Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[KillerGoose]

(05-23-2024, 01:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You don't get it, if the left won't respect someone else's opinions, then wtf should anyone else respect the Left's? Calling for his Job is past the line of being respectful. It's cancel style behavior and completely unacceptable.


And with that, it got me thinking, just how many on here have called for someone else to be banned because we have a different opinions. 

I do agree with the idea that you don't have to respect someone else's opinions. I respect the right for someone to share their opinions, but there are plenty of opinions that I do not respect and some that I outright condemn. I caught part of a debate earlier in the week and it was a philosophical debate on morality. One of the participants was an atheist and the other was Christian. The Christian participant believed that God was the ultimate morality and subscribed to the idea that the Bible was an outline of this moral code. Thus, he held a very fringe belief that slavery, among other things, was not immoral.

This is an edge case, of course, and I have never heard anyone else with this line of thinking. Hell, it may have been a a scripted video so who knows. The point is that there are plenty of opinions not worthy of respect and I am sure you can think of several yourself. The ability to share an opinion and not be persecuted by the government, though, is something worth believing in IMO. 

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not an American leftist (I know your left is father left than ours, but bear with me).  The left here loves to claim that "silence is violence" or "silence is complicity".  So, no, they don't get that "isn't it obvious" get out of jail free card.  If someone says something like that it should be condemned.  You've had to point out how many times that I've condemned 01/06 and other Trump statements?  So, for some, even actually condemning it isn't enough.

Well sure, that's where my argumentation runs into foreseeable problems because I can't quite paint the leftist spectrum as an example of ideal consistency. I can for example not deny that many shy away from going after people they perceive to be on their side. That didn't start with campus chants, a way more massive example to me is how they treated the BLM protests, and then some. Yeah, sure, I have no defense or clever retort to that in principle.

As for the example at hand, at some point there just has to be some kind of denouncement boundary dependant on relevance. There always is someone shouting something worth of condemnation. And I don't know if these death to america chants are so widespread that they even deserve much attention to begin with. Actually, I did not even find a reliable source that convinced me that it happens at all (I mean, it probably does, but still), much less on a large scale. And when stupid Timmy Connors shouts something with his moron buddies or writes something in a college pamphlet it does not take the whole nation to condemn it before turning to anything else, or else every debate becomes an event requiring hour-long condemnations before even starting. I for one have no reason to believe that some of your special frenemies like Dill or Dino think Death to America chants are a-ok, and by the way I also do not know if they support an universal silence is violence stance you mentioned which would be grounds to confront them in the first place.

All that if course not to say that you were not treated quite unfairly time and again on this board. But I don't think that is too closely related to Butker or Palestine.

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said, today's outlandish can quickly become today's norm.  Look at the groundswell of pro Bin Laden support among young people that happened recently.  It was quickly challenged and then largely dissipated.  If it had been ignored because it's obviously "outlandish" then who knows what could have grown from it?  You challenge Trump often, and rightfully so.  Would you not say many of his claims are outlandish or extreme.  I realize that he's a former, and possibly future POTUS, so his words are far more powerful, but do you think if he had been challenged much earlier by the media, instead of treated like a ratings boon, that he may not have won in 2016?

That is a good question and I don't really know. No doubt media support and his constant presence was instrumental in Trump winning and I sure would have wished that stations like FOX would have challenged him more, I also would have wished that the more leftist media would not have villified every tiny thing he did, and overall less costless screen time would have been preferrable too. Quite often I'm afraid it's just the additional attention that makes things (or people) viable that would disappear otherwise, even if said attention is negative. There might be issues that are better left alone and bound to die away in obscurity. Shining the spotlight on certain chants and demanding this spotlight to keep shining on non-mainstream extremes might not have the effect you desire and Trump might be a good example for that. How much relevance did any pro palestine protest gather by FOX being outraged about it and would they even be relevant if that weren't so? As I said, I don't really know.

