fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3628 ]

[ SECRET POST #3628 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3628 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[Kenneth Branagh, Wallender]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of rape/torture (fics)]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #518.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You don't see the appeal because you are an authoritarian.

...?

And alt-right/anti-SJ people cant't be authoritarians, too? There's a difference between being able to speak your mind (which no one stops you from) and being protected from people criticizing you and your beliefs, which is what you seem to want.

Of course they can, and they ARE. They are the same exact thing as SJWs, just the flip side of the coin.

But they haven't been the ones with the social currency. I know you probably don't see it this way, but current culture favors the left - the media, celebrities, the academy are all enforcers of progressive ideology. And it is the *enforcement* that people are taking issue with, so much that they will align themselves with the same devil in different clothing if it offers them relief.

Authoritarianism is a term that IMO is overused. It implies a government system where people are actively being hunted down and silenced for their beliefs. Tumblr users are not a government. Twitter is not a government. Many liberals, including on this site, disagree with "SJW" tactics. The actual government (as opposed to businesses, who legally can fire and censor people by law) has done nothing to directly suppress (i.e, lock up, directly censor, actively hunt down) right-wingers and their ability to speak their beliefs unless those people have hurt or threatened others. Right-wingers won't be rounded up in the streets, the Von Mises Institute won't be dissolved, and FOX won't been shut down.

Right-wing celebrities, news sources, politicians, etc. are allowed to exist, make their comments as per freedom of speech, and aren't silenced in any way, unless you count criticism, boycotts, etc. as being silenced rather than an expression of freedom of speech, too. Individual left-leaning media, celebrities, academics, people, etc. have a right to express their opinions, as do right-leaning ones. No one stops conservative writers from doing their writing on their own territory.

And I would actually debate the mainstream media being "left"-slanted to any major degree, especially compared to the rightism of, say, FOX (which, again, is allowed to exist).

Yes, current culture favors not hating sexual and racial minorities you fucking buffoon. Surprisingly, being unable to hold your tongue and refrain from insulting people around you based on that sort of thing tends to make you look shitty!

Edited 2016-12-10 06:42 (UTC)

Ain't no authoritarian like a fascist, hunty.

Marxist, fascist, SSDD.

Politically speaking, Marxism ≠ fascism. Even within communism, Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism//Stalinism are distinct systems.

And socialism ≠ authoritarianism, fascism, or communism (i.e, George Orwell was a socialist who condemned communism and fascism, especially Stalinism).

That's an oversimplification, one which does more harm than good, and which is - frankly - pretty stupid. Like, it's a deeply complex issue, boiling the arguments down to people being authoritarian, or boiling the issue as a whole down to tribalism, is an unsatisfactory and incorrect analysis which refuses to engage with the actual issues at hand.

It's not any more or less of a stupid generalisation than saying "everyone not 100 % down with liberal leftist views is automatically a misogynistic racist bigot" but that's still what a lot of people are saying here.

How extreme people have gotten, the issues with internet discourse, and and how personal the attacks can get is an issue, and the more extreme and aggressive things get the easier it is to dismiss the other side. Trump is extreme and aggressive, and for what it's worth there are more extreme conservatives in power than extreme leftists (even before Trump, like the Tea Party - there's no real liberal equivalent to them with political power) so their policies will be discussed more. Should I, as a liberal, try to understand and communicate with them? I would say yes, but a lot of them would dismiss me and my arguments on a knee jerk basis and dismiss me as misguided or even an SJW because of my politics, as many of the users here dismiss conservatives on a knee jerk basis. That's probably where some of the frustration comes from.

There are things people on opposing sides can connect with. For example, there are many of my followers and online peers whose politics I disagree with for various reasons. I don't pick a fight with them, but try to connect on things we have in common that don't relate to politics.

I think it is a stupider generalization. I mean, imputing a personal bigotry towards people is a generalization, it's not always true nor is it helpful. But at the same time, people who disagree with liberal leftist views do at least actually disagree over what it means to be misogynistic/bigoted/racist. So there's at least something we can talk about there. Whereas the whole structure of authoritarianism that you're talking about is just... wrong and unhelpful.

Leftists aren't a hivemind on these issues either. Some take a stance that economic issues take priority over social ones and must be dealt with first. Others take the opposite view and say racism/sexism/etc. directly feed economic inequality and one must be engaged to take action on the other. Some oppose or reject stereotypical SJW tactics (doxxing people, public callouts) as harmful, misguided, and alienating. Some actively engage in them. The same is true of conservatives - many are fair-minded people who will hear opposing views out, and many are not.

It's true that it's unfair and doesn't help discussion to say all conservatives are personally racist/sexist/homophobic, and it's also unfair to say liberals are all SJW authoritarians. In general it's a logical fallacy to judge a group as a whole by its worst members (although the worst members are often the loudest and most prolific).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3628 ]

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?