It is a demonstration of how long the left has held the initiative when discussing the issues. This reflex goes back to the debate over the 1964 CRA, if not earlier, because the left loves to wield morality as a club to keep you in line.
We have not reciprocated, for the most part, because it has long been a shibboleth since the days of William H. Buckley that "we don't stoop to their level."
Which is why the right has serially lost on every issue since the 1950s, and failed to even conserve women's bathrooms.
William H. Cuckley was a millstone on the conservative movement. Guy got blown out by Noam Chomsky over defending the Vietnam war. It's even more of a betrayal if he was in a position to understand the true powers running the country, unlike 99% of people at the time.
If nothing else, it's infuriating because of the repetition. We already know what they're going to say as soon as "now I know" gets out of their mouth, and then we have to sit through it...
This is why Synthetic Man is easily my favorite essayist on Youtube. Just charges ahead with complete tactless honesty.
If you unabashedly tell the truth you get banned, censored, slandered. Same with "muh based Candace Owens". There are performative measures required to even speak at all.
Your first example is shit. Men sleeping around is just as detrimental to society. Women did start that shit with the sexual revolution though. Your mindset is that irresponsible and feckless. "Let's just ignore the problems of people in my demographic because they're my demographic." What could possibly go wrong? It's not like women, black people, and all the white commies are not a perfect example of what happens when you don't root out the problem causers
there is always that moment where they hedge their bets and have to toss in some mealy mouthed genuflecting towards the very thing they're ostensibly making an argument against.
This dissembling happens in most cases and it undermines arguments against leftism. Even the most rabid anti-leftists are guilty of this, as though they're still scared to be called names and their little disclaimer will protect them when the opposite is true. Those concession statements give authority and superiority to leftist positions that haven't earned them and that empowers the cunts you're arguing with. They won't make the same concessions for you or your positions, so don't choose to start an argument from a position of disadvantage.
I think what bugs me the most is that the kind of people we're talking about know this but they do it anyway. I think it's a form of cowardice and deference.
They're called "90s democrats" or "Classic Liberals." You just need to keep going further right because as you've correctly pointed out, people stay rigidly inside the overton window area they're designed to be in and this is as spicy as they will allow themselves to get.
The Left will never even acknowledge the Right has one inch of ground to stand on much less give up that ground to appear to be more magnanimous and rational.
See gun control for a lesson in this. Every "compromise" simply gives up ground and that becomes the new baseline until the next infringement. There is never anything ever given back in trade.
Compromise is only possible when both parties have a compatible desired end state. If we're both hungry, but you want Chinese and I want Mexican we can come to a compromise where we both eat food that satisfies our hunger. When goals are incompatible, such as one party wanting to ban guns and the other party wanting free access to them, it's more akin to a tug of war. Any gains you give the other side simply weakens your own. Pretty much every cultural dispute between the left and the right falls into the second category.
The left has successfully poisoned generalizations. Generalization means Most Correct, not always correct. But the left pretends like any exception foils a generalization, leading to these sorts of statements.
It anyone calls you out for generalizing, just point out that it means most correct, and they can stfu.
You just summed up why I rarely engage with a lot of moderates these days or just downvote the video and move on. Mate, talk about hitting the nail on the head. You did so 100% and this is EXACTLY how I feel.
Everyone crticising the woke nonsense always double-backing on their own point to appear somewhat politically correct annoys the piss out of me. And you're absolutely right about it happening in a lot of so-called anti-woke channels.
The need to capitulate in case they get called a mean name completely undermines the point. It's also why they can't do anything but cede ground.
It is a demonstration of how long the left has held the initiative when discussing the issues. This reflex goes back to the debate over the 1964 CRA, if not earlier, because the left loves to wield morality as a club to keep you in line.
We have not reciprocated, for the most part, because it has long been a shibboleth since the days of William H. Buckley that "we don't stoop to their level."
Which is why the right has serially lost on every issue since the 1950s, and failed to even conserve women's bathrooms.
William H. Cuckley was a millstone on the conservative movement. Guy got blown out by Noam Chomsky over defending the Vietnam war. It's even more of a betrayal if he was in a position to understand the true powers running the country, unlike 99% of people at the time.
It's the fear of being called names. The right is terrified of being called awful things.
If nothing else, it's infuriating because of the repetition. We already know what they're going to say as soon as "now I know" gets out of their mouth, and then we have to sit through it...
This is why Synthetic Man is easily my favorite essayist on Youtube. Just charges ahead with complete tactless honesty.
If you unabashedly tell the truth you get banned, censored, slandered. Same with "muh based Candace Owens". There are performative measures required to even speak at all.
Your first example is shit. Men sleeping around is just as detrimental to society. Women did start that shit with the sexual revolution though. Your mindset is that irresponsible and feckless. "Let's just ignore the problems of people in my demographic because they're my demographic." What could possibly go wrong? It's not like women, black people, and all the white commies are not a perfect example of what happens when you don't root out the problem causers
This dissembling happens in most cases and it undermines arguments against leftism. Even the most rabid anti-leftists are guilty of this, as though they're still scared to be called names and their little disclaimer will protect them when the opposite is true. Those concession statements give authority and superiority to leftist positions that haven't earned them and that empowers the cunts you're arguing with. They won't make the same concessions for you or your positions, so don't choose to start an argument from a position of disadvantage.
I think what bugs me the most is that the kind of people we're talking about know this but they do it anyway. I think it's a form of cowardice and deference.
They're called "90s democrats" or "Classic Liberals." You just need to keep going further right because as you've correctly pointed out, people stay rigidly inside the overton window area they're designed to be in and this is as spicy as they will allow themselves to get.
See gun control for a lesson in this. Every "compromise" simply gives up ground and that becomes the new baseline until the next infringement. There is never anything ever given back in trade.
Compromise is only possible when both parties have a compatible desired end state. If we're both hungry, but you want Chinese and I want Mexican we can come to a compromise where we both eat food that satisfies our hunger. When goals are incompatible, such as one party wanting to ban guns and the other party wanting free access to them, it's more akin to a tug of war. Any gains you give the other side simply weakens your own. Pretty much every cultural dispute between the left and the right falls into the second category.
The left has successfully poisoned generalizations. Generalization means Most Correct, not always correct. But the left pretends like any exception foils a generalization, leading to these sorts of statements.
It anyone calls you out for generalizing, just point out that it means most correct, and they can stfu.
You just summed up why I rarely engage with a lot of moderates these days or just downvote the video and move on. Mate, talk about hitting the nail on the head. You did so 100% and this is EXACTLY how I feel.
Everyone crticising the woke nonsense always double-backing on their own point to appear somewhat politically correct annoys the piss out of me. And you're absolutely right about it happening in a lot of so-called anti-woke channels.
The need to capitulate in case they get called a mean name completely undermines the point. It's also why they can't do anything but cede ground.
I don't even know who you are.
I'm curious, do you draw a distinction between "muh both sides" and "fence sitting"?
And when you point out their own failings, they’ll cry “Whataboutism!”