(05-23-2024, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just can't accept a standard that says the most extreme speech can go unchallenged while simultaneously saying Butker's speech "hits closer to home" and needs to be called out.  Again, if you're being consistent.  As I said earlier, I accept that social media changes the landscape that I grew up in, and amplifies voices that would otherwise go unheard.  But I'm also not the one displaying an inconsistent set of values on this subject.

Ok, so in case I have not yet explicitely stated it, I do condemn Death to America chants and antisemitism. Would a statement like that put anyone in the clear to debate Butker?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-23-2024, 02:13 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I do agree with the idea that you don't have to respect someone else's opinions. I respect the right for someone to share their opinions, but there are plenty of opinions that I do not respect and some that I outright condemn. I caught part of a debate earlier in the week and it was a philosophical debate on morality. One of the participants was an atheist and the other was Christian. The Christian participant believed that God was the ultimate morality and subscribed to the idea that the Bible was an outline of this moral code. Thus, he held a very fringe belief that slavery, among other things, was not immoral.

This is an edge case, of course, and I have never heard anyone else with this line of thinking. Hell, it may have been a a scripted video so who knows. The point is that there are plenty of opinions not worthy of respect and I am sure you can think of several yourself. The ability to share an opinion and not be persecuted by the government, though, is something worth believing in IMO. 

Did you call for the Christian to lose his job?


And apparently someone has lost their job, but not who you think.

Kansas City, Mizzou Social Media Manager for the City was fired or resigned (not sure which yet) for posting Harrison's Home address online just 4 days after his speech.

[KillerGoose]

(05-23-2024, 03:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did you call for the Christian to lose his job?


And apparently someone has lost their job, but not who you think.

Kansas City, Mizzou Social Media Manager for the City was fired or resigned (not sure which yet) for posting Harrison's Home address online just 4 days after his speech.

No, but that's just not something I do very often, or ever. I can't recall a time where I reacted with "that person should lose their job". On the flip side, I am not going to be upset for someone losing their job by sharing a particularly controversial opinion. Private companies hold the power to fire you for nearly any reason they want and espousing your controversial opinions in today's age can be a very dangerous move that you need to calculate. If news were to come out saying that the Christian man was fired for believing that slavery is not immoral, I am not going to be up in arms defending him. To continue further, if someone on the left shared a highly controversial opinion and lost their job for it, I am also not going to be up in arms over it. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-23-2024, 04:21 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: No, but that's just not something I do very often, or ever. I can't recall a time where I reacted with "that person should lose their job". On the flip side, I am not going to be upset for someone losing their job by sharing a particularly controversial opinion. Private companies hold the power to fire you for nearly any reason they want and espousing your controversial opinions in today's age can be a very dangerous move that you need to calculate. If news were to come out saying that the Christian man was fired for believing that slavery is not immoral, I am not going to be up in arms defending him. To continue further, if someone on the left shared a highly controversial opinion and lost their job for it, I am also not going to be up in arms over it. 

Pretty much the same here, 
I think i'm not being overly clear about respecting opinions.

Respect the right that everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether it's wrong or right, doesn't matter, don't take those opinions personally. There is Billions of opinions on this planet, impossible to please everyone. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well sure, that's where my argumentation runs into foreseeable problems because I can't quite paint the leftist spectrum as an example of ideal consistency. I can for example not deny that many shy away from going after people they perceive to be on their side. That didn't start with campus chants, a way more massive example to me is how they treated the BLM protests, and then some. Yeah, sure, I have no defense or clever retort to that in principle.

As for the example at hand, at some point there just has to be some kind of denouncement boundary dependant on relevance. There always is someone shouting something worth of condemnation. And I don't know if these death to america chants are so widespread that they even deserve much attention to begin with. Actually, I did not even find a reliable source that convinced me that it happens at all (I mean, it probably does, but still), much less on a large scale. And when stupid Timmy Connors shouts something with his moron buddies or writes something in a college pamphlet it does not take the whole nation to condemn it before turning to anything else, or else every debate becomes an event requiring hour-long condemnations before even starting. I for one have no reason to believe that some of your special frenemies like Dill or Dino think Death to America chants are a-ok, and by the way I also do not know if they support an universal silence is violence stance you mentioned which would be grounds to confront them in the first place.

