# Tangent from Sargon thread about anti-SJWism & Status Quo



## Emperor Julian (May 24, 2017)

RockVolnutt said:


> I don't think it'll be the "end" of them unless the SJW subculture they're built on top of is also going with them. It could be more evidence that the times are changing and we could put this all behind us.



 Anti sjw stuff is probably on borrowed time the moment trump was elected unless he turns out to be an good leader since you're now effectively defending a douchey status quo.

Sargon cherry picking british media's articulating the obvious potential issue of violent recriminations to have a crack at his other bete noire. Naturally this is of coarse the perfect time to do this as he is an expert on sociology.





For the record I do think these discussion need to occur, it's just I doubt Sargons the man for the job.


----------



## RockVolnutt (May 24, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> Anti sjw stuff is probably on borrowed time the moment trump was elected unless he turns out to be an good leader since you're now effectively defending a douchey status quo.
> 
> Sargon cherry picking british media's articulating the obvious potential issue of violent recriminations to have a crack at his other bete noire. Naturally this is of coarse the perfect time to do this as he is an expert on sociology.
> 
> ...


I still think it's too early to call "Anti SJW stuff" the status quo in the same sense it's counterpart was a year ago if we're talking about general cultural trends and not just recent events. People like Sargon still have some life left unless SocJus becomes a completely dead issue and his viewerbase stop caring or become bigger loons or whatever.


----------



## Tim Buckley (May 24, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> Anti sjw stuff is probably on borrowed time the moment trump was elected unless he turns out to be an good leader since you're now effectively defending a douchey status quo.



Anti SJW = Status quo
Yeah, sure buddy.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 24, 2017)

Tim Buckley said:


> Anti SJW = Status quo
> Yeah, sure buddy.



 How long can you really rage at a bunch of fat chicks when it became clear they're totally irrelivant and got what you wanted?


----------



## Tim Buckley (May 24, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> How long can you really rage at a bunch of fat chicks when it became clear they're totally irrelivant and got what you wanted?



I'm not raging at fat chicks mate.
Why you asuming I wanted president Trump? I'm not even from the US.


----------



## Kazami Yuuka (May 24, 2017)

AnAspieWithAVengeance said:


> Just gives me more of an excuse to unsubscibe to Sargon ASAP
> 
> He's becoming an insufferable twat who, despite being on the left of the spectrum, just echoes right wing viewpoints to piss off dem SJWs.
> 
> ...



Sargon jumped the shark when he tweeted those Five Rules of Sargon or whatever (there is no god, there is no prophet, etc.). Coming from me that might sound like a biased point, but it really shows he's just there to make money off of saying edgy things. He suffers from the same delusions of grandeur as Armored Skeptic and TJ, which Teal Deer did touch upon in his rationalist skeptic satire. I suppose it's due to the fact that creating culture war type videos are much easier to pump out en masse, so these characters tend to rise to popularity quite quickly.


----------



## Tim Buckley (May 24, 2017)

Kazami Yuuka said:


> Sargon jumped the shark when he tweeted those Five Rules of Sargon or whatever (there is no god, there is no prophet, etc.). Coming from me that might sound like a biased point, but it really shows he's just there to make money off of saying edgy things.



So by your autistic definition atheism or simply disbelief in religion makes you *edgy*?



Kazami Yuuka said:


> He suffers from the same delusions of grandeur as Armored Skeptic and TJ, which Teal Deer did touch upon in his rationalist skeptic satire. I suppose it's due to the fact that creating culture war type videos are much easier to pump out en masse, so these characters tend to rise to popularity quite quickly.



So all "culture war" videos and channels are part of a massive new media scam and have nothing to do with worrying shit that's happening all around the world. Hahahaha I bet you already think I'm part of the "alt-right"


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 24, 2017)

Tim Buckley said:


> I'm not raging at fat chicks mate.
> Why you asuming I wanted president Trump? I'm not even from the US.



 You unironically identify as an anti-sjw's ala the basement dwellers of YouTube?


----------



## Tim Buckley (May 24, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> You unironically identify as an anti-sjw's ala the basement dwellers of YouTube?


You gonna asume my gender next?


----------



## AnOminous (May 24, 2017)

Tim Buckley said:


> So by your autistic definition atheism or simply disbelief in religion makes you *edgy*?



Anyone who doesn't worship Our Lord Jesus Christ is a lolcow.


----------



## Cato (May 24, 2017)

Nice, @Emperor Julian vs @Tim Buckley arena death match. Fight!


----------



## AnOminous (May 24, 2017)

Huh?  All of this moved into Deep Thoughts?  But I thought DT _wasn't_ supposed to be a toilet for shitposts.  Or did @Vitriol give up on us?


