Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

The important difference is immutable traits. Wanting to get rid of people because they have a certain amount of melanin in their skin is very different from wanting to get rid of people because they want to get rid of people with a certain amount of melanin in their skin. Just like wanting to restrain someone and lock them in a room for sexual stuff is very different from wanting to restrain someone and lock them in a room for wanting to restrain someone and lock them in a room for sexual stuff. Racism and hatred of racism are not equal beliefs.

If it's okay to kill or imprison someone for wanting things you think are bad, then everyone gets that privilege.
Let me put it like this. It's a major pillar of Christian philosophy, really kind of fundamental, that being "cut off" from God is worse than death. Infinitely worse, actually. So, following the reasoning of Rolan7 and Name Thief™, any Christian could easily argue that being an atheist, which implies wanting people to be cut off from God, is inherently violent just by existing, so atheists should be murdered or imprisoned to stop them from spreading their vile violent rhetoric.

I realize people like Rolan7 and Max™, and quite possibly you, won't get this, because those Christians are wrong and wrong people don't get to have parity, but I just can't manage the same kind of ultra-macho absolutism that they both do. I demand a certain amount of humility in my own belief system.

ETA: Oh yeah, since Rolan7 asked. The difference in perspective is really simple: ideas and opinions are never violence. Violence is violence. Saying anything else can be violence, frankly, cheapens violence. Enacting violence, under the cutesy euphemism of "organizing" just like Russia "organizes against" Ukraine, against people who haven't touched you because you believe they might want to murder you in your paranoid fetish fantasy does, actually, make you the violent one. And it's hilarious that you think I like cops.

[dragdeler]

Ah yes violence is violence, ideas are ideas, but somehow written opinions pass the treshold into mechanical real word effects, such as saying "nope" without providing sources or reasoning is the hallmark of humility. Why do I even bother to synthesize it given it's so damn tautological.

[Maximum Spin]

Ah yes violence is violence, ideas are ideas, but somehow written opinions pass the treshold into mechanical real word effects, such as saying "nope" without providing sources or reasoning is the hallmark of humility. Why do I even bother to synthesize it given it's so damn tautological.

That... doesn't make any sense. Humility doesn't have anything to do with obligating you to try to convince others. And no matter how much you don't like what someone wrote, it isn't ever violence.

[dragdeler]

? I'm glad we could agree on something ?

I demand a certain amount of internal consistency.

But if you want to pretend that you are humble... fine by me whatever.

[Maximum Spin]

Once again, I have no clue what you're talking about. If you're trying to accuse me of some kind of inconsistency, just be direct. Most likely, I just don't agree with your framing.

[dragdeler]

1 How can you take issue with their opinions if words can not be vioelence. If it's hot air it doesn't warrant white knighting.

2 Dude the amount of times you have gone "nope" without further elaboration why you think something wrong, just that saying something is wrong without any justification, reasoning or sources... Talk about humility.


Go ahead pretend I wrote chinese you're boring.

[Lord Shonus]

He got released barely a year later. There was a lot more to the rise of the Nazis than just Hitler though. Economic woes of the 20s combined with some foolish political decisions within and without Germany, to put it (over)simply.

The biggest issue was that the "Weimar Republic" (which didn't call itself that) was a stillbirth. It literally, from day one, never functioned. The military and the old nobility ran the country all but openly while essentially ignoring the Reichstag or using it as a rubber stamp. The fundamental cause of this was that none of the many pro-democracy factions were willing to work with one another enough to force the issue.

[Maximum Spin]

1 How can you take issue with their opinions if words can not be vioelence. If it's hot air it doesn't warrant white knighting.

What? Just because something isn't violence doesn't mean you can't disagree with it. There's, like... a middle ground there. Nobody's saying you can't disagree with Nazis (or anyone), as strenuously as you like. Do you really think that the only categories available to you are "violence" or "completely fine and beyond question"?

2 Dude the amount of times you have gone "nope" without further elaboration why you think something wrong, just that saying something is wrong without any justification, reasoning or sources... Talk about humility.

What does that have to do with humility? What's your definition of "humility" here?

[None]

I'd say 'snide contrarianism only leads to one conclusion: no, you're wrong,' but I'm going to get 'no, you're wrong'ed about this.