All that if course not to say that you were not treated quite unfairly time and again on this board. But I don't think that is too closely related to Butker or Palestine.

Video evidence exists of it occurring several times.  it's been posted here.  I don't disagree that it's not extremely widespread, but it doesn't have to be for the purposes of my point.  Consistency is my key concern in these types of things.  Selective outrage does not impress me.

Quote:That is a good question and I don't really know. No doubt media support and his constant presence was instrumental in Trump winning and I sure would have wished that stations like FOX would have challenged him more, I also would have wished that the more leftist media would not have villified every tiny thing he did, and overall less costless screen time would have been preferrable too. Quite often I'm afraid it's just the additional attention that makes things (or people) viable that would disappear otherwise, even if said attention is negative. There might be issues that are better left alone and bound to die away in obscurity. Shining the spotlight on certain chants and demanding this spotlight to keep shining on non-mainstream extremes might not have the effect you desire and Trump might be a good example for that. How much relevance did any pro palestine protest gather by FOX being outraged about it and would they even be relevant if that weren't so? As I said, I don't really know.

I don't think constant attention is necessary.  A simple condemnation and then move on.  Unfortunately there are members of Congress who refuse to do even that.

Quote:Ok, so in case I have not yet explicitely stated it, I do condemn Death to America chants and antisemitism. Would a statement like that put anyone in the clear to debate Butker?

You don't really engage in these types of culture war issues.  Your positions are also very consistent.  So I wouldn't need someone like yourself to do so, as you've demonstrated consistent fairness in this regard.  Anyone is in the clear to debate him regardless.  But failure to be consistent is going to taint your position if you haven't also at least equally condemned rhetoric from the other side that crosses the line.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Video evidence exists of it occurring several times.  it's been posted here.

Yeah I implicitly admitted that my search was not very thorough, I soon just assumed that you didn't make it up and it is happening. Just, the fact that I could not find anything on a quick glance kind of also made me assume it's not that big of a culture phenomena to be all that important. And that's just my point, that people just might be more troubled, more personally affected about what Butker said versus what some palestina-supporting students shout. I mean, who are you, or I for that matter, to set their priorities straight for them, it seems a bit presumptuous. When ilhan Omar starts shouting Death to America, then yeah, I agree it's an issue that demands a clear and immediate condemnation. But for something still as fringe as that, that is obviously just stupid? And even if you say "isn't it obvious" doesn't count, it still just is and it counts for most people. Btw. I admit congresspeople possibly should make a statement, I'm not trying to defend the whole liberal world here. Just the common folk.

You yourself, of course, also deploy selective outrage by my definition, and you're not coy about it at all. I mean all the stuff you say or don't say with the mindset of "the board leans liberal anyway". Which probably is more like a "I do not like liberals very much" really, but it doesn't matter. Just, if you would treat Luvnit with the same scrutiny as you treat Dino, you'd have to be all over him for plenty of stuff all the time, but you choose to do so very sparingly instead. When Dino or Dill say something you don't approve of, oh boy that's a party. I don't even need to call this inconsistent, for the definition of the word does that for me. And it's deliberate, you have your reasons and it's fine too. Even when it leads to you being silent about posts moaning the fact that Trump's attempts to overthrow the election were unsuccessful while you're bickering with liberals over the earth-shattering topic of how their outrage over Butker is disproportionate. It's obvious enough for me that you don't agree with the election statement none the less, mainly because, well, it's obvious and I don't deem silence to be complicity. But your outrage sure is selective like that too, at least by my standards. As, btw., is mine, so it's not like this is criticism of the fact itself. Only criticism would be that it seems you don't quite recognize it, but that's normal enough too.

