Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

21 (27.3%)

No

45 (58.4%)

Not decided entirely, maybe

11 (14.3%)

Total Members Voted: 76

[SirQuiamus]

Because it's a direct fucking result of the PC era?

Only if Cyril Smith and his ilk are your prototypical PC-SJWs.

Maybe the problem is not progressive politics per se, but that British society is for a large part being run by pedophiles and pigfuckers?

Just asking.

[GiglameshDespair]

Are you really that determined to refuse to accept political correctness and the power of the word 'racist' had a mighty strong part in allowing Rothdale to continue?

Well, whatever. Argue in non sequiturs if you like. I'll not waste my time.

[Loud Whispers]

There are quite a few things in that post, but here's just a quick note Re: colleges:
I've only seen that shit happen in hugely expensive and prestigious private universities à la Oxbridge and Ivy League. There's nothing---not even the earliest warning signs---of that sort going on in rinky-dink Finnish state universities, for example.
I wonder why that is?

One notable thing about our Unis is that our student loan system is not in fact a loan system but a hybrid system where higher earning graduates subsidize the education of lower income students. It is disguised as a loan system so young high earning students don't realize that they're paying for someone else's education.
If you haven't seen that shit happen outside of elite Ivy and Russel Unis then you haven't looked. From secondary to University, in the fields of humanities you as a student are required to learn and be able to proficiently display only psychoanalytical, marxist or feminist critical theories. That may be somewhat because two of the Examination boards are run by Oxford and Cambridge.
To answer your question, Finland is not under Western academia's wing. It also does not really have that many prestigious Universities renown across the world as well, so there's not really much at stake with Finnish academia. No Ivy League, Lunds, Imperials, Frankfurts or Oxbridges.

Only if Cyril Smith and his ilk are your prototypical PC-SJWs.
Maybe the problem is not progressive politics per se, but that British society is for a large part being run by pedophiles and pigfuckers?
Just asking.

"If social services feared to tread to avoid causing offence, and perhaps complicating wider work within the Pakistani community, then that has proved a terrible error. For giving offence is as nothing compared with the grotesque offences that eventually transpired."
"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.
The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men."
"Rotherham Whistleblower 'Sent On Diversity Training For Saying Most Abusers Were Asian'."

EDIT: Also, LW: Everyone's heard that Rochdale stuff so many times that you can stop posting it now, thanks. It's blood-curdlingly heinous and wrong, but (at the risk of sounding callous) so what? There's nothing we can do about your shitty corrupt officials in your country---we can only hope that you guys will succeed in smoking them out of their offices and throwing them in jail, if that's what they deserve.

I'm not asking you to do anything. You said these people are mere nuisances, no more than cats. The same people who scream at me for eating a chicken sandwich also possess a vote, are particularly fond of jobs in media and also happen to make up the intellectual and political elite of the Western world. There are also a lot of them. They have considerably more political power than "cats." Fluffy cats is an adorable, impotent image, easily brushed away. If you've heard this enough then you know why these people are far from impotent and far from fluffy, they cannot be brushed so easily away and their failings give rise to blood-curdlingly heinous consequences.
http://racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com/
Racists getting fired. SJWs having intellectual discussion? Nope, first post I see they are trying to get some women fired for being transmisogynysts and racists by daring to have a hippy women's festival.
From the bottom to the top so many doing horrible things - illiberal things like cover up thousands of counts of gang rape to getting women fired for holding an all-women's festival for social justice.

Not fluffy
Not fluffy at all

[SirQuiamus]

Are you really that determined to refuse to accept political correctness and the power of the word 'racist' had a mighty strong part in allowing Rothdale to continue?

You mean whether PC-talk was used as a weapon by the shitheel officials? Of course it was, why would anyone deny that? It's a legitimate super-weapon in anyone's hands.

