Milo Yiannopoulos fursona.

[MalletFace]

4 hours ago, Socketosis said:

The sad thing is it's true(with BLM that is). When have the KKK been relevant in recent times? They're mostly old folks now and don't really do anything aside from hold protests once in a while. Literally none of them have burned down black communities.

The Klan has a formal policy against starting violence; they only end it. It turns out they've decided that having politicians who have criminal pasts representing them doesn't work out for the whole "White, Christian, law-abiding America" deal since some awful setbacks in the early 1900s. I can, though, recall several recent incidents where a KKK member "defended themselves" and either injured or killed. In this state, they carry knives and handguns to their protests and actions because carrying weapons at one is illegal.

The Loyal White Knights of the KKK is actually requesting that their members to "Go down to Charlotte downtown and help whites against black animals." They don't want to appear on the news or have anyone know they were there, so they tell them to remember "No robes or uniforms just street clothes if it gets nasty you know what to do." One can only assume the flyers that have been appearing up there means they actually are there. The site also reminds that having weapons while in a state of emergency is "technically" illegal.

8 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

It is the opinion of BLM that body cameras are a device used to supress blacks in court.

I'm fairly certain that the published demands - in Campaign Zero - call for mandatory body cameras because "nearly every case where a police officer has been charged with a crime for killing a civilian this year has relied on video evidence showing the officer's actions. "

Quote

Require the use of body cameras - in addition to dashboard cameras - and establish policies governing their use to:

• record all interactions with subjects who have not requested to be kept anonymous
• notify subjects that they have the option to remain anonymous and stop recording/storing footage if they choose this option 
• allow civilians to review footage of themselves or their relatives and request this be released to the public and stored for at least two years
• require body and dash cam footage to be stored externally and ensure district attorneys and civilian oversight structures have access to the footage
• require police departments, whenever they want to deny a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for body or dash cam footage, to prove in court that the footage constitutes a legitimate FOIA exemption (Ex: Illinois House Bill 4355)
• permanently delete footage after 6 months if this footage hasn't been specifically requested to be stored
• include a disciplinary matrix clearly defining consequences for officers who fail to adhere to the agency's body camera policy.
• consider whether cameras or mandated footage are tampered with or unavailable as a negative evidentiary factor in administrative and criminal proceedings
• prevent officers from reviewing footage of an incident before completing initial reports, statements or interviews about an incident
• prohibit footage from being used in tandem with facial recognition software, as fillers in photo arrays, or to create a database or pool of mugshots. (Ex: Baltimore PD Body Cam Policy)
• update privacy laws to protect civilians from having video or audio recordings released publicly that do not contain potential evidence in a use-of-force incident, discharge of a weapon or death.

 

[Jtrekkie]

18 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

where where where is your citation for this

 

"End to the use of technologies that criminalize and target our communities (including IMSI catchers, drones, body cameras, and predictive policing software."

"Policing itself has also evolved to create additional ways to gather information on our communities. Street cameras, license plate readers, domestic drones, stingray cell phone interceptors and other technologies are deployed in public spaces without the knowledge or consent of local communities, and give the individual little choice but to be tracked. The data captured through these technologies – including location information, facial images, and cell phone data – are being centralized at digital fusion centers and held for indeterminate amounts of time. 

These practices violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Black people in the U.S. Without guiding policies, practices, principles or regulatory parameters, these surveillance technologies supersize the potential for discriminatory policing. They expand the police state, facilitate big profits for a growing surveillance industry"

http://action.movementforblacklives.org

 

[Another Ampers&]

7 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

"End to the use of technologies that criminalize and target our communities (including IMSI catchers, drones, body cameras, and predictive policing software."

"Policing itself has also evolved to create additional ways to gather information on our communities. Street cameras, license plate readers, domestic drones, stingray cell phone interceptors and other technologies are deployed in public spaces without the knowledge or consent of local communities, and give the individual little choice but to be tracked. The data captured through these technologies – including location information, facial images, and cell phone data – are being centralized at digital fusion centers and held for indeterminate amounts of time. 

These practices violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Black people in the U.S. Without guiding policies, practices, principles or regulatory parameters, these surveillance technologies supersize the potential for discriminatory policing. They expand the police state, facilitate big profits for a growing surveillance industry"

http://action.movementforblacklives.org

 

this is a little misleading

I was ready to agree with you and apologize but I did a bit of reading on that site just to see what the problem with body cams was

from here:https://policy.m4bl.org/end-war-on-black-people/#end-to-the-mass-surveillance

"Model policy for the use of body-worn cameras: http://www.aele.org./ACLUBWCAct.pdf"

It seems they want less to get rid of body cameras and more to enact stricter guidelines on their use. They talk a lot about their use in surveilance of private people, rather than their use in recording arrests (maybe it's like, if you're not being arrested, why is this cop capturing you on video without your permission?)

