Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Can we all at least agree that age 0 cisgendered potatos are the major oppressors of humanity in the 21st century? Because this is an agenda no one is pushing and I'm starting to get worried we won't know it's happening till we're all covered in roots and eyes. Boiling in a soup of hate. And carrots.

More seriously though I think Glowcat's got it right here.

I am going to admit I took the first paragraph here seriously till I read around. I thought potatos was a metaphor though.

So this seems like a constructive conversation veering off to somewhere else.. I'd like to point out that people tend to think that they're right; only a very small minority of people can know that they're wrong and still believe in it, and they're engaging in some pretty impressive mental gymnastics (take my word for it.).

This seemed to be about conservatives at the beginning though, and it isn't now, which is interesting.

[IronyOwl]

Point I'd be making is it's harder to reach that point of being wrong when the group in question is actively in the process of doing, y'know, what they're accused of. It'd be pretty easy to go against transgender folks if they their leadership were trying to legislate for random violent sodomy to be legal. Not necessarily the most intellectually pure of things, but folks were asking for reasons, not perfect ones

But that's all the time. Nobody (well, not-as-manybody) hates conservatives or homosexuals because they might try to outlaw being female or legalize sodomizing Connecticut, they hate them because they're screwing over the poor or destroying the very concept of marriage right this minute.

Otherwise there'd be nothing to discuss, much less get mad over.

You seem to be under a misconception as to what a minority is, since you apply it to geographic area as a mere population comparison. Minorities, as in actual minorities, are groups which can be extremely small in population but what primarily defines them is how they are discriminated against by those in power.

This is not a formal definition by any authority I'm familiar with. Calling them "actual minorities" is either poorly worded or fairly arrogant.

The closest match I could find was the social science designation, which refers to a group defined by the "social majority," meaning whoever or whatever holds power. This does not, in itself, require any form of discrimination.

That aside, I don't see what this has to do with my point. If Bay12 is a society that discriminates against conservatives, aren't conservatives a minority on Bay12? Can Bay12 not count as a society for some reason?

And "speaking ill" about somebody for their personal characteristics is far different than doing so for their profession (ice cream vendors?) or speaking ill of them in relation to the ideology they accept. Sure, it would be wrong to make a blanket statement that conservatives are across the board tax frauds, but calling conservatives evil based on the policies that can fairly be held as the norm within conservative circles isn't a personal attack.

Well, why not? Why is calling police officers pigs because they're commonly corrupt different from calling blacks thugs because they're commonly criminals? The usual answer is choice, but that's a slippery concept. Where do you draw the line between poor mindsets and mental illnesses? What's the difference between someone who identifies as gay, is physically able to live as a homosexual, yet chooses not to, and someone whose true calling was in hot dog stand vending, could have been a lawyer, but went ahead with the vilest of professions instead? Why is being born with one arm different from losing one in an accident, as far as calling them mean names and doing mean things to them is concerned?

If you believe there is a rational reason to be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic.. please go away and tell us what it is because I sure as heck can't see one.

Sexist: Women are less rational than men (sweet, recursion). Their influence on things is therefore comparable to people actively trying to make things worse.
Racist: Whites are unnatural snow mutants, far removed from where God intended Man to be, in location, spirit, and form. Their effects upon the Earth and the true races of Man are plain to see- global warming of the skies, extinction of God's flowers and beasts, tomb robbing of the histories of all, war in the Middle East, conquest in Africa.
Homophobic: Homosexual men are known to be carriers of sexually transmitted diseases far more often than the general population. It's not hard to see why "disease vector" is a bad thing.
Transphobic: Society is held together by expectations and rules. Transgenders openly violate one of the most obvious and stable of these, and therefore erode society- and its attendant benefits- far more egregiously than pornography, drugs, or even common crime. Having valuable things stolen is unfortunate and damaging, but it at least follows a certain logic. Transgenderism is literally saying white is black.

This seemed to be about conservatives at the beginning though, and it isn't now, which is interesting.

It's still about conservatives to an extent, but the conversation has generalized quite a bit. That's usually a good sign, I think.

