Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

[Mudd]

Ok, he said the other guy was on the "wrong side of history". That's a strong indicator, right there. People who use that phrase are generally convinced that their ideology will be vindicated by history. A thousand-reach Reich, if you will. Not a particularily moderate stance to adopt.

Ah, okay...

So, you don't know what radicalism is, for starts. You're not at all clear on what "left wing" means, either.

Good to know.

As far as the "people...are generally" failure of logic goes...what's your impression of what people who use the term "SJW" are "generally" like?

(Just for the sake of education, the phrase "wrong side of history" tracks back at least to a conservative editorial appearing in "The American Spectator" in the mid-1930s. Now you know...)

 

[Belz...]

You are participating in this one.

Ok where's the bigotry in this thread, then? I may have missed it.

There's the Godwin, a declaration that people opposed to bigotry are like Nazis.

There's that complete lack of understanding of nuance again. That I'm making a parallel between a similar thing in two ideologies doesn't mean the two ideologies are the same.

How the hell did you get through school with such a poor understanding of logic and language?

So, you don't know what radicalism is, for starts. You're not at all clear on what "left wing" means, either.

Good to know.

That's not a counter-argument. You've, in fact, made no argument or point at all.

Are you seriously contending that what I'm discussing here is NOT a left-wing ideology?

 

[Refuge]

The point, which I hoped you'd get, is that taking ideas too far can make them dangerous no matter what "side" of the political spectrum you're on.

I think people don't see that they are on a side as such. They just think they are right as in correct. It's a numbers game too, if one 'side' has the greater number they claim being more right

 

[Trekkin]

Regardless, moderates don't use that phrase.

You think the mere use of the phrase ‘wrong side of history’ is radicalism. Going by your definition, I doubt the ‘moderates’ do much of anything.

Also, ‘moderate’ does not mean ‘half way.’.

Deliberately. I don't need you to tell me what I just did. The point, which I hoped you'd get, is that taking ideas too far can make them dangerous no matter what "side" of the political spectrum you're on.

So you used a society that was one of the greatest monsters in human history precisely because of their actively regressive social policy, to make a point about how people pushing for progressive social values are ‘just as bad?’

Even though that very example included said progressive people being slaughtered en masse because they obviously...weren’t.

Hint: There’s a reason the Nazi’s were referred to as ‘The Third Reich.’ They weren’t about the future being ‘better,’ they were about resurrecting past glory.

 

[Belz...]

You think the mere use of the phrase ‘wrong side of history’ is radicalism.

No, I said it's a strong indicator. You can read, can't you?

So you used a society that was one of the greatest monsters in human history precisely because of their actively regressive social policy, to make a point about how people pushing for progressive social values are ‘just as bad?’

I tend to think that exaggerated examples catch attention better. And yeah, the Nazis believed that they'd be on the right side of history. Just shows you how far belief will take you.

 

[Jinn]

So, if I say "people who think that jews secretly control everything are on the wrong side of history" I'm a radical?

 

[Belz...]

So, if I say "people who think that jews secretly control everything are on the wrong side of history" I'm a radical?

Do you understand what the word "indicator" means?

 

[Jinn]

Do you understand what the word "indicator" means?

Oh, yeah, they are very helpful to find out the pH value of a solution.

 

[Refuge]

This reminds me of TNZ.

 

[Timewalker]

The main thing about SJWs is that they don't understand nuance. They think that, if you disagree with them on any point of their pet issue, it means you're entirely opposed to everything they believe in, rather than just that one point. Like all extremists they're all about ideological purity, which is why they splinter so easily into subgroups. The irony of it is, they're bigots just like the alt-right they try to combat. But irony being another form of nuance, they don't get that either.

I seem to remember one of the more recent American presidents who took that stance ("Either you're with us or against us").

Funny... I wouldn't have described George Bush as an SJW, but oh well... I will admit to not entirely understanding what that label really means since I've heard a variety of definitions.


