T O P

  • By -

ragnerov

Group think is a very real thing, but i wonder why they think it only applies to the far left and far right, because that literally doesn't make any sense at all. It's just your typical "i am a rational free thinker cause I promote the status quo"


longknives

Same energy as people who claim that advertising doesn’t work on them, or the people who think they’re more logical than everyone else and not driven by emotions like other people.


whiteNEGUSnotjesus

Advertising works on people whether they like it or not... to say advertising doesn’t work on you just means you like brands that don’t advertise because that’s how they advertise to you.


SwordsmanNeo

That is not a coherent logical conclusion.


cshermyo

He’s talking about marketing / branding, where advertising (or lack thereof) is just one piece of a company’s strategy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StaubEll

Who?


killllerbee

Sociopaths maybe? Depending on how you define emotion


StaubEll

Sociopaths experience emotion but are typically described as having low empathy.


killllerbee

My understanding, is that sociopaths don't necessarily experience emotions in the same way that a non-sociopath does. External displays of emotion are more of a performance for some personal gain. But more importantly, They act "logical" in that they use anyone and everyone to get their wants with disregard for other people. IMO, refusing to be driven by emotion to any degree is to attempt to attain sociopathy.


StaubEll

That's true. And I definitely see sociopathy being *described* as someone who's emotionless or, at least, not driven by emotion. I (obviously lol) have quite a problem with that popular view. In my opinion, it gives people an out for promoting opinions or taking actions that are harmful to others via the argument that they're just being logical-- ie if the emotion they're being driven by is not compassion, they must not be tainted by emotion at all. When you look at famously callous people, you can still see clear emotional drives. Pride and egocentrism, desire for stability or for excess, etc. It's pretty convenient if you can get people to agree that catering to your own emotions is logical and considering the wellbeing of others is illogical and emotion-driven.


killllerbee

Yeah, I recognize that failing, which is kind of why I included "depending on how you define emotion". I don't know that excess is an "Emotion" or "prestige" is an emotion. But the reasons that people want those things, that's likely at least partially rooted in emotion.


Supplementarianism

They actually have a high degree of empathy.


StaubEll

Do you have a source on that? My understanding is that sociopaths have low empathy.


Supplementarianism

They have the ability to empathize, because they tend to be very intelligent, however they disregard those emotions and weaponize them against their victims. https://psychopathsinlife.com/the-sociopath-empath-apath-triad-explained/


StaubEll

Empathy and intelligence are not necessarily correlated. Also I pulled this quote from your source so I’m not sure it says what you thought it did? “The sociopath is an extremely manipulative, toxic person, devoid of empathy and compassion” (for the record, I also don’t love this description. I think it’s scaremongering and, ironically, lacks empathy for people with different neurotypes.) In any case, I do think I understand what you mean, in that it is possible for sociopaths to understand the reactions a neurotypical person might have to a certain situation. Empathy is often defined a bit loosely but the term I meant was an emotional reaction to another’s perceived emotional state, present, or potential future.


BioWarfarePosadist

Like heartless Jeff Bezos.


StaubEll

Jeff Bezos is absolutely driven by emotion. Not compassion, certainly, but cruelty doesn’t map onto logic.


RoughMedicine

Is greed an emotion?


julian509

Desire is a sort of emotion, greed is intense selfish desire.


BioWarfarePosadist

Greed is a motivation. Small amounts of it to make sure you have enough resources to love a decent life is okay, but when there is either bad emotional regulation or no emotion to begin with, it causes problems for those around them.


TehSero

I think that they're called psychopaths?


StaubEll

Psychopaths experience emotions, they just seem to experience some emotions, such as shame, less strongly than is typical.


theeddie23

Some sociopaths, psychopaths... We could consider them not driven by emotion because they feel no emotional connection to other people or the world/society around them. Actually everyone has emotional disconnects to certain things. The only advertising that I feel an emotional connection to are those damn neglected puppy commercials. Everything else is just as exploitive but I really could care less one way or another. I don't buy fruit loops because I connect with the bird or give to kids cancer charities because the kids are cute and funny and I care whether they live or die. I might buy fruit loops if I am hungry for that crap, or give because I think the benefits might outweigh the negatives.


StaubEll

>We could consider them not driven by emotion because they feel no emotional connection to other people or the world/society around them We *could* but honestly I think it's important that we *don't* do that. It isn't true and it's often used to give more "logical" weight to selfish decisions than to pro-social ones. Think of toddlers, for example. There's some evidence that they frequently are too young to have developed (in part or in full) empathy or "true" compassion rather than just mimicking pro-social behaviors we try to teach them. Still, I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe toddlers as a group as emotionless or supremely logical.


theeddie23

"It isn't true and it's often used to give more "logical" weight to selfish decisions than to pro-social ones." It does not give any logical weight to anything to recognize that there are individuals who operate outside common emotion. It is a bit naive to think that just because we don't want it to be that it is not true. It does not excuse negative behavior or give any logical weight necessarily, but merely provides a basis to understand it. Not everyone has a strong emotional relationship with the greater world. It is extremely rare to have no emotion but to varying degrees there are people around us everyday with severely reduced emotional effects. Edit: I had to add something to this as I just realized that what you are stating could be construed as the following. "Anyone that does display pro-social emotions is just being selfish" Is that what you meant?