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 24, 2017)

eid nogras eid


----------



## Kazami Yuuka (May 24, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Huh?  All of this moved into Deep Thoughts?  But I thought DT _wasn't_ supposed to be a toilet for shitposts.  Or did @Vitriol give up on us?


Yeah, it should be moved to the Spergatory tbh. Or just subforum it and call it the Sewer.


----------



## RockVolnutt (May 25, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> How long can you really rage at a bunch of fat chicks when it became clear they're totally irrelivant and got what you wanted?


SocJus isn't limited to a bunch of fat chicks on the internet. You have the entertainment industry, academia, a fuckton of politicians, etc. You don't need to look far to see people still going on about how anyone with pale skin or men in general are automatically right-wing idiots who are also the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Things haven't changed that much yet.


----------



## AnOminous (May 25, 2017)

RockVolnutt said:


> SocJus isn't limited to a bunch of fat chicks on the internet. You have the entertainment industry, academia, a fuckton of politicians, etc. You don't need to look far to see people still going on about how anyone with pale skin or men in general are automatically right-wing idiots who are also the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Things haven't changed that much yet.



I don't really care if they say this shit.  My objection is their actually insane idea that it's literally a violent crime if you say "hey wait, that's not true."  But it's not a violent crime if they literally murder you for saying that.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 25, 2017)

Tim Buckley said:


> You gonna asume my gender next?


 If You want but do you consider yourself anti-sjw in the salty youtuber sense ?I'm just curious because you seem to identify my critique of them with yourself.



RockVolnutt said:


> SocJus isn't limited to a bunch of fat chicks on the internet. You have the entertainment industry, academia, a fuckton of politicians, etc. You don't need to look far to see people still going on about how anyone with pale skin or men in general are automatically right-wing idiots who are also the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Things haven't changed that much yet.


 A domination so inaffective they've not only totally failed to achieve anything but are now an active liability to left wing politics. One so inherantly flawed it self-destructs on it's own,  That a shitty youber can poke holes in it and be genrally on point.
 Also as a tangent SJW are distinct from say a communist or a hardline femminist. The terms just get used interchaingably for rhetoric.



Cato said:


> Nice, @Emperor Julian vs @Tim Buckley arena death match. Fight!


 Time to wrack up some dumbs.


----------



## RockVolnutt (May 25, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> A domination so inaffective they've not only totally failed to achieve anything but are now an active liability to left wing politics. One so inherantly flawed it self-destructs on it's own,  That a shitty youber can poke holes in it and be genrally on point. Also as a tangent SJW are distinct from say a communist or a hardline femminist. The terms just get used interchaingably for rhetoric.


Not to go off-topic on this already off topic subject but what's the difference between hardline feminists and SJWs? From an outsider's point of view it looks like mainstream feminism was being eaten alive with the whole intersectionality thing. I have seen commies who try to distance themselves from that even if some SJWs love to flirt with communism (or rather a pretend version of it that isn't communism at all, they're dumb enough to call a hypothetical oligarchy of big corporations "communism").

On topic, I don't see how that ineffective domination wouldn't be considered part of the status quo.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 25, 2017)

RockVolnutt said:


> Not to go off-topic on this already off topic subject but what's the difference between hardline feminists and SJWs? From an outsider's point of view it looks like mainstream feminism was being eaten alive with the whole intersectionality thing. I have seen commies who try to distance themselves from that even if some SJWs love to flirt with communism (or rather a pretend version of it that isn't communism at all).
> 
> On topic, I don't see how that ineffective domination wouldn't be considered part of the status quo.



 SJW is a bit of a catch all terms for posturing idiots on the left, it started on the left to critique people on the team who where genrally poisonous and unpleasent but has entered common parlance and is bordering on a right wing snarl word due the point of meaningless rhetoric. but the disintction between an SJW and say what's going on in Academic Femminism is that Femminists have some meaningful conviction, rationale and internal consistancy, it's still total bullshit but it's bullshit which is at least spouted by someone whose read a book or two. Their are people who blur the lines for example Anita Serkisian (who apparantly has a MA degree but writes like a four year old), but I think of the differance as to compare a Thomas Aquinas vs the duck hunt guys. Wrong vs retarded.

 Largely because it's crumbling and irrelivant anyway, it. Railing against say AIDS Skrillex or some 14 years old trans fetish disguised as civil rights when Theresa may is erroding internet civil liberties is a pretty absurd when you think on it.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (May 25, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> A domination so inaffective they've not only totally failed to achieve anything but are now an active liability to left wing politics. One so inherantly flawed it self-destructs on it's own, That a shitty youber can poke holes in it and be genrally on point.


Although if you happen to be on the left the way I am, it starts to feel a little more ominous when you consider that maybe the reason we now have a president you didn't want is due in no small part to the adoption by enough thought leaders of the socjus attitude that we can just pitch a shitty candidate and call people damning names like "misogynist" and "alt-right" when they criticize her, instead of actually fielding a good candidate.

