RSS Feed Share on Facebook Send this to Twitter | Login Login | Register
City Independent
The Hull City Fanzine
 
Hull City Forum

Hull City Forum

Deails Post
134 posts. < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Show 15 30 50

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#31
11/05/2018 at 04:44

Based on stuff that's currently mostly in the US/Canadian universities, but it's about the "social justice" idiots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_HxOPIu7 Ow

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6391 posts
First used 09/01/17

#32
11/05/2018 at 11:49

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 11/05/2018 at 04:44
Based on stuff that's currently mostly in the US/Canadian universities, but it's about the "social justice" idiots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_HxOPIu7 Ow


What's a social justice idiot? You sound like the people he's talking about.  

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#33
11/05/2018 at 13:51

Quote Quote by Obadiah on 11/05/2018 at 11:49


What's a social justice idiot? You sound like the people he's talking about.


Do I really? For describing idiots as idiots? No, I don't suffer from any of their myriad failings.

Anyway, as described in the video. Commonly known as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs. Immune to debate, reason, logic, science, history, etc. Idologically posssessed, ideologically blinkered. 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6391 posts
First used 09/01/17

#34
11/05/2018 at 19:46

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 11/05/2018 at 13:51


Do I really? For describing idiots as idiots? No, I don't suffer from any of their myriad failings.

Anyway, as described in the video. Commonly known as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs. Immune to debate, reason, logic, science, history, etc. Idologically posssessed, ideologically blinkered.


I stayed awake and watched it. Are all so-called Social Justice Warriors idiots? If you think they are, doesn't that make you immune to logic, science, history, etc. Doesn't it mean you are ideologically blinkered to giving them a title such as social justice idiots?

If you don't think all Social Justice warriors are idiots, why did you use that term unless you wanted to denigrate everyone who believes in social justice?

Isn't the whole argument of the video that people should not use derogatory language to denigate people they disagree with? Or make assumptions about their ideas and beliefs?

Maybe those things onlt apply to the far right and the people who support them.

New Back To Top

essexgull

8709 posts
First used 12/01/17

#35
11/05/2018 at 19:51

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 11/05/2018 at 13:51


Do I really? For describing idiots as idiots? No, I don't suffer from any of their myriad failings.

Anyway, as described in the video. Commonly known as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs. Immune to debate, reason, logic, science, history, etc. Idologically posssessed, ideologically blinkered.


You don't seem to accept any of their points of views or logic, nor will accept their debates anymore.


ESSEX GULL  

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#36
11/05/2018 at 22:49

Quote Quote by Obadiah on 11/05/2018 at 19:46


I stayed awake and watched it. Are all so-called Social Justice Warriors idiots? If you think they are, doesn't that make you immune to logic, science, history, etc. Doesn't it mean you are ideologically blinkered to giving them a title such as social justice idiots?

If you don't think all Social Justice warriors are idiots, why did you use that term unless you wanted to denigrate everyone who believes in social justice?

Isn't the whole argument of the video that people should not use derogatory language to denigate people they disagree with? Or make assumptions about their ideas and beliefs?

Maybe those things onlt apply to the far right and the people who support them.


I've been watching the antics of SJWs for the last two years or more and my assessment is based on endless evidence. If any of them were willing to attempt to use debate, science, reason, etc, etc, etc, I'd be delighted to see it, but there are rarely any sparks of it. The bulk of them are being used. Most of them can't make any kind of coherent argument and none of them are prepared to debate.

If you think I'm like the people the video was about, either all the points in the video have gone over your head, or you've failed to understand every last thing I've said or mentioned on here.

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#37
11/05/2018 at 23:00

Quote Quote by essexgull on 11/05/2018 at 19:51


You don't seem to accept any of their points of views or logic, nor will accept their debates anymore.


ESSEX GULL


Fuck' sake, Gull, have you gone totally mental? Or are you just being obtuse? The ENTIRE point is that these people REFUSE to debate, REJECT logic, REFUSE to clearly state their views, and REJECT questions about their views. I don't do any of those things and I don't think it's unreasonable to label those that do as idiots, while I wait in vain for them to reconsider thier intransigence. I'm not intransigent. They are being used by people who view them as "useful idiots". 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6391 posts
First used 09/01/17

#38
12/05/2018 at 06:47

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 11/05/2018 at 22:49


I've been watching the antics of SJWs for the last two years or more and my assessment is based on endless evidence. If any of them were willing to attempt to use debate, science, reason, etc, etc, etc, I'd be delighted to see it, but there are rarely any sparks of it. The bulk of them are being used. Most of them can't make any kind of coherent argument and none of them are prepared to debate.