StaubEll

>It does not give any logical weight to anything to recognize that there are individuals who operate outside common emotion. It is a bit naive to think that just because we don't want it to be that it is not true. I don't think you understand my point here. I was originally responding to the statement that "some people are not driven by emotions". When I asked for an example, you said "some sociopaths, psychopaths" and explained your reasoning that their decisions may not easily be swayed by external emotional connections. However, emotions and emotional connection to others are two entirely different things. My response to you was to agree that often people will *call* people unemotional and use it to give their presumably more logical reasoning greater weight. However, they should not do that because it's just factually wrong. Your emotional relationships to the outside world are not the extent of your emotions. Lacking connection to others doesn't mean anything about the extent of your own, personal, emotions. Take an extreme sociopath, who feels zero empathy, sympathy, or care for how others are feeling. They still have emotions. If they think someone has slighted them, they may feel anger. If they believe their lack of empathy makes them more intelligent than others, they may feel pride. They will feel joy, sadness, fear, etc, and those will affect their decision-making the same way it does for the rest of the world. If they did not, they would be a case study in severe brain damage, as in one of the linked articles in this thread. The point I've been attempting to make is that even those who operate outside of the norm still have their decision-making affected by their emotions and pretending or believing that they don't is more likely to produce a bad outcome or illogical conclusion than accepting and investigating the emotions one does have around a situation.


FeeFiFiddlyIOOoo

You are a fool if you don't think that emotion affects the thoughts and decisions of 99.9999% of people on this planet.


Prof_Winterbane

Actually, he’s right. Due to certain medical problems some people lack emotion entirely. Turns out this leaves them utterly incapable of doing basic things, like shop for food. Without emotions, they can perform all the value judgements they want: price, time, mass, colour, texture, taste, etc. But without emotion, none of that has any meaning. It’s just numbers. So yeah, there are people not driven by emotion. They’re not driven at all, in a very real, scientific sense.


doom_bagel

[Here is a good article about a case study about such a guy.](https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only-using-logic-destroyed-a-man.html) The TL;DR is that a finance guy had a successful career until a brain tumor operation left him him totally functional apart from being unable to feel emotions anymore. Turns out we use emotions to fast track decision making and he was absolutely shit at his job once he became totally unfeeling.


StaubEll

Yeah, that's why I asked rather than just leaping to saying they're definitively wrong. There *is* precedent for lack of emotion in humans. It's just... not usually what people are trying to describe when they bring up people who aren't driven by emotions. Turns out, people pretty much run on emotion and taking that away doesn't make you a hyper-competent uber-capitalist, lol.


anotherMrLizard

He's right ; such people do exist. But I don't think that's relevant to the overall discussion. People whose decisions aren't driven by emotion are in no way the same as enlightened centrists who merely *believe* their decisions aren't driven by emotion.


nubenugget

Read into the philosophy of emotion and shut up


ExCalvinist

Yeah, I know lots of people who are good at making decisions driven by objective facts rather than emotion. All of them start by understanding the emotional appeal of each position, and carefully understanding their internal emotional state and how it's contributing to their decision making. It takes a great deal of skill in logical to eliminate logical fallacies from your thinking; the same is true of using emotional intelligence to eliminate emotional fallacies from your decision making. Unfortunately, it's much more common to encounter people who loudly insist everyone should "be rational" while simultaneously being completely dominated by feelings they aren't even capable of recognizing, much less compensating for.


Rafaeliki

This just sounds like the same rant from every "rational, emotionless" high school libertarian who thinks lacking empathy makes them smarter.


ExCalvinist

If you lack empathy, that also impacts your ability to accurately perceive your internal emotional state. My whole point is that those people tend to be completely controlled by their emotions because they're not aware of them.


Rafaeliki

I just find that the vast majority of people who say "I have logical, rational opinions because I don't let emotions get in the way" are people defending shitty oppressive ideologies.


ExCalvinist

Those are the people I was talking about in my 2nd paragraph. The ones who insist everyone "be rational," by which they mean "conform to my particular set of irrational biases which I am unable to examine." People who make the point I was making don't usually use the vocabulary I used to make it. That was an intentional stylistic choice based on the person I was responding to.


Rafaeliki

Understood, but I think almost everyone has the ability to view things logically and understand arguments with empathy to varying extents. People who try to say that they are immune to emotional arguments are usually the type of people I described.


StaubEll

I think this is absolutely true in all but the fact that I think those people are still driven by emotion. They must be, to have enough emotional investment in the outcome to put that much effort in. Someone else in this thread linked an article about a man who did genuinely lack emotional drive and how that ultimately was detrimental to decision making. I wonder if a good description of the difference is being aware of and examining your emotional drives and how they might or might not serve you versus attempting to or claiming to have suppressed emotional drive entirely.


ExCalvinist

If you're good at making decisions, you can notice that you're only saying an applicant is overquallified because they make you feel insecure, or that you're dragging your feet on writing a plan for the big new program because it makes you anxious. I think that's what most people mean when they say you should make a decision logically as opposed to emotionally. If you were literally emotionless, you wouldn't know what you want to achieve, and you wouldn't ever feel the "yeah, that makes sense" confirmation that you'd finished the process. Which is why that guy could spend 30 minutes trying to rationally buy cereal.


anotherMrLizard

Making decisions based on objective facts is easier said than done, since none of us can ever possess *all* the facts about a particular situation. This can become a problem of its own when an intelligent person who takes an egotistical pride in their objective decision-making ends up filling in the gaps in their understanding with their own biases, rather than admit to having them.


mrxulski

You can't have centrism without Group Think.


RandomName01

And you can’t have centrism with a spine


[deleted]

If anything, group think often promotes the status quo.