I know most of these raving loons command no power from their parents' mcmansions but when enough of them won't shut up, they start to look like a profitable demographic to the people who _do_ have the power to make shitty decisions. So ultimately, I do believe all these youtube warriors are a problem.


----------



## AnOminous (May 25, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> Although if you happen to be on the left the way I am, it starts to feel a little more ominous when you consider that maybe the reason we now have a president you didn't want is due in no small part to the adoption by enough thought leaders of the socjus attitude that we can just pitch a shitty candidate and call people damning names like "misogynist" and "alt-right" when they criticize her, instead of actually fielding a good candidate.



To be mildly fair, the only insurgent was a flat-out self-declared socialist who looks like he sleeps in a dumpster every night.

That said, heads up polls versus Trump, he was always ahead of the completely uninspiring and incompetent candidate Hillary, the worst candidate fielded by a major party in Presidential history.

Incidentally, that's not an opinion, it's objective fact, and is proven by the fact that despite spending more on a political campaign than any candidate in history, well over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS[*], she somehow lost to the second worst candidate in Presidential history, who spent practically nothing, because the media did all his campaigning for him by incompetently vilifying him.  This also involves completely blowing an early lead through a series of catastrophic blunders unparalleled in history.

Anyone in the party who babbles about soggy knees, cartoon frogs, and other bullshit should be hung, drawn and quartered.  I'd say castrated, too, but that's obviously already happened.

[*] And because I sometimes rant and exaggerate things, I'll point out the actual amount, and yes, it is more than any other political campaign in history, was $1.2 billion.  Source:  https://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/


----------



## Tim Buckley (May 25, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> Although if you happen to be on the left the way I am, it starts to feel a little more ominous when you consider that maybe the reason we now have a president you didn't want is due in no small part to the adoption by enough thought leaders of the socjus attitude that we can just pitch a shitty candidate and call people damning names like "misogynist" and "alt-right" when they criticize her, instead of actually fielding a good candidate.
> 
> I know most of these raving loons command no power from their parents' mcmansions but when enough of them won't shut up, they start to look like a profitable demographic to the people who _do_ have the power to make shitty decisions. So ultimately, I do believe all these youtube warriors are a problem.



Exaclty! But the scary part is outside of "youtube" when the mainstream media blatantly sides with those narratives due fear of not behaving PC enough and be accused of racism or biggotry, propagating regressive ideas like cancer, effectively hurting everything that once was truly progressive.


----------



## Lorento (May 27, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> SJW is a bit of a catch all terms for posturing idiots on the left, it started on the left to critique people on the team who where genrally poisonous and unpleasent but has entered common parlance and is bordering on a right wing snarl word due the point of meaningless rhetoric. but the disintction between an SJW and say what's going on in Academic Femminism is that Femminists have some meaningful conviction, rationale and internal consistancy, it's still total bullshit but it's bullshit which is at least spouted by someone whose read a book or two. Their are people who blur the lines for example Anita Serkisian (who apparantly has a MA degree but writes like a four year old), but I think of the differance as to compare a Thomas Aquinas vs the duck hunt guys. Wrong vs exceptional.



Plus, a Hardline Communist will look at things from a purely economic standpoint, seizing the means of production and all that, and believe that equality will come when the wealth is distributed evenly. Hardline feminists read books and write stuff which is mostly bullshit but at least they have a degree of integrity.

SJWs are the sorts that have bizarre notions that recognising the 58 genders, 9 million sexualities and telling White People to stop wearing dreadlocks will somehow lead to some bright future where everyone lives in la la land. 

Plus, SJWs are funny to hear rant, communists are dull and academic feminists are coma inducing.


----------



## PerishableDryGoods (Jun 2, 2017)

im one the few that think of skeptics as lolcows i dont think discussing them losing views warrants a deep thoughts thread if it was about whether their sensationalist way of mixing politics with entertainment is hurting discourse in the long run or about them becoming eerily cult like then yeah i dont really think of them as awful enough for their downfall to constitute a great complex discussion


----------



## KillaClown1488 (Jun 2, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> Anti sjw stuff is probably on borrowed time the moment trump was elected unless he turns out to be an good leader since you're now effectively defending a douchey status quo.



Your understanding of history, society and politics is so fucking puerile. Fucking unirionic Fukuyamaists who never even read the guy's book are the worst.


----------



## feedtheoctopus (Jun 2, 2017)

In 30 years idiots like Sargon are gonna look like those dumbasses who thought comic books were turning kids gay. Every generation has its version of cultural reaction. Ours just happens to be internet based and shrouded in irony and dishonest as fuck memery. Realistically the issues most of these "anti-sjw" people care about are completely meaningless. They are literally people complaining about people complaining about video game boobs and shit.

