|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 01:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2017 17:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 16:36 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
I didn't equate anything. I said that the fact that you perceiving whatever culture to be marginally less rapy than another isn't a justification for any from of group allegiance. What kind of mediocre person do you need to be that this kind of low brow culture war invokes feelings of superiority? I’m also always completely baffled that the people who consider feminism to be a cancer, gay rights a threat to the american family, other religions as an existencial threat and so on and so forth bash the muslim world for being opressing to women, gays and religious minorities. I mean, make up your mind. You can’t be in a culture total war with liberals and hate all muslims because their countries generally don’t adopt liberal values. Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't want a cookie, no. I just want you to figure out that if you're speaking about unity and your unity translates to one of the two groups not changing at all and the other meeting them in the middle, what you're looking for isn't called unity, it's called compliance. That's true when the democratic party does it to its leftwing and that's true when you do it to America.
See I don't see america like this the democratic party has steadily been moving right in the past few decades which has caused the republicans to more even more right in response. They didn't do that out of compliance to the right they did that all on their own. If the dems take one thing from trump is that people want to be on the left of him and I hope this forces them to go to the left and get power forcing the right to tact left to keep ahold of the center enough to win.
This is ignoring why the dems went right but lets just agree to cut history off there for the sake of time.
|
On December 06 2017 01:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:40 Excludos wrote:On December 06 2017 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:27 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:17 brian wrote:
alternatively, i think on a very basic level we disagree on what Western Culture is That's probably correct, but the reason for that disagreement is that none of you who are disagreeing with me on this stuff -- again, aside from Igne -- has demonstrated that you fully grasp what culture is, much less shown the ability to articulate a definition of Western culture as I have. You can't insist that you have a unique and complete grasp on what culture is while also insisting that Muslim culture is kebab and bellydancing. Or at least you can, but people will think you're a fucking idiot for doing it. The only people who think that I believe that Muslim culture is limited to kebabs and bellydancing are true idiots. Take another look at what I was asked and how I responded. Considering that is literally what you said, I'm not sure how we are supposed to interpret any other way. You may also notice how other people are saying the same thing. Unless you're planning on going the "everyone else is wrong because I never am" route then you might want to take a step back and realise how and why you're making yourself look like a fool. The only people who look foolish are all of you who very clearly failed to read the question that I was asked and appreciate my answer within that context. You guys really need to step up your game. This is very disappointing.
Oh ok, so "everyone else is wrong because I never am" it is then. Good job on the self reflection mate. It's a real useful skill to have
|
On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2017 17:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 16:36 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
I didn't equate anything. I said that the fact that you perceiving whatever culture to be marginally less rapy than another isn't a justification for any from of group allegiance. What kind of mediocre person do you need to be that this kind of low brow culture war invokes feelings of superiority? I’m also always completely baffled that the people who consider feminism to be a cancer, gay rights a threat to the american family, other religions as an existencial threat and so on and so forth bash the muslim world for being opressing to women, gays and religious minorities. I mean, make up your mind. You can’t be in a culture total war with liberals and hate all muslims because their countries generally don’t adopt liberal values. Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it.
No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle.
|
On December 06 2017 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it is fair to point out that within the US, the removal of any single sub-culture, such as Thai, Vietnamese, Syrian, Iranian, Mexican, Peruvian, Japanese...etc...Removing any one of them would really not be too big a cultural hit just because of how many other components get tossed into our melting pot. The idea that we could just skip one of them because it is a little more disruptive than the others isn't entirely crazy.
If, for example, we were to start slowly phasing out Peruvians as American citizens, the country would do just fine.