[Onnes]

17 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

http://action.movementforblacklives.org

Taken in context, it's pretty clear they are talking about regulating the use of body cameras as general surveillance tools (e.g. continuous monitoring of low income housing, facial recognition mining) and making sure that the data record is accurate, whole, and reasonably accessible to the public.

I'd say this release is a reasonably succinct summary:
http://www.civilrights.org/press/2015/body-camera-principles.html

[Jtrekkie]

12 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

this is a little misleading

I was ready to agree with you and apologize but I did a bit of reading on that site just to see what the problem with body cams was

from here:https://policy.m4bl.org/end-war-on-black-people/#end-to-the-mass-surveillance

"Model policy for the use of body-worn cameras: http://www.aele.org./ACLUBWCAct.pdf"

It seems they want less to get rid of body cameras and more to enact stricter guidelines on their use. They talk a lot about their use in surveilance of private people, rather than their use in recording arrests (maybe it's like, if you're not being arrested, why is this cop capturing you on video without your permission?)

 

It is, but remember the ACLU link is an example of steps taken already, not of policy going forward.

 

At any rate, at this time the use of footage from body cams is identical to those of dash cams, complete with mandatory destruction after a set time.

[Another Ampers&]

Just now, Jtrekkie said:

It is, but remember the ACLU link is an example of steps taken already, not of policy going forward.

I am unsure if that bill is standard already nationwide but regardless it's being shown as a "model policy" and it comes after multiple paragraphs about Edward Snowden and irresponsible use of surveilance

[Onnes]

7 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

At any rate, at this time the use of footage from body cams is identical to those of dash cams, complete with mandatory destruction after a set time.

Dash cam footage is regulated at the local level; it differs between states, cities, and even departments. As a particularly recent example, North Carolina has enacted a law that, starting in October, will remove police recordings as part of the public record, making them off limits to open records requests.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

16 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

I smell some dangerous logic.

Disregarded.

Is it this dangerous?

[#00Buck]

8 hours ago, Socketosis said:

Yeah he was suspended for a week I think.

 

The sad thing is it's true(with BLM that is). When have the KKK been relevant in recent times? They're mostly old folks now and don't really do anything aside from hold protests once in a while. Literally none of them have burned down black communities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK started donating money to BLM.

Per dollar it causes more destruction in the black community than anything the KKK could do directly to hurt black people. 

The irony is delicious. 

[Troj]

7 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

For the other point, I understand you, however if that were the case then one would expect that people, on exposure to different races or cultures, would develope a heightened sense of that otherness, and likely racist ideas. However, judging from the Americans on exposure to immigrants, this is the opposite of what actually happens, with greatest opposition to others being expressed by those with the least exposure to "others". In any case it is all perspective. 

To clarify: contact with "others" doesn't automatically make you racist or prejudiced--or even, tolerant and accepting--but it does make you aware of how you differ from those people.

It's only when people interpret that contact with or exposure to "others" as adversarial, competitive, or hostile that they become prejudiced or bigoted. Even just realizing that those "others" exist and that you might clash with them someday can be enough to raise your blood pressure.

[Toboe]

On 25.9.2016 at 3:04 AM, Rassah said:

No, this is where your example breaks. I won't do it. Because I know murder is wrong.

Then let's say it's ComissionerMcComissionerface and MurderMcMurderface.

On 25.9.2016 at 3:04 AM, Rassah said:

If I did do it, I should be charged with murder.

Sure, MurderMcMurderface is terrible. What about ComissionerMcComissionface?

On 25.9.2016 at 3:04 AM, Rassah said:

Warlords and mafia kings do more than just ask people to kill someone.

The Nazis did way more than one murder. But both the Nazis and warlords and mafia kings are irrelevant for this question atm.

 

On 25.9.2016 at 3:04 AM, Rassah said:

Hiring an assassin... I'm honestly not entirely sure of on where it fits on the moral scale. What if a bunch of people pooled their money in some anonymous currency, and put up a decentralized digital contract in that currency that would automatically pay out to anyone who killed, say, Kim Jong Un or Kony or some other terrible dictator? Though if someone did that personally just against their neighbor, I don't know if they would be personally liable, but maybe it would be fair game to put money against them too...