It's not so much that either party is defending a douchey status quo as they're both ignoring the status quo altogether and screetching about total horseshit.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 2, 2017)

I understand Sargon's intent, but he's too much of a hardass and feedtheoctopus is right, he's a knee-jerk reactionary. It's just what happens when you take anything you don't like too seriously and it's the exact same thing that created all the SJWs he hates so much in the first place.


----------



## PerishableDryGoods (Jun 2, 2017)

feedtheoctopus said:


> It's not so much that either party is defending a douchey status quo as they're both ignoring the status quo altogether and screetching about total horseshit.



this perfectly sums up my feelings on politics and cultural movements


----------



## teh forist speret (Jun 5, 2017)

oo How comical! How comical! It seems like anti-SJWs are also just as soft and cannot handle the toy tickle johnson ultimatum! You guys need to be moar like manny pardo with thick skin bootysnapcheeks, you cannot let the vile SJWs and male feminist cucks get all the bare snap from your cheeks.


----------



## DuskEngine (Jun 6, 2017)

just make a fucking kulturkampf subforum


----------



## Arch Zealot (May 10, 2019)

its strange to thin that its actually Sargon dragging down Dankula. that he is the greater PR person by now


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 10, 2019)

Thoughts.

While SJWs are a group in need of someone or multiple someones to kick them back under their rocks, the idea of an anti-SJW movement is actually exceptional.  Anti-anything as a movement is exceptional.  If you are "anti" something your ideology or movement or whatever is being framed in context with what you are "anti" and little else.  It might not BE that limited, but with a simple verbal bit of dumb fuckery you've allowed a shrewd opponent to corral you and even dictate to you.  Your movement makes no sense without the context of the SJW menace looming, and it operates only within the same parameters the SJWs do.  It makes more sense to make being "anti-SJW" a single plank in a much more robust platform, but small minds like Carl can't really think outside the playing field the SJWs have laid out anyway so I guess it serves for his purposes.  But then you get into the borderline-cryptic nature of the title Social Justice Warrior and you realize that being anti- this thing says as little about you as SJW does about them.  To anyone not intimately familiar with the cache that SJW has, you're spouting gobbledygook.  Might as well call yourself anti-skub.  You need to use real words for your planks.  Anti-authoritarian, for example.  Admittedly, a number of people have no idea what authoritarian means and some can't even fucking spell it but you're now closer to something that both makes sense and is properly descriptive.

Veering back to Sargon himself - while I believe people should be free to say dumb shit wherever, more or less, I can't envision many worse representatives for much of anything he claims to espouse.  Skepticism, sociopolitical crap like anti-feminism or anti-SJWism, I mean fuck sake I wouldn't want the man to represent much of anything that was close to my heart.  EDIT: I still remember how badly he got schooled by that one chick and how much of a wash his little tete-a-tete with DesTiny was.


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 10, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Thoughts.
> 
> While SJWs are a group in need of someone or multiple someones to kick them back under their rocks, the idea of an anti-SJW movement is actually exceptional.  Anti-anything as a movement is exceptional.  If you are "anti" something your ideology or movement or whatever is being framed in context with what you are "anti" and little else.  It might not BE that limited, but with a simple verbal bit of dumb fuckery you've allowed a shrewd opponent to corral you and even dictate to you.  Your movement makes no sense without the context of the SJW menace looming, and it operates only within the same parameters the SJWs do.  It makes more sense to make being "anti-SJW" a single plank in a much more robust platform, but small minds like Carl can't really think outside the playing field the SJWs have laid out anyway so I guess it serves for his purposes.  But then you get into the borderline-cryptic nature of the title Social Justice Warrior and you realize that being anti- this thing says as little about you as SJW does about them.  To anyone not intimately familiar with the cache that SJW has, you're spouting gobbledygook.  Might as well call yourself anti-skub.  You need to use real words for your planks.  Anti-authoritarian, for example.  Admittedly, a number of people have no idea what authoritarian means and some can't even fucking spell it but you're now closer to something that both makes sense and is properly descriptive.
> 
> Veering back to Sargon himself - while I believe people should be free to say dumb shit wherever, more or less, I can't envision many worse representatives for much of anything he claims to espouse.  Skepticism, sociopolitical crap like anti-feminism or anti-SJWism, I mean fuck sake I wouldn't want the man to represent much of anything that was close to my heart.  EDIT: I still remember how badly he got schooled by that one chick and how much of a wash his little tete-a-tete with DesTiny was.


