I know I’m not the only one that has heard this. I get comic book and Sci-fi/fantasy writers probably lean left for the most part but I seem to remember liberals of the past being big on free speech and against censorship. Also I’ve heard SJWs complain about the original Star Trek because they had moved beyond race and you know everything today has to talk about race.
Stan Lee and Kirby are white males so they wouldn’t last today and on and on.
So what is a good response to this?
There’s no point arguing with any of these people anymore, is there? They have created an ideology that is immune to rational argument. They cannot be reasoned with. They have no shame. We need parallel societies and, eventually, separate nations.
The communist parasites will never agree to this. The host will not be allowed to escape. You will be enslaved and used as feed stock.
I may die fighting, but I won't ever be a slave.
Can’t argue there.
u/Tourgen is right. We can't allow the communists to disentangle from us. You have to drive in, not pull back.
When have you ever known communists to separate themselves from a non-communist society... and not try to invade it?
Only in East-West Germany, and the only thing that prevented them from doing it was total nuclear annihilation.
If you separate from the Leftists entirely, you'll be invaded by red hordes within 5 years, and probably less.
And then we need to invade and conquer their inferior nation and oppress them, keeping them under our boot forever because they will never, ever stop trying to ruin shit.
"Progressive" is a context-sensitive label. Today's progressive is whoever thinks yesterday's progressive didn't go far enough:
"Yes, they judged men by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin, but they were homophobes who didn't support same-sex marriage!"
"Yes, they passed laws allowing same-sex marriage but they were transphobes who didn't support taxpayer-funded sexual reassignment surgery!"
"Yes, they supported taxpayer-funded sexual reassignment surgery, but they were pedophobes who didn't support a child's right to consent!"
"Yes, they judged men by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin, but they were homophobes who didn't support same-sex marriage!"
Well... they thought negroes were weeds, first. Amazing how that's glossed over these days. Hitler and Mussolini were Progressives.
Scary because i fear that may be the next thing
Your fears are correct, it is absolutely what many of the leftists truly desire.
They already started that disgusting shit by calling pedophiles as Minor Attracted Persons.
This evil must be crushed wholly.
That's why TERF reeeeeing is such sweet music to my soul.
You aren't going to get anywhere with your interlocutor. Their feelings don't care about your logic. You can only make rhetorical appeals to observers. Step over it by pointing out how progressives arbitrarily change their rules. If x was always progressive, then it should be acceptable now. For the lols, get the SJW to take the position that the opinions of the past are irrelevant and bad, then point out that makes them a temporal chauvinist.
"There's a difference between the show showing the writer's leanings within the plot and the main character going on a rant about how men/Trump/Republicans are bad which is literally inserted to pander to that politics.
Also, if it was always political, why are people just noticing now?
But they aren't.
Look at how they continue to claim there was a "fuss" over Kirk kissing Uhura. Meanwhile, the probable only "fuss" would have come from the content creators and the network themselves, arguing in their own little bubble. I have never heard anyone but media propagandists bring it up, ever, but they keep pointing to it as some sort of big "civil rights" victory, shoved in the face of rural white bigots (who didn't watch that kind of shit anyway, they'd have been watching something like Bonanza instead.)
Then you had Alan Alda/MASH and the Norman Lear shows. We noticed those, too.
But it's not so much that they were "progressive", it was just Hollywood playing catch-up with the rest of society.
Now it looks like they want to outpace society or some shit.
And the thing with "progress" is, well, it doesn't stop; it's like a shark, if it does, it no longer exists. But we used to use the word "progress" to mean technological progress, and simply assumed that sociological progress would naturally come hand-in-hand with it.
The shark analogy is brilliant, a perfect metaphor for a parasitic ideology. It grows & moves forward to new hosts or it dies.
The more and more I think about even technological progress, the more I am convinced that there is an optimal usage for technology, and that use of technology beyond that point merely hobbles the user-- just as using a crutch or pressure wrap is detrimental to the muscles and joints of a healthy person. Technology which makes life easier lulls us into complacency; we hobble ourselves by replacing morally necessary struggle with convenience & compromise. It's unnatural.
We need real, physical adversity to develop strength. Modern technology has robbed us of many of these adverse elements. Progressive Ideology wants to rob us of the rest. The conflict adverse, soy-addled future would not survive the conditions of nature which reigned prior to the technologies that have enabled our modern dystopia. This is "progress..."
I've been saying for a while now that human exceptionalism isn't what it seems to be - Man is just a technologically-adept ape, who has become addicted and too dependent upon his own technology.
Technology isn't magic, and doesn't break any natural rules. It exists because the laws of nature allow it to exist as just another possible survival path any preadapted animal can adopt, like flight, or gathering together and digging complex underground structures, or building dams, or running real fast to catch your food. And a lot of non-humans actually use very low levels of tech, from birds using sticks to scratch themselves, or to dig bugs out of holes (woodpecker finches), and yes, birds dropping shelled creatures onto rocks counts, just because they don't use things the same way 'round as humans .. it does take practice to get it right, lots of other examples out there. Pretty much every population of chimpanzee uses something, whether termite sticks, hammers and anvils, or the sharpened sticks of savannah chimps ... Think about it - is a beaver dam "natural" or "artificial"? A bird's nest? A city? Why should researchers doing the "Universe" studies be surprised that rats grouped together in little "cities" rather than spreading out? Should the castaways of, say, Gilligan's Island be expected to carve up the island and live every man for himself, too?
But humans are specialists, no different than the koala or the panda, and have put themselves in the same precarious position every super-specialist winds up in, especially since about 1800, and the beginning of a very slow population bomb (Man being a large mammal, it turns its generations over very slow, he only gets five or six generations per century. A rat can have that many in a year, a raccoon in a decade.
