The Snark posted:Would it pain you to learn I would rather no one be led into a sucking void of despair and learned helplessness either? Maybe you can write it off as a broken clock being right twice a day, ye paragon of mental health. I never said that you were a bad person, or mentally unwell, so no, it's not going to pain me, go ahead and say that, with extra snide. GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:I'm not allowed to speak for GIP but I can refer your question to my forums superiors Okay, can I quote you as background for forums opinion then? I have a deadline for QCS posts coming up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:01 |
|
Space Whale posted:"I want to change society. gently caress parts of it that aren't with the program." I don't know if you know this, but the Pareto principle is junk used to enforce the status quo. You can't actually change things without hurting people in some way. So in order to do anything at all, you need to be willing to gently caress over parts of society. That said, you don't know what I'm talking about, so fly away, star dolphin.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:"I want to change society. gently caress parts of it that aren't with the program." Why do you act as though this hasn't been a thing in virtually every successful movement in America good & bad, from Independence, to Prohibition, to Civil Rights, and currently gay marriage? People get ignored and sidelined all the time and it isn't necessarily always the radical getting ignored, it can be moderates, or the opposing end extremists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I never said that you were a bad person, or mentally unwell, so no, it's not going to pain me, go ahead and say that, with extra snide. I'm... pretty sure you have actually. Still, suit yourself. Read an extra layer of snide into my last post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know if you know this, but the Pareto principle is junk used to enforce the status quo. You can't actually change things without hurting people in some way. So in order to do anything at all, you need to be willing to gently caress over parts of society. I guess not, because if your framework is "we're gonna hurt others to benefit ourselves" I'm either highly confused or you're never going to get off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:26
|
|
Space Whale posted:I guess not, because if your framework is "we're gonna hurt others to benefit ourselves" I'm either highly confused or you're never going to get off the ground. Can you provide an example of a positive change to society that benefits people without hurting anyone? Doesn't have to be in-depth.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why do you act as though this hasn't been a thing in virtually every successful movement in America good & bad, from Independence, to Prohibition, to Civil Rights, and currently gay marriage? People get ignored and sidelined all the time and it isn't necessarily always the radical getting ignored, it can be moderates, or the opposing end extremists. I guess my ideas of sidelining or hurting is different from yours. Let's take slavery: "You can't own people anymore. They're free. (But you can still make them a wage slave, tee hee, sharecropping!)" I suppose the slave owners were the ones who were "hurt" in a sense? I don't see it as harm at all if someone loses the ability to do a wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Can you provide an example of a positive change to society that benefits people without hurting anyone? Doesn't have to be in-depth. When gay marriage was made legal who got hurt? When pot was made legal, who got hurt?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:When gay marriage was made legal who got hurt? When pot was made legal, who got hurt? peopole who didnt' like those things had their fee fees hurt because losing is very triggering
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
All you guys going on about the left driving people away and hurting people: can you explain what exactly you mean by that? Who is being driven away from leftist causes and activism, and why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:31
|
|
Space Whale posted:When gay marriage was made legal who got hurt? When pot was made legal, who got hurt? Christians who genuinely believe that gay marriage is against the will of God and invites his wrath were hurt. People who believe gays are subhuman were hurt. People who prefer to keep their gay relatives closeted are hurt. These are all bad people, but they're still getting hurt. As for the legalization of marijuana, that's still early to see how it will shake out, but unless pot prices remain just as high, dealers are getting hurt, at a very minimum. Again, bad people, but they're still getting hurt.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Christians who genuinely believe that gay marriage is against the will of God and invites his wrath were hurt. People who believe gays are subhuman were hurt. People who prefer to keep their gay relatives closeted are hurt. These are all bad people, but they're still getting hurt. Their feelings were hurt. How was their place in society altered negatively, or material harm done to them? "Dealers were hurt." The loss of the ability to commit a crime is a harm, now, too? I very seriously cannot understand how you think. Is "we're gonna fight, hurt them, and win" just part of how you psych yourself up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:34
|
|
Space Whale posted:Their feelings were hurt. How was their place in society altered negatively, or material harm done to them? Well, for one thing, you're saying that there needs to be material harm, and then saying that material harm only counts if it's honest material goods. But there is material harm. People that sincerely believe that the wrath of God is that much more imminent because of gays getting married are now under more stress, which is material harm. Even then, psychological harm is still meaningful if you're not an engineer. Similarly, they had money, and now they have less. They've been materially harmed. It's probably a good thing overall, but it's still harm. If you beat the poo poo out of a neo-Nazi to save a elderly Jewish lesbian, you're still beating the poo poo out of him, even if it's still a good thing overall, and you shouldn't pretend that you didn't spread his nose across his face, and for many cases, you can't even say it's good.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, for one thing, you're saying that there needs to be material harm, and then saying that material harm only counts if it's honest material goods. No, I did not say good can come without it being zero sum. I think that's a dangerous mentality. As far as the mentality that people disagreeing with one's opinions is material harm, lol. Clearly getting in a fist fight with a neo nazi to defend someone is going to hurt the person you're fighting, I guess, but changing society isn't about violent phantasies of badass anti fascist protest raves set to punk music.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