What I'm saying is that progressive politics was presented as the primary justification for the cover-up, but it was hardly the primary cause and motive, or an end in itself. Remember that Shitstain-Smith had turned the constituency into a private pedo-brothel for decades before the Pakistani shitstains arrived: he was allowed to abuse as many British kids as he liked, everyone knew, the police did nothing. He died as recently as 2010, and most of the Pakistani abuse took place when he was still de facto the most influential man in Rochdale. This sick fuck had created a culture of systematic abuse and silence for his own sick benefit, and you're surprised when more sick fucks arrive from Pakistan and start exploiting the system? I don't find it surprising at all.

[SirQuiamus]

Since this thread seems to be in danger of turning into an SJW-bashing circlejerk with little self-awareness, I'm encouraging everyone to read these words of wisdom on the subject of "internet safety/justice," or whatever you'd call it. It's by one cynical and disagreeable old misanthrope, but regardless, I found it eye-openingly astute and true for the most part.

Spoiler: A few key points: (click to show/hide)

There's a big push for "women's safety" online, for getting rid of trolls and cyberbullies and cyberstalkers, not coincidentally another one of Randi Zuckerberg's pet causes; and while these are all legitimate worries someone should take a minute and ask why, when mustached men have been stalking women since the days of Whitecastle yet no systemic changes have been effected, the moment women feel threatened from the safety of their LCD screens America opens the nuclear briefcase. No one finds that suspicious?
...
The force for this change isn't coming from safety or ethics. Neither is it activism. If you see any group advocating influentially for change in a media they don't own or control, you can double down and split the 10s, the dealer is holding status and quo. No change is possible on someone else's dime, and if what looks like a supermodel approaches you with a microphone and a camera crew, you should run like she's Johnny Carcosa. On occasion what the activists think they want may happen coincidentally to align with what the system wants, and from that moment on they will be lead to believe they are making a difference, which means they're making money for someone else.
...
"Cyberbullying is a huge problem!" Yes, but not because it is hurtful, HA! no one cares about your feelings-- but because criticism makes women want to be more private-- and the privacy of the women is bad. The women have to be online, they do most of the clicking and receive most of the clicks. Anonymous cyberbullying is a barrier to increasing consumption, it's gotta go.
...
To understand what's really happening, start from basics: if you're reading it, it's for you. I assume you're not a cyberbully or a stalker. So do you have any power to abolish anonymity?
If Hess has made you wonder, hmm, maybe unrestricted anonymity is bad because it gives trolls too much power, then the system has successfully used her for its true purpose: brand it as bad, to you. She is unwittingly teaching the demo of this article, e.g. women in their 20s with no actual power looking to establish themselves, who are the very people who should embrace anonymity, not to want this: only rapists and too-weak-to-try rapists want to be anonymous. Smart women write clickable articles about their sexuality for nothing, because what good are you if you can't make someone else money?

Remember: Whenever you're raging helplessly about "SJWs censoring and controlling and ruining the internet," you're thinking exactly what the media wants you to think.

Well, you're only thinking exactly what the media wants you to think if you think that anonymity is the reason.

I don't. He doesn't. Read more carefully.

[TempAcc]

If it that sort of situation was a brittish only thing, then mayhap, but thats not what can be observed worldwide. It really is specially jarring in how heinous the whole thing is embroidled in pedophilia, but the phenomenom of using SJWs the guise of progressiveness to justify terrible policies and hide crimes is not confined to angloland.

Spoiler: On South America (click to show/hide)

Again, I tell you, look at south america. There's a huge battle going on for who's going to cause the next political shift in power, and the stablished fatass heavy left leaning governments are fighting a losing battle due to years of abuse of power, the same governments that adore to make propaganda about how they favor the poor, racial minorities, gay people, etc; the same parties that call all opposition (political or not, collective or individual) as racist, fascists and bigots just for opposing them, and the same parties whose members are involved in one of the biggest corruption schemes in history.

