Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    SG Player
    CIU's Avatar
    Join Date:
    July 2019
    Part 2

    Part 1 is at the bottom of page 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntenseFajita View Post
    The El Paso shooter did not need to be directly bullied for his political views, he may have witnessed it among the streets where conservatives were violently attacked by Antifa, for example. He knew that if he expressed his ideas, he would be bullied. Beyond his politics, he and many other mass murders were either physically or mentally bullied by peers, which could have instilled prejudice depending on who did the bullying.
    I actually attended the same college as the El Paso shooter (Collin County Community) to take dual credit classes and better yet when I attended I was an avid follower of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Steven Crowder as were many of my friends. Not once were my friends or I threatened or worried about being attacked for our views, this includes highschool. I was very open about my political biases, and I was not bullied and was able to have constructive conversations with the liberals on my campus. Now, of course, my experience is not indicative of everyone in this area. And one more thing was there were reports of white-supremacist groups handing out pamphlets I never experienced that but I do remember fliers asking Muslims, Indians, Blacks, and Jews to go back to where they came from. My point being his environment from what I have read and personally seen was one where radicalization was not snuffed out and not adequately addressed and dealt with, rather than him becoming radicalized out of fear of censorship and political bullying.

    When it comes to physical bullying and mental bullying, that is unacceptable and shouldn't be allowed, but shutting down and not platforming ideas which seek to "bully" other people with violence and other means and to then to turn around and call that "bullying" is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntenseFajita View Post
    You just proved my point. They are not going to get psychological help. They didn't need it until the mainstream media condemned their moderate views, and they lost their voice. Again, it's a transition, not instant.

    You think you're helping by preventing harmful ideologies from having a platform. Sometimes, the counter-intuitive solution is the best solution.

    The more the extremists talk, and the more we point out their flaws - then it's less likely that people will be extremists. If we can talk them down from their point-of-view, then they can swing to a more moderate stance. If they are completely silenced, then the rage builds up, and they are free to explode. How can you refute that? That's like, high school psychology.

    Once again, what mainstream media is condemning discussing and not just disagreeing with moderate views? This the real straw man and why some of this post reads like a victim complex.

    We are helping by preventing the endorsement and perpetuation of harmful ideologies we are stopping indoctrination into radical ideologies.

    Extremists are faced continuously with flaws of their ideologies, and they are pointed out to them in almost every instance in school we are even taught doctrines like Communism and Fascism are wrong and seek to point out the flaws. Every day they are shown their ideologies are wrong, but they choose to only listen to the ones that tell them they are right. Allowing the platforming of the people who promote this rhetoric only seeks to bring people into their ranks and almost never serves to draw them away. The rage and motivation are already built up by their foundational beliefs in a hateful right-wing ideology which motivates and seeks to inflict violence. Letting them endorse and promote this only allows them to infect more people with this virus and violent tendencies. We must have taken different psychology classes.

    In summary, this post reads like you did not comprehend or even read parts of my original post or you are choosing to misrepresent what I stated and create straw man arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntenseFajita View Post
    Thanks for having me.
    Thank you for having a rational discussion about this issue. I know I might not be a common voice in this community most likely being one of the few leftist on here, but it is nice to know I can still have structured conversation with someone and not be called an "Antifa Fascist." I applaud your civility in this discussion, and I hope my post comes across as attacking your points and not you as an individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntenseFajita View Post
    Let's not do these "paragraph-by-paragraph" things next time lol. I hit the character limit. A lot I couldn't say in one post.
    I do this specifically so we each better ascertain what points and specific language we are disagreeing with so it is easier to communicate and structure our arguments.


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CIU For This Useful Post:
    BoM (08-10-2019), IntenseFajita (08-10-2019), roux (08-10-2019)

  3. #22
    Dazed and Confused
    delirium's Avatar
    Join Date:
    March 2009
    Collin county is red as fuck. That's where all the money in DFW is right now with Frisco and Plano. Maybe not among the youth but overall I'd say it's likely the dude never got bullied once for his political views unless they were dumb as fuck.

