This is America

[animaltested]

17 hours ago, cddolphin said:

Viewpoints and opinions based more on emotions and shallow surface-level analysis of amazingly complex issues make me uncomfortable because the ones who hold them are often loudest.

Dismiss, detract, devalue is a great description of how a large number of influential people on one particular end of the spectrum (media members, blue-check "journalists", celebrities) avoid uncomfortable conversations. What kind of folks do you see being banned and/or censored from social media sites? Is there a general trend you care to acknowledge? What types of folks do you see most often engaging in mob-mentality witch hunts that demand peope be fired or even prosecuted for mundane interactions? Which 'side' most often demands speakers be silenced or 'de-platformed'; and when that can't be managed, which side disrupts events either violently (with actual riots, bike lock attacks) or simply rudely (blasting air horns instead of engaging in dialoge)?

There are and always will be authoritarians on all sides; however, you're simply not paying attention if you think there isn't a massive imbalance right now in terms of who is making the most authoritarian demands.

Im not going to have a tic-for-tat google headline fight on the internet, as its a pointless endeavor. Nobody gonna win hearts and minds on the internet. I will say I never stated anything about "sides". Authoritarians come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. 

Dismissing is easy. Humans only got one perspective in life, their own. And until we are able to download our consciousness into computers, we will only ever be able to experience one perspective. You can obtain an appreciation, or understanding of, or sympathy for another individuals perspective, but that takes time, and hard work. Something most of us don't feel we have the time or resources for. So dismiss, distract, devalue is easy. Especially if you know you have a circle of like-minded individuals you can fall back on. 

The internet/global social media should be the avenue towards a greater understanding of other view points, and for the most part I think it has succeed in that. But it also expanded the size and scope of tribalism as well. Which is where we get the resistance to civil discourse, and exchanges of ideas and experiences. Those interactions could potentially weaken and undermine the power of the tribe, so resist and combat. Maybe Im too idealistic to hope people, when confronted with perspectives that counter their own, would attempt to deconstruct their own ideas instead of asking the other side to defend theirs, regardless of how "loud" that opposition is. IDK, IMO walling off because of the messenger, NOT the message seems kinda weak and self-serving. 

[43M]

3 hours ago, animaltested said:

"Virtue Signaling" is a concept that needs to be shoved back into whatever dusty tome it was unearthed from. It has a vague enough definition that people have been using it to apply to any and all statements and opinions. In my opinion its been used as a primer for alot of "I dont like what they say, I dont want to hear it and this means they shouldn't say it loud enough for me to hear it" arugments lately. 

Pericles Funeral Oration was definitely "Virtue Signaling". So was Churchills 1940 Speech to Parliament, Kennedys inauguration speech, and Kings "Dream". What Im getting at is,

1. VS isnt inherently negative, although it is used by the internet as if it was.

2. VS is so ingrained in normal human interaction within social groups (micro and macro) that it is pointless to try and carve it out as something foreign and bad within social interaction.

Everyone is constantly Virtue Signaling, and the irony is, the minute you start condemning someone for Virtue Signaling, you start Virtue Signaling. In fact, I may have Virtue Signal-ceptioned myself within the post. To me, that shows the true absurdity of this concept. 

Its not vague in regards to the way it is used by a certain group in today's society. especially mainstream media, celebrities and Hollywood in general.     Virtue signaling, or at least the type of virtue signaling we see running rampant today, is continuously preaching about a certain set of moral standards or beliefs and trying to force them on others, while portraying anyone who doesnt share those beliefs as evil.    Its not the beliefs in general that are the problem with virtue signaling. its how its weaponized by a certain group to avoid critical thinking and thought-provoking discussion about a topic by claiming a pseudo moral high-ground while dismissing anyone who disagrees as intolerant or closed minded.....which is ironically hilarious, because the people who claim to be so open-minded are often anything but.

