, they outclass men in eduacation more and more, They overwhelm men in Universities etc. Women are not weak or the opressed minority modern Feminists wants us to make believe. But that i just my opinion. And yeah I am pretty biased regarding Feminism since I want equality.

Furthermore I think the press has way more feminists in general. That is why they manipulate news, articles, or editiorials to spread their message. If you look at the actual percentage it is lower and lower each year. In the UK for example its at 7% the last time I saw a number for the US it was at 18%. The press is even shaming celebrities who does not want to be called feminists or have no political opinion on feminist topics. Media these days is very one sided there are alost no moderates anymore. It either the left like Guardian or the right like breitbart and both lie to fit better into their own pushing Agenda.

 

[RokkanStoned]

I reckon it's about this.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/buzzfeed-exposé-milo-breitbart-collabed-directly-with-nazis-for-years.1443641/

Having read both articles relevant to the case, I'll first have to say -- by god Buzzfeed and Breitbart have terrible "journalists" (or should I say "writers"?). The flow and format is all over the place.

In regards to the content it seems to mostly be about Milo, and the article they're talking about doesn't really make it "smuggling white nationalism" even though they refers to it as such. It recognizes the "alt-right" as amorphous and clearly took input from numerous self-identified alt-rightists, which isn't surprising considering it was an article about the "alt-right" (although I could see criticizing it for treating the subject as some self-gratifying rant and snarky quip, as well as giving no counter-points or counter perspectives).
It also shows how Milo should've been ignored from the start, because his whole value for Bannon/Breitbart seems to have been related to his ability to generate controversy and he was so lazy that he'd mostly let other people do the work for him. Literally an attention whore. Reminded me that I'm also quite suspicious of his claim to be married to a black man.
It also makes clear that Breitbart has an agenda, but it doesn't seem very defined, other than nationalism and anti-establishment rhetoric. It's way too loose and dependent on multiple assumptions to make Breitbart have a "nazi agenda", rather than what could be easier portrayed as pro-israel, anti-islam, anti-feminism, traditionalist and nationalist agenda. Is there anything I missed that you could point me to?

Some of the quotes used by Buzzfeed also seems a little suspicious, in terms of ellipsis. In academia ellipsis function as means to not include unnecessary information, but there's always citations making it possible to check if something was taken out of context. Same can't be said in regards to journalism, and with journalism being more dependent on framing a narrative than it is in academia, I feel like they should've just included the whole quote. That's necessarily out malicious intent, but it can end up more representative of the author's interpretation, rather than allowing the reader to judge the context.

Seriously, there's some interesting academic work that could be done regarding this, especially as it seems like the "alt-right" label is mostly rejected by the mainstream right. Meaning it's easier to focus on the periode from before the start of the election until some time in the aftermath of Charlottesville.

 

[NickFire]

As the owner, EL obviously shares in the culpability for what GAF became until recently. And while I think the newest changes were forced to a degree, I believe he deserves a pass nonetheless. That is because, in all honestly, I think most people in his shoes would have made the same mistakes. Very few people with a thriving business will put much stock in the minority opinion that they need to make massive changes. And in this case, the mods had a stellar way to keep him out of the loop and make the normal people seem like a minority opinion, by simply banning anyone who disagreed with them.

One thing that I think should be highlighted though, is the role of the press, ad agencies, and the largest publishers in helping the since removed cancer spread here and other places. The largest publishers knew damn well that the militants were not their bread and butter sales-wise for most AAA games, but still pandered to their complaints for positive pr points, and allowed them to grow emboldened in expressing hatred towards anyone who thought differently because they saw how effective it was by their successes in getting people fired for wrong think. The ad agencies, likewise, probably should have been more in tune with the actual audience they were reaching, to avoid defrauding the people actually paying them to get ads placed. Judging by the frequency and content of many toxic posters who I am sure drove clicks through the roof, I find it highly doubtful that the clicks and consumer purchases were correlated.

And then there is the gaming press. Without going into the events of a few years ago, you would have to be blind not to notice the pitchfork mentality the gaming press helped foster towards anyone who ran afoul of their political beliefs, or towards anyone who they knew the militants would be happy to skewer. Case in point is how they treated EL. Despite letting the militants take over the most successful gaming boards in history from what I can tell, which was actively promoting the gaming press agenda, they turned on him on the drop of a dime when it became politically expedient. With no regard for how ridiculous the allegation was, the second the mob was at his door they were more than happy to crucify him to satisfy the mobs they created.

