View Full Version : Social Justice, Political Correctness, and the Left
Alright so I live in Toronto where this Jordan Peterson business is going down. I work three blocks away from where the protests have been and the viral videos were filmed. I've listened to some of his lectures and watched a handful of videos concerning him and the gender non-binary issue.
I've also been watching Ben Shapiro lectures. He talks a lot about politics and relevant issues today concerning political correctness and social justice. He talks about Black Lives Matter and American politics. He's been very informative for me, and for the first time ever in my life I feel like I'm beginning to understand America, and politics in a broader sense.
It seems to me like it is a crucial time in our history and big things are happening. I'm really starting to feel like it's time to get more involved and educated on these subjects. I'm religious and conservative. I agree with free speech, and I don't agree with social justice and political correctness. I think that verbal harassment should be a crime, but not hate speech. Peterson said something very interesting about hate speech. If these people aren't allowed to speak openly and publicly without fear of oppression from the government then they will go underground and we won't know who they are, where they are, or what they're saying. If people are allowed to speak openly, even if it's controversial, then they can be spoken with, and hopefully they can be reasoned with and corrected. And concerning legislating that people have to use certain pronouns or it's hate speech: the government shouldn't legislate what words people have to use. What words people use should be their own choice. Making it illegal is literally putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to, because if they don't then armed law enforcement agents come and arrest you.
I don't really understand much about politics. I did a political survey and it said I was in the same place as Ghandi, but I don't consider myself a liberal, and I'm not for non-violent opposition to evil. I wouldn't stand in front of a tank the way he did. I would fight against the government if it came to that.
I started this thread partly to discuss these issues, but also to educate myself and others. Please post instructional educational videos on the topic. I would appreciate any means to further educate myself. Below are some videos that I found very helpful, and so you can see where I'm coming from and getting my information:
From what I gather this is Peterson's original video that started everything. It was originally posted earlier than September and was taken down and re-uploaded. I'm not certain of that, but that's what I've been able to gather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPgjg201w0
This is him talking about the backlash and things concerning people's responses to his first video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOiQ04fZi0o
Ben Shapiro on white privilege:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxZRuL65wQ
Ben Shapiro dealing with LGBTQ protestors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POIEMJwsdfM
Ben Shapiro on climate change (climate change is another topic I could use more information on):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZNu3GRI3H4
Ben Shapiro talking about politics and arguing against leftist ideals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5FeZE4O_XU
I think learning about American politics from this Ben Shapiro guy is giving you a very distorted "understanding" of America and politics in any broader sense. He might be confirming what you already believe but there is another side, and that other side, despite what Shapiro says, is not just far-left radicalism that wants to take away your free speech and plunge your standard of living into the dark ages. I listened to a bit of his climate change video, and he makes an outrageous claim less than twenty seconds into the video. Then later as he's demonizing the Left, he claims they only want to bash the Right. (From what I heard he seems to think it's a reasonable argument that we should do nothing because third world countries won't do anything, and the assertion that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich is just an attempt to demean a position that is not just an opinion but a consensus of very solid scientific study.)
If you want to know about climate change, then watch this series of videos:
Climate change explained, and the myths debunked (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP)
As for solutions . . . there are solutions, and they don't propose taking us back to the days of hunters and gatherers. But we all need to get on the same page, and pretending today is all that matters, and screw our children's and grandchildren's future, is beyond outrageous. (And baby steps are better than nothing, and there is the possibility we're too late anyway, but just because it might be too late to stop before going off the cliff doesn't mean you don't apply the brakes and try to swerve.)
That's my position. As for me, I'm very much in the middle, and I think a strong Republican party and a strong Democratic party is the best situation. What we in America got in 2016 was the absolute worse the parties had to offer, and so we got an unqualified narcissistic billionaire TV reality star as president, and "That's not going to be good for anybody."
FromBeyond
01-06-17, 08:41 PM
https://youtu.be/85q6BOnwIAQ
matt72582
01-06-17, 08:46 PM
there's no Left-wing in the US....
Kaplan, is your climate change link supposed to be a short clip from Sienfeld?
Kaplan, is your climate change link supposed to be a short clip from Sienfeld?
LOL No, I was going to add that video to the end of my post for the sake of levity and messed up when I had to edit the original link. The link is fixed now.
FromBeyond
01-07-17, 09:01 AM
https://youtu.be/fFsmryiqc5I
I watched the first video on your playlist Kaplan, and I'll continue watching more. It was pretty helpful actually. What do you think of Rebel Media's Gavin McInnes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhSIMDTonT4
Also I'm curious to know more about your feelings towards Ben Shapiro. You watched "a bit of his climate change video?" Is that all you watched?
Daniel M
01-08-17, 08:13 AM
What I don't understand is how when a person is on the "right" they seem to automatically have a pre-defined set of opinions, at least a lot of the time. I don't understand how there appears to be such a strong correlation between conservative economics and climate change denial. A question I have for you, if you don't believe that government should regulate speech, what are the major "things" that government should actively look to control/legislate?
I watched the first video on your playlist Kaplan, and I'll continue watching more. It was pretty helpful actually. What do you think of Rebel Media's Gavin McInnes?
Also I'm curious to know more about your feelings towards Ben Shapiro. You watched "a bit of his climate change video?" Is that all you watched?
I don't have any deep opinions of Ben Shapiro because I wasn't aware of him until you posted about him. However, doing a little research and listening to some of his videos gives a pretty clear picture of what his politics are and where he's coming from. My point wasn't to bash him, only to point out that he is firmly on the Right, and therefore he is presenting one side--and not just that, but he is presenting his side by demonizing political positions that are left of his.
I am aware of Gavin. I've watched several videos of his, and he has cornered a niche, it seems. A Canadian hipster right-winger. Go figure. In contrast there is someone currently gaining popularity, at least on Facebook, by calling himself the Redneck Liberal. I forget his name. There's another guy, an African American pro-gun right-winger who spews out stuff about blacks that would get any white person saying it labeled a racist. I kinda liked him, until he proved to be a phony and a jerk, and now I avoid his videos.
Anyhow, Gavin lost me with his pro-Trump BS. I can relate in a very small way to his general attitude and found some of his other rants amusing, even while many were tedious, but ultimately I again find him a bit of a phony, and I can't tolerate his promotion of Trump.
None of these people are what I would consider anything more than internet entertainers, whether you find them amusing or irritating. They're people who are very good at presenting their opinion in an entertaining way. Nothing wrong with that, and they can provide a way to delve deeper into the issues, but they should all be approached with some skepticism. I try to gravitate toward those who have the background and methodology to back up their positions.
What I don't understand is how when a person is on the "right" they seem to automatically have a pre-defined set of opinions, at least a lot of the time.
I'm pretty sure this is how the other side always looks to everyone. I mean, if you give me any one of your opinions about a major political issue, couldn't I guess most of the others?
Regardless, obviously the least charitable answer is simple group think. The most charitable answer is that they share an underlying view of the world (about God and/or human nature, for example), which logically leads them to lots of other specific beliefs that anyone else with that same starting premise is very likely to also reach.
I can keep going, but this comment sort of reads like a drive-by, so I have no idea if you were actually interested in discussing it.
I don't understand how there appears to be such a strong correlation between conservative economics and climate change denial.
Well, it depends on what you actually mean by "climate change denial." Is there actually a strong correlation there, if you take them term literally, or is there just a strong correlation between conservative economics and people who don't think climate change should be counteracted with economic regulations? Most of the people I talk to about this don't bother to make this distinction: they assume that the existence of climate change automatically necessitates twelve other things, up to and including a basic restructuring of our economy.
I know a lot of conservatives who think the planet's getting steadily warmer. I'm one of them, in fact. But it's not a straight shot from that conclusion to, say, a massive carbon tax, and I'm consistently surprised at how often all the things inbetween are taken for granted.
Kaplan, I did find your strong cautioning of Shapiro a little condescending. I’m not going to take it to heart, but I hope you don’t think that I just agree with everything he says without thinking for myself. What I was trying to get at is that I find him very informative. I am starting to understand American politics, and he puts things into perspective for me. Take, for example, the gun laws. I used to just think they were absurd, but now the way that Americans are so protective of their gun laws makes sense. I still don’t agree with their gun laws, but I no longer think it’s just absurd.
Gavin is an entertainer, completely, but for an entertainer I find it refreshing that he has a fair amount of substance to his content.
Well, it depends on what you actually mean by "climate change denial." Is there actually a strong correlation there, if you take them term literally, or is there just a strong correlation between conservative economics and people who don't think climate change should be counteracted with economic regulations? Most of the people I talk to about this don't bother to make this distinction: they assume that the existence of climate change automatically necessitates twelve other things, up to and including a basic restructuring of our economy.
I know a lot of conservatives who think the planet's getting steadily warmer. I'm one of them, in fact. But it's not a straight shot from that conclusion to, say, a massive carbon tax, and I'm consistently surprised at how often all the things inbetween are taken for granted.
I was also wondering about this. When I hear the phrase, “climate change denial” it makes me laugh. Personally I don’t have a stance yet on climate change because I don’t know enough about it. A lot of people around me say really ridiculous things about “global warming.” I am skeptical of the widespread nonsensical talk revolving around the phrase “global warming,” and even a lot of what people say about “climate change” at least has me wondering how much of it is reliable information. People say a lot of things, and most of the time they don’t really know what they’re talking about. So right now I’m just trying to learn about how the atmosphere behaves and what carbon emission does to the environment. But I’ve heard some really good points about how a lot of things proposed for curbing “global warming” are impractical. Concerning cars, why can’t we just use ethanol? Wouldn’t that solve the problem? I don’t know much about it, but I’ve heard that it gives a nice clean blue flame and it’s cheap and easy to manufacture. Didn’t Brazil switch to Ethanol, and it supposedly brought the country out of debt? My brother was telling me about a documentary he saw on the subject. I haven’t seen it myself though.
A question I have for you, if you don't believe that government should regulate speech, what are the major "things" that government should actively look to control/legislate?
The government should legislate against verbal assault and physical violence.
I once posted an essay on facebook concerning homosexuality. A few people accused me of hate speech. I explained that these were my religious beliefs which are protected from being accused of being hate speech. In fact their accusations of hate speech were a form of hate speech because they were attacking my religious beliefs. But I didn’t turn around and accuse them of hate speech. I didn’t make a big deal of it and get upset. It is a certain kind of person who will use these laws against people who say things they don’t like. Decent people are not going to call the cops on you just for saying something they don’t like. I think it’s very twisted. I think it’s intolerance.
ash_is_the_gal
01-09-17, 09:49 AM
I once posted an essay on facebook concerning homosexuality. A few people accused me of hate speech. I explained that these were my religious beliefs which are protected from being accused of being hate speech. In fact their accusations of hate speech were a form of hate speech because they were attacking my religious beliefs.
i didn't read the article so i'm not gonna assume you were spewing hateful things, plus i don't really know you or what religion you follow, but i don't agree that something can't be hate speech because it's a "religious belief." certain religious beliefs are hateful against gay people. saying it's your own personal belief doesn't somehow change that fact.
matt72582
01-09-17, 10:29 AM
I think because the US political system is so far to the right (more than any other major power) that by default people are going to be on one side on every issue. It is odd, but usually things come down to money and priorities, between social and economic issues.
i didn't read the article so i'm not gonna assume you were spewing hateful things, plus i don't really know you or what religion you follow, but i don't agree that something can't be hate speech because it's a "religious belief." certain religious beliefs are hateful against gay people. saying it's your own personal belief doesn't somehow change that fact.
Hate speech doesn't have to be hateful, it just has to be offensive. I`m Christian, and the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. You can probably see why the LGBTQ community would find it offensive to hear that their sexual orientation is immoral. They saw it as discrimination. But that`s the sensitive nature of "hate speech." Just because someone finds something offensive, doesn't mean the other person is trying to be offensive, or attacking the other person. But the law now says, at least in Canada, that it doesn't matter what your intent is. As long as it's offensive, it's hate speech. Where it really gets tricky is that discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs is also hate speech. So if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is, and someone else says something offensive to that religious person, then the offender is guilty of hate speech. One of the problems that Jordan Peterson is addressing is that the legislation is written in very vague terms, and at the very least it needs to be rewritten. The legislation in question is bill c-16.
I think hate speech should not be a crime. If someone says something offensive about my religious beliefs do you think I'm going to call the cops on them? Should it be illegal to say that God doesn't exist, or that God is stupid? How can you police speech like that. I think the law right now is absurd. I will never call the police on someone for saying something offensive to me. They are entitled to their opinion. I might call the cops in a case of extreme verbal abuse though. If someone repeatedly hurls insults and vulgar profanities at me and will not stop, as a last resort, yeah I'd call the cops and get a restraining order, but it would have to be pretty severe for me to go that far. If someone called me a she instead of a he, I would just ignore them.
Being gay myself, I have to admit, I don't think hate speech should be an offence. People making such remarks make people who support my right to get married, and adopt and foster children question exactly why they support such ideals, and why they reject people who explicitly oppose them.
Nevertheless, I think it is ludicrous that people use their religion to excuse acts, that are, in my opinion, inexcusable. A good example would be the Northern Irish couple being refused a cake because the owner said it was against their religious beliefs. That's not right, it isn't speech, it's an act of discrimination based on pre-conceived ideas, and using religion to justify such behaviour is purely wrong in my opinion. It is just a cake admittedly, but there have been cases of gay couples being refused rooms at hotels or B&Bs because the owners played the religion card. Things like that make my blood boil, because service to an interracial couple, or someone of an ethnic minority group would never be refused, but it's the same act, just applied to a different minority.
So it's a difficult one, because although I strongly support freedom of speech, there still needs to be boundaries protecting minority groups from forms of discrimination. Thankfully, I just happen to live in one of the fastest secularising countries in the world anyway :lol:
As for the Bible explicitly saying homosexuality is a sin... that's questionable in itself since it comes from the parts where it has people allowing their daughters to be gang raped, commanding you to wash your arms up the elbow in case you touch a non-believer in the streets etc.
