Censorship? There is no censorship!

Sander said:
The entire thread is in that context, Akratus. Which is why I tried to explain that context in my post: he is discussing the tendency of that community to take seriously things that are absolutely abhorrent. He isn't talking about run of the mill conservatism. He's not talking about Christina Sommers. He's not talking about GamerGaters. He is not talking about you. He's not even talking about TheWesDude.

This is who he's talking about (emphasis mine):
"I hate them because there are people who are the closest thing we have in our civilized drawing-room world to pure evil and they invite them to their parties and shake hands with them and consider it very important to be polite to them. People like Mencius Moldbug and the "Neoreactionaries", people like the "Manosphere" and the MRAs.People who seriously strongly believe in racism and sexism, not just unconsciously or implicitly but explicitly and committedly, who have written at length about wanting to bring back segregation, about wanting to rewrite divorce laws so women can't possibly leave the men who own them and can be directly punished by society for cheating. Who yearn for a return to kings and queens and a noble class, for patriarchal households where the paterfamilias' word is law, who make arguments that slavery and colonialism were good things and that the best thing the black man can hope for is to be returned to the state of being coddled by a kind white master."

Again: literal nazis is what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

In that quote yes. In my quote? Point me to where he speaks of neo-nazi's or evil people in that quote.

And even if he was, are you seriously saying the only thing he's doing in that quote of mine is critiqueing bad people?

"I rigorously manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous "unthinkable" thoughts -- "mindkill" myself -- on a regular basis.This is what you have to do to be a feminist anti-racist progressive, i.e. a social justice stormtrooper, You have to recognize that there is no neutral culture, neutrality is impossible, that culture is a cutthroat war of memes and that you have to commit to picking a side and setting yourself up as a neutral arbiter of memes is impossible and is a form of surrender. You have to constantly "check your privilege" and "unpack the knapsack" and all those other buzzwords. You need to understand that the only way to be "rational" in this world is to be irrational, that the only way to be "fair" is to pick the right side and fight for it."

Could you justify this paragraph specifically for me? Because I can't.
 
Hassknecht said:
And how do you know that the ideologies are horrible if you don't give them any time or thought? How are people supposed to learn about why "human biodiversity" is bullshit? The followers of that ideology certainly won't tell them.
You expect people to follow dogma. To zealously despise something because somebody declared it a mindcrime. To love something else because it's declared just.
I'm sorry, this goes against everything I "believe" in.
Click to expand...
That's not really his point, either. He's not saying that you don't need to have reasons for thinking something abhorrent, he's saying that there are cases where the reasons are painfully obvious and discussing it is ridiculous because it is so obvious. He's saying that going "Let's give some room to these neonazis to explain their viewpoints" is a bad thing. He's saying that seriously entertaining the idea of forbidding all women from working, or shipping all black people to Africa isn't just a waste of time, but that giving room to those ideologies is harmful because you're giving them more press than they deserve (that is: none).

And no, my examples are not over the top. Those are literally the kinds of arguments being entertained in that community.
Hassknecht said:
And yet it all started because a guy complained about feminist blogs repeatedly posting bogus statistics, and Chu thought it was a waste of time because it doesn't matter if the blogs post wrong statistics as long as they fight for the right side. He might be talking about the worst people at that moment, but he really is a zealot about it.
Click to expand...
That's the thread in which it happens, yes, but it's in the context of that community. Because that same guy gives a lot of room and publicity to those abhorrent ideologies. And he makes the point that he's referring to that tendency several times, explicitly, in that thread. Here, I'll quote another one:

"I'll give hours of my time to an anti-vaxxer or a creationist or even an Austrian economist before I'll give it to someone who seriously tries to resurrect the maggoty corpse of 19th-century scientific racism under the cover of "human biodiversity" and peddle it anywhere in any space where I have even the tiniest modicum of control."

Now, if he's genuinely going "this is a war and we shouldn't be critical of feminism at all because of that", I'll certainly disagree with that. But it's important to note that this is happening on a blog that also seriously entertains and is read by lots and lots and lots of abhorrent ideologies. And what I think has happened is that GamerGate ripped that comment completely out of context.

Akratus said:
In that quote yes. In my quote? Point me to where he speaks of neo-nazi's or evil people in that quote.

And even if he was, are you seriously saying the only thing he's doing in that quote of mine is critiqueing bad people?
Click to expand...
Yet again: that comment is not made in isolation. It is part of a long thread and a community that has a long history, one I am coincidentally familiar with. Yes, that quote looks bad in isolation, obviously. The point is that it wasn't made in isolation. It was made specifically about neo-nazis. Every comment Arthur makes in that entire thread points to that. He explicitly and repeatedly says that he's talking about a specific group of horrifying ideologies, and that he's not talking about conservative ideas, nor about anything you would even remotely identify with. I've quoted multiple things from that thread that point that out. But you want to look at that one quote completely out of context, because it makes him look bad if you do so. But that context and background is extremely important to understanding why he made that comment.
 