And yeah, that post is brought to you by some insomnia, so it's possibly a tad more unhinged than would be appropriate. Tired hollo don't care.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2024, 11:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I implicitly admitted that my search was not very thorough, I soon just assumed that you didn't make it up and it is happening. Just, the fact that I could not find anything on a quick glance kind of also made me assume it's not that big of a culture phenomena to be all that important. And that's just my point, that people just might be more troubled, more personally affected about what Butker said versus what some palestina-supporting students shout. I mean, who are you, or I for that matter, to set their priorities straight for them, it seems a bit presumptuous. When ilhan Omar starts shouting Death to America, then yeah, I agree it's an issue that demands a clear and immediate condemnation. But for something still as fringe as that, that is obviously just stupid? And even if you say "isn't it obvious" doesn't count, it still just is and it counts for most people. Btw. I admit congresspeople possibly should make a statement, I'm not trying to defend the whole liberal world here. Just the common folk.

And that's fair.  I've said many times that I don't hold these types up as representative of the whole in regard to these protests.  What does trouble me is the lack of condemnation and distancing from those people.  It's not the sentiment of the majority, but they aren't expending any real energy separating those people from them either.

Quote:You yourself, of course, also deploy selective outrage by my definition, and you're not coy about it at all. I mean all the stuff you say or don't say with the mindset of "the board leans liberal anyway". Which probably is more like a "I do not like liberals very much" really, but it doesn't matter. Just, if you would treat Luvnit with the same scrutiny as you treat Dino, you'd have to be all over him for plenty of stuff all the time, but you choose to do so very sparingly instead. When Dino or Dill say something you don't approve of, oh boy that's a party. I don't even need to call this inconsistent, for the definition of the word does that for me. And it's deliberate, you have your reasons and it's fine too. Even when it leads to you being silent about posts moaning the fact that Trump's attempts to overthrow the election were unsuccessful while you're bickering with liberals over the earth-shattering topic of how their outrage over Butker is disproportionate. It's obvious enough for me that you don't agree with the election statement none the less, mainly because, well, it's obvious and I don't deem silence to be complicity. But your outrage sure is selective like that too, at least by my standards. As, btw., is mine, so it's not like this is criticism of the fact itself. Only criticism would be that it seems you don't quite recognize it, but that's normal enough too.

And yeah, that post is brought to you by some insomnia, so it's possibly a tad more unhinged than would be appropriate. Tired hollo don't care.

I'm going to blow your mind here, at least in part.  You are absolutely correct that I call Luvnit out far less than the posters you mentioned.  This is not, however, due to selective outrage.  It's because Luvnit already has a legion of people who flock to his threads to point out his logical fallacies, clear biases and contradictions.  I don't think dogpiling on something that's already being addressed by multiple people is at all necessary.  But, as you point out, I do occasionally call out a post of his if he says something that hasn't been addressed by others or just struck me as especially needing a response.  

The people I respond to do not have that, and in fact have the opposite.  They all reinforce and defend each other even when demonstrably wrong.  Can you recall a post from one of them disagreeing with the other?  Ever, even one?  Dill went so far as to defend Fred to the hilt, and Fred was one of the most egregious actors this board has ever seen.  But if you think the way they do, if you squabble with me, then they will defend you to death.  You may disagree, although I believe you've noticed this too. And I'm not looking for a public confirmation from you, it isn't necessary.  But that's why I can be perceived in engaging in "selective outrage".  I'm sure opinions of others will differ on this, but that's the truth.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-24-2024, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And that's fair.  I've said many times that I don't hold these types up as representative of the whole in regard to these protests.  What does trouble me is the lack of condemnation and distancing from those people.  It's not the sentiment of the majority, but they aren't expending any real energy separating those people from them either.


I'm going to blow your mind here, at least in part.  You are absolutely correct that I call Luvnit out far less than the posters you mentioned.  This is not, however, due to selective outrage.  It's because Luvnit already has a legion of people who flock to his threads to point out his logical fallacies, clear biases and contradictions.  I don't think dogpiling on something that's already being addressed by multiple people is at all necessary.  But, as you point out, I do occasionally call out a post of his if he says something that hasn't been addressed by others or just struck me as especially needing a response.  