There's a saying for exactly this you know.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Sure it's a slippery slope argument, but it is also equally valid. You can't go after only one subculture "because I don't like them and I'm not in it", because the very next time you are.
|
On December 06 2017 02:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:27 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:17 brian wrote:
alternatively, i think on a very basic level we disagree on what Western Culture is That's probably correct, but the reason for that disagreement is that none of you who are disagreeing with me on this stuff -- again, aside from Igne -- has demonstrated that you fully grasp what culture is, much less shown the ability to articulate a definition of Western culture as I have. You can't insist that you have a unique and complete grasp on what culture is while also insisting that Muslim culture is kebab and bellydancing. Or at least you can, but people will think you're a fucking idiot for doing it. The only people who think that I believe that Muslim culture is limited to kebabs and bellydancing are true idiots. Take another look at what I was asked and how I responded. Am I to interpret this as you thinking that kebabs and belly dancing are comparable to your other examples in significance, that you were intentionally trolling, or something else? I don't really want to call it "trolling" because, like I previously mentioned, I'm illustrating a larger point. The point is that Western culture is superior because the answers that Western culture has provided to concepts of the individual and the state are far superior to the answers that are provided by other cultures. So when I failed to list a Muslim achievement that is comparable to the Western concept of inalienable rights, what I'm necessarily saying is that I don't value any Muslim achievement to that degree. While belly dancing is hot and kebabs are superior to burritos and hamburgers, let's get real: what's more important, social systems or what we have for lunch? Like I have pointed out repeatedly, the root problem here is that most of y'all on the left truly don't understand the scope of culture and its impact. For this reason, you are completely blind to the fact that your very critiques of what you perceive as Western culture are grounded in Western culture itself. It doesn't take a genius to understand the implications of that statement.
Imagining for a moment I completely accept this framing, could you give me an example of a comparably (though notably less) significant positive example from Muslim cultures , and then could you provide one from any other non-western culture?
|
On December 06 2017 02:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:27 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:17 brian wrote:
alternatively, i think on a very basic level we disagree on what Western Culture is That's probably correct, but the reason for that disagreement is that none of you who are disagreeing with me on this stuff -- again, aside from Igne -- has demonstrated that you fully grasp what culture is, much less shown the ability to articulate a definition of Western culture as I have. You can't insist that you have a unique and complete grasp on what culture is while also insisting that Muslim culture is kebab and bellydancing. Or at least you can, but people will think you're a fucking idiot for doing it. The only people who think that I believe that Muslim culture is limited to kebabs and bellydancing are true idiots. Take another look at what I was asked and how I responded. Am I to interpret this as you thinking that kebabs and belly dancing are comparable to your other examples in significance, that you were intentionally trolling, or something else? I don't really want to call it "trolling" because, like I previously mentioned, I'm illustrating a larger point. The point is that Western culture is superior because the answers that Western culture has provided to concepts of the individual and the state are far superior to the answers that are provided by other cultures. So when I failed to list a Muslim achievement that is comparable to the Western concept of inalienable rights, what I'm necessarily saying is that I don't value any Muslim achievement to that degree. While belly dancing is hot and kebabs are superior to burritos and hamburgers, let's get real: what's more important, social systems or what we have for lunch? Like I have pointed out repeatedly, the root problem here is that most of y'all on the left truly don't understand the scope of culture and its impact. For this reason, you are completely blind to the fact that your very critiques of what you perceive as Western culture are grounded in Western culture itself. It doesn't take a genius to understand the implications of that statement.
I still find it hilarious to say this on a site that exists as is because it provided a western audience with a good view into a non-western culture.
|
On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2017 17:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I’m also always completely baffled that the people who consider feminism to be a cancer, gay rights a threat to the american family, other religions as an existencial threat and so on and so forth bash the muslim world for being opressing to women, gays and religious minorities.
I mean, make up your mind. You can’t be in a culture total war with liberals and hate all muslims because their countries generally don’t adopt liberal values. Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle.
If one of the side heavily tends on the side of "wrong" and "extreme", it's not acting superior to try and meet them as opposed to tend to the other side.
You assume that the better attitude would be to unpolarize but you'd need to demonstrate it in this specific instance before you make that point. A lot of us don't feel that this is the case.
|
On December 06 2017 02:07 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it is fair to point out that within the US, the removal of any single sub-culture, such as Thai, Vietnamese, Syrian, Iranian, Mexican, Peruvian, Japanese...etc...Removing any one of them would really not be too big a cultural hit just because of how many other components get tossed into our melting pot. The idea that we could just skip one of them because it is a little more disruptive than the others isn't entirely crazy.
