[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ive never run into a campus safe space, but the idea of it reminds me of what used to be the gay bar, where gay people could go and be who they wanted to be without fear of violence of persecution. these days i suppose in big cities nobody gives a shit, but there is a terribly made documentary called “small town, gay bar” which illustrates the ongoing plight of gay people in the unsafe space that is the american south. just because it is terribly made and it’s overly repetitive and too long it does not mean the subject is bad. it’s a great subject actually which is why i watched it completely and know it’s overly repetitive and too long. it’s because the subject matter is great.

anyway, we all want society to be a safe space and thatks why we have rules of conduct and laws and police etc.

but again the problem is a little bit like what i mentioned above. if yuo’re a black person in america, a routine interaction with the police is not safe...

see, even an encounter with a fellow student in a university campus can be threatening... if yuo’re black andfall asleep i your own dorm, a white student will call the cops on you

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...called-police/

read the whole list of “while black” situations listed there. a child selling lemonade in front of her own house was the latest i recall.

but see, if you take a knee during the national anthem to protest unjustified killings of black people by police... the wingnuts start crying “identity politics!”

i know that you’re addressing a very narrow definition of the term, but that academic definition is not what we’re experiencing here on an everyday basis.

What you're describing isn't a safe space in the sense I'm using it. Of course all students (all everyone) should be safe from harm and persecution but the safe space culture I'm talking about is when a lecturer or a fellow student can't even mention a topic, or a perspective on it, that might offend or in some way trouble another student. So a transgender student is 'protected' from being exposed to a position that might, for example, question the idea of a gender spectrum. The fact that the universities are actually facilitating this practice arguably makes them even more pathetic than the students they're trying pandering to. If a person can't handle ideas that challenge their beliefs they shouldn't be in higher education, period.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

What you're describing isn't a safe space in the sense I'm using it. Of course all students (all everyone) should be safe from harm and persecution but the safe space culture I'm talking about is when a lecturer or a fellow student can't even mention a topic, or a perspective on it, that might offend or in some way trouble another student. So a transgender student is 'protected' from being exposed to a position that might, for example, question the idea of a gender spectrum. The fact that the universities are actually facilitating this practice arguably makes them even more pathetic than the students they're trying pandering to. If a person can't handle ideas that challenge their beliefs they shouldn't be in higher education, period.

okay, if that’s the case, that’s pretty much irrelevant to what goes on here

whole swaths of the population are under attack here

president grab them by the pussy sure triggered part of this intifada. for one thing, the women are finally fed up. but on the other hand the knuckle draggers are also encouraged.

just the other day in colorado 2 harmless shoppers were speaking in spanish at some drugstore when some racist bitch came to harass them for speaking their language

then another more educated white woman threw the racist bitch out, called the cops on her, and had her arrested for harassment

ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha

fucksakes, i want the drugstore to be a safe space but it shouldn’t be on the basis of having a handy white savior— thank fuck for that lady but cmon

deadbeat donald has fired up the crazies, as john mccain famously said, and has turned the country very ugly for minorities, women, and even the people he claims to stand up for, the ethnic white working class, because he’s just using demagoguery to sell them down the river, and the fools believe him

anyway i am sorry i cannot sympathize with the notion that the overprotection of routinely murdered abused raped and ostracized transgendered people is an urgent social issue. i’m sure it can be resolved within academia like all academic debates. and yes, academia attracts bolsheviks and thought cops for sure, and the crime of blasphemy moved from the church to the university but it’s not a big social issue.

much more urgent to me seems—can women, gays, trans, queer, hispanics, black people, the disabled, etc, go to the drugstore without being threatened and harassed? can the cops stop shooting black people in the back? and can women feel safe from coworkers?

that’s way more urgent if you ask me. let’s make drugstores safe again. and traffic stops. and the workplace. and selling lemonade in your front lawn when you’re 7.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i’ll reply to the rest later but this jumped at me because i think you’re missing the point of what you’re arguing against. well at least in an american context.

first since you said harvard it reminded me of henry louis gates getting arrested in his house for “disorderly conduct” after being questioned for breaking into his own house, HAVING PROVEN ALREADY IT WAS HIS HOUSE. sure sure, he said some unpleasant things, but it was his first amendment right and he was not prosecuted because there was no case against him.

...later another cop called him a jungle monkey...

second, yes, money confers privilege, but in some circumstances race erases it

e.g., just quickly googled some terms and blam

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/14/new...ing/index.html

i dont know who this hypothetical or actual daughter of a banker might be, or in what circumstances she would say but, but money is not everything

last, here an english journo explains how/why you might be missing the point:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ucation-income

ok, monday morning, gotta run... the rest later

Man, I have to say at this point, I'm actually experiencing this shit on a daily basis. Anyone who has contact with a university right now who won't privately admit (they'd likely lose their job if they ever uttered it on campus) that this shit is rife and going way beyond what you're talking about, is either a liar or one of the lunatics actually endorsing it (and they're all over academia at the moment). Universities are in absolute crisis over this. The fact you weren't aware of it is alarming, not because you're wilfully ignorant (which you obviously aren't) but because the news obviously just isn't getting out. Humanities departments, especially, are now little more than Intersectionality propaganda machines, and anyone who doesn't buy into it is essentially purged.

