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

AssHatZombie said:
it is the intent of the sjws to commit full cancel. think of it that way if you must, or keep looking crazy and detached from reality.
Click to expand...

Ok, show me examples of celebrities who were fully cancelled.

My argument is that because the number of SJWs is so tiny, this doesn't actually happen.
 
StoneByStone said:
Ok, show me examples of celebrities who were fully cancelled.

My argument is that because the number of SJWs is so tiny, this doesn't actually happen.
Click to expand...

significant damage has been done to many careers, and the intent, as you yourself stated, is ostracism. we're gonna call it cancel culture. you can call it something else if you want. we're sticking with cancel culture. the alliteration makes it pop. we workshopped it.
 
Arks&sparka said:
A majority of the people aren't using it based on your arbitrary definition.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree here. But that is how I'm using it on this thread.


Beliefs like the idea that a particular race is inferior, or that it's okay to murder certain people sure. The idea that same sex couple's marraige shouldn't be recognized by the state? That isn't the kind if view that you should be ostracised for. I don't believe the state sould recognize any marraige
And they universally are.
Click to expand...

I'd say that any policy that makes people second-class citizens based on gender or sexual orientation should be regarded as disgusting. I would also withdraw support for a Feminist who thinks men shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So if he did he should be cancelled? Because people you disagree with should be ostracised?
Click to expand...

Again, it's not people I disagree with. It's people who believe that certain groups should be second-class citizens based on gender or orientation.
Saying it's anyone I disagree with is #strawmanning.
 
AssHatZombie said:
bolded portion is the heart of cancel culture. you really are just playing word games.
Click to expand...

And yet we still can't find a single celebrity who has been cancelled.

By the way, I don't think you're being sincere here. Society has always ostracized people for certain views and that's a good thing. Certain ideas are not up for debate in the public sphere. I don't want to hear a debate by politicians over whether we should legalize child slavery. I want that to remain out of the question.
What I think is stupid is cancelling people for making jokes, which is the actual heart of Cancel Culture. Which, again, doesn't actually happen.
 
AssHatZombie said:
significant damage has been done to many careers, and the intent, as you yourself stated, is ostracism. we're gonna call it cancel culture. you can call it something else if you want. we're sticking with cancel culture. the alliteration makes it pop. we workshopped it.
Click to expand...

Alright then, which careers have suffered significant damage? I'll let you move the goalposts here.

Can you name at least five celebrities whose careers were significantly damaged?
Since you moved the goalposts, I'm going to also. I actually do agree that people are way too sensitive when it comes to race. So name some celebrities that were hurt by things they said that didn't have anything to do with race.
 
StoneByStone said:
Alright then, which careers have suffered significant damage? I'll let you move the goalposts here.

Can you name at least five celebrities whose careers were significantly damaged?
Since you moved the goalposts, I'm going to also. I actually do agree that people are way too sensitive when it comes to race. So name some celebrities that were hurt by things they said that didn't have anything to do with race.
Click to expand...

fully cancelled for nothing to do with race culture is not what we're discussing.
 
StoneByStone said:
We'll have to disagree here. But that is how I'm using it on this thread.
Click to expand...
Semantics being what they are, call it whatever you wish. Do you deny that people are being targeted for holding views that others don't like?



I'd say that any policy that makes people second-class citizens based on gender or sexual orientation should be regarded as disgusting.
Click to expand...
laws that would exist that would make homosexuals second-class citizens are laws like Jim Crow laws against gay people. I'm not aware of any law like this ever existing. You have never presented a law like this.

So outside of Saudi Arabia what are you talkin about?

Give me an example of a law did exist today or at least within the past 10 years that makes anybody a second-class citizen.

Why can't you list any laws? Is it because they don't exist?
I would also withdraw support for a Feminist who thinks men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...
You should never have supported that in the first place. What on Earth have you ever thought of that would make you think men should be treated as second-class citizens? And in what states are they proposing laws forbidding gay and trans people from voting?


Again, it's not people I disagree with.
Click to expand...
you need to reevaluate your views because that's exactly what it is. people who disagree with you about the existence of God but they're just stupid crazy liars you might as well just call them poopoo heads. That's profoundly childish. You only hold that view because you disagree with them.

It's people who believe that certain groups should be second-class citizens based on gender or orientation.
Saying it's anyone I disagree with is #strawmanning.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of anybody like that except for maybe the ku Klux Klan. Or various other cults.

you're saying it's people who are religious it's people who disagree with you about whether or not same-sex couples should have a state-recognized marriage.

It is not a straw man I am not misrepresenting your argument in any way. is your opinion of people who disagree with you is that they should be ostracised or that they're stupid crazy liars you have said those things. I didn't put those words in your mouth.
 
StoneByStone said:
Alright then, which careers have suffered significant damage? I'll let you move the goalposts here.

Can you name at least five celebrities whose careers were significantly damaged?
Since you moved the goalposts, I'm going to also. I actually do agree that people are way too sensitive when it comes to race. So name some celebrities that were hurt by things they said that didn't have anything to do with race.
Click to expand...

You're leaving yourself open to another logical fallacy. Who gets to decide what damage is?
 
Arks&sparka said:
Semantics being what they are, call it whatever you wish. Do you deny that people are being targeted for holding views that others don't like?



laws that would exist that would make homosexuals second-class citizens are laws like Jim Crow laws against gay people. I'm not aware of any law like this ever existing. You have never presented a law like this.

So outside of Saudi Arabia what are you talkin about?