Space Whale posted:No, I did not say good can come without it being zero sum. I think that's a dangerous mentality. OK, so let's say that you believe that the use of a radical new geothermal energy project is likely to destroy the world, but nobody listens to you. Would you believe yourself to be worse off than if the geothermal project was shut down and you could stop your desperate rocket-building project? Have you been harmed because of a disagreement of opinion?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:All you guys going on about the left driving people away and hurting people: can you explain what exactly you mean by that? Who is being driven away from leftist causes and activism, and why? Everyone who has not yet drunk the cool-aid. The left-leaning who don't see "being as radical as possible" as being the solution and are attacked by 'their own' for it. And, I know this is going to invite great ire from some, moderates who might otherwise be sympathetic or supportive. Extremists on both sides tend to hate moderates just as much if not more than their ideological opposites and tend to attack them with almost as much fervor. The result of this is to drive said moderates to choose a side- most often to the opposition of their attacker's in self-defense. Why the math of this should be so perplexing to some is beyond me. You can bully people into line within a very small community, but the moment you try to bully a larger community you are going to find it much less effective to outright counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:OK, so let's say that you believe that the use of a radical new geothermal energy project is likely to destroy the world, but nobody listens to you. Would you believe yourself to be worse off than if the geothermal project was shut down and you could stop your desperate rocket-building project? Have you been harmed because of a disagreement of opinion? I'd believe it, sure, but "shut up you crazy idiot" isn't harming me. It's the speaker disagreeing with me. Also this could easily be an analogy for a lot of people loudly screaming poo poo who are told "no, also you're dumb" and then triggering all over their keyboards about it on tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:49
|
|
Space Whale posted:I'd believe it, sure, but "shut up you crazy idiot" isn't harming me. It's the speaker disagreeing with me. Sure, you could do that, but since you've gotten the basic point, I'll leave it for you as homework to discover that people truly and sincerely believe in all the terrible things like gays inviting the Lord to destroy the Earth and so on.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:All you guys going on about the left driving people away and hurting people: can you explain what exactly you mean by that? Who is being driven away from leftist causes and activism, and why? Moderates are being driven away. People who support the ideas you do, but are turned off by the extremist rhetoric and blanketing of people. Ie. "All men are mostly racist. All white people are racist." If I was white and male, and the movement I wanted to be a part of said that attributes I have no control of make me a part of the problem, it makes my inherent existence a problem. As a black male, I'm treated as an oppressed minority or someone who internalizes hate. My life and identity is automatically assumed to match those of poor black males in inner-city ghettos, despite having literally nothing in common with them culturally, historically, linguistically, or ideologically. There's also the the elitist language growing in leftist circles that push my opinion and thoughts out of the discussion because they fly in the face of the groupthink. That's not to add the hostile inflammatory language used by activists towards the smallest causes, and the lack of clearly defined goals for the movement. It also ignores that the 'leaders' of leftist movements are some of the most privileged people around; educated in top-tier universities with consistent access to internet, media, and a supportive base. Mainstream liberal entertainers (Colbert and Stewart for example) present the movement to the public at large by inviting these voices onto their shows. The biggest thing that gets me is the lack of clear, defined goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Let's reorient this: Telling someone "Don't hurt other people anymore. Start doing things that don't harm others, and you'll belong, and be accepted." is one thing. Telling them "gently caress you we're gonna get our way" is something else. The first is a moral argument, the second is "may the best ist with their ism win"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Sure, you could do that, but since you've gotten the basic point, I'll leave it for you as homework to discover that people truly and sincerely believe in all the terrible things like gays inviting the Lord to destroy the Earth and so on. Animal-Mother posted:God is actually willing to forgive. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
The central problem is that people want leadership. There's no leadership. There are respected individuals, but many people don't read them on the "street" (social media) level. About the only thing that can be done is creating and promulgating ideas, theories, ideologies programs that people can engage with instead of the vague fog that characterizes most interactions between outsiders and insiders.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
At the very least a successful leader would communicate clearly and not demand people do homework to understand someone trying to persuade them to do things different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:59
|
|
Space Whale posted:At the very least a successful leader would communicate clearly and not demand people do homework to understand someone trying to persuade them to do things different. You're very pissy, but I'm afraid you still have a long way to go before you can match me.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're very pissy, but I'm afraid you still have a long way to go before you can match me. No, no, I actually mean what I say, and it's not just oriented at you. It's extremely frustrating. Programmers having pissing matches about type systems are more willing to explain themselves than tumblrs name-dropping philosophers or their books. It's loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:02
