|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Accidental digression on left-right (Read 8207 times)
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 129
|
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:
1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:
1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.
I really have problems understanding the way you are writing, but lets give it a try:
It is not acceptable that "Police brutality or systemic racism exist."
Well, some police brutality is probably unavoidable, but of course it is better with less police brutality. Similarly, it is probably unavoidable that some individuals have racists beliefs, but of course it is better with less such beliefs in a society, and racists laws are definitely unacceptable. But we shouldn't necessarily have any censorship of belief, since that infringes on our freedom to believe whatever we want. It also tends to have negative repercussions.
It is not acceptable that "Communism was never really implemented"
We are arguing for a welfare state funded by progressive taxes. In communism everybody is working for the state, and the state decides how much you should get in salary, so there is no need for taxes. If communism is taken to its conclusion there isn't necessarily going to be any money at all.
It is not acceptable that "The motivations behind modern Feminism."
This sentence doesn't seem to be congruent. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 12:24:52 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Then you have to agree that the following things are not acceptable as well:
1) Police brutality or systemic racism exist.
2) Communism was never really implemented
3) The motivations behind modern Feminism.
PART 1: the core point
My thesis up front was that when you tried to paint the Right as being welcoming of diversity of opinion and the Left is not, substituting the much less valuable diversity of demographics, that was wrong - that the Left does embrace diversity of opinion to a reasonable extent, not less than the Right. So, do YOU think those are unacceptable positions?
I think a lot of the disagreement comes from a sudden shift in usage. When I suggested that the Left can embrace diversity of opinion, you countered by suggesting that anything outside that is unacceptable. Well, well. That's a bit of a discontinuity, isn't it? If you're not embracing, you must be shunning, banning, and censoring. I agree that declining to signal-boost someone by not inviting them to speak on campus qualifies as 'not embracing', but it's a stretch to call it banning.
For some reason, no one complains that conservative colleges don't invite transsexual activists over to give special lectures. It occurs to me that if one is so closed off that one's exclusionary behavior isn't even notable, that's not a sign of hyper-inclusivity.
PART 2: addressing the examples
2… it's only technically true for a ridiculously narrow definition of communism that happens to be so non-implementable that it's not a useful term. So, I'd agree that someone who seriously suggests that communism has never been attempted and therefore we ought to go off and try it, is around is about as qualified as one who suggests that trickle-down economics works. Slightly less qualified, even.
3… Feminism is disanalogous to the Confederacy, the clear parallel you drew as the basis for including it here. Feminism is broad category of sub-movements with no need to pledge allegiance or commit treason to join up, and has very little ability to police itself. So there are a small number of extremists who write a lot, and a broad mass of more reasonable people, and the extremists are not particularly in charge beyond writing more, and the more reasonable people are not required to cross the proverbial Rubicon to be what they are. It's not even clear what 'the motivations behind modern Feminism' might even mean as a referent, even aside from the question of what the answer might be.
This muddiness prevents it from falling into the kind of clearly-not-OK category I was saying might not be the kind of diversity of opinion not worth embracing.
This is all in stark contrast to the Confederacy.
1… what? I can't even figure out what you think this is parallel to, to make it something I ought to agree with thinking is outside the penumbra of embraceable diversity of opinion. Where is the clear evidence against all of this that can overcome the evidence for it, so surely that thinking it's real is just beyond the acceptable range? Maybe for a sufficiently narrow definition of systemic racism it might be false.
Also, older post -
By the way, there is always the claim that "Religion is dangerous, it brings violence, it's bad..."
Well the last shooter in the US was a left wing atheist.
So include Atheism into the dangerous ideologies.
Line 1 - the Left as a whole is not anti-religion, at least not in the USA. Elsewhere, perhaps. Communism sure was! People have complained about how far Left the Pope is, fer crying out loud. The New Atheist set say this, but they have been roundly shunned as insufficiently tolerant of more diverse opinions. Hmm.
Line 2 - Citation needed (not contesting, just want to see the evidence)
Line 3 - Does not follow from stated claims. If one Jain went on a rampage, that wouldn't make Jainism a dangerous ideology, not by a long-shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
Ok, i am not arguing for or against any of those points.
I just tried to show you that someone else could rationalize why the things you think are important are not acceptable opinions as well.
Confederacy is about tradition? That's like saying celebrating Easter is celebrating murder because hundreds of years ago something bad happened. Whatever.
