- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- 3,447
I picked one and showed the inconsistency of your argument. One seemed like more than enough to prove my point.Possibly you dropped my comparison between the Harry Potter reaction and the Mississippi Burning reaction because you simply don’t remember (or choose not to remember) the latter.
I didn't mention anything about money. I said accusing someone of promoting witchcraft seems similar to accusing someone of promoting racism. Money had nothing at all to do with my argument.In any case, in the same spirit of disinterest, I ignore your comparison and repeat that what both reactions have in common is not whether the protesters could keep the respective franchises from making money— the fact that both had already made money was what drew the attacks from Right and Left respectively.
Sure it did. It promoted the idea that the Oscar committee was racially biased.Both protesters sought to control future narratives with their rhetoric.
Oscar So White did not promote a narrative as such;
Again, what is the distinction there other than you obviously have a personal gripe against the Oscar So White folks? Accusing people of witchcraft isn't more intellectually sound. Witches don't even exit! Racism actual does though. If we are picking one of those that could potentially have some intellectual framework supporting it the accusation of racism would be it because between racism is actually real.her facile argument was that Hollywood needed more POC representation, period. Possibly she assumed that more diversity in casting movies would eventuate in more movies being made about POC concerns. But that wasn’t her argument; it was just “too many white people,” and Hollywood liberals fell over themselves to virtue signal so they wouldn’t get on any future blacklists. There’s no intellectual rhetoric there; just a hectoring demand which characterizes the “hysteria” that I believe AT first referenced.
Nope. Doesn't seem much of a difference except that in your rush to attack liberals you offered up the theory that accusations of witchcraft have intellectual underpinings...That’s why your oversimple definition of cancel culture won’t fly; it’s not taking into account the difference between, say, your average liberal film reviewer and a cancel-happy demagogue.
You sad cucked, white wing moron, it probably is my fault for assuming yesterday when you said that you would be providing proof that it would be something other than you amateur movie reviews. My bad for expecting more from you.I am in a particularly good mod today so, yes, I will entertain your question. I do demand however that it be a smart question. As this is after all *the smart kid's thread*.
My dear child, my somewhat poor, disadvantaged mentally suffering, yet appreciated child, please listen to the following:
So you admit that science plays no part in your analysis that you rely on your own personal sentiment. Not like we couldn't piece that together ourselves but it's nice to have confirmation straight from the horses mouth.And yet those who engage in this interpretive work have very important roles to play. And those who are very good at what they do, if they are good at it, rely on skills of perception that are not in a scientific category.
I wouldn't say it's important, because nothing that happens on this site is, but it is about time you admit your arguments rely on your subjective feelings. Good for you for finally getting that off your chest.In order for there to be *interpretation* there has to be someone who *looks* and *muses* and *thinks*. You will admit, and I will certainly agree, that what is interpreted depends totally on the one who does the interpretation. Pretty basic stuff really but important to get it out there.
There we have it folks. She finally admits to what I've been saying for pages now.I did not claim to have *scientific evidence* and it is your folly to imagine that in such subjective territory that even 'science' exists.
And she repeats it so she can't later accuse me of misinterpreting her.And I did say, and I still believe, that the film 12 Years A Slave is an important *text* that can be read. True it is that this is subjective territory.
Again what are you talking about? What is going on around us? Election hysteria? What specifically are you talking about?Now, I use the term 'hysteria' and 'hysterical' to categorize, in a very general sense, a portion of what is going on around us. This is, obviously, a term of some exaggeration. But I suggest it is useful if it is carefully applied.
And white wing hysteria caused cucks to riot at the Capitol, what's your point? Oh right, you are trying to use extreme examples as evidence why no one takes your arguments seriously here except you can't effectively argue against anyone here so you prefer to attack Screeching Girl and whoever this lady is. That bit of deflection is obvious.As an example of this hysteria I submit this. I suggest -- many many people became aware -- that the reaction to Donald Trump's win sent many people careening toward a strange psychological edge. And there Trump Derangement Syndrome was, it seems to all appearances, ignominiously birthed.
Everyone who had a problem with Trump was just hysterical huh? This is the brilliant argument you wanted me to wait a day for?I suggest that these *feelings*, these hysterical feelings (I say with some exaggeration and yet not veering out of the realm of the real), got worse as time went on. When the pandemic hit -- understandably perhaps -- things careened into la-la-land. Flipped city. The looney bin got racing wheels . . .
No shit.These are not *scientific observations*.
And many more witnessed the hysteria on the right when they tried to over turn an election.They are observations that tens of millions of people share. We are perhaps not entirely certain how to characterize them. And yet we notice that they exist.