    This isn't a gun control issue it's a mental health issue.every individual is responsible for keeping up their end of our social contract where basic things like gunning down 20 people in an outing are generally not acceptable. It's ridiculous that guns are now the big boogyman again and again when normal people don't do this shit. Until this nation invests in its own people instead of drone striking hadjis and furthering the anti American sentiment among nation's which makes it much harder to just go completely isolationist and do things that will benefit us all and return the American dream to all.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:
    bat (08-11-2019), CIU (08-10-2019), Davie (08-10-2019), Infinityward (08-11-2019), IntenseFajita (08-10-2019), Korean Ninja (08-10-2019)

  5. #23
    In tents Fayeeta
    IntenseFajita's Avatar
    Join Date:
    August 2009
    New Jersey
    Alright, I guess paragraph-by-paragraph is fine. Just takes a long ass time to address eeeeeverything lol.

    And yeah, my bad, I totally forgot about your original first post. We'll start off here:

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    Assuming these "leaders" that these individuals are looking up to are preaching radical ideology are banned for that reason. These people are likely to have been already radicalized before the censorship of their "leaders." The solution should have been not to give these radical leaders a platform to promote and endorse their violent ideologies in the first place. If this was the case, these people would never have been exposed to these individuals in the first place and may have never even become radicalized.
    We must also have a discussion on what is radical in the first place, because moderate ideas have been claimed to be radical. When we use terminology such as "racist" or "white supremacist" - we imply a radical ideology. A real racist has an actual hatred and prejudice for one's skin color. Can we agree this is a radical? These terms have been given to moderate conservatives day-in and day-out, simply because they want legal immigration or voter IDs, for example.

    Moderate conservatives "leaders" are being banned and censored, and that is pushing moderates to extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    In the study of implicit media bias, I gave you it literally describes the perceived and actual liberal bias of these networks which it does conclude all networks have a bias I will link the study again for you. So yes I have already acknowledged this.

    So now then you agree with my point that the average viewership of news media is not in favor of the "Liberal media"?

    The impact of all those factors tend to be very minor at most and the viewership demographics total still tend to be near fifty fifty as you previously stated. With the statistics, I gave you being the most accurate measurement that is available to us.
    Alright, yeah, I see your point. Perhaps I feel there is implicit liberal media bias because all I see on Facebook are friends sharing sources from Vox, Mic, BuzzFeed, CNN, etc. Maybe I just have way more liberal friends than conservative. Maybe I have a lot of conservative friends, but they do not want to deal with the onslaught of liberals attacking them for sharing something that's conservative, so they don't post.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    The video I linked is an excellent example of this. Local news channels do not share the biases as their parent companies watch the video I linked and understand be it Fox or ABC they are still reading scripts handed to them by a conservative broadcasting group. (Here it is again for you in case you didn't watch it the first time.)
    I watched the video, and I've seen it before. I wanted to comment on it, but had to cut the comment to save on characters in my post. I still would like to know why the broadcasting group is conservative. Is it because their executives are conservative or something? Please, elaborate on this, because I am not aware of their conservative influence on local news.

    All the video shows is a collective of liberal and (one) conservative networks saying the same script. Could the argument not go the other way, and that Fox has been given a liberal agenda to broadcast alongside liberal stations?

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    My point wasn't that Richard Spencer and Nicholas J. Fuentes should be banned. My point was that Twitter still provides even far-right conservatives a platform and that it dispels the narrative that conservatives even extremely right-wing conservatives that do not advocate for violence and have small to large followings are still allowed on the platform. As for Reza Aslan who before now I was not familiar with, I think you can take his posts and argue that he is more so encouraging eradication of the ideology from the United States instead of violently eradicating the individuals but even then that is far stretch and I would completely understand if he was banned from Twitter.
    Like I said, Twitter has to be more nuanced than to outright ban them. Richard Spencer has a pretty tame Twitter feed, and has lately even been denouncing Trump and the right. He even supports Tulsi Gabbard, a Samoan and Hindu democrat. Even though he seems to be the figurehead of white supremacy in 2019, he kinda sucks at being an ultra white supremacist.

