Skip Navigation
121 comments

  • the platforms see it as lucrative, therefore its hating eachother time.

  • Jonathan Haidt recently wrote in The Atlantic:

    Ok but fr tho fuck Jonathan Haidt.

    Haidt was JAQing off about trans people in the exact way that the Onion called out and satirized hours after their article was published. He's a "centrist" who seems to exclusively punch left, and he's just whining about getting called out with legitimate criticism.

    He also got deez nuts'd iirc lol.

    Edit: Shit, I had him confused with another Atlantic writer, Jonathan Chait. My bad. Haidt is also a left-punching transphobic "centrist" tho.

    • Agreed, haidt is a hack

    • Jesus christ, it's like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

      Next time? Just for like 1 second?

      Imagine that other people don't give a shit about you blasting your toxicity at the world. Maybe the world would actually be a better place if assholes like you shut up some times.

      BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights, this is just you personally acting like every other .ml out there.

      • Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

        Well, yes. First off because it's funny. Several other people in the thread thought so and made the same joke.

        But also, yes, because I despise civility fetishism, and I also despise Haidt for being a transphobic shitlib. And obviously, the two are connected, the reason Haidt is whining about civility is that he got bullied on Twitter for his transphobia and he wants to be able to shit on trans people without suffering any kind of social reprecussions.

        It's funny how you baselessly assert "this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights" as if just saying it somehow makes it true, like some kind of magic spell. I wonder, would you say the same thing if it was a more prominent transphobe like JK Rowling calling out hostility in internet discourse? What if it was someone like, say, Charlie Kirk, or even Richard Spencer? Are you a true civility fetishist who takes issue with bullying bigots, or is it that you're only ok with bigotry when it's directed towards trans people? Idk, seems worth investigating.

        But, you know, maybe civility fetishism isn't so bad. Maybe it's me who's wrong, I'm just a crazy radical, and I need to be more like MLK.

        First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

        Huh, kinda seems like he saw tension disrupting the peace as being necessary towards pushing towards justice in equality in an unjust status quo. But maybe MLK is too radical too. You know who I need to be more like? Jesus. That's right, I'm turning over a new leaf and I've decided to be more Christlike.

        Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

        Huh. Kinda seems like even Jesus agreed that social change necessarily involved creating conflict, or bringing conflicts to the forefront, in order to address injustice.

        But ok, let's ignore them (maybe the world would just be a better place if assholes like them would shut up some times and stop blasting their toxicity all over the world) and look at the actual, present day reality. When exactly was internet discourse supposedly more civil? Let's compare to, say, 10 years ago, 2015. Before #MeToo so you don't have to worry about women calling people out for sexual assault and causing division, but it's also in the middle of Gamergate, so you know, really not a great time to be a woman on the internet, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious. You also didn't have a bunch of people calling out the bombs going to the Middle East, of course, we were still bombing civilians en masse, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious.

        You know when discourse was really at it's peak? The 1950's. Before all these radicals started calling for civil rights or spreading division against things like bombing Vietnam or Korea, just an all around wonderful time, a Leave it to Beaver paradise, you know, just so long as you're a cishet white man.

        At some point, obviously, you have to draw the line. And I've simply drawn it a little bit further than you have.

  • Theres so much pedophilia, wanton violence, racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, transphobia... fuck all these people. May they never find peace or happiness. We owe no one politeness.

121 comments