The people I respond to do not have that, and in fact have the opposite.  They all reinforce and defend each other even when demonstrably wrong.  Can you recall a post from one of them disagreeing with the other?  Ever, even one?  Dill went so far as to defend Fred to the hilt, and Fred was one of the most egregious actors this board has ever seen.  But if you think the way they do, if you squabble with me, then they will defend you to death.  You may disagree, although I believe you've noticed this too. And I'm not looking for a public confirmation from you, it isn't necessary.  But that's why I can be perceived in engaging in "selective outrage".  I'm sure opinions of others will differ on this, but that's the truth.

x2

[Dill]

(05-24-2024, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The people I respond to do not have that, and in fact have the opposite.  They all reinforce and defend each other even when demonstrably wrong.  Can you recall a post from one of them disagreeing with the other?  Ever, even one?  Dill went so far as to defend Fred to the hilt, and Fred was one of the most egregious actors this board has ever seen.  But if you think the way they do, if you squabble with me, then they will defend you to death.  You may disagree, although I believe you've noticed this too. And I'm not looking for a public confirmation from you, it isn't necessary.  But that's why I can be perceived in engaging in "selective outrage".  I'm sure opinions of others will differ on this, but that's the truth.

The mention of Fred jogs my memory a bit. I recall threads in which I disagreed with him (e.g., whether the concept of race had biological foundation). 
And he complained about me to the Moderators once. I don't recall him personally attacking anyone though.

But I do recall you doing just that, and far more frequently, viciously and even creatively than anyone else in this or any previous forum. 
Against forum rules you actually started a thread to "call me out" once. And put one of my statements in your signature, presuming
an automatic dill insult every time you posted on any topic. Luvnit occasionally calls me a "liar," but you extend the ad hominem to "hypocrite," "sock puppet," "racist," "antisemite," "ISIS/ANTIFA/Hamas supporter,"--the latter while complaining (without a trace of irony) of posters who so demand ideological conformity that they supposedly place you in the enemy camp over the slightest disagreement. That's a head and shoulders above Goldenarm9.  That's how you "squabble" with people and why others defend them.  

NO  ONE  ELSE  DOES  THIS. Yet when challenged on the bad behavior, you offer an amazing range of rationalizations for excepting yourself 
from the civil norms others follow, e.g., your targets deserve targeting or really called it upon themselves, or (my favorite) "because it's true." 

But you're going to talk about "egregious actors" as if they were all elsewhere, some other thread or in the past?  Hmmm. 

I did on occasion challenge you for bullying Fred. Once you claimed he was known for misrepresenting 
other people's statements, so I posted 9 specific examples of you doing exactly that. But that defense was on principle, 
not because I was defending Fred, the person. I don't think people should stand by while others are unfairly targeted and defamed. 
Which you frequently did to him, often when he was not present. Not that he couldn't stand up for himself. 
Not long ago I reminded you what happened on the Seattle CHAZ thread years back when you called him "childish" and he quickly presented 
you with a list of your own "adult" comments. No reasonable person could come away from that exchange thinking Fred was the "egregious" poster. 
I can find another example of Fred arguing patiently with facts and quotes while you simply attack his character. Time to get that memory hole fixed.

Lol Others have "opinions" on this. You have "the truth."  Don't hold your breath for "public confirmation" of that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2024, 02:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The mention of Fred jogs my memory a bit. I recall threads in which I disagreed with him (e.g., whether the concept of race had biological foundation). 
And he complained about me to the Moderators once. I don't recall him personally attacking anyone though.

[Dill]

(05-25-2024, 02:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Sure. I could be wrong. Example?  

If you can't provide any I'd prefer a simple "No" to dodges like "His entire posting history" or "do your own research."  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2024, 02:14 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure. I could be wrong. Example?  

If you can't provide any I'd prefer a simple "No" to dodges like "His entire posting history" or "do your own research."  

Oh no, Dill.  I won't be bothering.  I'll let your absurdity speak for itself.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-25-2024, 02:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The mention of Fred jogs my memory a bit. I recall threads in which I disagreed with him (e.g., whether the concept of race had biological foundation). 
And he complained about me to the Moderators once. I don't recall him personally attacking anyone though.

