Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: political correctness talk

  1. #1
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,487
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default political correctness talk



    hate speech vs. free speech. i think that to me there is significant conflict in this area like my robot brain cannot compute. i don't like hate speech. i like free speech and consider it absolutely essential (freedom of expression and speech is our most important right). i have noticed a waning of intellectual diversity and increasing censoring of speech. the notion of "safe spaces" really disturbs me on multiple levels. i fear any society where a person cannot speak their mind (regardless of their opinion). i know that hate speech is damaging, especially if one already feels vulnerable. hate speech against free speech is still however hate speech. i feel safer when people can say whatever the fuck they want. i don't believe that blocking "bigoted speech" solves any problems because it creates an underground. with any painful knot of resentment in my mind, being able to talk about it and have my ideas challenged helps me to untangle the knot. it cannot fester when it is exposed. i don't currently know how to resolve this conflict as i have strong feelings regarding hate speech but also strong feelings regarding free speech. my feelings regarding free speech are stronger, because if you don't have that, you are not safe and you are not free. it is essential for any social change. i've missed out on a lot of the generation of social justice warriors. i'm in my 30s not my 20s or teens. i think there is something disturbing going on; it *is* conflicting with free speech. the conflict has been growing inside of me even for a while, so i didn't even need to see it outside of me. mainly i think that this isn't a clear cut matter. bigotry does exist in the world and there are people who say hateful things who would really like to also act on it if they had the means or the guts. but if you censor what one person can say, you censor what all people can say. if free speech is held as the priority, society must bend around it. it's supposed to be so simple. there is the constitution. it says what rights *everyone* should have. there shouldn't need to be a speech police or a thought police to further protect those rights just because our society is too weak to properly honor them. throughout history it has been too weak denying certain groups the rights the fucking constitution says they should have with little secret caveats about *who* it applies to and who it does not. i am so tired of it even though i was born after the worst of it. there are so many people on earth now, so many individual ideas... and part of me does fear a need arising to *control that* for fear there will be too much chaos otherwise. i can't really resist the bottom line that i also agree with in my deepest self: hate speech is wrong but suppression of free speech is even more wrong. censorship is also wrong.

    ps. now that i've been watching the entire video, i have the following objections:

    1) the need by both of the "right" speakers to say the right is innocent, that everyone on the right supports free speech, everyone on the right is not racist or sexist, etc. is simply ridiculous (because it is virtually impossible lol). one of them acknowledged not liking extremists on both sides, which means there is an understanding that there are extremists and well, extremists tend towards the "isms" of their likings.

    1a) just because you have sex with people of another race doesn't mean you can't be racist. bad argument. although i don't think what's-his-name is racist, so it doesn't really matter all that much. except for in the case of institutional racism, which i think does exist--to claim simply that "sjws" are the cause of racism alone is really lame.

    2) the claims regarding islam from both the "right" speakers is lame. one of them said that 1 in 2 american muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal. if that is true, that means 1 in 2 *disagrees*. to judge all muslims as haters who want to kill gays and oppress, rape and kill women, is unreasonable and untrue. and it's not fair. you could also ask people to look through the bible and read a bunch of the shit in that book about how you should stone people to death for adultery or whatever. i mean, you have to understand that some people are thoughtful and some people are empathetic, and both camps will not accept extremist statements from their religious texts. some people will put those statements in their historical contexts. i was also disappointed that 9/11 was brought up as justification. religious extremism is dangerous. perhaps there are more muslim extremists than in any other religion, i don't know. but what i care about is not judging a person just because of their religion. if we could see people as individuals we wouldn't have to resort to such stupid simplifications. i think that both of the "right" speakers can see people as individuals especially that crowder person, but it doesn't change their absolute statements regarding islam.

    a student brought up the point ~1:25:00: that he is muslim and he is not an extremist who wants to rape and kill people. crowder however flunked in his answer to this. i mean there was a time that christian nations burnt people to death and so on. there is a distinction between an individual and a nation, and i am annoyed when people can't make that distinction. i personally think the entire judeo-christian-muslim tradition arises out of a history of bloodshed, so it is not at all surprising that such bloodshed continues into the present. the religious texts of all three religions can be used to justify violence because all three contain extremist laws and statements reflecting their origins of strife and struggle. does that mean i want these three religions obliterated or put them before the individual who practices them? absolutely not.