Captain Steel
01-12-17, 11:25 PM
As for the Bible explicitly saying homosexuality is a sin... that's questionable in itself since it comes from the parts where it has people allowing their daughters to be gang raped, commanding you to wash your arms up the elbow in case you touch a non-believer in the streets etc.
And never boil a kid in its mother's milk!
Alright, this is getting interesting.
Being gay myself, I have to admit, I don't think hate speech should be an offence. People making such remarks make people who support my right to get married, and adopt and foster children question exactly why they support such ideals, and why they reject people who explicitly oppose them.
Okay, this is a really interesting comment. I'm Christian. The Bible explicitly says that homosexuality is a sin. However, I still support the right for homosexuals to get married and adopt children. Even though I don't condone homosexuality, those people should still be legally allowed to marry and adopt kids. I don't condone being selfish either, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Edit: I agree with your point though, about how people who think hate speech should be an offense make us question why they agree with homosexual marriage. Do they just agree with what they like and oppose what they dislike? Are they being hypocrites? What exactly is the nature of a person's "rights" and "freedoms?" They should be free to do what they want and say what they want as long as they aren't violating another person's freedom.
Nevertheless, I think it is ludicrous that people use their religion to excuse acts, that are, in my opinion, inexcusable. A good example would be the Northern Irish couple being refused a cake because the owner said it was against their religious beliefs.
Do you have a link so I can see exactly which case you're referring to?
It is just a cake admittedly, but there have been cases of gay couples being refused rooms at hotels or B&Bs because the owners played the religion card. Things like that make my blood boil, because service to an interracial couple, or someone of an ethnic minority group would never be refused, but it's the same act, just applied to a different minority.
Do you think that people have the right to refuse to serve whoever they want? Or do you think that they should be forced to serve everyone no matter what? Because where do you draw the line? If I open a business, do I have to serve everyone who comes in even if they're rude, or can I refuse anyone even if it's just because of their skin color or sexual orientation? I think a business owner should have the right to refuse anyone, rude, polite, black, white, gay, straight. They don't need a reason. They can serve whoever they want and refuse whoever they want, it's their business. How are you going to legislate that without violating people's rights to freedom?
So it's a difficult one, because although I strongly support freedom of speech, there still needs to be boundaries protecting minority groups from forms of discrimination.
Why do people need to be free from discrimination? Do you think people can be forced to not discriminate without their own human rights being violated?
The way I look at it, there is decent behavior and indecent behaviour, and the government can't force people to be decent. If it's immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It may be immoral to discriminate, but it's also immoral to be sexually perverse, or to lie, or to be selfish, but none of those things should be enforced at gunpoint by the government. Because let's remember that making something "illegal" means the police will come with guns and arrest you, and a court order will force you to comply or go to jail. Do you think a gun should be put to someone's head because they don't want to sell a cake to someone who's gay or black, or is it only people who are just plain rude that can be refused service?
Being plain rude is a choice. Being homosexual, black etc. isn't , you should serve everyone, you shouldn't be permitted to cherry pick who you do and don't, that's discrimination. I hugely disagree with the idea that an owner can serve who they like and not provide a reason. It's a bit like saying you wouldn't give this person a job interview because they're gay, and this one because she's a woman etc. It's taking your beliefs and then acting in a way that isn't fair to everyone.
No I don't think a gun should have been held to their head because they didn't serve them a cake, but they should be sanctioned for it. They have every right to believe what they want about us as a community, but they can't then abuse their position because of said beliefs, that crosses the line for me. If a black couple were refused service, there would be outrage, but it's the same principle, just a different group. I hope that makes sense.
The link is being a bit funny as well (I'm on my phone), but the incident was the owners wouldn't ice a cake saying it supported gay marriage, so they refused service. They appealed a decision ruling against them, but still weren't successful due to several reasons, one being that icing a cake doesn't mean you conform to the message on the cake. "Northern Ireland gay marriage cake" shows the results in more detail, though!
Being plain rude is a choice. Being homosexual, black etc. isn't.
Well, I don't agree that being homosexual isn't a choice. That's a seperate issue, which I'd be happy to discuss with you, but let's leave it out of this thread since it would be a tangent.
That being said, I see you're point. However, it still begs the question. How do you legislate what grounds a person has for refusing to do business with someone else? I think people can do business with whoever they want, and the only reason they need to refuse to do business with someone is that they don't want to.
It's like when I get a call from a telemarketer, and they're snobby with me, and I say, "You do realise I can hang up on you at any time right?" I don't need a resason to hang up on them. I can end the call if I want to, for no reason at all. I can end a conversation with another person, by simply not responding to anything they say, for any or no reason whenever I want. I can refuse to do business with someone whenever I want for any or no reason. If I go into a shop and say I'm interested in buying something, do I need a reason to decide not to buy it, or do they need a reason to decide not to sell it? They sell it because they want the money, not because they have to. The government shouldn't force them to sell it to me. They don't need a reason, let alone a valid one. If I said, "I'm gay, and if you don't sell it to me I'll charge you with discrimination," can you see how exploitable that would be?
you should serve everyone
Even rude customers?
you shouldn't be permitted to cherry pick who you do and don't, that's discrimination.
Why can't a business owner do whatever they want?
I hugely disagree with the idea that an owner can serve who they like and not provide a reason. It's a bit like saying you wouldn't give this person a job interview because they're gay, and this one because she's a woman etc. It's taking your beliefs and then acting in a way that isn't fair to everyone.
Can you hire anyone you want? If we legislate this, then regardless of the reason you don't hire someone they'll say it's because they're gay/trans/black/etc... and even decent people will suffer, or be forced to hire someone belonging to a minority over a CIS white male out of fear.
No I don't think a gun should have been held to their head because they didn't serve them a cake, but they should be sanctioned for it.
But that is what happens when something is made illegal. A gun is put to their head. The police show up with guns and arrest that person. You can try and saction it, but what if they refuse to pay the fine? They go to jail, which means the police with guns take them.
Imagine if you owned a bakery and someone came and wanted you to write "Gays are evil" on the cake. Should the government force you to do it even though you don't want to, or should you be allowed to refuse even if they're polite about it? It's you're bakery, why should someone else get to tell you what you have to write on the cake? What if they take it to court and say you won't do it because you're discriminating against their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin?
I think the point is that people are different, and disagree over moral issues, and the government shouldn't interfere in the interest of political correctness. If someone doesn't want to write something on a cake, then go to a different bakery.
Captain Steel
01-13-17, 01:28 AM
I remember when this whole bakery thing came about - another story surfaced about some white supremacist family (or some such) who wanted some Nazi stuff on their kid's cake and the bakery refused.
In that case the bakery was backed up for their refusal while in the case of the gay wedding cake, a bakery was not.
I'm in no way trying to compare Nazi's to gay people (of course!), but it seems laws should be applied equally (if one bakery is told it MUST serve everyone no matter how they feel about the customer's personal views, then another bakery should not be applauded for refusing service to a different customer over their personal views.)
I think the only choice about it is whether you choose to express it. But I do think it's a range of factors anyway. I believe sexuality is more like a spectrum.
But yes, anyway, you make some good points!
Regarding the would I ice a cake saying it hates gays, yeah I would. People are paying me for a service, it's not my opinion, they're entitled to theirs. Although yeah, I'd struggle if a white supremacist asked to ice Nazi related things.
The police don't have guns where I am :p But I don't think they'd be that extreme anyway for a cake, it'd be a fine or something, and rightfully so. Or community service if they don't pay up.
And I do think the government should interfere. Because what if taxi drivers, bus drivers, teachers, even doctors had the same attitude? Different people would have a different quality of life, and that stretches beyond just having a belief.
Zotis has made some pretty good points already, as you said, but I do want to echo some, and add to a couple others.
1. Content. You mentioned you'd struggle with anyone asking for Nazi-themed things. I think that makes the point pretty well: if you can think of literally anything a baker or other professional should be allowed to refuse to do on the mere grounds that they disagree with it, then they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves in all scenarios. It may lead to scenarios not everyone likes all the time, but hey, that's freedom.
2. Refusing people. There's a very important distinction between refusing a person and refusing to participate in an activity. We're not talking about refusing service to someone simply because of who they are: we're talking about refusing to participate in a ceremony. It's a completely different scenario morally, ethically, and legally, than if they'd just been asked for a cake for no particular purpose, or without anything written on it.
3. Force. Zotis is also right that any law is ultimately backed by force. Imagine it through to the end: if it's just a fine, what if you don't pay it? What if they try to arrest you for not paying the fine and you won't go? And so on. At some point, a weapon is going to compel them, which is why the bar should be pretty high for what we want to use the law to make other people do.
4. You ask (fairly): what if everyone thought this way? If they did, then the law would hardly help. Discrimination doesn't go away through laws, and such laws, in any democratic society, tend to only happen when the population is already trending that way, anyway. And, of course, not everyone does, so we're talking about putting an inconvenience, based on a hypothetical contrary to reality, and prioritizing it over a foundational human right.
I know, it's a difficult one for me to get round. Because people should be free to practice their religion, but then when that comes into conflict with people like myself, how do you fairly decide which one deserves to express themselves more than the other.
But like I say, freedom of speech is fine with me. But then being rejected for things that straight people wouldn't be rejected for doesn't seem right or fair to me either, even if it something as insignificant as a cake.
EDIT: Just re-read the rejecting person/ceremony bit. Yeah, that is completely valid... but they had no way of knowing they were a Christian couple, and even then, not all Christian would reject them on those grounds. Like you say, it's not something that can be prevented by the law though :sick:
I know, it's a difficult one for me to get round. Because people should be free to practice their religion, but then when that comes into conflict with people like myself, how do you fairly decide which one deserves to express themselves more than the other.
If it were just people "expressing themselves," there'd be no problem because everyone can express themselves simultaneously; you believe and say one thing, they believe and say another. What's happening here is one person trying to force another to do something.
But like I say, freedom of speech is fine with me. But then being rejected for things that straight people wouldn't be rejected for doesn't seem right or fair to me either, even if it something as insignificant as a cake.
Obviously, this conversation exists because people have conflicting views of what's "right and fair." And I think it's resolved by simply doing away with the idea that it's the government's job to make sure nobody ever feels this way, as if it were a parent and we were its quarreling children.
You know you're fvcked when Yoda gets involved :p and I do agree with a lot of what you say.
Thing is, they advertised to do that job, and they didn't advertise that they wouldn't make such a message on their cakes. They get paid to do it, and it's not like it would have taken weeks or months to do it. Both sides perhaps overreacted, because they did say they had served the couple in the past, but then they just wouldn't let it go saying their religious freedom was being attacked when it wasn't really, because like the judge said, icing a cake doesn't have to reflect your world views.
Thing is, they advertised to do that job, and they didn't advertise that they wouldn't make such a message on their cakes.
By "advertised to do that job," do you mean merely that they said they were available to write things on cakes? If so, it seems a bit extreme (and very cumbersome) to have to preemptively list all the things they won't write.
They get paid to do it, and it's not like it would have taken weeks or months to do it.
I don't think the amount of time involved matters: it only takes a minute to renounce everything you believe, but it'd still be a violation to make someone do it. Anyway, if this were just about who was less inconvenienced, it'd obviously be quite easy to find a baker who didn't care.
Both sides perhaps overreacted, because they did say they had served the couple in the past
Very important fact, since it establishes that they weren't refusing service just because of who they were. They only drew the line at expressing a sentiment they didn't agree with.
because like the judge said, icing a cake doesn't have to reflect your world views.
What's the limiting principle on this, though? If writing on a cake doesn't count, how about writing in a pamphlet? Heck, if writing doesn't really count, why not spoken words, too?
Here's what one of the judges who rejected their appeal had to say
“The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row
They also went on to say
"The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681
Yeah, that's what my questions at the end were a response to. I don't really see what limiting principle the judge is articulating here. It just seems like a purely arbitrary exception, per this bit:
In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation
In other words, they have the right not to provide service in support of causes they don't agree with...except if it's about sexual orientation. Why? Why are they allowed to have political or religious views about some topics, but not others? Isn't the whole point of freedom of speech (and religion) that we don't pick and choose which ones are okay?
What I got from that was they either don't serve any political or religious message, or they have to accept all of them. They can't pick and choose, which they did.
And my guess is because the LGBT community are a minority group that are exposed to discrimination, especially in NI where gay marriage isn't yet legal. They don't need protections for straight, white people, because they're not going to be refused service there.
Sir Toose
01-13-17, 12:19 PM
Re: The Cake:
I think (privately owned) businesses should be able to serve who they wish. There is no governmental protection from backlash.
If people hear about it and disagree then they have the right to not support the business and some would say the owner got his just desserts (Pun intended :) ).
If I remember correctly, the baker was out of business in a short time.
Didn't choose his battle wisely. Suffered the consequences.
In other words, they have the right not to provide service in support of causes they don't agree with...except if it's about sexual orientation. Why? Why are they allowed to have political or religious views about some topics, but not others? Isn't the whole point of freedom of speech (and religion) that we don't pick and choose which ones are okay?
The easy answer is discrimination. But how do you define that? If the cake maker had denied a neo-Nazi, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would argue that.
I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is), but is choice really the deciding factor? If it is, then wouldn't religion be exempt from discrimination? You are free, after all, to simply choose to identify with another faith. This is a sticky issue.
Hmm, I'm not sure if that's what that quote means. The sentence before that was this:
The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds
The first part is exactly as you say: all or none. But the second part adds the caveat "based on prohibited grounds," which means there are some things they're allowed to refuse for, but not others. But saying someone has freedom of speech or religion except for these things is basically the same as not having them. Not carving out exceptions is the whole point.
Anyway, whatever the intent, I think the other questions about limiting principles still apply. If writing things on cakes doesn't really "count," why not any form of writing, and why not any form of communication?
The easy answer is discrimination. But how do you define that? If the cake maker had denied a neo-Nazi, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would argue that.
Everyone seems to agree that would be fine, but I'm not sure how anyone can avoid the implication of that. We can't just say "yeah, but that's bad." The whole point of these rights is that we don't base them on qualitative judgements. If they're subject to that, then they're not rights, but mere contingencies.
