Print

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

[Powder Miner]

Well, yeah, but that also applies to the people who were screaming at the professors husband and who got them kicked out. Just because they can judge the professor doesn't mean people can't judge them and decide that what they did was wrong. It cuts both ways.

[mainiac]

Well, yeah, but that also applies to the people who were screaming at the professors husband and who got them kicked out. Just because they can judge the professor doesn't mean people can't judge them and decide that what they did was wrong. It cuts both ways.

Nothing cuts both ways.  You free speech doesn't silence another persons free speech.  There was zero free speech violation of any party at any point in this process.

[Powder Miner]

Yeah, the First Amendment doesn't apply to individual parties, and I didn't bring it up because you are completely correct in that it doesn't protect people from judgement.

I can find harassment and being chased out of the dorms objectionable without leaning on the constitutional protection of free speech, and that's exactly what I've been doing.

While you have made me think about exactly to what extent people in those situations need to just suck it up and deal with other people's judgement, I never said they didn't have the right to mob them like that, because they did have the right, I just said it wasn't right

[mainiac]

Back to vaguely political derails as opposed to the... whatever the hell all this has been derail, Star Trek is described as a utopia, at least originally intended as one, and in some cases resembles definitions of one.

Because it's made by humans on a budget trying to get an episode out every week.  There are a lot of inconsistencies.

I can find harassment and being chased out of the dorms objectionable without leaning on the constitutional protection of free speech, and that's exactly what I've been doing.

Sure does suck.  The school administration should have done something about it long before it came to this point.  But now we come back to the bully kicking the back of my chair.  I should not have punched him.  As an adult I know this.  But you can't say "something should have stopped the punch."  You need to say "something should have stopped the kicking."

[Frumple]

[snip]

For what it's worth, apparently genetic engineering in ST verse goes horribly wrong something approaching 100% of the time. It wasn't just incidental the primary examples went off the rails, but a consequence of the process itself, which is why it's largely opposed (apparently even after related technology advanced beyond that original batch). In-universe, you can probably blame it on Q. Though you can probably blame just about everything on Q, so that may be something of a cop-out :V

There are some transhumanist elements that aren't strictly negative (The Doctor, la forge's eyes, data, recovered borg, probably other stuff), but yeah, they don't get much attention. Probably mostly due to storytelling/audience concerns more than anything particularly intentional, if I had to guess. More trouble than it's worth (vis a vis that whole "profit" thing) to really work out how a cast of functional immortals would play out, basically.

Though now I kinda' want to see someone try that. I know there's been the occasional basically!immortal that's actually lived well-beyond-human-lifetime in sci-fi, but I can't recall of many that were part of the main cast, and even fewer that were particularly benign or relatable. _{well, I can't recall any at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it once or twice}

[Powder Miner]

I don't think that professor was the one doing the kicking there, and in fact I still think they were getting kicked there too, so to speak... but you have opened my eyes to the fact that there were threats to people with liberal opinions there, and that does need to be stopped too.

[GreatJustice]

Y'know, it sure seems suspicious that whenever we have documented cases of basically innocent people getting harassed, the immediate response is "WELL WE WERE GETTING HARASSED TOO", yet they don't provide evidence along the lines of "This specific organization/person was a racist in this particular way, here is a verifiable example"

Here's a good example I actually got to see firsthand (skip to 1:22ish). There was a hotly debated motion on whether to hold a referendum on whether a particular student organization should receive opt-in or opt-out funding. The people arguing against the referendum basically said "Well, the people in favour of this referendum are a bunch of racists because someone that may have supported it may have said something offensive to someone at some point". Incidentally, at this very same meeting there were anti-referendum people referring to the pro-referendum people as "a bunch of Jews and conservatives". Up until that point, my view was "Well, we disagree, but I'm sure we can resolve our disagreements through balanced discussion". But then I realized that they don't care about balanced discussion, they want to shut up anyone that opposes them in any way possible for their own reasons (eg. so they can make bank off of student fees), and if claiming they were harassed works then that's what they'll do.

[PTTG??]

I'm pretty sure LePage has lost his mind.

[nenjin]

I once believed that, in a discussion or debate, you should settle on mutually agreed upon definitions from the get go and then present arguments using those definitions. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people would rather spend their time saying "YOU ARE USING THE WRONG DEFINITION OF THIS WORD" because, I suspect, they realize that if we removed the implicit connotations of the words they used and just used the definitions they wanted, their claims would look pretty weak.

I don't necessarily disagree. However I think it's a less calculated move to do so by your average American, and more an emotional move. They don't necessarily understand the terms they're engaging but they know enough and feel enough passion to recast it according to their needs. They honestly believe they're being discriminated against, regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not. And so in their minds, they own the word just as effectively as a black person who can actually trace their roots back to slave times.

