The SJW Left and the Alt-Right

People argue that these opposing sides should come together and find common ground, but you can’t debate with people who dismiss everything you say and don’t want to hear it. This is conceit; pure and simple. There is no chance that debates with people who don’t even agree on what a fact is can yield anything worthwhile. I’ve tried, this is a short essay explaining why I’ve given up.

You can’t talk about context, important global issues, or facts with people who dismiss you out of hand based on the idea that no matter what, you’re just touting pure garbage from “Fake news” sites. The Alt-Right has made it clear that they don’t understand national objectives and don’t distinguish when it’s important for nation desiring to go to war vs issues of gender equality They like shouting “cuck” and “sjw” to feel good about their miserable lives every 5 minutes instead of honestly examining beliefs. When I explain anything to them, they erroneously and pretentiously argue on one point – usually associated with their own feelings – than the issue itself and when pressed on issues, they revert back to “oh you’re blaming white people for everything!” as if anybody ever even made that claim when arguing about climate change, global wars that burn alive civilians with drone bombings – including children being victims of such bombings, or a massive 20 trillion dollar debt that nobody is doing anything about. Meanwhile, shouting “sand nigger” is fine when explaining their dislike of Muslims.

We have all these pressing issues and the world is only going to get worse from the US pulling out of the Paris Climate change agreement . . . but instead we’re talking about what random meme Trump is tweeting. The saddest part is, the mainstream media went from mocking him to… taking him seriously as of now. As if we should expect seriousness of any kind because a joke is in office. Somehow giving more self-importance to him is going to help fix the country and lead it? The Alt-right doesn’t even understand context and constantly disparages everything until it’s reduced to their special feelings about being a white male Christian. I honestly tried understanding what the issue was to see if there is any steps to be taken to ameliorate whatever is going on. But I was being arrogant and foolish in doing so.

Here’s all I found for my troubles:

#Identity politics are bad and lead to losing elections – except when talking about White Male Christians feeling oppressed. Whenever identity politics is talked about for minorities, the context is forcefully changed to exclamations of white men being blamed for everything.

#SJW Cucks should stop being “special snowflakes” and deal with insults when given to them – but insulting Trump or “white people” (whatever that means since they’re generalizing a broad range of people based on skin pigmentation) is wrong and you should apologize to show respect. Oh, but also, you should be allowed to say whatever you want without being told to stop.

#paygap women shouldn’t get paid equally to men because they lack testosterone. Women are evidently always passive and don’t ask for a raise as much as men.

They’ve done no research on this since the data has shown women asking for raises generally face reprimand while men who do the same don’t face such reprimand. They don’t even seem to understand that this would reduce the jobs of men in the long run, because any intelligent hiring manager would recognize that choosing between an equally competent man and woman for a position would mean that they would obviously go for the one they’d be paying 30 cents less. They’re too dumb to even understand that.

#Feminism issues: Insulting women for their appearance like their hair, breast size, weight, and so forth should be a free speech right; but women calling you a shithead for it is wrong and they’re horrible people for responding like that. Oh, and everyone should have the right to say what they want but third-wave feminism is bad and evil for teaching young adult women and men about responsible sex.

#Terrorism: we should make Trump memes when video footage of bombings happen to feel smug about bombing another country instead of horrified for allowing things like “the mother of all bombs” being dropped and killing a mass amount of people. Also, we should believe Trump when he says there’s no civilian casualties, because we can trust him with that when he’s flip-flopped and argued the opposite of his original argument on every other issue.

There’s no debating people who don’t even understand objective, scientific analysis and don’t put value in it or in anything that you have to say. We’re at the most pressing juncture of reducing climate change and the US is literally going to lead to a permanent environmental disaster with the clown in charge and will have absolutely nothing of value to offer the next 4 years to either wind-down the wars or reduce debt. If serious leaders like Obama and Bush couldn’t do it, then there’s no way a clown who can’t be bothered to do anything besides tweet stupid shit is ever going to do anything of value in reducing the debt, reducing greenhouse gases, or ending the two wars. North Korea is shooting nuclear bombs into Japanese waters and Trump gets into a twitter war as a response. There are people who are waiting for greenhouse gases to have a planned and concerted fix to prevent climate disaster so they can feel secure in having children and the response has been more pipelines and bigger bombs for oil wars.

Democracy, in all its forms, has utterly failed. It’s the result of a middle-ground fallacy with objective scientific research on environmental impacts versus the special feelings of people who don’t value fact-checking at all. They like reducing issues to simplistic monolithic entities that they can scream at with their keyboards. They don’t care and have no inkling or even desire to understand what the global issues are or how they’re progeny are now imitating them to feel good about themselves. Facts are reduced and re-contextualized to trying to appease their emotional sensibilities towards factual evidence. The very issue becomes asinine and absolutely nothing is achieved.

14 thoughts on “The SJW Left and the Alt-Right

    • Reddit fan? You have my condolences. To the best of my knowledge, deleting comments isn’t considered censorship. There was apparently a legal case in which a liberal commenting on a conservative blog site kept reposting to debunk a blog post that the conservative blogger made and then eventually went to court over the “censorship” issue. The conclusion of the court was that the conservative did nothing illegal and didn’t constitute censorship, since the liberal could just make their own blog and post there.