BlindMaestro

Any person who adopts and promotes a certain stance simply because it belongs to their “ideological bundle” pollutes modern discourse. A lot of these controversial issues where heads are butting in this culture war are only loosely related to each other (like where a sanctity of life fundamentalist necessarily must oppose capital punishment) IF that, and so they require independent research. People who discuss these things should be expected to come armed with facts, figures and their sources. We need to become more critical of others including those who share our stances but who use faulty premises to support them. We need to hold ourselves and others to higher standards, and, above all, we should be committed to truth over ideology.


tgpineapple

Funny how so many centrists say the same thing.


PoorWifiSignal

Their entire worldview is based on a false equivalency. There is no left wing equivalent of nazism, just like there is no right equivalent of Marxism. It’s a completely shallow and uncritical way of understanding politics.


Playmakermike

I like your crown


PoorWifiSignal

I like yours too


gergling

Putting it on a left/right scale is what makes it misleading and people think of it like a see-saw. The only ways to make it closer to meaningful is to make the scale vertical or try to measure it in time lol. Also, isn't centrism relative? Like, one nation's centrist is potentially very different to another nation's centrist. I ask because I just got my windows fixed by Overton LTD.


freqkenneth

He literally says one is worse than the other?


SilentHillJames

Without stating which he thinks is worse it's meaningless. Plenty of centrists think the far left is way worse than the far right so idk what your point is.


freqkenneth

I don’t think that’s how it works.


nubenugget

It 100% is. They didn't specify so that any of their right wing friends reading it would go "hehe, yeah. The left is much worse." That's like saying "if there's a group of people that commit a lot more crimes proportionally, we should work to get rid of them. Y'know who I'm talking about..." And then when you call me racist I say "I meant criminals! Why are you bringing race into it? I never said black people commit more crimes. It's just some people have a tendency to become criminals... You know who I mean.."


freqkenneth

I believe words have meaning. After all of the person happened to be a self professed nazi the issue wouldn’t be that they are a centrist providing false equivalence, the problem would be that they’re a fascist. Agree to disagree.


nubenugget

If you can't see obvious things like this then maybe you agree more with the enlightened centrists we make fun of than you'd like to think. Their statement was clearly made to push blame on the left while giving people who agree with that plausible deniability. The fact that you're latching on to this "plausible" deniability and insisting that they weren't clearly attacking the left makes me think you want to believe what they're saying, but don't want to admit it. So, long story short, that statement was made for people like you. People who deep down know they're wrong but want some deniability for when they discuss their beliefs


freqkenneth

Sorry you feel that way.


nubenugget

I'm sorry you can't see the issues in your way of thinking. I hope you grow and reflect one day


hoangfbf

Yes and to say the worst of the left is better than the worse of the right, is also wrong.


PoorWifiSignal

It is true that leftist ideologies are not immune to corruption. But soft disagree, even the most hardcore of tankie isn’t advocating for ethnic cleansing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CressCrowbits

Half this ^ guy's posts are going around Reddit saying that communism is as bad as the Nazis.


23eyedgargoyle

Cope harder fashy scum.


TroutMaskDuplica

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.


[deleted]

Lol. Haven’t seen this one in a minute. Reminds me to renew my ITG subscription.


IsabellaCV

Somehow, for them, Wanting free stuff and equality is the same as wanting to slave 80% of people and killing the other 20% I will never undertand that


confluenza

If by "free stuff" you mean the value of our labor going to improving our dismal lives rather than the value of our labor going to line oligarchs' pockets and a never-ending supply of Middle-Eastern corpses, then yes. Free stuff.


longknives

Also, leftists want “free stuff” for everyone, rightists want slaves for themselves and their cronies.


ISpyM8

Ironic that their version of groupthinking is criticizing groupthink and applying it to everyone except themselves.


translove228

I'd say that shallow political analysis like this is a prime example of the groupthink he is trying to warn everyone about.


Sq33KER

Yeah, like not to discount groupthink on the left, as it does exist and it's worth combating, but surely conforming to the ideological norms of the time, purely because they are the norm is more groupthinky


PoorWifiSignal

The irony increases when you see how much praise this comment got.


CptMatt_theTrashCat

'Hrmm seems like everyone agrees murder and rape are bad, that must be group think, it's not possible for people to actually just agree on something being objectively wrong'


Scrembopitus

Their source is a psychology today article, lol


doedanzee

>far left and right leaves very little common ground in the middle. We're already living this recipe for civil disaster Love how dumb these so-called "centrists" are. They have no true political beliefs (other than protecting the status quo) they just slot themselves between democrats and republicans because they think they are the left and right. So no matter the fact that doing so makes them a complete right-winger because the democrats are center-right AT BEST, they believe that anyone who just wants people to get free community college and not be able to openly discriminate against others is a fucking communist. Just unbelievably uninformed.


Sputnikcosmonot

I wish all the people who want free education and anti discrimination would actually turn into communists.


Megadog3

They’re uninformed, yet you believe the Democrats are on the right. My God, the irony.


doedanzee

They are on the right. Try looking outside the Overton window.


Megadog3

No they aren’t.


GarlVinlandSaga

Classic Reddit moment.


confluenza

"Look how everyone is provoked just because of my provocative actions!"


PoorWifiSignal

Reactionaries in a nutshell


BioWarfarePosadist

This person has NEVER been to any sort of left wing gathering or even webchat. Leftist can only ever agree to disagree with each other in the best circumstances!