I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is)
Why is that relevant? As CiCi said, the baker had not previously refused them service for being homosexual. They simply refused to write a political statement, and expressing political ideals is a choice.
I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is)
I hate to get involved and I would love it if Zotis elaborated if he had any more ideas on the subject, but he did already say he thought homosexuality was a sin because the bible says it is. Granted sin is different from choice, I guess.
Because they're okay with writing other political or religious messages. And like they told them, you can't pick and choose.
I'm not sure which part that's a response to, but the judge said they can't pick and choose "based on prohibited grounds." That phrase wouldn't make any sense if it were actually all or none. That means some things you can choose on, but not those things.
I hate to get involved and I would love it if Zotis elaborated if he had any more ideas on the subject, but he did already say he thought homosexuality was a sin because the bible says it is. Granted sin is different from choice, I guess.
I said this to CiCi earlier:
Yeah. I've never understood the logic behind people thinking being gay is a choice. Even though i think it is awful i get why people think being gay is a sin, but not that.
I mean does that mean people who think this believe they chose to be straight? I know i didn't, And does that mean they believe that they could choose to be sexually attracted to men if they wanted to? I know i couldn't. Then how do you explain the countless people throughout history and today whose lifes are made harder by it, why would they choose it? I know it's a terrible thought but in places or times with high rates of attacks on homosexuals or laws against it some people have got to have wished they weren't gay, why would they not just choose to be straight then?
I know that's an extremely simple look at it but i'd be interested in Zotis' answers since i've never understood that.
Edit: For the record i wasn't posting behind his back or anything, Zotis said in an earlier comment he didn't want to get into that because they were discussing something else but since it was brought up again i thought i may as well post it.
ash_is_the_gal
01-13-17, 01:52 PM
Re: The Cake:
I think (privately owned) businesses should be able to serve who they wish. There is no governmental protection from backlash.also, i think they should have to put a sign up stating so. people in the LGBT community shouldn't have to go through the humiliating experience of being refused for having a cake made. plus, if they are that dead set on it, they should do so openly. as a consumer and activist, i'd like to know who to steer clear of.
Citizen Rules
01-13-17, 01:55 PM
also, i think they should have to put a sign up stating so. people in the LGBT community shouldn't have to go through the humiliating experience of being refused for having a cake made. plus, if they are that dead set on it, they should do so openly. as a consumer and activist, i'd like to know who to steer clear of.Agreed! If a store is going to deny someone service based on their personal beliefs, then that store needs to have a sign clearly stating that.....then I can boycott that store.
Agreed! If a store is going to deny someone service based on their personal beliefs, then that store needs to have a sign clearly stating that.....then I can boycott that store.
... and campaign to get others to as well :D
We live in the era of political correctness . That era will come to an end when the politically correct people become a minority of the population , and that will happen because the politically correct advanced people don't seem to be interested in producing much children .
Just like the Roman empire reached a high point in civilisation but was later over run by barbarians , so we have reached the highest point in civilisation . From here it's all going to be downhill .
I think the only choice about it is whether you choose to express it. But I do think it's a range of factors anyway. I believe sexuality is more like a spectrum.
I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is), but is choice really the deciding factor? If it is, then wouldn't religion be exempt from discrimination? You are free, after all, to simply choose to identify with another faith. This is a sticky issue.
I hate to get involved and I would love it if Zotis elaborated if he had any more ideas on the subject, but he did already say he thought homosexuality was a sin because the bible says it is. Granted sin is different from choice, I guess.
Yeah. I've never understood the logic behind people thinking being gay is a choice. Even though i think it is awful i get why people think being gay is a sin, but not that.
I mean does that mean people who think this believe they chose to be straight? I know i didn't, And does that mean they believe that they could choose to be sexually attracted to men if they wanted to? I know i couldn't. Then how do you explain the countless people throughout history and today whose lifes are made harder by it, why would they choose it? I know it's a terrible thought but in places or times with high rates of attacks on homosexuals or laws against it some people have got to have wished they weren't gay, why would they not just choose to be straight then?
I know that's an extremely simple look at it but i'd be interested in Zotis' answers since i've never understood that.
Due to popular demand, I'll talk about homosexuality. :D
Everything you do is a choice. If there is an action, then there is a choice. If I raise my right hand, I make a choice to do so. If someone has sex with someone else, choice is a factor. Not everyone has homosexual inclinations. But not everyone who has them acts on them either. Sin is any thought, word, or deed that is contrary to God’s moral law. An inclination is not a conscious thought of your own, but something that occurs to you. If you entertain an inclination in an immoral way, then that is considered a sin. Where Christians are often hypocritical is when they consider homosexuality worse than other sins like selfishness, pride, arrogance, or heterosexual lust. Watching pornography, masturbating, having sex outside of marriage, and even so much as entertaining sexual thoughts about anyone who isn’t your spouse and of the opposite gender is considered a sin according to what the Bible teaches. For those who think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, the issue is a moral issue, not a factor of choice. I don’t think a person is a homosexual just because they have homosexual inclinations. A person isn’t anything just because they have inclinations. It is your actions that define you. A person is a cop if they enroll and are accepted onto the force, not just because they feel they were born to protect and serve. A person is a thief if they steal, not if they think of stealing but don’t actually go through with it.
Regarding the would I ice a cake saying it hates gays, yeah I would. People are paying me for a service, it's not my opinion, they're entitled to theirs. Although yeah, I'd struggle if a white supremacist asked to ice Nazi related things.
So, should the government make a list of things you can and can’t choose to be okay with putting on a cake, or should the baker be allowed to make their own decision about it? I personally would prefer less government involvement. If someone won’t put what you want on a cake then go to another bakery. If you want a swastika on your cake and no one will do it for you, then do it yourself and bake your own cake at home. I think it’s really messed up that someone can go to the government and ruin your business just because you won’t put something on a cake that goes against your beliefs.
And I do think the government should interfere. Because what if taxi drivers, bus drivers, teachers, even doctors had the same attitude? Different people would have a different quality of life, and that stretches beyond just having a belief.
People are bound to attribute a lack or refusal of service to discrimination. If the government is involved what will happen? A taxi driver will be forced to give a ride to an abusive client if they belong to a minority, because even if they do get acquitted of discrimination their life could be ruined by a mere false accusation. Legal fees can easily bankrupt a small business, and most people can’t afford a lawyer or bail. So if someone falsely accuses you of discrimination, and the judge sides with them, then you get a fine and go bankrupt trying to fight it in court. If you pay the fine then that’s essentially an admission of guilt. Although many people will plead guilty to get a slap on the wrist and move on with their life sooner, the next time they get charged with a crime it will be much more difficult to get acquitted.
If you can think of literally anything a baker or other professional should be allowed to refuse to do on the mere grounds that they disagree with it, then they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves in all scenarios. It may lead to scenarios not everyone likes all the time, but hey, that's freedom.
I completely agree with this. I mean just think about the nature of owning a business or providing a service. Where does this sense of entitlement that some people have come from, that just because someone decides to open a business they have to serve anyone and everyone who comes in the door? If you’re an employee and you don’t serve a customer and they complain, your boss can fire you or he could be totally fine with it if you give a satisfactory explanation. But if you’re the boss you can do whatever you want, you can just say no to a customer without a reason. It’s you’re shop, you can do what you want. At the end of the day customer service is about building customer loyalty because that’s just good business. You serve people because you want their business, not because you have to. How can there be laws that force you to serve people just because you have a business? Imagine if an artist was obliged to do every commission requested just because he advertised that he does commissions. Can’t an artist say no to any commission he doesn’t feel like doing without needing to give a reason that the government is okay with?
also, i think they should have to put a sign up stating so. people in the LGBT community shouldn't have to go through the humiliating experience of being refused for having a cake made. plus, if they are that dead set on it, they should do so openly. as a consumer and activist, i'd like to know who to steer clear of.
Somehow I don’t think “No LGBTQ” on the front of shops will go over too well with the LGBTQ community. Or do you think people should have to post a list of everything they aren’t willing to do? If so, what are the odds anyone is going to be able to think of everything in advance? No, I think having to put up a sign is absurd. Not to mention having a sign to point to when someone asks for what you’re not willing to do won’t somehow make things go over any smoother. I worked in retail for 8 years. People don’t read signs.
ash_is_the_gal
01-19-17, 09:46 AM
Somehow I don’t think “No LGBTQ” on the front of shops will go over too well with the LGBTQ community. Or do you think people should have to post a list of everything they aren’t willing to do? If so, what are the odds anyone is going to be able to think of everything in advance? No, I think having to put up a sign is absurd. Not to mention having a sign to point to when someone asks for what you’re not willing to do won’t somehow make things go over any smoother. I worked in retail for 8 years. People don’t read signs.
yeah. it doesn't have to be like NO GAYS ALLOWED but something stating what their beliefs are and that anything falling in conflict with that they won't be doing.
if i baked cakes for a living, i'd probably put up a sign somewhere stating something, like "any requests made that are transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic in nature or promote ableism, racism, body shaming, or other discriminatory behavior will be refused service." that should cover everything, so i wouldn't have to "think of everything.""
see? that wasn't so hard.
Everything you do is a choice. If there is an action, then there is a choice. If I raise my right hand, I make a choice to do so.
Do you feel you make a choice to be heterosexual? Do you make a choice to be male (assuming you're a guy)?
If someone has sex with someone else, choice is a factor.
Do you believe sexuality is determined by who you choose to have sex with?
Watching pornography, masturbating, having sex outside of marriage, and even so much as entertaining sexual thoughts about anyone who isn’t your spouse and of the opposite gender is considered a sin according to what the Bible teaches.
Do you eat pork or shellfish? Are you clean shaven? Do you have pets? Do you work on Sunday? All are sins according to the Bible.
Please know that I'm not trying to poke holes in your faith. I wouldn't do that. I'm merely challenging the way some modern Christians seem to view the Bible. Because the Bible is often self-contradictory, I think people tend to pick what they like and ignore the parts they don't. (I grew up Catholic and there are whole passages of the Bible that I've never heard spoken in any service ever.)
But I think it's hypocritical when those same people wave the Bible around like an infallible book of laws. That's cool, but if you're going to put the Bible on that pedestal, you better be prepared to defend all of it.
Not everyone has homosexual inclinations. But not everyone who has them acts on them either. Sin is any thought, word, or deed that is contrary to God’s moral law. An inclination is not a conscious thought of your own, but something that occurs to you. If you entertain an inclination in an immoral way, then that is considered a sin.
I don't think you mean "inclination." According to the OED, an inclination is "a natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way." So if you're "inclined" to do something, you're already entertaining it. (Also, please note my emphasis on the word "natural.")
What you're describing, I think, is an idea. Or perhaps you mean desire. Either way, I understand your meaning, and this is where I begin to differ with those who view homosexuality as a sin. You assume that homosexual behavior begins as a deviant thought, a selfish urge, no different than stealing or considering sex outside of one's marriage. After all, if the Bible condemns homosexuality, it must be so.
But I believe that view overlooks the root of a person's sexuality, which I explain more below:
A person is a cop if they enroll and are accepted onto the force, not just because they feel they were born to protect and serve. A person is a thief if they steal, not if they think of stealing but don’t actually go through with it.
Sexual identity is not a vocation. As I've said, it runs deeper than that. Much deeper. It's a condition of the self, an innate condition of being human. Somehow, we simply know who and what we are. We just know. You don't choose your sexuality anymore than you choose to have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
And I do believe sexuality and love are deeply entwined. Emotions are powerful and defining. Some are fleeting, but most are like weights, deeply entrenched, ancient. They're honest. What's truly heartbreaking is that so many in the LGBTQ community have struggled with the magnetic pull between cultural and religious norms (i.e. heterosexuality, marriage between man and woman) and their own natural, honest, feelings; and have, in turn, suppressed those feelings, which I can imagine would be indistinguishable from the way I feel about the opposite sex. Why, then, are they wrong and I'm right?
No, our hearts, I believe, beat as one. Humans have marked homosexuality as an abomination for many reasons over these thousands of years—it's uncommon, it doesn't permit procreation, it's just plain icky—but there are plenty of examples in history where humans got it wrong.
For those who think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, the issue is a moral issue, not a factor of choice.
But there are different standards for morality, aren't there? In some cultures, it's immoral for a woman to argue with a man, or to marry someone who doesn't meet the approval of her family. Not that long ago, servitude was widely considered a moral punishment for someone who could not pay his debts.
We can tumble pretty far down the rabbit hole on the question of morality. And, to be fair, we could probably shake hands on some pretty common sense standards. But my point is to suggest that as we come to understand more about each other as human beings, we have the opportunity (and, in some cases, the responsibility) to reevaluate our own moral principles.
Citizen Rules
01-19-17, 01:28 PM
Excellent post Sleezy. Eloquently stated...and in a kind manner. Well said.
Do you eat pork or shellfish? Are you clean shaven? Do you have pets? Do you work on Sunday? All are sins according to the Bible.
After nuclear war, three things will remain: cockroaches, Nuka-Cola, and people reeling off lists from Leviticus in Internet arguments.
As a former Catholic, I find it hard to imagine you don't already know what I'm about to say, but for anyone who doesn't, The New Testament represents a new covenant (http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm) that is generally taken to mean that most of those edicts no longer apply. I'm being necessarily glib in my summary because I don't think anyone's interested in delving into this much, but a lot of this stuff gets repeated unchallenged and unqualified, and people should at least know that it isn't what Christians generally teach or believe. At worst, it's an issue of contention.
Anyway, I doubt you have to convince Zotis that he sins, so I'm not sure how this would demonstrate hypocrisy even without the supersession thing. And even if it did, wouldn't that just be an ad hominem attack?
Why, then, are they wrong and I'm right?
This question isn't exclusive to Christians talking about homosexuality: it applies to anyone who regards anything as unnatural, or indicative of mental illness, or just generally bad. Imagine any condition you regard that way (even one everyone here would agree on), then imagine someone who suffers from it telling you it's actually natural and good. From what basis can you contradict them?
After nuclear war, three things will remain: cockroaches, Nuka-Cola, and people reeling off lists from Leviticus in Internet arguments.