Yeah, something is eventually going to break, and in the meantime, it looks like rats, corvids and raccoons are evolving to make use of humans and their stuff for their own ends. Ever read Wolfen?
Are you talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolfen ?
It looks wicked interesting, I haven't read it, but plan on looking it up in my local library.
Agreed on the rest.
Yep, it's well worth the read (though I don't recommend the movie.)
It's basically the idea that nature will evolve around humans, in response to the intense selective pressure that human activities cause, especially once populations start establishing themselves in more civilized areas (witness coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, any number of birds, etc).
I doubt we'll see anything like a Doctor Rat or Zoo scenario (direct confrontation of humans), it'll be more like other species making use of humans, or more importantly, their stuff.
And of course, there's always going to be predators that take direct advantage of excess humans (the street people that have a habit of disappearing - see the Vancouver missing women deal, though I haven't heard much about it since Willie Pickton got caught ...) But they'd have to be on the serious down-low, and their activities easy to mistake for something else.
Think of this - rats don't need sticks and stones to make fire. They can make it by chewing through wires, which then elicits predictable behaviour from humans ....
They're not really wrong. Trek in particular leans into communist utopia. Liberalism as an ideology has been used as a trojan horse for unrealistic human perfection. So yeah, there's a lot of progressivism in there.
Lee fucked Ditko and Kirby. It's all very typical.
As to a response, history is too nuanced to be able to lay it out plainly without getting a "wtf" look. You just have to ease real history in, bit by bit, and try to prevent rejection.
You can't reason somebody out of a position they've felt themselves into.
The other people are right. There is literally no point in arguing with them. No argument would ever change their minds. They don't even consider your argument when talking to you. They just defend. There is never a thought process in their head that goes "let me consider whether what my opponent is saying is true". You literally cannot reason with them.
Because most people don't care about what's actually true. If things started trending the other way, suddenly they'd care, because it might matter for their survival. But while nobody on their side holds them to account for hypocrisy or stupidity, and they control the levers of power, they don't even consider your arguments. It just doesn't matter to them at all. Who cares whether you're right or not? It doesn't matter. They made a judgment that your opposition was the right side to take for various reasons, none of which involved trying to find the truth, or using logic/reason.
It's almost cliche, but it's really true. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You'd have to give them a reason to care about what's true. If society started pushing the other way, and life got hard for them, many would change their minds. Because then it would actually be impacting them negatively.
Bottom line is this: You've just got to understand, no matter how insane it seems, these people do not care at all what is true. Not even a little bit. So it doesn't matter how articulately or eloquently you explain your position. It won't do any good at all.
Depends on what it is if it has had a political slant to it id respond that it was political not propaganda and for the progressive thing I’d point out they are regressive not progressive hence their love of censorship.
Sowell talked about this in one of his books. He pointed out that the hard-left tries to use the fact that something like the judiciary or schools exist within a political entity, and therefore are to some extent political, means that there can be no objection to its wholesale politicization - as if trying to minimize and maximize it does not matter at all.
The aim is to minimize politics in something like the judiciary, not use it as an excuse to make it a political organ.
They're right.
u/Grumman is close to it, but you need to understand that Leftism is a philosophy of War. Left is a relative position. Leftism has no objective principles behind it, that is why I've repeatedly said Fascism was always progressive. Because it was. Racial Genetic Determinism was progressive. Blood & Soil was progressive. Strict controls on immigration, was progressive. The criminalization of homosexuality was progressive.
Not because any of these things extend from a Progressive principle, but because there are no progressive principles besides the seizure of power alone. All the specific policies were merely weapons to seize power with and nothing else.
The same progressive racialists that pushed for racialism would also go on to say they were anti-racist and had seen the light. It's all bullshit.
It is entirely likely that progressives of past eras would stand in total solidarity with current ones, even if they stand in total opposition on topics.
If someone is a progressive, their stance on a matter at a previous time is irrelevant. All that matters is what power do they have, and what are they seeking.
Why is the ACLU prepared to endorse hate speech legislation? Why is the NAACP in support of racialist laws in California? Why is a person like George Takei, who literally lived in an Internment Camp, prepared to put Republicans in one?
Because they don't have principles. Principles are tactical weaknesses. They are ground you choose to defend in all cases. No Leftist is prepared to do such a thing.
Some would, and have. Some would not, and have not. Leftism might be a philosophy of eternal war, but that doesn't mean individual leftists want to ride it all the way down.
I agree, I'm just generalizing to make a point.
There are Useful Idiot Leftists who are principled. These people become "right wing" when the Left moves to a new position.
My only point of contention is your conflation of Fascism with German National Socialism through racial science, which originally came out of Soviet propaganda. Fascism really only applies to mid-century Italy, and the obsession with racial sciences came out of Germany which the Italians disdained. Mussolini didn't commit democide. He had a miniscule kill count from removing communists like Pinochet. His state also wasn't organized enough to be nearly as totalitarian as the rest of the major powers, which is why Italy was more of a liability than contributing ally during the war.
Well, I wasn't really intending to conflate Fascism and National Socialism.
I'm saying both are Progressive. So was Racial Science.
Want to see people obsessed with "race", go check out the people who belong to kennel clubs.
Though that being said, I have no problem pointing out that my dog is actually my genetic superior. She can see.
I have no good answer to this but the fact that is a lot more visible is what changed. The ones creating the media are far more willing to compromise the quality of their work in order to push politics.
Well i say this "if something is political in a story it should serve the story . The story would not serve the politics"
stfu fag