Lithose
jesus christ you are bad at critical thinking. The only difference between all those examples and Lightning Lord is where they were shown.The medium on which they are put is irrelevant to the thought process required to come to that shitty of a conclusion.
The medium in how something is put, the context of a statement is extremely important to any objective analysis (Which is the epitome of critical thinking). Scope, reach, institutional trust behind the statements are big; not to mention simply the situation, and environment its said in. The President saying we're going to war, is probably different from you saying 'this means war', right? I'm not sure how you can possibly think critical thinking, which requires objectivity, should be done absent of medium, and analysis of the subjective parameters from an objective point of view. The entire logical fallacy of false equivalence is based on illustrating how important orders of magnitude, context, and other factors are when comparing two things which may appear equivalent based on some factors. If you're speaking of 'fragility', and those other groups need much larger platforms to shout the same kind of message (As you admit), because their issues are 'more critical'--then they are more fragile.
Right? So again, we go back to--what metric do you judge fragility. (And that's giving you that the stupidity is the same--when
it's not. The videos are linked are far, far worse logically since they are often based on confirmation bias of random correlation of events to misgivings/difficulty of X group, while Lightning literally had the actor/show runner agreeing with his misgivings and interpretation of the imagery. I'll go over below.)
Being on TV versus a discussion board does not factor into whether the logic was more, or less, retarded. I agree, though, he's exactly as stupid as the AC chick. He's over-reacting to something that is not done for the reasons he attributes to them.
Air conditioning settings can have a variety of factors to why they were set. Using dread locks in your hair can have a variety of factors behind usage that have little to do with oppression (Even finding proximity to cause here is ridiculous, like in what fucking way is someone wearing your hairstyle harming your culture.). But long and short, their logic is terrible because its simply confirmation bias to support their conclusions.
You suppose that Lightning's logic is equally arbitrary, that he's plucking random bits of evidence out that confirm his own bias and that in reality its every bit as poor evidenced/reasoned as an SJW who thinks the AC is at a certain temperature because men hate women. But as I showed, the people who
created the show explicitly stated the symbolism, direction and elements in the scene were meant to convey the precise conclusions Lightning came up with. Given that the creators
explicitly stated their goals in communicating certain messages...And Lightning provided a reasonable evidence for his conclusions beyond the creatures explicit goals (IE evidenced the actions of the show creatures in the visuals/dialogue displayed)--then his logic is already leagues better than anything in those videos.
I could go spend time finding links to a bunch of nazi shitlords or extremist christian rednecks to show you the same idiocy on the opposite end of the spectrum, but I don't care enough to bother. Point is, trying to show an extreme version of someone's stance to invalidate it is just ignorant and I'd much rather deal with any one of those moronic SJW fucks then the far right assholes on your side of the argument.
That's doubtful. Because, first off--it's not extreme, Enzee. I linked to you a major new Comedy Central show...An article on air conditioning sexism that was in the
NYT,
Washington Post,
ABC, Skynews, MSNBC and discussed on NPR. Universities now offer courses on the 'problems with whiteness'. One of the largest teaching conferences in the EU and America deals with "whiteness". I can go pull up dozens of articles from major publications, not some backwater sites, about cultural appropriation, toxic masculinity, white privilege, whiteness being 'terrorism'. The fucking statement department issued guidance on microaggressions. The DNC said multiple times to 'shut white people down, to shut their mouths and accept they have privilege'.
The fuck are you talking about extreme? As if this is fringe shit. You can't do ANYTHING without tripping over this rhetoric today, certainly not in politics or academia or media. This is not 'extreme', Enzee. I know its a popular fallback to say this shit is only on the internet. But you're being ridiculous if you believe I've cited 'extremes' here. Now, if you can go find me news sources from major publications (Million+circulation, national viewership ect) that show me this kind of idiocy on the 'opposite end of the spectrum', please. I don't think you'll be able to--because the only analog you're going to find to this crazy shit are blogs or some backwater sites, and you know it.