Questions of when responsibility starts are hard. Lets forget about them and just declare the offender birds free?

[#00Buck]

People who don't even know who Milo is and have never read his articles or seen his videos are protesting him.

We have truly entered the age of ignorance!

Cthulhu... I mean Trump 2016 build a wall. 

 

[Gamedog]

Milo is gay British man that is constantly talked over by angry feminists who can't dispute his arguments

15 hours ago, #00Buck said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK started donating money to BLM.

Per dollar it causes more destruction in the black community than anything the KKK could do directly to hurt black people. 

The irony is delicious. 

George Soros funds it for that reason

 

edit: I'm on phone and trying to link pic but it's not working 

 

basically he says that black people are the easiest to manipulate 

[Zeke]

4 hours ago, Gamedog said:

 

basically he says that black people are the easiest to manipulate 

1

Anyone that lacks critical thinking are easy to manipulate. 

[Troj]

31 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Anyone that lacks critical thinking are easy to manipulate. 

People are easy to manipulate when they have been utterly consumed by emotion.

[Zeke]

1 minute ago, Troj said:

People are easy to manipulate when they have been utterly consumed by emotion.

[Rassah]

We need a candidate who will build a wall. One wall for every one of us. Then next election we can pick a candidate who will build a roof. And then our housing problems will be solved.

[#00Buck]

My sweet dear Milo is so popufur that he draws crowds larger than Hillary.

 

[Gamedog]

11 hours ago, #00Buck said:

My sweet dear Milo is so popufur that he draws crowds larger than Hillary.

 

America is great because America is good

 

🙌🙌🙌👏👏👏👏👏😩😩😩😩💯💯💯 YAAASSSS HUNTY SLAAYYYYY SLAY GURL

[Butters]

Milo Yiannopoulos. Long named, furry, gay uncle tom. 

He may or may not have been on faf you never know. ;3

[Another Ampers&]

9 minutes ago, Butters said:

Milo Yiannopoulos. Long named, furry, gay uncle tom. 

He may or may not have been on faf you never know. ;3

"you're gay, promiscuous, doesn't the bible prohibit that?"
"I agree and it would be better if I wasn't this way"

weren't people arguing that he wasn't self hating??

[#00Buck]

16 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

"you're gay, promiscuous, doesn't the bible prohibit that?"
"I agree and it would be better if I wasn't this way"

weren't people arguing that he wasn't self hating??

He isn't self hating.

He is clearly in love with himself. 

[Butters]

1 hour ago, Another Ampers& said:

"you're gay, promiscuous, doesn't the bible prohibit that?"
"I agree and it would be better if I wasn't this way"

weren't people arguing that he wasn't self hating??

They were, but wishing yourself straight and saying you'd take a "straight pill" pretty much blows that outta the water. Also, the judeo-christian superiority thing makes him looks really silly. Think of all the Asian cultures that were cool with gays before colonialism.

[Troj]

I imagine that people can be infatuated with or proud of a superficial image or persona of themselves, while still fundamentally fearing, disliking, or not understanding themselves at a deeper level.

 

[#00Buck]

52 minutes ago, Troj said:

I imagine that people can be infatuated with or proud of a superficial image or persona of themselves, while still fundamentally fearing, disliking, or not understanding themselves at a deeper level.

 

Some people even say their own personality sucks and then when you agree with them they get angry and say it doesn't. 

[Troj]

I usually chalk that up to people fishing for compliments.

The Joe Rogan clip is fascinating on multiple levels.

For whatever reason, people like Milo Y and Ann Coulter will take an idea that contains a nugget of truth or validity, and then exaggerate it to the point of absurdity and idiocy. Milo bit his lip and gazed coyly up at Joe when he made that statement, which leads me to believe he knew he was being inflammatory.

In that sense, he's rather like a Kindergartener who banks on the adults fussing over him when he says, "Babies have big poopybutt-fartdiapers."

That people like Milo and Coulter consistently pick the most contentious and extreme way of saying something with a grain of reason and truth suggests that they a) enjoy trolling for fun and profit, b) are so cynical and jaded that they don't believe they'd get the same kind of validation for being, y'know, reasonable, and/or c) have, at some level, actually lost sight of the grey area or middle ground.

The Secular Talk guy brings it home. The reason Western Civilization is ethically superior to various (but not all) other cultures is because its Judeo-Christian values were filtered through the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation. Otherwise, there would be very little to prevent Christianity from operating basically like Islam, which has yet to go through a Reformation in the same way.

