Notes from an online discussion.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Milo Yiansausages bitches about people in universities with liberal arts degrees or degrees in cultural studies when he is a dropout?
I know he made his first rush of cash from an online business, sure, but he dropped out of law and then dropped out of English literature. So maybe he could have spent a few years doing an artistic or cultural degree instead?!
He only has a career due to his first flurry of an online business and as an amateurish journalist he capitalised on gamergate, and now he panders to young republicans on US college campuses.
I'm just saying he may be able to pull off some debates in a moderately fair manner, he can spin a few facts, however, he isn't more qualified for a reasonable discussion than many of my friends on facebook, some of whom have qualifications that far beyond his station.
So consider the simple facts, we have a person who is by technicality as educated as many of you with a moderately better debating skill level and is able to recall a few basic biased surveys and studies that are flashed across the interwebs.
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Sunday, 21 August 2016
Funny thing, these videos of feminist SJW fails are debates between passionate students in many cases, these students don't represent the centre, nor liberalism, nor centre-conservativism, but rather a political view that is more of a sweeping simplicity. A basic view grounded fundamentally on what they are convinced of at a young age, not a sceptical view as much as a strong but underfed political knowledge. Also, the troubling thing is how they boil down an ideology to what they want or are told as if a sum of an ideology is what they wish to accept, and all beyond their interpreted view is not truly what an ideology contains.
Trumpeters and left-progressives locked in conflicts and permanent apologetics over the ideological differences they enjoy, making the story up as they go, making facts fit, lying outright for their beliefs. And, these sides are supposedly rational while their opposition is irrational, even though they both like to express only their victories in a style of a propagandist. Not that every student or political person is involved, a fraction of society is involved, and fringe media groups, rarely the mainstream, give credence to such beliefs.
I dare say the mountains out of molehills created in such discussions serves little value, to claim it's agendas here or there with a lack of evidence is fair pathetic, to suggest conspiracy theories, to bend the facts, it is a deceptive affair.
The prideful and the professional victim have little to teach you, their roles serve little value, their beliefs are distorted, they fail to operate as honest people when it is inconvenient.
All this said, I dare say there are good people involved, but to be good doesn't mean you must be right, and to be politically fooled doesn't make you somehow a bad person by an automation.