    and i find it funny that both of the "right" speakers are either christian or have said great things about christian values (in other videos), and everyone knows christianity and islam have been in a bloody dispute for over a thousand years. how is this not simply a continuation?

    oh and further, i'm annoyed at claiming christianity isn't involved politically. of course it fucking is. our politics in the u.s. are full of christians who make decisions based on their religious ideology. i feel like as a non-christian i have the outside perspective where i can better see how much it bleeds into everything. why did it take so long for gays to be able to marry in the u.s. for instance? christianity. what american politician doesn't mention their belief in god with great fervor in every other damn speech? blah. i am deeply annoyed also when christians claim that they are so oppressed. it's like, you are the political majority. just shut up.

    i guess though it is possible that it's a dwindling political majority and i haven't bothered to try to find evidence. i mainly go by my feelings when i watch these people on tv. i felt a little better when they all finally backed off gay marriage because to me that represented a significant win of state > church. i don't want church involved in state, period. and it's because it *will* oppress people based on their beliefs or for not conforming to its "morals"; it cannot help it. that said, i know there are some shitty atheists out there who certainly would be willing to oppress people for religious beliefs. i want a government that makes no such judgments: you are free to have your beliefs, whatever they are. this sounds quite pretty in a lot of ways, but i also definitely oppose not teaching evolution in schools, and it is for the following reason: if it is untrue, it can be proven through science (real science, not shams that pretend to be science). it is about something larger, based on evidence and fact. and if we can't do that, if we can just believe whatever we want because we can't tolerate an alternate reality, we are screwed.

    (i added all this p.s. stuff after verb liked my post btw )
    Last edited by inumbra; 11-20-2016 at 10:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Censorship is wrong. If your beliefs would fall apart if they were challenged, they're wrong (not that the opposite extreme is automatically true, those aren't the only two options, although acting like they are seems to drive this whole fear). We just need to challenge all the beliefs as much as possible and whatever remains we should use. Of course we're going to be in a constant process of growth and change, that's the point. Getting to a point where you think you're perfect and won't change is what Greek hubris or the sin of pride are largely defined as. I think what's really going on with "safe spaces" and "free speech zones" and all that jazz is that some people know they're wrong on some things but have built their entire reputations and/or salaries around it so they need to stop people from finding out that they're wrong to keep their livelihoods. Politics, like science, progresses one funeral at a time, unfortunately...

  3. #3
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,124
    Mentioned
    288 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    Censorship is wrong. If your beliefs would fall apart if they were challenged, they're wrong (not that the opposite extreme is automatically true, those aren't the only two options, although acting like they are seems to drive this whole fear). We just need to challenge all the beliefs as much as possible and whatever remains we should use.
    This is exactly what our culture has been doing, and it means that whoever talks loudest and presents their view the most appealingly wins. It's how Trump got elected, he looked good on TV so they kept advertising him. We have free speech but what good is free speech if it's a lie? Just look at how global warming denial works and tell me if you think it can be fought without restricting what people can say somehow.

  4. #4
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,487
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i blame christianity and the "right" for failing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. *points the finger*

    it will really suck for everyone later. but i mean who cares about people when you have political ideology shit?

  5. #5
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,688
    Mentioned
    337 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Speech should be as free as far as it does not impinge on the legally permissible freedoms of individuals. Criminalizing "hate speech" tackles the hateful action of the speech, rather than an individual's right to speak.

    When it comes to speaking about ideologies, I don't think there should be any limit on what can be said about them.

  6. #6
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,688
    Mentioned
    337 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    In regards Islam, while I believe that most Muslims will probably never cause serious harm to others, I can never accept that Islam is essentially a fundamentally acceptable ideology. It is a religion that was founded by a warlord who wanted the whole world to submit to Islam or be killed and who condoned the carrying out of acts of terror against his enemies: The first pillar of Islam requires Muslims to accept him as the messenger of their God.

    That Muslims in "the West" generally have more backward views than the societies they live in is naturally of concern, although of secondary significance.

  7. #7
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    712 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The term itself is misleading... political correctness - why not say kindness in the first place.

    This should not be about politics nor what is correct, it has to be about humans and what is beneficent for them. Defining the latter is the task, implementing the result is the next step.

