1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

Social Justice Debates

Discussion in 'World News & Debate' started by Blarrg, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,296
    112
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
    Why are you so obsessed with conspiracy theories?

    Speaking of...

    [​IMG]

    And the US Empire is really not the country which cares about history when it comes to other countries. (In case you don't get the reference: the US toppled Saddam's statues during its invasion of Iraq.)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
  2. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,490
    355
    83
    Sep 21, 2010
    Since when I said I believed in conspiracy theories? Duh...
     
  3. barrywilkins

    barrywilkins Member

    298
    14
    18
    Dec 7, 2012
    Removing statues of people who are in power at the exact time those statues are removed is quite a bit different from removing statues from people who died generations ago. That's quite a false equivalency you brought up.
     
  4. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    7,740
    178
    63
    Aug 15, 2013
    That's invalid though because no one implies that the opposite would yield the opposite implications. For example, if you say something and I say "meh" that is in indication I found it mundane or uninteresting. By your logic, I can say that we can examine the "contrapositive" as "if I don't say meh, then that means I found it interesting" which in turn isn't always true, therefore the initial assertion about me saying "meh" is incorrect. That of course is obviously ridiculous as anyone with an understanding of human behaviour would tell you the same thing about a reaction such as saying "meh".

    The reasoning why someone would provide sources (in order to explain themselves and to legitimize them as you did) when someone "gets it" is rather straightforward: The person understood and the conversation moved along to the examination part of the ordeal. Your proposal of providing sources allegedly before the other person understood your point is in fact nonsensical and counter-intuitive as you'd be instantly moving along to your explanation without the other person ostensibly comprehending your point to begin with.

    You don't exactly gain anything from other people not understanding you either, as it can always be traced back to both parties. So if you accuse me of not understanding something you said, then you blame yourself equally and this is not something you should hark on as something against me. Moreover, scoffing at it and treating it in an elitist way is just being counterproductive and bad at discussing things as "outsmarting" people by supposedly confusing them isn't the end goal.

    TL;DR: Let's say I didn't understand it; what exactly do you gain from this and how does this absolve you from your faults in argumentation?

    Well, first of all, you can learn things in much greater detail in the appropriate places, not Wikipedia. You consult appropriate reputable sources for the matter at hand. It's not like you can understand theoretical physics by reading up on Wikipedia either. If you seriously believe that you are either deluded or just used it deliberately as an attempt at a jab that simply doesn't work.

    Secondly, I don't want to burst your bubble, but theoretical physics is real life. We know black holes or gravitational waves exist even though the closest we have been to one is millions of light years away. By your logic that makes theoretical physicists unqualified to claim or calculate anything because there isn't enough proximity, which of course is a silly layman argument.

    You can study theoretical physics about celestial bodies so far away you have literally no way of ever being close to them and you can study about a a country which is half a planet away from you. It's doable by decree of willingness to actually read into it carefully.

    Similarly, I can potentially learn the sociopolitical intricacies of the Roman empire or the Ming empire by intensive studying of historical documents and archaeological evidence, even though there is no way for me or anyone to exist in those eras. Again, by your logic, we should discredit these efforts and dismiss them because "what could a 40-something year old archaeologist from Germany possibly know anything about the empire of Mali 700 years ago?".

    I would dispute the first part of your post in that his job at breaking these issues is in any way good is at best questionable. After all, turning complex issues into bit-sized pieces isn't an achievement since there is the default risk of oversimplifying and creating a caricature of actual events. This risk is ever-prevalent and should be taken into account heavily when coming across posts such as his.

    As for sources, I didn't comment based on incomplete knowledge because I didn't deny that what he said came from somewhere else. The claims he clearly makes in general (which he does quite a lot in his posts) are his own opinion, possibly formed after consulting some other source. Sources don't legitimize opinions because not all sources are equally accurate, reputable and they are more or less open to interpretation for the facts presented, depending on the situation and the context.

    And since I don't know his own credentials, I can only assume that he might as well be even in a difficult position to accurately assess data on his own in a way that grants him more agency in expressing himself. In other words, there is no way for me to tell if he is prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect, therefore I merely take his points presented as hard evidence here at face value.