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Troj said:

 

The Secular Talk guy brings it home. The reason Western Civilization is ethically superior to various (but not all) other cultures is because its Judeo-Christian values were filtered through the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation. Otherwise, there would be very little to prevent Christianity from operating basically like Islam, which has yet to go through a Reformation in the same way.

In some alternate universe, if Christianity didn't go through reformation like Islam, we'd be all Catholic and perhaps western culture would technologically and socially remain behind by 60-80 years our own current timeline. Maybe. Perhaps in 20 years (or less) that Islam will see enlightenment, or it may die out like Aryan Catholicism. 

[Another Ampers&]

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

In some alternate universe, if Christianity didn't go through reformation like Islam, we'd be all Catholic and perhaps western culture would technologically and socially remain behind by 60-80 years our own current timeline. Maybe. Perhaps in 20 years (or less) that Islam will see enlightenment, or it may die out like Aryan Catholicism. 

islam isn't going to die out in 20 years, it's the world's largest religion

Keep in mind that I'm not an expert on this issue but I want to put in my two cents, I'm open to correction on anything I get wrong RE: the local politics of the middle east, I'm not there obviously, etc etc

but I think there's a lot of religious-traditionalist+authoritarian-right groups (such as the Taliban and Daesh) cropping up in certain areas of the middle east and finding power for the same or similar reasons to why those same mindsets gain traction in The West. Your Hitlers and Mussolinis and all the miscellanious fascist movements historically (y'all can make your own comparisons for the present day West I'm not in the mood to). They always seem to spring up in response to and utilizing the fear of an outside or foreign predator. Russia is even guilty of this, depending on how you view Putin, fear mongering about "western values" and destruction of the homeland or w/e

I feel like, viewing it through a lens of "these people are expressing xenophobia and are afraid of foreigners" we can sort of understand why religious fascists would gain the traction there they have, and, I think, the only way for them to reach the "enlightenment" y'all are referring a little reductively to would be for The West to improve its personal relations with the area, rather than continuing to plunder and destabilize the area, much like how anti-islamic fascist movements here have gained increased traction in the wake of 9/11

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

 

I feel like, viewing it through a lens of "these people are expressing xenophobia and are afraid of foreigners" we can sort of understand why religious fascists would gain the traction there they have, and, I think, the only way for them to reach the "enlightenment" y'all are referring a little reductively to would be for The West to improve its personal relations with the area, rather than continuing to plunder and destabilize the area, much like how anti-islamic fascist movements here have gained increased traction in the wake of 9/11

It's not external issue that prevent Islam from having it's own enlightenment revolution, but it's internal where there needs to be a social reform on women, theocratic laws, and other religious values that set them back. That's something they need to do on their own without our (western) influence on directing their culture, and the younger generation belonging to that religion should do it. Having us westerners poke our nose into their own affairs will only worsen the problem since they already see us as demonic infidels trying to take their oil. 

 

[Another Ampers&]

3 hours ago, Zeke said:

It's not external issue that prevent Islam from having it's own enlightenment revolution, but it's internal where there needs to be a social reform on women, theocratic laws, and other religious values that set them back. That's something they need to do on their own without our (western) influence on directing their culture, and the younger generation belonging to that religion should do it. Having us westerners poke our nose into their own affairs will only worsen the problem since they already see us as demonic infidels trying to take their oil. 

 

but that's what I mean. I believe that the authoritarian right is so strong in the area due to xenophobia. I think in order to see growth and progression in the area they need to be allowed to sort their issues out for themselves

it's really easy to latch onto the traditionalist bent of the religious right when you've got foreign drones constantly flying by overhead

I mean, look at the anti-islamic sentiment running rampant in america still, 15 years after a single attack on american soil, you can only imagine how badly these people must hate america (in the taliban and isis affected areas, I mean), given what's gone on down there

[MalletFace]

After seeing and hearing Milo compared to Ann Coulter for so long, I really want to hear Ann Coulter call Trump daddy.

4 hours ago, Zeke said:

It's not external issue that prevent Islam from having it's own enlightenment revolution, but it's internal where there needs to be a social reform on women, theocratic laws, and other religious values that set them back.

That didn't happen in Europe and the colonies without a catalyst of war and rebellion - or the threat of.

It was two centuries of the European Wars of Religion that led to people presenting a veil of religious tolerance in Europe, and it took the Holocaust for religious tolerance to be the norm.

I don't think many places will see such changes go by quietly.

