Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Sargon of Akkad gives a good backstory on what’s happened in the last week here, with a fairly complete breakdown & summary:

He points out rather adeptly that the SJWs simply use whatever Alinskyite tactics they can against people they view as cultural enemies, regardless of truth, fact, or internal consistency.  Hold the enemy to their own rules, etc.

For further backstory on PewDiePie (especially for those unfamiliar with him), another video here:

And Kraut & Tea’s take on it here:

Not only are these guys immersed in internet culture and can act as guides for those who are less l33t and can’t triforce, but they also go into greater detail and in a more effective way than a long blog post full of links.

A lot of this rejection of the MSM is still the long-term effects of Gamergate, where video games “journalist” SJWs targeted the audience they’re supposed to cater to by colluding secretly and publicly telling gamers that they were dead as an identity, and then slandering them all as racist sexist homophobe white males in their mother’s basements, yadda yadda, same SJW leftist bullshit, different day.  The effect was that legions of politically apathetic video gamers who would otherwise frequently have been David Mamet-style “brain dead liberals” got mugged and found themselves at least understanding some conservative/classic liberal perspectives – and most importantly rejecting the SJW totalitarian left.

These two particular youtubers also trace some lineage to the “rational/atheist” groups that take pride in reasoned thought, which also leads them intellectually more towards classic Enlightenment liberalism and thus also priding themselves on trying to understand different perpectives.  That degree of intellectual honesty also allows them to see what’s happened with the media and the progressive (regressive) leftist SJWs.

Both are very sharp guys, and the places that they politically diverge from an American/classic liberal/libertarian/American conservative viewpoint (which are fairly frequent) are nonetheless places where due to that rigorous intellectual honesty, they’re the kind of people you could discuss such things with.  For example, Sargon’s been on Stephen Crowder’s show, and though there are political differences, it becomes reasoned discussion with differences based on experience and viewpoints.  There’s certainly never any “SHUT UP!” of the SJW left.

There’s been so much going on in the last year that rather than do a massive field day story dump with a few comments, here’s a lot of them covered rather quickly by Brit youtuber Sargon of Akkad:

While I disagree with him on some things, this covers a lot of the cultural and international cultural stuff that has happened in the last year.  He also covers so much ground here there would be a massive stack of categories & tags, so some are omitted because it’s a long vid.

Why Y’all mad?

Posted: July 25, 2016 by ShortTimer in Culture, Humor
Tags:

This video made the rounds a week or so ago, so I’m behind the curve on it.  Finally got around to watching it, and it’s hilarious.

It’s also a wonderful rebuttal of some of the Black Lives Matter talking points in intentionally over-the-top style.  In a rather colorful form, he points out many of the errors of leftist-racial theory and narrative.

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke makes clear the law enforcement perspective… and one shared by most of the nation regardless of color.  The best exchange is above.

The later part, after cutting to commercial to protect Don Lemon from further looking like a biased chump and useful idiot, is what CNN posted.  It’s 30 seconds of Don Lemon saying, in effect – if you want to have a conversation, you need to shut up and agree with me, then Lemon running interference for racist Black Lives Matter while saying “that’s a different conversation” every time the Sheriff brings up a point.

Sheriff Clarke is elected by the people of the county to provide law enforcement for them.  He is as direct a representation of what a community wants in law enforcement as is possible in a representative democratic republic.  And based on that first exchange, it sounds like he’s got the community’s interests at heart – both the citizen community and law enforcement community, as they are one and the same (7).

Normally I’d say it’s a safe bet Sheriff Clarke won’t be invited back… but then again, if it generates ratings, views, and hits, CNN may recognize they should have someone on besides their party loyalist mouthpieces.

In the last couple years or so, leftists who felt they needed yet another front in the culture war attacked the Washington Redskins football team for having a name that white elitist liberal leftist progressives thought was offensive to American Indians (or Amerinds, or Native Americans, or First Nations people, etc.).