And guess what they're doing to try and not lose even more of their appeal to a public that already hates them? They use their network of articulators in universities to decry anything and anyone who opposes their party as bigoted conspiracies, even if the people they're supporting with their speech are condemned criminals that stole billions in public money, are involved in a number of mysterious murders, and put their country's economy in fucking mariana's trench. But that doesn't matter, because everyone else is just hateful of the saintly government who loves the poor, the opressed, the racial minorities. After all, thats what a huge number of university teachers are screaming about, right?

And then comes the largest chunk of the government support articulation train: online SJWs. The kind that bindly attack anything that doesn't conform to their views and online mass report anything they don't like as hate speech. These go a step further though, they're coordinated and funded by political militants that try to distrupt the huge anti-government protests going on.
Paid SJW bloggers (many who are now under investigation) reblog, post about promote anything pro-government as some hallowed progressive move that will make everyone's lives better and condemning anything anti government. Artists and talk show hosts with ties to the government take an increasingly more SJW position and decry anything that does not appeal to the government's interests as "hate speech".

Pro "afro rights" and "student rights" movements  literally invading schools and universities that do not have a pro-government aligned direction, and who just happen to have ties to government funded "social movements" who are composed mostly of the ruling party's elite. And then there's the real bottom feeders, the truly misled and blind SJW horde that actualy believes the government is some sort of saintly group of folks that actualy fight against the most bigoted society ever, even though the major part of the actualy poor people are protesting against the government due to everything getting worse for them under the current government's rule. And yet they continue defending it, from the dyed armpit hair tumblr dweller to the pseudo intellectual sophore dweeb with a huge ugly beard, even when crimes are being commited and the very people they defend are being sentenced to prison for corruption and other crimes. These people are at universities and are supported by teachers that are very impartial about their political beliefs, they have money and influence. Why would the internet be ignored as a means of perpetuating their political militance?

You can keep pretending they're just loud, harmless idiots, but the observed reality clearly points otherwise.

En resume: The problem isn't progressive politics, its the fact they're being maliciously used to disguise other interests, which is made very easy and abusable due to the fact that you absolutely cannot question anything deemed "progressive" without a titanic political correct mob calling you a huge worse than hitler racist/sexist/gay-bashing mario bigot.

[wierd]

Anonymity allows people to say things in public places (like the internet) that goes against what society considers "decent."

This is both a good thing, and a bad thing.

The progressive population here will see no problem what so ever with people in oppressive regimes discussing homo and transexuality under pseudonyms- the anonymity prevents cultural hatreds from spilling into their doorways, literally.

They get more antsy, when it enables racist bigots to hurl slurs ad nauseum.

You dont get one without the other. I feel that the benefits of anonymous speech far outweigh the consequences.
The BIG thing, is that recently, world governments with a fetish for operating panopticons have decided that anonymous speech is "Oh so scary!" because "Terrorists!".

To me, that tips the scales totally in favor of keeping anonymous speech.

[wierd]

However, his thesis is flawed.  Just a cursory look at how the public opinion of homosexuality has changed in the past 30 years is ample to discredit his main thrust.

Does the media profit? Yes.
Does it do this without affecting social changes? No. (Seriously, this guy just called the 4th estate impotent.)

If anything, this demonstrated point (that it DOES affect social changes) means we should be MORE mindful about what the media is pushing. I would be more apt to accept government conspiracy theories about 3 letter agencies promulgating stories that favor the advancement of their nationalist fuckery than I would accept that the media has no real interest in affecting societal change.

[Bohandas]

(Seriously, this guy just called the 4th estate impotent.)

Yeah, it's telling nobody even remembers what the other three estates even are unless they're some kind of historian who studies the middle ages.

[Loud Whispers]

You mean whether PC-talk was used as a weapon by the shitheel officials? Of course it was, why would anyone deny that? It's a legitimate super-weapon in anyone's hands.
What I'm saying is that progressive politics was presented as the primary justification for the cover-up, but it was hardly the primary cause and motive, or an end in itself.

Guns don't have causes or motives either. This one is perhaps weird in that it is a cause in of itself.