[Xaende]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

I imagine that people can be infatuated with or proud of a superficial image or persona of themselves, while still fundamentally fearing, disliking, or not understanding themselves at a deeper level.

 

I'd venture to say that's true more often than not. So many seem so full of themselves, and are perhaps discouraged from self reflection due to a fundamental aversion to self. Unfortunately, the desire for intrapersonal reflection and deeper understanding can be quite rare.

35 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Some people even say their own personality sucks and then when you agree with them they get angry and say it doesn't. 

They're probably feeling down, and looking for somebody to disagree. Somebody to tell them how their personality doesn't actually suck.

[#00Buck]

Well looks like Milo is triggering people all over the place.

 

[Troj]

Listening to a conversation between Joe Rogan and Milo Y currently.

What's interesting is that much like Ann Coulter, Milo is capable of arguing his points without just being coy or trollish. I've mostly had exposure to him when he's being incendiary and inflammatory, so this radio segment is quite refreshing.

I've actually agreed with a number of his basic points in this interview, BUT at the end of the day, he still lacks compassion for people (especially underdogs) from my point of view, and he's still very smug and assured of his own rightness.

The fascinating bit is how some of us veer to the right upon encountering wacky feminists, SJWs, and double standards within liberalism, and some of us continue to self-define as liberals, while criticizing the stupider ideas and people under the umbrella of liberalism.

For me personally, denouncing liberalism itself because of a few nuts and bad ideas would be tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Watching this interview has given me a more nuanced view of Milo Y. I still think he's insufferably smug and smarter-than-thou, but he's not just off-the-wall irrational or globally obnoxious.

[#00Buck]

Milo performs his art piece at the "Daddy Will Save Us" art show in NYC.

I for one am moved by his wonderful performance. 

When it comes to "art-ism" he's definitely on the spectrum. 

 

[Zaraphayx]

On 10/7/2016 at 2:54 PM, Troj said:

Listening to a conversation between Joe Rogan and Milo Y currently.

What's interesting is that much like Ann Coulter, Milo is capable of arguing his points without just being coy or trollish. I've mostly had exposure to him when he's being incendiary and inflammatory, so this radio segment is quite refreshing.

I've actually agreed with a number of his basic points in this interview, BUT at the end of the day, he still lacks compassion for people (especially underdogs) from my point of view, and he's still very smug and assured of his own rightness.

The fascinating bit is how some of us veer to the right upon encountering wacky feminists, SJWs, and double standards within liberalism, and some of us continue to self-define as liberals, while criticizing the stupider ideas and people under the umbrella of liberalism.

For me personally, denouncing liberalism itself because of a few nuts and bad ideas would be tossing the baby out with theWatching this interview has given me a more nuanced view of Milo Y. I still think he's insufferably smug and smarter-than-thou, but he's not just off-the-wall irrational or globally obnoxious.

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, Zaraphayx said:

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

Adding to this, I think that changing to the opposite side of an argument, because you discover some of the people on the side you used to be part of are idiots, is a similar type of fallacy, because people can sometimes change their opinions to what they perceive as the opposite of their old views in order to put distance between themselves and people they discovered they dislike, rather than because the new opinion is well justified.

So while I disagree with Troj's dismissal of voices because of their personality, rather than their arguments, I can at least agree with her that contrarianism is silly.

[DrGravitas]

3 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

[#00Buck]

6 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

Someone had a good roast cooking on Canadian Thanksgiving. 

Here's another good roast from Daddy. He will make America great again. 

 

[Troj]

9 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

If one person says, "The cat is made of atoms," and another says, "The cat's name is Muffy, and she likes salmon," who's correct?

If one person says, "Three of those Skittles in the bowl are terrorists," and someone else says, "Ten Skittles in the bowl are widows with children," and a third person says, "You idiots, people aren't pieces of candy!" then who's correct?

If a person says, "The cotton industry will take a hit if slavery is abolished," and someone else says, "Slavery is an oppressive institution which causes suffering to human beings," who's correct? If, then, one person says, "Slaves will benefit from being freed," and another person says, "Freedom will prove challenging and stressful for freed slaves," who's correct?

If someone says, "My grandpa was killed by a falling toilet," and someone else says, "Falling toilet deaths are an extreme statistical anomaly," who's right?

I think it's dangerous to assume that facts are necessarily opposed to compassion or empathy. It's also a mistake to confuse compassion with just being "nice."

The problem with the alt-right and some of their sympathizers is that they are entirely correct about colleges being goofy, Tumblr SJWs being obnoxious, liberals sometimes being myopic, and government interventions being clunky and intrusive, but they completely ignore or gloss over the suffering and injustices that will result from us not trying to grapple with these issues at all.