  8. #8
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,487
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, so far no one has provided a reasonable argument about why restricting people's speech is necessary and morally right. although the implied argument that people can't be trusted at all with information or knowledge since they elected donald trump and therefore should only be allowed to say certain things deemed correct by some authorities is wicked.

  9. #9
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,690
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am definitely pro-free speech. I think it's important to separate hate speech from denial of whatever rights are in play (by institutions, including business - the provision of services by private entities is pervasive and fundamental and so should be considered an institution) based on personal qualities, though. One is what you say and one is what you do, how you treat somebody.

  10. #10
    malna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Poland
    TIM
    Ne EII
    Posts
    331
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm 100% sold on how the wonderful furiosity put it: "free speech means the government can't jail or shoot you for being your rabid hateful selves that's it that's all."
    I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    Censorship is wrong. If your beliefs would fall apart if they were challenged, they're wrong (not that the opposite extreme is automatically true, those aren't the only two options, although acting like they are seems to drive this whole fear). We just need to challenge all the beliefs as much as possible and whatever remains we should use. Of course we're going to be in a constant process of growth and change, that's the point. Getting to a point where you think you're perfect and won't change is what Greek hubris or the sin of pride are largely defined as. I think what's really going on with "safe spaces" and "free speech zones" and all that jazz is that some people know they're wrong on some things but have built their entire reputations and/or salaries around it so they need to stop people from finding out that they're wrong to keep their livelihoods. Politics, like science, progresses one funeral at a time, unfortunately...
    You can't yell fire in a movie theater, and this speech is restricted. Also most debates have moderators and such and there are reasons why some speech gets moderated out at this forum. Not all speech are there to challenge a view some are done to interfere with other people's rights.

    The key to free speech is that views are allowed to be expressed without being interfered, it is not merely censorship that interferes with speech but there are acts which includes other types of speech that can interfere with free speech.

    It's easy to defend your right to free speech, but if one's speech doesn't respect other's right to this same basic human right(or some other basic human right such as life), that is where the law can act on these forms of speech.

    Safe spaces and free speech zones are places where one can speak without fear of violence, fear of spam derailing the conversation, fear of harassment, fear of various methods others can use to disturb a conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Safe space
    In educational institutions, safe-space (or safe space), safer-space, and positive space originally were terms used to indicate that a teacher, educational institution or student body does not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.[2] The term safe space has been extended to refer to a space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization, typically on a university campus.[3] It has been criticized for being contrary to freedom of speech.
    I do think the principles of preventing people from experiencing harassment or threats of violence is legitimate, but intent is difficult to assess and often the people who moderate the conversations can take a heavy hand which stifles discourse.

    I think the issue with safe space is that they are often redundant to the existing laws and allowable practices which already exist, this redundancy and I think the desire to differentiate creates an area where existing laws and practices are exceeded. This exceptionalism that exists in the perception and practice of safe space and free speech zones need to be addressed so that the practice does not stifle legitimate speech.

  12. #12
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    well, so far no one has provided a reasonable argument about why restricting people's speech is necessary and morally right. although the implied argument that people can't be trusted at all with information or knowledge since they elected donald trump and therefore should only be allowed to say certain things deemed correct by some authorities is wicked.
    Speech can be restricted when it interferes with another individual. Witness tampering which includes threats of violence is illegal, so are acts which incite riots or create dangerous situation like yelling fire in a crowded building. Fake news falls under this when it is portrayed as real as well as acts of libel and such.

    There are many speech acts which are not protected by free speech because their purpose is not to present a view but to prevent others from presenting their views.

    Hate speech is often restricted(depends on the laws or practices) because they contain threats of violence and are meant to prevent another group from expressing their views or incite violence against them.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @mu4 Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't communicating an idea though, it's basically just the verbal equivalent of a stop sign or something like that. A lot of things that many consider hate speech are communicating ideas. Obviously just yelling that a certain group is hated by God or should all be exterminated or whatever is not much of an idea, but discussing whether or not things like that are true (even if it's obvious they're not) is. If something is false, and everyone knows it's false, it shouldn't be dangerous to talk about it. This picture sums that up well:


  14. #14
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    @mu4 Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't communicating an idea though, it's basically just the verbal equivalent of a stop sign or something like that. A lot of things that many consider hate speech are communicating ideas. Obviously just yelling that a certain group is hated by God or should all be exterminated or whatever is not much of an idea, but discussing whether or not things like that are true (even if it's obvious they're not) is. If something is false, and everyone knows it's false, it shouldn't be dangerous to talk about it. This picture sums that up well:
    Your picture is kind of a example of something that doesn't really communicate a idea yet interferes with a conversation. I've removed it from my reply because it's something that interferes with both what I'm saying and what you're saying. In fact if you did it a bunch, it would constitute spam and would get derailed. Presenting something as false as true is a problem and that's covered by law as well.

