Print

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

[Frumple]

EDIT: Also, why does LQBTQ not include an A for asexual, are we not people, do we deserve to be called "broken" for not wanting sex, to we deserve to be told we are just lying to ourselves?

sometimes it does, actually

There's like a baker's dozen of those acronyms. Some of them include wildcard symbols at this point.

[wierd]

Well, different genetic backgrounds, which tie strongly to racial demographic profiles, can have real health effects.

Take for instance, being of african descended heritage. (YES, I do in fact know that all humans came from Africa. Dont be a pedant.) People with this genetic background are highly more likely to develop heart disease, and are vastly more susceptible to HIV/AIDS than people of European extraction. (Because people of European genetic heritage are statistically more inbred, carry more recessive mutation traits, some of which have conferred health benefits through strong selective pressures caused by their ancestors being filth pigs that only bathed once a year. Erhm.. I mean, the constant ravages of the black death strongly encouraged people that were immune to yrsinia pestis infection, which just so happens to also confer strong partial immunity to HIV/AIDS. Again, this was because people were filthy.)

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStrokeNews/African-Americans-and-Heart-Disease-Stroke_UCM_444863_Article.jsp#.WrAAjTDYy00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432

Does this make black people "Qualitatively inferior?"  What, are you ignorant? No-- It doesn't. It just means they aren't swimming in strange recessive genes.

[McTraveller]

I actually dislike the whole letter-soup thing for one reason: it distracts from the important thing that it really should just be "be nice to all people, even if - and especially if - you disagree with their philosophies or choices."

That latter bit is important - we're moving into a scary society where it's not even acceptable to disagree.

[Dunamisdeos]

What if one day, we discover a gene that renders one group inferior to another (such as a gene in say, non European/European descendants, that increases intelligence in some way) then instantly that set of groups are instantly objectively unequal and all the social change seems harmful

Obviously you form the X-men.

I'm only sort of joking, because all recorded history and every human predisposition garnered from our actions, societal traditions, and works of fiction indicate we would immediately kill/enslave each other until only one group was left.

[Frumple]

I actually dislike the whole letter-soup thing for one reason: it distracts from the important thing that it really should just be "be nice to all people, even if - and especially if - you disagree with their philosophies or choices."

That latter bit is important - we're moving into a scary society where it's not even acceptable to disagree.

... we're actually moving out of that society, and have been for a while now. Not acceptable in our grand/great grand parents time had notably better chances of you ending up dead or crippled. Still has too damn good odds of seeing you fucked up hard if you're not part of the right group or in the wrong part of the world.

Any case, what detracts from that important thing is that some folks can't seem to stop themselves from shitting on/trying to kill/ruin the lives of certain groups. Like LGBT* folks or whatev'. So we have the alphabet soup, since listing crap out every time it comes up gets really tiring.

[Grim Portent]

I find it funny when people say it's getting dangerous to disagree these days when in the past century loving another man could get you thrown in jail or even lobotomised, advocating pacifism was punished by incarceration and being pro-racial equality often saw you arrested. I'd feel pretty happy with a society where it's dissaproved of or even illegal to advocate a return to such days.

[Trekkin]

I find it funny when people say it's getting dangerous to disagree these days when in the past century loving another man could get you thrown in jail or even lobotomised, advocating pacifism was punished by incarceration and being pro-racial equality often saw you arrested. I'd feel pretty happy with a society where it's dissaproved of or even illegal to advocate a return to such days.

So we should make it illegal to advocate for returning to a society in which certain kinds of advocacy are illegal? Doesn't that kind of get us there itself?

[Harry Baldman]

It doesn't, which might seem counterintuitive. I guess that's why they call it the paradox of tolerance instead of the obvious fact of tolerance.

[wierd]

Hmm.. The issue is how one defines "the intolerant."

People make generalizations and stereotypes. It is part of the coping mechanism the human brain uses to handle large abstract datasets. This means that "Very Sensible thing A which has a superficial resemblance to Very Idiotic thing B" gets lumped in with "Very idiotic thing B", and people advocating for Sensible Thing A, get treated to the intolerance normally given to Idiotic thing B.

This can hold back progress for generations.

[Grim Portent]

I find it funny when people say it's getting dangerous to disagree these days when in the past century loving another man could get you thrown in jail or even lobotomised, advocating pacifism was punished by incarceration and being pro-racial equality often saw you arrested. I'd feel pretty happy with a society where it's dissaproved of or even illegal to advocate a return to such days.

So we should make it illegal to advocate for returning to a society in which certain kinds of advocacy are illegal? Doesn't that kind of get us there itself?

Not all forms of expression are equal in merit or in harm they cause. A society is entirely free to say that the rights of one group not to be harrassed or attacked for existing trumps the rights of expression of another group. There's already plenty of precedence for such concepts in law, though they are applied inconsistently. A rough way to put it would be that there's a vast gulf in societal impact between a gay man living in a town and a homophobic preacher standing on a street corner yelling at people to murder the aforementioned.

[redwallzyl]

Well, different genetic backgrounds, which tie strongly to racial demographic profiles, can have real health effects.