As a former Catholic, I find it hard to imagine you don't already know what I'm about to say, but for anyone who doesn't, The New Testament represents a new covenant (http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm) that is generally taken to mean that most of those edicts no longer apply. I'm being necessarily glib in my summary because I don't think anyone's interested in delving into this much, but a lot of this stuff gets repeated unchallenged and unqualified, and people should at least know that it isn't what Christians generally teach or believe. At worst, it's an issue of contention.
Oh, come on. There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians out there cherry-picking Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, so why isn't it fair game to throw the book right back at them?
Anyway, I doubt you have to convince Zotis that he sins, so I'm not sure how this would demonstrate hypocrisy even without the supersession thing. And even if it did, wouldn't that just be an ad hominem attack?
I'm not sure how you could view this as an ad hominem attack, unless you thought I was pointing my finger and yelling, "But you're a sinner too!" That interpretation is extremely off-target from the views I'm trying to express here.
As I clearly said, my point was to challenge how some Christians selectively interpret the Bible. I wasn't even suggesting that Zotis is one of them. If anything, I was trying to be informative; it's been my experience that a lot of people don't even know that stuff is in there.
This question isn't exclusive to Christians talking about homosexuality: it applies to anyone who regards anything as unnatural, or indicative of mental illness, or anything else of that nature. Imagine any condition you regard that way, then imagine someone who suffers from it telling you it's actually natural and good. From what basis can you contradict them?
Sure, but I think it goes without saying that homosexuality is a far cry from things like pedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. That doesn't stop people from lumping it in, though. I think it's pretty obvious that the distinction lies in mutual adult consent, which can be given in one but not the others. Things like polygamy and polyamory muddy the waters a bit, but I'm still inclined to hold the line of adult consent on those matters.
Oh, come on. There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians out there cherry-picking Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, so why isn't it fair game to throw the book right back at them?
"There are plenty" of [members of any group] doing [whatever]. Unless you're accusing Zotis of being one of them, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.
And whether or not it's "fair game" depends on the game, yeah? Is the topic the Bible, or is it the personal shortcomings of some non-specific group of Christians? Because it's only a comment on the latter.
I'm not sure how you could view this as an ad hominem attack, unless you thought I was pointing my finger and yelling, "But you're a sinner too!" That interpretation is extremely off-target from the views I'm trying to express here.
As I clearly said, my point was to challenge how some Christians selectively interpret the Bible.
Honestly, I don't see the distinction. Calling someone a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack because the merits of an argument are unrelated to the arguer's intellectual consistency in applying it. It may be relevant if you're contending someone doesn't really believe what they're saying, but even that is ultimately a different contention.
And that's without even getting into the added complication that you're asking a specific person, who you're not accusing of this, to defend how "some Christians" think. To what end? Let's say he agrees that some Christians are hypocrites: then what? What question about this debate has been answered?
Sure, but I think it goes without saying that homosexuality is a far cry from things like pedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. That doesn't stop people from lumping it in, though. I think it's pretty obvious that the distinction lies in mutual adult consent, which can be given in one but not the others. Things like polygamy and polyamory muddy the waters a bit, but I'm still inclined to hold the line of adult consent on those matters.
That's not quite what I'm thinking of, since those can be dismissed through the way they affect others. What would you say to someone with Body integrity identity disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder)? What would you say to someone Disassociative identity disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder), or certain forms of Obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder)?
Basically, what would you say to someone who tells you something they do is good and natural, even if you think it isn't? What is your process for determining what is normal and healthy?
"There are plenty" of [members of any group] doing [whatever]. Unless you're accusing Zotis of being one of them, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.
And whether or not it's "fair game" depends on the game, yeah? Is the topic the Bible, or is it the personal shortcomings of some non-specific group of Christians? Because it's only a comment on the latter.
This debate is much bigger than I, or Zotis, or any argument any of us will ever have in this room. Words have power. All it takes is the condemnation of some politician on TV, or some conversion therapist, or some 10th-grade bully, or some Westboro followers holding "God hates fags" signs outside a university (or, worse yet, one's own family members) to lead someone who identifies as LGBTQ to run away from home, self-harm, or commit suicide. And, very often, the ammunition for these condemnations is the word of God.
That's the relevance. I'm not asking Zotis to speak for any of these kinds of people I've mentioned above, but it feels a bit silly to refrain from addressing that those views are out there and having a very real impact. If anything, I'm inviting Zotis to share his own perspective on it.
Honestly, I don't see the distinction. Calling someone a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack because the merits of an argument are unrelated to the arguer's intellectual consistency in applying it, unless you're suggesting he doesn't really believe what he says he does, or that something about the belief inherently leads to these hypocrisies.
I get what you're saying. If I speak out against plagiarism but routinely plagiarize other writings, that only makes me a hypocrite; it doesn't make me wrong. Still, that destroys any credibility I have in making that argument.
For me, questions of morality make hypocrisy even more relevant. If someone doesn't practice what they (literally) preach, especially those who claim to be the more strict adherents of scripture, their voices are completely without merit. And if everything in the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, how are these moral questions rectified? Who gets to decide what's still a sin and what isn't?
And that's without even getting into the added complication that you're asking a specific person, who you're not accusing of this, to defend how "some Christians" think. To what end? Let's say he agrees that some Christians are hypocrites: then what? What question about this debate has been answered?
I didn't ask him to defend anything. That's an assumption. I introduced those perspectives because, as I said, they're inseparable from the larger debate. I was hoping Zotis would comment on them and, if he wanted, maybe share his own personal interpretations and practices. If he felt compelled to defend those views, he could. If he agrees that some Christians are hypocrites, then fine. Does a question need to be answered? Does each point need to be "won"?
That's not quite what I'm thinking of. What would you say to someone with Body integrity identity disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder)? What would you say to someone Disassociative identity disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder), or certain forms of Obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder)?
Basically, what would you say to someone who tells you something they do is good and natural, even if you think it isn't? What is your process for determining what is normal and healthy?
This feels very red herring-ish. Are you now suggesting that clinically diagnosed psychological disorders should be argued in comparison to homosexuality? Because if you are, that's way off base and I'm not falling into that trap. The American Psychological Association currently holds (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf) that "the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality..." You will not find any major medical organization who regards homosexuality as a disease or disorder.
This debate is much bigger than I, or Zotis, or any argument any of us will ever have in this room. Words have power. All it takes is the condemnation of some politician on TV, or some conversion therapist, or some 10th-grade bully, or some Westboro followers holding "God hates fags" signs outside a university (or, worse yet, one's own family members) to lead someone who identifies as LGBTQ to run away from home, self-harm, or commit suicide. And, very often, the ammunition for these condemnations is the word of God.
That's the relevance.
I think we need to make a distinction between "relevance" and "importance." Lots of things related to this topic are important, but not necessarily relevant. Everything you just said is deathly serious and very important. Christians being persecuted in third world countries is serious, too, but there's a reason I haven't replied to anything you've said by talking about it: because it isn't really relevant, even though it's sort of related.
I get what you're saying. If I speak out against plagiarism but routinely plagiarize other writings, that only makes me a hypocrite; it doesn't make me wrong. Still, that destroys any credibility I have in making that argument.
I don't really know what that last part means: if you say it doesn't make them wrong, then what kind of credibility is being "destroyed"?
I realize lots of people think this way, in that they often disregard arguments coming from hypocrites. But I don't know what the intellectual justification is supposed to be.
For me, questions of morality make hypocrisy even more relevant. If someone doesn't practice what they (literally) preach, especially those who claim to be the more strict adherents of scripture, their voices are completely without merit.
Why? Same question as above, basically.
With moral standards, I'd say there's even less reason to think this, because failure to adhere to one's own moral standard is inevitable in the very act of having a moral standard. If we could already live up to our ideals, they would not be necessary.
And if everything in the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, how are these moral questions rectified? Who gets to decide what's still a sin and what isn't?
Hey, you know me: I'm more than happy to delve into a headier discussion of theology and exegesis. ;) But I'm not asking you to accept anyone's answer to those questions: I'm just saying you can't make an argument that doesn't even acknowledge them.
I didn't ask him to defend anything. That's an assumption.
Well, tell me honestly: how would you take it if I quoted you, disagreed with you, and then asked you a bunch of probing questions about your personal shortcomings while talking about how "some non-Christians" fail to adhere to their own standards? Would that feel like an "invitation," or more like an accusation?
I'm honestly not trying to scold you for saying any of this, even if that's how it sounds. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have any bearing on what he said. Doesn't mean you can't talk about it anyway, but I think it's misleading (unintentionally: I don't question your general good faith in the argument) to do that alongside the substantive objections to it, as if they were part of them.
I introduced those perspectives because, as I said, they're inseparable from the larger debate. I was hoping Zotis would comment on them and, if he wanted, maybe share his own personal interpretations and practices. If he felt compelled to defend those views, he could. If he agrees that some Christians are hypocrites, then fine. Does a question need to be answered? Does each point need to be "won"?
No, but I'd say each point should probably be relevant to whatever the disagreement is about.
This feels very red herring-ish. Are you now suggesting that clinically diagnosed psychological disorders should be argued in comparison to homosexuality? Because if you are, that's way off base and I'm not falling into that trap.
I have no idea how it would be a trap or a red herring. In your first reply you said things like this:
It's a condition of the self, an innate condition of being human. Somehow, we simply know who and what we are. We just know. You don't choose your sexuality anymore than you choose to have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
I'm assuming these claims aren't just arbitrary, yeah? You have some rationale underlying them. So I'm asking: what's that rationale, and why doesn't it apply to these other examples? Assuming there are cases where you're willing to contradict someone who tells you their orientation (sexual or otherwise) is innate and healthy and all that, what makes those cases different?
The American Psychological Association currently holds (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf) that "the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality..." You will not find any major medical organization who regards homosexuality as a disease or disorder.
Respectfully, this doesn't answer the question at all, particularly given that part of your initial argument was about how people get it wrong all the time, and the APA obviously did once regard it as a mental illness. I'm asking for your own moral reasoning.
Guaporense
01-22-17, 06:51 PM
That's my position. As for me, I'm very much in the middle, and I think a strong Republican party and a strong Democratic party is the best situation. What we in America got in 2016 was the absolute worse the parties had to offer, and so we got an unqualified narcissistic billionaire TV reality star as president, and "That's not going to be good for anybody."
The US has a problem with a 2-party duopoly in politics, one bad thing about it is that it creates hatred of one team against the other (the blue versus the red, just like the soccer teams in my state in Brazil). Another bad thing is that if someone hijacks one of the parties to run for president he can actually win with good odds without being qualified to be president.
Other democracies usually have a large number of parties active in congress and that higher diversity is better in terms of disallowing extreme polarization and also make it harder for some individual to interfere in politics alone.
Guaporense
01-22-17, 07:05 PM
We live in the era of political correctness . That era will come to an end when the politically correct people become a minority of the population , and that will happen because the politically correct advanced people don't seem to be interested in producing much children .
Just like the Roman empire reached a high point in civilisation but was later over run by barbarians , so we have reached the highest point in civilisation . From here it's all going to be downhill .
Some people say that what happened to Rome was due to special circumstances of having only ONE government in the entire "civilized" world. We have 190 countries in the world today so even if one country really f*cks up (like Venezuela is doing) the rest of the world is still improving.
While countries can observe what other countries are doing and mimic the good policies and not do the bad policies (the USSR was a learning experiment: after it collapsed the rest of the world learned from it: India for example enacted liberalizing policies and started growing at 7% a year). So I think the world today is in a very robust position to continue to improve.
The US is probably going to continue to decline relative to the rest of the world which is natural since the US was in a very special position back around the year 2000 when it was the sole superpower with almost 30% of the world's GDP, as the rest of the world learns how to do decent econ policies they will improve (like China and India are doing now, or Korea and Japan did in the recent past). Trump might accelerate the US relative economic decline considering he plans to reduce the labor supply (anti-immigration policies) and isolate the US economy from the world economy. I talk about relative because the US today is much better off in economic terms than 50 years ago even if 50 years ago in the 1960's it was considered a "golden age" and in 20 years the US will be better off than now as well. Just that the rest of the world is improving at a much faster pace.
I think that for the world as a whole the improvement of the level of civilization for the next decades will be enormous. Specially in countries in Africa, Brazil, India and Bangladesh. I am very optimistic about Brazil as well since we destroyed the evil Labor Party now, the corruption scandals are cleansing the whole political arena while econ policies will improve a lot since the extreme (marxist socialist) left has finally been obliterated from mainstream politics in 2016.
Some say the major threat to our globalized world civilization now is global warming but even if Co2 emissions continue to increase the worst it can happen is a decrease of a few percentage points of global GDP by 2100 versus a situation without global warming.
yeah. it doesn't have to be like NO GAYS ALLOWED but something stating what their beliefs are and that anything falling in conflict with that they won't be doing.
if i baked cakes for a living, i'd probably put up a sign somewhere stating something, like "any requests made that are transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic in nature or promote ableism, racism, body shaming, or other discriminatory behavior will be refused service." that should cover everything, so i wouldn't have to "think of everything.""
see? that wasn't so hard.
What does the sign solve?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the point of your example was to illustrate how easy it is to come up with a sign that covers everything you aren't okay with. But do you think that if someone doesn't have that sign then they should be forced to serve any and every customer even if their behavior is discriminatory?
I think there's a double standard in place here.
What if the gay couple owned the bakery and the religious couple wanted a homophobic slogan on their cake. Would you be okay with the gay couple refusing to serve the religious couple? How would you feel if a religious couple sued a gay couple's bakery and put them out of business for not being willing to put Leviticus 18:22 on a cake?
Why should the government get involved at all?
Do you feel you make a choice to be heterosexual? Do you make a choice to be male (assuming you're a guy)?