Sander said:
It has nothing to do with GamerGate, which is the entire point of my previous post. Maybe you should try reading it in its entirety before responding, next time? The Chu quote is from February this year. He is talking about a rationality community that is overrun by literal nazis and that's the context in which you need to see that quote and the entire thread. He actually explicitly talks about that in that thread.
Click to expand...

No. He mainly talking about MRAs in a thread about MRAs and Feminist blogs. He sometimes includes other stuff that no one really presses him on or responses to or even talks about. His fight is with MRAs.
 
Akratus said:
These too?

http://i.imgur.com/uhN8zUA.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzEboXlIMAEQ88q.png
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Contextless quotes are actually out of context, per definition. That's not that relevant with most of the Chu quotes, at first glance, and I don't really have a problem with most of them, depending on....context, heh. Like, what are RAT forums? Are they, say, forums for terrorists? Forums where people advocated horrifically violent things? Or just people with stupid ideas? I dunno!

EDIT: Apparently they're forums for people making trojans, infecting computers and doing all of the horrible things you can do with that. Soooooooo yeah, no, I have no problem with saying that those people need to be doxxed -- because what they're doing is horribly illegal and abusive, and they should be stopped.

For Cheong's quotes, context is absolutely crucial. In clockwise order, for Cheong's quotes:
1) He's probably talking about a specific game that features the played-out trope of dumb brown people needing a white guy to lead them. Google suggests it's Call of Duty: Ghosts. He's critiquing that concept.
2) The "white man's burden" is a historical concept, named for a poem by Rudyard Kipling. It's the attitude of "white people are the best people in the world and must use their qualities to colonize the world". I didn't play ME3 so I don't know how that's analogous to the Krogan, but I don't see a problem with drawing an analogy between a narrative and a historical concept.
3) Almost certainly sarcasm.
4) Presumably referring to some incident where white dudes did something horrible where they were not aware it was horrible, because of the way they view the world (ie. their privilege).

Incidentally, you can find some literal Nazi quotes from Cheong from when he was still at the Codex (seriously, that place). Thankfully, he grew up.

Kilus said:
No. He mainly talking about MRAs in a thread about MRAs and Feminist blogs. He sometimes includes other stuff that no one really presses him on or responses to or even talks about. His fight is with MRAs.
Click to expand...
Here's the first thing he says:
"Scott is one of the reasons I hate Less Wrong and I find his attitude about stuff like this extremely frustrating, but then again I am a mindkilled social-justice stormtrooper so nothing I say can be taken seriously."

That's referring to Scott Alexander, who runs Slate Star Codex, which is where the quote at the top comes from. That's the blog he's talking about, and Less Wrong is kind of the hive around which blogs like that and the rationalist community function. That community is overrun with the abhorrent people I keep talking about. Yes, MRA are a part of that, but he's talking about the RooshV kind of MRAs -- the ones who advocate rape and want to forbid people from divorcing and think women should be forbidden from having sex before marriage etc -- not the more benign "men have issues too" MRAs.

Again, you kind of need to know that community to understand this. But trust me when I say that I am not exaggerating about the kind of ideologies you see in those communities.
 
It seems like context can excuse most things for Sander, if you're on the right side. No such luxury for gamergate . .
 
Hassknecht said:
What, like developing a calm and balanced view on things? While you can probably never fully escape cultural influence, you can at least try to recognize said influence and minimise it.
What that Arthur guy is doing is the actual form of surrender: Just giving up and falling into dogma. Yay, I picked the right side! No matter what you say, you're wrong anyway!
I mean, c'mon, the guy is literally practising Doublethink and Crimestop. How can one even have a discussion with a zealot like that? Oh wait, discussions are unnecessary, because he's right anyway.
It's all fine and dandy, because he picked the right side.
Click to expand...


One can pick a side and have a calm and balanced view of things. You're committing the fallacy of the middle ground.


It's interesting that you think that stopping yourself from thinking like an asshole is automatically Crimestop and/or Doublethink. Am I a goose-stepping zealot because I consciously eradicated my ability to think of black people as niggers?


Kilus said:
Sure, let your ideology go unchecked. Let people make decisions for you, both on your side and the side you oppose. Fight your never ending war where neither side yields an inch. Accomplish nothing but division. Let people have power over your soul.
Click to expand...


I think those T-bone steaks ain't doing you good, T-Rex. There's nothing in my post that implies brainless goose-stepping.
 
Just as an overdue correction: The purple and green of Vivian James' sweater is actually not a coded rape joke, but a reference to the official colors of the suffragettes: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb_suffr.html

Of course, there was no basis to say that the retarded piccolo meme is about rape anyway, but since social justice is all about trivializing serious matters, it comes as no surprise.
 