[Tack]

Seriously it's gotten to the point where I just declare myself a chauvinist.

Most girls, after knowing me for a bit will just say 'You're not a chauvinist'.
But if I start the gun saying 'I'm not chauvinist', then every single thing I say is a tell.

[Kedly]

Seriously it's gotten to the point where I just declare myself a chauvinist.

Most girls, after knowing me for a bit will just say 'You're not a chauvinist'.
But if I start the gun saying 'I'm not chauvinist', then every single thing I say is a tell.

I just tell people that the best way to understand me is to not put me into a category, as I am myself and I pride myself on that. I have traits from many different categories sure, but none of those traits define who I am.

[Putnam]

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

[Kedly]

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

I think Irony owl was saying that those points are rational to those that hold them, not to Irony Owl specifically

[MaximumZero]

Why offer up any labels at all? I don't tell anyone that I'm anything, unless they ask, or I find a good reason to interject one of my credentials into the conversation. Otherwise, most labels are pretty useless.

[Putnam]

...I think that that definition of rational is different from mine. Oh my. That's problematic. If we can't even agree on what "rational" is...

[Glowcat]

aside, I don't see what this has to do with my point. If Bay12 is a society that discriminates against conservatives, aren't conservatives a minority on Bay12? Can Bay12 not count as a society for some reason?

Well this is a private message board so no you can't say it's the same, but even if that's given what exactly is the discrimination that conservatives face here? People get into arguments with each other all the time. It's not exactly discrimination when you happen to be on the side that is poorly backed.

Well, why not? Why is calling police officers pigs because they're commonly corrupt different from calling blacks thugs because they're commonly criminals? The usual answer is choice, but that's a slippery concept. Where do you draw the line between poor mindsets and mental illnesses? What's the difference between someone who identifies as gay, is physically able to live as a homosexual, yet chooses not to, and someone whose true calling was in hot dog stand vending, could have been a lawyer, but went ahead with the vilest of professions instead? Why is being born with one arm different from losing one in an accident, as far as calling them mean names and doing mean things to them is concerned?

In my example I used tax fraud because many high-profile conservatives have been guilty of such. Note that your examples all rely on a similar target of character rather than ideology, of which I made the distinction. My argument was never about commonality of a trait but rather ideological stances.

Sexist: Women are less rational than men (sweet, recursion). Their influence on things is therefore comparable to people actively trying to make things worse.
Racist: Whites are unnatural snow mutants, far removed from where God intended Man to be, in location, spirit, and form. Their effects upon the Earth and the true races of Man are plain to see- global warming of the skies, extinction of God's flowers and beasts, tomb robbing of the histories of all, war in the Middle East, conquest in Africa.
Homophobic: Homosexual men are known to be carriers of sexually transmitted diseases far more often than the general population. It's not hard to see why "disease vector" is a bad thing.
Transphobic: Society is held together by expectations and rules. Transgenders openly violate one of the most obvious and stable of these, and therefore erode society- and its attendant benefits- far more egregiously than pornography, drugs, or even common crime. Having valuable things stolen is unfortunate and damaging, but it at least follows a certain logic. Transgenderism is literally saying white is black.

I asked for rational reasons, not unevidenced assertions or non sequitur fear-mongering. If you want to pretend these are worth rational consideration in a fair open-minded debate then don't be surprised when you're (harshly) criticized for it. A far less disingenuous argument would've been to compare the treatment of blanket statements between liberals and conservatives. If you looked at that instead of trying to claim criticism of conservatives is anywhere near the persecution of minorities you'd see that liberals enjoy no special protections besides the number of people willing to make the argument for liberalism (or at least a particular stripe of it). Any one can make a 'hur hur liberals are dumb' argument and peoples' first responses won't be to complain how "persecuted" they are, evoking actual past bigotry in defense of their own, it's to roll their eyes and mock a poorly reasoned argument.

[GlyphGryph]

Edit: Actually, not really the thread for this.

[alexandertnt]

And if they were a different race, you'd say it.