If you think I'm like the people the video was about, either all the points in the video have gone over your head, or you've failed to understand every last thing I've said or mentioned on here.


You called thousands of people you don't know idiots, you lumped them all together into one homogeneous mass and then discounted their views by calling them idiots. I thought the whole purpose of the video was to ask Social Justice Warriors to engage in debate and to stop making assumptions about other people and what they think just because you disagree with them. If the person in the video is sincere then he wouldn't have lumped Social Justice Warriors together and called them idiots.

Its possible I misunderstood what he was saying but I don't think so. 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8709 posts
First used 12/01/17

#39
12/05/2018 at 06:55

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 11/05/2018 at 23:00


Fuck' sake, Gull, have you gone totally mental? Or are you just being obtuse? The ENTIRE point is that these people REFUSE to debate, REJECT logic, REFUSE to clearly state their views, and REJECT questions about their views. I don't do any of those things and I don't think it's unreasonable to label those that do as idiots, while I wait in vain for them to reconsider thier intransigence. I'm not intransigent. They are being used by people who view them as "useful idiots".


You're describing a large percentage of the population. People are, in general, morons. Why expect those you describe as social justice warriors to be any different - they are no worse nor different from the others.


ESSEX GULL  

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#40
19/05/2018 at 15:02

Perhaps this better summarises the SJWs and the problem with them.



>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6391 posts
First used 09/01/17

#41
19/05/2018 at 21:48

Well TOP that was a load of shit. After explaining why you should look at the facts he assumes black and Asian kids are more likely than white kids to misbehave because of broken homes.

He tells social justice campaigns that disparity of outcomes is an indication that more work needs to be done. He then fails to apply that in relation to school expuulsions. The man is a charlatan.

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#42
13/06/2018 at 16:34

Apologies - wasn't going to post this, but wanted it to be easily locatable for my purposes.



>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6391 posts
First used 09/01/17

#43
13/06/2018 at 20:37

After watching that do you think Google should have a safe space for its employees to say what they want?

The woman philosophy lecturer was funny. If she'd taught both sides of the argument for that long she should have been well aware of Marxist philosophy and reading the feminist texts shouldn't have been a shock to her. 

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#44
14/06/2018 at 03:44

Quote Quote by Obadiah on 19/05/2018 at 21:48
Well TOP that was a load of shit. After explaining why you should look at the facts he assumes black and Asian kids are more likely than white kids to misbehave because of broken homes.

He tells social justice campaigns that disparity of outcomes is an indication that more work needs to be done. He then fails to apply that in relation to school expuulsions. The man is a charlatan.



Pardon me for not replying earlier.

I've watched it again with particular reference to your objections. If you really think it's "a load of shit", I can't help but think you're missing the point. Then again, I'm aware that you're further left than almost all on this board, and I'm also aware that various leftist teachings seems overly-attached to equal outcomes, despite the cruel lessons of the 20th century in China and the USA.

As for your points, first, he's talking about the USA, and at no point does he refer to "black and Asian kids". In fact, he refers to "black and Latino kids" and compares them as a group with "white and Asian kids" (12m00 onwards).

In Britain, we tend to use "Asian" as a collective term for those of South Asian origin. So that's chiefly Indians (1.45m), Pakistanis (1.17m), Bangladeshis (451k), and Sri Lankans. In the 2011 census (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asi an), the total was just over 3 million, representing 4.9% of the UK population. There were around 1.3million Asians with origins in other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_grou ps_in_the_United_Kingdom) giving a total of 4.37million, or 6.9% of the UK population.

In the USA, the term Asians covers those with origins in all of Asia. The largest group is the Chinese (4.9m), Filipinos (3.9m), Indians (3.5m), Vietnamese (2.1m), Korean (2m approx), and Japanese (1.5m). The number from Pakistan is around a third of a million, or 0,1% of the US population. For what it's worth (quite likely nothing), one in 53 of the UK population is of Pakistani origin, compared to one in 900 in the USA. The UK Chinese population is also around a third of a million.

