That seems like a limited sense of empiricism imo, but even expressing what you did is an idea so i sense it as something real, since you believe it. anyhow, i don't want to go into ontology right now lolOriginally Posted by Aramas
That seems like a limited sense of empiricism imo, but even expressing what you did is an idea so i sense it as something real, since you believe it. anyhow, i don't want to go into ontology right now lol
I think it probably just depends on what your definition of reality is.
I probably should have said that natural law is a real idea but it's not binding in the same way physics is.
They are ideas based on reality and have an affect on it. They are based on our understanding of human relations, power, hierarchy. It is very much related to our ability to see a head into the future to envision more ideal societies. Even the divine right of kings is an idea, it is just an idea that demands much less involvement by the people being affected. The question always remains: Who has the right to impose governments that affect people in such a way that it benefits the few over the many? Where do their ideas come from? What knowledge are their ideas backed by? When you find that no one person, or select few have such a birth right any more than the rest of us, you will understand that this means everyone has a stake in the claims. The compromise is some sort of democratic/republic system of government. This is natural law and rights.
This article reeks delta nf
Voicing ur opinion about someone elses opinion is censorship now?
That's how it's commonly used. Some people bitch about the PC environment and how it's holding them down, while at the same time trying to suppress conflicting views on their favored issue. It's as if "I have the right to criticize your beliefs, but you criticizing mine is you trying to censor me!!" The "PC environment" itself comes from criticizing certain labels and behaviors. This criticizing of such labels and behaviors is felt as "censorship" by those who want to freely use such labels/behaviors without criticism.
Ps holding down free speech tho, because its not just "criticism". People lose carreers and jobs over not being PC, and that crosses the line.
People also lose careers and jobs when there ISN'T criticism over oppressive labels/behaviors.
(note: how one speaks, the terms/labels one uses is a sign of one's mentality/attitude towards certain people/things/ideas, which usually means that there's some kind of behavioral thing that also reflects that mentality/attitude.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Yeah but then they'd lose it over some other reason, aka being actually incompetent, not for having different ideas. PC is mindcontrol, and it doesnt work. Why u think trump is elected
Funny that you bring up Trump. If I recall, one major aspect of him that people liked was how unPC he was.
Yet this anti-PC president talks about shutting down media that dares to criticize him. But since he can't legally censor them, he'll use social media and Fox News to attempt to delegitimize their news, sources, etc.
As for people losing jobs for reasons other than having different ideas, that'd be fine if it was just having different ideas. When those ideas are used to oppress other people, to block them from gaining work/education they are capable of merely because of their gender or skin color, then it's not really just "different ideas" being talked about.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think Trump was elected for the same reason that Obama was elected and for the same reason that Bernie would have won if he had been allowed to run. The majority of the population is "Hoping for Change" from the lock that the rich have on society. Most people thought Hillary represented the interests of the rich, and they were right. But they were wrong in assuming that the Donald blowhard didn't represent the interests of the rich.
The new tax bill has a special tax break for the owners of golf courses.
For anyone who was born yesterday, let me just say that the rich will always take care of themselves. They will tell you any story that they think you will like, but they will always take care of themselves first. No exceptions.
*EDIT* I personally know several millionaires, and every single one of them views taking care of their wealth as Job #1. And if the people have no refuge, no resource, why, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
Censorship is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive" and/or harmful.
Everyone has their own ideas about what would be considered "offensive" and/or harmful.
Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.
Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as by private pressure groups.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional (although pressure groups often attempt to use the government to impose their political/moral values on others).
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression.
1) "content neutrality" - the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content.
2) expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished ONLY IF there is not other way to avert the harm. ((so, one major solution to "PC culture" is to provide other ways to avert harm to others.))
It's not just PC culture, though. We see censorship of words, images, or ideas even in "anti-PC cultures", such as a bakery's refusal to use same sex figurines on a wedding cake, or put two same-gendered names on the wedding cake. We see it in religious groups attempting to get the government to censor same sex marriage by making it illegal, even if it means blocking the freedom of other religions to marry same sex couples. Why? because the IDEA of same sex marriage is offensive to these particular pressure groups. (IDEAS lead to ACTIONS) But these same anti-gay pressure groups accuse their criticizers of being wrongfully PC. So we have two opposing pressure groups, with opposing IDEAS regarding whether the IDEA of same-sex couples are offensive or harmful; each attempting to censor words, images, ideas (and thus actions) that they consider "offensive" and/or harmful, and both attempting to use the government to enforce their IDEAS.
Basically, in matters of censorship conflicts, there's at least TWO (or more) sides with opposing IDEAS of what is offensive/harmful.