Remember that Shitstain-Smith had turned the constituency into a private pedo-brothel for decades before the Pakistani shitstains arrived: he was allowed to abuse as many British kids as he liked, everyone knew, the police did nothing. He died as recently as 2010, and most of the Pakistani abuse took place when he was still de facto the most influential man in Rochdale. This sick fuck had created a culture of systematic abuse and silence for his own sick benefit, and you're surprised when more sick fucks arrive from Pakistan and start exploiting the system? I don't find it surprising at all.

I'm surprised that despite all my repetitions you missed that this was not localized to Rochdale. This is happening all over England in constituencies where the progressive councilors were not pedophiles as well. Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Peterborough, Banbury, Ayelsbury and most recently Bristol as well. The only thing in common is that every time it was Muslim men from Southern Asia or Africa and the police and councilors knew they were targeting schoolgirls as young as 11 and covered it up, with one exceptionally horrid case where police arrested a father trying to save his own daughter. Under a left-wing government which wanted mass immigration for the sole purpose of making it "truly a multicultural country" we ended up with progressive councilors covering up rape gangs to maintain social cohesion and avoid accusations of being racist. This is the action of peoples committed to progressive social projects and social justice, not to serving their constituents. You can't get any more obvious.
It's been used by Corbyn to attack rebelling progressives within his party for not being progressive enough, it's been used by rebelling liberals to attack Corbyn for being an oppressive patriarch, it's been used by corrupt MPs to get away with literal vote stealing and tax stealing, it's been used to target our own scientific elite for not finding the "right" results; most pertinent of all it's been used to get people to lose their livelihood and face jail time for saying things they don't like on the internet. Just keep reading Racistgettingfired tumblr; it's just one such list. The first three posts are getting an all women's festival worth of women fired for being "transmisogynyst racists" (they're not) an Australian cosmetic's model fired for being racist (she's an airhead, her brother owns a nazi germany flag) and raising awareness for defendants that may or may not be guilty of wire fraud (in their own words, that's "neither here nor there"). When they're not busy being useful idiots they're ruining people's lives on their own. The entire second page is people getting fired for things they said online, and for a social justice movement ruining the lives of so many young women because of the internet seems very regressive. And that's excluding the ones that run the media or Academia, or perhaps more significantly - the ones that make up media and Academia.

[wierd]

We aren't powerless, unless we accept blindly what the media tells us.

In addition to the ever more mainstream practice of cord-cutting, more and more people are giving up on mainstream media in general. That isn't a trend that favors such a point-- 

I do however acknowledge some wisdom there; People DO seem to favor putting themselves into positions where they can claim victimhood, and thus absolve themselves of blame.  The media makes a very good target for such blame.  The presence of the media, and any messages it may be broadcasting, does not negate the obligation of the consuming public to independently verify the stories or messages being delivered to them.

That doesnt mean people dont like to pretend that "But I saw it on Fox News!" (or other news source) is a good justification for going off half cocked about something, and causing a shitstorm.

Whispers:

Many people are unwilling to accept that it is wrong to silence speech, regardless of what is being said. Many feel that it is OK to silence speech under certain circumstances, without realizing that the "certain circumstances" is very subjective indeed.

EG--  The christian fundie may feel it is perfectly justified to silence certain speech. (About things they might consider blasphemous, for instance-- or sexually immoral, like gay people trying to hook up.)

The SJW may mirror this kind of sentiment as well-- It is OK to silence certain speech (such as people using the N word, even if used in a non-racially motivated fashion [see definition 3 or 4... Depends on the dictionary-- Basically, a low class, undesirable person of any race.] or when used in a historical, or period fiction context (such as found in Tom Sawyer and pals.))

Both agree that it is OK to stifle certain speech. They just disagree with what speech should be stifled.  Government, especially if it has its own agenda, takes the "Ok to stifle speech? OK! Got it!" approach, and runs with it, claiming it was upholding the wishes of the constituency.

It is never OK to stifle speech.

