Conservatives, libertarians and political identiifcation

BigBoss said:
This isn't cool man. As a matter of fact it's not just not cool, it's bullshit. As an administrator your supposed to be an icon of NMA, the best of us. But that right there just straight isn't cool.

I'm not going to say why because you'll call it trolling and give me a strike or whatever, but I'm just going to say, this isn't cool, specifically because your letting your personal emotions of this argument cloud your administrators judgement.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out that telling me that I think facts are scary is trolling, and trolling anyone on this board is not cool. It's a threat in the sense that repeated trolling can carry consequences, as is board policy. Disagree with me all you want. Just don't troll.
 
Sander said:
It is interesting to ask why this is a sticking point, though. One reason is that TheWesDude and others are very eager to use her as a voice on the other side (the other side being feminism), to try to use her as an example of the reasonable side of feminism, vs the extremist "cultural marxists", "third wave feminists" etc. In effect, she is being used in a form of identity politics: "See, she has your identity but she agrees with us!" But this is a form of sleight of hand: she isn't a part of mainstream feminism, nor is she a part of liberal or progressive thought, and pretending that she is relies solely on her self-definition, rather than on the agreement of her public advocacy with progressive or feminist thought.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to my argument or position. I'm just saying she's right, and you're wrong.

I understand how sjw arguments very delicately try to shift the discussion in their favor though, by using ad hominems or setting up a strawmen, or simply not adressing a certain argument in favor of retreading a central point as if that matters.

Case in point: We are talking about what you call her rather than what her arguments are. And don't give me any kind of argument that you calling her arguments conservative has anything to do with what she's actually saying. You're adressing your label of her rather than the argument itself.

Hell, we've stopped arguing about gamergate arguments and anti-gamergate arguments at least a week ago. But it's a nice job of narrative spinning, I'll admit.

For me what it comes down to is: you can not honestly believe that bullying people into compliance with american standards of political correctness in their thought and creative work via hypermagnified outrage and self-righteous whining via accusations of countless types of -isms is going to have even a microscopic effect the acceptance of homosexuals or minorities around the world.


That's not just stupid and misguided, that's self-absorbed.

Now, seeing as how you're employed by the company that owns polygon, and I was stupid enough to tread this discussion again, I shall be taking my leave once again.

Tumblr_mmwxdfbeQn1s0fchvo2_500.gif
 
Last edited:
i guess none of you ( sander, yamu ) that continue to call her a conservative have even looked into the issue.

that very tweet that i cited and linked to?

that was a DIRECT consequence of sites reporting/commenting on her feminism in video game video and calling her a conservative. that tweet from her saying she is a "registered democrat with libertarian leanings" is her correcting them.

they at least had the integrity to correct the titles/references of her to remove the label of conservative directed at her, why dont you?

that very tweet was in direct response to this very situation.

labels are important. they are often considered a "necessary evil" as they allow people to characterize people and their views with easily digestible words/phrases.

my contention is that you 2 are consistently and in the face of direct evidence applying an incorrect label to someone you obviously know little about. as i have said before, i had no idea that was christina sommers that participates in MRM and MRA discussion until people started saying that was her. that is how unfamiliar i am with her and her work. and i also had NO idea what her political position was or what party she was aligned with.

SO I LOOKED IT UP.

if i started calling you 2 neo-nazi hitler supporters, would that offend you? would that offend other people?

why does this issue stick with me? because i can easily see how fucked up this situation is. because her and i are probably alike in this respect.

my stance on abortion:
i think abortion is murder. i think the practice is abhorrent. i cannot understand how people get themselves into circumstances today that abortion is even a consideration.

i think abortion should be legal. at the bare minimum there should be state-wide votes by the people with maybe even recurring votes every 3-5 years where they can say if it should be legal and to what extent.

did your head just explode? am i a conservative or liberal? are YOU able to understand why that is my stance on abortion and what the difference is?
 