For example (and Im not trying to get into a discussion about this...just using it as a rudimentary example), I have no issue with someone being anti-gun and wanting much stricter gun laws, but when I say I have a concealed-carry permit and support responsible people's rights to bear arms, and Im told Im "part of the problem" and demonized for it.     Its this type of "virtue signaling" that is the problem....and there are countless other examples of it in a myriad of other topics.        The group that does this the most in todays society arent interested in things like "facts" or "open discussion" about topics like this.     They just want to take a stance, spout off diatribe rife with sanctimonious platitudes, and act like they are....wait for it....VIRTUOUS....while those who disagree are simply bad people.

And  the fact that its a particular group who is very well known for this these days, especially celebrities, is why I may be a bit jaded and skeptical that a video such as this isnt just more of the same.     Some people claim its "powerful", and admittedly, it is well done from an artistic standpoint and creative.   However, alot of the perceived messages in this video (and no, not just perceived by me) are messages that have been virtue signaled to death by the very group of elitists that Donald Glover is a part of.     And it wouldnt be so bad if it werent for the facts I mentioned above......in regards to using it as a way to push an agenda rather than promoting critical thinking about real issues.

I have no issue with people interpreting this video differently than myself.  Its art.  Its open to interpretation.    However, given how Hollywood uses its platform, I find myself less inclined to believe that Glover isnt just doing his part to "fall in line" with Hollywood groupthink.

[animaltested]

3 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Its not vague in regards to the way it is used by a certain group in today's society. especially mainstream media, celebrities and Hollywood in general.     Virtue signaling, or at least the type of virtue signaling we see running rampant today, is continuously preaching about a certain set of moral standards or beliefs and trying to force them on others, while portraying anyone who doesnt share those beliefs as evil.    Its not the beliefs in general that are the problem with virtue signaling. its how its weaponized by a certain group to avoid critical thinking and thought-provoking discussion about a topic by claiming a pseudo moral high-ground while dismissing anyone who disagrees as intolerant or closed minded.....which is ironically hilarious, because the people who claim to be so open-minded are often anything but.

For example (and Im not trying to get into a discussion about this...just using it as a rudimentary example), I have no issue with someone being anti-gun and wanting much stricter gun laws, but when I say I have a concealed-carry permit and support responsible people's rights to bear arms, and Im told Im "part of the problem" and demonized for it.     Its this type of "virtue signaling" that is the problem....and there are countless other examples of it in a myriad of other topics.        The group that does this the most in todays society arent interested in things like "facts" or "open discussion" about topics like this.     They just want to take a stance, spout off diatribe rife with sanctimonious platitudes, and act like they are....wait for it....VIRTUOUS....while those who disagree are simply bad people.

And  the fact that its a particular group who is very well known for this these days, especially celebrities, is why I may be a bit jaded and skeptical that a video such as this isnt just more of the same.     Some people claim its "powerful", and admittedly, it is well done from an artistic standpoint and creative.   However, alot of the perceived messages in this video (and no, not just perceived by me) are messages that have been virtue signaled to death by the very group of elitists that Donald Glover is a part of.     And it wouldnt be so bad if it werent for the facts I mentioned above......in regards to using it as a way to push an agenda rather than promoting critical thinking about real issues.

I have no issue with people interpreting this video differently than myself.  Its art.  Its open to interpretation.    However, given how Hollywood uses its platform, I find myself less inclined to believe that Glover isnt just doing his part to "fall in line" with Hollywood groupthink.

But thats a "Frankensteins monster" of a definition. 

[VS] "is continuously preaching about a certain set of moral standards or beliefs" Sure.

"trying to force them on others, while portraying anyone who doesnt share those beliefs as evil." Nope.

VS is about expressing morals openly, in order to prove ones worth and value within a group. Its a technique to obtain more social capital and prove your affiliation and standing within a group. VS has very little to do with members out side the group [unless their morals are based on the opposition of other groups, like incels]. That is something added to make it easier to use when attacking a specific group. But I guess weaponizing the concept by adding hyperbole is more fun to use in the Internet Infinity War currently being waged by bots and trolls. 