That's why you're supposed to be bold enough to set your own agenda. Setting yourself in opposition to anything is bad for exactly the reason that you explained, it sacrifices the initiative. Instead of being free to strike out with new ideas you're going to be playing catch up the entire time.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 10, 2019)

Sīn the Moon Daddy said:


> That's why you're supposed to be bold enough to set your own agenda. Setting yourself in opposition to anything is bad for exactly the reason that you explained, it sacrifices the initiative. Instead of being free to strike out with new ideas you're going to be playing catch up the entire time.


The only time you should be playing the reactive, defensive game is if you've basically already attained a kind of hegemony, there's nowhere further "up" to go and you're satisfied with defending what you have.  This, of course, almost never happens to be the case.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 10, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Might as well call yourself anti-skub.



I fucking knew it as soon as I started reading your comment. Why won't you pro-skubbies get off your high horses and admit that you're the problem that's ruining the fun on the internet?

As for Sargon, he actually tried to do what you describe here and start a political thing called the liberalists. Except it all became too much work and it seemed easier for him to latch onto an existing party and help them crash faster.

I think all the anti-SJW stuff was a healthy backlash and the still developing anti-anti-SJW backlash is similarly healthy, because people are starting to find out that many of the champions are about as dirty as the people they criticized (and almost as incapable at dealing with criticism).


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 10, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I fucking knew it as soon as I started reading your comment. Why won't you pro-skubbies get off your high horses and admit that you're the problem that's ruining the fun on the internet?


I was about to write out a witty retort and JESUS YOUR AVATAR BLINKED FUCK.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 10, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> I was about to write out a witty retort and JESUS YOUR AVATAR BLINKED FUCK.



Have you perhaps taken any LSD in the last 24 hours?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 10, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Have you perhaps taken any LSD in the last 24 hours?


Shit, that explains the vines growing up my leg.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 10, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Shit, that explains the vines growing up my leg.


I think that's probably normal for Parsley, except for the leg part.


----------



## Drunk and Pour (May 10, 2019)

RockVolnutt said:


> SocJus isn't limited to a bunch of fat chicks on the internet. You have the entertainment industry, academia, a fuckton of politicians, etc. You don't need to look far to see people still going on about how anyone with pale skin or men in general are automatically right-wing idiots who are also the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Things haven't changed that much yet.


This plus the mainstream "news" media and the giant tech companies.


Emperor Julian said:


> A domination so inaffective they've not only totally failed to achieve anything but are now an active liability to left wing politics. One so inherantly flawed it self-destructs on it's own,  That a shitty youber can poke holes in it and be genrally on point.
> Also as a tangent SJW are distinct from say a communist or a hardline femminist. The terms just get used interchaingably for rhetoric.





Emperor Julian said:


> SJW is a bit of a catch all terms for posturing idiots on the left, it started on the left to critique people on the team who where genrally poisonous and unpleasent but has entered common parlance and is bordering on a right wing snarl word due the point of meaningless rhetoric. but the disintction between an SJW and say what's going on in Academic Femminism is that Femminists have some meaningful conviction, rationale and internal consistancy, it's still total bullshit but it's bullshit which is at least spouted by someone whose read a book or two. Their are people who blur the lines for example Anita Serkisian (who apparantly has a MA degree but writes like a four year old), but I think of the differance as to compare a Thomas Aquinas vs the duck hunt guys. Wrong vs exceptional.
> 
> Largely because it's crumbling and irrelivant anyway, it. Railing against say AIDS Skrillex or some 14 years old trans fetish disguised as civil rights when Theresa may is erroding internet civil liberties is a pretty absurd when you think on it.


I know this is two years old, but they've had some success with the '18 election.  Maybe it's a "chicken or the egg" scenario, did Trump create far leftists, or did far leftists create Trump?  I think far leftism has been on a slow boil for decades.  They've even said radicalization would take generations.

You would think for all it's flaws it wouldn't be as mainstream as is it.  Unfortunately, entertainment, academia, news, and tech feed into each other.  It doesn't help that as our world grows smaller, American values (speaking as an American) are seen as unnecessary or even a hinderance to corporate expansion.  If politicians are eroding internet civil liberties, it's the dummies like AIDS Skrillex and all the other internet SJWs that are pawns in their fight.


Sprig of Parsley said:


> The only time you should be playing the reactive, defensive game is if you've basically already attained a kind of hegemony, there's nowhere further "up" to go and you're satisfied with defending what you have.  This, of course, almost never happens to be the case.


I would say the far left wanting to dismantle western civilization is a good time to become reactive and defensive.

I hope this doesn't come off sounding conspiratorial.  I'm really not an Alex Jones troll account, I swear.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

AnOminous said:


> Incidentally, that's not an opinion, it's objective fact, and is proven by the fact that despite spending more on a political campaign than any candidate in history, well over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS[*], she somehow lost to the second worst candidate in Presidential history, who spent practically nothing, because the media did all his campaigning for him by incompetently vilifying him.  This also involves completely blowing an early lead through a series of catastrophic blunders unparalleled in history.



