A challenge for people who still believe in the "TOTALITARIAN LEFT"

[Arks&sparka]

It's not a fallacy when we're talking about the Left as a whole.

Saying it's not an appeal to the majority because it's an appeal to the majority of the left doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy.

My argument is that the Left is not totalitarian because the number of SJWs on the Left is so small, that they don't impact left-wing culture or policy.

I agree that the entire left wing side of the spectrum is not authoritarian because of the minority of authoritarians within the left. But I disagree in that they do impact left culture. They have impacted the entertainment industry and the University. I'm glad to see there is murmurs if left wing backlash against this within those institutions. But to deny the impact such things have on left culture or culture as a whole is naive.

Do some SJW cucks exist? Sure. But that doesn't mean "the Left" is SJW.

I agree with that. I'll even say SJWs exist on the right.

Give me examples of SJWs having an impact in the form of either political policy or a celebrity losing their career.

why are you asking for such a narrow impact?

 

[StoneByStone]

Not going to bother with your challenge. But I will mention a renowned scientist. James Watson, you may have heard of him.



I strongly disagree with his views, but he was one of the most influential scientists ever, and was basically "canceled" over speech.

https://www.sciencealert.com/father-of-dna-james-watson-stripped-of-accolades-in-ugly-racism-row

He's not really a celebrity, but I do agree that white people can lose their careers over saying controversial racial things and it's total bullshit. What happened to Watson was terrible.
However, this isn't a left-wing thing. The entire establishment, Left and Right, is anti-white. And it's pretty much always been like this. It's not new, it's not a Millennial or a Zoomer thing. So while this is a problem, it's separate from the claims of a Totalitarian Left.

 

[StoneByStone]

Saying it's not an appeal to the majority because it's an appeal to the majority of the left doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy. I agree that the entire left wing side of the spectrum is not authoritarian because of the minority of authoritarians within the left. But I disagree in that they do impact left culture. They have impacted the entertainment industry and the University. I'm glad to see there is murmurs if left wing backlash against this within those institutions. But to deny the impact such things have on left culture or culture as a whole is naive.

This thread is about whether the Left, as a whole, is engaging in suppression of speech either through law or Cancel Culture.
The fact that a tiny minority are SJW cucks does not matter in this context unless this minority is driving the narrative. As of now, nobody has presented evidence that they are.

why are you asking for such a narrow impact?

I don't think it's narrow. I'm just responding to the claims from the Right. According to some of them, the Left has taken away freedom of speech. According to others, the Left destroys the career of any celebrity that says controversial things. All I'm doing is asking for examples.

 

[Sirthinksalot]

He's not really a celebrity, but I do agree that white people can lose their careers over saying controversial racial things and it's total bullshit. What happened to Watson was terrible.
However, this isn't a left-wing thing. The entire establishment, Left and Right, is anti-white. And it's pretty much always been like this. It's not new, it's not a Millennial or a Zoomer thing. So while this is a problem, it's separate from the claims of a Totalitarian Left.

It's interesting. I can't think of a modern instance of a member of a minority group losing their career over anti white statements. As far as not being a celebrity, James Watson was a rock star in the world of science.

 

[Arks&sparka]

First of all, the groups financially supported by Chick-Fil-A don't want gay marriages to have any benefits. They don't want them recognized in any way.

Okay, so explain that they do this out of animosity toward homosexuals and not anything else. Just because people hold views that others don't like doesn't mean they hate the people that don't like them. Much of history and many countries don't recognize same sex couples as equal, I'm not sure that they are. I do think legally they should be treated equally.

Secondly, while civil unions are better than nothing, it's still discrimination. It's like saying, we'll acknowledge your union, but you have to sit at the kiddy table. Imagine how pissed Lutherans would be if the government decided that they could still have tax exempt status, but they can't call their buildings "churches," they have to call them "meeting spots." It would be treating this one group of people differently for no other reason than to be a dick.

That would go against the first amendment. Forbidding you from calling your house of worship something is controlling language and not analogous. Same sex couples could call their relationship marraige if they wished. The states just didn't recognize it as the same. They didn't say you couldn't call it a marraige.

To me the civil Union/ marraige debate seems more about semantics and lip service on either side. You have one side saying it would be exactly the same as marraige but we'll call it something else, and you have the other side saying they demand government recognition of the exact same terminology.

The only point at which I take a side is if one is promoted over the other. A rose by any other name...