If, for example, we were to start slowly phasing out Peruvians as American citizens, the country would do just fine. There's a saying for exactly this you know. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Sure it's a slippery slope argument, but it is also equally valid. You can't go after only one subculture "because I don't like them and I'm not in it", because the very next time you are.
Yeah, I understand this. But if I may use a crude example: Pitbulls. Many apartment complexes ban pitbulls because, whether it is the "fault" of the dogs themselves or the owners or the abusive past or whatever bullshit, they are riskier animals to have on your property. We have not ended up in a situation where people can only have dogs under 10 pounds. Sometimes, there really is a specific group that is more problematic than others and we should be open to the possibility that squishing their numbers down a bit would be a good thing, despite our knee-jerk reaction from learning about racism in high school.
The idea that every single culture is totally justifiable and could never be a net negative is just as braindead as thinking every single person in a given group is bad. We should be able to address this kind of thing on an individual basis and not panic every time it becomes clear it would take rigorous analysis.
I am by no means saying this actually is the case for Muslims. I haven't taken the time to learn if it is. I am not even qualified to make that determination. But I am saying cultures can be downright conflicting.
|
On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2017 17:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I’m also always completely baffled that the people who consider feminism to be a cancer, gay rights a threat to the american family, other religions as an existencial threat and so on and so forth bash the muslim world for being opressing to women, gays and religious minorities.
I mean, make up your mind. You can’t be in a culture total war with liberals and hate all muslims because their countries generally don’t adopt liberal values. Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle.
I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged.
|
On December 06 2017 02:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 01:55 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2017 17:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I’m also always completely baffled that the people who consider feminism to be a cancer, gay rights a threat to the american family, other religions as an existencial threat and so on and so forth bash the muslim world for being opressing to women, gays and religious minorities.
I mean, make up your mind. You can’t be in a culture total war with liberals and hate all muslims because their countries generally don’t adopt liberal values. Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't want a cookie, no. I just want you to figure out that if you're speaking about unity and your unity translates to one of the two groups not changing at all and the other meeting them in the middle, what you're looking for isn't called unity, it's called compliance. That's true when the democratic party does it to its leftwing and that's true when you do it to America. See I don't see america like this the democratic party has steadily been moving right in the past few decades which has caused the republicans to more even more right in response. They didn't do that out of compliance to the right they did that all on their own. If the dems take one thing from trump is that people want to be on the left of him and I hope this forces them to go to the left and get power forcing the right to tact left to keep ahold of the center enough to win. This is ignoring why the dems went right but lets just agree to cut history off there for the sake of time.
I don't see that timeline as accurate. what citations/evidence do you have on it?
I don't see the dems moving right, then the republicans moving right as a response (not that that would even be a justification),
I see the dems moving right in some ways and left in some ways, and overall staying similar to where they were, or maybe a bit leftward, while the republicans lurched heavily to the right.
if the dems go further leftward, what makes you think they'd get more votes rather than less? that seems unjustified, if they go further from the median voter they'd be apt to get less votes rather than more.
(then of course the words left/right are rather vague in and of themselves)
|
You can use economically left/right and socially left/right for these types of conversations, that solves most of the vagueness.
|
On December 06 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:04 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:55 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't want a cookie, no. I just want you to figure out that if you're speaking about unity and your unity translates to one of the two groups not changing at all and the other meeting them in the middle, what you're looking for isn't called unity, it's called compliance. That's true when the democratic party does it to its leftwing and that's true when you do it to America. See I don't see america like this the democratic party has steadily been moving right in the past few decades which has caused the republicans to more even more right in response. They didn't do that out of compliance to the right they did that all on their own. If the dems take one thing from trump is that people want to be on the left of him and I hope this forces them to go to the left and get power forcing the right to tact left to keep ahold of the center enough to win. This is ignoring why the dems went right but lets just agree to cut history off there for the sake of time. I don't see that timeline as accurate. what citations/evidence do you have on it? I don't see the dems moving right, then the republicans moving right as a response (not that that would even be a justification), I see the dems moving right in some ways and left in some ways, and overall staying similar to where they were, or maybe a bit leftward, while the republicans lurched heavily to the right. if the dems go further leftward, what makes you think they'd get more votes rather than less? that seems unjustified, if they go further from the median voter they'd be apt to get less votes rather than more. (then of course the words left/right are rather vague in and of themselves)
Economically they have moved to the right.
