Suffering because you’re not a commie

So we’ve all seen posts with people complaining about millennials complaining too much. I actually discussed such a post about a month ago.

This was the post that some right-winger thought was eye-opening.

Of course, it ignores the reality of tuition. These posts usually target millennials, and there is typically the assumption that if you complain about debt at all it must mean you’re lazy. Most of life becomes filtered through that lens. Wishing tuition for an undergrad didn’t cost $200,000 becomes “asking for handouts” and so on.

Came across this post, which satirizes posts like the one above:

People began discussing other factors that lead to debt and tight money, such as housing. Then this guy shows up.

Okay, I’ll ignore the part about people being born and raised in certain areas. It’s definitely not a choice in that case.

Anyways, a big part of why people live in certain places is because it is closer to where they work. Big cities attract big companies, therefore a lot of big jobs are in big cities. I pointed that out and here is the response.

This man later says he views rent controls (or any government measures to reduce rent) “a free lunch.” While he says he is neutral on the issue, he also says he would not support candidates who do anything to lower the cost of essential services like housing or health care. It’s a typical example of a right-winger saying they’re “neutral” but clearly picking a side.

This man would rather go through this process he outlined above, than have the government make some reasonable changes to make things a bit easier. I think a part of the issue with him and his ilk (he’s approaching 50) is that they want everyone else’s journey to be as hard as theirs. The idea of The American Dream romanticizes his hustle and he likely feels cheated if people after him can get the same level of money and success without going through what he did. That is really the crux of the issue. Individualism above all else. Life must be a rat race for us all, we can’t take any measures to make life easier for the whole. Publicly-funded programs are for commies and lazy millennial. Of course, there won’t be any resentment for people born into wealthy families, as this retweet demonstrates:

Throughout this convo, one right-wing assumption after another pops up. I tell him I took time to go through his profile to get a sense of his political leanings, (took two minutes to come across tweet after tweet criticizing socialism). Then he tells me I could have used that time to better my situation. What a genius! There’s no way I work hard and can take two minutes to look through his profile. Since I’m not where I want to be, I must be lazy. With that logic, he must have been lazy too. After all, why would he have to commute four hours to DC if he could afford to just move there. If he didn’t have the money, laziness must be the only reason. See how that logic falls apart? Getting rich or becoming successful is a process. If someone is not at the end of the journey it does not mean they aren’t trying.

IMDB to Moviechat

After IMDB’s forums were shut down, moviechat became my go-to replacement.

I think I can credit IMDB for nurturing my love of film and film discussion. I would go to the site to get an actor’s name, and then end up staying on for an hour discussing different films. Even if I disagreed with people on a film’s artistic merit, we could usually have a polite debate.

Yet I started noticing a pattern. Any film or TV show that had any significant minority inclusion would always have its boards flooded with criticism of “SJWs” or “political correctness.” A (relatively) recent example was backlash I saw over the inclusion of two gay characters in The Walking Dead, who kissed for all of five seconds before their sexuality wasn’t mentioned again. The post is now gone but I remember a user complaining about homosexuality being forced down his throat (his words, no pun intended I guess).

For some people, any minority inclusion becomes too much. A black baby in I am Mother led one user to use evolutionary psychology to argue that racism is natural, which also touches on another issue.

There seems to be overlap between people who argue racism is dead, and those who argue it is natural. It almost seems like it is a defence born out of homophobia e.g. “If you say that they’re born that way, I can say I was born racist, so it’s not my fault.” Framing racism as natural just takes away responsibility for exercising any empathy or self-reflection.

IMDB said it shut down since the forums were “no longer providing a positive, useful experience.” The less diplomatic version: Too many trolls.

Will moviechat and all the other copycats go down the same route?

Debate Me

I was scrolling through Twitter the other day and decided to check in on Talib Kweli’s feed. I have previously discussed the racists who continuously flock to his feed to accuse him of “race-baiting”. Although Kweli has a busy touring schedule he engages racists in debate, shutting down the incorrect assumptions, or straight out incorrect data that they use to justify their views. Seeing all of the foolish things they say, such as “racism isn’t racist” can be infuriating, but I believe it is also a window into the souls of the new breed of racists. People always love to call these people “trolls”, which implies they aren’t actually racist and are just saying racist things for attention. However, this mindset is downright dangerous in this day and age. Steve Bannon, former chairman of far-right site, Breitbart, has even said that online hate “is an army” that politicians can mobilize.

So, when I look at all the hate directed to Kweli’s profile, I don’t disregard it all as unimportant trolling. I can see the thought process of the people who cling to the idea that the straight, Christian, white man is now the real persecuted minority. One thing that pops up time after time, is the “debate me” gimmick. Racists flock to Kweli’s profile, asking him to debate them on their world view. He cuts their arguments apart, and when he shows them statistics or arguments that they disagree with, they focus on more trivial things to avoid admitting they were wrong e.g. “You called me racist, you’re just a name caller…freedom of speech.”