Again, Enzee...if other groups are so fragile that interrupting them is a form of bigotry (Mansplaining, or white speaking privilege--which again, was a term used by the DNC...lol), then what fucking metric are you associating white male with the term? Don't try to simply say I'm countering you with extremes, I can link examples ALL day, and your mind would be fucking BLOWN if I took you on campus and showed you classrooms with this shit. Fucking extreme version...Open your damn eyes.
Also, yes, the show is political.. Everything is political. Stop mentioning the show is political, we fucking get it. I said the show was not 'anti white' in response to Lightning Lord. Once again, he did not say 'I'm tired of this show being political, and for that reason, I'm out." He said 'I'm tired of the 'evil white people imagery'." and cited the muslim NOT being a terrorist and a scene on a slave ship as all being 'anti-white'. When a reminder that slavery actually happened (y'know.. a fact) and that most muslims aren't actually terrorists is causing someone to feel attacked because he is white, that is an example of a specific white male exhibiting fragility.
Lightning didn't say the show was Anti-White once. He said the show often explicitly reminds the audience that minority suffering comes at the hands of white people (Your "tired of evil white people imagery"). Since the show runners, the actual speeches in the show, and the visuals in the show all showed and confirmed this, well, I don't see why you're trying to argue it, he's simply right (The only argument should be whether it rises to a level where you can ignore it). Also, he specifically did talk about the show being political, and that was his reason for ending it (Hence why I said it--his second post, go read it.)
He cited Muslims not being terrorists as pretty clear humorous hyperbole. He cited the slave ship because it was a slave ship where the dude was talking about
cop killings, and other things whites would do to them, not just slavery. It was clear the scene wasn't just citing historical fact about slavery, so saying 'that happened!', as if it's just reminding us of history is bullshit. (Nor is any part of the show like that, it's all fantasy history obviously). It was an overt political statement about anger, and mistreatment by whites even to the present day (Which again, the show runners AND actor confirmed. So it's not like Lightning was pulling it from his ass.)
Telling me how a bunch of other white males take it on the chin all the time as a reason why ALL white males don't exhibit said 'fragility' is also irrelevant to what's being said and a failure of comprehension to the point. In fact, your entire argument is supporting the idea of fragility. "Look at all these people pointing out situations where they feel uncomfortable not being white or male, where's MY sympathy for how hard *I* have it?! I wish *I* could complain about being discriminated against.. but it never happens *cry*". You look exactly as silly as the examples you provided to those not already on your side.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Listen, the essence of the argument discern your metric is for even using the term "white male fragility. Because honestly, you simply sound racist. If a black person complains, and I cite their skin color as a source of their fragile or unstable nature--you'd rightly say I was displaying a form of bigotry using an irrelevant, immutable characteristic. What does "white male" have to do with fragility? How is that different from Jew with greed, or blackness with thuggery? If I made those associations you'd clearly see the racism--but here you simply toss it out and don't expect to be called on it because you actually are used to your hypocrisy going unchecked thanks to the quite fucking
durable nature of the group you believe is fragile.
I showed you how other groups vocalize their misgivings louder, far more ubiquitously and over more ambiguous issues. A white dude vented in a small discussion group about visuals on a show which the
show runner confirmed he correctly interpreted. That is somehow equivalent to black people getting national air time to address whites with dread locks, and women on the national news discussing the sexism of air conditioning, and how men spreading their legs needs to be criminalized. That is your argument, and you actually believe somehow the 'white male' there is fragile?
LOL.
Again, what is your metric for fragility here? Because it sounds like you simply believe white males have it so good that any complaint is fragility! (Which again, is racist...and stupid, really. Because the white male from a defunct Kentucky Coal mine, who got his legs blown off in Iraq and now begs for food I guess has it better than the Obama girls, because, you know, they are black and female--and at least he has his white AND male privilege!)
