4 ms·

Ah I get it, so the only way one can have an opinion on something is if they are indeed the most outraged minority. Is that right?

by iLoch 11y ago

ps4fanboy 11y ago
Quit mansplaining and self reflect on your intolerance.
- dang 11y ago
  Please don't do this here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- iLoch 11y ago
  Intolerance? Of what am I intolerant to, exactly?
erikpukinskis 11y ago
No, you are conflating "being outraged" and "having an opinion". Your OP never said anything about having an opinion.
- iLoch 11y ago
  He or she is concluding that the only reason why the author could relate is because of the colour of his skin. And the connection there is that because he's white and has an opinion that this person doesn't agree with, that it's obviously because he's white, and not because of any other reason.
danharaj 11y ago
Maybe it's because these opinions are utter shit. Maybe treating peoples' grievances as sincere expressions of personal self-interest instead of reflexively treating them as imbeciles, charlatans, or malefactors is how one gets treated with respect in kind. Maybe people catch on that garbage comes out of one's mouth is always reactionary rejection of other peoples' experiences and stop pretending one is acting in good faith. At the root of it, wholesale asserting that someone's grievances are invalid because they are too stupid or too malevolent to understand their own life experience is a very stupid kind of elitism. South Park is a mouthpiece for very stupid elitism. It's not exclusive to generic men like Stone and Parker but it's also very commonly preferred by generic men who haven't outgrown their misanthropic teenager phase.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I need to know, is "generic" code for "white" here? Or is it something else?
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Generic in the same sense as this quote: “In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.” -Toni Morrison So maybe white, but possibly not. It is a personal decision. It is a statement about one's personal politics where one sees their identity as either apolitical or that it ought to be apolitical. Perhaps even that identity politics itself should not be a thing. A politics of generic identity. I said 'men' because I was referring to Stone and Parker. Their politics epitomize genericity and a politics of being apolitical which is functionally a reactionary politics.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      You're taking quite the issue with the comedy stylings of a tv show that has long taken shots at anything that takes itself seriously. I suspect you take your politics very seriously indeed, but that doesn't make them actually serious. If you learn the distinction, you'll have less agita over entertainment.
- iLoch 11y ago
  Upvoted because I don't think you should be silenced for your believes, but I disagree with you. Many of us have personal grievances, and if the words of these folks should be believed, than mine are as real as theirs. Yet I do not expect the world to change to fit my narrative.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    If you have personal grievances and you choose not to lobby for your self-interest then you've deemed those grievances as unimportant, or subordinate to some personal principle of yours. I'm sure because it is a tautology that if you have a compelling enough self-interest to advocate for yourself in some social context, be it the workplace, school, the household, local government, national government, social media or any place really, you will. Because that's what any rational human being would do. What you are implying is that those other people are valuing their grievances incorrectly: They aren't as important as they think they are. After all, you don't value your own grievances as much. I think that's a logical error. And rooted in all of this, and I am not accusing you of doing this because we haven't brought up any specific examples, but there's a cognitive bias that people have where they think they can judge other peoples' life experiences just as well as those people, and that their value judgments are in some way objective and do not depend on the differences in social context between them and those people. Most modern ideologies that aren't some authoritarian or paternalistic drivel soundly disagree with such fallacious reasoning. My point of view is that I'm not as smart as I think I am about other people, and if I had a tv show I could use as a bully pulpit I wouldn't be using it to say "lol what a bunch of s aren't they so stupid and absurd"? Because I think that's gross.

Ah I get it, so the only way one can have an opinion on something is if they are indeed the most outraged minority. Is that right?

by iLoch 11y ago

Ah I get it, so the only way one can have an opinion on something is if they are indeed the most outraged minority. Is that right?

ps4fanboy 11y ago

Quit mansplaining and self reflect on your intolerance.

dang 11y ago
Please don't do this here.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
iLoch 11y ago
Intolerance? Of what am I intolerant to, exactly?

erikpukinskis 11y ago

No, you are conflating "being outraged" and "having an opinion". Your OP never said anything about having an opinion.

iLoch 11y ago
He or she is concluding that the only reason why the author could relate is because of the colour of his skin. And the connection there is that because he's white and has an opinion that this person doesn't agree with, that it's obviously because he's white, and not because of any other reason.

danharaj 11y ago

Maybe it's because these opinions are utter shit. Maybe treating peoples' grievances as sincere expressions of personal self-interest instead of reflexively treating them as imbeciles, charlatans, or malefactors is how one gets treated with respect in kind. Maybe people catch on that garbage comes out of one's mouth is always reactionary rejection of other peoples' experiences and stop pretending one is acting in good faith. At the root of it, wholesale asserting that someone's grievances are invalid because they are too stupid or too malevolent to understand their own life experience is a very stupid kind of elitism. South Park is a mouthpiece for very stupid elitism. It's not exclusive to generic men like Stone and Parker but it's also very commonly preferred by generic men who haven't outgrown their misanthropic teenager phase.

oldmanjay 11y ago
I need to know, is "generic" code for "white" here? Or is it something else?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Generic in the same sense as this quote: “In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.” -Toni Morrison So maybe white, but possibly not. It is a personal decision. It is a statement about one's personal politics where one sees their identity as either apolitical or that it ought to be apolitical. Perhaps even that identity politics itself should not be a thing. A politics of generic identity. I said 'men' because I was referring to Stone and Parker. Their politics epitomize genericity and a politics of being apolitical which is functionally a reactionary politics.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    You're taking quite the issue with the comedy stylings of a tv show that has long taken shots at anything that takes itself seriously. I suspect you take your politics very seriously indeed, but that doesn't make them actually serious. If you learn the distinction, you'll have less agita over entertainment.
iLoch 11y ago
Upvoted because I don't think you should be silenced for your believes, but I disagree with you. Many of us have personal grievances, and if the words of these folks should be believed, than mine are as real as theirs. Yet I do not expect the world to change to fit my narrative.
- danharaj 11y ago
  If you have personal grievances and you choose not to lobby for your self-interest then you've deemed those grievances as unimportant, or subordinate to some personal principle of yours. I'm sure because it is a tautology that if you have a compelling enough self-interest to advocate for yourself in some social context, be it the workplace, school, the household, local government, national government, social media or any place really, you will. Because that's what any rational human being would do. What you are implying is that those other people are valuing their grievances incorrectly: They aren't as important as they think they are. After all, you don't value your own grievances as much. I think that's a logical error. And rooted in all of this, and I am not accusing you of doing this because we haven't brought up any specific examples, but there's a cognitive bias that people have where they think they can judge other peoples' life experiences just as well as those people, and that their value judgments are in some way objective and do not depend on the differences in social context between them and those people. Most modern ideologies that aren't some authoritarian or paternalistic drivel soundly disagree with such fallacious reasoning. My point of view is that I'm not as smart as I think I am about other people, and if I had a tv show I could use as a bully pulpit I wouldn't be using it to say "lol what a bunch of s aren't they so stupid and absurd"? Because I think that's gross.