15 ms·
Why we shouldn't protect teenagers from controversial issues in fiction
- raverbashing 10y agoOh, really, we shouldn't? And we usually haven't, but there have always been voices against, either the "save the children" crowd or something else. (and yes, today SJWs are part of the problem)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- danharaj 10y agoCensoring the media adolescents consume is not an invention of """SJW crybabies""".
- moron4hire 10y agoIf you would like people to be sympathetic to your cause, you should probably learn to stop using language life "SJW" that is designed to turn them off completely.
- Karunamon 10y agoI don't think anyone that uses that term intends to take anything other than a scorched earth position with the people it describes. ..and for good reason. The mindset is arational and immune to basic logic and discourse. It's like trying to convince a deeply religious person that their God doesn't exist - it doesn't work that way.
- danharaj 10y agoI'm arational and immune to basic logic. AMA.
- drdeca 10y agoWhat is an example of an arational (not irrational) belief that you have?
- danharaj 10y agoI'm not entirely sure. I've been called an SJW though, so i must be arational. I'm mocking the parent's sentiment. Calling people arational and "immune to basic logic" (i'm not even sure what 'basic logic' is) is just a way to dismiss people for having different views of the world. People have different values and different experiences. That's the root of disagreement. Few who value rationality think they are irrational; few who value good think they are evil. It's always the other person who is irrational or evil. A human being arational is actually a ridiculous concept. There is no person who isn't reasonable in some way.
- bobcostas55 10y agoThe world is what it is regardless of anyone's views. And there's a difference between values and beliefs about the state of the world that are open to empirical investigation. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, this is not a "value". It is a hypothesis that can be investigated and refuted. The question is: how do you react when the data contradicts your hypotheses? How do you react when it is shown that the arguments you base your views on are fallacious? The SJW position is to dismiss empiricism and rationality instead of changing their views.
- danharaj 10y ago> It is a hypothesis that can be investigated and refuted. I already covered that. Empirical evidence can only be obtained by experience. It is very important to science that experiments are reproducible, which means that the results of the experiment can be observed independently. Observation is experience. > The question is: how do you react when the data contradicts your hypotheses? How do you react when it is shown that the arguments you base your views on are fallacious? Do you really think i would answer that with "i ignore that information!!1!". Other people label an "SJW" with these incriminations. > The SJW position is to dismiss empiricism and rationality instead of changing their views. There is no such thing as "The SJW position". No one holds this position. As i said, other people claim that "SJW"s are irrational and reject empirical evidence. It is a word used to smear people by grouping them together in a category of "bad". There is no "SJW" manifesto or association of "SJW"s. Everyone takes in data, evaluates it, and changes their beliefs based on it. This is the basis of intelligence. However, we take shortcuts. Everyone takes shortcuts. Even in professional science, no one reruns every experiment and verifies for themself through direct observation the results. That would take too long. The basis of social intelligence is evaluating proxies for direct observational evidence, i.e. experience. What people who use the term "SJW" mean when they use it is that someone evaluated the same indirect data in a different way from them, and this led to a disagreement and they are convinced that there is no way anyone could disagree with them. This is a pointless conversation.
- dizzy3gg 10y agoSo we should insult deeply religious people by calling them derogatory names also? EDIT: Asking if you think its fair to call somebody names because they don;t have the same beliefs?
- adrusi 10y ago"SJW" is roughly analogous to "bible thumper" and about as derogatory too.
- dizzy3gg 10y agoMy point exactly, it's an insult that people seem to think is fine cause they don't have the same beliefs. If only we were all the same.
- Karunamon 10y agoOnly if you treat all beliefs as equally valid a priori. Some beliefs are demonstrably harmful.
- dizzy3gg 10y agoLike abortion? I'm pro choice, but I'm just trying to make it clear. Your beliefs maybe different and the consider things harmful, whereas others don't.
- Cthulhu_ 10y agoLike the left-wing extremism that SJW's practice - misandry and calls for genocide based on race (white), gender (male), sometimes even sexuality (straight) run rampant in that movement. Those are harmful.