    I'm sorry, I cannot look at Reza Aslan's tweets and formulate them as "eradicating ideology." You can see how much he hates the right, and he sees ALL Trump supporters as racists. So, therefore, he thinks they are ALL extremists and radicals. He is calling for violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    I understand that, but I think we can both agree that questioning whether or not the holocaust happened tends to be directly tied to extremist right-wing ideologies and generally is an argument made in bad faith using false statistics and facts.
    It is tied to right-wing ideology, yes. Still shouldn't be censored just because he disagrees with history he did not observe. He probably sees it as "history that was written by the victor." It's a rather harmless conspiracy theory, no matter how many graves it steps on. At least he's not calling for the eradication of people who think the Holocaust happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    I am not saying we should we pretend these ideologies don't exist we should actively acknowledge these ideologies exist and that they are intrinsically flawed. From there, we should portray them in this light instead of allowing people to misrepresent these ideologies and encourage new followers to join them as they portray these right-wing ideologies in a positive light which targets unwell people.
    We can't point out that they are intrinsically flawed if we do not know their latest motives and ideas. Think about it like your Miranda Rights. You have a right to be silent, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. So, let them talk themselves into trouble. Let us deal justice on their logic with our logic. Rehabilitate, not punish. This is something we've been preaching for in the actual justice system. Why doesn't it apply to ideology?

    Think about this, radicals aren't going to wake up one day and be like "Maybe I should go see somebody about my crazy ideas." At least if they are publicly showing that they are radicals, we can monitor them and get them help. We don't know who is becoming a radical behind closed doors (i.e. censorship).

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    First, that is not how that read, and I know I am not the only one to "Misinterpret" it. Second, I never said we should suppress moderate viewpoints, and generally everyone I believe agrees that to suppress moderate positions directly contributes to radicalization. The points we were arguing was that it is a false narrative that moderate conservatives are being consistently targeted for no reason and second that there are places of discussion of conservative ideas and logic that exist outside of just social media and it is crazy to assume the logical step is to go from twitter to /pol/.
    Moderate conservatives are being consistently targeted for their beliefs, not for no reason. They were called the "Silent Majority" for a reason. Trump didn't get elected in a vacuum. All throughout the election cycle, I saw NO posts that supported him. I did see AMPLE posts denouncing him. Yet, he was still elected. Everyone was so hyped for Hillary Clinton to win, even the polls showed that. Everyone thought it would be a landslide, and that conservatives were such a small minority.

    To this day, I STILL cannot post on Facebook without a war erupting on my own feed, calling me a racist and this-and-that. So where can I go that is not /pol/? What outlet do I have where I can have constructive arguments, not shit-flinging fests? At least /pol/ is anonymous, and the arguments don't lead to screenshots being sent to my employer to get me fired. At least there, both political sides can anonymously argue, and when shit starts to fling - you just ignore them and move on because you'll never have to engage with them again. (Unlike friends/family on Facebook, who you may still have to interact with)

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    You are once again, either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I stated. I never state that the sole purpose of /pol/ is Nazism or Fascism. I state that it is apart of /pol/ and is reflected by it in some posts.
    I worded that incorrectly. I wasn't really trying to imply you think /pol/ is solely about Nazism, and you literally stated that you don't believe it is. I couldn't comment much about /pol/ due to the character limit. I tend to jump around while making these replies. Gentoo addressed most of what I felt about /pol/.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    It is not our fault that you failed to articulate better your post. As stated above, I do not believe I am the only one misunderstand what point you were trying to prove. This paragraph consists of me trying to decipher the implication of your paragraph.
    It is possible that someone else could have construed those two sentences in the same manner you did. Nobody else has commented on it, so you do not know that for a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    Then don't start your sentence lying to your reader about your implicit bias.
    The whole point of my argument is that SOMEBODY is censoring. If the shoe fits, then wear it. Unfortunately, the left-wing mainstream media and social media has the perfect shoe size.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    With Alex Jones, the first suspension he went on Periscope and told his supporters to get their "battle rifles" ready against Antifa, the mainstream media, and "Chicom operative" and further stating "It's time to act before the media carries out a false flag." What he received was a slap on the wrist compared to what he deserved and eventually received for violating numerous rules on twitter multiple times.
    Yeah, he's quite a memer. Nobody actually takes him serious, though. That's literally his character, a hyperactive wingnut. If anyone actually thought his rhetoric is actual incitement of violence, then they are prudes that can't understand his character. Off-camera (off his show), he's a relatively calm person in the videos I've seen. We still haven't been given a reason as to what made them pull the trigger on his account.