(resource: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Quaint but false. It doesn't follow that just because one person doesn't have a right to rule over others that everyone has shared rights. You exclude the possibility that rights simply don't exist. And you didn't bother proving the implication of not monarchy or oligarchy => democracy/republic. All forms of government are built on a lie that people are taught to accept.
Bernays teaches us how democracies are deceptive in that they cause people to believe they have power when they really don't in reality. Even ****** realized that propaganda was central to the function of democracy. In monarchy and dictatorship, the dictates of the leaders are imposed directly. In democracies, we are subtly propagandized into acting in the ways our leaders want, or we simply have our voting systems crafted so the votes no longer count.
Democracy only works though when people sincerely believe they have rights though. When people start to see behind the curtains of democracies, the leaders usually become a bit more forceful....
Last edited by Aramas; 12-11-2017 at 03:37 PM.
This is weird... I definitely belong to the aristocratic quadra, but I don't relate to this at all. I never try to censor people, or tell them what to say. I believe that everyone should have the right to express their opinion, the only time, when I cringe is when I see I deal with someone with very low IQ, or with someone who obviously lacks decent knowledge in the topic that's being discussed. But other than that...I do not see a reason as why to censor anyone.
censorship is stoopid, lets just get it all out there
as soon as you start down that path its all about justifying who the "real" censors are and why its ok to censor this or not that, etc ad infinitum
yeah bert buddy in principal I agree with you.
But child porn should always be censored to me.
I also couldn't watch the movie blade because it was too violent. I felt like such a soft pussy but I just couldn't do it, I thought it was too gross and over the top. However I realized this was a personal issue thing, and its not like I sjw-ishly boycotted the entire movie because of it like some bored soccer mom would do. Ideally most of the time its a personal thing you gauge for yourself for your own way of life and not something you police to everybody else. Its okay to be offended/repulsed by something but 'I'm offended!' shouldn't always be 'I'm offended- so everybody else should be too!'
I don't want to pick on certain quadras for doing this either because I think it goes beyond that- but yeah in general Te/Fi valuers do seem kinda stuffy with what they consume but often its found out they had some dark skeleton in their own closet while trying to stop all the pervy betas. Betas shoot themselves in our own foot because I believe we are the ones that would most likely yap about bdsm in places we shouldn't (but not actually be guilty of participating in it), whereas deltas would know how to do it in real life all the time but never talk about it and get away with it. That's why deltas are better.But then later down the road you hear bout how they get caught too sometimes because privacy is kind of an illusion in this world nowadays.
the problem with child porn is if you say it shouldn't be censored it sounds like you're condoning the underlying acts and the production of the material, or the enjoyment of it for the purpose of sexual gratification, etc. the bottom line is rational discussion ends because people can't separate those elements out, its the same for any sufficiently loaded topic, but its precisely how you start down the rabbit hole, because then it just becomes a case of linking whatever you want to be censored in a way just as emotionally loaded as child porn, which is actually not that hard, and precisely the fundamental issue at bottom. you can find a way to emotionally load any subject sufficient to justify censorship, that's precisely the rabbit hole to be avoided. that's actually what's being argued against when saying nothing should be censored. its essentially saying censorship is categorically off limits as a rational principle, precisely because its censorship that is irrational. to bring in a sufficiently irrational topic that explodes the principle is just to succumb to the irrational urge in question and make anything fair game, if you can just drum up enough outrage, etc
Thats becuz you are see
Regardless of idealized utopian worlds, as long as humans are capable of
a)having emotions and ideas,
b) imagining a world different than the one they live in,
c) autonomy of action,
d) communicating with each other,
and/or e) forming groups,
there will always be attempts to censor what someone thinks is offensive/harmful.
(edited, I recommend reading up on Haidt's 5 moral foundations for a broader view of what all you're dealing with regarding what types of things can be regarded as offensive/harmful and thus at risk of censoring attempts)
oh gosh... I'm sorry, type me anything, but not an Se dom. I really relate to 0% of the SEE description. Leave it be finally. I'm absolutely sure that there is no way me to be an Se dominant type since Se is the function I relate to the least. Why is it so hard to understand?Thats becuz you are see
It follows that because No One person has the right, then no one does. The result of this would be no government, and unless you are an anarchist, this isn't a viable option. Since most people need government for civilization to be stable we are forced to create government from the bottom up. This means everyone has the same right to rule. Because that would create instability a system to arrive at consensus is required. Rights arise indirectly from recognizing through reason that power has to be given to individuals, unknowingly or not, for leaders to have authority. Since everyone has the same right to rule as anyone else, the only logical solution is to elect your own leaders, for stability. Rights are granted in exchange and appeal to other ideas you cannot grab with your hands like justice, equality, liberty. Rights are discovered, like laws of nature, then ageed upon for the general welfare.