A poll conducted last week confirmed what a poll years ago said – only about 1 in 10 are offended.  The vast 90% majority don’t care.

If you know who Don Burnstick is, you would already know this.  White elitist liberal leftist progressives obviously do not.

Don Burnstick is hilarious.  Native friends who’ve seen him live (on a res, no less) said he’s a riot in person.  He started parodying Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck” jokes and took the jokes one step further into their own thing.

don burnstick you might be a redskin

Today from Washington Post (via HotAir), there are white elitist liberal leftist progressives who are mad because:

WaPo: Those dumb Indians don’t even know when they’re being insulted

Just days after the Washington Post revealed that 90% of Native Americans don’t find the term “Redskins” to be offensive, the paper’s own editorial board has proclaimed that they know better about racial slurs than the alleged target of said slur.

In a move that illustrates the height of liberal elite arrogance, the Post proclaimed in their Sunday editorial that “A slur, is a slur,” and despite the findings of the poll, they’re still demanding the name of Washington’s NFL team be changed because, in their enlightened understanding of the world, Redskins is racial slur:

    Where does that leave us? We’ve always made clear that we think fans who embrace the name do so without racist feeling or intent. But we also are clear that the term originates in an era when Indians were considered less than human and were often treated accordingly. References to scalping, war whoops and tomahawk chops hark back to that era and perpetuate stereotypes that can be hurtful, especially to Native American children.

Did you get that subtle insinuation that those polled were just too uninformed to know that they’re being insulted?  “(M)ore than half of respondents had heard little or nothing about this controversy,” the Post says, knowingly. They left out the implied, “those dumb Indians,” but we all get the picture.

In the grand scope of things, there are better things to be pissed off about if you’re an American Indian.  You could be pissed off at how tribal governments are run by corrupt cabals, pissed off at how the feds come in and tell you how to run things, pissed off at all the do-gooders who don’t actually help anything but their own sense of smugness, pissed off at the cycles of alcoholism and drug use that plague reservation communities, pissed off at the economic opportunities lost because of layers of government in the way, or just generally pissed off.

Or you could be pissed off about the name of a football team a thousand miles away because some white elitist liberal leftist progressives told you you should be pissed off about it.

Or you could still be pissed off at white elitists from DC knowing what was best for you and forcing you to be disarmed in a massacre over 125 years ago.

From a little while back, but still a funny takedown of the SJW culture taking over campuses:

Doritos, NARAL, and Sci Fi

Posted: February 8, 2016 by ShortTimer in Culture, Philosophy, Science
Tags:

In the last few weeks, I keep piling up stories that will probably be strung together in a few Field Day posts, but this story from HotAir I didn’t want to leave on the back burner and get to later.

The title is “I suppose we should talk about that Doritos ad“.

This is the ad:

And this was the response from NARAL:

And a screenshot in case it disappears:

naral superbowl 50 tweet humanizing fetuses

So they’re opposed to humanizing human offspring, because it’s some tactic of the anti-choice movement.  Humanizing fetuses is… bad?

NARAL’s twitter feed sounds like the hard leftist craziness it is, but as they’re not the kind of people I follow on twitter – Twitchy does a fine job of keeping up on that sort of thing anyway.

Not sure why they use the statue of liberty as their twitter avatar, seeing as how she’s in favor of accepting those poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, not yearning to crush the lives from people who will never breathe, but I guess irony escapes them.

I’m a sci fi fan (and I don’t care that it’s become SF or “speculative fiction” to clean up the image of bug-eyed monsters from the 50s), and from the perspective of most humanist sci fi, I can’t see any way that NARAL doesn’t come across as utter monsters.

I just spent part of this morning watching SFDebris Star Trek reviews – I enjoy seeing what someone else has thought of classic (and not so classic) episodes of the past – and even if I don’t always agree with the takes that he has on them, I usually gain some greater understanding of the episode and story.  This morning one episode review I watched was his review of Star Trek: Enterprise Similitude.