Even the Croissant you eat was invented to mark the defeat of Turkey(or some other Muslim people) invasion to Germany or something like that. As it comes from the crescent and suppose to mock it.
So is eating Croissant is Islamophobia now?
What I am trying to say that if you disqualify other people's ideas from being valid, you might found they disqualify your ideas as well as being too "not normal".
The fact that you think you can analytically decide what such ides are valid and not shows you are just too rationalize. If so, please provide the algorithm you put the idea in to decide if it's valid or not.
There is a lof of bad things going on with Feminists lately, it's not just the extremist, it's the entire Democratic party and Hollywood. One could argue against it just as much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
Women are just as evil/violent/sexual predator as men.
They just have less tools to cause damage, but not any less intent.
Women will sexually abuse other women or men either directly or by proxy with their useful idiot man.
Don't tell me "women are gentle creatures" it's BS. They have the same capacity of evil and violence as men.
I don't say Feminism wasn't good ever, I see the modern incarnation of Feminism which also don't accept older generation Feminism is as bad as it gets.
Also a lot more men are being murdered and sent to prison than women.
You are way more likely to get murdered if you are a man than a woman.
Edit: I think there was a research that shows there is a lot more sexual abuse in female prisons(between inmates) than in male prison.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 06:48:55 pm by Sargon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
Nah, I have a very loving family.
I would probably end up as a serial killer though if I didn't have the perfect family.
Still, I don't buy this BS that women are more gentle than men, or more kind, or less violent.
You give a woman a Jeep and she as capable as a man to mow you down in a road cross just like a man.
In the past I thought women drive less aggressive than men, but I have changed my mind about that. They are just as capable as men to drive like reckless maniacs.
Basically I don't like most people, I think most people are selfish and vile. And that includes women, they are not different than men in that respect.
It is funny, because if you think women are not capable of the same things men are(even if we talk about violent and evil things) you basically women are substantially different than men pshycologically. Which might have a lot of other implications like at work and etc. But I think it's not true, women are capable of being vicious and aggressive just like men.
Either that or you will have to find proof the woman's brain is substantially different than a man's brain.
Edit: The only big difference that might make their behavior difference is the physical difference...
Because a tiny woman who is short and not very strong, doesn't have the same safety as a strong man in the street.
In a street where citizens aren't allowed to carry guns, the big strong guys always have the option to be more aggressive and threatening than weaker guys or women. I am not saying that all strong guys are like that, but some are.
So people with different bodies have to choose different strategies to deal with light social confrontation, like imagine "fighting" in the road or on parking space. Suddenly your physics might matter.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 08:12:58 pm by Sargon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
"Experts note that neural sexual dimorphisms in humans exist only as averages, with overlapping variabilities,[3] and that it is unknown to what extent each is influenced by genetics or environment, even in adulthood"
It's a very small difference with a lot of overlapping, and they don't even know if it's environmental or genetic.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
In the three examples I gave, I tried to keep it close to facts. Homosexuals are not more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. The confederacy was founded and fought to preserve and expand chattel slavery, in the words of the founders. And the economic mobility of the lower and middle classes does not ride when the rich have their taxes cut.
I also don't think women are better than men, and it is not a required or even very common element of feminism to believe so (perhaps among the noisiest, most obnoxious elements). So we outright agree on that, making the question of whether it's an acceptably similar opinion rather moot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
"tried to keep", this is not an argument.
How do you know Homosexuals are not more likely to be pedophiles? Even if they are 1% more likely, they are still more likely.
I am not saying it's true, I am just saying you don't know yet you speak like you do. You see the danger here?
I don't know a lot about the confederacy. Again, it might just be a cultural thing, like people who are religious don't stone people to death just because the bible says so?
Antifa also had it's dark roots, Feminism might also have dark sides like you said, communism also has it's dark history.
Trickle down CAN work. The point of trickle down is... you shouldn't care how much rich people make, you should care about how much YOU make.
Do you rather have a really big gap between the rich and poor and do fine? or that everyone will be equally poor?
The status of the rich people shouldn't supposingly matter for you as long as you do well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
Yes there more than two options. But there are also more than the two options you provided. Again, what does it matter to you that rich people get richer?
If you have a system that make rich people richer but also poor people better off, is that bad?
The argument about the gap is just irrelevant to argue ahainst trickle down. You have to prove that making rich people richer is always bad in all scenarios. Also rich are just numbers. Does it matter if someone have 1 million or 1 billion? They are both rich.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
