- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/27/16 at 10:42 pm to inadaze
quote:
The OP isn't necessarily "random" to me. I'm somewhat familiar with him from that ridiculously pathetic forum. I think he's familiar enough with the context to understand what I'm saying. Whether he chooses to acknowledge what I'm saying is a different story, though.
Oh ok, so it is just some petty personal BS you have with a random message board poster, in a thread about a comedy special that you haven't seen. Seems rational.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 1:16 am to inadaze
quote:
I've literally never heard someone define it the way that molsu did while disregarding where the word comes from and the common meaning.
Can you expand on this? I don't think those things are in contradiction when they are being made (deserving) objects of satire or ridicule.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 1:39 am to molsusports
quote:
I think the reason that both Joe and people like me often disagree is the people who view themselves as snowflakes in a libertarian sense really only think they are special in a sense that a narcissist thinks he is special. Most don't offer interesting new ways to view the world or respect the rights of others to their own libertarian rights, they tend to offer the ideas prevalent within their bubble as good and feverishly attack the ideas of others as evil or bad - typically without understanding the opposing point of view or being willing to live in a society where they should be respected.
This is very vague and it just doesn't make much sense. You're being so unspecific about who you're talking about that you can just kind of say anything about these unnamed people and there's no solid way to refute it. To me, that kind of generalizing is one of the most annoying things about the way people talk about politics. To an extent, you sort of have to do it to talk about groups, but your language is just way too general to be legitimate, plus, as I've been trying to say, at the core of libertarian philosophy is not being group-focused.
Even if I were to grant the point about libertarian narcissists (which I don't -- sure, there are some people who behave narcissistically who self-describe as libertarian, but you can do that with any ideology/political label), the point is that the insult goes against libertarian philosophy in a general sense.
Let me try to be more precise about where I think you're off the mark:
1. Are you telling me that you use the word "snowflake" to disparage libertarians? I really doubt that you do. And if you don't, your post really doesn't make sense in this context (keep in mind the part of my post that you quoted that you said you disagreed with).
2. You said that Joe and people like you disagree. Give me some examples of Joe talking about libertarians in this way.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 1:51 am to inadaze
quote:
You're being so unspecific about who you're talking about that you can just kind of say anything about these unnamed people and there's no solid way to refute it.
I think what you are demonstrating is you have a different experience than Joe when he tells a joke or when I laugh at his joke.
Without knowing better I wonder if one of the following explains your inability to register where he is coming from:
1) You haven't been to a lot of college campuses to see how many people behave.
2) If you were on college campuses you were the type to keep your head down and didn't really give a damn.
3) You were on these campuses and are one of the people who views politics and activism as right/wrong or good versus evil in which anyone who doesn't buy in completely to your world view is an a-hole.
I think the point is actually obvious. The people who bully, disinvite opposing viewpoints, censor speech, issue trigger warnings, and generally make up the authoritarian regressive left are pretty unable to understand any world view other than their own. It is completely unsurprising that they can't see their own hypocrisy, lack of independent or original thought, and generally anti-intellectual ethos.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 2:17 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
That's actually literally how language works- slang specifically. When enough people coopt it for a certain context a word takes on a new meaning. Take fig and gay for example.
Also, on this point, in the broadest sense, yes, this is how language works. But when I said how language "works" earlier, I meant works in the way you would say that your computer works, or your idea worked -- when something goes well/positively. So, in this context, I mean for the language to be logical/intelligible.
Let's take the slang word "beast" for example. Let's say I call you a beast -- that's commonly taken to mean that you do something really well -- a positive compliment of some sort. If I just randomly decide to change the meaning and say that it means you like film noir, that doesn't make sense. It's illogical. It doesn't work. Making changes to words and definitions can work sometimes when there is some tie-in that makes sense, but what I'm saying is that for a libertarian-minded person to use snowflake as an insult is ironically nonsensical in a general sense.
Regarding the way "fig" and "gay" are used, yes, the slang meanings have changed to mean something negative that generally depends on the user's preferences -- not necessarily homosexual. But I think the slang meaning with the negative connotation is because of widespread negative views of homosexuals. Obviously those views are changing, but I think if you take a close look, you could see the power of these slang words and language in general in your example. For people who spend time reading libertarian philosophy, slang insults may not affect their views about individualism, creativity, freethinking (as opposed to groupthink), etc., but for others who don't get into the history and philosophy, these kinds of slang words and insults carry significant weight.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 2:20 am to jg8623
I apologize if I've derailed the thread for people who want to talk about the special.