Sure, in a free country, people can hurt themselves if they want. Conversion therapy should be legal for adults just like drugs should be legal for adults.
However, supporting this practice is still homophobic because it's saying homosexuality is wrong and it's better to be mentally tortured than live as a gay person.

Some people that are homosexual think that it's wrong. I would say that such people aren't homophobic per se. They have some form of internal turmoil where some gay people opt to embrace it others opt for faith healing. The latter isn't the option is choose but I like having the right to choose.

It's especially disgusting when people like Mike Pence support this for gay teens.

I'm against any form of faith healing or pseudo medicine of any kind being substituted for definitive medical and psychological treatment. That goes for any form of this not just ex gay therapy.

Homophobia is still homophobia even when it comes from gay people.

I think fear of yourself being gay is really the only true form of homophobia which is why it entered the lexicon as someone who dislikes gay people. Such people would think proximity to gay people might effect their sexual orientation. If a person thinks that they probably have latent gay tendencies.

I don't think it's homophobic not to want to be gay.

Out of curiosity are you gay? Did you have to come to terms with your sexuality being different than you might have expected?

Look at how many people are racist against their own race. The fact that Quentin Tarantino is white does not negate his anti-white racism.

I think he just does that because it's envogue at the moment.

 

[Arks&sparka]

This thread is about whether the Left, as a whole, is engaging in suppression of speech either through law or Cancel Culture.

And I've responded repeatedly that I don't think it's the left as a whole.

The fact that a tiny minority are SJW cucks does not matter in this context unless this minority is driving the narrative. As of now, nobody has presented evidence that they are.

I don't imagine anything ever does drive the narrative or zeitgeist as a whole. People aren't a collective mind.

I don't think it's narrow. I'm just responding to the claims from the Right.

It is I'm responding from a different perspective. These two scenarios you picked aren't the only two ways impact can be made.

According to some of them, the Left has taken away freedom of speech. According to others, the Left destroys the career of any celebrity that says controversial things. All I'm doing is asking for examples.

Good you should hold their feet to the fire in this. I can't list any celebrities that have lost their career over this but I can list celebrities who's career has been negativity impacted, and not celebrities who have lost things over it

 

[StoneByStone]

It's interesting. I can't think of a modern instance of a member of a minority group losing their career over anti white statements. As far as not being a celebrity, James Watson was a rock star in the world of science.

It's one of the reasons multiracialism doesn't work. But that's a whole different issue, not really a liberal or conservative thing.
He might have been considered a celebrity in his field, but he wasn't a celebrity in the sense that he wasn't in entertainment, most Americans didn't know who he was.

 

[StoneByStone]

And I've responded repeatedly that I don't think it's the left as a whole.
I don't imagine anything ever does drive the narrative or zeitgeist as a whole. People aren't a collective mind.

Sp then you agree with me that the "Totalitarian Left" is a myth.

It is I'm responding from a different perspective. These two scenarios you picked aren't the only two ways impact can be made.

Good you should hold their feet to the fire in this. I can't list any celebrities that have lost their career over this but I can list celebrities who's career has been negativity impacted, and not celebrities who have lost things over it

Sure, I never denied that social backlash is a thing. I just don't believe in the Right's assessment of it.

 

[StoneByStone]

Okay, so explain that they do this out of animosity toward homosexuals and not anything else.
Just because people hold views that others don't like doesn't mean they hate the people that don't like them.

What other reason could there possibly be? And more importantly, does it matter? If a person says women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that's sexist. Maybe they don't hate women, maybe they think women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it upsets the aliens, but it's still sexism.
It depends on what the beliefs are. If someone has beliefs that oppress gay people, then that's hateful. If someone opposes UBI because they think it would hurt the economy, then that's not hateful, it's just a difference of opinion. People should be able to respectfully disagree, but certain beliefs should be regarded as unacceptable and called out.

That would go against the first amendment. Forbidding you from calling your house of worship something is controlling language and not analogous. Same sex couples could call their relationship marraige if they wished. The states just didn't recognize it as the same. They didn't say you couldn't call it a marraige.

Not the point. The point is this policy would be unfair to one group of people for no logical reason. Lutherans would rightfully be mad.

Some people that are homosexual think that it's wrong. I would say that such people aren't homophobic per se. They have some form of internal turmoil where some gay people opt to embrace it others opt for faith healing. The latter isn't the option is choose but I like having the right to choose.
I'm against any form of faith healing or pseudo medicine of any kind being substituted for definitive medical and psychological treatment. That goes for any form of this not just ex gay therapy.