      So, legally speaking, I’m not censoring anything. Moreover, comments on US TV shows has absolutely nothing to do with this specific post.

  1. Did you ever consider that maybe, rather than it being impossible to debate with people who don’t agree with you, that you might, in fact, not actually be a very good debater? Normally just a lurker here and there, but, I have to say… you are a pretty abrasive guy, Jarin. I think I’d step back and think about how to talk to people again before I go blaming others when the fault, may, just may, lie within oneself.

  2. Awww, is your feud with Eirk and his lackeys over for now? That was some comedy gold, I can’t wait for the next one. You two are exactly the fucking same, you write tiresome, over-long articles you fill with unecessarily complex vocab in an attempt to make yourselves look like intellectuals, and you both ignore any detail that doesn’t mesh with the message your pushing. You two wouldn’t be working together to drum up some drama for blog hits now, would you? Losers. P/O!

    • I have no idea what you’re talking about. If it helps, and while I can’t speak for Eirik, the process of writing lengthy posts such as that is actually normal in academia because that’s how we’ve learned to do essay writing. It’s not pretentious, it’s how academic writing works. I highly doubt you’ll get any meaningful response from Eirik, I did make valid points against his ideas but he never responded to any of them. Instead, he threatened to ban me for the behavior of other people and only responded to those who agreed with him. As for me? I AM an intellectual, and as such, I will only respond to your points when you actually have something of value to say. ad hominen and tu quoque are not valid or rational arguments. You’re confusing your intuitive gut reaction for meaningful feedback. You aren’t talking about the subject matter, you’re insulting a blogger as a person to make yourself out to feel better about yourself. Nobody in academia takes that behavior as anything more than someone throwing a temper tantrum. Argue against my points presented, within the context I’ve used them and not out of context, and then maybe I can respond meaningfully.

      Also, I have a hard time viewing your responses as anything more than someone throwing personal insults, and it’s going to be hard to take you seriously because of that behavior. I have literally had arguments with people where if I pointed out sexism or some form of discrimination, they would shout at me for being a “hypocrite” because Muslim women went through the same discrimination in the Middle East. Does that make any sense? I’m a born and raised citizen of the USA, but because of my skin pigmentation they assumed I was Muslim and called me a hypocrite because of something that not only do I have no control over, but was never even part of my cultural background as a Hindu whose parents came from India.

      So, what were they doing when they call me a hypocrite because of the status of Muslim women in the Middle East?

      1. They’re blaming me for something I never agreed with and don’t support. Something I don’t have any control over to even influence.

      2. They’re presuming I have ancestry on a place that has absolutely nothing to do with me and isn’t part of any cultural heritage from my entire family. But they make that assumption for the same reason Sikhs get murdered or assaulted, they think skin pigmentation is an accurate way to determine someone’s religion.

      3. They’re generalizing Muslims themselves. If, for instance, a friend of mine who is a Pakistani Muslim were to face this question, the former two points would still apply, and in addition, it wouldn’t be accurate or as simplistic as the question presents it. Pakistan actually allows women in government offices, let’s them wear saris with their faces uncovered, let’s them drive, and has even had two female Prime Ministers elected. Unfortunately, there’s still mass poverty, mass discrimination against women, and a cultural divide between Pakistanis in the South who largely support the US (although, I’m unsure to what extent they support bombings by the US) and Pakistanis in the North who don’t give women those aforementioned freedoms and are largely under a more theocratic regime ruled by the Taliban. Evidently, even Muslims of Pakistan have a good laugh about this when they’re forced to move to places like Saudi Arabia because of the lack of jobs in Pakistan and Saudi citizens argue foreigners come to their country because they like the “freedoms” of Saudi Arabia – evidently, they think living under an absolute monarchy and treating women like property constitutes freedom. Saudi citizens get the nice culture shock when they find out that even Pakistan is better at giving freedoms to women than their much more wealthy country.

      4. They’re trying to “win” an argument by “talking down” at me instead of assessing the points of the argument that I made. The conversation has effectively gone nowhere. Absolutely nothing else but a shouting match is gained when you insult people for their backgrounds (and largely presumed backgrounds at that) and don’t assess their actual arguments.

      Overall, if you’re going to argue with someone, try to keep it in context and stop with the asinine personal insults.

  3. Anyway, I’m not sure to what extent I did emotionally hurt you all. Clearly, my actions did but I can’t know to what extent. But whatever the case, I wanted to cut ties forever. As such, although I’m unaware to what extent I hurt you all… nevertheless, I apologize for doing so. My behavior wasn’t really cordial and I did act arrogantly because I couldn’t stand comments I perceived as asinine. Nevertheless, you didn’t deserve to be talked down to or patronized by me. I’m sorry. With that being said, I’d like to ask you to simply leave me be, since I don’t and shouldn’t matter when posting on some blog that you yourselves view as not mattering anyway. There’s no point of further discourse to further exacerbate hostile feelings, intentions, and actions.

Leave a Reply