Are you talking about FRED TOAST?  The guy that when his arguments broke down he'd be quick to call you a racist?
You want proof?
Do an advanced search on PNR
User: fredtoast
by post

whatch it light up
Racist (22 Pages)
Bigot. (3 Pages) his 2nd fav thing to call someone

[Dill]

(05-23-2024, 04:21 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: No, but that's just not something I do very often, or ever. I can't recall a time where I reacted with "that person should lose their job". On the flip side, I am not going to be upset for someone losing their job by sharing a particularly controversial opinion. Private companies hold the power to fire you for nearly any reason they want and espousing your controversial opinions in today's age can be a very dangerous move that you need to calculate. If news were to come out saying that the Christian man was fired for believing that slavery is not immoral, I am not going to be up in arms defending him. To continue further, if someone on the left shared a highly controversial opinion and lost their job for it, I am also not going to be up in arms over it. 

(05-23-2024, 04:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pretty much the same here, 
I think i'm not being overly clear about respecting opinions.

Respect the right that everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether it's wrong or right, doesn't matter, don't take those opinions personally. There is Billions of opinions on this planet, impossible to please everyone. 

You gentlemen probably represent a national consensus of the view that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, when opinions are individual, atomistic, and with no consequences beyond earshot. Americans hear that one individual opinion that offends and just say "Fine, but I don't have agree or listen," not "Lock that guy up!"

But free speech becomes a problem when people perceive danger in the other's "opinions."  And since the danger CAN sometimes be real, people want to 
control "controversial opinions" via social sanction or law.  Liberals and conservatives, right, center and left wingers connect the social dots differently, and so they are
going to draw lines between safe and dangerous speech differently. 

Progressives who get upset with Butker's speech see it not only as a megaphone with a national platform but part of a pattern, a backlash against women's rights manifest in other areas as well--the Dobb's decision, the GOP embrace of an unapologetically misogynist presidential candidate. His speech also got a degree of sanction from the venue--a Catholic college.  If Butker's anti-feminist message has been long absent from commencement speeches, I can see why some might worry that it was evidence of a more general cultural change, a rolling back of progress on women's rights. Traditionalists either applaud the sentiments or see "no big deal." Certainly no pattern, no social trends. Just one guy atomistically speaking his mind, a mind which just happens to align more with Vatican I than II. At an institution which imposes rather more theological conformity on student thought than public schools do, sees more danger in certain kinds of speech, and insures the institution creates an echo chamber of the safe "opinions."  Any commencement speech would be part of the chamber. All institutions do this, but there are great variations in degree.

For the record, though, I think calling for the guy to be fired is pretty crazy. If some people actually did that, that should be a concerning trend too. 
Bad enough if employers do it for clashing with the boss's politics. It's not like recalling a politician whose secret Klan membership has been exposed. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-25-2024, 03:13 AM)Dill Wrote: For the record, though, I think calling for the guy to be fired is pretty crazy. If some people actually did that, that should be a concerning trend too. 
Bad enough if employers do it for clashing with the boss's politics. It's not like recalling a politician whose secret Klan membership has been exposed. 

Sadly that's been the trend for quite a while now. How can you miss it?

[Dill]

(05-25-2024, 03:10 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you talking about FRED TOAST?  The guy that when his arguments broke down he'd be quick to call you a racist?
You want proof?
Do an advanced search on PNR
User: fredtoast
by post
whatch it light up
Racist (22 Pages)
Bigot. (3 Pages) his 2nd fav thing to call someone

I remember arguing with him once about race. He didn't call me a "racist" when his arguments broke down.

So I did your advanced search and found 24 pages. I went down the first page and in every post Fred was
talking about "racist" immigration policies, or trump accusations, or definitions of what counts etc. But 
no instance in which he called another poster "racist." 

Maybe you could just recall two or three thread titles and I'll check them out. I'm not going through 24 pages like that.

What's your view on "racist," by the way?  I don't recall you ever using the term.

