Anyone interested in discussing the social issues of DB?

[ABED]

I don't foresee this thread ending well

This is a good thread. Please don't deviate from the topic at hand, because I actually want to see where the discussion goes.

1 - How was that a deviation?
2 - Why are you responding to this comment that was made pages ago?

[gogeta97]

Thats what the anti-PC crowds do.

Of course you cant generalize to make a point,

Come on now you've got to do better than that.

Most of the anti-PC people that I know are not opposed to political correctness as a whole and a lot of the ones who say they ARE opposed to it as a whole just don't really understand what it means and are not trying to argue that bigotry should become socially acceptable. Obviously everyone has their own take on it and some are hateful and some are not.

Also in regards to the opposing arguments at colleges I think you missed my point. I doesn't matter if it is historically or socially honest or not. People should be allowed to voice their opinion, even if it is hateful bullshit(which is not even the case with most of those college speakers).

You also say that many of these anti-PC people just bury their head in the sand and deny social injustices and while that may be true for some people, what about the super PC people who do the same? Modern feminists will constantly say that women are payed about 30% less then men are at all jobs when that is simply not true and has been disproved multiple times.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harva ... le/2580405
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness ... 97c3f04766

It is literally illegal and has been since 1963
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

This is a topic many college speakers try to talk about but are shut down by some of the ultra-PC idiots who can't handle it. How's that for a socially honest argument?

[Zephyr]

they will still often not clarify things or misinterpret what someone says. For instance, I've had discussions about income inequality and no matter how many times I ask for something more than "fair share" I often get either no answer, outright hostility, or continually vague responses. I've had a number of discussions with these types and no matter how many times I clarify my comments or use analogies and examples, they will interpet things the same way they always have.

Yeah, it doesn't always go smoothly. It certainly helps to be discussing these matters in person. It also helps if both parties understand that they do not have some unique privileged insight into "THE Truth". Having a neutral party present to moderate likewise helps. I believe that's why people need to become more accustomed to these sorts of exercises, so that they better understand themselves, are able to think more critically, and are able to articulate their own thoughts more clearly.

I guess that's also ultimately one of the bigger weaknesses of text based communication. It's far too easy to bullshit and lie about ones own thoughts via text, and far too difficult to tell if someone is bullshitting or lying.

By relativism, I assume you mean moral relativism.

Essentially, yeah. I'm aware that's not a popular position. I believe I make a fairly solid case for it (though far from an absolutely inarguable one; no theory is completely perfect), but that's straying even farther from Dragon Ball than this already is. Willing to discuss via PM if the mods find it inappropriate for the thread.

I will concede that my thoughts on the issue aren't fully formed and I'm not the best at articulating them, at least not on a subject such as this. The best I can come up with is I'm against the INITIATION of force.

Fair enough. I'm also against the initiation of force, to an extent. However, I can understand if someone is less against it than I am. I wouldn't hold that against them. They didn't choose their genetics or their environmental shaping. So long as they take the time to understand themselves, their own values, and the like, then I'm willing to tolerate their viewpoint, no matter how morally appalling I may find it in and of itself. By understanding how they themselves behave, they become better equipped to control themselves, more willing to understand the insignificance of their position and their preferences in the greater cosmic reality. Such is humility.

I'm more trusting in a person who has no inherent problems with doing something that will harm me but understands that it will harm me, than in someone who has inherent problems with doing something that will harm me but doesn't understand what will harm me. Humans are empathetic creatures. Not wholly so, but barring Psychopaths, we all are to varying degrees. We feel the pain of others. We put ourselves into their shoes. We consider their interests and stakes. Therefore, if it comes down to a person who knows what will harm me versus a person who doesn't know what will harm me, I really don't care about which one is more averse to doing so. They're both going to be averse to it to an extent, and are likewise equipped to help me when their built-in aversion to my harm (empathy) reaches a certain point. The person with the inherent problems can still be more easily tricked or deceived into doing something that will harm me, since they don't know what sorts of actions to avoid. Therefore, I'd ultimately feel safer with the individual naturally less averse to an action which will result in my harm.