TheWesDude said:
i cannot understand how people get themselves into circumstances today that abortion is even a consideration.
Click to expand...
The only two exceptions, for me personally, are rape (although it should be made clear to all that the fetus is not the rapist) and the high probability of a stillbirth or maternal death. Suffice to say, abortion is a subject that needs, and deserves, cool tempers in its given discourse.
 
Last edited:
Akratus said:
That's not even close to my argument or position. I'm just saying she's right, and you're wrong.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't what TheWesDude and I were talking about. If you want to have that argument, great! That's what we have that GamerGate thread for. Go talk about it there. It's not what this discussion is about.

Akratus said:
And don't give me any kind of argument that you calling her arguments conservative has anything to do with what she's actually saying.
Click to expand...
Why not? That's the entire point: her arguments are conservative. That doesn't matter to the validity of her arguments, but it's weird that people pretend they're not conservative -- or rather, it's not weird if you realize that they're using her as an identity-weapon.

TheWesDude said:
they at least had the integrity to correct the titles/references of her to remove the label of conservative directed at her, why dont you?
Click to expand...
All we've been saying is that in the context of her advocacy and this debate, her positions are conservative. Which they are. Which doesn't matter to the validity of her arguments at all. We've explained why we feel this way, and her saying she's a registered Democrat does not change the content of the positions she's advocated.


TheWesDude said:
i think abortion is murder. i think the practice is abhorrent. i cannot understand how people get themselves into circumstances today that abortion is even a consideration.
Click to expand...
Because birth control is not perfect, because birth control can be expensive and not compensated by insurance, because some people aren't well-educated on birth control, because rape occurs, because people make poor judgment calls all the time.

TheWesDude said:
i think abortion should be legal. at the bare minimum there should be state-wide votes by the people with maybe even recurring votes every 3-5 years where they can say if it should be legal and to what extent.

did your head just explode? am i a conservative or liberal? are YOU able to understand why that is my stance on abortion and what the difference is?
Click to expand...
Your position here is fairly progressive, depending on the details. On a lot of other issues, you are very conservative. So?
 
ok then sander, within the context of this discussion and the arguments you have stated, i am going to apply the label of neo-nazi socialist and ask you to show us your KKK membership card.

now i am not saying overall you are pro-nazi or a KKK member, i am just saying within the context of this discussion and the arguments you have posed that you would qualify.
 
TheWesDude said:
ok then sander, within the context of this discussion and the arguments you have stated, i am going to apply the label of neo-nazi socialist and ask you to show us your KKK membership card.

now i am not saying overall you are pro-nazi or a KKK member, i am just saying within the context of this discussion and the arguments you have posed that you would qualify.
Click to expand...

After reading the whole thread im sad to say that sander is probably not a neo nazi. Give him a strike for making me read this awful thread.
 
What you guys are unaware of is that The Wesdude and Sander are the same person.


tumblr_ncqi36R6ua1qz8z2ro1_500.png


*Thanks Nihilus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
when i was trying to make my point rationally, people kept ignoring it. when the rational argument fails to work, the easiest option is the irrational.

it doesnt matter why sander and yamu think she is a conservative, what matters is what she actually is.

they kept admitting that they had not read her full body of works, and kept iterating that what they have read about her, they think she is conservative. she has actually made a direct statement to what her political stance is, and they kept ignoring it.

if they realize it or not, they are being incredibly arrogant. they keep saying that they know her political stance better than she does. she is such an incapable person and incompetent that she doesnt even know her political stance. but its ok, sander and yamu are here to correct her! its the epitome of the patriarchy!. telling women what they think and who they are without letting them speak or think for themselves.

maybe, just maybe, she does know what her political stance is. maybe, just maybe, you havent actually read or know what her political values/stances are?

one thing i get from this whole discussion, i do not think yamu or sander understand what #NotYourShield is about if they are having an issue like this. if they did understand #NYS was about, they wouldnt be having this discussion.
 