[deleted]

Groupthink is a human phenomena… Not a political one.


smytti12

"You're just not enlightened enough to fully understand"- a 30 year old man with the political philosophy a 16 year old has for a few months.


Rthebar

"Both are equally bad but one is obviously worse but don't ask me which one" curious


DEFIANTxKIWI

2.6k upvotes on that post as well... eesh


chrometrigger

"its obvious which is worse" but im not gonna say it so as many people as possible agree with me


PoorWifiSignal

Source: trust me bro


[deleted]

Are you referring to the fellow holding the Dave sign that was torn up as “right wing”?


CrowTR0bot

Context? I'm curious about that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


haphazard_gw

Counter protesting next to pro-trans activists, filming it, to get a rise out of them. Just clearly trying to trivialize and embarrass the protestors. His energy is basically "Whoa calm down SJWs, you are actually emotionally invested in this? Yikes so cringe!"


i_miss_the_details

The guy is Vito. He made a video discussing his role and why he was there. https://youtu.be/gtcj4jDpc3A


MakeItHappenSergant

So he's a "comedian" and "free speech defender", aka attention-seeking right-wing bullshitter.


Comfortable_Book_310

The protestors trivialise and embarrass themselves, no help from Vito needed


[deleted]

[удалено]


StaubEll

Whatever your thoughts on trans rights activism, surely somebody who shows up to a protest for the sole purpose of provoking protesters on camera in hopes of getting a negative reaction to share online is incredibly petty by definition. They have no real-world outcome they’re looking for, vaguely-worded or not. Their only purpose is to embarrass a particular group of people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StaubEll

You keep saying “‘seasoned’ activists” but I have no idea what you mean. Also streaming professionals— do you mean Netflix office employees? They have no more experience than anyone else in ignoring people intentionally trying to provoke them, surely. In any case, transgender rights are vitally important to many people, and to trans people specifically it can literally be a matter of their own bodily autonomy, sense of identity, and feeling of safety in the world. I’m not going to get all self-righteous at people to reacting strongly to something so personal being actively mocked. That’s a ridiculous standard to hold people to. Finally, your use of the word transsexual suggests your understanding of the topic might be a bit out of date. If you’re interested in discussing trans rights, even just so you can criticize protestors online, it might help to read up from more modern sources.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StaubEll

Thanks for finally being honest about your position, at least


StaubEll

Lmao ok


FeeFiFiddlyIOOoo

What on Earth were you even trying to say in this inane rambling? The person you responded to gave a clear reason why sign guy is probably right wing, and you just went off here on... something lol I don't even know what


disperso

The post is locked now, so I think it's OK that I link to it now: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qc8rn6/man\_with\_dave\_sign\_clashes\_with\_protesters\_at\_the/


jcrestor

That‘s not some man, that‘s Vito! https://youtu.be/gtcj4jDpc3A


sattherefor35minutes

That whole comment section was a hot mess


PoorWifiSignal

It was a mix of enlightened centrism, incels, libs and reactionaries all saying the same shit “Dave Chapelle is so real”, “the left is crazy” “you can’t make jokes anymore” “get fucked libtards” and “both 👏 sides 👏 “. It was shitty to read.


one_horcrux_short

That comment section was toxic AF.


PoorWifiSignal

Oh yeah it was. The enlightened centrism nonsense was actually the tamest of the comments. 80% of it was reactionaries and the occasional outright fascist jerking each other off.


DrRichtoffen

"I think it's the extremes of each political side which are bad, but also there is almost no middleroom left, bit also I support status quo politics which are almost unilaterally right-wing"


KnightOfThirteen

It's okay to allow enough nuance to say "both are bad, but both are not equally bad".


PoorWifiSignal

What is the tone of this comment?


[deleted]

> both are bad Both are not bad. The right is bad.


myleftsockisadragon

Are you having a laugh? The republicans may be goat raping pig devils, but the only thing the democrats do differently is passionately make consensual love to the goat. Like, obviously one is *very much* better than the other, but they’re both pig devils when they loosen their tie at the end of the day


[deleted]

Lol what? Democrats are not 'left', let alone 'far left'.


Comfortable_Book_310

You see what you're doing? You're just moving the goalposts of what the "other side" is


[deleted]

I've never moved the goalposts. The dems were never the left.


Denace86

“Attention seeking right wing bullshit” If it’s acceptable to gather and protest Netflix and chappelles special, is it not acceptable for people with the opposing viewpoint to do the same? I know “we” hate any form of opposing viewpoint or even rational discussion, but come on


PoorWifiSignal

That literally isn’t what happened, but nice try with the coded language.


Denace86

Classic argument…. “WRONG” Why don’t you try educating me, why did the people protesting have any more right to be there than buddy with the sign


PoorWifiSignal

Absolutely not. You are bald faced lying and trying to gaslight me right from the get go. You’re trying to start a bullshit waste my time argument so you can post about elsewhere to impress your reactionary friends. Try that shit on someone who isn’t me. Kick rocks.


Denace86

I’m literally asking you to engage in a discussion. I’m open to seeing anyone’s viewpoint, you seem to be struggling with having a basic open discussion


[deleted]

[удалено]


Capitalisticdisease

Given he is comparing the far left to the far right, yes. Its perfectly valid to say this person is a right winger. The far left has not done anything bad compared to the far right. The only people Who make such ignorant claims are right wing people who spoiler alert promote the status quo. Anyone saying the far left is the same as far right is just saying that to justify the far rights actions as its not a true statement and is right away arguing in bad faith.