I choose to be heterosexual. It’s called sexual orientation. At any time I could choose to explore homosexuality if I wanted to. I do not choose to be male. I was born with a penis. If I wanted to I could claim to be a woman on the inside, but I think that sort of thing is nonsense. I could also choose to cut my penis off and get hormonal treatment and plastic surgery to look like a woman and then call myself a woman, but I believe there is more to actually being a woman than that. I choose to identify as a male, but I don’t believe that how someone identifies their self necessarily has any impact on their actual identity. However, these kinds of choices are never merely one-time occurrences. They are ongoing, and they are lifestyles.
Do you believe sexuality is determined by who you choose to have sex with?
I believe it is determined by more than just who you have sex with. It is determined by countless thoughts and actions. That may be why it appears to you to be a state of being, because there are so many choices involved and many of them are subconscious. Overtime it becomes second nature, which could also explain why people think it’s “natural.”
Do you eat pork or shellfish? Are you clean shaven? Do you have pets? Do you work on Sunday? All are sins according to the Bible.
Please know that I'm not trying to poke holes in your faith. I wouldn't do that. I'm merely challenging the way some modern Christians seem to view the Bible. Because the Bible is often self-contradictory, I think people tend to pick what they like and ignore the parts they don't. (I grew up Catholic and there are whole passages of the Bible that I've never heard spoken in any service ever.)
But I think it's hypocritical when those same people wave the Bible around like an infallible book of laws. That's cool, but if you're going to put the Bible on that pedestal, you better be prepared to defend all of it.
This is a simple issue of context and the nature of rules and laws. The Bible does not say that it is a sin to eat pork, or those other things you mentioned. I’ll just stick to pork since it’s the most prominent example and this can be applied to the rest of the list. Abstaining from pork was a law that God gave the Israelites. God’s law was always written on men’s hearts, but he gave it to Moses in writing when he established the nation of Israel as a people for himself to live by his laws. God is not legalistic. You can not interpret something literalistically out of context and say that it is contradicting itself. Look at human laws. It is a crime to commit murder. By murdering someone you are breaking the law, generally speaking. However, there are many circumstances in which a person would not only go unpunished for murdering someone, but be rewarded by the courts and the government. For example, someone who murders criminals to save innocent lives could be rewarded if they can demonstrate in court that he had reasonable cause to believe that innocent lives were in immediate danger if he had not acted by killing the criminals. Laws should not be governed legalistically without considering the circumstances, general principles in the Bible should not be interpreted as absolute statements, and the Bible does not present God as legalistic.
Consider these verses and how they expand the context of the Old Testament laws:
Acts 10:15a
“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”
Colossians 2:16-17
“Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”
Hebrews 7:18-19
“For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”
I am a reformed Baptist, a Calvanist. I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. That God spoke through the prophets and inspired them to write His very Word. I believe there are no contradictions in Scripture, and that every apparent contradiction can be explained and reconciled by a deeper understanding of their context and intended meaning. However, the original manuscripts which are considered to have been without error were long since destroyed. What we have are excellent copies with only minor errors, the science of textual criticism, and careful experts cooperating with God’s Spirit to produce reliable translations.
That's as much as I can respond to at the moment, I'll respond to the rest when I can.
Little Devil
03-07-17, 06:38 AM
This entire Thread is very interesting - for me personally - to take a look at some of your thought process.
i will not contribute to it, but I'll be reading it with enthusiasm.
This entire Thread is very interesting - for me personally - to take a look at some of your thought process.
i will not contribute to it, but I'll be reading it with enthusiasm.
Move over, Dev. I'll sit in the corner with you.
Blix the Goblin
03-07-17, 02:52 PM
The pendulum is already swinging back against political correctness and social "justice." The progressive crowd has become a parody of itself and alienated more sane liberals in the process, pushing them to the center. They use loaded language against anyone they disagree with. Bigot, racist, misogynist, sexist, fascist, -phobic, these terms have lost all power now that they are used so frequently and carelessly.
It won't last though. They've proven time and time again that they eat their own, engaging in a never-ending competition of who is more oppressed and marginalized, and therefore more virtuous. Like a pack of starved animals, they turn on their allies the moment they slip up and say something even slightly flippant or "incorrect." Also, like another poster pointed out, these people are not having many children. Furthermore, the new Generation Z has been shown to be the most conservative cohort since WW2.
Little Devil
03-07-17, 03:11 PM
Move over, Dev. I'll sit in the corner with you.
COFFEE!!!!
COFFEE!!!!
Yeah!!!
I will say, though, I really object to the term SJW simply because the SJWs on tumblr etc have made it such a dirty word with their hatred and weekend warrior extremism. They give middle path Human Rights Advocates a bad name.
Thus endeth my sermon. Continue normal broadcast :) Going to make a pot of tea.
Iroquois
03-07-17, 10:54 PM
The pendulum is already swinging back against political correctness and social "justice." The progressive crowd has become a parody of itself and alienated more sane liberals in the process, pushing them to the center. They use loaded language against anyone they disagree with. Bigot, racist, misogynist, sexist, fascist, -phobic, these terms have lost all power now that they are used so frequently and carelessly.
It won't last though. They've proven time and time again that they eat their own, engaging in a never-ending competition of who is more oppressed and marginalized, and therefore more virtuous. Like a pack of starved animals, they turn on their allies the moment they slip up and say something even slightly flippant or "incorrect." Also, like another poster pointed out, these people are not having many children. Furthermore, the new Generation Z has been shown to be the most conservative cohort since WW2.
On the other hand, consider the term "SJW". It used to be that "SJW" would be reserved for actual extremists who let their extremist attitudes interfere with their ability to affect positive social change (hence why they got their own particular term), but now it gets thrown at anyone whose politics lean any further left than centre-right. That wasn't always such a loaded word, but it got turned into one by people who were looking for their own versions of "bigot" or "fascist" to use against their political opponents. That's why we have to deal with words like "libtard" or "snowflake" or "trigglypuff" that are used to dismiss any disagreeable viewpoints and only serve to undermine what Yoda referred to as "the liberal idea of free speech".
Meanwhile, if the problem is that the left is too concerned with tearing itself apart for the sake of ideological purity, then the right's problem is that it's too willing to compromise its own ideology for what it perceives to be the greater good. It's the kind of party-first mentality that led to Trump becoming the most viable Republican candidate off the back of his waves of popularity even though he might very well be the most politically inexperienced Presidential candidate in American history. It's the kind of thinking that led Republican electoral college voters to dismiss concerned anti-Trump citizens as "believing propaganda" even when other Republicans were opposing his more aberrant behaviour and plans. It's also why the right were willing to go along with Milo Yiannopoulos and his long history of words and action against the marginalised up until he finally slipped up in a way they couldn't tolerate (and even then, people are still willing to defend him). It's why trying to articulate questions or criticisms of specific individuals or policies gets received with scorn and challenged at length less out of a desire for civil discussion than out of a desire to waste the opponent's time or "test one's debate skills".
That wasn't always such a loaded word, but it got turned into one by people who were looking for their own versions of "bigot" or "fascist" to use against their political opponents. That's why we have to deal with words like "libtard" or "snowflake" or "trigglypuff" that are used to dismiss any disagreeable viewpoints and only serve to undermine what Yoda referred to as "the liberal idea of free speech".
While I agree that these terms are glib, lazy, and allow people to avoid engaging with the underlying ideas, they don't undermine the idea of free speech itself. Individual examples may be awful/bad/whatever, but as long as they're merely countering speech with speech, there's no serious threat to the concept.
The big, shiny, glowing line of demarcation is not whether something is thoughtful, or even whether something is intended to shut down debate. It's whether speech is elevated to the same level as violence, and consequently threatened with violence. That's when the liberal idea of free speech is undermined.
LOL just saw the ultimate guideline for SJWs, third wave feminists and crying Red Pillers. Gotta be ll inclusive or it's not PC
edit. see below
That guy does a really good one on vegans -v- carnivores as well
Yoda sent me the YT one instead (Thanks Champ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-mju_gW3c8
Little Devil
03-10-17, 07:53 PM
Yoda sent me the YT one instead (Thanks Champ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-mju_gW3c8
This cracked me up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0D1PpgCXs
This cracked me up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0D1PpgCXs
I'm so offended I couldnt even keep watching. Do they destroy that biatch for whining like an SJW?
The Gunslinger45
03-10-17, 08:02 PM
This cracked me up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0D1PpgCXs
F**ked up but brilliant!
Little Devil
03-10-17, 08:03 PM
I'm so offended I couldnt even keep watching. Do they destroy that biatch for whining like an SJW?
The cop car transformer killed the black guy.
Little Devil
03-10-17, 08:04 PM
F**ked up but brilliant!
They nailed it! :D
The cop car transformer killed the black guy.
And not the whiny chick? I'm offended.
Little Devil
03-10-17, 08:09 PM
And not the whiny chick? I'm offended.
http://i.imgur.com/P6XduSJ.gif
Iroquois
03-11-17, 03:13 AM
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is why we can't have nice things.
https://youtu.be/F-mju_gW3c8
Iroquois
03-11-17, 03:27 AM
https://youtu.be/F-mju_gW3c8
This is why we can't have nice things.
Mandwa Mona Rudao
03-11-17, 05:52 AM
We live in the era of political correctness . That era will come to an end when the politically correct people become a minority of the population , and that will happen because the politically correct advanced people don't seem to be interested in producing much children .
Just like the Roman empire reached a high point in civilisation but was later over run by barbarians , so we have reached the highest point in civilisation . From here it's all going to be downhill .
TheY WERE NEVER A MAJORITY, THEY JUST RIGGED CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS.
ash_is_the_gal
03-11-17, 08:37 AM
I'd really like to know where all these rabid SJWa are. I keep hearing about them littering websites like tumblr but I've yet to find a whole pack of them. I think we'd get on well. I wish I knew where they were
Iroquois
03-11-17, 08:41 AM
TheY WERE NEVER A MAJORITY, THEY JUST RIGGED CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS.
What, like the 1%?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/5a/53/1f/5a531fb141d282866caf2c554248a21b.jpg
Iroquois
03-11-17, 09:07 AM
Why is it the offended who has to change but not the offender?
Mandwa Mona Rudao
03-11-17, 10:45 AM
What, like the 1%?
Probably more than that.
I think this thread was better when it was arguments and not memes. I suppose mocking a wrongheaded idea is a bit better than trying to protect yourself from even hearing it, but neither is nearly as good as making a cogent case about why it's bad.
Why is it the offended who has to change but not the offender?
Depends on what "has to" means. Nobody should have to, so if one side is talking seriously about whether or not force should be involved, then that's the side that's overstepping.
But if you mean "has to" not in the sense of coercion, but simply moral uprightness, then I think the answer is that it can't be generalized: asking which should change is like asking who wins "an argument." Depends on the argument.
It's possible to be genuinely offensive, and it's also possible to be unnecessarily offended. I acknowledge both possibilities, which is to say, I don't think anyone offended is automatically wrong to be that way and just needs to "get over it," and I don't think taking offense is sufficient, by itself, to demand someone change. Do you?
I'd really like to know where all these rabid SJWa are. I keep hearing about them littering websites like tumblr but I've yet to find a whole pack of them. I think we'd get on well. I wish I knew where they were
You mean like the rabid land piranhas who send showrunners death threats for killing off female or POC characters for example? I don't think you'd get on with them at all, ash. You're way too nice.
Iroquois
03-12-17, 08:59 AM
Probably more than that.
All I'm saying is that if we're going to complain about a statistically small group of individuals who have managed to rig institutions against the majority for their own self-serving agendas, then there are more likely culprits than "the politically correct people".
I think this thread was better when it was arguments and not memes. I suppose mocking a wrongheaded idea is a bit better than trying to protect yourself from even hearing it, but neither is nearly as good as making a cogent case about why it's bad.
Depends on what "has to" means. Nobody should have to, so if one side is talking seriously about whether or not force should be involved, then that's the side that's overstepping.
But if you mean "has to" not in the sense of coercion, but simply moral uprightness, then I think the answer is that it can't be generalized: asking which should change is like asking who wins "an argument." Depends on the argument.
It's possible to be genuinely offensive, and it's also possible to be unnecessarily offended. I acknowledge both possibilities, which is to say, I don't think anyone offended is automatically wrong to be that way and just needs to "get over it," and I don't think taking offense is sufficient, by itself, to demand someone change. Do you?
I'm talking about the lack of balance more than anything. I can acknowledge that all those potential outcomes are at the very least possible, but does that mean anything when one of those possibilities frequently gets treated as a certainty? All the memes/videos on the previous page are based on the premise that the offended party is automatically the one who is going about things wrong and should change their ways, mainly through the use of strawmen. The extreme caricatures in the videos encourage viewers to mentally connect the concept of "being offended" with the most extreme possible version by using the most obnoxiously and unjustifiably self-righteous individuals possible, whereas the Bill Lumbergh meme presumes to lump every "offended" person together as nothing more than a disturbance to be settled as quickly as possible (which makes the use of a character like Bill Lumbergh a bit ironic since he's a character whose concern with running an orderly office is what actually keeps it in disarray).
Anyway, people spamming content like this is symptomatic of a problem where anything one side throws out is okay because it's supposed to be a joke and anyone who tries to oppose them effectively loses because they're the ones who are "taking things too seriously". I've mentioned this before, but there's a serious problem with people who treat caring about such subjects as a weakness that can be attacked or exploited. It's why I quoted that Mitch Hedberg line about not being as good at tennis as a wall to illustrate this point. The wall doesn't care about how good you are at playing tennis because it doesn't care about playing tennis at all, let alone being good at it. It just wears you down by being an unthinking, immovable wall.
In this context, trying to take a more moderate "it depends" kind of view may seem like the ideal approach to take in order to avoid getting caught up in the extremes on either side, but the flip-side of that is that you risk settling for ordered compromise on issues that can't necessarily be resolved in such a manner, plus it throws which sides you do or don't argue with into sharp relief. Like the song goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Mandwa Mona Rudao
03-12-17, 11:43 AM
All I'm saying is that if we're going to complain about a statistically small group of individuals who have managed to rig institutions against the majority for their own self-serving agendas, then there are more likely culprits than "the politically correct people".
Were the people just waiting for the end of it more influential in the American Revolution than the most devoted Revolutionaries?:
Offence is largely subjective and will always be so.