    I know, I didn't say it as a delegitimizing point, just a reality check and a reminder in how you phrase your own posts (such as what you did in the initial post I quoted).


    There is nothing in my paragraph that indicates that I try to appear "smart" or "sophisticated", let alone "better than everyone else", so I have no idea what you are talking about.

    What I pointed out is quite straightforward: What he said is not worthy of being taken as some mandate to form an opinion on serious matters such as racism and the platform he used is quite telling of that. I didn't imply what I write is better or that I am worthy to consult as a source, that's just you projecting your own image of me here.

    In fact, the one person who constantly belittles people in a way that vitalizes their ego about everyone else being deluded is you. You have used my (incorrect) age and occupation as a way to discredit me twice in your last post alone. And because you seem to have trouble understanding the term, that's what an "ad hominem" argument is.

    A book, a newspaper outlet, an academic archive etc.


    Firstly, it's not a US cultural reference, the sarcastic "you're welcome" exists throughout the anglosphere, so you have no idea what you are talking about here. Or rather you do, but you twist it in order to deliver a jab anyway.

    Secondly, "you're welcome" other than the obvious literal use which obviously doesn't apply here, is a sarcastic remark added at the end of an action or explanation which is self-assessed as the correct one the other person/people have been expecting and therefore used preemptively before the "trivial" "thanks". An example in a sentence:

    "I changed those awful curtains in your living room, so you're welcome for that".

    In that sense (which the only logical one that fits in the context of his post) it is highly condescending and makes him look like a tool.


    Common human decency. Is it not morally wrong to intentionally try to hurt other people's feelings?

    No one says that morality is necessarily straightforward, but in the context of the question there is no counterweight to the action: It's the act of intentionally insulting and being racist towards a group of people.


    Who says it has to be online? That's just narrowing down the problem to your own convenience. Is it not possible to be racist and offensive towards white people in real life? Is that what you are implying? Because if you do, it has to be one of the most hilariously off-the-mark statements I have ever come across.

    Also, what's so fundamentally wrong about being offended online? Online life isn't alien to real life, your online life is part of your real life. What you say or are being said online can and will affect you in real life as well. Some people are more sensitive than others and take offense more easily, that doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

    Quite an ignorant statement.

    First of all, how exactly does it matter that the other person is a stranger? Do black people know all white supremacists in real life by name or something? This idea is flat out ridiculous.

    Second, harming is a relative term which I already explained. Being abused verbally is a form of harm and some people take it less lightly than others. And that's not even examining the very real dangers of "strangers online" who can legitimately cause much bigger harm if they really want to such as stalking or covertly taking information about you.

    In fact, these statements of yours show quite the hypocrisy: You fervently protest people making racist and sexist jokes online or posting offensive memes in random shitpost threads in some nowhere corner of the internet, yet now you take a 180-degree turn and scoff at the idea of people being offended at something they see online.

    I didn't say they are equivalent, in fact I addressed that this is an issue that can be examined when taking into account the specific cases of people who take it more seriously. It's not a victimhood contest, you don't "win" a prize in being a victim of something "worse". All sorts of harm are bad with varying degrees of seriousness depending both on the context and the person at hand.

    Your paragraph is basically the equivalent of saying that it's stupid to complain about the pain of breaking a finger because amputees and cripples exist.


    Well, well, well :cat:
     
    ManOnTheCan likes this.
  5. Petique

    Petique Member

    2,988
    59
    48
    Sep 4, 2013
    That's enrico in a nutshell. The ironic thing is that he is still offended at a remark that I made (for what I even apologized for several times) back in january but that doesn't get in his way to condescendingly lecture people how being offended online is a non-issue. He also doesn't seem to have a problem to besmirch and insult people based on age, nationality or even profession. For someone who is supposedly an activist against bigotry and hate, he uses their methods quite often.
     
  6. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,237
    294
    83
    Jun 12, 2009
    Ya but you're white.

    Checkmate. :cat:
     
  7. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,899
    426
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    Just to make something clear about sources, its OK for the site to be biased if they are self conscious about it and provide sources for their articles. Its also important to separate their news from their opinion pieces. This has always been the case in the media. Biased websites are not fake news or even remotely bad if they operate like this. If you dismiss things just because they are from X source, then you are part of the whole media problem we are facing today.
     
  8. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    3,832
    254
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    Also don't read just the titles.

    In Israel when muslim terrorists go on a stabbing spree and are killed by the police, the BBC will choose headlines that make it seem like the assailants are the victims. The actual article tends to be factual, however.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/bbc-regrets-headline-that-victimized-jerusalem-attackers/
     
  9. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,296
    112
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
    Btw, creator of Godwin's law spoke in the media regarding the Nazi marches in Charlottesville:


    Anyway, there were more developments to the story, like Leaked Messages Show Charlottesville Neo-Nazis Planned for Violence. There were also screenshots from 4chan where Nazis discussed the marches and how to garner support from the general public or infiltrate antifa. So we know for a fact that Nazis are both planning for violence and seek ways to make way into the public life to potentially seize political power. Thankfully, the American people are standing up against them, but Trump also low key supports them, so we have to be super vigilant.

    Also, this is the kind of headlines Nazis ran on their sites when a person was killed during Charlottesville protests:

    [​IMG]
     
  10. lovestep

    lovestep Member

    729
    89
    28
    Jan 10, 2015
    Yes, screenshots of 14yrs old race war larpers from Spain and Italy discussing the march allows us to K N O W F O R A F A C T.

    >Nazis trying to seize politcal power
    This continues to prove that you all have nothing to live for actually so you invent your own purpose by pretending the local delusional skinhead gang has an evil mastermind plan to take over the world.
    You poor people live inside your own fantasy world.

    Hey I used to do a similar thing with my friends... but it was back when I was 5 years old.
    You even have your own little club for it, with a cool banner and everything. Anti-fa. Whoooa dude, you're really cool.;)


    The fucking National Socialist party of Germany is running the site? Someone should hint this to the JIDF.

    Anyway, to be honest, yes, it's cruel to mock a victim BUT she was indeed:
    FAT
    CHILDLESS
    and 32 year-old

    So the only term that is doubtful in the article headline is SLUT... which is arguable.
    Yeah, I don't see a problem, beside the obvious disrespect.
     
  11. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    1,542
    41
    48
    Dec 9, 2012
    Considering what his law actually says that "I'm with you" part is obvious sarcasm and he is saying stop acting like they are Nazi's. For those who miss the point...
     
  12. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    1,542
    41
    48
    Dec 9, 2012
    This is so goddamn good:

     
  13. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,296
    112
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
  14. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    1,542
    41
    48
    Dec 9, 2012
  15. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    3,832
    254
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    But if you think about it, it could actually be some next-level meta commentary that even Godwin isn't aware of.
     
  16. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    1,542
    41
    48
    Dec 9, 2012
    Shiiit man. He is next level proving his law by showing that even though he is the one that came up with it he falls victim to it....
     
  17. Petique

    Petique Member

    2,988
    59
    48
    Sep 4, 2013
    So, this week is called Pride week in my country. Various LGBT stuff is being organized in Belgrade, including concerts, lectures, galleries etc. the march will be held on sunday.
    If anyone may be interested here is the website: http://parada.rs/en/
     
  18. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,899
    426
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    Your posts can't simply be personal attacks towards someone. For obvious reasons.
     
  19. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,899
    426
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    One thing I will tell you however, if that victim was a 32 year old man without a child Who was simply a bit overweight and NOT FAT, what would they call him? And yes, she was not fat. She was simply not fit. I think I finally found a use for SJW term "internalized misogyny".

    Most of the people the antifa have beaten were "fat" as well and to my knowledge didn't have any family. That Trump supporter who was pepper sprayed had the exact characteristics of Heyer. I didn't see you calling her a slut. You were outraged bu the whole thing.
     
  20. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    3,832
    254
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    In conclusion, there's fat people and immature people on both sides of the political spectrum.

    If we want to have an intelligent debate on the subject, we should ignore both the body fat percentage of people, as well as try not to generalize a political ideology by the stupidest people who believe in that ideology.