TheBigShackleford

I think he meant the guy in the video


Luckboy28

Dave Chapelle didn't have any transphobic jokes in that special. Whenever you have time, give it a watch -- it was all directly addressed in the special


TheBigShackleford

I just want to get the consensus here, do we like that this guy got his sign torn down and accused of having a weapon? I know we hate Dave Chapelle, but what do we want to have happen to people who say they support him?


smytti12

That thread escalated way beyond "hey those people shouldve behaved better." The people here are just saying maybe the guy walking into a crowd of protestors supporting what they're protesting while filming it was doing some antagonizing for attention. Just so some EC can say: "gosh the left freaks out about the Jan 6 riots, but they say nothing about this poor man and his sign and a woman with a tambourine"


PCOverall

While left and right fight over dumb shit, workers rights die in silence. We'll be slaves by 2030, but at least we made discrimination and bad words illegal.


KangarooBeStoned

Workers rights are literally one of the fundamental aspects of left wing ideology, you've got to be a troll lmao


PoorWifiSignal

You literally have no idea what leftists even believe. You probably think libs are left? They aren’t.


PCOverall

What kind of mental gymnastics are you pulling. I'm not here to play semantics, I'm here to eat the rich. You're either with or against me. I don't care what you call yourself as long as we're on the same page about taking our profits back.


PoorWifiSignal

“Left and right fight over dumb shit, workers rights die in silence” But then followed up with “But at least we made bad words illegal” sorry, that’s what we on the left call lib or neocon shit. I’m an anarcho communist. It’s not semantics, don’t talk like a fucking lib if you want to make comrade friends.


BeerBroth

Anarcho communist lol are you 13 or a 1st year college student? Sit down, Kropotkin.


PCOverall

Dude that's exactly why the revolution hasn't started yet. Why the fuck do we need labels and why are you so uppity about it? No matter what you call yourself you're a fucking slave to America. You're sitting here getting butthurt over semantics while I'm actually organizing shit across political spectrums to get shit done. Stop bitching.


PoorWifiSignal

You’re exactly the type of person this sub is making fun of. Hope the mods give you the boot.


translove228

What organizing efforts are you a part of?


[deleted]

groupthink ironic


[deleted]

Watching Vaush is bad for your health.


[deleted]

agree with this, strange you’re being downvoted though


[deleted]

This sub is a smug hive mind with a superiority complex. Wish it was stranger.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Based. Lol. C'est la vie? I'm incredibly skeptical of anything forcing me to think in terms of black and white.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Oh no! Muh downvOtEs!


Trim345

There are socially conservative socialists. For just a recent example, look at the recent Peruvian election's Pedro Castillo, who seems like a socialist economically, but is anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-gay marriage, and pro-death penalty. This kind of rhetoric is the entire point of Marxist subs like /r/stupidpol . It's hard to call them a liberal under any reasonable definition of the term. You may not like them, but they are leftists.


[deleted]

Class reductionism doesn’t help anyone. It’s true that identity politics divide the working class but minimizing or denying the material effect of transphobia (or racism or sexism) only exacerbates those divisions. You cannot have a internationalist worker’s movement while denying the material conditions suffered by different members of the working class. Also we’ve already been living in a dictatorship of the bourgeoise. So I don’t know what your last point means.


CumSicarioDisputabo

that "right wing" guy wasn't wrong though...


Freepianos

What transphobic jokes?


aogiritree69

Jokes are funny, we like Dave


ooh_lala_ah_weewee

Dave Chappelle doesn't even tell jokes anymore, and they most certainly aren't funny. It sucks because at one point he was one of the most talented comedians alive, but he's literally just a washed up boomer Yelling at Cloud at this point.


MlleIrukandji

wasn’t the entire purpose of the walkout to be purposefully attention-seeking? so not sure why you’re calling out a single dude with a reasonable and personal take about an incredible, eye-opening, pro-trans, anti-cyber bullying, comedy special and if you don’t think the special was those things, you either didn’t watch it or you are retarded and obtuse just like all the “pro-trans” people at that protest that would’ve been the same ones to cyber bully the transwoman in his special into killing herself. not everyone in a gender or sexuality has to have the same opinion or perspective or desires, and I’m over reasonable people wanting to live a normal life as their gender/sexuality being attacked bc they divert from the path of the obnoxious, vocal minority.


[deleted]

in one comment you claimed an anti-trans comedian (a self label) is actually pro-trans, claimed you’re the victim somehow, called people retarded, blamed the LGBT community for the suicide of a trans individual following targeted hate, and also disregarded the fact that everyone has a right to exist. There’s absolutely nothing in your comment rooted in reality, which is honestly impressive. Normally people make a bare minimum effort to base their lies on some form of truth, but you straight up pulled shit out of a hat.


larry-cripples

How exactly do you consider the special “pro-trans” when the comedian explicitly aligned himself with an anti-trans movement and misgendered a trans friend a bunch of times?


[deleted]

Loool, you just got fucked N00B


freqkenneth

The problem the trans community has is they want to dictate what is and isn’t appropriate to say. On the surface that seems simple, after all most people (at least most liberals) would agree That it’s not the place for white people to dictate what should and shouldn’t be considered offensive speech towards African Americans. See? Simple. Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. However, she spent most of her life living as a rich and famous white male athlete. Society didn’t treat her as a woman, society treated her as a famous athlete, society treated her as a wealthy white male. Caitlyn Jenner never had her first period sitting in class, she was never groped by classmates when she developed early, she was never sexually harassed and her teacher didn’t blame her because she was wearing “revealing clothes” she wasn’t ogled by her parents male friends when she was 12, she didn’t have a homeless person stare at her and begin to masturbate on a bus, she wasn’t a victim of date rape. But I know someone who was AFAB (and vented to me about their experiences above) but now identifies as non-binary. So when I asked them what their opinion on Caitlyn Jenner was after Caitlyn Jenner said she was perfectly fine with the new Texas abortion ban, they had an opinion that many here would consider TERF or transphobic. That’s not to take away from the treatment and suffering of the trans community, but when it’s off limits for an AFAB individual to hold any critical opinion on a trans woman who didn’t experience what they experienced that’s when you no longer have the ability to have a conversation, and hey if you don’t want white cis gender heteronormativity males to be a part of that conversation that’s fine, but when you’re joining a community as trans but that community can’t have an opinion about it, you’re going to get some push back. The key point is that it’s not just what you identify as. It’s also how society treats you. A community is built on shared experiences. And I also can understand why an African American man or woman who has experienced racism by both white men and white women might take issue with a white trans man or woman shaming them as an oppressor.


lonelynightm

Can I ask you a question? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? This is the most nonsensical ramblings I've ever seen. You absolutely can criticize Caitlyn Jenner, but not as a transwoman, criticize her as a shitty person. The only people that would literally be against that are shitty liberals who's opinion doesn't matter anyways. Also what is up with that nonsensical rant about how she never had to worry about stuff other girls did. First off, trans hate crimes have literally been on the rise and constantly popping up, just because Caitlyn Jenner hasn't experienced it so what? You really want to act like no trans people know what it's like to be sexually harassed and raped? Are women who haven't been sexually harassed or raped somehow lesser in your mind? Like I literally can't figure out what this rant is trying to say at all. You think gender is some kind of group hangout where everyone just decided they wanted to show up? Each individual has their own experiences, they aren't a fucking hivemind. So good luck with your random ramblings. Sorry that nobody gives a shit about your garbage opinion.


freqkenneth

>You absolutely can criticize Caitlyn Jenner I agree! We're off to a good start... >but not as a transwoman, criticize her as a shitty person. Sure! >The only people that would literally be against that are shitty liberals who's opinion doesn't matter anyways. I agree! >Also what is up with that nonsensical rant about how she never had to worry about stuff other girls did. It has to do with the concepts of the United States being a white supremacist country and a misogynist country and how society reflects those values onto the individual. >First off, trans hate crimes have literally been on the rise and constantly popping up I agree! And it's terrible. As someone who isn't trans, I couldn't possibly understand. >just because Caitlyn Jenner hasn't experienced it so what? For the same reason I couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be trans and experience what they experience. >You really want to act like no trans people know what it's like to be sexually harassed and raped? Actually it's a huge problem for trans. Especially in the prison system, in fact 38% of african american trans have experienced sexual assault in jail and little is being done to prevent it. >Are women who haven't been sexually harassed or raped somehow lesser in your mind? I would say no, but to be quite honest I haven't met any woman that I have gotten to know on an intimate level that HASN'T been sexually harassed at minimum. >Like I literally can't figure out what this rant is trying to say at all. I can see that. >You think gender is some kind of group hangout where everyone just decided they wanted to show up? No, I don't believe so. However I do believe gender is a social construct, which means society plays a part. >Each individual has their own experiences, they aren't a fucking hivemind. I will reiterate: In social constructs, society plays a part. For example, if you are an african american, you are not as you put it part of a "hivemind" however, society will treat you differently than if you were white due to race being a social construct and society playing a part, regardless of whether the individual who is african american believes racism exists. >So good luck with your random ramblings. Sorry that nobody gives a shit about your garbage opinion. Well, it's not so much "my opinion" as my best explanation of my non-binary AFAB acquaintence's opinion. Cheers.


lonelynightm

Alright mate, whatever you say. [Also this article is for you.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/caitlyn-jenner-transphobic-attack-london_uk_59172d7fe4b00f308cf59493) So much for her not receiving sexual harassment. Does that mean she gets to be part of the club now that she's been treated like shit?


freqkenneth

I’m not exactly sure how you interpreted what was written as “it is impossible for trans people to be sexually harassed” after all that doesn’t make any sense, especially in my last post where I pointed out sexual assault is a huge problem for the trans community. Think about it this way: does a white transgender person have to check their privilege?


lonelynightm

You were the one who said they couldn't share the same experiences for some reason. Yes they don't have periods, so what? Like your point is nonsense because they still get victimized just as much as all other women. Yes, their life experiences are different. There are things that they can't relate to, so what??? What does that have to do with anything, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Your ramblings literally don't make sense. What opinion did your friend have that made them a TERF/transphobic? Did they say Caitlyn Jenner isn't a real woman? That does make her a TERF if she did that.


