The intellectual dark web

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Except now gay zombies can marry and pregnant zombies can have abortions. So, still a more just zombie apocalyose. Seems like progress, imperfect though it may be.

That progress came about because of liberalism, not identity politics.

Society wasn't Woke to the dogma of a bunch of Marxist preaching about the structural power disparities maintained by the dominant group. People didn't compare women and men collectively, or heteros and gays collectively, and decided that imbalances needed to be corrected collectively.

What happened was conservative society treated women and gays and people of color differently that they treated men and white people and heteros. And by our liberal values we eventually came to see that was wrong. So we reformed our laws and societies to say it doesn't matter whether you're a women or a man, you can go to medical school. It doesn't matter whether you're white or black, you can get a bank loan and marry who you like. It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, you can get married.

And people didn't have to like these changes. They only had to recognize that they had no right to legally suppress something just because they didn't like it. Because then society might come down on them for some identity or value or behaviour where they were in the minority.

This is the really important part that the illiberal left utterly fails to understand. Social conservatism isn't just bad because of the particulars of its credo. It's bad when it tries to impose its own values on others. And laws that treated whole groups of people badly weren't bad because those groups were marginalized. They were bad because they treated group identity as more important than individual actions.

The things that are most threatening to liberal democracy from the progressive left and the socially conservative right are the things they have in common: the pious, conformist group-think that subordinates individual freedom and choice to the will of the moral majority.

[icecube]

Lindsay Shepherd played the victim card perfectly straight into a cozy lucrative role as the alt right's new favourite "anti pc" spokesperson. She can eff right off.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by icecube

Lindsay Shepherd played the victim card perfectly straight into a cozy lucrative role as the alt right's new favourite "anti pc" spokesperson. She can eff right off.

lol

After pages of discussing the mislabeling of "alt-right", we get this gem.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That progress came about because of liberalism, not identity politics.

Society wasn't Woke to the dogma of a bunch of Marxist preaching about the structural power disparities maintained by the dominant group. People didn't compare women and men collectively, or heteros and gays collectively, and decided that imbalances needed to be corrected collectively.

What happened was conservative society treated women and gays and people of color differently that they treated men and white people and heteros. And by our liberal values we eventually came to see that was wrong. So we reformed our laws and societies to say it doesn't matter whether you're a women or a man, you can go to medical school. It doesn't matter whether you're white or black, you can get a bank loan and marry who you like. It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, you can get married.

And people didn't have to like these changes. They only had to recognize that they had no right to legally suppress something just because they didn't like it. Because then society might come down on them for some identity or value or behaviour where they were in the minority.

This is the really important part that the illiberal left utterly fails to understand. Social conservatism isn't just bad because of the particulars of its credo. It's bad when it tries to impose its own values on others. And laws that treated whole groups of people badly weren't bad because those groups were marginalized. They were bad because they treated group identity as more important than individual identity.

The things that are most threatening to liberal democracy from the progressive left and the socially conservative right are the things they have in common: the pious, conformist group-think that subordinates individual freedom and choice to the will of the moral majority.

Is that what happened,

Or did early activists obtain rights by fighting the power structures that were oppressing them. Once these initial disruptions occurred liberalism slowly allowed support for these ideas to spread. But the initial movements were ones of ideological purity intent on disruption of the status quo.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

lol

After pages of discussing the mislabeling of "alt-right", we get this gem.

lol all you want. It's true isn't it?

[Ashasx]

What has Lindsay Shepherd done to deserve any of those insults in your post?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

What has Lindsay Shepherd done to deserve any of those insults in your post?

Well for one, she willfully gave demonstrably racist talking garbage-fire Faith Goldy a platform.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well for one, she willfully gave demonstrably racist talking garbage-fire Faith Goldy a platform.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i...dy-to-laurier/

I don’t agree with the far-right commentator, but we must be able to freely engage with and deconstruct her views—not silence them.

Also, FG didn't actually get to be challenged and therefore did not have a platform because:

I had my own questions for Goldy planned: wouldn’t a theoretical “white ethnostate” be rather dull and homogenous? Doesn’t a diversity of cultures in Canada enhance our perceptions of the world and understanding of one another?

I never got to ask my questions.

In fact, I never even got to hear Goldy speak a single word on her topic, as protesters pulled the fire alarm while the introductory remarks were still being made. And that was that; event over.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Nyah

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i...dy-to-laurier/

What a Nazi. What a disgusting human. Eff her, amirite?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

What a Nazi. What a disgusting human. Eff her, amirite?

Is being a darling of the far right a disgusting place to be? Naw, she's just trying to make a buck.

Let's not put her on a pedestal for pandering to disgusting people though.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Is being a darling of the far right a disgusting place to be? Naw, she's just trying to make a buck.

Let's not put her on a pedestal for pandering to disgusting people though.

We literally just had this discussion regarding Peterson. This is unbelievable.