[SirQuiamus]

Reading it, and all I can say so far is that this guy does not know how to make a clear point. At all.
EDIT: Okay, I think I finally got to his actual point for the whole damn article. People are encouraged to critique the "evil" in the world because it's profitable to the media and does nothing to actually change anything. So they make money and sustain the status quo. People would rather read things they know are awful for the satisfaction of venting than actually go out of their way to make some actual change happen.

1. Media wants to know everything about you because your identity is their cash-cow.

2. Media hates privacy because it can't be monetized like a public identity.

3. Media teaches you to hate privacy as a matter of principle: you can only be a good person if you (ostensibly) """have nothing to hide."""

4. Media does nothing to "protect" their users from "anonymous" "attacks," because that's where all the sexy clicks and controversy is at. It also allows them to maintain the status quo and the "privacy/anonymity is bad" narrative ad infinitum.

5. Enjoy your life as a biological content generator in the Matrix.

[wierd]

A very nice lineup, but more and more news media sites are now openly opposed to anonymous discussion on their news pages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html?_r=0

So, they ARE actively working against the anon commentary demographic. (and creating a nice little echo chamber for themselves)  Either this is brilliant, or they are making themselves irrelevant.

[SirQuiamus]

A very nice lineup, but more and more news media sites are now openly opposed to anonymous discussion on their news pages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html?_r=0

So, they ARE actively working against the anon commentary demographic. (and creating a nice little echo chamber for themselves)  Either this is brilliant, or they are making themselves irrelevant.

Words, words, corporate words, but let's keep in mind that the noisiest sources of death threats and similar internet excrement at the moment are "non-anonymous" fake accounts on social media. And Facebook et al. are really, reeeally effective at deleting fake accounts, aren't they? (*nudge nudge wink wink*)

Yeah, denigration of privacy will continue as usual, but no radical change to the system is forthcoming.

[Loud Whispers]

If it that sort of situation was a brittish only thing, then mayhap, but thats not what can be observed worldwide. It really is specially jarring in how heinous the whole thing is embroidled in pedophilia, but the phenomenom of using SJWs the guise of progressiveness to justify terrible policies and hide crimes is not confined to angloland.

Spoiler: On South America (click to show/hide)

Again, I tell you, look at south america. There's a huge battle going on for who's going to cause the next political shift in power, and the stablished fatass heavy left leaning governments are fighting a losing battle due to years of abuse of power, the same governments that adore to make propaganda about how they favor the poor, racial minorities, gay people, etc; the same parties that call all opposition (political or not, collective or individual) as racist, fascists and bigots just for opposing them, and the same parties whose members are involved in one of the biggest corruption schemes in history.
And guess what they're doing to try and not lose even more of their appeal to a public that already hates them? They use their network of articulators in universities to decry anything and anyone who opposes their party as bigoted conspiracies, even if the people they're supporting with their speech are condemned criminals that stole billions in public money, are involved in a number of mysterious murders, and put their country's economy in fucking mariana's trench. But that doesn't matter, because everyone else is just hateful of the saintly government who loves the poor, the opressed, the racial minorities. After all, thats what a huge number of university teachers are screaming about, right?

And then comes the largest chunk of the government support articulation train: online SJWs. The kind that bindly attack anything that doesn't conform to their views and online mass report anything they don't like as hate speech. These go a step further though, they're coordinated and funded by political militants that try to distrupt the huge anti-government protests going on.
Paid SJW bloggers (many who are now under investigation) reblog, post about promote anything pro-government as some hallowed progressive move that will make everyone's lives better and condemning anything anti government. Artists and talk show hosts with ties to the government take an increasingly more SJW position and decry anything that does not appeal to the government's interests as "hate speech".

