Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by heep223
There was a study conducted which concluded that subjects who had high amounts of self-awareness and were very aware of their own biases, still could not avoid them. They are very powerful.
Yes, I'm aware of more than one such study. They are pretty conclusive. Ironically, I instinctively disagree with them, but that's my bias towards believing my conscious self is always in control. Intellectually I'm convinced.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Maybe the reason I come into conflict with the left more often than the right these days is I don't consume American news media (posting in a thread about American politics is unusual for me). So the fact a bunch of nutjobs in Ohio or Kansas deny evolution and are arming themselves against the government is no more than a social curiosity to me. It doesn't affect me any more than the far right movement in France, or ultra-nationalists in Russia. Scary and weird, but not part of my political landscape.
In the social landscapes I do travel - forums like this, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the local music scene, forums dedicated to my hobbies of gaming and speculative fiction - I'm far more likely to come across left-wing zeal and dogma than right-wing. And the people who parrot the left-wing talking points seem even less self-reflective than their counterparts on the right. Maybe it's because they're younger, and because the mainstream media has adopted many of the shibboleths of the left, but many on the new left seem to have never had their beliefs challenged, or had to defend them with reason and empiricism. And the prospect of a whole generation that holds very strong opinions that are unchallenged and unexamined is troubling. So I don't hesitate to challenge and poke and question them, even though it often brings down a pack of righteous puritans on my head.
I think a counter point to this is that a lot of those beliefs haven't really been tried in the forms that we, the left (I hate pigeonholing myself but whatever), are advocating for, and the defenses that seem to come up are based around "well you can't do that" or "that's impossible" when we have seen many "impossible" things become possible or even ordinary. And you combine that with what seems like a fundamental problem with adapting to new information and the perspective that the "right's" ideals have been in practice for generations and are currently crumbling around us, yet the right trots them out like they are the only things that ever have, ever can, or ever will work. And that's frustrating, because the evidence is mounting all over the place that it doesn't work, and probably won't for much longer.
I saw an ISIS cutting hair at the mall today. She did not fool me with her kindness and wishing me Merry Christmas.
?!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I think a counter point to this is that a lot of those beliefs haven't really been tried in the forms that we, the left (I hate pigeonholing myself but whatever), are advocating for, and the defenses that seem to come up are based around "well you can't do that" or "that's impossible" when we have seen many "impossible" things become possible or even ordinary. And you combine that with what seems like a fundamental problem with adapting to new information and the perspective that the "right's" ideals have been in practice for generations and are currently crumbling around us, yet the right trots them out like they are the only things that ever have, ever can, or ever will work. And that's frustrating, because the evidence is mounting all over the place that it doesn't work, and probably won't for much longer.
Idealism is fine, and perfectly normal in the young. Live your life by ideals, if it makes you happy. The problem is when we try to make other people subscribe to our ideals. I don't want social justice warriors parsing every word I speak for wrong-thought any more than I want religious fundamentalists doing the same. If sharing this world with people who hold different beliefs from you (and I don't mean you, MattyC) is so distressing, then you're going to find it tough to get on in life.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
...I'm far more likely to come across left-wing zeal and dogma than right-wing. And the people who parrot the left-wing talking points seem even less self-reflective than their counterparts on the right. Maybe it's because they're younger, and because the mainstream media has adopted many of the shibboleths of the left, but many on the new left seem to have never had their beliefs challenged, or had to defend them with reason and empiricism. And the prospect of a whole generation that holds very strong opinions that are unchallenged and unexamined is troubling. So I don't hesitate to challenge and poke and question them, even though it often brings down a pack of righteous puritans on my head.
This. 1000 times this!
In this whole Trump's kerfuffle, the outrage is pouring from both sides of the political spectrum and deservedly so, it is an outrageous comment. But purely for the sake of an analytical argument exercise, substitute the word "Muslims" with the word "guns" and you have the "no more guns" argument right there and then. (BTW, I do not have a definitive stance on the gun issue - I don't own one, don't intend to own one and can easily see pro's and con's of either outcome). Just use the rationale most left-wing radicals apply in favour of the total gun prohibition and you get the exact reflection of Trumps' logic and rationale for restrictions against Muslims.