Do you think posters in this forum should never call each other "racists" or can they under special conditions? 

[Dill]

(05-25-2024, 03:46 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sadly that's been the trend for quite a while now. How can you miss it?

Haven't missed it. My wife and I were just talking about two recent examples in popular culture:

the movie American Fiction and the tv series The Chair.

In each example a college professor gets taken out by sensitive students. 

E.g., in the chair a literature professor mimics Hitler goose stepping and someone got it on her I phone.
So it went viral. Students demanded action. Under pressure from the administration the guy
said he was "Sorry if I offended anyone," which students decided was placing the problem with them,
not real accountability. The students just wanted to be sure the weren't at an institution that
supported Nazis. The guy lost his job. 

[hollodero]

(05-24-2024, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And that's fair.  I've said many times that I don't hold these types up as representative of the whole in regard to these protests.  What does trouble me is the lack of condemnation and distancing from those people.  It's not the sentiment of the majority, but they aren't expending any real energy separating those people from them either.

So, just like moderate conservatives handle MAG... oh damn, that is whataboutism. Strike that from the record.
Nah, of course I can state it again, left leaning folks often seem to have a hard time calling out their own. I basically see it the same way, difference being that I lay more blame on Trump and your broke ass two party system, to borrow a phrase from Nati, then you do. Nuances.

(05-24-2024, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to blow your mind here, at least in part.  You are absolutely correct that I call Luvnit out far less than the posters you mentioned.  This is not, however, due to selective outrage.

Mind blown... stating the obvious :) And what you call not selective, to me, still reads like you giving the reasons for the selection you deliberately make, but I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate. As I said, I select by my own criteria too and it's no criticism of the "fact" itself, even when I don't find all your reasons all that good, what gives. It's just, when you then tell other people how they misprioritize their outrage, especially coupled with the demand they'd be more outraged over a left-side-issue then the right-side-issue that is Butker and his deadly sin of pride rhetorics, this runs into problems. For there's just the obvious counter, which is claiming that you do pretty much the same thing and the horse you sit on is not quite as high as you acclaim it to be.

And it's quite apparent what your number one selection criteria for your outrage is, it's whether you can steer your outrage against liberals, especially against your few favorite ones. You do it again here, and my answer to your according queestion can only be that I neither know nor care whether Dill and Dino ever disagreed on things or unrightfully defended Fred on stuff. Maybe you're right, they might be wrong or out-argued at times and don't admit it (I think so - on occasion), but you also do your best to make it quite hard for them to ever make such an admission; due to your very confrontational manners, that amongst other things include namecalling, low blows, deliberately misunderstanding points or mislabeling positions, an overall disparaging tone and making it personal. It's near impossible for them to concede an argument without losing face under these circumstances. Which is a perfect tactic if you just want to argue and disagree and vent, but of course a very lousy strategy if you really want to reach a constructive outcome.

(05-24-2024, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But if you think the way they do, if you squabble with me, then they will defend you to death.  You may disagree, although I believe you've noticed this too. And I'm not looking for a public confirmation from you, it isn't necessary.

 

No I think you're right, and they really don't like you much. I just think that's not solely on them.

[hollodero]

(05-25-2024, 02:14 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure. I could be wrong. Example?  

If you can't provide any I'd prefer a simple "No" to dodges like "His entire posting history" or "do your own research."  

Well he's not around for years now. I too have a hard time believing that you cannot remember him being a bit of an ass, it might have been part of his whole sarcatic internet persona, but yeah. He was kinda smug, he called people names and employed quite insulting undertones, that's how I remember and that would be my witness testimony, that and that I usually agreed with him on the issues and hence wasn't bothered as much. I don't have receipts for it's way too unimportant for me to dig up year-old threads I can not quite remember any more. I also don't think it makes much sense to call you out over allegedly siding with him after so much time has passed.

(05-25-2024, 03:13 AM)Dill Wrote: For the record, though, I think calling for the guy to be fired is pretty crazy. If some people actually did that, that should be a concerning trend too. 

Maybe that could be a theoretical point of universal agreement.