We should scrutinize our ideas critically, but not say the truth and falsehoods are equal.

When we're talking about morals and values, we're ultimately talking about culturally inculcated emotional sentiments. Under this understanding, truth and false aren't equal, they're relative. "Stealing loaf of bread to save the life of your child is wrong" can be true relative to one value system, and false relative to another. There are two ways to progress from this point:

A. Prove that the statement actually has the same truth value in both value systems.
B. Prove that one value system has priority over the other.

I believe that A is the best that we can hope for, and even it has limitations. In order to prove that both value systems would regard a moral proposition as having the same truth value, the nature of both value systems must first be demonstrated and made known by both parties. However, we must accept the possibility that it may in fact have different truth values depending on the value system it gets plugged into. When gathering empirical data, we have to be prepared to learn things we don't want to hear.

B is absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. To prove which value system is better, you need a non-biased, valueless evaluator. If you use an evaluator who has values, then you're simply seeing which of the two conflicting value systems better coheres with this third one, and it's thus still relative to a value system. So we can't have values if we're to discern which value system is objectively better. But if we don't have values, we can't evaluate anything. What would "better" even mean? If you don't have an idea or an underlying preference of what's better and what's worse, you can't judge one thing to be better than the other.

[ABED]

This isn't well thought out, but generally speaking, instance where a writer is less than sensitive in their depictions or arguably sexist don't bother me much if I don't feel it's malicious. For instance, not having a female character that is among the strongest fighters in the show and often relegated to the role of mother is something I can see why people have an issue with, but it's not something that bothers me unless there was a clear statement or implication that women can't be the best fighters.

[Zephyr]

Yeah, I agree with all of that. And once I can understand why someone would feel a certain way, I'm just less able to condemn them for it.

[Basaku]

Come on now you've got to do better than that.

As do you, becuase posting pro-MRA links in-between your constant reassuring how totally fair you are and totally listening to both sides ain't exactly sleek or well-veiled. Particularly when you cap it with "ultra-PC idiots" ending.

[ABED]

What constitutes listening to both sides?

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

Most of the anti-PC people that I know are not opposed to political correctness as a whole and a lot of the ones who say they ARE opposed to it as a whole just don't really understand what it means and are not trying to argue that bigotry should become socially acceptable. Obviously everyone has their own take on it and some are hateful and some are not.

Not everyone can look at sociopolitical topics impartially and unbiased. It does matter if you are honest in a discussion. If you won't be, then there is no point in arguing with intended bigotry. I don't agree with being radically PC but it doesn't mean that we should demand the right to be Anti-PC just to intentionally instigate with people. There are people that do argue this.

Also in regards to the opposing arguments at colleges I think you missed my point. I doesn't matter if it is historically or socially honest or not. People should be allowed to voice their opinion, even if it is hateful bullshit(which is not even the case with most of those college speakers).

You can say hateful nonsense anywhere but its not in your right to do so. It is also in the right of others to challenge that if it is imposed against other people. People may be against the censorship of differing perspectives, but those who feel are being censored, aren't automatically right in their consensus of their argument just because of it.

You also say that many of these anti-PC people just bury their head in the sand and deny social injustices and while that may be true for some people, what about the super PC people who do the same? Modern feminists will constantly say that women are payed about 30% less then men are at all jobs when that is simply not true and has been disproved multiple times.

I don't really want to get to specific into that.

This is a topic many college speakers try to talk about but are shut down by some of the ultra-PC idiots who can't handle it. How's that for a socially honest argument?

People shut down whomever they don't want to hear on both sides of these debates. They shut you down if they assume you're an "SJW" and call you ironic and stereotypical ad hominems just bringing up an issue they find invalid, and certain radical-PC people don't want their perceptions of an issue challenged due to often emotional biases.

[ABED]

You can say hateful nonsense anywhere but its not in your right to do so.

You do have a right to say whatever you want, but no one has to give you a platform to say it.

[gogeta97]

Come on now you've got to do better than that.

As do you, becuase posting pro-MRA links in-between your constant reassuring how totally fair you are and totally listening to both sides ain't exactly sleek or well-veiled. Particularly when you cap it with "ultra-PC idiots" ending.