I don't get why people, even some of Trump's own supporters, keep referring to Trump as a bad candidate. He promoted ideas that a large section of the population already supported but were getting blue-balled year after year on. That border shit wasn't radical, it was the same stuff the Republican base had wanted but kept getting screwed out of for generations. Then, as far as his personality goes, his base loved it because he wasn't just another shit-eating, smooth-talking politician. He says what he wants when he wants and swings his dick around. I liked him during his campaign because he campaigned pretty much the same way I would, except funnier and less overly hostile. I knew from the moment he started running his mouth that he would do better than any other candidate. It honestly befuddled me that people were so convinced he was going to lose.

Insightful about him getting that free advertising, though. That's the main issue I think made him win. You win an election by creating excitement about YOUR candidate. You CANNOT win if most of the attention, positive or negative, is on your opposition. Smear campaigns can work, but you still have to promote yourself. 

What the mainstream media (sans Fox) says: 'Vote against Trump! Vote for Hillary Clinton!"
What the American public hears: "Vote Trump! Vote!"


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 17, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I  Then, as far as his personality goes, his base loved it because he wasn't just another shit-eating, smooth-talking politician. He says what he wants when he wants and swings his dick around.



I'm sorry to tell you this but that's spin. He knows that makes him looks good and helps him with his spin pitch. It's a performance  just as Dubya's folksy working man persona, Barracks easy going but authorative manner and every over major leader was before. The  shit-eating, smooth-talking politician is the mediocre, the pros know how to incorperate their personality into their pr. You even seem aware of how this directly benifits him but don't make the connection that he's doing it deliberatly.
 You can like the guy and think he's a good leader but he really is playing you if you think he's just being earnest in his approach to public relations. We're either seeing an artifical persona or am embelleshed performance which has been built through years of trial and error. The trick is he's smart enough to know just enough people will buy and the media have no ability to effectively react to it.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 17, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this but that's spin. He knows that makes him looks good and helps him with his spin pitch. It's a performance  just as Dubya's folksy working man persona, Barracks easy going but authorative manner and every over major leader was before. The  shit-eating, smooth-talking politician is the mediocre, the pros know how to incorperate their personality into their pr. You even seem aware of how this directly benifits him but don't make the connection that he's doing it deliberatly.
> You can like the guy and think he's a good leader but he really is playing you if you think he's just being earnest in his approach to public relations. We're either seeing an artifical persona or am embelleshed performance which has been built through years of trial and error. The trick is he's smart enough to know just enough people will buy and the media have no ability to effectively react to it.



I don't really care if it's fake or real. I'm sure he plays it up, but I suspect that it is an extension of his natural personality. The point is, I want my Fuhrer to be bold and brash and offensive, not a people-pleaser. I want him to talk openly instead of being a weasel. I also like Duterte and Bolsonaro's public personas (not necessarily their policies) for the same reason. I'd prefer it if Trump acted more like them, even more over-the-top.


----------



## Michael_Jordan_Peterson (May 17, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this but that's spin. He knows that makes him looks good and helps him with his spin pitch. It's a performance  just as Dubya's folksy working man persona, Barracks easy going but authorative manner and every over major leader was before. The  shit-eating, smooth-talking politician is the mediocre, the pros know how to incorperate their personality into their pr. You even seem aware of how this directly benifits him but don't make the connection that he's doing it deliberatly.
> You can like the guy and think he's a good leader but he really is playing you if you think he's just being earnest in his approach to public relations. We're either seeing an artifical persona or am embelleshed performance which has been built through years of trial and error. The trick is he's smart enough to know just enough people will buy and the media have no ability to effectively react to it.


If someone punched you in the face I wouldnt care if it was an act or not, id just be happy someone did it. Same with trump. I dont care if he genuinely is that guy or not just that hes being that guy and saying what needs to be said. The effect is the same. Also pointless since he is clearly that guy, he more or less always has been. Just a horrible argument overall.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 17, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I don't really care if it's fake or real. I'm sure he plays it up, but I suspect that it is an extension of his natural personality. The point is, I want my Fuhrer to be bold and brash and offensive, not a people-pleaser. I want him to talk openly instead of being a weasel. I also like Duterte and Bolsonaro's public personas (not necessarily their policies) for the same reason. I'd prefer it if Trump acted more like them, even more over-the-top.




Even if it's total bullshit?


----------



## shartshooter (May 17, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> A domination so inaffective they've not only totally failed to achieve anything but are now an active liability to left wing politics. One so inherantly flawed it self-destructs on it's own,  That a shitty youber can poke holes in it and be genrally on point.
> Also as a tangent SJW are distinct from say a communist or a hardline femminist. The terms just get used interchaingably for rhetoric.