The problem with liberals is that they get so caught up in individual people's feelings that they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to confront logistical or practical problems associated with their big dreams and aspirations.

Do aesthetics also count? Absolutely. Human beings are more likely to embrace ideas that are "pitched" to them in their "language," and reject ideas that contain words or phrases that confuse, upset, or offend them. From a pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense to try to speak your audience's language if you want them to absorb your message.

But, a truth that's been phrased awkwardly, obnoxiously, rudely, or confusingly is still a truth. That you didn't enjoy hearing it doesn't make it less true. Sometimes, the facts aren't fun, pretty, or conveniently-packaged.

So, in addition to often being a dickish contrarian whose overall presentation will alienate many people even when what he's saying contains grains of truth, Milo is also blind to some fundamental truths and basic realities. The fact that he's smug is off-putting in its own right, and it's also a red flag that he may be unwilling to absorb new information or admit when he's wrong.

The problem is that Milo and company have convinced people that they're purely objective and reasoned--because they sound the part--and that the people they're arguing against are all fluffy-wuffy sentimentalists. They can't see and acknowledge how their own elaborate rationales and their preference for certain facts and reasoned arguments are also emotionally-driven at a deeper level.

 

[Saxon]

26 minutes ago, Troj said:

If one person says, "The cat is made of atoms," and another says, "The cat's name is Muffy, and she likes salmon," who's correct?

If one person says, "Three of those Skittles in the bowl are terrorists," and someone else says, "Ten Skittles in the bowl are widows with children," and a third person says, "You idiots, people aren't pieces of candy!" then who's correct?

If a person says, "The cotton industry will take a hit if slavery is abolished," and someone else says, "Slavery is an oppressive institution which causes suffering to human beings," who's correct? If, then, one person says, "Slaves will benefit from being freed," and another person says, "Freedom will prove challenging and stressful for freed slaves," who's correct?

If someone says, "My grandpa was killed by a falling toilet," and someone else says, "Falling toilet deaths are an extreme statistical anomaly," who's right?

I think it's dangerous to assume that facts are necessarily opposed to compassion or empathy. It's also a mistake to confuse compassion with just being "nice."

The problem with the alt-right and some of their sympathizers is that they are entirely correct about colleges being goofy, Tumblr SJWs being obnoxious, liberals sometimes being myopic, and government interventions being clunky and intrusive, but they completely ignore or gloss over the suffering and injustices that will result from us not trying to grapple with these issues at all.

The problem with liberals is that they get so caught up in individual people's feelings that they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to confront logistical or practical problems associated with their big dreams and aspirations.

Do aesthetics also count? Absolutely. Human beings are more likely to embrace ideas that are "pitched" to them in their "language," and reject ideas that contain words or phrases that confuse, upset, or offend them. From a pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense to try to speak your audience's language if you want them to absorb your message.

But, a truth that's been phrased awkwardly, obnoxiously, rudely, or confusingly is still a truth. That you didn't enjoy hearing it doesn't make it less true. Sometimes, the facts aren't fun, pretty, or conveniently-packaged.

So, in addition to often being a dickish contrarian whose overall presentation will alienate many people even when what he's saying contains grains of truth, Milo is also blind to some fundamental truths and basic realities. The fact that he's smug is off-putting in its own right, and it's also a red flag that he may be unwilling to absorb new information or admit when he's wrong.

The problem is that Milo and company have convinced people that they're purely objective and reasoned--because they sound the part--and that the people they're arguing against are all fluffy-wuffy sentimentalists. They can't see and acknowledge how their own elaborate rationales and their preference for certain facts and reasoned arguments are also emotionally-driven at a deeper level.

 

I feel like this is a very long way of not answering Zara's point, to be honest.

Nobody claimed that facts are inherently opposed to any emotional position, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to argue against that strawman.

Zara rightfully pointed out that you temper your logical assessment of people's arguments with your emotional prejudices about their personal character.

 

[#00Buck]

43 minutes ago, Troj said:

If one person says, "The cat is made of atoms," and another says, "The cat's name is Muffy, and she likes salmon," who's correct?

If one person says, "Three of those Skittles in the bowl are terrorists," and someone else says, "Ten Skittles in the bowl are widows with children," and a third person says, "You idiots, people aren't pieces of candy!" then who's correct?