The problem is when people try and tell others what they should and shouldn't be offended by and
people letting everyone know how offended they are all of the time.
Firstly, I take responsibility for my own actions. If they offend someone then I will apologise if I think I was in the wrong and alter my behaviour or I will explain my intentions and then carry on.
A lady recently told me that she was offended that I held the door open foe her as she was capable of opening it herself.
I explained that I would have held it open whoever was behind me. It had nothing to do with me judging her as incapable of opening the door (although if that was the case I would hold the door open :D )
I continue to hold the door open for people as I deem her offence to be misplaced.
I'm talking about the lack of balance more than anything. I can acknowledge that all those potential outcomes are at the very least possible, but does that mean anything when one of those possibilities frequently gets treated as a certainty?
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I responded to the thing I quoted, about the issue in general. This makes it sound like you're just talking about this one thread.
All the memes/videos on the previous page are based on the premise that the offended party is automatically the one who is going about things wrong and should change their ways, mainly through the use of strawmen. The extreme caricatures in the videos encourage viewers to mentally connect the concept of "being offended" with the most extreme possible version by using the most obnoxiously and unjustifiably self-righteous individuals possible, whereas the Bill Lumbergh meme presumes to lump every "offended" person together as nothing more than a disturbance to be settled as quickly as possible (which makes the use of a character like Bill Lumbergh a bit ironic since he's a character whose concern with running an orderly office is what actually keeps it in disarray).
Agreed. Note the first paragraph in my last post.
Anyway, people spamming content like this is symptomatic of a problem where anything one side throws out is okay because it's supposed to be a joke and anyone who tries to oppose them effectively loses because they're the ones who are "taking things too seriously". I've mentioned this before, but there's a serious problem with people who treat caring about such subjects as a weakness that can be attacked or exploited. It's why I quoted that Mitch Hedberg line about not being as good at tennis as a wall to illustrate this point. The wall doesn't care about how good you are at playing tennis because it doesn't care about playing tennis at all, let alone being good at it. It just wears you down by being an unthinking, immovable wall.
Ditto. See above.
And I'll add that I'm particularly annoyed with the "u mad bro" school of Internet arguing, and its implication that whoever cares less "wins."
In this context, trying to take a more moderate "it depends" kind of view may seem like the ideal approach to take in order to avoid getting caught up in the extremes on either side, but the flip-side of that is that you risk settling for ordered compromise on issues that can't necessarily be resolved in such a manner
Again, it sounds like you're talking about the thread and not the thing I was actually quoting. Please clarify.
plus it throws which sides you do or don't argue with into sharp relief. Like the song goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
This kinda sounds like that vague accusation you made in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1636245#post1636245) and then declined to expound on.
Regardless, there's not much "arguing" to be done with a meme, and as glib as that stuff can be, it's not a serious concern, for reasons I put in my two previous posts:
Nobody should have to, so if one side is talking seriously about whether or not force should be involved, then that's the side that's overstepping.
The big, shiny, glowing line of demarcation is not whether something is thoughtful, or even whether something is intended to shut down debate. It's whether speech is elevated to the same level as violence, and consequently threatened with violence. That's when the liberal idea of free speech is undermined.
People being rude is not a fundamental threat to free speech. People being censored or silenced through force, is. Combined with polling that shows young people are shockingly open to restricting free speech, and that's a pretty good reason to focus on one more than the other (though certainly not the only one).
A lady recently told me that she was offended that I held the door open foe her as she was capable of opening it herself.
I explained that I would have held it open whoever was behind me. It had nothing to do with me judging her as incapable of opening the door (although if that was the case I would hold the door open :D )
We must be twins, Sarge. Same thing happened to me not long ago. A woman had both hands full so I held the door open for her. She said she was quite capable of doing it herself and asked if I did that because she's a woman (eh wut?). I said I would have done the same for any PERSON with their hands full. Wow. I've never bitten someone's head off for holding the door for me, whether that be a door in a building or the door of a taxi - I dont expect it because of my gender but when it happens I say thank you. I laughed with the shop owner about it and he said I just should have said OK and let the door close. I miss that guy.
cricket
03-12-17, 01:16 PM
"You don't have to hold the door open for me because I'm a woman."
"I didn't. I held it open for you because I am a gentleman."
Iroquois
03-14-17, 04:02 AM
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I responded to the thing I quoted, about the issue in general. This makes it sound like you're just talking about this one thread.
I was talking about issues that have existed on this forum beyond what's just been mentioned in this thread. I'll reference other threads where exchanges on this very topic have taken place to prove that my points were not solely about this thread alone anyway.
Again, it sounds like you're talking about the thread and not the thing I was actually quoting. Please clarify.
If it's got to come down to picking either "coercion" or "moral uprightness" then my original point leaned more towards the latter. However, pointing out that such a concept "can't be generalised" is a vague response that doesn't account for the specifics. It's an "All Lives Matter" kind of response - sure, it's an inclusive and agreeable sentiment on paper, but in practice it ends up coming across as a deflection away from the real issue. It reminds me of this exchange (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1652332#post1652332) I had with Citizen Rules a while back regarding PC culture - he claimed that "any actor should be able to play any role", I countered him with a fairly detailed response about some of the problems with that, he didn't respond for whatever reason. That also doubles as another example of how it's the "offended" party who gets considered wrong outside this thread - CR posits that PC types being offended by creative decisions is wrong because it "kills creativity", whereas I contend that being inconsiderate is liable to do the same (though, to be fair, the topic only went that way because Dani was actually asking a sincere question about The Danish Girl).
I'd have to search way back in the indexes to find all the examples (especially when they pop up within unrelated threads like the one linked above), but a couple of the most prominent controversial threads in recent memory were started out of the mindset that the "offended" party was the one who was wrong. I'm mainly thinking of FromBeyond's feminism thread and DAnconia's Halloween costume thread when I write that - obviously full of inflammatory rhetoric from both OPs, but other members did not necessarily find their perspectives inherently disagreeable. That's what I was getting at - I can hypothetically acknowledge every possibility, but in practicality I tend to have to acknowledge one more than the others.
This kinda sounds like that vague accusation you made in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1636245#post1636245) and then declined to expound on.
That was out of frustration with the fact that, in that thread and others I mentioned earlier, I was having to juggle not just arguing with the "extreme" individuals but also having to take the time to calmly explain myself to the "moderate" ones like yourself while the extreme ones were effectively left to rattle off whatever they wanted as long as they weren't drawing attention by using personal insults against other members. I guess my problem was that I expected fairness from the people who were ostensibly in the "middle" of the argument, but when it turned out that my side ends up being more outwardly disagreeable to the middle people than my opponent's - well, that just made the process even more exhausting. That's why I originally dropped the "accusation" - because I eventually realised that it wasn't worth pushing for a multitude of reasons.
Regardless, there's not much "arguing" to be done with a meme, and as glib as that stuff can be, it's not a serious concern, for reasons I put in my two previous posts:
However, when you quoted the parts of my post where I explained in detail about why I did consider it a serious concern, you didn't offer any comment past "agreed" or "ditto". The point is that it can't just be shrugged off as "glib" - all humour has to come from somewhere and I pointed out how I saw them as extensions of flawed social constructs regardless of whether the people making/referencing them seemed to be aware of their greater implications.
People being rude is not a fundamental threat to free speech. People being censored or silenced through force, is. Combined with polling that shows young people are shockingly open to restricting free speech, and that's a pretty good reason to focus on one more than the other (though certainly not the only one).
The vagueness of this part is a point of concern, though - what exactly does this polling define "restricting free speech" as? Does it also account for said young people's political affiliations (or lack thereof)? Could this actually overlap with a different claim that this current generation is turning out to be more conservative than previous ones, thus implying that right-wing youth might be more in favour of the restrictions than the left-wing youth who would presumably support PC culture as well? In any case, I would say that the polling's definition would be key to understanding the results and what exactly is being threatened by these hypothetical restrictions.
I was talking about issues that have existed on this forum beyond what's just been mentioned in this thread. I'll reference other threads where exchanges on this very topic have taken place to prove that my points were not solely about this thread alone anyway.
You don't have to prove it; my question wasn't about that. I meant that I seemed to be talking about The Issue, and you seemed to be talking about The Thread (or, as it turns out, The Forum).
If it's got to come down to picking either "coercion" or "moral uprightness" then my original point leaned more towards the latter.
While I'm glad to learn coercion isn't necessarily your default position, it's pretty troubling how all your comments about political violence are so qualified and diluted.
However, pointing out that such a concept "can't be generalised" is a vague response that doesn't account for the specifics.
What specifics? Here's what I was replying to:
"Why is it the offended who has to change but not the offender?"
It's an "All Lives Matter" kind of response - sure, it's an inclusive and agreeable sentiment on paper, but in practice it ends up coming across as a deflection away from the real issue.
It might be if I was presented with a specific concern and only gave you a general response, but that's not what happened. I can't deflect a point that wasn't made.
What I did do is make an educated guess about what you were asking, and explained my thought process when deciding between the two in various situations. Which is, like, the polar opposite of a deflection. If anything, I probably expounded more than was necessary, especially considering you (apparently) meant something else entirely.
It reminds me of this exchange (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1652332#post1652332) I had with Citizen Rules a while back regarding PC culture - he claimed that "any actor should be able to play any role", I countered him with a fairly detailed response about some of the problems with that, he didn't respond for whatever reason. That also doubles as another example of how it's the "offended" party who gets considered wrong outside this thread - CR posits that PC types being offended by creative decisions is wrong because it "kills creativity", whereas I contend that being inconsiderate is liable to do the same (though, to be fair, the topic only went that way because Dani was actually asking a sincere question about The Danish Girl).
What is this supposed to be illustrating? You didn't get dogpiled on. CR said something you disagreed with, and you disagreed with him. This whole paragraph could be "I once had a disagreement with Citizen Rules."
I'd have to search way back in the indexes to find all the examples (especially when they pop up within unrelated threads like the one linked above), but a couple of the most prominent controversial threads in recent memory were started out of the mindset that the "offended" party was the one who was wrong. I'm mainly thinking of FromBeyond's feminism thread and DAnconia's Halloween costume thread when I write that - obviously full of inflammatory rhetoric from both OPs, but other members did not necessarily find their perspectives inherently disagreeable.
You realize that both of those members have been temporarily banned for starting threads like that, right?
That's what I was getting at - I can hypothetically acknowledge every possibility, but in practicality I tend to have to acknowledge one more than the others.
If you're simply saying that most of the people on this forum think little of political correctness, then yes, that's certainly true.
That was out of frustration with the fact that, in that thread and others I mentioned earlier, I was having to juggle not just arguing with the "extreme" individuals but also having to take the time to calmly explain myself to the "moderate" ones like yourself while the extreme ones were effectively left to rattle off whatever they wanted as long as they weren't drawing attention by using personal insults against other members. I guess my problem was that I expected fairness from the people who were ostensibly in the "middle" of the argument, but when it turned out that my side ends up being more outwardly disagreeable to the middle people than my opponent's - well, that just made the process even more exhausting. That's why I originally dropped the "accusation" - because I eventually realised that it wasn't worth pushing for a multitude of reasons.
I think it's pretty simplistic to think everyone can just be dropped onto an ideological spectrum and expect those in the "middle" to criticize everyone on either side of them.
You also seem to be conflating "extreme" rhetoric with extreme positions. Worrying about political correctness is not an extreme position, even though a lot of the people who worry about it try to sound as extreme as possible saying so. Similarly, the idea that we need to restrict this speech is an extreme position, and continues to be one even when the person espousing it is outwardly polite and willing to engage with people about it. Omaronthewitnessstand.gif
However, when you quoted the parts of my post where I explained in detail about why I did consider it a serious concern, you didn't offer any comment past "agreed" or "ditto".
I feel the pedantic need to point out that I actually did, when I complained about the "u mad bro" stuff. But if you're saying that if I agree with you, I should say so to the people in question, well, this was literally the first thing I posted in this exchange:
"I think this thread was better when it was arguments and not memes. I suppose mocking a wrongheaded idea is a bit better than trying to protect yourself from even hearing it, but neither is nearly as good as making a cogent case about why it's bad."
Nobody's posted those since. So...what are you looking for? I should just write a few paragraphs anyway, expounding on why I agree with you about something that's not actually happening any more?
The vagueness of this part is a point of concern, though - what exactly does this polling define "restricting free speech" as? Does it also account for said young people's political affiliations (or lack thereof)? Could this actually overlap with a different claim that this current generation is turning out to be more conservative than previous ones, thus implying that right-wing youth might be more in favour of the restrictions than the left-wing youth who would presumably support PC culture as well? In any case, I would say that the polling's definition would be key to understanding the results and what exactly is being threatened by these hypothetical restrictions.
That's...not how any of this works.
If you're concerned about which speech is under threat, then you've already implicitly accepted the idea that some of it should be, or that you can restrict some without threatening all of it. But if any of it's threatened, all of it is.
It's kind of like I told you a dictator has seized power, and you asked me which things they didn't like so you could figure out if they were a threat to you. The threat is that there's a dictator, full stop, whether his whims align with yours or not. Similarly, somebody doesn't really believe in free speech if they're only concerned about it when they think it's their speech that's going to be restricted.
Offence is largely subjective and will always be so.
The problem is when people try and tell others what they should and shouldn't be offended by and
people letting everyone know how offended they are all of the time.
I've been thinking more on this point and I agree. People have a right to be offended but I draw the line at faux offence by weekend SJWs who are offended by absolutely everything and want to lecture in return. If I order a black coffee I dont expect someone to spit in my face that I;m a racist. That's ludicrous. Or another example, I think I asked you the other day why storms, hurricanes etc are named after women. You made a joke in reply pertaining to women having a stormy demeanor. If I had been butt hurt by that because I have ovaries then I fully expect you or someone else would call me a fragile snowflake.
I've been thinking more on this point and I agree. People have a right to be offended but I draw the line at faux offence by weekend SJWs who are offended by absolutely everything and want to lecture in return. If I order a black coffee I dont expect someone to spit in my face that I;m a racist. That's ludicrous. Or another example, I think I asked you the other day why storms, hurricanes etc are named after women. You made a joke in reply pertaining to women having a stormy demeanor. If I had been butt hurt by that because I have ovaries then I fully expect you or someone else would call me a fragile snowflake.