Rant over. Thrilled to see the changes here.

 

[TheGraykid]

The first tweet was not a joke tweet but someone tried to make it more funny. Just like the right does. Again they use both the same tactics and social interactions.

And of course are women are treated differently. But also because of Feminism who has professionalized victimhood to perfection IMO. And I am not talking about actual victims of violence, sexual harrassment etc. Meanwhile in reality. Women have better justical protection, they outclass men in eduacation more and more, They overwhelm men in Universities etc. Women are not weak or the opressed minority modern Feminists wants us to make believe. But that i just my opinion. And yeah I am pretty biased regarding Feminism since I want equality.

Furthermore I think the press has way more feminists in general. That is why they manipulate news, articles, or editiorials to spread their message. If you look at the actual percentage it is lower and lower each year. In the UK for example its at 7% the last time I saw a number for the US it was at 18%. The press is even shaming celebrities who does not want to be called feminists or have no political opinion on feminist topics. Media these days is very one sided there are alost no moderates anymore. It either the left like Guardian or the right like breitbart and both lie to fit better into their own pushing Agenda.

Women are more resented in universities and do better in education, but are drastically underrepresented when it comes to senior leadership positions in companies, political leadership positions, and even in the arts. Movies, TV shows and music are places that males dominate.

You say things like "I am not talking about actual victims of violence, sexual harrassment etc.", but that's more women than you think, most studies show that the majority of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment (I can run through the citations if you'd want). Women aren't mad for no reason or because they're being brainwashed. Talk to women, listen to their stories. Most women who you'd write off as victim seeking feminists actually do experience horrible things that we as men would likely never have to deal with.

 

[Dunki]

Women are more resented in universities and do better in education, but are drastically underrepresented when it comes to senior leadership positions in companies, political leadership positions, and even in the arts. Movies, TV shows and music are places that males dominate.

You say things like "I am not talking about actual victims of violence, sexual harrassment etc.", but that's more women than you think, most studies show that the majority of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment (I can run through the citations if you'd want). Women aren't mad for no reason or because they're being brainwashed. Talk to women, listen to their stories. Most women who you'd write off as victim seeking feminists actually do experience horrible things that we as men would likely never have to deal with.

We had this kind of discussions already regarding the job. Most of it has to do with biological reasons. Women in free and heavily equal countries ather chose "tradtional" rules because they want to while women in 3rd world countries still have the feeling they need to fight rather choose technial and male dominated jobs. Women in general prefer jobs with social aspects, Politican, lawyer, teacher nurse etc. while men mostly want mechnical/technical jobs. We should not "force" women in these jobs but rather offer everyone despite his/her gender the same oportunities.

There are also reports how feminist willingly forge these statistics. Example rape statistics would be as high as African countries which is INSANE. It would rival countries in wartorn countries. And no I do not say women have an easy life regarding this and most likely everyone has met some real asshole. But just like the Azis story has shown it is not everything rape, sexual harrassment what feminist claim to be. Same with the wage gap which has proven over and over again that its not the 27 cents at all but women studies books still uese these in their classes. AGain they lie to try to stay releavant.

Regarding threats on the internet. It is pretty easy to get these if you piss people off. That is the sad reality we live in. And it is the same when you are "famous" or were victim of a mobbing campaign like this Space ingeneur a while back ago who was wearing a "sexist" shirt which he got from his best female friend who designs such shirts. He was bullied until he tearfully apologized for wearing something that was important to him. Again they use the same tactics regarding threats sending mobs after people as the right does. The stuff someone like Boogie alone gets every day is insane. The people who wished Totalbisuit to die before and after his cancer diagnosis in disgusting and this even did happen here on gaf. I do not want to downplay the suffering of women but I also want to make clear that the same shit happens to men jsut they are either silent because they know you can not do anything about it on the internet or they do not use it as weapon like someone like Anita or Brianna Wu did again prfessional victims. They used these threats to their own advantage IMO.

And again I do not downplay womens sufffering I crticze the professional use of victimhood by modern feminists. Just take a look at the guardian editorials. There is everything in there, mansplaining,man spreading, sweat shaming (yeah this one is real) Why I was sweat-shamed as I waited for my coffee at Starbucks and the list goes on and on. Oh and lets not forget these kind of editorials by some famous feminist

Much more here
https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com/

 

[Scopa]

Didn't you just use Twitter to support your argument? I don't see how that is any better than Wikipedia.

As I said before, if we don't agree on what the definition of the alt-right is, then there really isn't any point in arguing over whether or not Trump is a part of it. Though claiming the definition is "everyone who doesn't agree with progressives" is kind of silly. Here are the groups listed in the definition

composed chiefly of white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups.

If you're going to defend these groups as being picked on because they "don't agree with the progressive side" then we will never come close to agreeing on anything other than the tweets you posted were stupid.

Strange that you are using a Wikipedia definition when it was all over the news a while back that companies like Google/Wikipedia etc are retroactively changing the definitions of such terms to suit their respective agendas. It is from Wikipedia yeah?

The so called civilized people are eating each other? Who would have tought.

Is that why I am seeing old usernames pop up that I haven’t seen in about 3 months?

 

[Vicetrailia]

. Women in general prefer jobs with social aspects, Politican, lawyer, teacher nurse etc. while men mostly want mechnical/technical jobs. We should not "force" women in these jobs but rather offer everyone despite his/her gender the same oportunities.
[/URL]

You do know that at one point, women were pushed out of all of these jobs, and it wasn't because they didn't have the aptitude for it.

Now, I'm not arguing with you, this isn't a gotcha, but hopefully you'll read this article and get out of the "men like objects, and women like faces" mindset. Some if it has to do with stigma, perceived culture, and treatment. But there are many interesting questions that people are asking. Yes, I read the entire article and I anticipate what you will quote, but I just want you to read it.

Skip to where the article starts:

https://www.onlineeducation.com/women-breaking-barriers/earth-science-and-environmental-engineering

 

[Dunki]

You do know that at one point, women were pushed out of all of these jobs, and it wasn't because they didn't have the aptitude for it.

Now, I'm not arguing with you, this isn't a gotcha, but hopefully you'll read this article and get out of the "men like objects, and women like faces" mindset. Some if it has to do with stigma, perceived culture, and treatment. But there are many interesting questions that people are asking. Yes, I read the entire article and I anticipate what you will quote, but I just want you to read it.

Skip to where the article starts:

https://www.onlineeducation.com/women-breaking-barriers/earth-science-and-environmental-engineering

But this has been proven in a scientific long term study with 1 day old babies as well. Furthermore in Scandinavia you have the opposite effect that women rather chose social jobs. Its called. The Gender Equality Paradox. The most important part I do agree with is to offer everyone men or women thesupport to strive for the job and profession they want. And this kind of motion is the same in every country across the world. The more equal women are feeling the more they go back to traditional jobs.

 

[TheGraykid]

We had this kind of discussions already regarding the job. Most of it has to do with biological reasons. Women in free and heavily equal countries ather chose "tradtional" rules because they want to while women in 3rd world countries still have the feeling they need to fight rather choose technial and male dominated jobs. Women in general prefer jobs with social aspects, Politican, lawyer, teacher nurse etc. while men mostly want mechnical/technical jobs. We should not "force" women in these jobs but rather offer everyone despite his/her gender the same oportunities.

There are also reports how feminist willingly forge these statistics. Example would be as high as African countries which is INSANE. It would rival countries in wartorn countries. And no I do not say women have an easy life regarding this and most likely everyone has met some real asshole. But just like the Azis story has shown it is not everything rape, sexual harrassment what feminist claim to be. Same with the wage gap which has proven over and over again that its not the 27 cents at all but women studies books still uese these in their classes. AGain they lie to try to stay releavant.

Regarding threats on the internet. It is pretty easy to get these if you piss people off. That is the sad reality we live in. And it is the same when you are "famous" or were victim of a mobbing campaign like this Space ingeneur a while back ago who was wearing a "sexist" shirt which he got from his best female friend who designs such shirts. He was bullied until he tearfully apologized for wearing something that was important to him. Again they use the same tactics regarding threats sending mobs after people as the right does. The stuff someone like Boogie alone gets every day is insane. The people who wished Totalbisuit to die before and after his cancer diagnosis in disgusting and this even did happen here on gaf. I do not want to downplay the suffering of women but I also want to make clear that the same shit happens to men jsut they are either silent because they know you can not do anything about it on the internet or they do not use it as weapon like someone like Anita or Brianna Wu did again prfessional victims. They used these threats to their own advantage IMO.