The perfect circle doesn't exist, yet we use the concept as if it does. They are brought into existence under the right circumstances. Rights can be dissolved by force, we could enter a state of lawless nature, be ruled by a dictator and rights long forgotten. That doesn not mean that there isn't an ideal relationship between the individual and government that include concepts of rights. After all, government itself is just an idea, created by humans. We could have no government, but no government means no civilization. If democracy ever falls, the government that replaces it is based on ideas too. If a dictator takes power, it is because people let him. They haven't realized they are being deceived by their claim to power.
chill mate
What if you are an anarchist?
I agree, just look at affirmative action. It is a great example of an idea which has led to straight white men being blocked from gaining work/education they are capable of, merely because of their gender and skin colour.
*crickets*
Which would be a good example of why we need to think about how to reduce prejudicial ideas from harming ANY group of people, so that stopping the harm to one group doesn't result in harm to another group. Just saying "let the market take care of it" doesn't resolve the problem, and leads to further problems, further oppressions, and eventual further coercions. (Free market solutions are like someone putting their hands over their ears and singing "lalalala I can't hear you, and if i can't hear you then it doesn't exist".) Harm was definitely being done to a few groups of people. Affirmative action was an attempt to solve that problem.
What ideas do YOU have regarding how to have prevented the further oppression of women and non-whites from the work force? Or do you think that women/non-whites shouldn't have tried to have financial autonomy in a "good-old-boys' system"? Don't forget, while trying to reduce the previous oppressions you'd also have to contend with the previous normalizations of censoring women and non-whites in the work forces, and how to create new normalizations that don't censor/harm them. I look forward to your list of possible options that would have covered all those complex issues going on at the time.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
The desire to prevent social harm is responsible for creating a great deal of it. I would like a fairer world, too. However unlike you, I recognize that if you try to force change upon people who don't want it, you create worse problems than the one you set out to solve.
You are simply replacing one hierarchy with another one. That isn't justice, it's vengeance. Inequality is a natural part of life. We can't change human nature, so serenity comes when you stop projecting and try to make the best of the hand you've been dealt.
Has it occurred to you that a lot of white men might also be struggling to find work and make ends meet right now, too? The "oppression of women and non-whites in the workforce" insinuates that all women and non-whites are victims and that all white men are their oppressors. This is factually incorrect and a deeply corrosive message to push. I think you are deliberately fueling envy and resentment.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 12-11-2017 at 07:24 PM.
Hopefully you are a part of a society that has a set of rights, otherwise you will be at the whim of less ideal government.
BTW the message anndelise and others like her promote has a significant impact upon social behaviour.
She is telling women/non-whites that they are helpless children basically. What does that mean? It means you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't offend another, ahem, "victim"). All actions are justified. All restrictions upon your behaviour are oppressive. So it's not wrong to be a slut, a thief, an arsonist, or even a murderer. I am a special little snowflake! Fuck your white male rules, I can take whatever I want! What is yours is mine too, and if you won't share with me then I'll make you suffer.
This is the crazy BS we are dealing with right now.
There seems to be an extremely strong undercurrent in the SJW community of resentment towards people who have something they don't have and want for themselves. I think it is a natural byproduct of the Facebook age where so much socializing occurs on social media. Women present glorified, manufactured images that they obsessively compare with those of other women. It is easy to feel envious of that girl who looks hot and has a hot Chad-like boyfriend, and project that (even though her pics are photoshopped etc). "The patriarchy" is a conveniently nebulous scapegoat, always hard to pin down and define. This makes it easy for the SJW to blame the patriarchy for all of her (it's usually a she) many personal problems.
"If I don't have a boyfriend, it can't be my fault. I am so perfect and unique, how could anybody not like me? Oh, the oppressive standards of the patriarchy are to blame for denying me what is mine. White men are holding me back because they won't give me their babies! It isn't that I'm fat and expect men to pamper me like a child, as that's a sexist statement and shows men don't appreciate my true, inner beauty, I'm so special and full of love"
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 12-11-2017 at 08:07 PM.
Interesting to see the course of the thread when the discussion on such a topical conversation becomes more F dominated - very emotionally charged and personal sentiments presented.
This isn't a bad thing, the world would be rubbish without feelings.
George Carlin: "Rights aren't rights if you can just take 'em away."
Don't strawman my position. I've been talking about human nature, I hadn't taken any sides.
My post to you recognized that yes, some white men got hurt in the process of affirmative action. And then I asked you what other possible solutions you could provide. Criticizing possible solutions is super easy...Coming up with workable ones is a whole different ball-game. Instead of bitching and complaining about solutions that were put into effect, it'd be more productive to find alternatives that cover both the previous problem as well as the unintended consequences.
