"You Are Still Crying Wolf" and the devaluation of words

Post Reply New Topic

Read this, by a guy who thinks Trump is terrible, about the left still crying wolf. It's truly excellent, 8,000 words though, so make sure you have some time to read it:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/yo ... ying-wolf/

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

I also have a question to ask which you won't need to read 8,000 words to answer. How much gravitas do the words "racism" and "sexism" hold for you today? Oh and how much did they used to, if they used to hold more?

Before I met the SJWs and they "educated" me about racism and sexism, those words, being accused of such, held roughly about the same weight as accusing someone of being a thief. Kind of makes sense when I think about it, because you're stealing something from someone if you discriminate against them racially or sexually. And until I met the SJWs, everyone else afaik that I had met prior, held those words in similar regard. So it was very stressful to be accused of such things for a number of months before I finally started to understand the nature of SJWs. I don't want anyone else to have to go through that. And I see the danger in it, someone who isn't such a strong nonconformist as me could crack under that pressure and become their b***h.

Nowadays I struggle to even take seriously accusations of racism and sexism. But the article showed me many other things have been diluted of their gravitas to me now. This is a bad f*****g thing. Because if the real deal ever comes along, unless it's someone I know I can trust to use those words properly, at best I will be slow to react, and at worst completely dismissive. It's absolutely criminal what the regressives have done to the power of words that need to be used responsibly. Good luck trying to convince people that the wolf is at the door when the wolf really comes.

I don't have the patience, right now, to read an 8,000-word article (no disrespect, intended)----but, basically, I agree 100 percent, with your assessment of what the words "racism" and "sexism" USED TO mean, and what they mean, NOW.

I, TOO, am NOT a conformist (a.k.a "sheeple", in alot of ways, IMO), most of the time (EXCEPT for, for instance, patriotism----then, I am always ready, willing, and able), and it really has become "work" to figure-out IF an actual "crime", is being / has been committed, or not.

I skimmed the article and I sort of agree.

I think part of the problem is (and I'm certainly guilty of this) is it's fun to call people racists or sexists or bigots because it makes us feel better about ourselves. It doesn't accomplish very much but it makes for interesting entertainment which is why media spends so much time on it.

If the news actually went into the dry details of policy they would lose viewers (I wouldn't have watched as much of CNN if every day wasn't a new gossipfest about Trump being the next Hitler). There are plenty of things to criticize Trump for without ever having to actually use the word "racist" or "misogynist" but it draws in more viewers to do so. I'm with Kanye here. We live in a racist country. Let's just get over it and start talking about the issues. But then I'm probably turning off the TV so there you go. I'm putting blame on media. I think they have moral responsibility to present more fact-based news and less opinions.

And another word that doesn't come up in the article is "liberal" itself. Because the word has been jacked by people who aren't liberal at all. Same for "feminist" if we go by that dictionary definition they love to wipe in people's faces.

from article ... interesting ...

Trump got considerably more of the black vote, Asian vote, and Hispanic vote than Romney

I agree with most of the article.
Interesting that misogyny is not mentioned.

I agree with most of the article.
Interesting that misogyny is not mentioned.

Been meaning to post that article for a minute, trying to figure out a way to get the liberals on here who think Trump ran as the KKK Kandidate to actually engage with the facts contained in it. Even I was shocked at how far off the media was this year, and I'm generally pretty cynical about that.

I'd avoided posting this when it came out because of the author's request to keep it off these sorts of places, but it's certainly very interesting.

I agree with the analysis. Trump's a thoughtless, grossly insensitive blowhard but his policy positions aren't aggressively ____ist (except for the proposed Muslim ban, which has thankfully been scrapped).

The bias was as bad as I said it was, that bad! CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post were the worst ones as far as bias against Trump and a steady flow of stupidity is what you can always expect from Slate/Salon/Mother Jones/whatever. Wikileaks showed the unprecedented level of coordination between the MSM and the Clinton campaign, they acted effectively as an arm of their campaign and gave up any pretenses of an independent press. They're still waging propaganda war even now.

These types of words have been so misused and overused they're loosing their effect.

You really should be quite concerned with biased media. The news was meant to be an independent unbiased source of what's happening. But it's not now and it's completely owned by the left. So they pushe lies and ignore other real stuff that doesn't meet with their agenda, they brainwashing millions of Americans who tune in thinking it's unbiased. It's quite sad and worrisome for the future.