641–650 of 694 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banksy has managed to preserve his pseudonymity through a corporate structure.
Kinda. Like SSC, if you want to know his identity, you can find it out with a bit of effort.
Surprising how much press "cancel culture" gets these days as if it's a new thing or as if it's a new thing being pushed on society by the left . We've always had cancel culture. Some might remember the Dixie Chicks. How about the Rachael Ray ad that Dunkin Donuts pulled merely because it looked like an Arab scarf? Jerry Falwell came to prominence entirely based on his pushing of cancel culture. When I lived in North…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So all that being said, I genuinely wonder if cancel culture is here to stay, because the next ideology to come along will also realize how powerful of a tool it is. Here to stay for sure. There's an active group of people behind it. They are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left and they still exist today. The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. They started their rebranding effort. They became Politi…
I don't think Justin Trudeau is left. He wouldn't be the leader of a centrist party otherwise. The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them. If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin#Finance_Minister [2] https://www.cbc.…
Well lets look at the new-left wiki page.
>broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion-rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms.
That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those.
>The Canadian Liberals go right (eg: Martin/Chrétien in the 90s [1]) and then left (Cannabis legalization in 2012 [3], social positions in 2015 [2]) when it suits them.
The confusion many people have is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals.
>If he was left-wing his fiscal policies would be a lot closer to the NDP.
I am very confused by this. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-deficit-2020_ca_5...
They ran a not-so-universal basic income and had a >$343 billion deficit. This is literally 20 years of debt in a single year.
If anything, this is worse than the NDP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the inward-lookingness of cancellation is key here. Regarding attempts at totality, in the past, if you were cancelled, it was because you were group A masquerading in a group B world, and group B found out and kicked you out of B-world. But, importantly, Group B couldn't cancel you in the eyes of Group A, only in their own eyes. So if you were found out, your direct life got cancelled but there was frequentl…
The world isn't split into liberals and the far-right. It's split into tolerant people and intolerant people. Some people wear a thin veneer of tolerance to cover their intolerance. These are the people doing the canceling. These are the people you don't want to associate with anyway. But there's still plenty of tolerant people around in society.
I would argue people that don't really care are in fact the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So all that being said, I genuinely wonder if cancel culture is here to stay, because the next ideology to come along will also realize how powerful of a tool it is. Here to stay for sure. There's an active group of people behind it. They are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left and they still exist today. The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. They started their rebranding effort. They became Politi…
> The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? > They started their rebranding effort. They became Politically Correct “Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, it was originally a pejorative used between different groups in the left, and adopted heavily as a pejorative by the right against the left in about the early…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989
China continues to be socialist because they killed everyone who protested. Even despite slaughtering their own people at Tiananmen Square. China is more capitalist today than ever. In fact the majority of 'stuff' coming from China is being produced in capitalist zones like Shenzhen.
>“Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left,
The rest of your post is basically just trying to deny the rebranding. The problem with rebranding is that when the old brand dies, the adherents say 'oh we were never that' that's in essence the point of rebranding.
Here's the reality. Socialism is dying worldwide. Here in Canada for example, tons of government monopolies have gone private. Telus, Petro-Canada, CNR, Various electricity entities, road repairs and in some cases even the roads themselves.
The wind is blowing that direction and the world governments will divest themselves out of their socialism eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that in 1989 when socialism died. Socialism didn't die in 1989. What is that even supposed to mean? > They started their rebranding effort. They became Politically Correct “Politically Correct” was never part of a rebranding effort on the left, it was originally a pejorative used between different groups in the left, and adopted heavily as a pejorative by the right against the left in about the early…
I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm.
Globalism is still there but is also dying. The problem with rebranding efforts is that it makes the subject difficult. In essence globalism was a failed attempt to destroy borders and have no immigration as a subject. Have just 1 global government and only 1 set of laws.
The reason why globalism has essentially failed is because you can never in a million years do this without force. The country that doesn't go along with it becomes wealthy by not being it.
Globalization is the the antithesis of globalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)
In terms of internationalism it's just another brand of socialism that failed. There's no need to use another word because it's correct. Nobody today goes by the term because it's dead as socialism is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re not talking about the intricacies, though. We’re talking about the basics of it. Every Christian worships Jesus as God. No Muslim will. It’s that simple. When Muhammad says that Jesus is a prophet, it is a rejection of what Jesus claimed about Himself. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” Many of course have tried to act as though the two are compatible, but when you co…
If you believe this, then you must also believe that Christians and Jews do not worship the same God since obviously Jews do not believe in the deity of Jesus either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re blurring away the gap between behavior and ideas. Sexual misconduct and “anti trans” views are as incommensurable as musical scales and baseball bats.
I understand there is a difference. I’m saying I think the ideas being cancelled are actually just the kind of garbage ideas that don’t have merit but do cause harm. Do you think that anti-trans beliefs are going to be a source of intellectual progress? Because i’d argue that the deconstruction of the gender binary IS the kind of transformative idea that some people in this thread are saying is being stifled. Is the…
This one.
The idea there is some sophisticated science and nuanced understanding behind the critique of JK Rowling's statements about trans people is completely laughable.
It consists of name calling and social signalling, almost exclusively.
> the deconstruction of the gender binary IS the kind of transformative idea that some people in this thread are saying is being stifled
You can't be serious.
There are countless studies showing real differences between men and women in physical and mental traits, and it is incredibly rare for the people deconstructing the gender binary to seriously engage with them. Again, it mostly devolves to name calling and insulting people who mention any evidence that might challenge their pre-established world view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm.
>I wonder what the OP means by "globalists" and "internationalists". Are there any other words that he or she could use in place of those? Hmm. Globalism is still there but is also dying. The problem with rebranding efforts is that it makes the subject difficult. In essence globalism was a failed attempt to destroy borders and have no immigration as a subject. Have just 1 global government and only 1 set of laws. The…
We live in an era in the western world which feels like pilgrim censorship with a new set of taboos, as opposed to an extremely tolerant love filled utopia we were promised. I want my love filled utopia dammit!
Or we're dealing with the paradox of tolerance, where we cannot be tolerant of intolerance because the intolerant will destroy the tolerant culture which my generation have been trying to build. Some of us have, anyway. The one we feel is under threat because people like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson can still be elected to the leadership of powerful nations which are supposed to be fair and just but that looks like…