HOW are those pro-MRA links? You do know that one of those articles was written by a woman? Saying that the wage gap doesn't exist is NOT pro-MRA or sexist. It is a FACT. And even if it were pro-MRA why would that be a bad thing? I've said before that feminism and the men's right movements are both valid because they are. If you disagree that's fine.

I try to be as unbiased and fair as possible but at the end of the day I'm only human and it's only human nature to be a little biased in some way. I will admit that I went a little overboard with the "ultra PC idiots" bit. I got a little too emotional and overreacted. However I did make sure to say SOME when making that statement so as to imply I did not feel that way about people who support political correctness.

[gogeta97]

I don't really want to get to specific into that.

Why?

People shut down whomever they don't want to hear on both sides of these debates. They shut you down if they assume you're an "SJW" and call you ironic and stereotypical ad hominems just bringing up an issue they find invalid, and certain radical-PC people don't want their perceptions of an issue challenged due to often emotional biases.

I wasn't arguing against that. I just interpreted your first post to mean that ONLY anti-PC people do that.

[Basaku]

HOW are those pro-MRA links? You do know that one of those articles was written by a woman? Saying that the wage gap doesn't exist is NOT pro-MRA or sexist. It is a FACT. And even if it were pro-MRA why would that be a bad thing? I've said before that feminism and the men's right movements are both valid because they are. If you disagree that's fine.

I try to be as unbiased and fair as possible but at the end of the day I'm only human and it's only human nature to be a little biased in some way. I will admit that I went a little overboard with the "ultra PC idiots" bit. I got a little too emotional and overreacted. However I did make sure to say SOME when making that statement so as to imply I did not feel that way about people who support political correctness.

A Forbes contributor opinion is not a fact, it's a Forbes contributor opinion. As for going overboard, well that's been the biggest issue of MRA movement since day 1, the main reason why many won't take it seriously no matter how many links get posted. But this is the issue MRA movement needs to solve itself.

[gogeta97]

HOW are those pro-MRA links? You do know that one of those articles was written by a woman? Saying that the wage gap doesn't exist is NOT pro-MRA or sexist. It is a FACT. And even if it were pro-MRA why would that be a bad thing? I've said before that feminism and the men's right movements are both valid because they are. If you disagree that's fine.

I try to be as unbiased and fair as possible but at the end of the day I'm only human and it's only human nature to be a little biased in some way. I will admit that I went a little overboard with the "ultra PC idiots" bit. I got a little too emotional and overreacted. However I did make sure to say SOME when making that statement so as to imply I did not feel that way about people who support political correctness.

A Forbes contributor opinion is not a fact, it's a Forbes contributor opinion. As for going overboard, well that's been the biggest issue of MRA movement since day 1, the main reason why many won't take it seriously no matter how many links get posted. But this is the issue MRA movement needs to solve itself.

I will admit that I mistakenly thought there were links to actual research in that forbes article. My bad. But what about the other two? Is my point invalid to you simply because of that one link. It sure doesn't make the wage gap any less of a myth. Also I could argue that going overboard was the biggest issue of feminism since day one(it certainly is now) but that also doesn't make it any less valid.

You still didn't answer my question about how those are pro-MRA articles by the way.

[ABED]

Talking about the pay gap myth isn't being an MRA. My biggest issue with anyone that uses statistics is if they jump on any number that looks to validate their opinion without first acknowledging difficulty in interpreting them and then using those facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. Their narratives are also specious at best.

[gogeta97]

Talking about the pay gap myth isn't being an MRA. My biggest issue with anyone that uses statistics is if they jump on any number that looks to validate their opinion without first acknowledging difficulty in interpreting them and then using those facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. Their narratives are also specious at best.

The wage gap existing really makes no sense when you think about it. First it is illegal. Second if people could pay women less for the same work as men then don't you think just about every field would be completely dominated by women?

[rereboy]

Everything can be taken too far, even freedom. Freedom, as a principle, shouldn't be taken to such an extreme that it's used as the justification to allow people to spread ideologies that are agaisnt that very same freedom.