Goes to support my deep and sincere belief that the further people get to either end of the political spectre, the more stupid, unreasonable, extreme and dangerous they become.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
In this whole Trump's kerfuffle, the outrage is pouring from both sides of the political spectrum and deservedly so, it is an outrageous comment. But purely for the sake of an analytical argument exercise, substitute the word "Muslims" with the word "guns" and you have the "no more guns" argument right there and then. (BTW, I do not have a definitive stance on the gun issue - I don't own one, don't intend to own one and can easily see pro's and con's of either outcome). Just use the rationale most left-wing radicals apply in favour of the total gun prohibition and you get the exact reflection of Trumps' logic and rationale for restrictions against Muslims.
Goes to support my deep and sincere belief that the further people get to either end of the political spectre, the more stupid, unreasonable, extreme and dangerous they become.
this thought experiment of substituting Muslims for guns is the stupidest thing I've read in weeks
Which gets to the fundamental rub of the last couple pages of argument.
You have people on the "right" or as I think of them as people sensitive to change, basically complaining about how people are calling them out for making stupid arguments or for pursuing arguments with very depressing and scary logical and ethical conclusions.
Your opinions suck. Sorry for you, but the things that you argue for are horrible or stupid. You are not a victim, you are not being silenced, you are being asked to explain why you think and advocate for the things you do. If you can't stand that basic requisite then maybe you should turn those feelings of victimhood and anger inward.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
Goes to support my deep and sincere belief that the further people get to either end of the political spectre, the more stupid, unreasonable, extreme and dangerous they become.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
But purely for the sake of an analytical argument exercise, substitute the word "Muslims" with the word "guns" and you have the "no more guns" argument right there and then.
Guns aren't human beings and don't have rights. This seems like a bad analogy for that fundamental reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Your opinions suck. Sorry for you, but the things that you argue for are horrible or stupid. You are not a victim, you are not being silenced, you are being asked to explain why you think and advocate for the things you do. If you can't stand that basic requisite then maybe you should turn those feelings of victimhood and anger inward.
I have no idea who you are referring to with this paragraph.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Then you both have a serious reading comprehension problem. You did not care to analyze the argument.
I often wonder what are the roots of Internet aggression? The urge of a lemming to insult an avatar? I mean, I can just as easily call Tinordi's or yours argument moronic or call you an imbecile incapable of a civilized debate and leave it at that. Seriously, is the gratification that pleasant?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Guns aren't human beings and don't have rights. This seems like a bad analogy for that fundamental reason...
Why? Rights are irrelevant here. Trump's argument against bringing Muslims into US roots in the fact that they have no rights in the US until they get there. The cause and effect he uses against bringing them (because some of them could be terrorists that kill people) are very analogous to "no guns" (some of them can be used to kill people). I just wanted to demonstrate the extremism of both arguments.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Then you both have a serious reading comprehension problem. You did not care to analyze the argument.
I often wonder what are the roots of Internet aggression? The urge of a lemming to insult an avatar? I mean, I can just as easily call Tinordi's or yours argument moronic or call you an imbecile incapable of a civilized debate and leave it at that. Seriously, is the gratification that pleasant?
settle down, I just meant comparing a gun to a Muslim is insane.
Good insight from Maajid Nawaz about the results of Trump promising these things and then being blocked from doing so.
This guy is the most level headed and intelligent person I've seen speak on anything regarding the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. He's not too PC to call out the radical elements of the religion and he's not afraid to call out bigotry for what it is. Him (and people like him) need to have the biggest microphones in this entire debate. He pretty much nails it every time I see him speak.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
settle down, I just meant comparing a gun to a Muslim is insane.
And I am telling you that you have not read my post and it was NOT comparing Muslims to guns in any way. So, if you do, I expect an apology.
I am not one bit excited, btw.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Then you both have a serious reading comprehension problem. You did not care to analyze the argument.
I often wonder what are the roots of Internet aggression? The urge of a lemming to insult an avatar? I mean, I can just as easily call Tinordi's or yours argument moronic or call you an imbecile incapable of a civilized debate and leave it at that. Seriously, is the gratification that pleasant?
Here we go again with false equivalence. You made one of the stupidest arguments I've seen in a while. My riposte is not moronic, it's calling you out. Defend yourself with something other than the thinnest gruel of "well you were just as bad!"
Again if you can't stand the heat of people calling you out for writing stupid things in the internet that's on you. It is not on some social-ideological level to silence debate.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Just note that my language specifically refers to the stupidity of the argument not the person. Maybe this is the most poignant piece of insight, that the positions, beliefs, arguments are so personal in nature for, then the rebuttals, attacks, counter arguments to then are also fundamentally personal. This would go a long way to explaining the sense of victimhood.
