you know that authoritarianism is also ideological, right? like there are PLENTY of people who love equality, fairness, sometimes multiculturalism etc and think that the best way to do that is to stifle freedom of speech and instigate it all through governmental doctrine. Then there are the ones who don't want government, but instead want to use peer pressure to ostracise The Dissenter. Hell, Marx warned people about those sorts in /his/ writings, for all the good it did once the tyrants started to cherry pick his works. I'd say "authoritarian leftist" is the perfect descriptor for those people. They're not quite Stalinist but they are still in the upper left hand side of that sad little chart people use.
I'm not going to say those people don't exist because I'm sure they do, but when people in this thread and elsewhere complain of authoritarian leftists they are invariably doing it about people who are not actually advocating any kind of authoritarian positions. There are no calls for legal punishment, for the use of police force -- at most, there are calls for administrators or employers to do something. Which I'd agree is generally a bad thing (and frequently criticized within the left as well), but that's still not actually authoritarianism, and certainly not "not quite Stalinist." These kinds of reactions to leftist actions are, as I keep on saying, a moral panic.
Because I don't care about all the other points, and I don't actually disagree with them. Discussing things with Sander is pointless, anyway, and all I wanted to say in this matter was how in this special case the kneejerk comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four are at least correct in one tiny detail.
Since it's such a common phrase nowadays, in what way is it pointless to discuss/argue things with Sander as opposed to other people?
Probably because I hold that in general, debates/discussions are a terrible way to change people's minds. Speaking of changing people's minds, hey-ho let's back up the "Tim Hunt was attacked unfairly" train: From https://medium.com/@danwaddell/saving-tim-hunt-97db23c6ee93, citing a host of people who were there to witness his remarks.
Feminism, as in equality for women, isn't bad. Neo-feminism is what we have today, and it has little to do with equality.
All but the most extreme branches of feminism are about equality, and one could even argue for those extreme branches. They just don't communicate it very well, so it seems that they just seek to swap patriarchy for matriarchy.
Most of the feminists I've met communicate their ideas awfully - as in, Pete Hines does a better job. Good for you for trying to get something (good) done, but fuck off for not only not doing it properly but also trying to put a blame on me for something I've never done in the first place. But that's just my experience. There are some okay folks there too, people who want to understand you and want to be understood, and don't just ram their ideological mantra in your face - I just feel they're a minority.
It's because social justice is different from feminism. Feminism doesn't get you anywhere any more in the public space. There's always people looking for that thing they can throw out there and start debates with on a social moral high ground, swing their ego around. That doesn't say anything about the ideology itself, it happens with every set of ideas. <merged>
Equal pay etc. is ok IMO. When they start to talk about feminist mathematics and stuff like that, I get a bit confused.
Ah the world of sexism, where calling feminists nazi like creatures is seen as sexist for being sexist and calling other people sexist nuts for being sexist to sexist people is also sexist.
I'm tired of hearing about feminists, discussions about feminists or SJW's simply because I don't deal with them in my day-to-day life. I don't dispute that bat-shit insane extremists and opportunists exist, but these days it seems like the discussion about them is disproportional to its actual importance to my life.