And again I do not downplay womens sufffering I crticze the professional use of victimhood by modern feminists. Just take a look at the guardian editorials. There is everything in there, mansplaining,man spreading, sweat shaming (yeah this one is real) Why I was sweat-shamed as I waited for my coffee at Starbucks and the list goes on and on. Oh and lets not forget these kind of editorials by some famous feminist

Much more here
https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com/

See you say that gender biology thing like it's a fact and not like it's a loose unproven theory, which it is. You could say that psychologically through socialisation women have gravitated towards social focused jobs, but that kinda goes against your original point. I think it's dangerous for people to look at studies and use that for definitive proof in ways that scientists running these studies would never do. Please don't do that. Even if I followed your gender jobs theory, there's still an issue because political jobs worldwide are still largely held by men, senior leadership positions in companies are still largely held by men, largescale creative showrunner/director roles are largely held by men. These are all social jobs at their core, and none of them feature women prominently.

With sexual harassment polls, we're talking about surveys run by reputable organisations, please don't talk about conspiracy theories unless you have actual evidence. I'm pretty sure not everyone who answers them is even a feminist. Passing off anecdotal evidence (the aziz thing) as signs of vast trends feels a little weak. You say things like "they lie to try to stay releavant." but completely ignore the reality of why they exist, it's because bad things are happening to women and not enough is being done about it.

I never said bad things don't happen to men. We should work on fixing the internet and it's toxicity.

Also the vast majority of feminists aren't out here writing articles about it or making a living off that. Your accusation of "professional use of victimhood" doesn't really hold up to that light. And dumb feminist articles doesn't really prove much, especially when so much of feminist conversation is dedicated to making fun of and debating other feminists who do write that kind of thing. Read the below article from the reductress.com (which is a weird feminist version of The Onion) if you don't believe it.

http://reductress.com/post/recently-woke-woman-thinks-everyone-should-resist-like-she-does/

I don't think Feminism is as one note as you imply, there are so many people here trying to achieve a good thing that it feels lame to dismiss the entire movement out of hand based on some assumptions. Follow feminists on twitter, listen to feminists, read what they're writing. Watch the handmaid's tale, it's a really good show. If your main exposure to feminism is kotaku in action and https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com/. Then I think you're missing out.

 

[Dunki]

See you say that gender biology thing like it's a fact and not like it's a loose unproven theory, which it is. You could say that psychologically through socialisation women have gravitated towards social focused jobs, but that kinda goes against your original point. I think it's dangerous for people to look at studies and use that for definitive proof in ways that scientists running these studies would never do. Please don't do that. Even if I followed your gender jobs theory, there's still an issue because political jobs worldwide are still largely held by men, senior leadership positions in companies are still largely held by men, largescale creative showrunner/director roles are largely held by men. These are all social jobs at their core, and none of them feature women prominently.

With sexual harassment polls, we're talking about surveys run by reputable organisations, please don't talk about conspiracy theories unless you have actual evidence. I'm pretty sure not everyone who answers them is even a feminist. Passing off anecdotal evidence (the aziz thing) as signs of vast trends feels a little weak. You say things like "they lie to try to stay releavant." but completely ignore the reality of why they exist, it's because bad things are happening to women and not enough is being done about it.

I never said bad things don't happen to men. We should work on fixing the internet and it's toxicity.

Also the vast majority of feminists aren't out here writing articles about it or making a living off that. Your accusation of "professional use of victimhood" doesn't really hold up to that light. And dumb feminist articles doesn't really prove much, especially when so much of feminist conversation is dedicated to making fun of and debating other feminists who do write that kind of thing. Read the below article from the reductress.com (which is a weird feminist version of The Onion) if you don't believe it.

http://reductress.com/post/recently-woke-woman-thinks-everyone-should-resist-like-she-does/

I don't think Feminism is as one note as you imply, there are so many people here trying to achieve a good thing that it feels lame to dismiss the entire movement out of hand based on some assumptions. Follow feminists on twitter, listen to feminists, read what they're writing. Watch the handmaid's tale, it's a really good show. If your main exposure to feminism is kotaku in action and https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com/. Then I think you're missing out.

First of all. The author of the handmaids tale also got visously attacked by modern Feminism. Again we are not talking about Feminism but modern Feminism. I totally respect the 2nd wave an think they did amazing things.

Margaret Atwood Faces Backlash Over "Bad Feminist" Op-ed and #MeToo Comments

And the thing she said was basically this:

'innocent until proven guilty' is the key to a civilised society.

For the jobs part: I would never argue that there are also different aspects preventing women to enter a field they like but it is not the main reason. If you can prove that babies already follow these "standards" Biology and evolution plays a huge role in my opinion. And these studies I mentioned are done in a scientific manner while most gender studies are done short term and via surveys. I personally put science over feelings.