The function of radicalism isn't to make it suddenly be the new norm, it's to advance the Overton window in their direction. And an aggressive extreme has far more legislative impact than "normal" people who aren't going to occupy a university building or clog up roads with protests. To say the left has "totally failed to achieve anything" is an absurd statement.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 17, 2019)

shartshooter said:


> The function of radicalism isn't to make it suddenly be the new norm, it's to advance the Overton window in their direction. And an aggressive extreme has far more legislative impact than "normal" people who aren't going to occupy a university building or clog up roads with protests. To say the left has "totally failed to achieve anything" is an absurd statement.


This.  Saying that just because the radicals haven't ushered in full-on communism or gynocratic dictatorship or whatever their batshit pet cause is, that they've failed is exceptional.  They're the bad-cop of a bad-cop good-cop combination and their job is to be as unreasonable and unruly as possible so people are willing to compromise "down" to where the good-cops are and consequently surrender ground in the general direction of the radicals' cause.  This is how feminists have managed to fuck things up as badly as they have.  This is also why you should never believe a feminist when they first say they're not one of THOSE feminists, that they want nothing to do with THOSE feminists, that THOSE feminists aren't real feminists, whatever.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 17, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> Even if it's total bullshit?



What do you mean by bullshit? That they only act that way for the camera, or that they don't support the things they claim they support?

If it's the former, I don't care. Politics is theater. If it's the latter, it is a problem. Trump does seem to have been more of a coward than he seemed during the election, and it's hurt my respect for him.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 17, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> What do you mean by bullshit? That they only act that way for the camera, or that they don't support the things they claim they support?
> 
> If it's the former, I don't care. Politics is theater. If it's the latter, it is a problem. Trump does seem to have been more of a coward than he seemed during the election, and it's hurt my respect for him.




So if it's bullshit and it's a false persona you're okay with it because you enjoy the performance? If that's the case isnt your beef with smooth pr politicians completly hollow?


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 17, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> This.  Saying that just because the radicals haven't ushered in full-on communism or gynocratic dictatorship or whatever their batshit pet cause is, that they've failed is exceptional.  They're the bad-cop of a bad-cop good-cop combination and their job is to be as unreasonable and unruly as possible so people are willing to compromise "down" to where the good-cops are and consequently surrender ground in the general direction of the radicals' cause.  This is how feminists have managed to fuck things up as badly as they have.  This is also why you should never believe a feminist when they first say they're not one of THOSE feminists, that they want nothing to do with THOSE feminists, that THOSE feminists aren't real feminists, whatever.


I agree except for the last part.  I get what you're saying but I'm not going to say that feminism is bad.

However yes, there was a strategy. The more insane proposals were supposed to give cover for the more reasonable ones.

It's been ages since I've discussed the Overton window and the strategy to shift it far enough to the left that Bernie Sanders could get the 2020 nomination

Because that was the real goal last I heard


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 17, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> This.  Saying that just because the radicals haven't ushered in full-on communism or gynocratic dictatorship or whatever their batshit pet cause is, that they've failed is exceptional.  They're the bad-cop of a bad-cop good-cop combination and their job is to be as unreasonable and unruly as possible so people are willing to compromise "down" to where the good-cops are and consequently surrender ground in the general direction of the radicals' cause.  This is how feminists have managed to fuck things up as badly as they have.  This is also why you should never believe a feminist when they first say they're not one of THOSE feminists, that they want nothing to do with THOSE feminists, that THOSE feminists aren't real feminists, whatever.


For this to be completely true, what existed before would need to be perfect and there would be no need to move anything at all.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 17, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> For this to be completely true, what existed before would need to be perfect and there would be no need to move anything at all.


What you said makes no fucking sense.  It's a matter of two groups of agitators with similar if not identical goals.  One takes up the role of bad-cop and proceeds to tout what looks like a very extreme stance, while the other group plays good-cop and takes a less extreme stance.  Both want the same thing - they want the less extreme stance to become the new "default" or "center point".  The bad-cops are about scaring you and making you really upset... and the good-cops are there to assuage your fears and assure you that unlike those nasty unreasonable extremists their proposed changes are very reasonable and won't hurt you and definitely won't lead to the extremists' changes later on.  And so people side with the honey-tongued good-cops and the center point is moved and the cycle begins again as the extremists take up an even more extreme stance and the reasonable ones just want a LITTLE change in that direction, nothing TOO major.  This whole tactic dovetails perfectly with motte-and-bailey at times which is used largely to discredit critics and to sow confusion as needed.



Sīn the Moon Daddy said:


> I agree except for the last part.  I get what you're saying but I'm not going to say that feminism is bad.
> 
> However yes, there was a strategy. The more insane proposals were supposed to give cover for the more reasonable ones.
> 
> ...