|
|
Space Whale posted:No, no, I actually mean what I say, and it's not just oriented at you. It's extremely frustrating. Yeah. I'm sorry, I guess. That was just a way of saying, "Since you agree with the basic principle, I won't continue arguing about the particulars". Anything else you'd like an explanation for?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah. I'm sorry, I guess. That was just a way of saying, "Since you agree with the basic principle, I won't continue arguing about the particulars". Well, uh: Space Whale posted:Let's reorient this: A lot of angry people really want the latter, and if presented with "we'd be more willing to help if we'd belong after we do what you want" they basically act like SedanChair, or go into tirades about the divisions between the in crowd and allies. Why the gently caress are people so hung up on anger they don't even consider reconciliation or a society that gets along with itself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Also, do I still need blood on my door jamb if I don't have any kids yet? TIA!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:06
|
|
Space Whale posted:Well, uh: Those people are convinced that meaningful change is impossible, so it doesn't matter if, logically, they would commit multiple genocides, because they'd never get the chance. Space Whale posted:Also, do I still need blood on my door jamb if I don't have any kids yet? TIA! Don't worry, I'll have Azzie pass over you regardless 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those people are convinced that meaningful change is impossible, so it doesn't matter if, logically, they would commit multiple genocides, because they'd never get the chance. There's a big, big problem if I run into that kind of person more than people who think change is actually possible. But lol if you can explain THAT one...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Let's reorient this: You usually do have to do the second at some point, though. The key is to do the first part long enough you can do the second successfully. See: Every meaningful instance of progress ever. Also, to clarify our earlier conversation, when I say privilege I'm using the dictionary definition: a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; preferential treatment. A privilege is: Something that is given to you by an authority or system, not something that simply occurs. It's intentional or at least artificial and social in nature, and it is enforced. Otherwise its just an advantage. Something that applies to an individual or group and does not apply to others. Something that benefits them, usually by granting a right or tangible benefit, especially in regards to immunity to a rule or consequence others must follow or face. Peeing standing up or a basketball player being tall is not a privilege. Being allowed a special exemption to a town-wide curfew or being safe from the risk of being sold into slavery is a privilege, whereas a black person in old-timey USA might end up being kidnapped by slave hunters and shipped south even if they were never ever a slave to begin with. Privilege always implies the existence of another that is not granted the same immunities. The classic example of a "privilege", in books going back to the 1800s and earlier, is specifically immunity from arrest. Diplomatic Immunity is the very definition of privilege. Privilege isn't even inherently a bad thing, it's just a descriptive word (when not being abused for ideological purposes) that describes the concept that took me all those words to say. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:12
|
|
Space Whale posted:There's a big, big problem if I run into that kind of person more than people who think change is actually possible. Probably because there's a massive cultural industry devoted to keep people thinking that symbolic actions can bring about meaningful change, and this is the dark side of that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You usually do have to do the second at some point, though. The key is to do the first part long enough you can do the second successfully. See: Every meaningful instance of progress ever. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You usually do have to do the second at some point, though. The key is to do the first part long enough you can do the second successfully. See: Every meaningful instance of progress ever. smiley indicating i think this opinion goes too far
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Those people are convinced that meaningful change is impossible, so it doesn't matter if, logically, they would commit multiple genocides, because they'd never get the chance. Meaningful change is possible to the average person if presented in concrete terms. The gay rights movement has clear goals for what it wants (Protection under hate crime laws, right to marriage, right to spousal rights equivalent to heterosexual couples, rights to inheritance, rights to power of attorney, rights of visitation, etc)that are clearly set out there. These clear rights sold it to the general public as a an end goal, and as a result the gay rights movement has activist allies who actually go out and do things, and it also has passive allies who don't necessarily march or protest, but will support the votes or at least not oppose gay rights. Current social justice is about something undefined, with no end goal. That's why the public doesn't support it. I don't understand your multiple genocides thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:18
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Meaningful change is possible to the average person if presented in concrete terms. The gay rights movement has clear goals for what it wants (Protection under hate crime laws, right to marriage, right to spousal rights equivalent to heterosexual couples, rights to inheritance, rights to power of attorney, rights of visitation, etc)that are clearly set out there. These clear rights sold it to the general public as a an end goal, and as a result the gay rights movement has activist allies who actually go out and do things, and it also has passive allies who don't necessarily march or protest, but will support the votes or at least not oppose gay rights. You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm talking about the people mentioned in the article- the so-called "Social Justice Warrior".
