The big collection of absolutely insane media quotes

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Polymath, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    I was just reading this article about the Google gender memo, and noticed a passage so absurd, so offensive, and so triggering that I am starting to understand how SJW's feel when someone calls them by the wrong pronouns. I've decided to set up a thread where I and anyone else can document such insanity.

    Here is the direct quote from the article:

     
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    I don't understand what's insane about that. They are correctly describing the way pro-Trump interviewers (e.g. Cernovich, Peterson, Molyneux) prefer to interview people in the spotlight, like James Damore is right now.
     
  3. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    When reading the passage, you have to keep in mind that the author is using "pro-Trump" negatively. It's insane because they are implying that

    a. long interviews are a "pro-Trump" strategy, meaning that people who don't support Trump wouldn't/shouldn't use them.
    b. it's okay to edit interviews, because unedited interviews are not really authentic ("they argue"). People who do not support Trump (ie. the writer and intended audience of that article) should have no problem with editing interviews and injecting bias into them.

    I found this offensive since I personally do not like Trump and they seem to have no problem claiming that something objectively valuable (long, un-edited interviews) is only good for Trump supporters. It's like they are calling unedited interviews "mansplaining".
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  4. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    How do you pronounce "shibboleth"?
    I understand. You're an individualist, and I used to be a radical individualist myself. Libertarianism is probably a leftover neanderthal instinct. But the point of "politics" is to be a polity, i.e. NOT an individual. That's why people do it: large groups dominate. That's especially why low-quality people organize. When you're competing for survival, you have to choose allies wisely to maximize quality * quantity and minimize treason and parasitism.

    The neanderthals are extinct now. We should learn from their mistake.
     
  5. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Would you mind expanding on the Shibboleth comment? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by it.

    We're getting a little off-topic here, but I think you misunderstand my thoughts toward Trump. I understand that Libertarianism isn't realistic when we share a country with, well, normal people, and however much I would just like to be left alone, I don't identify as a Libertarian. I dislike Trump because he is not virtuous (rich, psychopathic businessman, immoral sexual behavior, etc.) and because, based on his speech patterns, it seems like he is not very bright. I instinctively find his appearance, mannerisms and voice highly repulsive, and it concerns me that so many people whom I normally respect don't have the same reaction.
     
    • Nobilid Nobilid x 1
  6. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Is this meant to be understood as an implied admission of guilt?

     
    • Nobilid Nobilid x 1
  7. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Yes, that's what it seems to be.
     
  8. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    "Culture war" is a real kind of war, fought through culture. In a war, you have to work with a lot of people you don't like personally. I doubt I could be in the same room with Trump for very long, but I believe he's consciously fighting on my side and I really do respect his strengths.

    In war, people have two boxes that they put people into very quickly, "person for killing" and "person for not killing". They rely on very simple ethnic heuristics to make these decisions, typically appearance, skin color, or first language, i.e. "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." If a guy looks Mexican and talks like a Mexican, he has to go back. It's a very low-resolution way of dealing with the world, but that's wartime psychology. You have to be fast, decisive, and brutal. This is why I memed "your skin is your uniform" back in the day, and I'm glad to see Vox is running with it.

    It's effectively impossible for people to be in the box "person for not killing" for both sides of a conflict, so they typically pick the side with the most people who don't want them dead because it's safer.

    It's the equivalent of an incontinent defendant slipping up on the witness stand.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2

Share This Page