- moron4hire 10y agoAre you familiar with the concept of "vocal minorities"? Would you say, given that you are a person who uses the term "SJW", that the rape of Anita Sarkeesian is an action that you would support, or that a majority of your cohort supports? I really hope you say "no", because otherwise I'm completely wasting my time. But can you not see how a few vocal people in the GG debacle have managed to get everyone who uses the term "SJW" painted with that sort of brush? There is no conspiracy to commit genocide against white, straight males. The very concept verges on paranoid schizophrenia. My comments are purely about having civil discourse.
- Retric 10y agoHundreds of millions of deeply religious people have been convinced their god(s) do not exist. Don't assume people are morons just because they disagree with you.
- mason240 10y agoIt's rather fitting then to use it for a group that has "scorched earth" as regular strategy.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoWell, what should we refer to them as? I've asked this question over and over again to people supporting these views with no response. If they have a proper name, people would most likely be happy to refer to them by it. Until they choose to label themselves, a certain three letter acronym serves as well as any other and they more or less agree that they are identified by that label themselves by reacting strongly to it. (Merits of their views aside, am I the only one who finds it deeply ironic that people who freely hand out "X-ist" / "X-ism" labels to others are outraged by being themselves labeled?)
- moron4hire 10y agoI have no idea who this "them" is that you're talking about. I've never seen a particular cohort of people that could be lumped into one group like this.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoOh? Which "them" were you referring to when you said "stop using language like 'SJW' that is designed to turn them off completely" then?
- moron4hire 10y agoPeople in general. Your petty Redditisms are transparent.
- makomk 10y agoMy poor irony meter.
- rustynails 10y agoI have a big bone to pick with Political Correctness. For example, domestic violence is supposedly a men only thing (stats of 20-25% of women perpetrators in the US and Australia contradict this misnomer). I've read many articles that say racism is only a white person problem. Supposedly, we must have 50% girls in STEM (why?), but never talk about falling grades of boys especially with languages. The Australian media said it was discriminatory for police to be expected to pass a rigorous physical and greatly lowered physical standards for hiring new recruits - not because there was a shortage of people, but, because there was less than 50% female officers. I could name many more examples of Political Correctness that defy logic. 30 years ago, we used to encourage and support individuals that needed help: a blind person, a person in a wheelchair, etc. now, we classify genitals or skin colour as mandating special treatment. Anyone who opposes this is attacked aggressively, the likes of which I've never seen until the last few years. Unfortunately, I see less tolerance and more prejudice today then I've seen in the last 50 years. Call it Political Correctness, call it SJW, it doesn't matter. Society is worse off for it. I directly attribute this intolerance and degradation of society to Political Correctness. The notion that it always existed is a weak argument. Societies go through enlightenment and dark periods. We aren't in the dark ages, but we are closer to the McCarthy era then we've been in a long time. See Matt Taylor for one of many examples of a modern witch hunt.
- belorn 10y agoIts like when someone use the word patriarchy or privilege. The words are there to define a group which can be generalized and excluded from discussion, and a key attribute of such terms is that the accused can't disprove that they are a SJW, privileged or actors that contributes the current social construction. HN do not have a strict policy against such terms, and people don't seems to be voluntarily avoiding them. If the posted had said "white privileged men are part of the problem", would you have had made a similar objection?
- moron4hire 10y agoYes, I would have. Thanks for assuming you know me based off of one comment. HN does have a policy to keep conversation civil, and it's really difficult to see how bandying around terms like this is contributing to being civil.
- belorn 10y agoGood! I did not assume you wouldn't, only questioned if that was the case. I would only be happy if the civility policy would cover such terms and be enforced, and I believe that it would reduce the amount of gender wars being conducted on HN.
- Kristine1975 10y agoAhem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_... I realize the SJW bogeyman is en vogue these days, but censorship in the US has a long and sordid history completely without them. Honestly I doubt that "SJW" would have a problem with e.g. Harry Potter, The Handmaid's Tale and Annie on my Mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challeng...