As I said, a person can hold hateful views against groups that they belong to. I know some gay people hold anti-gay views, it doesn't change the fact that these views are anti-gay.
Yes, people should have the right to choose. Faith healing should be legal for adults. However, it should be called out for being harmful to gay people, and people who believe in it should be called out for having anti-gay views. And that is homophobic or, at the very best, it promote a culture of homophobia.

I don't think it's homophobic not to want to be gay.

Me neither. But promoting the idea that homosexuality must be "fixed," even if it involved psychological torture, is homophobic. It expresses a hatred or fear that leads to real world opression.

Out of curiosity are you gay? Did you have to come to terms with your sexuality being different than you might have expected?

No, just a chick who thinks homophobia is a tool used by the 1% to divide society and keep us from doing more important things.

 

[Scut Farkus]

What other reason could there possibly be? And more importantly, does it matter? If a person says women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that's sexist. Maybe they don't hate women, maybe they think women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it upsets the aliens, but it's still sexism.
It depends on what the beliefs are. If someone has beliefs that oppress gay people, then that's hateful. If someone opposes UBI because they think it would hurt the economy, then that's not hateful, it's just a difference of opinion. People should be able to respectfully disagree, but certain beliefs should be regarded as unacceptable and called out.



Not the point. The point is this policy would be unfair to one group of people for no logical reason. Lutherans would rightfully be mad.



As I said, a person can hold hateful views against groups that they belong to. I know some gay people hold anti-gay views, it doesn't change the fact that these views are anti-gay.
Yes, people should have the right to choose. Faith healing should be legal for adults. However, it should be called out for being harmful to gay people, and people who believe in it should be called out for having anti-gay views. And that is homophobic or, at the very best, it promote a culture of homophobia.



Me neither. But promoting the idea that homosexuality must be "fixed," even if it involved psychological torture, is homophobic. It expresses a hatred or fear that leads to real world opression.



No, just a chick who thinks homophobia is a tool used by the 1% to divide society and keep us from doing more important things.

what if someone thinks children are best raised by having a parent of each gender, thus being balanced and exposed to masculine and feminine ways of knowing? is that hate?

 

[StoneByStone]

what if someone thinks children are best raised by having a parent of each gender, thus being balanced and exposed to masculine and feminine ways of knowing? is that hate?

While that is a sexist idea, I wouldn't call the people who have it sexist or homophobic.

However, that's not what the owners of Chick-Fil-A are saying. They're playing the religion card, which is really just an excuse to oppress gays.

 

[Scut Farkus]

While that is a sexist idea, I wouldn't call the people who have it sexist or homophobic.

However, that's not what the owners of Chick-Fil-A are saying. They're playing the religion card, which is really just an excuse to oppress gays.

what if someone thinks alcohism should be fixed? is that oppression?

 

[Arks&sparka]

Sp then you agree with me that the "Totalitarian Left" is a myth.

no. Social justice warriors is the me-too crap isn't a myth that really happened. That is the totalitarian left.

Sure, I never denied that social backlash is a thing. I just don't believe in the Right's assessment of it.

What do you perceive the rights assessment is?

 

[StoneByStone]

what if someone thinks alcohism should be fixed? is that oppression?

No, because alcoholism is actually a negative condition that could be fixed. This belief doesn't lead to oppression.

But when it comes to homophobia, it's also about the supposed reason. If someone honestly is ignorant of homosexuality and thinks it's harmful, then I can understand the argument that it's not homophobia. But when someone is using the religion card, they obviously just hate gays. Nobody follows their own religion, they pick which bullshit they want to believe in. So why are people like Pence choosing to believe in the anti-gay stuff? He ignores the part about shaving being a sin, why not ignore the homophobia?

Opposing gay marriage is homophobia, but the person behind the belief might just be ignorant. But when it comes to Chick-Fil-A, it's just a homophobe being stupid.

 

[StoneByStone]

What do you perceive the rights assessment is?

What I said in the OP. The Right thinks (or pretends to think) that the Left has eliminated freedom of speech through either law or Cancel Culture.

My view is that because SJW cucks are such a tiny minority, they have had little to no impact on the Left or freedom of speech.

 

[Arks&sparka]

What other reason could there possibly be? And more importantly, does it matter? If a person says women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that's sexist. Maybe they don't hate women, maybe they think women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it upsets the aliens, but it's still sexism.