Believe me you wouldn't wanna be a white working class, brexit-voting, heterosexual male, working in a university art department right now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7815991.html

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Man, I have to say at this point, I'm actually experiencing this shit on a daily basis. Anyone who has contact with a university right now who won't privately admit (they'd likely lose their job if they ever uttered it on campus) that this shit is rife and going way beyond what you're talking about, is either a liar or one of the lunatics actually endorsing it (and they're all over academia at the moment). Universities are in absolute crisis over this. The fact you weren't aware of it is alarming, not because you're wilfully ignorant (which you obviously aren't) but because the news obviously just isn't getting out. Humanities departments, especially, are now little more than Intersectionality propaganda machines and anyone who doesn't buy into it is essentially purged.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7815991.html

oh yes i am not overly familiar with that

ha ha ha the humanities. yes...

i am a humanities phd dropout because i was not interested in garbage social science posing as “literary criticism”. otherwise i would have studied sociology.

and yes, it’s garbage.

but this garbage has made the humanities nearly irrelevant for everyday life. i feel your pain, i do, but it’s a pain i walked away from. harder to do once you’re already committed to the profession of course. but it’s... it seems to me to be an internal matter. maybe it’s more common in england?

i... again i dont think i’m getting what you’re meaning by interesectionality, but as i understand it, it makes perfect sense to me. e.g., if you’re black, woman, lesbian, transgendered, poor, you’re essentially getting fucked 5 ways and not in a nice way. if you’re white, man, straight, cisgender, poor, then you’re just getting fucked in 1 way—the poor way.

but i’ll keep reading dead white straight cis males even if they were assholes to their wives and children though. some of their stuff is good regardless of their personal shortcomings. the only people with a clean conscience are the ones with bad memory.

ha ha ha ha sorry for the oversimplification. i didn’t sleep much last night and i am tired.

ps- i am friends with a number of bolshevik university professors and often give them shit about their kooky notions ha ha ha ha. one started banging the table on me the other day. reminded me of kruschev. lmao.

[demonrail666]

But this is getting derailed around details about something that's pretty marginal to the Trump thing. The person right now who I'd say pretty much reflects my view is this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTVXCxbC2to

[ilduclo]

pretty sure I've never "allowed you to speak", so STFU

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

pretty sure I've never "allowed you to speak", so STFU

lolwut

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

pretty sure I've never "allowed you to speak", so STFU

Your right. I'll leave you in peace to post your funny little pictures of Kavanaugh.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

But this is getting derailed around details about something that's pretty marginal to the Trump thing. The person right now who I'd say pretty much reflects my view is this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTVXCxbC2to

yeah ok his argument i understand and he’s not going back to 60’s marxists for his use of “identity politics”. so i can argue what the problem is with what he’s saying.

basically he’s right that our modern political culture made the individual supreme.

but what he’s avoiding/missing/not seeing/blind to/ etc. is that this “individual” is like man in the book of genesis constructed in the image of “the lord”.

so this supreme legal creation is male, white, straight (and likely married, with children, christian, affluent, etc etc etc).

i mean it’s the same issue at the bottom of the declaration of the independence.

“all men are created equal” except for the slaves and the women and the lower classes.

it’s all a very funny business.

i want to say more but i need a coffee and i need to do some work but please do not forget this point.

the individual is supreme yes. but the point you need to remember, you who trafficks in creatures of the imagination, is

“who” is this supreme individual jordan talks about, and what does he look like (cuz, eh, it’s a he).

the’s glossing over that fact either out of blindness or on purpose.

i just wanna stick to that for a moment please because that is the core of his flaw.

if you ignore that blind spot, he sounds perfectly reasonable.

but if you are aware of his blind spot, then you wonder if he’s fighting for reason and sanity or if he’s fighting for dominance.

let’s hang on to this point for a little while and not skip it.

[!@#$%!]

so, demonyo, let’s dwell on this point for a moment yes?

the magna carta. who’s rights did it protect? the church and 25 barons or something?

the forefathers that bytor likes to invoke to justify the gun violence epidemic— who’s rights did they claim?

their own.

not women, not lower class people, not slaves

the history of the enlightment consists of the expansion of these individual rights to larger and larger groups. through hard fought struggle.

liberté, fraternité... yes.

égalité... not so much

so we purportedly arrive to our era as a detribalized society yes?

nooooo.... we arrive to our era tribalized in the image of the male dominated european tribe that colonized the planet.

it’s hard to see if you’re in that tribe.

but our modern society that the youtube guy you like celebrates... it not really universal yet

does not include a lot of people

and those people want in!

the reason identity politics “retribalize” is because many tribes were left out of the “supreme individual rights” tribe.

oh yes.