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    So are you some kind of holier than thou person who is immune to the influence of media, unlike us plebeians? No offense but this reads as actual "Virtue signaling." I agree that people tend to be influenced by the media. But you are responding to me asking what you define as "Winning the culture war" and earlier in this post you conceded when you adjust for network news media in the United States conservative and liberal media viewership is split down the middle granted you did try to spin this a bit. But are you backpedaling on implying the left is winning this pseudo-culture war or are you admitting you were mistaken?
    No, I'm not immune to media influence. I also don't really watch TV news media like Fox anyway. The reason I believe what I believe is because I can see through fear-mongering, pandering, and obvious elitist influences. I don't trust Republicans anymore than I trust Democrats. My media influences do not have entire corporations to back them up. They are low-key people who collate data and present it as cleanly as they can.

    They are not telling me how to think. They are not proclaiming to eradicate my political opposition. They aren't calling people names, and giving them titles that would deem them radicals (i.e. racist, homophobe, etc.) unless it is truly deserved. They aren't hiding truths, and when they are wrong - they come out and say it. They don't appease anyone but themselves, and owe no capital to a higher executive.

    Most things I believe don't even need to be said by influences, and I just decided them on my own. The influences just elaborate on things I already agree with.

    It is not a pseudo-culture war. It is real. The left is winning it because, as I've said before, moderate conservatives STILL have no real outlets where they can speak their own mind, and not somebody else's mind. I can't even talk about this shit with my own Filipina girlfriend without her calling me "racist," "Whitey," "transphobe," or "white male" and other names. Yet I wouldn't dare call her anything beyond a "liberal."

    Quote Originally Posted by CIU View Post
    As I explained earlier if the implicit bias against moderate conservatives does not exist, then what is being censored is extremist thought. Thus if you are arguing that censorship of right-wing ideology is "virtue signaling" and what is being censored is radical thought then yes you are saying "virtue signaling" is the censorship of extremist and violent ideologies.
    As I explained above, there is an implicit bias against moderate conservatives. The second I bring up illegal immigration, gun control, and basically anything that has been decreed by the mainstream media as "right-wing", liberals come out of the woodwork, and fling shit at me. It's a breath of fresh air that you are not doing the same, and it is much appreciated.

    I'll get to your part 2 at another time.

  6. #24
    Up In Smoke
    bl4ze's Avatar
    Join Date:
    March 2018
    I think gun control definitely needs to be set in America more. The CEO of RockStarGames said “blaming video games for real-world violence is no more productive than blaming other forms of media for the content they depict…other societies, where video games are played as avidly, do not contend with the tragic levels of violence that occur in the U.S.” He called President Trump out saying that gun inst related to video games, video games are released around the world but gun violence is uniquely in America. I think they need to crack down on buying and selling fire arms, especially full automatics.

  7. #25
    Scuffed's Avatar
    Join Date:
    March 2019
    North Carolina
    As for gun control I think it would be pointless to outlaw all or even some of the guns that are currently legal now as of many people have said how are they gonna get them all out of citizens hands its nearly impossible and for Blaming "Video games" for the shootings that have happened is ridiculous it's the same as blaming instagram or snapchat for it the shootings happen because people don't know what to do because of bullying or just awful mental health problems i think america in general should try more to reach out to these individuals who are hurt and have no where else to go so they end up resulting to violence/shootings i also think the news has something to do with this as anytime in america you go on the news they almost are always talking about something that happened which was violent or tragic and this can discourage people which is not helping the problem but only making it worse my point is video games are not to blame there are other factors that causes acts of violence

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts