coconut7joemanjiI consider my ideological home to be on the left, however seeing the left emulate the worst aspects 1990's evangelical conservatism it has led to me believe that all ideologies have the potential to create death and terror. As each day goes by i am finding myself despising the side i once called home as it has rejected the values i stand for and has become nothing more than a circus filled with histrionic bigotry and the worst kind of unfettered populism. i have retreated into libertarianism as it seems one of the few comparatively sane and logically motivated political ideologies present within modern discourse. For now i shall abandon the sinking ship of 'progressivism and watch with morbid curiosity as another ideology destroys it'self on the reef of hubris. In many ways it's a lot like going back to your childhood neighborhood and seeing how it's been taken over by gangs and just as you're about to leave for the final time someone sets your old house on fire. It's a kick in the balls and i take it quite personally. .
Rhine HornI really do not have a comment to make as you have simply acknowledged my perceptions. But I have begun to see these people as being mentally ill. I believe it takes an astronomical amount of mental strength to employ self delusion and occam's broom when it comes to debating others. Lying to oneself for so long can only lead to problems down the line. Reality would be far too distorted for the perpetrator to reason with other logical beings which would in turn lead to a perpetual victim complex of some sort, I used to fear this was peer pressure or these guys were just faking it. I really don't think they can be saved and should be shunned leaving them to die an evolutionary death if possible.
Wizard Of Cause+avok23 I don't know that I'd necessarily invoke mental illness in this respect and I feel this way for multiple reasons. For one, I simply think such is more about a personally or emotionally gratifying zeitgeist. The adopting of the strident advocate/perpetual victim position is one that lends the speaker/writer an immediate sense of both righteousness and underdog-ness, which as we can observe serves both to bolster one's notions of being correct and just, while also fueling the notions that they're fighting a good fight against an oppressive and often overarching enemy and that said fight, no matter how seemingly difficult, must continue to be fought until its presumed (and generally undefined) end. The second reason is that by invoking such, one opens the door to the Tumblr style self diagnosis of mental illness, which seems to serve the dual purposes of both further validating the aforementioned underdog sensibility by way of establishing a sense of disability on top of the presumed victim/advocate identity, while also allowing for cheap and easy dismissals of bad behavior, incorrect or inarticulate rhetoric and generally just shitty debate tactics, such as insisting that opposition be branded as "hate" and be ignored, denied or forbidden from being presented. In reality, I'm rather confident that many if not most reactionary SJWs, much like their theocratic right wing counterparts, do genuinely believe they are in the right and do genuinely believe that their opposition, wherever it may come from, is not only wrong, but in many senses and cases, outright evil or anti-social. The validity of these feelings or notions aside, their reality in the minds of those adopting them must be acknowledged, if only in part, on their own terms, if only so as to fully understand and devise a manner in which to overcome them.
Rhine HornLOLs! Now that's a reply. I let my guard down when I debate or argue so I can be wrong so I can empathise but more often than not I feel they perceive dissenting voices as non human. My belief that a face 2 face personal encounter would make them more understanding was shatter by the University of Toronto barbarism but then again they were in a mob where they could group identify. How do you suppose we get through to sheep or we leave them to the slaughter?
Wizard Of CauseA true zealot will never be swayed, but those who constitute the thinking audiences before whom you and they engage, sustained calm and rationality and the keeping to smart and honest points is really all anyone can do.
conrad lebarbarethat's more scary than feminazi shutting mra conf. or sjw stabbing neonazis regroupement. the debilitation of a culture always begin by its youth, beware friends of the west the time as come
foureyes onipretty good stuff and actually made me want to watch the anita videos to simply hear what her side and the others who are majorly pushing it is so i could better formulate my own thoughts. well maybe not after second thought it simply fills me with dread to think about watching her tear apart the games i love while believing at the same time that she is doing this out of a personal moral agenda instead of a place of love for gaming.
Logan CrouchI realize this is an older video (apologies, I'm catching up on your channel). I normally approach the political issues from the opposing side the fence to yourself. Though, what interested me the most here is that you seem to have a different definition for Social Justice than what most feminists seem to be advocating. How do you define it in your context? I completely agree with your thoughts on debate and how it ultimately shapes all whom participate for the better. But I do also tend to wonder if the recent divide on the Left is attributed to a greater shift on the rational or irrational sides, since all differences, mathematically or otherwise are relative. So far I've enjoyed your videos, your rants have a very Hithcens-esk feel to them.
DanrokaListening to you, I sat there thinking of my own political alignment and figured out I am not of left or right, but a mix of both. I got views that both sides hold to high esteem, but I also see the self destructive nature of only being of one side or the other and decent from that position is attacked, shunned or just ignored all together. It's sad that this is the world we live in now.
AlessandroTheCynicalI personally opt for a flexible position, i used to have a rigid ideology based on sentiment more than logic, i wasn't aware at the time, but i have been proven wrong again and again, therefore i tend to try and avoid any absolute statement of truth, but for me to realize this i had to be met with astoundingly incongruent and contradictory information that forced me to reexamine my beliefs and look for a system that would allow me to verify the strenght of my beliefs, after that i started reading about the scientific method. Anyway, this was a very intersting talk.
Mega PewPewVery good video. Explains well the people who argue with one another, and I think some of it can be blamed on the rise of twitter(social media really) and the ability for it to be used as an echo chamber of thought. This is where you can follow a rather high amount of people on it and claim that there are so many people that think like me, that I must be right. And then, when groups of people do challenge you, you wait till you can find the worst or least educated tweet(regardless of all the good ones prior to it) and highlight and share it with everyone, to empower your echo chamber into cheer-leading on the side of the debate. We have now come to the complete debate style of being right by committee. Discourse ethics is dead in most social circles in social media, where an idea is being literally marketed. Anita, Feminists, republicans, democrats and ect, now with the rise of social media have found a way to completely throw blinders on, and allowing themselves to continue thinking their approach is correct, because they have hordes of faceless people telling them they are right. It allows the myriad of followers to find their own horrible quotes from "the other side" in an effort to kill all intellectual honest debate, in hopes of "winning where it matters", and what matters is money and notoriety. The point of being right through honest debate is lost, on the ability of marketability and the ability to generate revenue from said market. What we are seeing isn't the loss of debate, but think what we are seeing is those who have always been there, wanting to debate, being drowned out by the sea socialist, capitalist, libertarian, authoritarian, or other type of philosophies being controlled by the sharks, and those sharks are looking for only 2 things, money and platform.