|
The implications you made from analyzing Western culture is a trap, xDaunt. You're basically saying that we're the only culture that evolved into something that has an intrinsic higher value than what other cultures had, so they adopted it.
However, there's no way for sure that, just because Western culture was the most influential and the first on many aspects, this wouldn't arise somewhere else. It might've just been that an earlier change in Middle Eastern or East Asian culture would've swept everything else aside and we would've followed suit or drowned.
Just because your predecessors did it and established a rulebook that's more or less followed by the world, doesn't mean you get to say your culture is the best. It was simply first. I won't deny we didn't do it first and I guess you can attribute Caucasian minds coupled with centuries long continental conflicts for that, but in the end it's a bit silly. Humans are ingenious beings, that's universal. It doesn't matter if where you're from.
|
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them.
|
On December 06 2017 02:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:01 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 06 2017 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:27 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 01:17 brian wrote:
alternatively, i think on a very basic level we disagree on what Western Culture is That's probably correct, but the reason for that disagreement is that none of you who are disagreeing with me on this stuff -- again, aside from Igne -- has demonstrated that you fully grasp what culture is, much less shown the ability to articulate a definition of Western culture as I have. You can't insist that you have a unique and complete grasp on what culture is while also insisting that Muslim culture is kebab and bellydancing. Or at least you can, but people will think you're a fucking idiot for doing it. The only people who think that I believe that Muslim culture is limited to kebabs and bellydancing are true idiots. Take another look at what I was asked and how I responded. Am I to interpret this as you thinking that kebabs and belly dancing are comparable to your other examples in significance, that you were intentionally trolling, or something else? I don't really want to call it "trolling" because, like I previously mentioned, I'm illustrating a larger point. The point is that Western culture is superior because the answers that Western culture has provided to concepts of the individual and the state are far superior to the answers that are provided by other cultures. So when I failed to list a Muslim achievement that is comparable to the Western concept of inalienable rights, what I'm necessarily saying is that I don't value any Muslim achievement to that degree. While belly dancing is hot and kebabs are superior to burritos and hamburgers, let's get real: what's more important, social systems or what we have for lunch? Like I have pointed out repeatedly, the root problem here is that most of y'all on the left truly don't understand the scope of culture and its impact. For this reason, you are completely blind to the fact that your very critiques of what you perceive as Western culture are grounded in Western culture itself. It doesn't take a genius to understand the implications of that statement. Imagining for a moment I completely accept this framing, could you give me an example of a comparably (though notably less) significant positive example from Muslim cultures , and then could you provide one from any other non-western culture?
Muslims made notable contributions to science, art, and philosophy during the Dark Ages. Algebra and our numeral system are both Arabic in origin. China gave us gunpowder.
|
On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged.
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter.
|
On December 06 2017 02:20 Uldridge wrote:
The implications you made from analyzing Western culture is a trap, xDaunt. You're basically saying that we're the only culture that evolved into something that has an intrinsic higher value than what other cultures had, so they adopted it.
I have no idea what this means, so I highly doubt that this is what I'm saying.
However, there's no way for sure that, just because Western culture was the most influential and the first on many aspects, this wouldn't arise somewhere else. It might've just been that an earlier change in Middle Eastern or East Asian culture would've swept everything else aside and we would've followed suit or drowned.
This is not only speculative, but it is demonstrably untrue. As just one example, mainstream Muslim philosophers explicitly rejected the very conclusions that contemporary Christian philosophers made that ultimate led to the Enlightenment. You're clearly out of your depth, here.
