Game developer commits suicide after Zoe Quinn accusations

[GeekyBugle]

It's equally true that, regardless of political spectrum, people don't like to hear people who don't agree with them.  

While some on the left may argue for 'de-platforming', the people that the right generally don't want to hear have NEVER HAD A PLATFORM historically.  The right tends to be for the 'status-quo', so keeping things as they are generally means making it hard for new voices to be heard.

I think i know what you mean by "the people that the right generally don't want to hear have NEVER HAD A PLATFORM historically" but, since I don't want to be you I'll ask you to clarify and to provide proof of what you're saying.

Also "historically" usually is a socjuscult code word for "I'm gonna disregard linear time and say that because this bad thing happen in the past the present is equally bad or that you need to submit to any and all humiliation and abuse to right a wrong you didn't commit. I hope that's not what you are doing but...

Edited to add: The Status Quo is to have your life destroyed and to be assaulted for daring to hold a different point of view than the socjuscult. This includes anybody to the right of Mao.

[deadDMwalking]

Also "historically" usually is a socjuscult code word for "I'm gonna disregard linear time and say that because this bad thing happen in the past the present is equally bad or that you need to submit to any and all humiliation and abuse to right a wrong you didn't commit. I hope that's not what you are doing but...

I live in a Representative Democracy, so it's worth asking whether our representatives are really...representative.  Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.  

See for yourself

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's a problem, but it does mean that when people claim that their voices aren't being heard, the claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  

Greta Thunberg certainly has a point that leaders may not represent the young.  85% of the US Congress is over age 50.  

Conservatives complain of censorship and deplatforming, yet celebrate Colin Kaepernick's deplatforming from the NFL

If you spend time looking for examples, you can see organized movements to deny people a voice.

I think there's more that can be said on this subject, but I think that's enough to clarify my point.

[tenbones]

It's equally true that, regardless of political spectrum, people don't like to hear people who don't agree with them.  

While some on the left may argue for 'de-platforming', the people that the right generally don't want to hear have NEVER HAD A PLATFORM historically.  The right tends to be for the 'status-quo', so keeping things as they are generally means making it hard for new voices to be heard.

Perhaps in hindsight the "status-quo" is better than the alternative the Left is/has been advocating for. And just what IS that exactly other than the destruction of whatever the "status-quo" is - regardless of the standards within those quotes?

[jhkim]

Yep. I hate blacklists and cancel culture, but I don't believe they will end until and unless the left gets a taste of them, good and hard.

It's equally true that, regardless of political spectrum, people don't like to hear people who don't agree with them.  

While some on the left may argue for 'de-platforming', the people that the right generally don't want to hear have NEVER HAD A PLATFORM historically.  The right tends to be for the 'status-quo', so keeping things as they are generally means making it hard for new voices to be heard.

I think i know what you mean by "the people that the right generally don't want to hear have NEVER HAD A PLATFORM historically" but, since I don't want to be you I'll ask you to clarify and to provide proof of what you're saying.

Blacklists and suppressed speech were around in the U.S. long before the current era. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, people could easily lose their jobs and more for being outed as gay, for example. My male neighbor is from Texas, and recently went out to a mock homecoming party in a little black dress just for fun, and remarked how he would never have considered that growing up, knowing that he would be beaten for it. Transgender people would rightly fear for their lives just for walking around in public.

Most of the people who blacklisted LGBT people and/or beat them up are still around today. They didn't learn from the reversal that they should be tolerant of other customs and support free speech.

I expect that if there is sufficient social conservative backlash that cultural power shifts back, that the same thing will be true of the social liberals currently in power. If subjected to blacklists again, they won't learn tolerance, but rather will just be hardened to gaining power back.

[tenbones]

I live in a Representative Democracy, so it's worth asking whether our representatives are really...representative.  Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.

They represent their party and then their pockets first. This isn't shocking. Pretty narrow view framing you're doing there. You're not wrong - but you're obviously placing being white and Protestant at the forefront - when it's the largest denomination in the country. Representation shouldn't necessarily be based on those demographics alone.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's a problem, but it does mean that when people claim that their voices aren't being heard, the claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Wrong. You're missing the largest and most obvious point that I put above: They're representing the Party and then themselves. People aren't being heard because the new noble class doesn't *need* to.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

If you spend time looking for examples, you can see organized movements to deny people a voice.

I think there's more that can be said on this subject, but I think that's enough to clarify my point.

Yeah, and you'll see it's happening on both sides but through different means. A casual look into the Cambridge Analytics scandal pretty much underscores that... and the dark future we're heading into.

[GeekyBugle]

Blacklists and suppressed speech were around in the U.S. long before the current era. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, people could easily lose their jobs and more for being outed as gay, for example. My male neighbor is from Texas, and recently went out to a mock homecoming party in a little black dress just for fun, and remarked how he would never have considered that growing up, knowing that he would be beaten for it. Transgender people would rightly fear for their lives just for walking around in public.