    The question of public safe places vs private safe places is the issue, private safe spaces are of course perfectly fine. I think public safe places are redundant, and people have the right to be as they choose, however harassment and threats of violence is still something that can occur in public places and that is still not protected. Figuring out what is addressable or what is not is something up to individual administrators of these public places.

    If someone feels threatened and harassed their feelings about this are legitimate and can be addressed by administrators, much in the same way that police offices can shoot and defend themselves when in fear of their lives and their fellow officers lives. I do believe that both reactions to these fear when empowered by law can be overreaching and extreme but they won't be solved easily by handicapping cops or administrators.

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    Your picture is kind of a example of something that doesn't really communicate a idea yet interferes with a conversation. I've removed it from my reply because it's something that interferes with both what I'm saying and what you're saying. In fact if you did it a bunch, it would constitute spam and would get derailed. Presenting something as false as true is a problem and that's covered by law as well.

    The question of public safe places vs private safe places is the issue, private safe spaces are of course perfectly fine. I think public safe places are redundant, and people have the right to be as they choose, however harassment and threats of violence is still something that can occur in public places and that is still not protected. Figuring out what is addressable or what is not is something up to individual administrators of these public places.

    If someone feels threatened and harassed their feelings about this are legitimate and can be addressed by administrators, much in the same way that police offices can shoot and defend themselves when in fear of their lives and their fellow officers lives. I do believe that both reactions to these fear when empowered by law can be overreaching and extreme but they won't be solved easily by handicapping cops or administrators.
    I was using that picture because it's so obviously not remotely factual that my posting it doesn't remotely stand a chance or misleading much anyone into believing that that guy is Gandalf and actually said "Use the Force, Harry "anywhere. If posting that picture doesn't stand a risk of misleading anyone, then bigoted and wrong ideas in an advanced society wouldn't either because what the really correct views are and the reasoning behind them would be just as well-known as all of those pop-cultural ideas that references.

    Feeling harassed or annoyed ("You called me fat?!?! Well, you're fat!") is just not equal to having a death threat against you. If you're annoyed by words that don't imply action, then either you subconsciously think they're true, or you're afraid of how others will act on them, and in both cases, see above. I said nothing about handicapping cops or administrators by the way, just that people should be allowed to discuss any idea that they want, no matter how absurd and/or morally disgusting it sounds, because if it's obviously wrong, it'll turn out obviously wrong once discussed.

  16. #16
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    If posting that picture doesn't stand a risk of misleading anyone
    Posting the picture once is one thing, plastering it all over the place is another, the picture itself and its posting may not be an issue but the method by which the picture is used and the intent behind it can become an issue.

    Sometimes it can mislead, sometimes it can interfere with a conversation, as a moderator I have to make decisions about these issues when they are reported to me as do the administrators at the schools, obviously the dialog of what should or should not be moderated is a discussion that is allowed.

    As I said before I think these policies are redundant but the belief that they are necessary is something that is also real. Also law protects the workplace from discrimination and the creation of a hostile work environment, individuals can sue based on these rules, although LGBT individuals are not protected in all areas of the country due to these protections not included with the civil rights acts of the past. If individuals are protected in the workplace from a hostile work enviroment, there is certainly precedent for protecting individuals from a hostile educational enviroment.

    Because the civil rights act specifically do not cover LGBT individuals specifically there is a gap that is being closed here, the solution is to cover it under the umbrella of a revised civil rights act, specifically instead of dealing with it ad hoc with inconsistent policies which is unlikely to change due to the current administration and the difficult to pass such legislation in the near future. This is somewhat of a local administer rights to govern vs the federal governments viewpoint, ultimately something to be hashed out in court for specific situations as far as the limits of what can occur.

  17. #17
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,561
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A Canadian university has a football team named 'The Clan' and they're in hot water. Why not just prefix it with Wu-Tang?

