If by "canonized saints of POETV" you mean people who expect controversial or edgy humor to actually be *funny* as opposed to pages of copy-pasted racist screeds from Stormfront and recycled reddit red pill memes.

You mean the people who accuse everyone here of being racist shitlords for using the term "engrish"?

In case it wasn't clear, I'm referring to the Kids in the Hall as PoeTV saints, and I'm not at all equating this sketch with lotsmoreorcs or whatever, though I bet some people here would.

Hate crime! Hate crime!

That's a great article OZ, cheers!

Interesting article.

I'm not so sure that it is "at bottom, a money issue". I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole for the sake of rhetorical impact when people are purporting to talk about facts. What is it that makes money predominant in the debate itself (which is what he wrote)? Any proof that it hands-down outweighs the other factors?
I think a weaker claim would have been a stronger point.

Great article.

To me, "safe spaces" means: You can hold your klan meeting, but not in my living room. There's nothing new or unusual about this. When I was at Binghamton in the 80s we had a Black Student Union. a Jewish Student Union, a Latino student union. Isn't that the basic idea? People need to talk about their concerns.

You can't say anything anywhere, and you never could. One reason why orcs was banned was because whoever administrates this site has the right to do it, and the power to do it, and a reason for doing it, so it's done. For years I posted on justlinux.com, where you were expected to keep your posts on topic. It was not only educational, but during the Iraq War, it was the only place on the internet where I wasn't going to get in a political arguement.. It was a safe space, a partiicular place for particular people to discuss a particular topic.

Maybe if we called them FUCK OFF SPACES, they wouldn't sound so wimpy.

Fuck off, orcs. and you too, Milo.

It's an editorial decision. Who gets to make editorial decisions? The editor, obviously. That's the way it's always been, going all the way back to the Gutenberg Bible.

There are good editors and bad editors and good decisions and bad decisions. And almost always an argument. Everyone who ever gets banned or deleted for obnoxious troilling always complains that he's being censored because of political discrimination. because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Sometimes, that's true, but the editor decides. I was unceremooniously tossed out of the gamerghazi subreddit for siding with the rocket scientist with the crazy bowling shirt. Remember SHIRTGATE? I didn't even really know that I wasn't supposed to have that opinion. I just got booted, like that.

It was a bad decision, but as far as I know, I'm still banned.

It's almost as if the push for equal rights has been going on for half a century now and is only in the spotlight right now because it plays to the alt-right's victim complex during a particularly noisy election cycle.

Half a century of social progress has been leading up to a mass temper tantrum over pop culture and a drawing of a green frog.

It's in the spotlight because it's a trainwreck. People can't help but stare.

There's also no stylised images of japanese children for you to get hard to, you must be feeling terribly oppressed by these sjws and feminists you fat paedo fuck.

There are no racist, homophobic, negative-attention-seeking rightwing anime pedophiles, either.

>A social contract of sorts where we agree -by our actions- to treat each >other as full humans, worthy of a modicum of respect and consideration in >our replies.

Unless they disagree, in which case they are some kind of "...ist"

I two-thirds agree?

"Unless they disagree, in which case they are some kind of "...ist""

No Nikon, they are an '-ist' as pertains to their public words and deeds.

"I think women deserve full equality and suffer unjustly in our society because they don't currently have that, in many important ways" - a (non-strawman) feminist

"I think women are all gold-digging whores and they constantly tell lies about rape, there is no rape culture and their place is in the kitchen or sucking my dick heyooo" - A misogynist.

"I think BLM are a reaction to several longstanding injustices in our society that have some good points and some bad points, I'm sure I agree/not sure I agree with their tactics but as a white guy/not a black guy maybe I'm not best positioned to tell black folk how to achieve an end to state-run injustices" - A real-ist

"I think BLM are literally a terror group, because I am white and afraid, also we GAVE YOU equality already so shut up about all the 'injuuuustice' and deal with black on black crime hurrf blurrf" - A rac-ist.

This good faith response was my modicum of respect towards your edgy point-making of late. Note that I haven't called you any sort of -ist herein.

I just wrote a long-ass thing with a mix of thoughts in it, but not in response to bawbag's most recent post above. I'll post it if he would care to engage. ('the loyal opposition' is important to me on this site)

I also agree with two-thirds of your second post here, bawbag.

Have to disagree that some just cannot think about something well because of identity politics.

All I really know about BLACK LIVES MATTER is that black lives matter. So I'm fine with that.

You had me going with the spectrum thing, but then you went full hypocrite by misrepresenting all arguments that disagree with your own personal stance.

"I think BLM is a hate group that has demonstrably on several occasions put forth violent and hateful rhetoric that could cause more problems that it solves. I have not seen any statistical evidence that has convinced me that there is institutional racism that has caused an epidemic of violence against blacks by police officers, and as a skeptic I require at least some evidence before I make decisions. I believe the way to change things is to win hearts and minds and stage peaceful protests."

That's my stance on BLM.


"I think that both genders are treated unfairly in some ways in society. I am an egalitarian. I have seen several reports debunking the wage gap and after reviewing myself it is clear to me that some women make less money than men due to personal choice, and I'm OK with that.

And feminism.

Feel free to keep pigeon-holing everyone who disagrees with you, though.

It's very telling that you felt the need to kneejerk respond to the clear-cut examples of both' racism' and 'misogyny' I made above as though they targeted you specifically Fezren.

"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks" has rarely been more apt.

WHAT?

I said I have no problem with banning someone who brags about beating up niggers.

Oh, and this was a good sketch.

It's obviously not prophetic in a specific reference to nude models, but in reference to people inventing reasons to protest even the most innocuous things as a sort of hobby or identity.

And no, I'm not claiming lotsmoreorcs or anything like that is innocuous, and I'm not sure what orcs even has to do with political correctness, which he went way beyond by nearly anybody's standards. Where you draw the line over what's offensive or not varies person to person, and I think for the bulk of people here it's a safe distance away from orcs. There are people out there who protest the use of the word "idiot" and "stupid" (both used by PC absolutist SolRo above!) as ableist, though, and I can't imagine anyone here supporting that.

>>>There are people out there who protest the use of the word "idiot" and "stupid" (both used by PC absolutist SolRo above!) as ableist, though, and I can't imagine anyone here supporting that.

Well, that's just retarded.

Potrod, I didn't think you were defending orcs or anything, but the absolutist position is out there, and, in my mind,that's what I'm arguing against. Milo Yiannopulos was banned from Twitter for taking part in something that is, in my opinion, far more egregious than orcs' silly monkeyshines, and he has his supporters, and he's even planning on pressuing Twitter to reinstate him.

Does anyone agree with this statement?

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME LIBERALS ARE ASSHOLES IN THEIR DOGMATIC POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, AND I (AND I BELIEVE MOST EVERYDAY LIBERALS) WOULD GLADLY BE MORE CRITICAL OF THESE PEOPLE IF THE RIGHT WOULD GIVE ME A LITTLE ROOM FOR NUANCE. IF THEY REALLY CARED ABOUT THE EXCESSES OF PC, I BELIEVE WE COULD FIND A LOT OF COMMON GROUND HERE... BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE RIGHT IS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN CREATING A WEDGE ISSUE, SO THE BULLSHIT CONTINUES