Just because your predecessors did it and established a rulebook that's more or less followed by the world, doesn't mean you get to say your culture is the best. It was simply first. I won't deny we didn't do it first and I guess you can attribute Caucasian minds coupled with centuries long continental conflicts for that, but in the end it's a bit silly. Humans are ingenious beings, that's universal. It doesn't matter if where you're from.
Again, you're demonstrating zero understanding of how this stuff works. I don't believe that Western culture is superior because Western culture established a "rulebook" that is now "more or less followed by the world." Western culture is superior because it adheres to and promotes critically important values of individual liberty and freedom that are expressly rejected by every other culture around the world. You need to demonstrate the slightest aptitude for understanding what the argument even is before you engage in it.
|
On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them.
You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment.
|
On December 06 2017 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:20 Uldridge wrote:
The implications you made from analyzing Western culture is a trap, xDaunt. You're basically saying that we're the only culture that evolved into something that has an intrinsic higher value than what other cultures had, so they adopted it. I have no idea what this means, so I highly doubt that this is what I'm saying. Show nested quote +However, there's no way for sure that, just because Western culture was the most influential and the first on many aspects, this wouldn't arise somewhere else. It might've just been that an earlier change in Middle Eastern or East Asian culture would've swept everything else aside and we would've followed suit or drowned. This is not only speculative, but it is demonstrably untrue. As just one example, mainstream Muslim philosophers explicitly rejected the very conclusions that contemporary Christian philosophers made that ultimate led to the Enlightenment. You're clearly out of your depth, here. Show nested quote +Just because your predecessors did it and established a rulebook that's more or less followed by the world, doesn't mean you get to say your culture is the best. It was simply first. I won't deny we didn't do it first and I guess you can attribute Caucasian minds coupled with centuries long continental conflicts for that, but in the end it's a bit silly. Humans are ingenious beings, that's universal. It doesn't matter if where you're from. Again, you're demonstrating zero understanding of how this stuff works. I don't believe that Western culture is superior because Western culture established a "rulebook" that is now "more or less followed by the world." Western culture is superior because it adheres to and promotes critically important values of individual liberty and freedom that are expressly rejected by every other culture around the world. You need to demonstrate the slightest aptitude for understanding what the argument even is before you engage in it.
Like the freedom to not have children molested by adults? Because your party is officially endorsing a candidate who breaks that freedom. The freedom to not be sexually assaulted by rich men? Guess who's party's president breaks that one? From the sound of it, it's not "western christians" that are trying to enforce the rules about rape and freedom, but the pesky "libruls" that are trying to hold people accountable for sexual assault and bigotry.
|
Justice Kennedy is back, raising deep concerns about comments made by one commissioner on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who said it was “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others. The justice makes clear he’s troubled by the statement and asks if the state disavows it.
Mr. Yarger said he wouldn’t counsel a client to make a statement like that. Pressed further by Justice Kennedy, he then says, yes, he disavows it.
Justice Kennedy and Justice Gorsuch then go on to ask what the court should do with the case if it believed at least some members of the state civil rights commission had demonstrated hostility toward religion.
Mr. Yarger said the commission was not in fact hostile to religion.
Justice Alito continued to poke at Colorado’s insistence that all would be well if Mr. Phillips simply provided an identical product--such as the same cake with the same words--without regard to characteristics the state protects from discrimination. What if one couple ordered a cake celebrating its anniversary, with icing that read something like, “Nov. 9 is the greatest day in history.” And then someone else came in and ordered the identical cake, explaining, “We’re going to have a party to celebrate Kristallnacht”--the Nazi pogrom that began Nov. 9, 1938, marking a major step toward the Holocaust.
A quick headline here: Colorado is having difficulties in defending how it applied its public accommodations law to the baker.
Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said.
WSJ Live Coverage
Just as a reminder to folks like Logo that the message presented and the discrimination on the basis of it is front and center in several justice's minds. It's not, as previously argued, some obvious exception that can't really be called discrimination at all.
The wrapups in paragraph form are very long, so I suggest interested parties to head to the link if they want more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