Kweli has said it better than me, but there seems to be a collective misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech does not mean everything you say is right, or that everyone must agree with what you say. In the simplest terms, it means you can’t get arrested for speaking out. If you say something racist, it is legal to do so in America. If someone decides to ridicule you for what you said, that is their freedom of speech, and it is not violating yours. Freedom of speech does not only apply to what you want to say or hear, so don’t use it as a crutch when people disagree with what you say.

Aside from the misunderstanding of free speech, is the desire to be spoon fed information. I can’t count the amount of times some Trump supporter on Twitter says, “Show me one example of Trump being racist.” If these people really wanted to find this information, they could just Google it. The fact that they are on Twitter means they have internet access for some portion of their day. The information is there if they wanted to search for it. Instead, they will likely use Google to search “Reasons Trump is not racist” and ignore all of the information to the contrary. We are all guilty of this selective exposure to some extent. However, the information I seek out can often contradict the information someone from the alt-right will seek out. One source will likely be more reputable, not because of the name, but because of how they collect their info e.g. Ben Shapiro can give stats about police shootings, and information I find can demonstrate that the stats are skewed because they don’t factor in nearly half the police agencies in the US. This is how the internet works. You can use it to find info.

So instead of Googling “Trump racist”, some people will just post on Twitter and wait for someone else to drudge up all of the information they actively ignore everyday. When someone actually presents the info, the Trump supporter will derail the conversation with straw man arguments, ad hominem or statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts. Who knows, the Trump supporter might not even read the info before calling the presenter the real racist for caring so much. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario, this is something that is played out again and again on Talib Kweli’s feed and many others.

Getting “Offended Over Nothing”

Yet again, I was sucked into the social media black hole, scrolling through a feed of memes when I came across this post from one of my “friends”. I met this person once at a party and genuinely loved talking to them, but this post brings up a lot of questions I wanted to direct to them. I considered typing a response in the comments but figured it wasn’t worth the hassle. This person has far more Facebook friends than I do. I had no doubt a sea of people sharing his views would rush to defend him if I tried to start any form of debate, probably responding before they even fully read my post. However, I still have this blog.

Just like the infamous “triggered’ accusation, complaints about people being “offended by everything” or being “too coddled”, “sensitive” etc. all assume that the people making the accusation don’t have any issues they get worked up about.  So let’s look at the post. Basically, the idea is that people used to have real issues and they still didn’t complain as much as we did e.g lack of child labour laws, wars, friends dying. Today we still have some of these issues, e.g Syrian Civil War, poverty. So the idea is that we need to get over minor issues like “microaggressions”, stereotypes, minority representation in film etc.

Okay, that sounds fair enough. One thing though. Generally, these posts have a target in mind: the “libtards”, “social justice warriors” and so on. Posts like this, in my experience, typically come from the same people who complain about the influence of liberals, in everything from politics to TV. So the people using these posts to make a point also have their own set of issues that you could consider minor ones, relative to wars, famine etc. The guy who thinks society is crumbling because a transsexual could possibly use the same public bathroom and see his penis (for a few minutes at a time) has as much right to hear that he’s “triggered” or “offended by everything”- at least if we follow the logic of this Facebook post. This Facebook post is one of hundreds you can find online that uses the same logic, the logic that collapses on itself because it is built on a double standard that ignores context.

This reminds me of the post I did on the old advertisements, where a series of sexist and racist ads from the mid 1900s are now being embraced by viewers as an ideal that we should strive toward e.g “I wish people could take jokes like they used to.” The reaction that I had was “wow it’s good to see society has progressed since this time”, and there was the odd person who shared my view. For the most part though, people just demonstrated a wish to go back to the social and political mores of an older time.

People who use these type of Facebook posts to make a point also forget that people might just pay attention to more issues as society develops. Yes, we can still be concerned about wars and worldwide catastrophes. Society has also evolved to care about minorities more than it used to, which some people view as an unfortunate thing. Yes, we should all take moments to appreciate the good things in life, like a roof over our head. That doesn’t mean that as long as we have food and shelter, we’re not allowed to care about any other issues. Some people don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, they’re more worried about seeing gay people in their favourite movies or TV show. You can also tell them not to be “offended by everything”. Being “offended by everything” is not just a liberal issue, it is a human issue. Don’t try to hide behind the principle of “I don’t get offended” to silence the discussion of issues you don’t care about. Discuss the issue itself. This argumentative technique reminds me of the people who say they don’t like it when actors “discuss politics”. As I’ve discussed before, this is usually just their way of saying “I don’t like it when actors express political views I don’t agree with.” If the same actors they criticize were to preach views they believe in, I doubt people would say actors should stay out of politics. Hypocrisy doesn’t help the debate or create a better society. Hypocrisy is the true cause of our divided society.

What Does It Take for Something to be Considered Racist Nowadays?