But thats dependent on the listeners race. What if you said "A guy with glasses" to a black guy, who would you expect them to look out for?

[tahujdt]

Did... did my rant spark an intelligent debate?
*sniff*
Bay12, I love you.

[IronyOwl]

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

...I think that that definition of rational is different from mine. Oh my. That's problematic. If we can't even agree on what "rational" is...

Well, we could discuss it. Though if we have to, it's probably no longer particularly relevant to holding certain views that qualify as such, since as mentioned, someone can easily think they're being rational even if they aren't.

aside, I don't see what this has to do with my point. If Bay12 is a society that discriminates against conservatives, aren't conservatives a minority on Bay12? Can Bay12 not count as a society for some reason?

Well this is a private message board so no you can't say it's the same, but even if that's given what exactly is the discrimination that conservatives face here? People get into arguments with each other all the time. It's not exactly discrimination when you happen to be on the side that is poorly backed.

Why not?

The discrimination they face is the declaration that they as a group are terrible people actively trying to make life worse for other people.

Well, why not? Why is calling police officers pigs because they're commonly corrupt different from calling blacks thugs because they're commonly criminals? The usual answer is choice, but that's a slippery concept. Where do you draw the line between poor mindsets and mental illnesses? What's the difference between someone who identifies as gay, is physically able to live as a homosexual, yet chooses not to, and someone whose true calling was in hot dog stand vending, could have been a lawyer, but went ahead with the vilest of professions instead? Why is being born with one arm different from losing one in an accident, as far as calling them mean names and doing mean things to them is concerned?

In my example I used tax fraud because many high-profile conservatives have been guilty of such. Note that your examples all rely on a similar target of character rather than ideology, of which I made the distinction. My argument was never about commonality of a trait but rather ideological stances.

I don't follow. Conservative politicians are fine to discriminate against because they're "ideological" in nature, but police officers aren't, training and camaraderie and all? What about black culture and political leanings?

What's your definition of ideology in this case, and why is it alright to discriminate against people who hold or identify with it, but not members of any other classification for identical reasons?

I asked for rational reasons, not unevidenced assertions or non sequitur fear-mongering. If you want to pretend these are worth rational consideration in a fair open-minded debate then don't be surprised when you're (harshly) criticized for it.

What's your definition of rational? Mine is, as mentioned, following logic- which is not, obviously, foolproof. "Unevidenced non-sequitur fear-mongering" isn't very convincing when you're defending people saying that conservatives are actively trying to ruin peoples' lives without backing that up either, and the problem is identical.

If your attitude works great when you're right and crashes and burns if you're wrong, it's probably a poor attitude. Arguing that you are, in fact, right in this instance is redundant to you believing that in the first place.

A far less disingenuous argument would've been to compare the treatment of blanket statements between liberals and conservatives. If you looked at that instead of trying to claim criticism of conservatives is anywhere near the persecution of minorities you'd see that liberals enjoy no special protections besides the number of people willing to make the argument for liberalism (or at least a particular stripe of it). Any one can make a 'hur hur liberals are dumb' argument and peoples' first responses won't be to complain how "persecuted" they are, evoking actual past bigotry in defense of their own, it's to roll their eyes and mock a poorly reasoned argument.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you under the impression that I claimed that conservatives suffer as much discrimination as any other minority in some particular area? Are you making the argument that discrimination is only bad when done in excess of that suffered by some other group? I don't understand what you're getting at here, or how it connects with our current conversation.

As for the rest, that's true of all discrimination also. Anyone can assault a white man because of their skin color, and when they do, people tend to roll their eyes and say "Wow, what a dick." Most people do not take this to mean that beating up white people because they're white is okay, or that a higher incidence of this happening to blacks is perfectly alright because whites don't have any special protections beyond numbers.

Did... did my rant spark an intelligent debate?
*sniff*
Bay12, I love you.

Aw, we love you too.

Even if you are a babyeating vampire on the Council of Doom. Actually, probably especially then. That was not a good metaphor.

[Putnam]

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

[Kedly]

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

My experience with life is most people aren't this cautious in making sure what they believe is right.