Take for instance, being of african descended heritage. (YES, I do in fact know that all humans came from Africa. Dont be a pedant.) People with this genetic background are highly more likely to develop heart disease, and are vastly more susceptible to HIV/AIDS than people of European extraction. (Because people of European genetic heritage are statistically more inbred, carry more recessive mutation traits, some of which have conferred health benefits through strong selective pressures caused by their ancestors being filth pigs that only bathed once a year. Erhm.. I mean, the constant ravages of the black death strongly encouraged people that were immune to yrsinia pestis infection, which just so happens to also confer strong partial immunity to HIV/AIDS. Again, this was because people were filthy.)

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStrokeNews/African-Americans-and-Heart-Disease-Stroke_UCM_444863_Article.jsp#.WrAAjTDYy00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432

Does this make black people "Qualitatively inferior?"  What, are you ignorant? No-- It doesn't. It just means they aren't swimming in strange recessive genes.

It's not exactly that simple. Your looking at gradents stacked on gradents. People have just taken that and attached skin color as the line in gradents we then make categories.

[scourge728]

Well, different genetic backgrounds, which tie strongly to racial demographic profiles, can have real health effects.

Take for instance, being of african descended heritage. (YES, I do in fact know that all humans came from Africa. Dont be a pedant.) People with this genetic background are highly more likely to develop heart disease, and are vastly more susceptible to HIV/AIDS than people of European extraction. (Because people of European genetic heritage are statistically more inbred, carry more recessive mutation traits, some of which have conferred health benefits through strong selective pressures caused by their ancestors being filth pigs that only bathed once a year. Erhm.. I mean, the constant ravages of the black death strongly encouraged people that were immune to yrsinia pestis infection, which just so happens to also confer strong partial immunity to HIV/AIDS. Again, this was because people were filthy.)

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/MyHeartandStrokeNews/African-Americans-and-Heart-Disease-Stroke_UCM_444863_Article.jsp#.WrAAjTDYy00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432

Does this make black people "Qualitatively inferior?"  What, are you ignorant? No-- It doesn't. It just means they aren't swimming in strange recessive genes.

As much as I hate to say this, it DOES make black people inferior, in a certain aspect, just as IIRC they have lower rates of skin cancer, different races are better or worse at certain things, but for now it doesn't affect equality because it isn't in important to humanness things like intelligence.. Also, I feel it is less about being filthy and more about being quite densely packed full of people and animals, and open meat markets and horrible things in the rivers, due to lack of knowledge about what those things could bring with them... personal hygiene can only help so much when the whole city is full of rats, and pets, and so crowded with people close together with no knowledge of things like germ theory, that if one person gets it, in two days they could infect a huge number of people.. I feel as though the main reason we aren't so plagued by plagues is that we have things like anti-bacterial stuff and germ theory...

[Trekkin]

It doesn't, which might seem counterintuitive. I guess that's why they call it the paradox of tolerance instead of the obvious fact of tolerance.

Oh, I love obvious facts. There's nothing better than a set of self-evident truths so patently obvious to all as to make the very idea of dissent ridiculous to get people to do something really stupid en masse.

At any rate, given how adept various fringe groups have gotten at recruiting people by claiming they're being officially suppressed and censored, perhaps we should be less ready to resort to officially suppressing and censoring them as a means of expressing our intolerance of their intolerance.

Also, I feel it is less about being filthy and more about being quite densely packed full of people and animals, and open meat markets and horrible things in the rivers, due to lack of knowledge about what those things could bring with them... personal hygiene can only help so much when the whole city is full of rats, and pets, and so crowded with people close together with no knowledge of things like germ theory, that if one person gets it, in two days they could infect a huge number of people.. I feel as though the main reason we aren't so plagued by plagues is that we have things like anti-bacterial stuff and germ theory...

And you'd be right, at least in the sense that zoonosis and cities are a heck of a combination for making really fatal epidemics. (there's also some questionable population genetics being put forward here, but that's a separate text wall.)

[Harry Baldman]

Oh, I love obvious facts. There's nothing better than a set of self-evident truths so patently obvious to all as to make the very idea of dissent ridiculous to get people to do something really stupid en masse.

At any rate, given how adept various fringe groups have gotten at recruiting people by claiming they're being officially suppressed and censored, perhaps we should be less ready to resort to officially suppressing and censoring them as a means of expressing our intolerance of their intolerance.

Nobody seems to be officially suppressing or censoring them thus far, so I'd say your plan's well underway. Seems to have fixed the problem right up, too. Nary a fringe group to be seen complaining about being censored on the platforms they're legally allowed and invited to appear in regularly to mass audiences with barely any moderation.

[Trekkin]

Oh, I love obvious facts. There's nothing better than a set of self-evident truths so patently obvious to all as to make the very idea of dissent ridiculous to get people to do something really stupid en masse.

At any rate, given how adept various fringe groups have gotten at recruiting people by claiming they're being officially suppressed and censored, perhaps we should be less ready to resort to officially suppressing and censoring them as a means of expressing our intolerance of their intolerance.

Nobody seems to be officially suppressing or censoring them thus far, so I'd say your plan's well underway. Seems to have fixed the problem right up, too. Nary a fringe group complaining about being censored on the platforms they're legally allowed and invited to appear in regularly to mass audiences with barely any moderation in sight.

Yeah, because everyone saying things we don't like is obviously completely divorced from reality, right? We, with our self-evident monopoly on reason and logical evidence-based thinking, are obviously the only people whose claims of censorship would be strengthened by actual censorship. The Streisand effect only makes us more curious to access suppressed information, because we are the only real people, yes?