Does it? Your side lost that election like your side is losing the culture wars. Seems like the idea that the white wing is full of mutants and morons is gaining more purchase.I would not say that such 'hysteria' is solely the possession, or affliction, of Left-Wing nut jobs (ooops, that is a bit subjective! may it be stricken from the record) but Good Lord it sure seems to have a certain purchase on them.
You’re not really serious that there is any question whatsoever that the Democrats are railing against making BLACK people show ID are you? If so, is this done so sort of joke like The Babylon Bee would try?Nope. Again, still just you.
We might know that if you were at all capable of posting evidence of them doing so but you haven't so we don't. That's how debate works buddy.
You're not serious since you're obviously incapable of discussing what Democrats actually say rather than your made up strawmen.You’re not really serious that there is any question whatsoever that the Democrats are railing against making BLACK people show ID are you? If so, is this done so sort of joke like The Babylon Bee would try?
Once again, let us linger here for a minute or two. Notice that you require an absolute binary. Either something is thoroughly non-subjective and thus *scientific* or if it has a subjective element it is thoroughly non-scientific.So you admit that science plays no part in your analysis that you rely on your own personal sentiment. Not like we couldn't piece that together ourselves but it's nice to have confirmation straight from the horses mouth.
Here is a tip for you. Cows are the females if the species. You are tripping only yourself.Consider yourself tipped, then, albeit by your own driveling posts.
What is it they actually “say” in Orwellian speak? How do you personally spin it to make it seem like they really aren’t saying blacks are dumb and can’t get an ID Or know the last four of their SS number?You're not serious since you're obviously incapable of discussing what Democrats actually say rather than your made up strawmen.
With this: "nothing that happens on this site is (important)" I must disagree. What happens on this forum is, to quote Shakespeare, "The abstract and brief chronicle of the time". What happens here opens a window to see into the mental, conceptual, perceptual, and also the spiritual inner-dimensions of the people who determine what goes on in the cultural sphere.I wouldn't say it's important, because nothing that happens on this site is, but it is about time you admit your arguments rely on your subjective feelings. Good for you for finally getting that off your chest. There we have it folks. She finally admits to what I've been saying for pages now.
With this: "nothing that happens on this site is (important)" I must disagree
That's something you cry about quite often so allow to paint a picture with your own words. These are direct quotes.Once again, let us linger here for a minute or two. Notice that you require an absolute binary. Either something is thoroughly non-subjective and thus *scientific* or if it has a subjective element it is thoroughly non-scientific.
And note also your tendency to twist and distort what a person says, and what they mean, into what you want them to say or need them to say in order, therefore, to conform to your imposed binaries.
Structured argument is debate. It includes facts. It allows for criticism. You on the other hand, who claim to be about *structured debate* turns around and say this.The reason I have this position is because I observe — I can refer to this forum as an example — that those who oppose the structured ideas that are being enunciated and explored by the Dissident Right, do not do so through what I am calling *structured argument* but nearly always through emotional display, hysterical opposition, and the employment of hot terms like *racist* and like *Nazi*.
My point is these distractions don't fit with your claim that you are interested in structured arguments, your interested in monologuing your personal sentiments and trying to pass them off as arguments.Alizia Tyler said:Yet I have told you, quite clearly, that I am not interested in the debate that interests you. So what I try to do is to write small essays where I deal on a complete idea, something that seems relevant or important. When challenged — as with the *function* of movies as cultural texts and my comment on 12 Years A Slave — I did try to fill out the idea better. I think the idea I am working with is sound, I think I expressed it clearly, but I see no point in debating it with you.
How many pages now have we wasted on your personal grievance with 12 Years a Slave?Alizia Tyler said:And I did say, and I still believe, that the film 12 Years A Slave is an important *text* that can be read. True it is that this is subjective territory.
You're the one with spin trying to pass off your comments as those of Democrats. Again, not sure if you're aware, but your name appears right over your posts.What is it they actually “say” in Orwellian speak? How do you personally spin it to make it seem like they really aren’t saying blacks are dumb and can’t get an ID Or know the last four of their SS number?
Well, it is my view that by approaching conversation in this way that we can, to a larger degree, by-pass all the bickering and try to get to the essence of the divisions. That is why I said: So what I try to do is to write small essays where I deal on a complete idea, something that seems relevant or important.My point is these distractions don't fit with your claim that you are interested in structured arguments, your interested in monologuing your personal sentiments and trying to pass them off as arguments.
So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters? It is only me saying this and claiming it is Democrats? Are you serious?You're the one with spin trying to pass off your comments as those of Democrats. Again, not sure if you're aware, but your name appears right over your posts.
I'd put it a bit differently, but it is not flattering to you: I have spent many posts trying to explain very basic things to a couple of peopleHow many pages now have we wasted on your personal grievance with 12 Years a Slave?
"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964
Every one here knows it is black people that the elitists think are too dumb to get an ID and are somehow Disenfranchised if they can’t vote 24/7 or find their polling place.
Prove it.Your words. And a poorly formed conclusion, albeit one frequently found among those who know Trump was a better president than Biden is / could ever be.
So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters?
Prove it
But none of this matters in your specific case! You are incapable of *getting it*
Well that actually can be researched.But how can I illustrate this to you -- *scientifically*? It cannot be done. When I say *dumbing down* I do not mean that the IQ of people has been diminished, that is unlikely. It is that they are not exposed (enough) to a rigorous intellectual program.
That's the difference between specious essays and structured arguments. One has supported research and facts and the other is your admittedly subjective perspective.Much of the growth in ideological consistency has come among better educated adults – including a striking rise in the share who have across-the-board liberal views, which is consistent with the growing share of postgraduates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party .
Research seems to suggest otherwise.But there is more in my view. And I have spoken of this directly to you in the past and you no more understood it then than you will be able to now! It has to do with the effect of disconnection from metaphysical influences on which intellect (intellectus) is established and depends.
Remind me again of the hierarchy of higher dimensional thought. Is the realm of God and Angels above or below the realm of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?When we deal on *The Culture Wars* we are dealing, essentially, on metaphysical questions! Now when I refer to metaphysics in this sense I mean 'higher dimensions of thought' and not necessarily the realm of God or of the angels.
I never suggested they were. In fact I said right from the start that all these notions of right and wrong or good and bad rest on subjective notions of morality. That has been my argument from the start. We can have objective arguments on who's side is more educated, like the link I provided above shows that can have an objective answer, but notions like what ideologies or beliefs we find to be good or bad are entirely subjective. When you complain that opposition to white wing ideologies are emotional it worth pointing out that your promotion of White wing ideology is also emotional.Metaphysics is a complex topic. For the sake of this exposition, then, the defining elements in The Culture Wars turn on 'value & meaning'. And value & meaning are metaphysical.
Are they *real* in the sense that your car sitting there on the street is real? No. Yet they have tremendously more power and relevance than any object in the physical world.
So *subjective feeling* cannot be shunted out of the picture, not by any means.
However, what is felt and the way it is felt and expressed can be examined. Must be examined.
Why her? Why not the people you're actually in a conversation with right here? You know someone who can respond to you with a back and forth. I don't need to invoke the lunacy of the Capitol riots to pick apart your weak arguments.And here we must refer to 'the discerning self'. A self that is capable of self-seeing, self-analysis. And who shall we bring forward as an example of this? Who? The shrieking girl? That bellowing lunatic who heard the bad news of Trump's win and Hilary's loss and melted down into a tragic emotional puddle?!?
If that's your argument then you don't understand what subjectivity is. Different people value different things and those things are neither right or wrong but particular to them. It is the other side to objectivity, things who's value we can discern through measurement and observation.When we deal within the domains of *meaning & value* we are firmly within subjective territory. But this does not mean a territory of *whatever* or of *anything*. One subjectivity -- let us say that of a brute -- is not equal to the subjectivity of an advanced, cultured, sensitive, intellectually trained, literate person.
Now that is something I have seen Democratic reps say. That's a whole lot different than your earlier claim that they said black people were too stupid to get an ID.So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters? It is only me saying this and claiming it is Democrats? Are you serious?
In the case of some, yes. In relation to the specific recent question, it definitely appears so.Appears that if someone does not agree with you it is because they are incapable
The issue is your white wing ideology is a loser ideology and so you've concocted a fantasy where you're a loser because people just don't have the capacity to understand how brilliant you are.In the case of some, yes. In relation to the specific recent question, it definitely appears so.
Are you aware what that issue is? Could you state it if asked? Would you make that effort here please?
Now we are moving the goal posts to Gerrymeandering to divert and deflect the topic to another arena. Gerrymandering was never discussed by me. That is not a subject mentioned by Dems Or if they do, rarely and is just a smokescreen.It is mostly Dems today who review the impact of these changes in rules and along with current gerrymandering and ask if any particular types of people are more impacted. And the groups negatively impacted include more than Black voters.
Thus is like “masks work….,just believe me”This is not worth my time. Others have done so already and you refuse to seriously see the evidence. You are steadfast in your opinion, regardless of what info is provided to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?