- raverbashing 10y agoYes, I've reworded my comment and you're right about these
- at-fates-hands 10y agofor anybody not in the loop: SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
- geofft 10y agoYeah, I think you're right. It's SJWs like Vox Day who would be banning books today. He's been pushing hard to exclude science fiction that tackles complex topics from the definition of science fiction, going so far as to organize mass voting for the Hugos to displace worthwhile books and stories with things that he knows aren't worthwhile.
- actionwords 10y agowe need more disabled PoC lgbtqa+ people represented in science fiction! Only books that can be used as propaganda should win awards, duhhhh.
- awinter-py 10y agoteenagers contribute nothing to the GDP. we could ignore them completely and they'd still turn into reasonable adults at the same rate. How about making school curricula marginally more specialized and employing the smartest 5% in challenging internships? short of that I can't imagine anything moving the needle on teens. Anybody who thinks aggressive movie ratings makes a difference to young people in 2016 shouldn't be considered safe to drive a car.
- Retric 10y agoMany teenagers do work, others can be a massive drain on the economy. Wait, no everyone in the US is just like you never mind.
- awinter-py 10y agohttp://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-age-groups-bear-largest-share-tax-burden http://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-age-groups-bear-largest-... 2% of tax returns are filed by teens accounting for 0% of IRS revenue.
- Kristine1975 10y ago>teenagers contribute nothing to the GDP. we could ignore them completely Yes, let's reduce people to their economic value. Also pocket money.
- cylinder 10y agoThis actually used to be the way of parenting until a couple of generations ago. Just stay out of kids way and they'll figure it out. Be there to make sure they don't kill themselves or others. But otherwise you don't curate their lives. We're infantalizing everyone now. I was in a law school class (everyone 25+) where the federal judge lecturer called us all "kids." The age of majority seems to have inflated up from 18 to around 27 in America.
- saiya-jin 10y agoanybody who thinks human beings are copy&paste robots and we should treat them only as numbers in balance sheet shouldn't be allowed to drive. or post here for that matter. there you go. i just lowered myself to your level. ugly.
- xabotage 10y ago>Show complexity – whilst showing the impacts – and yes, appeal – of activities that may be dangerous or illegal, don’t celebrate the activity. But don’t condemn the characters either. No-one likes a wagging finger. I appreciate this "rule" that the author holds. I think there really are two sides to these kinds of controversial issues - parents who don't fully understand the appeal, and teens who don't fully understand the danger - and the best way to show both sides is to tell it like it is. Unfortunately, since in fiction the author has full reign over the plot, lazier (or else ignorant) authors who may not fully understand both sides might simply reward or punish characters regardless of any realistic criteria. If I tried to write such a book, I would fall into the "ignorant" category, biased not only by my limited experience but also by my natural desire to reward characters more like myself, regardless of whether their actions merit it.
- Vaskivo 10y agoI disagree. I believe art should be whatever it wants to be. If someone wants to write a book glorifying "bad things", I say go for it. It might even be an interesting read. Exploring the two sides of an issue (or three or four) should be done "away" from the book. We should confront those ideas with the real world and everything else we know. The author has no obligation to present those ideas fairly or truthfully. [1] Parents should tech their kids to think critically, to accept that anything can be wrong or misleading. They should always evaluate what they learned and gather their own conclusions. [1] And writing about X doesn't mean the author subscribes to X.
- themartorana 10y agoAll the way agree. Parents should discuss a book after it's been read (yup, it means reading what your kids are reading, and teenagers don't always have great taste...) and go over anything controversial, leave the floor open for questions, encourage them to consider scenarios that are outside of their experiences, and so on. Teenagers are perfectly capable of handling adult topics if they have the support of adults to help them grasp the entirety of it all. Keeping them insulated in a bubble, away from the real world, just means they'll get to experience it all at once, alone, without support, when they finally venture out of the house as young adults.
- rabboRubble 10y agoIn high school I was /enraged/ to learn that the books given to me were censored. Books like Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. I learned that when it came to respecting the power of speech, the Emperor had no clothes, and when deemed expedient a public institution would toss out their principles.