  18. #18
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,690
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's cultural appropriation. We need to retaliate by naming a team the maple syrup squad.

  19. #19
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,487
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh. That's letting the KKK have a monopoly on the word clan.

  20. #20
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,561
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Ugh. That's letting the KKK have a monopoly on the word clan.
    In this case, the name is intended to celebrate the school's Scottish heritage. The team was called 'The Clansmen' before they changed it to this.

    It is, needless to say, a sensitive issue for very good reasons — that's not changing any time soon. But I do agree that we need to to take back these words, at least at some point. On that front, there's a movement afoot in Germany to reclaim the swastika as a life-affirming symbol of peace (which is what it always stood for before it was corrupted by the Nazis).
    Last edited by xerxe; 08-13-2020 at 04:21 AM.

  21. #21
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,487
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    In this case, the name is intended to celebrate the school's Scottish heritage.
    I figured

  22. #22
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,561
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    I figured
    It's Canada, so lots of Scottish influence is a given.

  23. #23
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,145
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    e_e I'd avoid listening to anything Milo, Crowder or C.H. Summers have to say. Just /ignore.

  24. #24
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,143
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Which one is politically more correct? Cynicism or Sarcasm?

  25. #25
    𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔱𝔬𝔱𝔶𝔭𝔦𝔠𝔞𝔩 𝔢-𝔤𝔬𝔯𝔩 Vex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    The Sun
    TIM
    EIE-Ni-N
    Posts
    1,003
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Which one is politically more correct? Cynicism or Sarcasm?
    Depends on how the weapon is wielded.
    devourer of the sun // consumer of the moon
    & you know now,
    that anything alone is
    a haunting

    & any two things
    together is a terror.
    What use are flowers?

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Which one is politically more correct? Cynicism or Sarcasm?
    Cynicism gives a more compliant vibe, while sarcasm seems to have active disdain for the situation in a criticizing way, cynicism does not seem to intend any kind of change and has somewhat accepted the unfavorable which is why it is less threatening for people in favor of the unfavorable and therefore more politically correct.

  27. #27
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,143
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is not Cynicism more disrespectful and Sarcasm more disdainful?

    Ooops I got lost.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Is not Cynicism more disrespectful and Sarcasm more disdainful?

    Ooops I got lost.
    I think the difference is in sarcasm being more mocking and criticizing, often of individuals and individual actions while cynism is often more generally focused on an less than ideal world than on individual actions and tends to be accompanied by a taste of resigned 'it is how it is' attitude instead of a revolting critique.

  29. #29
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,143
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does Cynicism invalidate and Sarcasm devalue its object?


    Lost completely

  30. #30
    Hacked by QAnon CrocMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    TIM
    Ip 64x sp/sx
    Posts
    2,688
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the freedom of hate speech needs to be included in the freedom of speech, or its by definition no longer freedom of speech. inciting violence is different.

  31. #31
    Hacked by QAnon CrocMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    TIM
    Ip 64x sp/sx
    Posts
    2,688
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    freedom of speech doesn't mean you won't or shouldn't face the consequences from practicing your hate speech though. ppl can still choose not to listen to you or use their freedom of speech to point and laugh at you and call you a dumbass. haha, dumbass!

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Does Cynicism invalidate and Sarcasm devalue its object?


    Lost completely
    I think Cynicism unwillingly accepts it, while Sarcasm rejects it, Sarcasm is more invalidating and Devaluing, Cynism is devaluing in a way while still being accepting of how it is. It is devaluing from an idealist standpoint while not necessarily identifying with the position of the idealist pov.

    Sarcasm is usually used to call out flaws in demeanor, logic or content.
    While cynicism is used to state things as they are in sharp (implicit) contrast to how they would be in a (more) ideal world.

  33. #33
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,143
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In a politically correct world no one is allowed to voice his/her discontent about people's behavior and just about anything now.

    Cynicism and sarcasm are the only tools we have left.
    Last edited by khcs; 08-13-2020 at 09:58 AM.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,146
    Mentioned
    1111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    When interests of minorities are set above interests of a majority to say this as politically correct for that majority, what means for interests of this majority - is a nonsense and lieing.

    One of examples - is to forbid to say an objective truth. In non-democratic states where minorities supress the majority, as in USA, it's a common situation. And it progresses when minorities get new ways for the influence and new ways to supress people. Where lieing is a common way of the supression.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •