| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4728 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:08 Gahlo wrote: I could point to a few types of animals that rape or enslave if you'd like. (sorry for double) I am very curious which animals enslave other (other than parasites perhaps? ) | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:06 Silvanel wrote: I am very curious which animals enslave other (other than parasites perhaps? ) Certain ants enslave other ants (link). (I hope this isn't too off-topic because this is politics not ethology) | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:57 brian wrote: it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:00 bo1b wrote: This is the last post I will have in this thread for the foreseeable future, I can't agree with the viewpoints of the majority of the posters in this thread to a degree that I believe it helps no one to see me post. But I will respond to the last few people who responded to me, as I think that's a reasonable thing to do. I say with complete sincerity that I do not believe for a second that you truly care about that simile, or about other overblown hyperbolic comparisons, much in the same way that you don't truly care about a morbidly obese person eating voraciously being compared to a pig. I also seriously disagree with the notion that comparisons to animals devalue human potential for spreading misery, but unfortunately with one post to go we can't talk about that. Somehow, someway a myth was spread that humans are "the only animal on this planet who inflicts suffering upon his peers for the pleasure of it." This is a myth, animals are raping, torturing and eating each other alive constantly around the planet, and you need only look at Chimpanzees and there actions to see what they get up to. Refer to my response to Excludos for the second paragraph, the first is far more interesting and a much more reasonable criticism I think. Putting aside that I don't literally think that Nazi's are animals, nor do I think MS-13 are, I can see a very reasonable argument that heads of state should not be talking like that, if only for the few nutcases that do believe they are animals. I feel it's a shame to leave on such a note, yet I can't see any point continuing a discussion with people I feel are so intellectually dishonest. I remember someone bringing up Hillary's super predator comments, which I not only feel was significantly more of a dehumanizing criticism then an off hand simile, but was mostly swept under the rug for accusations that are largely the same. Much though I found this presenter to be completely pointless, I do enjoy listening to Bill Gates talk, and here are his thoughts on Trump. + Show Spoiler + https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bill-gates-dishes-about-trump-meetings-in-exclusive-video-1236490819549 I don't know if it's possible to request a 1 year ban from this thread, but if so could it be done? The super predators comment was discussed yesterday and I agree that it was critiqued well by people who supported Clinton. Including myself. I dismissed it as a product of a different time. The objections to Trump’s language are persistent because he actively promotes his view that the US is under siege from criminals trying to cross the border. This was the headline from moment he announced his run for Office. The man wants to build a wall to keep these criminals out, even though data points to border crossings dropping and the majority illegal immigrants are not violent. And that view does not just impact illegal immigrants. It also has an effect on legal immigrants and US citizens with South American heritage. I personally know people who have felt the need to move out of the rural, mostly white town they lived in to an area that is more welcoming to non-whites. This problem arose after 2016, and in MA, that home of the urban liberals. Trump’s language matters. Just like Clintons did back then. And I’m happy to admit being a hypocrite so long as people understand that. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote: Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
Also, Duck sex. I think this myth that only humans do bad stuff to each other originates from the idea that things that animals do are never good or evil, they are always amoral, as morals are a human concepts. This means that only humans are capable of doing evil things because they are the only species to which the concept of evil applies. But you can not extend this to mean that animals never do things that would be considered evil if a human did something equivalent. I am almost certain that some species exists which does basically anything evil a human could do (Interestingly enough, a lot of them are apparently done by ants) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4728 Posts
Anyway more on topic i wonder how will Iran sanctions matter resolve itself. Any news across the Atlantic in response to EU proposed measures? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 18 2018 13:56 a_flayer wrote: I mean, if Bolton thinks that the US is justified in doing a pre-emptive strike, then DPRK is similarly justified in doing a pre-emptive strike. Also on the subject: Source snickers It's all falling apart! Well, that is unsubtly terrifying. Get rid of alliances? Criminy. Music to Putin's ears. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://www.click2houston.com/news/police-confirm-reports-of-active-shooter-at-santa-fe-high-school | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:33 Nebuchad wrote: A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:58 bo1b wrote: Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? Absolutely. The entire reason why people do the dehumanising thing is because they see these appalling acts and say 'no human could do this, this is less than human'. But it isn't. The horrifying thing is not that these acts are unimaginably vicious and cruel, it's that they're performed by people exactly like you and me, from a different place, a different culture. You can't fight the causes of the horror by saying that these people are animals. They're incredibly dangerous people. But they're people, the same as anyone else, and the worst of what they do is nothing more than the worst of what humanity is capable of. And it's moral cowardice to act as if humanity as a whole is incapable of these things. Besides, animals are generally incapable of malice. The nastiest stuff done by MS-13 members and the nazis is either a) entirely malicious or b) entirely automated, clinical efficiency. Only humans are capable of either of those things. As you point out yourself, animals do rape and torture, but they aren't capable of malice like we are. They don't do it just to cause misery. Just a consequence of lacking true sentience. Dolphins might be capable of malice. Never looked into that. And I guess some of the smarter ape families might be as well. On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote: Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. You're right. BUT What I've observed in my time, is that the same people who regularly use that language are also the kind of people who don't want to do the thinking required to look at or deal with the underlying problems that led to the formation of such 'animals'. The sort of people who'd rather just kill them and forget about it, instead of trying to work out how to prevent them happening in the first place. That's the core of my objection. To me, it's not so much an insult, as an abdication of responsibility to deal with the problem, by 'othering' it as a non-human issue. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote: You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. I think as long as you don't lose track of the fact that they're humans your position is mostly fine. But the position in which that track is lost definitely exists. It exists in a "benign" context, where someone would like to feel better about humanity and so convinces themselves that humans who would do those things aren't human, and those are the people who I would address the argument of hindrance toward. And it exists in a much more dangerous context whenever it's used to justify actions that would make you look bad if you did them to humans (Duterte, Netanyahu, nazism and so on). Given that those other views exist I find the use of that terminology in conjonction with your position to be kind of weird. But like I said, I would still conclude it's mostly fine. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Many of these arguments about language and how it cannot be harmful are paradoxical. As Americans we value and champion free speech as something that must be protected as a powerful tool for democracy. But here we now debate if calling someone less than human is harmful, as if the word has no power to influence people. We can’t have it both ways. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
I also agree that words and language should not be separated from actions, because they are clearly interconnected. It just feels like the scope is a bit mis-adjusted here. Compare Trump's statement about Mexicans at the start of his campaign to this phrasing (at least if we are generous enough to think he was talking about M13 members specifically - it becomes vastly different if talking about immigrants in general), then my outrage meter would be at like, 8/10 for that and 3/10 for this. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote: School shooting in Texas. Details are limited at this time. https://www.click2houston.com/news/police-confirm-reports-of-active-shooter-at-santa-fe-high-school At least 8 dead and suspect in custody. Expect more political theater, thoughts and prayers, and little change. Sigh... Edit: Per BBC, it's up to 10 dead now. Not confirmed, but I read the shooter used a shotgun instead of a rifle. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote: That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote: is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote: To rely on the Bible is no definition of human at all.is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
