Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it is stupid, but in most contexts (ie uses) it is the same as saying "I am not homosexual but...". Followed by something that could draw their sexuality into question unintentionally, not because being gay is bad, but that it maymake things confusing. Which means that the issue would be that merely discussing your sexuality is homophobic... or at least telling someone you are straight is homophobic... Which is over reaching.
Now, if someone outstreached their arm with their palm out and said, "No, homo" then they would be using the term homo, as a slurr. No "homo" in itself is not a slurr, unless it is used in a negative context, otherwise it is merely an abbreviation of a long word, and holds meaning in itself as a prefix. ex:
One may also say, "No homo, please" or "anything but homo" when specifying their milk preferences to someone buying groceries. Context is significant in the english language. If you don't like it, give one word/phrase only one meaning, and replace inflections with a grammatical particle... or something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jtg1972 it's not even gullibility or stupidity (...entirely anyway), it's largerly polarization. The result of these eye for an eye, stereotypes and straw-man arguments.
Anything anyone says in disagreement (regardless of their affilitation) is automatically defined as the extreme of the (left or right) oposing party, and obviously because all leftists are the extreme "SJW" "Socialist" "libtard" "SoyBoys", and all on the right are the extreme "Neo-Nazi" "Incel" "Misogynists", their opinions don't matter no matter if they agree on 99/100 other issues. In fact, any opinion held by them after that over generalization is applied, is abhorrent and absurd, because any opinion by X terrible thing, must also be terrible.
Anyone can have useful insight once and a while, be they a dunce or a Nazi. It doesn't mean you have to agree with all of their views, it doesn't validate them either. Take the points of commonality and find points of compromise where you can.
You don't have to like an opinion, but even if you disagree with its conclusion, chances are some arguments at least portions of value.
But no, no one wants to question the foundations of their view of reality, and it's easier to shout and call people names.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David's take on 'cancel culture' is just willfully ignorant at this point. He deliberately creates the biggest strawman for a set of behaviours anyone can see happening, and he himself was subject to. Only this is on a much larger scale.
Fox News' version of 'cancel culture' is also absurd, but I expected better from David Pakman.
When a show is cancelled that is literal cancellation. But to be caused by 'cancel culture' (as people are seeing it done) the fundamental aspect is the concerted effort to tear down someone's life beyond merely their job based on objective performance measures or what is reasonably acceptable. There is a widespread trend of hate mobs trying to exact justice of their verdicts based merely on differences of race, opinion, religion, or association. In otherwords discrimination. It's one thing to say, this person is unprofessional, they shouldn't be working, or they should get training. It's another to say Chris Pratt goes to a church I don't like, I am going to harass and bully him and anyone he likes or associates with and actively campaign that he never work again, and they never work again.
Even for merely not going out of your way to declare support for something a random user requested can be the trigger. It's objectively a thing, it's visible, and it is measureable.
However, neither David nor Fox is reporting on it objectively. Fox is greatly over applying it and using it to suit their political views and false narratives (as Fox does). But in not wanting the appearance of giving them any credibility David is doing the same thing by exaggerating the concept and dismissing the objective truths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2