I think it was the emphasis on subjectivism that's been a mainstay of liberal political discourse, since I was in high school at least, that some conservative thinker finally looked at and went "Wait a second. I can totally use this for my own purposes and thwart their's at the same time." From there, average folks clued into doing the same thing. And so we've arrived at Donald Trump, who can say what he wants and use words as he sees fit and the rest of the world is just left gawping in shock that he has the temerity to do so.

[mainiac]

I don't think that professor was the one doing the kicking there, and in fact I still think they were getting kicked there too, so to speak... but you have opened my eyes to the fact that there were threats to people with liberal opinions there, and that does need to be stopped too.

That is cool and all and I applaud your open mind but given my attitude of never being happy I am compelled to say that just equity isn't the goal we want a culture which really solves these problems.

[GreatJustice]

I once believed that, in a discussion or debate, you should settle on mutually agreed upon definitions from the get go and then present arguments using those definitions. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people would rather spend their time saying "YOU ARE USING THE WRONG DEFINITION OF THIS WORD" because, I suspect, they realize that if we removed the implicit connotations of the words they used and just used the definitions they wanted, their claims would look pretty weak.

I don't necessarily disagree. However I think it's a less calculated move to do so by your average American, and more an emotional move. They don't necessarily understand the terms they're engaging but they know enough and feel enough passion to recast it according to their needs. They honestly believe they're being discriminated against, regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not. And so in their minds, they own the word just as effectively as a black person who can actually trace their roots back to slave times.

I think it was the emphasis on subjectivism that's been a mainstay of liberal political discourse, since I was in high school at least, that some conservative thinker finally looked at and went "Wait a second. I can totally use this for my own purposes and thwart their's at the same time." From there, average folks clued into doing the same thing. And so we've arrived at Donald Trump, who can say what he wants and use words as he sees fit and the rest of the world is just left gawping in shock that he has the temerity to do so.

I think it kind of illustrates the danger in using/misusing powerful words carelessly. Words like "racist" and "bigot" and "sexist" have very strong negative connotations, so people like to use them as weapons to attack opponents. But when you overuse them or, worse, use them against basically innocent people who just happen to be in your way, the words begin to lose effectiveness and unfortunately so does the emotional reaction against the negative things those words represent.

Basically, every time someone is called a racist (or someone they know/respect strongly is called a racist), they either say "Wait a minute, I'm not a racist but I'm being called a racist, is it possible that other people accused of being racist are actually just victims of smearing?" or, worse, "Well I'm a decent person and apparently I'm a racist so I guess racism isn't so bad". Eventually this reaches a tipping point where people that are either immune to or embrace the accusation exist in sufficient numbers to actually start hitting back, hence you get Trump saying whatever he wants with seemingly no consequences. I know a lot of people that do this aren't intentionally being dishonest, but this is the conclusion of slowly destroying the meaning of a powerful word.

Something similar happened to "socialism" and "communism" too, since the Soviet Union is old news and Republicans seem to just call everyone they don't like a Communist. Naturally, the logical conclusion of that is Bernie Sanders nearly winning the Democratic nomination as an avowed Socialist (despite really being more like a social democrat).

It's a bit like using antibiotics. In moderation and used in the right situation, you kill the bacteria. Used in excess, you get a superbug that laughs at your pitiful drugs and kills hospital patients.

[Max™]

Back to vaguely political derails as opposed to the... whatever the hell all this has been derail, Star Trek is described as a utopia, at least originally intended as one, and in some cases resembles definitions of one.

Because it's made by humans on a budget trying to get an episode out every week.  There are a lot of inconsistencies.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You've also got an issue I just saw pointed out which I was completely missing.

A species is distinct from another if they can not produce viable offspring, but I'm pretty sure a vulcan-human-klingon kid could bang a cardassian or whatever the heck the chick with the spots-that-go-all-the-way-down was called again and produce fertile offspring, so they're all the same species.

Can you recall another case where different people were said to be a different species, sometimes even by people who had impregnated said different species and produced viable offspring?

Let's not forget "you fight well, you must have klingon blood in you" sounding fine, yet "you run fast, like a true african", "wow, you're good at math, you must have chinese blood in you", are so obviously fucked up?

[snip]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

For what it's worth, apparently genetic engineering in ST verse goes horribly wrong something approaching 100% of the time. It wasn't just incidental the primary examples went off the rails, but a consequence of the process itself, which is why it's largely opposed (apparently even after related technology advanced beyond that original batch). In-universe, you can probably blame it on Q. Though you can probably blame just about everything on Q, so that may be something of a cop-out :V

There are some transhumanist elements that aren't strictly negative (The Doctor, la forge's eyes, data, recovered borg, probably other stuff), but yeah, they don't get much attention. Probably mostly due to storytelling/audience concerns more than anything particularly intentional, if I had to guess. More trouble than it's worth (vis a vis that whole "profit" thing) to really work out how a cast of functional immortals would play out, basically.