I can't tell people what they should be offended about. I can't tell them how to receive what i say and do, I can only tell them how it was intended. Then I decide whether I should change my behaviour.
Some political correctness is however plain nonsense.
Some political correctness is however plain nonsense.
I agree, old man. :)
My attitude is there are way more important issues in the world for me to invest my outrage into than someone calling me an old duck, or a Skippy (which I didnt even realise was a slur here until an asian girl told me not to call whities that), or whatever other things get the overly sensitive offended.
OK here are a couple of examples that just sprang to mind. On imdb a guy referred to actresses in a show as 'the ladies'. On another board a really sweet young guy who had never caused any conflict in the three years I saw him there referred to actresses as 'females'. In both instances some women tore each guy a new one. Ridiculous much? Throwing terms at them like ...you know the drill... You Misogynist, You sexist Pig, How dare you, delete your comment or I;m reporting you.
*scratching my head*
I agree, old man. :)
My attitude is there are way more important issues in the world for me to invest my outrage into than someone calling me an old duck, or a Skippy (which I didnt even realise was a slur here until an asian girl told me not to call whities that), or whatever other things get the overly sensitive offended.
Old man :D
OK here's an example just for an exercise and to discuss out of interest. Offensive or no? I will keep my opinion to myself for now so others can discuss without feeling like I am trying to lead the discussion. All PoVs genuinely welcome.�� Wht's your initial reaction?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-girls-council-launch-men-video-feed-qassim-a7629186.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Tht's a thumbs up but sometimes it doesnt work
No takers? Have I scared people off because of my attitude towards muzzies?
OK here is my initial reaction.
I found it offensive. Not outrage offensive; just oh well that's typical of Saudis.
And it wasnt the all male panel with the female members of the panel in purdah. I thought that was atleast a start for such a male dominated culture. I bristled at the use of the word 'girl' for a women's council. Shows their mindset towards women having the rights of children (ie none) and no voice.
Anyone care to agree or disagree? It;s ok if you think I;m a fragile snowflake, or give me a thump on the back if you agree.
Little Devil
03-14-17, 10:00 PM
No takers? Have I scared people off because of my attitude towards muzzies?
OK here is my initial reaction.
I found it offensive. Not outrage offensive; just oh well that's typical of Saudis.
And it wasnt the all male panel with the female members of the panel in purdah. I thought that was atleast a start for such a male dominated culture. I bristled at the use of the word 'girl' for a women's council. Shows their mindset towards women having the rights of children (ie none) and no voice.
Anyone care to agree or disagree? It;s ok if you think I;m a fragile snowflake, or give me a thump on the back if you agree.
I'm deeply offended Dani. I'm a Muslim.:(
My question has nothing to do with Muslims, Dev. It's a question about a new Saudi council.
Little Devil
03-14-17, 10:04 PM
My question has nothing to do with Muslims, Dev. It's a question about a new Saudi council.
I'm a Saudi Muslim :(
Little Devil
03-14-17, 10:08 PM
Dani8
https://media.tenor.co/images/3df79e054a6312b04fbdd12d78b1cf60/raw
I'm a Saudi Muslim :(
Luv ya dearly, my friend, but this is a serious topic and it's been brought to my attention very gently, and rightly so, that the imdb culture fostered hijacks (and I freely admit to doing this myself) and the mischief we refos got used to over there is upsetting the board a bit. Cn we stay on topic? Thanks, mate. :)
I meant that I seemed to be talking about The Issue, and you seemed to be talking about The Thread (or, as it turns out, The Forum).
I was talking about issues that have existed on this forum beyond what's just been mentioned in this thread.
I'm talking about the lack of balance more than anything.
Depends on what "has to" means. Nobody should have to, so if one side is talking seriously about whether or not force should be involved, then that's the side that's overstepping.
This discussion is difficult to follow. I think Iroquois that your attempts to answer a straightforward question are convoluted. If you know what you’re talking about, why do you say that you’re “talking about issues that have existed on this forum,” instead of actually stating in a clear and concise manner what those issues are? Could it be that you don’t actually know how to do that?
If it's got to come down to picking either "coercion" or "moral uprightness" then my original point leaned more towards the latter. However, pointing out that such a concept "can't be generalised" is a vague response that doesn't account for the specifics.
I find this a little ironic. My rights are being taken away in the name of someone else’s skewed notion of what is morally upright. People like Kathleen Wynne have made it illegal to say that there are only two genders. Through her position in the government she has used the force of law to coerce others into adhering to her notion of moral uprightness. Saying that you lean towards moral uprightness over coercion really doesn’t say anything at all.
Why is it the offended who has to change but not the offender?
The video was not implying that the offended necessarily has to change. It was poking fun at people who lack self-awareness and get defensive because of other unresolved issues.
Iroquois
03-15-17, 08:49 AM
On an unrelated note, I'm putting my reviews on hiatus indefinitely.
You don't have to prove it; my question wasn't about that. I meant that I seemed to be talking about The Issue, and you seemed to be talking about The Thread (or, as it turns out, The Forum).
Like there's that much of a difference.
While I'm glad to learn coercion isn't necessarily your default position, it's pretty troubling how all your comments about political violence are so qualified and diluted.
"Qualified and diluted"? When I had someone say "MLK wouldn't approve of riots full stop", I linked a video of MLK himself to argue that "no he wouldn't, but he would understand that rioters have their reasons too", I get hit back with people saying "oh so you think riots are GOOD?" and I'm forced to backpedal from a position I never actually held. That's without getting into what does or doesn't count as political violence - people being more likely to die because of government cuts to health care programs doesn't count, whereas citizens protesting a known white nationalist who has used public platforms to infringe upon the rights of vulnerable individuals does. I'm just saying that it's a complicated issue that goes beyond thinking that things are fair as long as people aren't directly inflicting physical violence upon one another.
What specifics? Here's what I was replying to:
"Why is it the offended who has to change but not the offender?"
It seems like you ended up realising the specific nature of this question later on in this post.
It might be if I was presented with a specific concern and only gave you a general response, but that's not what happened. I can't deflect a point that wasn't made.
What I did do is make an educated guess about what you were asking, and explained my thought process when deciding between the two in various situations. Which is, like, the polar opposite of a deflection. If anything, I probably expounded more than was necessary, especially considering you (apparently) meant something else entirely.
If I'm all "why does this thing happen" and you're all "all these other things can happen too", what use is that? Trying to interpret it as a choice between "coercion" and "uprightness" hasn't helped much either, especially when I've had to reshape my point to fit that binary because "a lack of balance more than anything" wasn't clear enough. At what point do I stop clarifying myself and end up contorting my point into something that you can recognise?
What is this supposed to be illustrating? You didn't get dogpiled on. CR said something you disagreed with, and you disagreed with him. This whole paragraph could be "I once had a disagreement with Citizen Rules."
If you do need an example of me getting dogpiled on, refer back to that post you linked where I had to fend off at least three other users. Anyway, another reason I cited it was to show you what happens when someone mounts a "cogent case about why it's bad" - it gets ignored. He rattles off a couple of sentences, I put out a sizeable paragraph in response (with content that I actually thought would be relevant to this topic's greater concerns, namely how it intersects with the creation of good art/entertainment). That's it. You seem to be the only one who actually takes what I say seriously, and even then...why?
You realize that both of those members have been temporarily banned for starting threads like that, right?
Of course I do. The thing is that they weren't banned for those particular threads (as far as I can tell, they got banned for threads that came across as more deliberate acts of trolling) and that those threads proliferated anyway less because of their OPs than because of the people who were a little closer to the centre of the spectrum and were more likely to think "I don't see the big deal" than "this is the worst thing ever and people who agree with it are wrong". I don't expect that the extreme ones can necessarily be talked down, so I leaned more towards addressing the others
If you're simply saying that most of the people on this forum think little of political correctness, then yes, that's certainly true.
...yeah? That was my whole point. You wanted to know if I was making a specific point, then there it is.
I think it's pretty simplistic to think everyone can just be dropped onto an ideological spectrum and expect those in the "middle" to criticize everyone on either side of them.
You also seem to be conflating "extreme" rhetoric with extreme positions. Worrying about political correctness is not an extreme position, even though a lot of the people who worry about it try to sound as extreme as possible saying so. Similarly, the idea that we need to restrict this speech is an extreme position, and continues to be one even when the person espousing it is outwardly polite and willing to engage with people about it. Omaronthewitnessstand.gif
No kidding, why else do you think I dropped it?
I feel the pedantic need to point out that I actually did, when I complained about the "u mad bro" stuff. But if you're saying that if I agree with you, I should say so to the people in question, well, this was literally the first thing I posted in this exchange:
"I think this thread was better when it was arguments and not memes. I suppose mocking a wrongheaded idea is a bit better than trying to protect yourself from even hearing it, but neither is nearly as good as making a cogent case about why it's bad."
Nobody's posted those since. So...what are you looking for? I should just write a few paragraphs anyway, expounding on why I agree with you about something that's not actually happening any more?
Yeah, we'll see if that sticks. It was a brief paragraph wedged into a larger post that was mainly directed at me, so who knows how much people will pay attention and for how long? Hell, I barely paid any attention to it until you started bringing it up in your other replies.
That's...not how any of this works.
If you're concerned about which speech is under threat, then you've already implicitly accepted the idea that some of it should be, or that you can restrict some without threatening all of it. But if any of it's threatened, all of it is.
It's kind of like I told you a dictator has seized power, and you asked me which things they didn't like so you could figure out if they were a threat to you. The threat is that there's a dictator, full stop, whether his whims align with yours or not. Similarly, somebody doesn't really believe in free speech if they're only concerned about it when they think it's their speech that's going to be restricted.
For all I know, these polls classify white people not being allowed to say the N-word as an infringement upon the right to free speech for all. The details matter, so throwing vague and unsubstantiated claims at one another isn't going to help matters. That's why a lack of concern can be its own problem - being free to not care about what free speech does or doesn't get threatened is a privilege afforded to those who have the least cause to worry about such threats. That's why your dictator hypothetical doesn't necessarily work - I'd obviously want to know whether or not the dictator posed a threat to me personally, but that doesn't automatically mean that I'd be complacent with the ensuing regime even if it afforded people like me privileges. Hell, I'm already a straight white male of European extract - I've already got a lot of traits that would be considered "privileged" in most parts of the world, but it's not like that means that I have to shut up and be grateful that I'm not automatically considered a "target" either.
Anyway, I bolded that part because I thought it was interesting and worth everyone's attention.
Iroquois
03-15-17, 09:25 AM
This discussion is difficult to follow. I think Iroquois that your attempts to answer a straightforward question are convoluted. If you know what you’re talking about, why do you say that you’re “talking about issues that have existed on this forum,” instead of actually stating in a clear and concise manner what those issues are? Could it be that you don’t actually know how to do that?
What, you mean this question?
It's possible to be genuinely offensive, and it's also possible to be unnecessarily offended. I acknowledge both possibilities, which is to say, I don't think anyone offended is automatically wrong to be that way and just needs to "get over it," and I don't think taking offense is sufficient, by itself, to demand someone change. Do you?
It's a simple yes or no question - the problem is that this is too complicated to deserve a simple yes or no answer.
As for "what those issues are", it's people complaining about political correctness. I thought that was obvious from the fact that I'm the only one here who's not complaining about political correctness.
I find this a little ironic. My rights are being taken away in the name of someone else’s skewed notion of what is morally upright. People like Kathleen Wynne have made it illegal to say that there are only two genders. Through her position in the government she has used the force of law to coerce others into adhering to her notion of moral uprightness. Saying that you lean towards moral uprightness over coercion really doesn’t say anything at all.
Take it up with Yoda. The coercion-versus-uprightness thing was how he tried to interpret it and I was going along with it for the sake of trying to help him understand me. Also, there are more than two genders.
The video was not implying that the offended necessarily has to change. It was poking fun at people who lack self-awareness and get defensive because of other unresolved issues.
This is what I wrote:
The extreme caricatures in the videos encourage viewers to mentally connect the concept of "being offended" with the most extreme possible version by using the most obnoxiously and unjustifiably self-righteous individuals possible
You can explain what the joke is, but can you explain what it means? The video posits that this kind of attitude is a problem and the solution that it presents to the audience is to refuse to take said attitude seriously. Set-up and punchline. It's exaggerated for satirical effect, but the thing about doing that is that it's done with the implication that it's the normal version that should be equally mocked and disregarded.
On an unrelated note, I'm putting my reviews on hiatus indefinitely.
Gotta say, it kinda sounds related, particularly given that you mentioned it here.
"Qualified and diluted"?
Well, yeah. That's what's happening when you say you'd "lean" against it, or that it just wouldn't be your "preference" or "ideal choice." (I can go find the exact phrasing, but I think that's pretty close.) You seem to think it's telling when I argue with someone, but not enough, and watering down condemnations is the same thing, but further.
That's without getting into what does or doesn't count as political violence - people being more likely to die because of government cuts to health care programs doesn't count
Yeah, that isn't some arbitrary exclusion. I explained why it's untenable in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1632267#post1632267), which you didn't respond to. You did keep arguing with the people you find so intractable and unreasonable, though.
whereas citizens protesting a known white nationalist who has used public platforms to infringe upon the rights of vulnerable individuals does.
I think it's a little sneaky to tuck the stuff people are actually objecting to inside the word "protesting."
I'm just saying that it's a complicated issue that goes beyond thinking that things are fair as long as people aren't directly inflicting physical violence upon one another.
I agree, but I think this is mostly a straw man.
The problem isn't that you refuse to preemptively and unilaterally condemn any and all political violence, now and forever. The problem is that this isn't a very good response to specific acts of violence. I know you understand this, because you were just making the same complaint about me, re: generalized answers to specific questions. When actually confronted with people being concussed, or things on fire, or storefronts with no affiliation to the event being destroyed (even one that supports the protesters' cause!), yeah, people expect to hear a baseline agreement that that is bad, without having it qualified to the hilt as if it were a proxy for any form of political violence, ever.