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Moderates are being driven away. People who support the ideas you do, but are turned off by the extremist rhetoric and blanketing of people. The thing is, in my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how nice and accommodating we are. Even the statement of simple truths is enough to rile people up. Try to talk about the poo poo that women face, or non-white people face, or LGBT people face, and you open yourself to harassment and abuse. It doesn't seem to matter if you qualify your statements with "Now, only a minority of men are like this...", or "Now obviously not all white people do this...", you'll still get a massive response from pissed off dudes and white people going "Well what about MEN being raped by WOMEN, huh? HUH?!", or "What about when BLACK PEOPLE kill WHITE PEOPLE, huh?! HUH?!" It just doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that will NOT piss these people off is if you say "Women harass and rape men just as much as vice-verse; black people are just as racist as white people and black cops murder unarmed white men just as much", despite all evidence to the contrary. Yes I agree that many leftist activists wrongfully condemn entire groups of people and can be very prejudiced in their own right, and that many leftists are pretty privileged themselves. There are lots of things to criticize left activists for, and maybe the author of the essay has some good points. I'm just tired of hearing "Whoa, we need to be nicer so as to not drive people away", because to my eyes, people are driven away simply by stating facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The thing is, in my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how nice and accommodating we are. Even the statement of simple truths is enough to rile people up. Try to talk about the poo poo that women face, or non-white people face, or LGBT people face, and you open yourself to harassment and abuse. It doesn't seem to matter if you qualify your statements with "Now, only a minority of men are like this...", or "Now obviously not all white people do this...", you'll still get a massive response from pissed off dudes and white people going "Well what about MEN being raped by WOMEN, huh? HUH?!", or "What about when BLACK PEOPLE kill WHITE PEOPLE, huh?! HUH?!" It just doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that will NOT piss these people off is if you say "Women harass and rape men just as much as vice-verse; black people are just as racist as white people and black cops murder unarmed white men just as much", despite all evidence to the contrary. Transexuality has a decent rate of comorbidity with a a variety of mental illnesses. No matter how much you think in your heart that you're a man/woman you're not genetically, and never will be. Those are simple statements of truth but somehow I'm Hitler when I do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Simple statements of truth huh? just making a simlpe statement of truf but that's just because your hitler regardless
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:The thing is, in my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how nice and accommodating we are. Even the statement of simple truths is enough to rile people up. Try to talk about the poo poo that women face, or non-white people face, or LGBT people face, and you open yourself to harassment and abuse. It doesn't seem to matter if you qualify your statements with "Now, only a minority of men are like this...", or "Now obviously not all white people do this...", you'll still get a massive response from pissed off dudes and white people going "Well what about MEN being raped by WOMEN, huh? HUH?!", or "What about when BLACK PEOPLE kill WHITE PEOPLE, huh?! HUH?!" It just doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that will NOT piss these people off is if you say "Women harass and rape men just as much as vice-verse; black people are just as racist as white people and black cops murder unarmed white men just as much", despite all evidence to the contrary. If this is a dumb question let me know, but how is a tiny group of people who piss lots of people off, confuse even more, and which does not give a drat about building bridges, going to actually DO anything? You can't force anything. You don't seem to even care about persuading people. How exactly do you think poo poo is going to happen? If similar ends are the goals of, say, a less radical left wing group (progressives?) and they succeed do you just take credit and pat yourself on the back or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:45
|
|