OUT.

we can’t really be one tribe until we really incorporate everyone

otherwise it is —yes— oppression

[!@#$%!]

please answer my point dude

ha ha ha ha

tell me if i’m lying

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yeah ok his argument i understand and he’s not going back to 60’s marxists for his use of “identity politics”. so i can argue what the problem is with what he’s saying.

basically he’s right that our modern political culture made the individual supreme.

but what he’s avoiding/missing/not seeing/blind to/ etc. is that this “individual” is like man in the book of genesis constructed in the image of “the lord”.

so this supreme legal creation is male, white, straight (and likely married, with children, christian, affluent, etc etc etc).

i mean it’s the same issue at the bottom of the declaration of the independence.

“all men are created equal” except for the slaves and the women and the lower classes.

it’s all a very funny business.

i want to say more but i need a coffee and i need to do some work but please do not forget this point.

the individual is supreme yes. but the point you need to remember, you who trafficks in creatures of the imagination, is

“who” is this supreme individual jordan talks about, and what does he look like (cuz, eh, it’s a he).

the’s glossing over that fact either out of blindness or on purpose.

i just wanna stick to that for a moment please because that is the core of his flaw.

if you ignore that blind spot, he sounds perfectly reasonable.

but if you are aware of his blind spot, then you wonder if he’s fighting for reason and sanity or if he’s fighting for dominance.

let’s hang on to this point for a little while and not skip it.

Peterson covers a lot of ground, and you'd never get the nuances of any of them in a single video like that. suffice to say that he definitely considers any traditional rock solid concept of the individual as being deeply problematic, just that he also sees Idenity Politics as a massive, and in his view socially disastrous regression from any gains that could otherwise be made.

Like with all social commentators, there's areas where I definitely disagree with him - but his diagnosis of what he sees as a real problem within the Left/Liberal position right now, seems for the most part, pretty spot on to me, even if I'm not always that convinced by his alternatives.

--

Sorry, I wrote that before seeing your newer posts, in between. Will have to get back to you on those, Ilducio permitting.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Peterson covers a lot of ground, and you'd never get the nuances of any of them in a single video like that. suffice to say that he definitely considers any traditional rock solid concept of the individual as being deeply problematic, just that he also sees Idenity Politics as a massive, and in his view socially disastrous regression from any gains that could otherwise be made.

Like with all social commentators, there's areas where I definitely disagree with him - but his diagnosis of what he sees as a real problem within the Left/Liberal position right now, seems for the most part, pretty spot on to me, even if I'm not always that convinced by his alternatives.

right but you’re sidestepping the very point i want to discuss

the individual with supreme rights before the law is male, white, straight, rich

the individual with supreme rights before the law is from a particular tribe

it’s a pretty fluid tribe, but it’s still a tribe.

e.g., in the usa, when italians first arrived to america they were categorized as ‘black”. i have the papers to prove it lol.

now... not so much

the irish were dogs right? rejected by the nativists...
now everybody wears green for st patricks

jews? early 20th century, per fitzgerald or hemingway, they were a different tribe. all the way into the 60s easily. but since spielberg, the 80s, etc— the american jew is white. whiter than before anyway.

the tribe that killed everyone else became the bearer of the individual with those fancy rights.

everyone else got less, or no rights.

the current intifada is simply the request for the expansion of those rights.

is it a little bananas?

sure

is it the end of the world?

i don’t think so

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Sorry, I wrote that before seeing your newer posts, in between. Will have to get back to you on those, Ilducio permitting.

oh, ignore il duce lololol

i agree with a lot of what he says but he’s a shit debater

he ignores everyone who disagrees with him so dont worry

“if you disagree with me you’re a nazi”

and he puts you on ignore, lololol.

anyway yes i await your reply. cool thanks.

[ilduclo]

 

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

now DEADBEAT DONALD is refusing to pay the million dollars he offered for charity if elizabeth warren proved she had native american ancestry.

ha ha ha ha deadbeat donald always lying

Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test:

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests..while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments & their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented & whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests w/her continued claims of tribal heritage"

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test:

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests..while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments & their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented & whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests w/her continued claims of tribal heritage"

doh

she’s never claimed tribal citizenship, only ancestry

(also, the cherokees are economically opposed to expanding citizenship which is why they’ve denied black cherokees)

see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ur-birthright/

but fox news won’t let you regurgitate that

PAY UP, DEADBEAT DONNIE

[ilduclo]

I don't see how creep rat has any more rights to speak than brown people or women.

[ilduclo]

Trump evades West Coast states environmental controls. Turn navy bases into coal export terminals

https://apnews.com/573a19c3d43643e5b2d961b46cd99c67

[!@#$%!]

@demonyo

check this out!

i just found it but looks very promising:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...bout-race.html