Hey, so how long do you folks think the chaos caucus will keep the government shut down at the end of the year? Asking for some friends.

[dragdeler]

No I really think it's one hell of a grand split to say statements are inherently not violent but then show indignation for their counter statements... Can't vouch for it, but I don't think I've constructed a dichotomic argument in 3 years. Were I to take you at your word and consider you a good faith actor, I would be constrained to believe that no cause could be disgusting enough for you so long as the perpetrators manage to keep their argument within the bound of "polite society".

Luckily it's all just an act, a game.

[Frumple]

I'd say 'snide contrarianism only leads to one conclusion: no, you're wrong,' but I'm going to get 'no, you're wrong'ed about this.

Hey, so how long do you folks think the chaos caucus will keep the government shut down at the end of the year? Asking for some friends.

3 to 7 over under it makes it to christmas, odds probably aren't bad if you're betting.

... does remind me there actually is, like, political betting with actual money thrown behind it. Almost makes me curious enough to go look to see what their odds on a still-shutdown-at-christmas are. Almost.

[Maximum Spin]

No I really think it's one hell of a grand split to say statements are inherently not violent but then show indignation for their counter statements... Can't vouch for it, but I don't think I've constructed a dichotomic argument in 3 years. Were I to take you at your word and consider you a good faith actor, I would be constrained to believe that no cause could be disgusting enough for you so long as the perpetrators manage to keep their argument within the bound of "polite society".

I think you're completely misunderstanding the entire context, then. I'm not, nor is anyone who seems to be on my side, "showing indignation for" anyone's "counter statements". You seem to be talking about something completely different. There's a vast gulf between "I disagree with that" and "that statement is inherently violent just to say".

[dragdeler]

The context is the same demented shit as allways: disputeculture vs debateculture.


The hyperbolization of each would be:

disputeculture: we can't agree about what to eat before first trashing half the plates

debateculture: I don't care if the noose is around MY neck, as long as they all agree to pull on it together

[Maximum Spin]

The context is the same demented shit as allways: disputeculture vs debateculture.


The hyperbolization of each would be:

disputeculture: we can't agree about what to eat before first trashing half the plates

debateculture: I don't care if the noose is around MY neck, as long as they all agree to pull on it together

Nah, see, I was going to agree up until what you added, but that's just wrong. Your "debateculture", at least insofar as it applies to me, doesn't have anything to do with agreement at all. I don't think agreement makes something right. Rather, it's as simple as this: the noose isn't around my neck. It's not around anyone's neck. The noose is in your imagination.

You strike me as someone, and I think you'd agree, who is very much in that first category. You strike me as someone who is very much overcome by macho emotions: everything is always making you angry all the time and you want to do violence to either the world around you or yourself in order to reify that anger. It's a recurring theme. I'm not saying that in a judgemental way, it's just my impression. In contrast, I just don't find it that easy to get angry about anything. I haven't been seriously angry in more than four years. Now, not being angry doesn't mean that I won't fight - if someone tries to hurt me, I'll do what I can to make sure it never happens again - but it would be "cold-blooded", in terms of my mental state.  For me, anger is just an unproductive thing I have decided not to bother with.

So you say this thing about "debateculture" as if you know this, but then, everything you said before completely contradicts it: to suggest that I'm "show[ing] indignation", for example, is just insane. That's fundamentally not part of the disagreeing process for me. This gives me the impression that you don't really understand the difference, and you think "debateculture" people are just being inauthentic, which isn't true in the least. My entire mental process is just, I guess, different from yours, and thinking in terms of what you would be feeling if you were in the position I am doesn't work.

[dragdeler]

It only contradicts it if you adhere to a narrow notion that tone will never play a role in debateculture. There are plenty of points to be scored by mastering the theatrics of the game, so that can't be a exhaustive definition of debate. Nothing assures that things shall remain factual in disputeculture, but in debateculture it was never the point to begin with, because there success is defined by other measures.

A healthy disputeculture would not consist in shouting louder than your opponents, but rather something where the observer could measure the urgency of a given topic simply by checking how "loud" (passionate) the argument is being held.

I think it's a trap to consider one could allways distinguish between one's emotional state and one's train of thought, one motivates the other and vice versa.