Enterprise was the prequel spinoff series that aired in the late 90s early 2000s and fared poorly.  Especially compared to The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 (which was highly underrated), Enterprise was weak.

The story Similitude involves the chief engineer getting seriously injured after an engine mishap, the ship getting stuck in some kind of anomaly that was decaying the hull, and the need to save the engineer.  So the highly unethical ship’s doctor decided to make a clone of the engineer by using some alien critter larva, then force-grow the clone, and basically strip it for parts.

Thing is, the clone is recognized as a person.  Even though it was grown for the specific purpose of being harvested for organs, the clone is a copy down to neurological pathways of the original, so it has his memories and knowledge (dubious science, I know), and is fully self-aware and more than a little opposed to being used for parts.  In the end the clone cares more for the comatose engineer and the memories of trying to make things right for his/their lost sister and family, especially knowing it’s force-grown and will age and die in a few days.

Even in this mediocrely written sci fi, there’s some understanding that something is being done with life – that life isn’t something to casually throw away, and that a human life (or near-human life) is a valuable life – and that virtue of life is acknowledged even if it’s a force-grown clone created with a specific purpose.

Plenty of folks on twitter smacked NARAL around by pointing out the definition of a fetus is “a developing human”, but the whole thing strikes me as something both telling and sinister.  It shows the character of people who are in NARAL and those who support it, and it’s really disturbing.

From an alien perspective, an alien may or may not care for the idea of terminating gestating offspring, but denying that a gestating offspring is still a member of the parent race is just nonsensical.

If aliens from Zeta Reticuli said, “yeah, we kill our offspring when it’s inconvenient for us because we value the agency of full-grown Reticulans over those of our larva”, you might well find them offensive, especially depending on their history and culture.

If they said, “yeah, we kill our gestating fetuses when it’s inconvenient for us because those things aren’t Reticulans”, you’d probably find them to be poorly written or a race in absurd denial in order to justify their actions.

The problem for NARAL might be that saying you should be able to kill offspring – which is their position – then makes it solely a question of timing.  The argument I remember hearing in college philosophy courses was the “future like ours” theory, that means you could kill off the weak, crippled, or handicapped, but that you shouldn’t kill off the strong in the womb.  The same argument also began to apply to “future like ours” as in what can be provided for the offspring, thus it’s was okay to kill the strong if you were poor and couldn’t afford an ideal future for that offspring.  There was also an argument that human offspring aren’t capable of independent life before a certain time period, and that makes it okay to kill them because they’re not individual beings yet – this is intended to be a trimester argument, but its logical conclusion would include newborns and children up to a few years of age who couldn’t survive in nature without assistance (an argument that has been made before).

Those last parts become unpalatable and monstrous to most of society right now.  Using sci fi/speculative fiction to explore the concepts, there’s not necessarily a reason they couldn’t become or be considered acceptable, given the proper framework.  Maybe a warrior group kills the weakest of its offspring, or an overpopulated planet exterminates them, but even then there’s a reason.  The warrior race wants to be stronger, the overpopulated planet is concerned with its stability – they understand the offspring are theirs, but deny them life for a reason (albeit ones we may not agree with).  I still couldn’t see a writer coming up with any kind of logic to a race that would deny its own offspring, unless it were an intentional flaw in the race – like some kind of adherence to an obsolete philosophy from when they were warlike or too numerous to survive that they now take as gospel.  It might work for an group with a strict collectivist mentality that’s harshly enforced, or for a group that steadfastly believes in some throwback idea that they don’t realize they’ve outgrown.

Human cultures in the past have engaged in practices like those, but concern for our species and enlightened concern for all humanity has moved us past that… except for the people who want to drag us back.  NARAL denies the humanity of a developing offspring that even infanticidal cultures of the past would not – because the infanticidal cultures of the past acknowledged it as a decision, either an ugly one or one they simply choose to be willfully apathetic about due to circumstance – while NARAL is afraid of the moral bankruptcy or perception of callousness that comes from acknowledging what they’re advocating.