You say "he assumes black and Asian kids are more likely than white kids to misbehave because of broken homes". There's an ambiguity in your statement here. I can read it two ways, and I'm uncertain which one you mean, so I'll look at both (and replace the Asian group with the Latino one).

1. You might be claiming that he is saying that black and Latino kids who come from broken homes are more likely to misbehave than white (he said "white and Asian") kids from broken homes. He didn't say that, but I could see why it might be assumed that he did. What he said (from 12m52) "boys raised without marriage, boys raised with men cycling through the home, have many more behavioural problems" - so no specification of difference by race or anything else. I've searched for US broken home figures that appear to come from legitimate sources that you might find acceptable, and this one (https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tab les/107-children-in-single-parent-familie s-by#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36, 868,867,133,38,35,18/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/ 432,431) is the fullest I can find. If you don't like it, do find me a better one; I haven't run any checks on the source. It does show/claim that the %age of children living in single-parent homes in the USA is high, at around 32%, but the figures for black children is twice that, while the most recent Latino figure is an above average 42%.

2. You might be saying that there is no evidence that children from broken homes tend to have more behavioural problems. This has been shown time and time again. I'd be surprised if you dispute it, but if you do, I expect I can find some studies that back it up.

Either way, you call it an assumption just because he hasn't cited a source. You're assuming he hasn't a source, when it's his job to look for, use, and interpret evidence. Hmmm. You'll have to excuse me for believing that you're the one doing the assuming, but feel free to cite evidence that contradicts him.


And onto "He tells social justice campaigns that disparity of outcomes is an indication that more work needs to be done. He then fails to apply that in relation to school expuulsions. The man is a charlatan."

In this bit "He tells social justice campaigns that disparity of outcomes is an indication that more work needs to be done", his suggestion was that the SJ people need to look more into the facts and look at any and all possible factors, rather than just assuming it's all down to the standard isms. I hope that is what you meant by it, and I'll accept that it was.

This bit - "He then fails to apply that in relation to school expuulsions. The man is a charlatan" - however, appears to be a complete missing of the point. The entire gist of this was as an illustration of the title of the video. He was explaining a ridiculous piece of US legislation called Title IX. Essentially, US universities and schools are required - on pain of defunding - to show that outcome for all possible groups was the SAME. That's OUTCOME; not opportunity, not treatment, but OUTCOME. It wasn't HIS job to look into all the factors that mean more boys were punished than girls; his job was to merely point out the stupidity of creating and enforcing such a stupid rule. I'm struggling here with what your objection might actually be. Are you saying, like Title IX does, that there should be as many girls expelled as boys? 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12573 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#45
14/06/2018 at 03:58

Quote Quote by Obadiah on 12/05/2018 at 06:47


You called thousands of people you don't know idiots, you lumped them all together into one homogeneous mass and then discounted their views by calling them idiots. I thought the whole purpose of the video was to ask Social Justice Warriors to engage in debate and to stop making assumptions about other people and what they think just because you disagree with them. If the person in the video is sincere then he wouldn't have lumped Social Justice Warriors together and called them idiots.

Its possible I misunderstood what he was saying but I don't think so.


I didn't discount their views. I called them idiots because they refuse to state their views, because of their refusal to accept science, because of their refusal to debate, because of their shutting down of people with views they don't want to hear, and in many cases, because of their refusal to even present their views, never mind to back them up. It's their refusal to engage that makes them idiots. It's also because they have a total mental blockage about how to persuade. You don't get people round to your way of thinking by attacking them and refusing to explain your views. That is idiotic, full stop. We live in a democracy, and the way many SJWs operate alienates people with other views, as well as many people with broadly similar views who disagree or are uncertain on just a small percentage. This kind of behaviour is a gift to the right-wing and the SJWs can't see it. That is, without doubt, idiocy.

At the end of the day, the political arc is a continuum, with people dotted all across it. I'm guessing that most people are nearer the middle than either end, but some of the far-left are just too loose with their scattering of unfounded and wrong insults. As far as too many of them are concerned, if you're not blindly and unquestioningly with them, you're a far-right racist Nazi white-supremacist. There are some that call certain Jewish people Nazis. The left needs some cohesion, otherwise we're going to be stuck with right-leaning governments forever. The antics of the SJWs, described frequently be me as idiots, is a gift to the right (this is not separate from my suspicion that Soros (and perhaps some higher powers) is responsible for this divisiveness).  

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

134 posts. < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Show 15 30 50