Give me an example of a law did exist today or at least within the past 10 years that makes anybody a second-class citizen.

Why can't you list any laws? Is it because they don't exist?

You should never have supported that in the first place. What on Earth have you ever thought of that would make you think men should be treated as second-class citizens? And in what states are they proposing laws forbidding gay and trans people from voting?


you need to reevaluate your views because that's exactly what it is. people who disagree with you about the existence of God but they're just stupid crazy liars you might as well just call them poopoo heads. That's profoundly childish. You only hold that view because you disagree with them.


I'm not aware of anybody like that except for maybe the ku Klux Klan. Or various other cults.

you're saying it's people who are religious it's people who disagree with you about whether or not same-sex couples should have a state-recognized marriage.

It is not a straw man I am not misrepresenting your argument in any way. is your opinion of people who disagree with you is that they should be ostracised or that they're stupid crazy liars you have said those things. I didn't put those words in your mouth.
Click to expand...

Hitler put Gays in camps, and Stain criminalized Gays......
 
Arks&sparka said:
You're leaving yourself open to another logical fallacy. Who gets to decide what damage is?
Click to expand...

Ask AssHatZombie. I assume he means that it was harder for a celebrity to get work.
Not sure where the fallacy comes in. And you were mistaken before when you said I committed a fallacy, because you were #strawmanning.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
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
Click to expand...

James Watson was correct, however.

PISA scores aren't controversial, while IQ scores are slightly controversial.

The bottom-line is that PISA scores show sweeping disparities.

For example, arguments Leftists use about colonialism & oppression causing for low PISA & IQ scores.

Can easily be refuted using countries like oh say Estonia, the #1 PISA scores in Europe to date.

Estonia was colonized & oppressed for about 1,000 years.

Africa was colonized for about 100 years.

No comparison./
 
Arks&sparka said:
Semantics being what they are, call it whatever you wish. Do you deny that people are being targeted for holding views that others don't like?
Click to expand...

Yes, as they should be. What I'm saying is that this has always been a thing, that it should be a thing, and that it's only for extreme views. People aren't targeted for disagreeing about the minimum wage. People are targeted for thinking rape or slavery is acceptable.


laws that would exist that would make homosexuals second-class citizens are laws like Jim Crow laws against gay people. I'm not aware of any law like this ever existing. You have never presented a law like this.
Click to expand...

Yes I have. I said that in several states it was illegal to engage in any kind of homosexual relations.

you're saying it's people who are religious it's people who disagree with you about whether or not same-sex couples should have a state-recognized marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, to me that makes gays into second-class citizens and should not be considered an acceptable view to have. But I'm sure you're going to lie again and say it's just that these people disagree with me.

It is not a straw man I am not misrepresenting your argument in any way. is your opinion of people who disagree with you is that they should be ostracised or that they're stupid crazy liars you have said those things. I didn't put those words in your mouth.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're saying that they should be ostracized for disagreeing with me. I'm tired of correcting you on this over and over. You can fuck off now. :cool:
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, as they should be. What I'm saying is that this has always been a thing, that it should be a thing, and that it's only for extreme views. People aren't targeted for disagreeing about the minimum wage. People are targeted for thinking rape or slavery is acceptable.




Yes I have. I said that in several states it was illegal to engage in any kind of homosexual relations.



Yes, to me that makes gays into second-class citizens and should not be considered an acceptable view to have. But I'm sure you're going to lie again and say it's just that these people disagree with me.



Once again, you're saying that they should be ostracized for disagreeing with me. I'm tired of correcting you on this over and over. You can fuck off now. :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm not too crazy about Gays.

But, at least they don't take over entire societies, dumb down entire societies, caused Balkanized conflict, war & chaos like Balkanized Multiculturalism tends to do.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
James Watson was correct, however.

PISA scores aren't controversial, while IQ scores are slightly controversial.

The bottom-line is that PISA scores show sweeping disparities.

For example, arguments Leftists use about colonialism & oppression causing for low PISA & IQ scores.

Can easily be refuted using countries like oh say Estonia, the #1 PISA scores in Europe to date.

Estonia was colonized & oppressed for about 1,000 years.

Africa was colonized for about 100 years.

No comparison./
Click to expand...

And colonization actually helped Africa. The African countries that were colonized longer are doing better, though all of the Sub-Sahara is pretty much a giant shithole.

The establishment is very anti-white, no question. But that's the entire establishment, both Left and Right.
 
StoneByStone said:
Ask AssHatZombie. I assume he means that it was harder for a celebrity to get work.
Not sure where the fallacy comes in. And you were mistaken before when you said I committed a fallacy, because you were #strawmanning.
Click to expand...
you can accuse me of committing a fallacy all you want but if you can't quantify it your accusation means nothing.

I don't accuse someone of committing a fallacy unless I can articulate it.

Someone has told you already before how celebrities careers have been damaged you arbitrarily decided but that damage wasn't damaged because they still had a career afterwards. That's moving the goalposts.

You started out asking for a very narrow example for a very specific thing that you already know hasn't happened. That is called cherry picking and I've been in arguments with religious people and they do the exact same thing.

Notice how I explained what the fellas he was and how you committed it. I can do that because I understand what a fallacy is and I don't just randomly accuse you of it. I don't even treat it like it's an argument to point out a fallacy. I asked you to clear it up then you'd simply insist that it's not a fallacy even though it is.

You can argue with me that it's not a fallacy. To cherry pick. but just because you insist that is not doesn't mean that it's not. And your unwillingness or inability I don't know which to clear up your fallacious logic leaves you with lower credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top