So I take it you've read her full body of works to get to your conclusion?

By the way, most people say I'm a leftie but I'm actually a registered Republican with mra leanings and I think you're full of crap.
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
I'm pointing out that telling me that I think facts are scary is trolling, and trolling anyone on this board is not cool. It's a threat in the sense that repeated trolling can carry consequences, as is board policy. Disagree with me all you want. Just don't troll.
Click to expand...

Where does that leave tO?

----
Elsewhere!
----

This whole discussion is a little pointless and distracts from the real issues the article is trying to make.

Her calling herself a liberal democrat is pointless because of these possibilities:
a) She doesn't even know what that means herself.(Ill admit to being guilty of this for a long time)
b) She has a job to be the token liberal with boobs in the office.
c) Editors tend to have last say in whatever gets written, up to the point of rewriting to make the points they want to make.

Even if that, what point is there in finding out if she, or Sander, is a Stalinist anacho-neo Nazi Buddhist?
Will it make her arguments suddenly more valid despite having fleshy chest dangles?


In the end I vote for maddox for dictator for life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about sexism in the human brain?

It's only a problem if you provoke it. Just like racism.

Women also murder men you know. You might build the castle but you WILL hand your keys over to her.

People who stand on shoddy tables smash their face upon the concrete eventually.


I see these two polarized teams as failures to begin with.

One side thinks penises are evil.

The other side thinks that vaginas are evil.


Someones not getting laid.

Who's fault is that? The system? Probably. Us? Yep. Do we want people to get laid?

Hell no. Hell-fire, damnation. Commie. Fuck you.

I will enslave and dominate by control over everything.

Reap what you sow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No sexism is very much a problem.

But the fault lies in two places. The creators and the ass hats who buy their products.

You can say naughty naughty all you want, the creators won't care until money gets involved.
 
Last edited:
Ah-Teen said:
No sexism is very much a problem.

But the fault lies in two places. The creators and the ass hats who buy their products.

You can say naughty naughty all you want, the creators won't care until money gets involved.
Click to expand...

Did I say sexism wasn't a problem shit-scalp?

Where?

Where the fuck did I say sexism wasn't a problem?

Respectfully
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buxbaum666 said:
So I take it you've read her full body of works to get to your conclusion?
Click to expand...

no, i havent. which is why i do not pretend to speak for her. she says she is a democrat with libertarian leanings, i take it at face value. i do this because i do not know her political stances on issues.

Ah-Teen said:
Her calling herself a liberal democrat is pointless because of these possibilities:
a) She doesn't even know what that means herself.(Ill admit to being guilty of this for a long time)
b) She has a job to be the token liberal with boobs in the office.
c) Editors tend to have last say in whatever gets written, up to the point of rewriting to make the points they want to make.

Even if that, what point is there in finding out if she, or Sander, is a Stalinist anacho-neo Nazi Buddhist?
Will it make her arguments suddenly more valid despite having fleshy chest dangles?
Click to expand...

she does not call herself a liberal democrat. she calls herself a democrat with libertarian leanings.

in quite a few places i have seen, she is a centrist democrat if you want to apply liberal/conservative qualifier to her democrat position. of course all that does is reinforce her statements.

and another thing, i wouldnt care if sander was a stalinist anarcho-neo nazi buddhist. what i care about is the statements made, and if they hold up to scrutiny. thats part of the problem in a lot of discussion. it is even a logical fallacy: Appeal to Academia. judging someones statements based on who they are rather than the statements on their own is flawed.

if a doctorate in english language told you that 5 multiplied by 5 was 19, would you give it the same weight as if a doctorate of mathematics said the same thing? the person that makes the statement 5 multiplied by 5 equals 19 is irrelevant to the truth that it is correct and can be proven.

if some random person on the internet told you that IPv6 adoption would slow down the internet and how fast traffic on it flows, and that backbone companies are trying to adopt MPLS in effort to alleviate some of that slowdown, what would your response be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top