I don't know that that's comfortable, nobody was denying gays any rights. remember you don't have the right to marry someone that's a privilege.

what else could it be? Maybe they want the country to adhere more to biblical prescriptions. I think it's naive to say that they want that because they hate gays. I don't think that's true anyway.

It depends on what the beliefs are. If someone has beliefs that oppress gay people, then that's hateful. If someone opposes UBI because they think it would hurt the economy, then that's not hateful, it's just a difference of opinion. People should be able to respectfully disagree, but certain beliefs should be regarded as unacceptable and called out.

how does someone believing that homosexuality is sinful oppress people?

Not the point. The point is this policy would be unfair to one group of people for no logical reason. Lutherans would rightfully be mad.

that still isn't analogous. You were talking about a wall that singled out a group of people. Not recognizing same-sex marriage did not.

As I said, a person can hold hateful views against groups that they belong to. I know some gay people hold anti-gay views, it doesn't change the fact that these views are anti-gay.

You will have to explain to me what anti-gay means. do they want to imprison all gay people do they want to exterminate all gay people? further you'll have to explain how people hold hateful views and how you know that.

if you're just saying anybody who disagrees with you and hates people that's a logical fallacy.

Yes, people should have the right to choose. Faith healing should be legal for adults. However, it should be called out for being harmful to gay people, and people who believe in it should be called out for having anti-gay views.

It is called out, constantly.

So everything is as it should be right?

And that is homophobic or, at the very best, it promote a culture of homophobia.

I'm not going to tell what's in the mind of other people because I disagree with something. I am a gay person and I at one time didn't want to be. I understand gay people wanting to go get converted. I think it's unhealthy and I think it's wrong of the gay people that offer the service because they're almost always gay, but I can't tell someone else what to do.

Me neither. But promoting the idea that homosexuality must be "fixed," even if it involved psychological torture, is homophobic. It expresses a hatred or fear that leads to real world opression.

I'm not so sure that it does. I think the idea that being gay is wrong came before conversion therapy. Again are you understand someone not wanting to be gay. It's not that easy of a thing to accept and I don't think it ever will be.

No, just a chick who thinks homophobia is a tool used by the 1% to divide society and keep us from doing more important things.

Well I'm a gay man and I've struggled with this and it's not because of other people it's because of biology. I can remember being a teenager and wishing I was normal. And you can say all day that I was but I wasn't and I knew that. Wasn't because of religion it wasn't because of my parents. It was because two men cannot make a baby.

I'm a real believer in the idea that it's not something that can be helped because if it was there wouldn't be a such thing as gay people.

 

[Arks&sparka]

What I said in the OP. The Right thinks (or pretends to think) that the Left has eliminated freedom of speech through either law or Cancel Culture.

I don't think that they do. I think your assessment of the right's assessment is every bit as nearsighted is you believe their assessment of the left is.

Disagreement on policy issues is probably one of the things that makes this country great. We don't live under an oppressive government, if the government isn't a faction unto itself. It's worked out that pretty much Republicans and Democrats alternate in much of the political office.

My view is that because SJW cucks are such a tiny minority, they have had little to no impact on the Left or freedom of speech.

I think that view is misguided. It is an appeal to majority which is a logical fallacy. Just because a group's numbers are low doesn't mean it's influence is tiny. She views have had a large impact on our culture.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I don't think that they do. I think your assessment of the right's assessment is every bit as nearsighted is you believe their assessment of the left is.

Disagreement on policy issues is probably one of the things that makes this country great. We don't live under an oppressive government, if the government isn't a faction unto itself. It's worked out that pretty much Republicans and Democrats alternate in much of the political office.

I think that view is misguided. It is an appeal to majority which is a logical fallacy. Just because a group's numbers are low doesn't mean it's influence is tiny. She views have had a large impact on our culture.

yes. quite right. social media platforms are upstaging legacy media. sjw power on these platforms has a magnified effect, consequently.

 

[Arks&sparka]

yes. quite right. social media platforms are upstaging legacy media. sjw power on these platforms has a magnified effect, consequently.

The interesting thing about that is these sjw type organizations are run by fantastically wealthy people

 

[Scut Farkus]

The interesting thing about that is these sjw type organizations are run by fantastically wealthy people

it's the main psyop, divide and conquer based on pettiness, to avoid the real divide, us v. them.