If OP wants to have my posts whacked, I'm fine with that. Really, I didn't intend to derail this much.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 2:23 am to Lunchbox48
quote:
Oh ok, so it is just some petty personal BS
How have I been petty or personal with the OP?
Quote from my posts on how you came up with that.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 2:41 am to inadaze
I'm not sure why but you've missed the obvious point. You have defined snowflake in a way that demonstrates you understand the meaning. You have read me repeatedly refer to his use of the word as satire. And yet you are stuck on questions like "does he refer to other libertarians as snowflakes?"
No. Because there would be no joke. Normally there is no joke if you can a Buddhist a pacifist - unless he is out there killing people. That's the obvious point. You can not (unironically) call yourself an intellectual if you shut down intellectual debates. You can not call yourself a libertarian if you make use of authoritarian institutional tools to punish people who you don't like or disagree with on policy or ideology.
No. Because there would be no joke. Normally there is no joke if you can a Buddhist a pacifist - unless he is out there killing people. That's the obvious point. You can not (unironically) call yourself an intellectual if you shut down intellectual debates. You can not call yourself a libertarian if you make use of authoritarian institutional tools to punish people who you don't like or disagree with on policy or ideology.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:04 am to molsusports
quote:
Can you expand on this? I don't think those things are in contradiction when they are being made (deserving) objects of satire or ridicule.
I think I have, but okay.
This is getting pretty muddled, but ultimately it depends on your POV. As an insult from a libertarian-minded person, it's nonsensical, which I've explained. It does make sense as an insult for libertarian-minded people and liberals. (I've focused on libertarians because I know that there are a lot of posters on this site who self-describe as libertarians. I haven't seen a lot of posters who self-describe as liberals.) In American politics, it makes sense as an insult coming from old-school conservatives or authoritarian-type Democrats/left-wingers. Basically it makes sense as an insult from a more authoritarian, conformist, status-quo-type POV. It would also seem to make sense for people who are perceived to be doing some kind of contrived front, or some kind of narcissistic affectation like you were talking about, but I'm not going to go along with that as a general description for libertarians.
Most of the libertarians that I've known in my life are not the way you've described. I really got my first major introduction to libertarian thinking in college from a friend who was a marine and way into Ron Paul -- good guy, thoughtful, passionate -- not some narcissistic clown like you're describing. Maybe you've had some bad experiences with narcissists, though. I don't necessarily doubt that. But, you'd at least have to say that your description of not respecting other ideas/POVs does not hold when you're talking about philosophical libertarianism -- respecting other points of view is at the core of libertarianism.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:09 am to molsusports
quote:
I think what you are demonstrating is you have a different experience than Joe when he tells a joke or when I laugh at his joke.
Where the frick are you getting this stuff from?
I've already said that Joe is one of my favorite comedians. He's been one of my favorites for about a decade.
You're way off with that other stuff. You just don't make sense. It's like you're not even reading my posts.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:13 am to inadaze
I do feel like I understand your posts but for whatever reason I don't think you've understood me at all.
What the heck does that have to do with sharing his view on snowflakes? He has a different point of view that you don't relate to - my perception is you are hostile to it because you think it violates some part of your value system.
quote:
I've already said that Joe is one of my favorite comedians. He's been one of my favorites for about a decade.
What the heck does that have to do with sharing his view on snowflakes? He has a different point of view that you don't relate to - my perception is you are hostile to it because you think it violates some part of your value system.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:14 am to inadaze
quote:
This is getting pretty muddled, but ultimately it depends on your POV. As an insult from a libertarian-minded person, it's nonsensical, which I've explained. It does make sense as an insult for libertarian-minded people and liberals. (I've focused on libertarians because I know that there are a lot of posters on this site who self-describe as libertarians. I haven't seen a lot of posters who self-describe as liberals.) In American politics, it makes sense as an insult coming from old-school conservatives or authoritarian-type Democrats/left-wingers. Basically it makes sense as an insult from a more authoritarian, conformist, status-quo-type POV. It would also seem to make sense for people who are perceived to be doing some kind of contrived front, or some kind of narcissistic affectation like you were talking about, but I'm not going to go along with that as a general description for libertarians.