I had another moment of weakness recently, scrolling through the scourge of YouTube’s recommended videos and watching a video from the REACT channel. Below was one of the recommended videos, and as you can guess, the title got my attention.

The video I was watching was one where millennials are basically tested on their knowledge of songs from the 90s, 80s etc. I guess the theme of “older music” related to older tv commercials with YouTube’s algorithm. Anyone who has read my previous posts might know my thoughts on the criticism of “pc culture” or “triggered snowflakes”. In short, the criticism of people who get “offended by everything” is often an argumentative tool used by outright bigots to defend their prejudice. You disagree with them saying Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in the US? You’re politically correct. If a smaller issue pops up, like people complaining about whitewashing in a film, you can bet that these same bigots will be there to complain about people getting worked up over nothing. And then they’ll also be the first to complain if a character gets “blackwashed”. Sometimes, political correctness can go too far. However, the people who constantly rally against pc culture are often just bigots upset that the world no longer tolerates their bigotry the same way it used to. They want to return to the good old days.

The commercials above are a great example. I did not watch all of them. Why? The title of the video and the description (which pokes fun at present “I’m offended” era) says there was nothing wrong with these ads at the time and also implies that there is nothing wrong with them now either. In short, while people nowadays are more likely to get offended because they are “snowflakes”, the ads are not racist. The issue is the pc snowflakes, not the ads themselves. That is the point the poster and most of the commenters are making.

So, if I watch any of the ads and find any of them offensive, that means I view the poster’s point as invalid. Firstly, many of these ads were released decades ago. Some were released during times such as Jim Crow, so obviously the standards for representations of minorities were not the same. If you are watching videos from that time and your first reaction is “I wish people would tolerate commercials like this nowadays”, then you are the issue: Not social justice warriors, political correctness, feminazis, white knights etc.

This is the perfect example that many people that say they want to avoid being pc just want to be able to embrace racism and misogyny without any criticism or pushback from the society around them. One commenter after another fails to see that maybe it is a good thing that these sexist and racist ads are no longer acceptable. Yes, maybe people do get offended by nothing sometimes, but these people think these ads are a good example of “nothing”.

In this day and age, these right-wingers need to hear a racial slur or see a lynching to be convinced that something is in fact racist.

The Right is Still Triggered

Note: To anyone reading, sorry for the hiatus. Been busy sorting out a move into a new place and just got internet set up yesterday. Without further ado, back to it.

I have my moments of distraction, where I spend time in the black hole of YouTube recommendations, watching scenes from some of my favourite shows or the other random videos that pique my interest. I was watching a clip from Netflix’s The Punisher, when I came across a random right-wing comment.

“Deborah Ann Woll is so beautiful and talented. The female characters in this show are some of the best I’ve seen in a long time. No feminazi bullshit, no pandering, no SJW nonsense, just all normal, strong, believable women characters that didn’t make me feel like I was watching a show created by tumblr. I loved Karen and Madani in this show (Madani started off annoying until around episode 4 though.) This show is just so well done. There’s some cheesy writing here and there, some flat jokes, but shit, nothing is perfect. I’m stoked for season 2.”

Firstly, this comment is amusing since the 20+ other comments after it didn’t mention politics at all. No one else was mentioning “feminazis” or sjws, so who is really triggered here?

Next, this post also demonstrates how intolerance is relative. This viewer commends Karen’s character and her inclusion in the series, while also saying it isn’t “feminazi bullshit”. For some people, any scene with a female lead (if she isn’t banging the male lead) is feminazi bullshit. Any strong female character becomes a Mary Sue and part of a feminist agenda.

As an example, look at this comment on this Punisher clip. In the below scene, Billy Russo is giving a speech to potential recruits of his private military contracting firm, Anvil.

Now check out this comment from a triggered right-winger who sees two female applicants.

“This is such a bullshit scene LOL I laughed out loud there’s no less than two women in that crowd. There is not a single civilian contracted mercenary group that would ever hire women for combat. Sjw’s and stupidity may have forced the US Army to allow women into combat but civilians don’t have to and most people that own their own businesses are smart enough to know simple facts of life. Simple facts such as women are ineffective in combat and if you don’t believe that look at any stats from the US military’s physical Fitness tests. Without fail the ratio of men passing these tests to women passing these tests are ten-to-one one across-the-board. They are not built for combat there’s nothing sexist about that it’s simple fact men are Fighters they are built to be that way women are not.”

So this person is obviously harping on the fact that women typically have less upper body strength than men. He says women pass these tests at a ten-to-one ratio compared to men, and that ratio of women is approximately what we see here. Maybe (emphasis on maybe) I could understand where he was coming from if the group was mostly women, but to go on a rant because two women are in a scene?

Like I said, sjw and feminazi are relative. They are not absolutes. “Feminazi bullshit” to one person can be completely overlooked by another. The more right-wing you are, the more sensitive you will be to any minority or female inclusion.