Though now I kinda' want to see someone try that. I know there's been the occasional basically!immortal that's actually lived well-beyond-human-lifetime in sci-fi, but I can't recall of many that were part of the main cast, and even fewer that were particularly benign or relatable. _{well, I can't recall any at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it once or twice}

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Resplendent by Stephen Baxter covers a version of someone named Luru Parz who literally lives for millions of years. She was part of a group of people who were able to keep anti-senescence treatments going while Earth was conquered, and then kept it later when the people in power decided mayfly lives were proper.

Nemoto in uh, Manifold: Space I think has a ridiculously long lifespan.

Both specifically made efforts at shaping society in favor of stability and survival, as they were dependent on it lasting as long as they did. That's just the first two "human immortal main characters with benign effects" that came to mind, though not everything they did all the time was benign for everyone, both played critical roles in preventing the extinction of humanity at times, so that makes up for a lot.

I once believed that, in a discussion or debate, you should settle on mutually agreed upon definitions from the get go and then present arguments using those definitions. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people would rather spend their time saying "YOU ARE USING THE WRONG DEFINITION OF THIS WORD" because, I suspect, they realize that if we removed the implicit connotations of the words they used and just used the definitions they wanted, their claims would look pretty weak.

I don't necessarily disagree. However I think it's a less calculated move to do so by your average American, and more an emotional move. They don't necessarily understand the terms they're engaging but they know enough and feel enough passion to recast it according to their needs. They honestly believe they're being discriminated against, regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not. And so in their minds, they own the word just as effectively as a black person who can actually trace their roots back to slave times.

I think it was the emphasis on subjectivism that's been a mainstay of liberal political discourse, since I was in high school at least, that some conservative thinker finally looked at and went "Wait a second. I can totally use this for my own purposes and thwart their's at the same time." From there, average folks clued into doing the same thing. And so we've arrived at Donald Trump, who can say what he wants and use words as he sees fit and the rest of the world is just left gawping in shock that he has the temerity to do so.

That is a good breakdown of the uh... breakdown that led to Nominee Trump being a thing, but for the first part, all of us can trace our roots back to slave times, and they're all pretty much soaked in the same blood. Which roots were doing the bleeding of course vary, but you are not your ancestors, culture is not biologically inherited, and neither is responsibility for past crimes. Awareness of them, recognition of what took place, these are important, but you can't fix the past with any tools, much less guilt or blame. You can either deny it, or you can try to learn from it, perhaps with a goal of trying to avoid repeating parts of it, to fix the future if you will.

Looking at a popular demagogue who split off to form a new party in the past might have help people keep from making the same situation arise in the present, unfortunately.

Thanks, Teddy.

[mainiac]

Spoiler: star trek plot spoilers (click to show/hide)

the alien races have convergent evolution because a predecessor species programmed them to be that way.  They also only are fertile between each other because the embryos are made in labs.

[Reelya]

Let's not forget "you fight well, you must have klingon blood in you" sounding fine, yet "you run fast, like a true african", "wow, you're good at math, you must have chinese blood in you", are so obviously fucked up?

Nah, because it is acceptable to e.g. say things like "you are brave because of your Cherokee blood" or "you fight well like a true Scotsman" already.

I think the difference can be understood - some stereotypes are about your own group, and those ones are not seen as offensive. Other belief systems are about an "Other". Chinese don't adhere to the "Chinese are good at maths" belief, that's a Western belief. Africans don't believe all Africans can run fast: that's a Western belief. They are blanket beliefs applied from outside a racial group, i.e. "The things that make them not like us".

Africans might say, "Wow you fun fast, do you have Kenyan blood in you?" however.

[RedKing]

It's a bit like using antibiotics. In moderation and used in the right situation, you kill the bacteria. Used in excess, you get a superbug that laughs at your pitiful drugs and kills hospital patients.

So recklessly accusing everyone of being a racist douchebag is what led to today's superdouchebags.

I can actually kinda buy that theory.


In any case, can we shift the navel-gazing over to the calm prog thread (it's still around, isn't it?) and get back to the horse race?

Of particular interest to me is that the Senate could flip. Dems look to have 46 seats pretty safe (plus Angus King's independent seat in Maine), Republicans only 44. That leaves 9 seats in play (8 of which are currently held by Republicans), and based on current polling, The Dems are leading in 3 of those 9 (Indiana, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania), which would put the Senate split down the middle at 50-50, with the VP being the tiebreaker. And if Trump continues to exhibit downward pressure on the down-ballot races, they could retake the Senate with a much bigger lead. Not a filibuster-proof lead (unless it's an all-out massacre on Election Day), but enough certainly to get back to the days of 2010-2012, when a divided Congress meant at least *some* shit could get done, as opposed to the near-total shutdown that a Republican Congress presented after 2012.