Most of the libertarians that I've known in my life are not the way you've described. I really got my first major introduction to libertarian thinking in college from a friend who was a marine and way into Ron Paul -- good guy, thoughtful, passionate -- not some narcissistic clown like you're describing. Maybe you've had some bad experiences with narcissists, though. I don't necessarily doubt that. But, you'd at least have to say that your description of not respecting other ideas/POVs does not hold when you're talking about philosophical libertarianism -- respecting other points of view is at the core of libertarianism.
Here I think you demonstrate that you've completely missed all of my points.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:16 am to molsusports
No, you have cherry-picked and misread/misrepresented my posts.
This post was edited on 10/28/16 at 3:18 am
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:21 am to inadaze
We're talking about he told and you don't like. It makes people laugh because the people he is telling the joke about have no self awareness about their own behavior (specifically that it matches the behaviors of very unsavory authoritarians).
I care about the point he made. That is the focus of my discussion.
I care about the point he made. That is the focus of my discussion.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:28 am to molsusports
quote:
We're talking about he told and you don't like.
What the frick?
Are you trying to say that you're talking about a joke that I don't like?
You're making stuff up. I never said that.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:41 am to inadaze
quote:
We're talking about he told and you don't like.
What the frick?
Are you trying to say that you're talking about a joke that I don't like?
You directed the conversation in that direction when you wrote:
"The topic of SJWs, triggering, etc., has become mostly dull and uninteresting to me."
If that quote doesn't represent your opinion then you can redirect, take back, or rephrase it.
I personally care about the subject because I think it tackles an important part of the present culture that is destroying the integrity of our very best academic institutions - and this influence is even spreading from there to make bad government policy based on ideologically driven falsehoods.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 3:54 am to molsusports
You just make up caricatures and straw men. If you're not trolling, I am truly amazed at how dumb you are. You are simply misrepresenting me and you won't even acknowledge what my actual views are.
Tell me, what are his views on "snowflakes" (aside from them being a part of his first podcast)? (Again, you don't get to just make up some random definition for the word.)
His POV is extremely aligned with mine. You don't know what you're talking about, or you're trolling.
Are you trolling? How am I hostile to Joe's POV?
This isn't how communication works. You don't just make things up.
Stop posting this nonsense to me. Whether you're trolling or an idiot, this is a fricking pointless time drain.
quote:
What the heck does that have to do with sharing his view on snowflakes?
Tell me, what are his views on "snowflakes" (aside from them being a part of his first podcast)? (Again, you don't get to just make up some random definition for the word.)
quote:
He has a different point of view that you don't relate to
His POV is extremely aligned with mine. You don't know what you're talking about, or you're trolling.
quote:
my perception is you are hostile to it because you think it violates some part of your value system.
Are you trolling? How am I hostile to Joe's POV?
This isn't how communication works. You don't just make things up.
Stop posting this nonsense to me. Whether you're trolling or an idiot, this is a fricking pointless time drain.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 4:02 am to inadaze
quote:
You are simply misrepresenting me and you won't even acknowledge what my actual views are.
So your quote above does not represent your opinion? You do find humor in making fun of the internal inconsistencies among the types of people who are being disparaged as snowflakes?
quote:
Tell me, what are his views on "snowflakes"
Since your quote makes clear you understand the satirical meaning as he intends? He clearly does not care for them on campuses. Based on listening to his podcasts and stand up routines you should already know that.
quote:
His POV is extremely aligned with mine
Ah. Now you seem to say you like the joke - above you say you don't have interest in this type of material. A lack of interest shows a probable difference in opinion on this issue. He is interested enough to make it part of his social commentary.
Posted on 10/28/16 at 4:04 am to molsusports
Look at the sentence right before that quote. I'm talking about his podcast where the topic comes up in conversation.
I was not referring to "a joke" that I didn't like. A joke means one specific joke. I never said anything like that, and I certainly didn't say it in the way that you're trying to make up and attribute to me.
This exchange with you is a perfect example of why I'm not interested in the topic. The majority of the time when I see/hear people complain about it, it's caricature-type stuff, broad misrepresentations, unspecified complaints, etc. In this case, you're being more specific in that you're misrepresenting me, and it is getting very tiresome.
I was not referring to "a joke" that I didn't like. A joke means one specific joke. I never said anything like that, and I certainly didn't say it in the way that you're trying to make up and attribute to me.
This exchange with you is a perfect example of why I'm not interested in the topic. The majority of the time when I see/hear people complain about it, it's caricature-type stuff, broad misrepresentations, unspecified complaints, etc. In this case, you're being more specific in that you're misrepresenting me, and it is getting very tiresome.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News