I'm all for the whole equality before the eyes of the law thing.  Let me know when women have to hand Uncle Sam "I.O.U 1 Life To Throw Away In A War" cards in order to vote and acquire finaid for school, or when they're doing the same amount of time for the same crimes as men, or when women are as likely to be assumed to be the aggressor in a domestic violence call as men by responding officers.  Feminists don't seem terribly interested in remedying those.  If they've got something that needs addressing I encourage them to float it by me, maybe we can work out a compromise.


----------



## shartshooter (May 17, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> For this to be completely true, what existed before would need to be perfect and there would be no need to move anything at all.


...why?

What parsley described is widely accepted political strategy of the left, going back to the 60's and 70's, further back if we want to include socialist revolutions of early 20th century, and it's effective. Extremes exist to push the norm.


----------



## Syaoran Li (May 18, 2019)

I've said it a million times and I will say it again. The current SJW movement right now is mostly due to a backlash against the Religious Right of the previous era, at least in America. It just happens to be a more amplified and intensified backlash because of a radically changed media landscape and the echo chamber effects of Web 2.0 and social media.

Hell, the Religious Right that preceded this nonsense itself gained traction as a backlash against the New Left and the "free love" and counterculture of the 1960's and 1970's. And all of that was a response to the paranoid conformity and uptight conservatism of the 1950's and so on.

American sociopolitical and cultural discourse practically runs on the pendulum effect.

Now, I understand Europe operates under a somewhat different paradigm due to differences in laws and culture, but I don't live in Europe so I can't really comment on the European culture wars all that much.

The SJW movement largely coalesced into a distinct and easily recognized form with Occupy Wall Street back in 2011-2012.

Obama's second term saw this new zeitgeist take further root with stuff like Atheism+, Black Lives Matter, the GamerGate shit show, and the transgender movement essentially hijacking the LGBT community after same-sex marriage was legalized federally.

The 2016 Election was a tipping point where the unexpected victory of Donald Trump sent this already powerful cultural movement into panic mode. The SJW's went into overdrive with the rise of Antifa in America (before 2017, it was near-exclusively confined to the West Coast punk scene) along with bullshit like the Covington Catholic boys getting crucified by the MSM while Jussie Smollet practically got away with perjury, the "Me Too" movement quickly abandoning its initial stated goal of cleaning up Hollywood and instead becoming a complete witch hunt, and an uproar over the supposed "Alt-Right" that ends up becoming the 2010's equivalent of McCarthyism or the Satanic Panic.

Then you have Unite The Right in Charlottesville, which gives some legs to this new moral panic.

Heather Heyer's death in particular subject to levels of blatant and sensationalist exploitation unseen since the days of grindhouse cinema and Antifa is treated with kid gloves by the MSM and lionized by the online leftist media.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is reaching a fever pitch and people are just tired of it. Even people like me who voted against Trump in 2016 are tired of it, and even moderately liberal Democrats are growing fatigued with the SJW's. Even if they don't like Trump, he wasn't the apocalyptic despot everyone feared he would be back in 2016.

Opposition to SJW's is alive and well. The pendulum will swing back eventually.

On the other hand, "Anti-SJW" loudmouths on YouTube on the other hand are already seen as old hat and played out.

Eh, Sargon is a contrarian edgelord and an attention whore who capitalized on resentment towards SJW's that was just starting to grow enough to be profitable.

Given his penchant for euphoric atheism, I get the feeling that if YouTube existed in its current form in the early 2000's, he'd be lashing out at the Christian Right and George W. Bush (or Tony Blair, seeing as he's British) and championing feminism and a lot of other leftist causes that are now SJW talking points that he now won't touch.

Basically, Sargon is to "Current Year" YouTube what The Amazing Atheist was to 2007-2010 era YouTube

Both largely filled a similar niche and cultivated a similar userbase before they both crashed and burned spectacularly.

Although I think Sargon may have already outdone The Amazing Atheist in the career suicide department.

As disgusting as those incriminating banana photos were, I'm not sure if they on the same level of repulsive as "Depends on the child" and unlike Sargon, The Amazing Atheist was just smart enough to realize his e-celeb days were pretty much over at that point.

Sargon just keeps digging his grave even deeper because he doesn't seem to understand the concept of shame or even "bad publicity"

*TL;DR-*SJW's and Sargon are both idiots and I would not have sex with them


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 18, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> So if it's bullshit and it's a false persona you're okay with it because you enjoy the performance? If that's the case isnt your beef with smooth pr politicians completly hollow?



Yes, because the smooth PR politicians are gay and boring.


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 18, 2019)

Syaoran Li said:


> even moderately liberal Democrats are growing fatigued with the SJW's


This is a fucking disaster


----------