I notice you didn't quote me in full, maybe because here you are ignoring linear time? Yes, things were bad, really bad but today isn't the past, things have changed and you find people like Milo and Blaire White to name but a few openly embraced by most on the right.

Most of the people who blacklisted LGBT people and/or beat them up are still around today. They didn't learn from the reversal that they should be tolerant of other customs and support free speech.

And they hold no power, and the republicans embrace people like Milo and Blaire White.

I expect that if there is sufficient social conservative backlash that cultural power shifts back, that the same thing will be true of the social liberals currently in power. If subjected to blacklists again, they won't learn tolerance, but rather will just be hardened to gaining power back.

First of the people in power right now (not in the presidency but in media, etc) aren't social liberals or liberals of any stripe, they are authoritarian fucks and if there's a really strong backlash it will be their fault for embracing pedos and other really sick shit.

Second, many of those social conservatives seem very happy with live at let live, just as long as nobody is pushing their children to be trans, or they aren't forced to use invented words to refer to someone.

Like I said in my response to deadDMwalking : Linear time is a thing. Furthermore, evidence that things were bad in the past isn't evidence that things are bad now or will be in the future.

[jeff37923]

I live in a Representative Democracy, so it's worth asking whether our representatives are really...representative.  Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.  

See for yourself

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's a problem, but it does mean that when people claim that their voices aren't being heard, the claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  

Greta Thunberg certainly has a point that leaders may not represent the young.  85% of the US Congress is over age 50.  

Greta Thunberg is not a US citizen, so your comparison is apples and oranges. Sixteen year olds lack the necessary life experiences to take seriously as experts on most topics, so making national policy decisions which affect the lives of hundreds of millions of US citizens should not be based on their antics.

Conservatives complain of censorship and deplatforming, yet celebrate Colin Kaepernick's deplatforming from the NFL

If you spend time looking for examples, you can see organized movements to deny people a voice.

I think there's more that can be said on this subject, but I think that's enough to clarify my point.

The National Football League is not a communications platform. It is a group dedicated to supporting and promoting the sport of football, not politics.

And Twitter? Really?

[Blood Axe]

I live in a Representative Democracy, so it's worth asking whether our representatives are really...representative.  Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.  

See for yourself

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's a problem, but it does mean that when people claim that their voices aren't being heard, the claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  

Greta Thunberg certainly has a point that leaders may not represent the young.  85% of the US Congress is over age 50.  

Conservatives complain of censorship and deplatforming, yet celebrate Colin Kaepernick's deplatforming from the NFL

If you spend time looking for examples, you can see organized movements to deny people a voice.

I think there's more that can be said on this subject, but I think that's enough to clarify my point.

Kaepernik? Really?   Are you joking?  
I hate to break it to you- but most employers do NOT want you protesting or anything of the sort ON THE JOB- especially where it hurts their bottom line.  
Do it on your day off.

https://nypost.com/2016/09/01/why-colin-kaepernick-is-wrong-its-not-a-black-and-white-issue/

[GeekyBugle]

I live in a Representative Democracy, so it's worth asking whether our representatives are really...representative.  Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.  

See for yourself

Forgeting the corruption, they represent the people that voted for them, regardless of their skin color, sex, sexuality, etc. Seems to me you don't fucking know what a Representative Democracy is.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there's a problem, but it does mean that when people claim that their voices aren't being heard, the claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  

Lets see, if the electorate puts you in the congress, you are representing said electorate and you are supossed to speak for them, furthermore, those you claim can't be heard have all of the media (with very few exceptions) happy parroting whatever bullshit they espouse.

Greta Thunberg certainly has a point that leaders may not represent the young.  85% of the US Congress is over age 50.  

Nice, now you're taking your talking points from a 16 year old with asperguers who is being used as a shield, also see me first two points.

Conservatives complain of censorship and deplatforming, yet celebrate Colin Kaepernick's deplatforming from the NFL

Lets see, is Kaepernick deplarformed? Really? He got fired for doing shit that was turning of the fans during his working hours and using the uniform. Yet the fucking liar is now making more money and has veto power over what products Nike puts out. Yeah poor oppressed thing son of millionaires.

If you spend time looking for examples, you can see organized movements to deny people a voice.

Yes, plenty, but all of them are on the left.

I think there's more that can be said on this subject, but I think that's enough to clarify my point.

Yes, it's more than enough to prove you know jack shit about your own political system and only parrot talking points without understanding them.

[Pat]

Compared the United States as a whole, Congress is richer, whiter, older, and more Protestant.  

See for yourself

That's mildly entertaining.

Though it's odd you called out age, because it's true almost everywhere that senior leadership tends to be older than interns. If a Congressional seat is seen as a job that requires skills and experience, that's how it's going to work. And it's also odd that you called out Protestantism, because that's not even one of the options; Christianity includes both Catholics and Protestants (but apparently not Mormons?). And that you didn't call out the biggest single bias -- how religious Congress is. There are twice as many Buddhists as there are non-religious members. And that's not atheism, it's just the members who aren't religious. Three times as many Muslims. Four times as many Hindus. Ten times as many Mormons. Four hundred and thirty five times as many Christians. Given how little most people attend church, that's overwhelming. While the Religious Right has drastically waned in power, apparently people all across the spectrum still feel compelled to profess faith in some religion, any religion, if they want to have any chance of being elected.