Who is putting her on a pedestal? What are you talking about?

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah and she's just folllowing the Peterson model. There's definitely money to be made pandering to the far right, more so than in moderate speech or even leftist speech.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah and she's just folllowing the Peterson model. There's definitely money to be made pandering to the far right, more so than in moderate speech or even leftist speech.

Shepherd is supported by people all over the political spectrum for her advocacy of free speech. Some of her biggest supporters are liberals. Because some from the 'far right' support her views, you see her as their "darling" and that she's somehow pandering to them? What a cop out of an argument.

[PepsiFree]

This is a good article:
http://www.macleans.ca/lindsay-sheph...lfrid-laurier/

[PsYcNeT]

You know what we used to do with people like Faith Goldy?

I don't know, because they were never given the time of day because their ideas are despicable and were resolutely decried. Now we want to give them a platform to be debated?

Oh gee I can't wait to hear what Faith Goldy thinks! She must have some excellent ideas on things.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That progress came about because of liberalism, not identity politics.

Society wasn't Woke to the dogma of a bunch of Marxist preaching about the structural power disparities maintained by the dominant group. People didn't compare women and men collectively, or heteros and gays collectively, and decided that imbalances needed to be corrected collectively.

What happened was conservative society treated women and gays and people of color differently that they treated men and white people and heteros. And by our liberal values we eventually came to see that was wrong. So we reformed our laws and societies to say it doesn't matter whether you're a women or a man, you can go to medical school. It doesn't matter whether you're white or black, you can get a bank loan and marry who you like. It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, you can get married.

And people didn't have to like these changes. They only had to recognize that they had no right to legally suppress something just because they didn't like it. Because then society might come down on them for some identity or value or behaviour where they were in the minority.

This is the really important part that the illiberal left utterly fails to understand. Social conservatism isn't just bad because of the particulars of its credo. It's bad when it tries to impose its own values on others. And laws that treated whole groups of people badly weren't bad because those groups were marginalized. They were bad because they treated group identity as more important than individual actions.

The things that are most threatening to liberal democracy from the progressive left and the socially conservative right are the things they have in common: the pious, conformist group-think that subordinates individual freedom and choice to the will of the moral majority.

I'm curious: In your opinion, does the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Gladue treat group identity as more important than individual actions or does it seek to minimize the systemic negative effects of group identity that already exist?

It's a sincere question. Put another way: Are additional sentencing considerations for aboriginal offenders from troubled backgrounds "identity politics" or good law meant to maximize the individual freedom of people who might otherwise be disadvantaged by their group identity?

I'm surprised that there are so many posters who are so confident that they k kW where to draw the line. I'm not so confident.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah and she's just folllowing the Peterson model. There's definitely money to be made pandering to the far right, more so than in moderate speech or even leftist speech.

She's not pandering to the alt-right. Enough of this bull####. Enough of these lies. She outright criticizes them and denounces them. She doesn't want their support.

Maybe she's making money from this attention, but it's hilarious how people like you refuse to acknowledge what she says and have a discussion and instead label her as "alt-right" or an alt-right sympathizer, aka a bigot, and therefore can easily discredit her. It's just like CHL said, once you label somebody under one of these bigoted terms, they have no further voice or credibility in a debate. It's clockwork for the left. It's cheap. It's easy. It's embarrassing.

The left are so off base now that people who should be considered liberals are now considered conservatives or even alt- or far right.

It's just amazing, how after the 3-4 pages of discussion we just had on all this, how tone deaf you still can be.

[burn_this_city]

Lindsay Shepard was a leftist before a horse#### inquisition by degenerate ideologues. All the identity politics folks have is smear campaigns since their belief system doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is that what happened,

Or did early activists obtain rights by fighting the power structures that were oppressing them. Once these initial disruptions occurred liberalism slowly allowed support for these ideas to spread. But the initial movements were ones of ideological purity intent on disruption of the status quo.

The status quo was treating people differently depending on their identity. Disruption was treating all individuals the same regardless of their identity. And those movements would never had gained traction and public support if Canada wasn't already a society with liberal values embedded in it. There's a reason all of these movements succeeded first in Canada, the UK, and Sweden, rather than in Egypt, China, and India.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Maybe she's making money from this attention, but it's hilarious how people like you refuse to acknowledge what she says and have a discussion and instead label her as "alt-right" or an alt-right sympathizer, aka a bigot, and therefore can easily discredit her. It's just like CHL said, once you label somebody under one of these bigoted terms, they have no further voice or credibility in a debate. It's clockwork for the left. It's cheap. It's easy. It's embarrassing.

Is this true? Many people (Mr. Peterson included) have quite successfully warded off the "alt right" label and maintained (often grown even) their voice in the debate. It seems like a vastly overblown concern to me(not that I think we should encourage lazy or malicious use of this or any other term).