Pro "afro rights" and "student rights" movements  literally invading schools and universities that do not have a pro-government aligned direction, and who just happen to have ties to government funded "social movements" who are composed mostly of the ruling party's elite. And then there's the real bottom feeders, the truly misled and blind SJW horde that actualy believes the government is some sort of saintly group of folks that actualy fight against the most bigoted society ever, even though the major part of the actualy poor people are protesting against the government due to everything getting worse for them under the current government's rule. And yet they continue defending it, from the dyed armpit hair tumblr dweller to the pseudo intellectual sophore dweeb with a huge ugly beard, even when crimes are being commited and the very people they defend are being sentenced to prison for corruption and other crimes. These people are at universities and are supported by teachers that are very impartial about their political beliefs, they have money and influence. Why would the internet be ignored as a means of perpetuating their political militance?

You can keep pretending they're just loud, harmless idiots, but the observed reality clearly points otherwise.

En resume: The problem isn't progressive politics, its the fact they're being maliciously used to disguise other interests, which is made very easy and abusable due to the fact that you absolutely cannot question anything deemed "progressive" without a titanic political correct mob calling you a huge worse than hitler racist/sexist/gay-bashing mario bigot.

Hey do you recall when EA claimed people voted them #1 worst company (again) in the world because clearly EA was a shining bastion of progressivism and everyone else were racist gayslayers? They aren't the first true shitlord to have sent themselves thousands of anti-gay posts because of how utterly scummy they were. Really interesting to hear what's going down in South America, I wouldn't expect them to have to deal with this shit too.

1. Media wants to know everything about you because your identity is their cash-cow.
2. Media hates privacy because it can't be monetized like a public identity.
3. Media teaches you to hate privacy as a matter of principle: you can only be a good person if you (ostensibly) """have nothing to hide."""
4. Media does nothing to "protect" their users from "anonymous" "attacks," because that's where all the sexy clicks and controversy is at. It also allows them to maintain the status quo and the "privacy/anonymity is bad" narrative ad infinitum
5. Enjoy your life as a biological content generator in the Matrix.

That's more social media's thing than media
The media are much more closely aligned with enforcing political narratives on the masses, so only state approved narratives are spread. They attack politicians who are outside the establishment, from nationalists to communists and everyone in between who stray too far from what the intellectual elite want. If you at any point break the progressive narrative you become the enemy and are a subhuman racist. It's quite grim to know that 15 years ago one of our MPs raised allegations that there were these rape gangs and the media didn't just shut him down, our state-owned media actually got him arrested for inciting racial hatred. 15 years this went on and the media were in damage control all the way :|
What profit is gained from this? There is nothing to market in silencing something, and they would be losing the opportunity to publish a catchy headline. The only profit is political capital. Why does the CIA fund the BBC? Why does the EU fund the BBC? Why does Putin fund Sputnik and RT? For profit? No, narrative control. It's only been what, a handful of years since the Zimmerman trial? Where for months the media did things like edit out wounds, edit phonecall audio to create a racebait narrative for progressive America just as the rest of the world happened to be focusing on the PRISM leaks?

This is why you cannot compromise on free speech. The arbiters of what constitutes acceptable limits will of course define it to suit their own agendas. It hurts my brain that there are people who use the word hatefacts unironically.
And on comment sections:
Comment sections are poison: handle with care or remove them
Comments are often regarded as a right but they can do more harm than good. In the absence of strict moderation, we’d be much better off without them
These fucks are the same ones on Neogaf

Can't help but agree with this. Its unfortunate but hey. The 1st amendment just like the 2nd is antiquated. These are things which need to be revised for the new age that we are and will be living in. The founding fathers did not have internet or a lot of other things we have today. America is really one of the only developed countries that still clings to these particular ideas of freedom.

Americans, please fight rabidly to retain your freedoms. The internet can produce intellectual discussion... But it's just a medium. It needs free speech and free flow of information. Don't throw it away so callously, there really is no other place on this planet that will legally let you speak your mind and it's seriously under threat in the USA. Intellectual discussion without free speech is like science under the inquisition's eye. I would never have thought it would get to this point where someone being called toxic is sufficient grounds to destroy them.