If a person says, "The cotton industry will take a hit if slavery is abolished," and someone else says, "Slavery is an oppressive institution which causes suffering to human beings," who's correct? If, then, one person says, "Slaves will benefit from being freed," and another person says, "Freedom will prove challenging and stressful for freed slaves," who's correct?

If someone says, "My grandpa was killed by a falling toilet," and someone else says, "Falling toilet deaths are an extreme statistical anomaly," who's right?

I think it's dangerous to assume that facts are necessarily opposed to compassion or empathy. It's also a mistake to confuse compassion with just being "nice."

The problem with the alt-right and some of their sympathizers is that they are entirely correct about colleges being goofy, Tumblr SJWs being obnoxious, liberals sometimes being myopic, and government interventions being clunky and intrusive, but they completely ignore or gloss over the suffering and injustices that will result from us not trying to grapple with these issues at all.

The problem with liberals is that they get so caught up in individual people's feelings that they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to confront logistical or practical problems associated with their big dreams and aspirations.

Do aesthetics also count? Absolutely. Human beings are more likely to embrace ideas that are "pitched" to them in their "language," and reject ideas that contain words or phrases that confuse, upset, or offend them. From a pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense to try to speak your audience's language if you want them to absorb your message.

But, a truth that's been phrased awkwardly, obnoxiously, rudely, or confusingly is still a truth. That you didn't enjoy hearing it doesn't make it less true. Sometimes, the facts aren't fun, pretty, or conveniently-packaged.

So, in addition to often being a dickish contrarian whose overall presentation will alienate many people even when what he's saying contains grains of truth, Milo is also blind to some fundamental truths and basic realities. The fact that he's smug is off-putting in its own right, and it's also a red flag that he may be unwilling to absorb new information or admit when he's wrong.

The problem is that Milo and company have convinced people that they're purely objective and reasoned--because they sound the part--and that the people they're arguing against are all fluffy-wuffy sentimentalists. They can't see and acknowledge how their own elaborate rationales and their preference for certain facts and reasoned arguments are also emotionally-driven at a deeper level.

 

I believe text walls are the sign of a weak argument. 

[Onnes]

18 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Nobody claimed that facts are inherently opposed to any emotional position, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to argue against that strawman.

Zara's response only seems to make sense if one assumes that he transformed, and I'm paraphrasing, "I agreed with some of Milo's points, but I still find he's a jackass who does not care about other people" into "I would agree with all of Milo's points if he did not present himself as such a jackass".

[Troj]

11 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

This statement right here sums up why social activists and the social sciences in their current form are a massive fucking joke and those of us who are dedicated to empiricism will never take seriously anything you believe.

You are never forced to accept the facts and confront reality because nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake. If engineers, physicists, and chemists ignored the facts in favor of what was emotionally convenient for them people would die.

You aren't making your own point by pointing out that Milo's persona makes him off-putting; you're making his, which is that "the other side" of the debate cares more about the aesthetic presentation of the facts rather than the facts themselves.

Funnily enough, I felt like Zara was the one arguing the strawman and misinterpreting my perspective--but, maybe I wasn't clear the first time.

Unless I've missed his point, Zara assumes that real empiricism is often at odds with social activism and the social sciences, because the latter have a habit of ignoring inconvenient truths, while real empiricists embrace them. 

What I was responding to was this common tendency to assume that critical social-emotional considerations are incompatible with empirical facts, or don't "count" in the same way. Social scientists and social activists "are never forced to confront the facts" because "nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake." I'd disagree strongly with that.

Additionally. I think many people--not just liberals, activists, or social scientists--tend to get lost in the aesthetics, which was my other follow-up point. There are even people who confuse acting like Spock with actually being as rational and objective as Spock. It's hard to separate the medium from the message.

Basically, I have issues with Milo's aesthetics, his overall worldview, and his denial of certain inconvenient facts. His lack of compassion isn't just an aesthetic problem; it hints at a deeper inability and unwillingness to engage with certain realities and concerns. At the same time, he makes valid points that most people will ignore or dismiss because they find his style and his overall worldview offensive.

I came back to this thread to basically admit that Milo was more complicated and three-dimensional than I'd originally realized, even though I still fundamentally disagree with him where it counts, and dislike his style to boot. Gotta give credit where it's due.

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Onnes said:

Zara's response only seems to make sense if one assumes that he transformed, and I'm paraphrasing, "I agreed with some of Milo's points, but I still find he's a jackass who does not care about other people" into "I would agree with all of Milo's points if he did not present himself as such a jackass".

That's what I thought Troj was saying, although replace 'all' with 'some'.