Akratus said:
Just as an overdue correction: The purple and green of Vivian James' sweater is actually not a coded rape joke, but a reference to the official colors of the suffragettes: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb_suffr.html
Click to expand...
I think you may want to look up the concept of rationalization, dude. Do you seriously expect us to believe that 4chan made a conscious reference to a historical movement, which they never do, rather than an in-joke, which they do all the fucking time? When it took four months (EDIT: Google says slightly over one month for the first reference) for this sudden explanation to appear? lolno. That explanation isn't even on KnowYourMeme or Encyclopedia Dramatica! Come on, now.
 
Even though it's one of the most hated memes, I guess it could be in reference to the piccolo meme. And of course, because it depicts sex, it's rape.
 
Nooo, it's rape because the person being penetrated is shown to be bound/forcibly restricted and there's no indication whatsoever that this is consensual.

Please stop trying to justify this shit. You're making yourself look ridiculous.
 
Tagaziel said:
Hassknecht said:
What, like developing a calm and balanced view on things? While you can probably never fully escape cultural influence, you can at least try to recognize said influence and minimise it.
What that Arthur guy is doing is the actual form of surrender: Just giving up and falling into dogma. Yay, I picked the right side! No matter what you say, you're wrong anyway!
I mean, c'mon, the guy is literally practising Doublethink and Crimestop. How can one even have a discussion with a zealot like that? Oh wait, discussions are unnecessary, because he's right anyway.
It's all fine and dandy, because he picked the right side.
Click to expand...


One can pick a side and have a calm and balanced view of things. You're committing the fallacy of the middle ground.


It's interesting that you think that stopping yourself from thinking like an asshole is automatically Crimestop and/or Doublethink. Am I a goose-stepping zealot because I consciously eradicated my ability to think of black people as niggers?
Click to expand...
I think conditioning yourself to stop thinking like an asshole out of dogma by consciously stopping yourself from having evil thoughts is the textbook definition of Crimestop, which is what Chu does when he refuses to even consider some positions. There is a qualitative difference between conditioning yourself and actually learning something. You can't learn anything if you don't think about it.
If you only stopped thinking of black people as niggers because the Party told you that it's Goodthink, then yeah, you're a goose-stepping zealot.
Limiting one's mental capabilities on purpose is a terrifying thought to say the least. But I guess you don't need to think if you're right. Goodthinker bellyfeel Ingsoc.

And yes, "The only way to be rational is to be irrational" is a textbook example of Doublethink. No way around that.
 
Akratus said:
Anyway, either all jokes are ok or none are.
Click to expand...
A comedian tells a father, seconds after his daughter died a horrific death, that his daughter's corpse looks pretty damn fuckable and he'd totally have sex with her, if she weren't a corpse. It's all okay because it's a joke! Why would the father ever get upset? Jokes!

Oh, that's not okay? Well I guess no jokes are ever okay then! Or, alternatively, that kind of absolutism about communication is fucking stupid and people should stop parroting that nonsensical line.

@Hassknecht: He's talking about publicly giving room to literal Nazis. To ideologies that are so abhorrent in such obvious ways that you don't really need to go in and rationally discredit them publicly because doing so is more harmful than not doing so, because of the attention you're giving them. What he is not saying is "this ideology is evil because that's how we define it and you need to have no reasons whatsoever for thinking that", which appears to be how you're interpreting his statements.
 
Comedy is tragedy plus time. So the comedian should have waited till minutes after the daughter's death to tell the joke.
 
Sander said:
Akratus said:
Anyway, either all jokes are ok or none are.
Click to expand...
A comedian tells a father, seconds after his daughter died a horrific death, that his daughter's corpse looks pretty damn fuckable and he'd totally have sex with her, if she weren't a corpse. It's all okay because it's a joke! Why would the father ever get upset? Jokes!

Oh, that's not okay? Well I guess no jokes are ever okay then! Or, alternatively, that kind of absolutism about communication is fucking stupid and people should stop parroting that nonsensical line.
Click to expand...


No that's totally okay, except for the fact that the guy is an asshole. It's also okay if the father then presses charges or something on the comedian for the emotional stress he's causing.

Noam-Chomsky-Quotes-1-free-speech-.jpg


Kilus said:
Comedy is tragedy plus time. So the comedian should have waited till minutes after the daughter's death to tell the joke.
Click to expand...

The rule is 21 and a half years.
 
Last edited:
A comedian tells a father, seconds after his daughter died a horrific death, that his daughter's corpse looks pretty damn fuckable and he'd totally have sex with her, if she weren't a corpse.
Click to expand...


Akratus said:
No that's totally okay.
Click to expand...

Were your sense of empathy and basic human decency lobotomized when you were a kid or did you come with them excised by default?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top