It makes no sense to have someone defending, for example, a dictatorship where freedom isn't respected at all and argue that he must be allowed to try to spread that ideology because we must respect his freedom to so... We aren't actually defending the principle of freedom by doing that, we are actually just taking the principle to such an extreme that we are actually saying that people are free to try to get rid of freedom, which goes agaisnt the whole point of freedom and is a paradox because a person trying to get rid of freedom is someone who is trying to make the oppression of people happen... Defending freedom would be fighting attempts of getting rid of freedom, not allow people to try it by saying that they are free to do so.

[ABED]

Talking about the pay gap myth isn't being an MRA. My biggest issue with anyone that uses statistics is if they jump on any number that looks to validate their opinion without first acknowledging difficulty in interpreting them and then using those facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. Their narratives are also specious at best.

The wage gap existing really makes no sense when you think about it. First it is illegal. Second if people could pay women less for the same work as men then don't you think just about every field would be completely dominated by women?

Which would bid up their wages. Another big issue that applies to this and anything that deals with statistics is the danger of looking at broad aggregates instead of the individual. Even assuming the numbers are actually correct, that tells you nothing about the choices of career, level of education, average age, etc. of the groups which have a big impact on the stats.

It makes no sense to have someone defending, for example, a dictatorship where freedom isn't respected at all and argue that he must be allowed to try to spread that ideology because we must respect his freedom to so

Defending someone's right to free speech isn't the same thing as defending THEM. Shutting down someone's rights to advocate bad ideas is even worse than someone spouting bad ideas. What if the shoe is on the other foot. What if your ideas are the one's considered evil? Freedom in this context means freedom from force.

[gogeta97]

Which would bid up their wages. Another big issue that applies to this and anything that deals with statistics is the danger of looking at broad aggregates instead of the individual. Even assuming the numbers are actually correct, that tells you nothing about the choices of career, level of education, average age, etc. of the groups which have a big impact on the stats.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you in the camp that does think the wage gap exists or doesn't?

[rereboy]

It makes no sense to have someone defending, for example, a dictatorship where freedom isn't respected at all and argue that he must be allowed to try to spread that ideology because we must respect his freedom to so

Defending someone's right to free speech isn't the same thing as defending THEM. Shutting down someone's rights to advocate bad ideas is even worse than someone spouting bad ideas. What if the shoe is on the other foot. What if your ideas are the one's considered evil? Freedom in this context means freedom from force.

And that is taking the concept of freedom too far. Once someone is actually trying to make the oppression of people happen (the opposite of freedom) by convincing other people to oppress people and to create a system where that oppression occurs, and people say "oh, he is free to do so" and those same people actually think they are defending freedom when they say that, that's when the concept was taken too far and became a paradox because then, in the name of freedom, people are free to convince people to oppress other people.

Oh, and I'm well aware that lots of people think that freedom, for example, is evil. But that's not the point. The point is: if people believe and are for freedom, if people believe freedom is good, they aren't actually being for freedom when they take the concept so far that they even say that people are free to try to convince others to oppress people.

(That being said, I think I explained my opinion nicely and I don't really want to spend too much time in these debates, so I think I will let this be my last post on the matter in this topic)

[Gaffer Tape]

I don't see how that's taking it too far at all. Defending a dictatorship and defending someone's right to advocate a dictatorship are two very different things. One is defending freedom, the other is trampling the rights of others to think for themselves. For example, in the US we have a group called the Ku Klux Klan, a group so associated with hatred and bigotry that just typing their name makes me feel a little queasy. And yet they are allowed to exist. The American Civil Liberties Union, an organization typically associated with more liberal causes, has actually defended their rights to hold rallies and exercise their First Amendment rights. Now I personally find them and their ideologies loathsome, but I agree that they should have those rights. Obviously that only goes so far. The second they've actually harmed another person, a line has been crossed, and they should be dealt with. But that is part of freedom: accepting that things you don't agree with are going to exist. The alternative is to stamp out free thought and determine what ideas are acceptable. And all of that may sound fine until it's your own ideas that are considered dangerous.