If Troj didn't mean that, why not just say so rather than writing a 500 word response? ._.

[#00Buck]

Zara gave me the wisdom to always look for the nerd essay. 

[Zaraphayx]

24 minutes ago, Onnes said:

Zara's response only seems to make sense if one assumes that he transformed, and I'm paraphrasing, "I agreed with some of Milo's points, but I still find he's a jackass who does not care about other people" into "I would agree with all of Milo's points if he did not present himself as such a jackass".

My response was a criticism of the idea that the presentation of ideas is equally or more consequential then the input and process of their composition. How people react emotionally to a statement or position is a crude way to judge it's value; where one person finds Milo insulting and callous, another person can find him humorous. If this wasn't true he wouldn't be a controversial figure, he'd just be universally reviled or celebrated.

I find it frightening how common it is to see these massive text essays about how off-putting his tone was without any attempts to address the truth value of his statements in a dispassionate manner.

[Troj]

44 minutes ago, Saxon said:

That's what I thought Troj was saying, although replace 'all' with 'some'.

If Troj didn't mean that, why not just say so rather than writing a 500 word response? ._.

Is that what the confusion's over?

Basically, my reaction to Milo throughout that interview was often, "Yes, but."

For example, he made a nice point about Kids These Days growing up with bland a-political pop music, and how this may be related to their tendency to channel rage in strange places. I've made that same point myself.

When I thought about what my standard "but" was, it had to do with Milo disregarding or dismissing what I see as basic ethical or social-emotional considerations.

He's correctly noticed that some people and institutions are weirdly and irrationally over-the-top about certain issues, but he assumes that it's only because they're weird and stupid.

He doesn't seem to grasp or seem to care that maybe this liberal hyper-concern comes from a fundamentally ethical, compassionate place.

So, like a lot of people on the alt-right, his preferred solution is to just tell the people to shut up and stop whining about their weird, silly, peripheral issues, and just go with the larger societal flow.

In my book, that's not a real solution.

If you don't care about people, that's a pretty big deal. That goes deeper than just having "bad aesthetics."

But, his observations about people and institutions being silly and the consequences of that struck me as fairly accurate.

Conservatives in general are good about noticing how certain reforms will gum up the works and create complications and unrest, but their solution is often to leave the fringe weirdos get left behind or crush them beneath the tires so that the status quo stays quo.

[Zaraphayx]

48 minutes ago, Troj said:

Unless I've missed his point, Zara seems to be assuming that real empiricism is at odds with social activism and the social sciences, because the latter parties have a habit of ignoring inconvenient truths, while real empiricists embrace them. 

What I was responding to was this common tendency to assume that vital social-emotional considerations are incompatible with empirical facts, or don't "count" in the same way. Social scientists and social activists "are never forced to confront the facts" because "nothing substantial is ever immediately at stake." I'd disagree strongly with that assessment

I think both sides of the debate tend to get lost in the aesthetics, frankly, which was my other point. There are plenty of people, for instance, who confuse acting like Spock with actually being as rational and objective as Spock.

You've got it backwards, the institutions that compose the social sciences are the ones at odds with empiricism, empiricism not at odds with social science.

You can disagree with the statement all you like, but it's reflected in the results of the disciplines. Social scientists produce conjectures and the physical sciences produce knowledge.

I think that compassion and feelings have a place in persuasive argumentation if they aren't used in an exploitative way, but I take issue with the tendency to take shortcuts straight to criticizing rhetoric without first addressing the substance of an argument deeper than taking a generalization at face value and saying "not all X" and expecting the inherent complexity of the universe to nullify any and all statements that are inconvenient.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Troj said:

Is that what the confusion's over?

Basically, my reaction to Milo throughout that interview was often, "Yes, but."

When I thought about what my standard "but" was, it had to do with Milo disregarding or dismissing what I see as basic ethical or social-emotional considerations.

He's correctly noticed that some people and institutions are weirdly and irrationally over-the-top about certain issues, but he assumes that it's only because they're weird and stupid.

He doesn't seem to grasp or seem to care that maybe this liberal hyper-concern comes from a fundamentally ethical, compassionate place that is worth considering.

So, like a lot of people on the alt-right, his preferred solution is to just tell the people to shut up and stop whining about their weird, silly, peripheral issues, and just go with the larger societal flow.

In my book, that's not a real solution.

I don't think you have to propose an alternative solution to society's ills to point out that weird and irrational policies are weird and irrational.

This feels like a vague sort of 'Tu quoque' fallacy.