Or from a Canadian perspective, one of former PM Stephen Harper's cabinet ministers, Vic Toews, threw out this "Either you're with us or you're on the side of the child molesters" speech when Canadians objected to his draconian anti-privacy laws he wanted passed. While catching child pornographers is indeed an essential thing to do, that law would have severely eroded Canadians' privacy in ways that are simply unacceptable.

While "bigot" would be a fair word to apply to a lot of Harper's people, it's ludicrous to say that they're combating the "alt-right"... since some of them are alt-right (including Harper himself, in some respects).

 

[Belz...]

Oh, yeah, they are very helpful to find out the pH value of a solution.

That's very funny. However it doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented me.

 

[Belz...]

I seem to remember one of the more recent American presidents who took that stance ("Either you're with us or against us").

Funny... I wouldn't have described George Bush as an SJW, but oh well...

You have got to be kidding me. Can any of you understand words, here? Where have I said that having that us-vs-them mentality means one is a SJW? You might noticed that I said the opposite: that being an SJW means you have an us-vs-them mentality... because all extremists have that mentality. Yes, people on the far-right have that mentality too.

 

[Jinn]

That's very funny. However it doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented me.

I appreciate that you like my humor. Also, I apologise for misremembering your post and will add that the use of the word "SJW" tends to be a strong indicator for people being right-wing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's that complete lack of understanding of nuance again. That I'm making a parallel between a similar thing in two ideologies doesn't mean the two ideologies are the same.

How the hell did you get through school with such a poor understanding of logic and language?

I said "are like" not "are":

There's the Godwin, a declaration that people opposed to bigotry are like Nazis.

Keep going, man!

 

[Belz...]

I appreciate that you like my humor. Also, I apologise for misremembering your post and will add that the use of the word "SJW" tends to be a strong indicator for people being right-wing.

Plenty of people on the left also use that word, actually.

I said "are like" not "are":

Same thing. I didn't say they are like Nazis. Stop playing games.

 

[Jinn]

Plenty of people on the left also use that word, actually.

Indeed, but nowadays that's usually more of an ironic label. Of course what you said didn't contradict my statement in the first place.

 

[Trekkin]

No, I said it's a strong indicator. You can read, can't you?

Radical behaviours are the measurable indicators of radicalism. So either you think that’s radical, or...you don’t actually have any examples from LoB.

Which is it?

I tend to think that exaggerated examples catch attention better. And yeah, the Nazis believed that they'd be on the right side of history. Just shows you how far belief will take you.

No. They believed (or at least said they believed) that their ancestors were, and current society was heading to ruin. So let’s go back...

And yes, I know that a pretty lie is often more appealing than the truth. One of my major is in PR afterall. But I didn’t need to waste thousands of dollars to know an ‘eye catching’ untruth, is still total bullshit.

Indeed, but nowadays that's usually more of an ironic label. Of course what you said didn't contradict my statement in the first place.

When we say it, it’s usually pronounced:

“ESSS-JAAY-DOUBLEEWWES!!!!!”

The five exclamation points are an important distinction.

 

[Belz...]

Indeed, but nowadays that's usually more of an ironic label. Of course what you said didn't contradict my statement in the first place.

Well, I wouldn't know if it's mostly right-wingers who use the term. Hell, I've even seen SJWs using it to label themselves.

The point is conceded, however. "Wrong side of history" is still a stupid phrase to use.

 

[Timewalker]

You have got to be kidding me. Can any of you understand words, here? Where have I said that having that us-vs-them mentality means one is a SJW? You might noticed that I said the opposite: that being an SJW means you have an us-vs-them mentality... because all extremists have that mentality. Yes, people on the far-right have that mentality too.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Jinn]

Well, I wouldn't know if it's mostly right-wingers who use the term.

So, who do you see use that label then, other than SJWs?

Hell, I've even seen SJWs using it to label themselves.

Yep, I do that myself all the time.