Am I to understand that your solution to the previous inequality issues would have been to tell the lower social cast to suck it up and make the best of the hand they've been dealt with and not try to change anything in society lest it create worse problems? (your next quote suggests 'yes')
(on a more personal note, I do find it interesting that you might be suggesting here that affirmative action created worse problems than the one it attempted to solve)
Yes, inequality is a natural part of life. We can't change human nature, and part of human nature is to attempt to censor what they perceive to be offensive/harmful. I'm not saying that's a good thing nor a bad thing, it's just a human thing. Trying to censor that won't make it go away. The more productive thing, imo, would be to acknowledge that aspect of human life and consider it when considering solutions to problems you perceive.You are simply replacing one hierarchy with another one. That isn't justice, it's vengeance. Inequality is a natural part of life. We can't change human nature, so serenity comes when you stop projecting and try to make the best of the hand you've been dealt.
As for the rest of what I just quoted, I'm not sure you're aware of the implications of what you wrote. Yes, affirmative action created inequality in a few white men's lives. To try to overturn affirmative action policies is "simply replacing one hierarchy with another hierarchy," which, according to what you wrote, "isn't justice, it's vengeance". But as you said yourself, "inequality is a natural part of life." so according to you, those white men should "stop projecting and try to make the best of the hand they've been dealt"...which is currently affirmative action.
See, one way of seeing if what you're writing is biased or not is to flip the actors/actees and see if you still stand by what you wrote. Do you?
Do you think that white men who've been negatively impacted by affirmative action should just suck it up and deal with the hand they've now been dealt?
With things flipped, do you still stand by what you wrote about not trying to force change (removing affirmative action) upon people who don't want it, lest that "creates worse problems than the one you set out to solve"?
Did you even read what I wrote? I already acknowledged, in my first sentence of that post even, "Which would be a good example of why we need to think about how to reduce prejudicial ideas from harming ANY group of people, so that stopping the harm to one group doesn't result in harm to another group."Has it occurred to you that a lot of white men might also be struggling to find work and make ends meet right now, too?
Flip-time:The "oppression of women and non-whites in the workforce" insinuates that all women and non-whites are victims and that all white men are oppressors. This is factually incorrect and a deeply corrosive message to push. You are deliberately fueling envy and resentment.
'The "oppression of straight white men via affirmative action" insinuates that all white men are victims and that all women and nonwhites are oppressors.'?? That would indeed be factually incorrect and a deeply corrosive message to push. When you argue against affirmative action, are you deliberately fueling envy and resentment of white men against women and non-whites? Are you?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
No more than you are telling white men that they are helpless children due to affirmative action.
Flip time:What does that mean? It means you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't offend another, ahem, "victim"). All actions are justified. All restrictions upon your behaviour are oppressive. So it's not wrong to be a slut, a thief, an arsonist, or even a murderer. I am a special little snowflake! Fuck your white male rules, I can take whatever I want! What is yours is mine too, and if you won't share with me then I'll make you suffer.
What does that mean? It means you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't offend another, ahem, "white male victim"). All restrictions on upon white male behavior are oppressive. White males are special little snowflakes! So fuck your equality rules.
I agree, it IS crazy BS we are dealing with right now.This is the crazy BS we are dealing with right now.
But to be fair, you were the one who started it with your constant strawmen attempts.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
And the most crucial and striking part followed after that: "...they're privileges". Always important to keep in mind.
I do not need permission to speak my mind, to think my thoughts, to make associations, to have my own beliefs and opinions, to like what I like. No one can take that away.
unfortunately, in some countries, speaking your mind might get you executed.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
You must live in a great country.
I have to shut up all the time
Can't tell my boss what I really think, can't tell that person I don't like what I think of them. Can't tell that person who's lifestyle I disagree with what I really think of it.
But it's not a big deal, I don't live in a bubble, there has to be some give and take or else there's no society.
Some limitations on yours (and my freedom) is REQUIRED so that I don't encroach on anothers freedom.
In a hugely complex society, it can't just be solved on the basis of personal sentiments, but an attempt at the best compromise.
meh, it's not that hard. Staging and taking the photographs is itself a criminal act, so circulating them whether or not you took them makes you an accessory to the crime.
Unless of course you're trying to gather evidence of a crime without actually participating in it or enabling it. (A photographer catching someone in the act of this or another crime for example.)
In other words, it doesn't even have to be a matter of censorship in that case. A serial killer's photographer complicit in the acts while not reporting the crimes likewise would be an accessory to the murders. A reporter on the other hand is not unless they hide the identity of the criminal from the police. So while people generally see crimes as bad heh, certain material can be stopped from being put into circulation because of its ties with a crime rather than it being a matter of censorship (whether certain material can be published when gathered by a reporter etc however would fall into the censorship or not camp and is a more complex matter, but in the case of child porn these could not be published at all since the victim is a minor and cannot give consent.)
How do you define privileges, especially in this context?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