[deadDMwalking]

That's mildly entertaining.
...
And it's also odd that you called out Protestantism, because that's not even one of the options; Christianity includes both Catholics and Protestants (but apparently not Mormons?).

For a more comprehensive analysis of religious affiliation in Congress, try this link.  

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying that it is a problem, just that some people might think it is.  I generally don't think that rich people always think about how their policies affect the poor - if you're rich enough, it's hard to even relate to the types of things poor people deal with.

There are a lot of stories of clueless rich people.

[jhkim]

Yep. I hate blacklists and cancel culture, but I don't believe they will end until and unless the left gets a taste of them, good and hard.

Blacklists and suppressed speech were around in the U.S. long before the current era. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, people could easily lose their jobs and more for being outed as gay, for example. My male neighbor is from Texas, and recently went out to a mock homecoming party in a little black dress just for fun, and remarked how he would never have considered that growing up, knowing that he would be beaten for it. Transgender people would rightly fear for their lives just for walking around in public.

I notice you didn't quote me in full, maybe because here you are ignoring linear time? Yes, things were bad, really bad but today isn't the past, things have changed and you find people like Milo and Blaire White to name but a few openly embraced by most on the right.

Like I said in my response to deadDMwalking : Linear time is a thing. Furthermore, evidence that things were bad in the past isn't evidence that things are bad now or will be in the future.

I'm not claiming that things haven't changed. I'm saying that we should look at how things progressed in history to inform how things might progress in the future.

Tait Ransom's suggestion is that conservatives should respond with blacklists of liberal targets, because only if they're subjected to blacklists will they learn their lesson.

I'm saying that what we're seeing now is exactly the result of employing this tactic in the past. LGBT people and liberal supporters were subjected to blacklists in the past, and their reaction was "Well, let's blacklist them back!!" That resulted in what Tait calls today's "cancel culture".

[GeekyBugle]

I'm not claiming that things haven't changed. I'm saying that we should look at how things progressed in history to inform how things might progress in the future.

Tait Ransom's suggestion is that conservatives should respond with blacklists of liberal targets, because only if they're subjected to blacklists will they learn their lesson.

I'm saying that what we're seeing now is exactly the result of employing this tactic in the past. LGBT people and liberal supporters were subjected to blacklists in the past, and their reaction was "Well, let's blacklist them back!!" That resulted in what Tait calls today's "cancel culture".

Wait a minute, who is calling for a blacklist of people based on their sexuality? Or sex? Or race?

Nope he is saying the same people who support cancel culture should be made to live under their own rules, and I agree, it's the only way they'll learn. And some will not learn even then, that's the nature of cults.

And those people in power right now and that support cancel culture? Those aren't liberals, liberals believe in free expression, private property and freedon of religion. Those? Those are marxists, because intersectionality is a marxist ideology and because all of them agree with it.

[jhkim]

I'm saying that what we're seeing now is exactly the result of employing this tactic in the past. LGBT people and liberal supporters were subjected to blacklists in the past, and their reaction was "Well, let's blacklist them back!!" That resulted in what Tait calls today's "cancel culture".

Wait a minute, who is calling for a blacklist of people based on their sexuality? Or sex? Or race?

Nope he is saying the same people who support cancel culture should be made to live under their own rules, and I agree, it's the only way they'll learn.

I'll try to clarify my point by breaking it down.

1) Tait's suggestion is to apply blacklisting to those who do blacklists. I'm going to call this strategy "counter-blacklisting".

2) An important point is to ask what the result of the counter-blacklisting will be in the future. Will people really learn their lesson?

3) To inform on point #2, we can look at the past. Have there been times in the past when people been blacklisted, and they turned around and tried to blacklist those opposed to them?

4) An example of #3 in the past is LGBT people and allies. LGBT people were often blacklisted particularly in the 1980s and earlier (as well as later to a fair degree). There was a segment among who thought "We should blacklist those who are trying to blacklist us."  This is the counter-blacklist strategy.

5) I believe the result of this counter-blacklist strategy is more blacklisting in general, not people reflecting that blacklisting was a bad idea.

Does that clarify?

[deadDMwalking]

Expanding...

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind...

If my in-group mistreats you while we're in power, it seems likely that you'll mistreat us when you're in power.  If I return to power I'll want to revenge myself upon you when you were just revenging yourself upon me.  This is especially problematic if the people now being persecuted aren't really the ones who started the whole issue.  

If I mistreat you and you later wind up in power, rather than revenge, you should look for justice.  That doesn't just mean punishing the people who did bad things, it also means tearing down the structures they built to ensure their continued rule - not just turning them against their former masters.