And for the last part: I do not know this site but this article also links to other articles, statistics done by The Bureau of Justice Statistics etc. and it shows how falsely these campus rape statistics are. Modern FEmininsm play with teh fear of women to be honest. If I get told how dangerous it is every day I would be also be freaking out.

The Rape 'Epidemic' Doesn't Actually Exist

And for the Kotaku in Action one: I googled Guardian and feminism to find these. I have seen much better compilationon Twitter but could not find it in the few minutes so I just googled it. I am against modern Feminism not Feminism in its old form.

 

[TheGraykid]

First of all. The author of the handmaids tale also got visously attacked by modern Feminism. Again we are not talking about Feminism but modern Feminism. I totally respect the 2nd wave an think they did amazing things.

Margaret Atwood Faces Backlash Over "Bad Feminist" Op-ed and #MeToo Comments

And the thing she said was basically this:


For the jobs part: I would never argue that there are also different aspects preventing women to enter a field they like but it is not the main reason. If you can prove that babies already follow these "standards" Biology and evolution plays a huge role in my opinion. And these studies I mentioned are done in a scientific manner while most gender studies are done short term and via surveys. I personally put science over feelings.

And for the last part: I do not know this site but this article also links to other articles, statistics done by The Bureau of Justice Statistics etc. and it shows how falsely these campus rape statistics are. Modern FEmininsm play with teh fear of women to be honest. If I get told how dangerous it is every day I would be also be freaking out.

The Rape 'Epidemic' Doesn't Actually Exist

And for the Kotaku in Action one: I googled Guardian and feminism to find these. I have seen much better compilationon Twitter but could not find it in the few minutes so I just googled it. I am against modern Feminism not Feminism in its old form.

I love Margaret Atwood, but lean towards the arguments against her. Calling what happened to her a visous attack seems like demonising a lively but not harmful debate.

Infants are well known to participate in socialisation even when they're very young. What people end up doing as a job is such a socially complex issue, that it's become a pet peeve of mine when people mention their gender jobs theory, as if it is a well known fact and not just a theory that a small subset of scientists have.

Also when I read that article you linked it almost appeared to imply the opposite of what you said. That article mostly uses DOJ statistics to disprove the idea floated around that there is a rape epidemic on campuses. Using DOJ statistics to prove their argument seems a little weak seeing that a lot of sexual assaults are never reported, or if they are reported they're not properly looked into. For example:

https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2017/12/17/rape-kit-detroit/953083001/

 

[ULTROS!]

I think my issue before was that people were hostile about their opinions and even attack the people on various situations and issues, whether big or small.

Normally I stand neutral to accepting and respecting for what they believe in and what they want. I really really don't participate in these kinds of things; in general it's not in my belief to participate in these stuff but I wouldn't appreciate it if I get quoted on something offensive even if I've never meant to make it offensive at all. Kinda like blowing up an issue on a non-issue or something.

 

[Testicular Sound Express]

So mods have said that we can now talk a bit more freely on GAF, which is great.

My question is simple: Why was the transgender community on GAF (and now their new home) so downright militant and annoying?

I'm not going to claim to know a lot of trans people. I've met a few in real life, I've played games with a handful more, and they were all cool. Nobody really got arsey about the terms used, nobody dictated what opinions should be, and for the most part the fact they were trans wasn't even an issue. I'm sure I've probably encountered a few trans folks without even realising they were trans.

On GAF, however, not only was the trans community seemingly far more prominent than in society as a whole, they were also incredibly hostile.

Furthermore, they actually worked against their end goal. I'm a liberal person and I don't give a fuck how you live your life. If you're cool, you're cool. Seeing so many people push a warped agenda actually made me annoyed at the trans community. Which, I admit isn't fair because, as I've said, GAF's old trans community didn't represent the wider community, but it was by far my biggest exposure to trans people so it had that impact.

If you're trans and still posting here, I'd like to know your opinions on having (seemingly) unhinged and disconnected people try to represent you. Did you ever want to speak out against a lot of the madness?

Please note once again, this isn't an anti-trans thread whatsoever.

mod edit: Removed one aspect of post that was unfounded - user notified

They were hostile to you becuase of your disgusting attitude. Miltitant and annoying? These are people that have dealt with abuse and grappled with their identitied their entire lives. Why don't you look up the trans suicide and murder rates in 2017. Take 5 seconds from your whining and actually read up on the horrible treatment and blatant disregard for their civil rights that they experience every single day. Sorry but people like you are really the worst, its not them.