If you have a major problem with the second part "trying to force them on others, while portraying anyone who doesnt share those beliefs as evil.", you must not spend much time on the internet, reading Op-Eds, or watching cable news. Your examples seem to have a specific slant to them (which is fine, we all have our bias), but Im sure you would agree no single "ideology" has a monopoly on "trying to force (morals )[them] on others, while portraying anyone who doesnt share those beliefs as evil." "Hollywood" does have a long tentacles, but so does local news, cable news, talk radio, podcasts, live streaming, conventions and social media. Id argue the latter certainly has a much broader, more consistent, more fine tuned emphasis on forcing ideas and demonizing opposition.

[jrry32]

The song sucks.

[cddolphin]

7 hours ago, animaltested said:

Im not going to have a tic-for-tat google headline fight on the internet, as its a pointless endeavor. Nobody gonna win hearts and minds on the internet. I will say I never stated anything about "sides". Authoritarians come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. 

Dismissing is easy. Humans only got one perspective in life, their own. And until we are able to download our consciousness into computers, we will only ever be able to experience one perspective. You can obtain an appreciation, or understanding of, or sympathy for another individuals perspective, but that takes time, and hard work. Something most of us don't feel we have the time or resources for. So dismiss, distract, devalue is easy. Especially if you know you have a circle of like-minded individuals you can fall back on. 

The internet/global social media should be the avenue towards a greater understanding of other view points, and for the most part I think it has succeed in that. But it also expanded the size and scope of tribalism as well. Which is where we get the resistance to civil discourse, and exchanges of ideas and experiences. Those interactions could potentially weaken and undermine the power of the tribe, so resist and combat. Maybe Im too idealistic to hope people, when confronted with perspectives that counter their own, would attempt to deconstruct their own ideas instead of asking the other side to defend theirs, regardless of how "loud" that opposition is. IDK, IMO walling off because of the messenger, NOT the message seems kinda weak and self-serving. 

I agree with all the bolded. Most especially the idea of deconstructing your own ideas to test how sound they are. More than anything I wish equity-of-outcome minded individuals would practice more than it seems to me they do.

As to the underlined, I'll say that if you can change minds with words, you can change minds with the internet. I myself have shifted among various topics in one direction or another based on reading data, alternate perspectives, other such things online and used to hold beliefs I would now call untenable. Achieved in part through ordinary life experience, conversation, and seeking knowledge online.

 

I do have a qualm with your very first sentence. You don't have to get into a ***-for-tat headline fight to objectively establish that there is a pattern within social and academic activism over the past couple decades. If you're willing to accept the premise that the majority of activism comes from in and around academia, particularly the universities (and I think that's a very reasonable premise), then the pattern is readily apparent. Some could argue it goes back to the 60s, but I wasn't there.

From 2017: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means

From 2007: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics

 

[animaltested]

12 hours ago, cddolphin said:

 

I do have a qualm with your very first sentence. You don't have to get into a ***-for-tat headline fight to objectively establish that there is a pattern within social and academic activism over the past couple decades. If you're willing to accept the premise that the majority of activism comes from in and around academia, particularly the universities (and I think that's a very reasonable premise), then the pattern is readily apparent. Some could argue it goes back to the 60s, but I wasn't there.

From 2017: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means

From 2007: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics

 

I dont agree. Id argue most "activism" comes from corporate entities because they have the money and political power to actually have practical activism. But they dont post firey twitter-bait on social media, so they are not relevant to most people. Also, for me at least, activism usually begins with a group of people unhappy with the status quo. Then a equally as large counter-activism group or groups rises up to support the status quo. Currently, there have been tons of "non-academia" activism groups rallying around particular issues (none of which Im going to bring up here).

Looking at the article you posted, the conclusion from this Op_Ed about a study seems to be bias exists but any suppression or discrimination based on ideology is circumstantial or anecdotal. I also disagree with the your stance of there being a pattern. But, ah well.

 

[SteelKing728]

On 5/16/2018 at 1:56 PM, BroncosFan2010 said:

This video would have made me emotional when I was 20.

Now that I am 30, the new Coleman Hughes article is more of my style.

link?