When the difference between views is as large as it is in some of these discussions, time has to be spent establishing shared premises in order to get anywhere, even if it's a little tedious.
If I'm all "why does this thing happen" and you're all "all these other things can happen too", what use is that? Trying to interpret it as a choice between "coercion" and "uprightness" hasn't helped much either, especially when I've had to reshape my point to fit that binary because "a lack of balance more than anything" wasn't clear enough. At what point do I stop clarifying myself and end up contorting my point into something that you can recognise?
Oof. I'm going to assume this came out more condescending than you intended, so I'm not going to take it personally.
I'm skeptical of the idea that whatever you were trying to say was unrecognizable to me and had to be morphed into something else so I could understand it. It seems like you asked a general question about the forum, I thought you were talking about the issue in general, and that's about it. If there's more to it than that, I'm all ears.
If you do need an example of me getting dogpiled on, refer back to that post you linked where I had to fend off at least three other users. Anyway, another reason I cited it was to show you what happens when someone mounts a "cogent case about why it's bad" - it gets ignored.
"Why don't you respond to these people I respond to and get nowhere with?"
He rattles off a couple of sentences, I put out a sizeable paragraph in response (with content that I actually thought would be relevant to this topic's greater concerns, namely how it intersects with the creation of good art/entertainment). That's it. You seem to be the only one who actually takes what I say seriously, and even then...why?
You're upset that I spend more time responding to you than them...but you're also upset that nobody other than me takes what you say seriously?
...yeah? That was my whole point. You wanted to know if I was making a specific point, then there it is.
That can't have possibly been your whole point, unless your complaint is just "hey, not enough people agree with me. Do something about that." That'd be a silly complaint, so I'm naturally assuming this point has to intersect with some other one in a way that you think requires action on my part (in order to be fair).
No kidding, why else do you think I dropped it?
There's a difference between dropping something because you don't think it, and because you don't want to bother. And since we're talking about the same thing from a different angle, it doesn't sound like it's because you don't think it.
Yeah, we'll see if that sticks. It was a brief paragraph wedged into a larger post that was mainly directed at me, so who knows how much people will pay attention and for how long? Hell, I barely paid any attention to it until you started bringing it up in your other replies.
Again, hate to be pedantic (I totally don't, but decorum requires I pretend I do), but I'm not sure it can be said to have been "wedged" when I put it right at the top.
Anyway, the point's the same: so far, so good, and until it happens again, I'm not sure what you think I ought to be doing. Berating people individually for stuff that isn't even happening right now?
For all I know, these polls classify white people not being allowed to say the N-word as an infringement upon the right to free speech for all.
They don't.
My memory is that they're disproportionately liberal, and while I'd usually source this stuff upfront, that seems like a waste of time unless/until we can even established a shared premise about the concept of free speech.
The details matter, so throwing vague and unsubstantiated claims at one another isn't going to help matters.
The details matter to some questions, and not to others. For example, the details matter if you don't really believe in free speech and just worry that your speech might be restricted. They don't matter if you do believe in free speech, because the conclusion itself is the threat, regardless of which group is more amenable to it or which speech they might target first. It's the precedent that's the problem.
That's why a lack of concern can be its own problem - being free to not care about what free speech does or doesn't get threatened is a privilege afforded to those who have the least cause to worry about such threats.
It's literally the opposite of a "lack of concern": it's being concerned regardless of which speech is threatened.
This sure would seem to apply to anyone who wants to know what's being threatened before deciding how much they care, though. Get thee to a veil of ignorance.
That's why your dictator hypothetical doesn't necessarily work - I'd obviously want to know whether or not the dictator posed a threat to me personally, but that doesn't automatically mean that I'd be complacent with the ensuing regime even if it afforded people like me privileges.
Yeah, that's the point of the hypothetical: you wouldn't be complacent then, but you kinda are being that way now, by suggesting which speech is going to be restricted is important, rather than the mere fact that any speech might be.
Anyway, I bolded that part because I thought it was interesting and worth everyone's attention.
Yeah, the best arguments have a way of applying to everyone, I find.
Little Devil
03-15-17, 11:34 AM
Serious questions from an outsider, if someone would be troubled to shed some light into the subject, I'd appreciate it:
Why is it that it's ok for a black American to call another black American "******", but it's not ok if a white American calls a black American ******? And why is it ok for a Black American to call a White American a "cracker"?
I know it has to do with slavery and all that, but. at what point does it make it less offensive [or better yet, less slavery related] when the same no no word is spoken by a Black person to another Black person; or even the term "cracker" is applied to a White person by a Black person?
Is this not double.standard?
PS - I see the word is even censored. But I guess you know what the word is
I don't think it's a double standard: history and context matter, and in this particular case, they have an outsized influence (which is why it's so discussed). You summarize this as "slavery and all that," but I don't think that should just be an aside.
I've got maybe half a dozen explanations I'd like to give as to why it's different, but I'll just choose one upfront: hurtful words hurt primarily because of the intent behind them, which is why words can start off innocuous and become slurs without changing their letters. People just have to use them with hateful intent often enough. And obviously, a racial slur coming from a member of the same race is extremely unlikely to have that intent behind it. Coming from another race, it may or may not be.
That said, maybe this distinction isn't a good idea in practice, if only because it looks like a double standard at first glance. I'm not sure. But I can think of worse things than taking a term used for hate and trying to turn it into an expression of solidarity.
Little Devil
03-15-17, 12:00 PM
I don't think it's a double standard: history and context matter, and in this particular case, they have an outsized influence (which is why it's so discussed). You summarize this as "slavery and all that," but I don't think that should just be an aside.
I've got maybe half a dozen explanations I'd like to give as to why it's different, but I'll just choose one upfront: hurtful words hurt primarily because of the intent behind them, which is why words can start off innocuous and become slurs without changing their letters. People just have to use them with hateful intent often enough. And obviously, a racial slur coming from a member of the same race is extremely unlikely to have that intent behind it. Coming from another race, it may or may not be.
That said, maybe this distinction isn't a good idea in practice, if only because it looks like a double standard at first glance. I'm not sure. But I can think of worse things than taking a term used for hate and trying to turn it into an expression of solidarity.
Good points,. So what is the distiction between the N word and "cracker" if both are [in analyses] slurs with racial content?
I can't tell you how it feels to be called the n-word, because I'm white, and if someone called me that I'd just be confused. But I'd always assumed the relative strength of each word had to do with its ability to piggyback on history.
The n-word was specifically used to imply someone was less than the speaker. It was meant to be harsher than other words by the people who use it, in the same way you might use f**k instead of sh*t when you want your words to have more impact. Which means black people didn't get together and decide the word was harsh: it was used by white people to imply harsh things, and the attitudes about the word now are simply reflecting that.
Personally, for me, "cracker" is an insult...but that's pretty much all it is. There's obviously a racial component, but it doesn't upset me much more than being called an idiot, because it doesn't connect or refer back to any preexisting shame or pain about my race. Maybe that's changing, but for the moment, it doesn't.
The only time it bothers me more than that is when someone suggests my opinion is somehow invalid simply because I'm white. And that, I think, gives me a small clue as to why the n-word is so hurtful: because it represents an out-of-hand dismissal, by the mere fact of your existence. It's not saying you're lacking some specific attribute or did something wrong you could have done better...it's saying you're just inherently inferior, and there's nothing you can do about it.
In other words, insults are an attack on someone's character; slurs are an attack on their soul.
ash_is_the_gal
03-15-17, 12:32 PM
"cracker" was never used from a position of power.
John McClane
03-15-17, 12:53 PM
I can't tell you how it feels to be called the n-word, because I'm white, and if someone called me that I'd just be confused. But I'd always assumed the relative strength of each word had to do with its ability to piggyback on history.
The n-word was specifically used to imply someone was less than the speaker. It was meant to be harsher than other words by the people who use it, in the same way you might use f**k instead of sh*t when you want your words to have more impact. Which means black people didn't get together and decide the word was harsh: it was used by white people to imply harsh things, and the attitudes about the word now are simply reflecting that.
Personally, for me, "cracker" is an insult...but that's pretty much all it is. There's obviously a racial component, but it doesn't upset me much more than being called an idiot, because it doesn't connect or refer back to any preexisting shame or pain about my race. Maybe that's changing, but for the moment, it doesn't.
The only time it bothers me more than that is when someone suggests my opinion is somehow invalid simply because I'm white. And that, I think, gives me a small clue as to why the n-word is so hurtful: because it represents an out-of-hand dismissal, by the mere fact of your existence. It's not saying you're lacking some specific attribute or did something wrong you could have done better...it's saying you're just inherently inferior, and there's nothing you can do about it.
In other words, insults are an attack on someone's character; slurs are an attack on their soul.
And I think this is precisely why the African-American community has co-opted the word. I imagine the idea is two fold: one, trying to ease the harshness of the word so that when they do hear it from someone in another community it doesn't sting as much; two, it's like a head nod between friends (i.e. yeah man, they think you're a n*****, but they think I am too so its all good, cuz). Of course, I could just be pulling all of this from my a**.
It's subversion. By people taking back the slur words and owning them (look at the LGBT movement and how they 'own' the word Queer) it disempowers the people who use it as a perjorative. If a black person calls his/her friend the n word, they know the boundaries in which it is ok. If a white person walks up to them out of nowhere and asks for directions and throws the word in, that would be like a stranger walking up to me and saying 'can you hold the door open, c bomb'. Highly offensive.
Cracker, as I understand it, was a word the enslaved used for their Master - the man in power. Totally different kind of slur because the power balance is reversed. I've never used cracker because it's not in our lexicon here. A cracker is a wafer you have with cheese.
Personally, for me, "cracker" is an insult...
Interesting. I always saw the word as a bit of a joke, completely harmless. You're so white, Yoda. :rolleyes: :D
ash_is_the_gal
03-15-17, 01:19 PM
yeah, it's kinda like the way I call myself a fattie. I love that word now. kind of off topic, but the other day my cousin added me to a group called Chubby Girls on Facebook. I noticed a lot of women posting selfies so I was like hell yea because I'm a millennial so I have a lot of selfies, and posted my own, with the caption "hi I'm fat and I love the color purple!" (i was wearing a purple shirt and shorts in the pic). anyway, the pic ended up getting soo many comments with variations of "hun, you aren't fat at all, you're beautiful"
which obviously annoyed me because I AM BOTH, THANK YOU
anyway, this isn't exactly the same thing as black people using the N-word, because it's definitely not appropriate for anyone other than black people to call other black people it, whereas, with me, I don't mind if someone refers to me as fat, as long as they aren't doing it disrespectfully. it's no different than calling someone tall, or brunette.
Miss Vicky
03-15-17, 01:29 PM
It should also be noted that white people sometimes call other whites "cracker," though its use in that context in not nearly as common as the "N" word being used by blacks.
It should also be noted that white people sometimes call other whites "cracker," though its use in that context in not nearly as common as the "N" word being used by blacks.
Wouldnt that just be like two friends calling each other 'boss'? Where I am if someone calls you 'a cracker' it means you just said or did something really funny.
Miss Vicky
03-15-17, 03:01 PM
Wouldnt that just be like two friends calling each other 'boss'? Where I am if someone calls you 'a cracker' it means you just said or did something really funny.
When I've heard it used by whites to other whites, it's basically a replacement for "redneck" though in a joking/playful kind of way.
When I've heard it used by whites to other whites, it's basically a replacement for "redneck" though in a joking/playful kind of way.
Ah right. The word here for redneck is 'bogan'. I'm not sure if it's used in a joking way because it's pretty condescending.
Little Devil
03-15-17, 04:59 PM
Thanks to all the peeps for clearing it up for me.
OK here's an example just for an exercise and to discuss out of interest. Offensive or no? I will keep my opinion to myself for now so others can discuss without feeling like I am trying to lead the discussion. All PoVs genuinely welcome.�� Wht's your initial reaction?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-girls-council-launch-men-video-feed-qassim-a7629186.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Tht's a thumbs up but sometimes it doesnt work
OK bumping my own question because I'm genuinely interested in what mofos thought of that.
For all I know, these polls classify white people not being allowed to say the N-word as an infringement upon the right to free speech for all.
If the government made it illegal for white people to say the N-word then yes it would be an infringement on free speech for all. It is something we shouldn't say, generally speaking, but it is not something that we shouldn't have the right to say.
As for "what those issues are", it's people complaining about political correctness. I thought that was obvious from the fact that I'm the only one here who's not complaining about political correctness.
Oh boy... So, you think the issue is people complaining about political correctness, and you're the only one not complaining about it. Alright, at least now I can see where you're coming from. First of all, I will say that you are actually getting at a larger issue which this is merely a byproduct of, and secondly you are not the only one not complaining about political correctness. Unless you are using "complaining" in lay terms and you actually mean "criticising." Yoda and I are not complaining about political correctness, we are criticising it. The problem with political correctness is that it thinks offending people is the issue, but the issue is truth. Truth is more important than people's feelings, which is not to say that people's feelings are not extremely important. If someone is lying to you it really doesn't make it okay if they're polite about it. If someone is telling you the truth, even if there methods are crass, at least they are being honest and real issues can be addressed, and working towards solutions can happen. This is not just a principle of government, it is a life principle.
Take it up with Yoda. The coercion-versus-uprightness thing was how he tried to interpret it and I was going along with it for the sake of trying to help him understand me. Also, there are more than two genders.
I got that it was a hypothetical "if" clause, but I don't understand why you would respond in that manner. I'd have to go back and review those posts, which I don't really have time to at the moment. Perhaps I'll try to later tonight if I find time. I just thought it was strange to think of coercion and moral uprightness as two opposing sides that you would lean to one or the other. It's kind of hard to keep track of this whole discussion though. It's so all over the place.
There is so much more to talk about, but that's all I have time for right now. I'll try to come back on tonight.
Interesting article. I dont particularly agree with the motion for a number of reasons but I do agree with the author's point on words
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/11/yes-canadas-anti-islamophobia-motion-poses-a-problem
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.