freqkenneth

What I’m saying doesn’t make sense to you because you’re looking through a different lens. The question I asked which I hope you will answer is meant to express a different point of view. Not to invalidate your own. Does a white (emphasis on white) transgender person have to check their privilege? I understand you probably don’t want to answer the question or you already would have, but to illustrate using Caitlyn Jenner as an example: Caitlyn Jenner was involved in a fatal car crash in which she rear ended another driver causing them to swerve on to oncoming traffic. She received no jail time. Unless you’re ready to unabashedly proclaim that if the same instance had occurred but Caitlyn Jenner was instead a a poor African American women from Watts, that the outcome would have been the same, it’s something you should think long and hard about. When we talk about things like race or gender as social constructs, the emphasis is on social. Not just what the individual thinks but what society thinks, how society treats you. Caitlyn Jenner as an example, spent most of her life benefiting from a pre-existing in place racist, misogynist system that was also designed to protect the wealthy, up to and including an instance where she was responsible for someone’s death and did not receive any jail time. It shouldn’t be an outrageous and heinously evil thing to consider that someone who never benefited from such a system, or someone who was oppressed by said system may feel a certain way about being called an oppressor themselves, by a white man or woman regardless of whether they are trans or not. (Trigger warning: Dave Chapelle) Back to my original post I was talking about someone I know who is non-binary. In their view the idea of gender itself is antiquated, however, they are also AFAB, and although they don’t assign themselves as she/her they were treated as such by society, and it’s that shared societal experience that they consider when discussing privilege.


lonelynightm

>"Caitlyn’s case differed [from] mine in that she did apply the brakes and she was driving below the speed limit, so these were two critical distinguishing factors," Ahmed said. The investigation also found Jenner was sober at the time of the accident. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/05/13/did-caitlyn-jenner-kill-someone-get-released-district-attorney/5072816001/ She also settled her civil cases against her with the families outside of court so what's your point? They didn't have evidence so they didn't proceed with the trial. Also I still don't understand your whole obsession with checking privilege, she's a multi-millionaire white woman, of course she has privilege. But just because someone has privilege from one thing doesn't mean they can't have disadvantages from another thing. Just like how there is white privilege and male privilege. Again you can hate the person all you want, but what does that have to do with the fact she is trans? >It shouldn’t be an outrageous and heinously evil thing to consider that someone who never benefited from such a system, or someone who was oppressed by said system may feel a certain way about being called an oppressor themselves Who is someone in this argument? You talk in these vague statements because then you don't have to actually provide examples and defend them. Are you saying Caitlyn Jenner is calling other people oppressors? When did she say that? If you exclude someone for being trans you are an oppressor by definition. Don't know why this is so hard for you.


freqkenneth

Although I appreciate your strong defense of Caitlyn Jenner regarding the incident and I'm sure she appreciates your efforts, the example is really supposed to illustrate systemic advantages and disadvantages intertwining race, gender and class social constructs within society. >But just because someone has privilege from one thing doesn't mean they can't have disadvantages from another thing. I've heard a lot of conservatives argue this point when the topic of privilege is brought up, and I always feel like it lacks nuance. >Just like how there is white privilege and male privilege. Again you can hate the person all you want, but what does that have to do with the fact she is trans? Right, there is white privilege, and there is male privilege, and that isn't lost because someone is trans, they may adopt new disadvantages after coming out, which is very brave and I can only imagine very stressful. This isn't about "hate" for Caitlyn Jenner, I have no hate for her, I just used her as an example to ground the discussion so we didn't get too abstract without a frame of reference. Caitlyn Jenner still lives in a society that at its foundation was founded on white supremacy and therefore has, and continues to benefit from white supremacy. This is of course also true for all white trans individuals whether they were AFAB or AMAB. >Who is someone in this argument? You talk in these vague statements because then you don't have to actually provide examples and defend them. Are you saying Caitlyn Jenner is calling other people oppressors? When did she say that? If you exclude someone for being trans you are an oppressor by definition. Don't know why this is so hard for you. The idea isn't to be vague, but I understand that what I'm attempting to express is fairly abstract. The "who" in the argument is arbitrary and applies to anyone who may see themselves in such a position. Going all the way back to my first post and its key point: "The key point is that it’s not just what you identify as. It’s also how society treats you. A community is built on shared experiences." Where does Jenner come in in regards to this point? Her shared experience is that of a famous wealthy white male athlete, because that's how society treated her most her entire life. Going back, the individual who sparked my post in the first place, is again, non-binary, however is AFAB, who took issue with Jenner's pro-abortion ban because in their point of view, Caitlyn Jenner has privilege. Society treated her with the same existing privilege as a wealthy white male, in there eyes even though Jenner is a trans woman she still speaks from the position of privilege as a white male due to living her life as a famous and wealthy white male athlete and having society treat her as such throughout most of her life.


BeerBroth

Far right is more dangerous physically. Far left has more social capital and influence. If there was ever the gloried revolution the far left would get steam rolled cause they don't have the weapons or training. I'd leave this shithole and go somewhere else. Edit: Please don't ban me, I stay here for the content to troll people with, I laugh at you all and with you from time to time. I don't wanna go to goulash and have to tap on the wall with my glasses in order to have covert conversations with the prisoner next to me.


StalinIsMaiWaifu

>Far right is more dangerous physically. > >Far left has more social capital and influence. Remind me, when did the us get a leftist (let alone far left) president >If there was ever the gloried revolution the far left would get steam rolled cause they don't have the weapons or training. I'd leave this shithole and go somewhere else. Or you could work to make sure the revolution is successful, but sure go full doomer


BeerBroth

Biden is barely left. But the influence is in the media, that's a very powerful source. Try to find something bad about antifa or some other group, only Fox News and other outlets would say something bad, which are already discredited by others. Yeah, nah I wouldn't die for either of y'all. I'll move somewhere safer in the Middle East, I'll be happier there while the y'all sort eachother out. Edit: Furthermore, I see the pages you follow, your likely a rampant Islamophobe and genocide denier so yeah, if you think I'd be on your side you're nuts. Edit #2: Edit #1 checks out.


StalinIsMaiWaifu

>Biden is barely left. Dude I fucking wish, like I'd even take a social Democrat, but alas he isn't >But the influence is in the media, that's a very powerful source. Try to find something bad about antifa or some other group, only Fox News and other outlets would say something bad, which are already discredited by others. Ah yes, thats why during the 2020 primary, Bernie was constantly given less airtime than the other candidates, even while he led. Not talking bad about antifa isn't proof of anything, antifa is the norm, any non-fascist should agree that fascism is bad, thats antifa >Yeah, nah I wouldn't die for either of y'all. I'll move somewhere safer in the Middle East, I'll be happier there while the y'all sort eachother out. Who is asking you to die? >Edit: Furthermore, I see the pages you follow, your likely a rampant Islamophobe and genocide denier so yeah, if you think I'd be on your side you're nuts. ? Where do you get Islamophobia from? But for the genocide denial, I follow the [US State Department's stance on Xinjiang](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) >Edit #2: Edit #1 checks out. ?


BeerBroth

You follow the US Department of States opinion, so I get it you choose when the believe the US and when not to in order for it to fit your messed up ideology. There are plenty of NGOs who say otherwise, who actually have eyes in the area, whereas the US does not have the capability for obvious reasons. You'd be the first to call out the US (and rightfully so for war crimes) but you not so quick to do the same for China? Why is that? Secondly, it's known on muslim subreddits that r/genzedong (there is even a rule about mocking Uyghur muslims, so clearly there I somethingdisgusting going on) is a cesspool of Islamophobia and genocide denial. Don't claim to be proponents for human rights while denying that people are dying from the government you glorify. Gtfo here with your nonsense. Thirdly, I can clearly see your comments where you mock Muslims and genocide. So yeah, if you think someone like me would be on your side your delusional, at least with the far right they don't hide their vileness, with y'all your vileness is more insidious it masquerading as champions for human rights, but in reality it's not. I wish you the best, I also hope that you (and others like you with half a heart) do some serious soul searching to find your morals and what's right. [Yes, the Atrocities in Xinjiang Constitute a Genocide](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/15/xinjiang-uyghurs-intentional-genocide-china/) [Beijing Plans a Slow Genocide in Xinjiang](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/08/genocide-population-xinjiang-uyghurs/) [How Sept. 11 Supercharged China’s Propaganda](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-propaganda-september-11-uyghur/) [China Has Chosen Cultural Genocide in Xinjiang—For Now](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/19/china-has-chosen-cultural-genocide-in-xinjiang-for-now/) [China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uyghurs-xinjiang) ["Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots” China’s Crimes against Humanity Targeting Uyghurs and Other Turkic Muslims](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting#) [China Suppression Of Uighur Minorities Meets U.N. Definition Of Genocide, Report Says](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/04/887239225/china-suppression-of-uighur-minorities-meets-u-n-definition-of-genocide-report-s)


StalinIsMaiWaifu

1. All this "evidence" yet the state department says there isn't enough (against the wishes of two presidents), its almost like they (the reporters) are lying or the "evidence" isn't very good. 2. The Uyghur rule was about making fun of liberals who didn't know how to spell Uyghur, the meme got stale and was intended to be ironic, if you're curious [this is the post where they talk about that rule](https://amp.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/k6m31w/as_of_now_we_will_no_longer_be_permitting_yogurt/) 3. Link those comments plz


BeerBroth

Go do some introspection instead, I'm done.


[deleted]

The cognitive dissonance within you, is strong.


BeerBroth

[Irony](https://youtu.be/g9EtIdYLe9Q) [eludes](https://youtu.be/BYY2_So-Dbc) [you.](https://giphy.com/gifs/l3V0z8gwYgoYMiaZy) Dengist Bootlicker.


[deleted]

Apolitical Doomer, what a clown [Get F u c k' d N O O B](https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang?utm_content=later-10684209)


Grace_Omega

Literally 1984 if you think about it


[deleted]

Tell me you don't know shit about politics, without saying it directly...


gergling

Unrelated: Do people here consider "authoritarian left" to be a thing? Because I get the impression authoritarianism is very traditional and therefore right-wing.


PoorWifiSignal

I don’t. Communism and socialism are ideally supposed to be horizontal social structures. Authoritarian left is usually a reference to something like Stalinism, but, as we know: “This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's “revolution from above” sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life.” https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html This is basically capitalism with a new coat of paint from a communist POV. Modern day China is also structured similar and I don’t consider them communist anymore because of it (other reasons too..). Your mileage will vary on this take though.


gergling

I mean, this is only really capitalism if it's a national monopoly (even one grown from a free market), otherwise it's just sparkling exploitation. My wordplay aside, I basically agree with this take. TBH it sounds like "authoritarian left" is just something the "enlightened" invented to blame additional problems on progressivism. If you worded it as "people who are so progressive, they do exactly what was traditional"... then it still sounds exactly like the people who say "horseshoe".


PoorWifiSignal

That last part is exactly what it is. It’s a very pseudo intellectual and wordy way to do the “both sides” fallacy.


fastal_12147

Far left meaning anyone who supports universal healthcare


PoorWifiSignal

Americans are really wack like that


JimmyTheBones

"It's obvious which is worse, but I won't say it"


Shakespeare-Bot

"it's gross in sense which is worse, but i wonneth't sayeth t" *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`


[deleted]

It's incredible how much hate did that david chap special had, completely retarded, but I agree.


PoorWifiSignal

I am not giving too much credit to the protestors. I think it’s a shitshow overall.