5 ms·

> Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black

> Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it? My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black lives matter articles. I read all of them. I read all the comments on Reddit, and on HN. Everything is labelled as racism and misogynistic and full of vitriol. There is no priority on sound and valid argument. Its all about feelings. Maybe I live in a filter bubble, but I would love to find a good example of a liberal having a rationale debate with a Trump supporter about political correctness, black lives matter, etc, that doesn't revolve around something being inherently "racist" or simply ad-hominem attacks. I cannot find anything like this.

Fraterkes 10y ago
I'm probably more on the "SJW" side of things than a lot of people, what questions do you have?
- masondixon 10y ago
  Do you think the response by Joyent was appropriate: http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ Do you think this was appropriate and fair to the accused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th... Do you think the BLM riots were justified over this: http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ Do you think police shoot more black people than white people? Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach? E.g: - Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment? - Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.
  - Fraterkes 10y ago
    Thanks for replying! I was actually hoping that you would ask some more general questions, because I would consider these examples edge-cases, and for me to talk in any useful way about them I would have to do a lot of research (the first link alone has a LOT of background). But briefly: I thought Joyent was being melodramatic, even if I consider Noordhuis' reactions to be a bit petty. Its always convenient to consider a change trivial when it only has benificial effects for others. I don't know if black people are shot more than white people, the thing that most people care about is that the police seems to be a lot more agressive when it comes to black people, even when unwaranted. Lots of "SJWs" think about side effects, the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet. People like to pretend that the world has been taken over by PC-culture but the large majority on the internet still firmly hates Sjw's. This means that they don't really consider the internet a place for "policy"-discussion, but at best as a tool to spread the message. (Ps, none of this may have been worded very clearly or convincingly, English isn't my first language)
    - masondixon 10y ago
      Thanks. Interesting to read. Its so rare to engage in a level discussion with a SJW. My experience is mostly reading stuff on Medium. Then there are the protests at college campuses on YouTube. But its easy to get trapped in a filter bubble on YouTube. You click on one video and then you are endlessly served recommendations. It comes across as very naive a lot of the time, and its hard to find a video from a knowledgeable spokesperson. What I am always looking for is something where someone acknowledges the arguments against what they are doing and logically refutes them - but I don't think I have ever read anything like that. I think its because people believe they are morally justified and therefore criticism is invalid. It is not about utilitarianism, but that there is a duty to act regardless of the consequences or side effects. I think it is an interesting phenomenon and a very dangerous ideology. Safe spaces probably the most dangerous - where it becomes okay to never have your ideas challenged. I only wish this Trump backlash can bring them back to the table of reason, and allow themselves to be challenged. > the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet. Yes I can see how it would be.
mch82 10y ago
Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them? Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities?
- late2part 10y ago
  What is a country that does not have a history of discriminating against minorities?
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them? Yep! These sensitivities are learned though. And being overly sensitive is bad for social cohesion. A certain discipline needs to be enforced to allow society function. The right is about tough love. The left is about coddling. This is entirely 100% debatable though. This is the debate that should be happening IMHO. What are the side-effects if no one has to feel a bad feeling or ever be offended. > Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities? Absolutely. But not for a long time. We had a black president. A female can extremely close to becoming the president. Etc. Etc. To argue that the system is against you because of your race is a hard argument to swallow now.
rubberstamp 10y ago
The basic issue is people now a days are not using language properly. Its hard to accurately convey what you are actually trying to convey. When you are writing on some topic, its easy to read what you have just wrote and correct it if it came out wrong. But when you speak, unless you are speaking to a calm and patient crowd, if anything comes out wrong then that will be used against you to smear you. That is what makes politics dirty and out of reach for most people. People often wanting the same things are just fighting each other believing that everyone else is wrong. One should learn to use language properly. Another important point is do not resort to personal attacks at all. Personal attacks makes sure the other person won't listen. Everyone needs to be civil and consider what the other side is saying and the reason why they are saying it. Media needs to report actual facts of things, which is very very rare now a days. Unless these kind of basic issues go away, democracy is a lost case.
- masondixon 10y ago
  Well said. Obama is against political correctness. > It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either. http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correct... This means that somewhere you have a white male SJW college student calling out a black president for betraying their cause. The left has moved pretty-far-left if you ask me.

Fraterkes 10y ago

I'm probably more on the "SJW" side of things than a lot of people, what questions do you have?

masondixon 10y ago
Do you think the response by Joyent was appropriate: http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/ Do you think this was appropriate and fair to the accused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_Th... Do you think the BLM riots were justified over this: http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ http://nyti.ms/2ctkwYZ Do you think police shoot more black people than white people? Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach? E.g: - Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment? - Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.
- Fraterkes 10y ago
  Thanks for replying! I was actually hoping that you would ask some more general questions, because I would consider these examples edge-cases, and for me to talk in any useful way about them I would have to do a lot of research (the first link alone has a LOT of background). But briefly: I thought Joyent was being melodramatic, even if I consider Noordhuis' reactions to be a bit petty. Its always convenient to consider a change trivial when it only has benificial effects for others. I don't know if black people are shot more than white people, the thing that most people care about is that the police seems to be a lot more agressive when it comes to black people, even when unwaranted. Lots of "SJWs" think about side effects, the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet. People like to pretend that the world has been taken over by PC-culture but the large majority on the internet still firmly hates Sjw's. This means that they don't really consider the internet a place for "policy"-discussion, but at best as a tool to spread the message. (Ps, none of this may have been worded very clearly or convincingly, English isn't my first language)
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Thanks. Interesting to read. Its so rare to engage in a level discussion with a SJW. My experience is mostly reading stuff on Medium. Then there are the protests at college campuses on YouTube. But its easy to get trapped in a filter bubble on YouTube. You click on one video and then you are endlessly served recommendations. It comes across as very naive a lot of the time, and its hard to find a video from a knowledgeable spokesperson. What I am always looking for is something where someone acknowledges the arguments against what they are doing and logically refutes them - but I don't think I have ever read anything like that. I think its because people believe they are morally justified and therefore criticism is invalid. It is not about utilitarianism, but that there is a duty to act regardless of the consequences or side effects. I think it is an interesting phenomenon and a very dangerous ideology. Safe spaces probably the most dangerous - where it becomes okay to never have your ideas challenged. I only wish this Trump backlash can bring them back to the table of reason, and allow themselves to be challenged. > the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet. Yes I can see how it would be.

mch82 10y ago

Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them? Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities?

late2part 10y ago
What is a country that does not have a history of discriminating against minorities?
masondixon 10y ago
> Is it fair to acknowledge that the feelings expressed in the articles you reference are valid feelings and feel true to the people who share them? Yep! These sensitivities are learned though. And being overly sensitive is bad for social cohesion. A certain discipline needs to be enforced to allow society function. The right is about tough love. The left is about coddling. This is entirely 100% debatable though. This is the debate that should be happening IMHO. What are the side-effects if no one has to feel a bad feeling or ever be offended. > Edit: Is it fair to acknowledge that the people of the United States have a history of discriminating against minorities? Absolutely. But not for a long time. We had a black president. A female can extremely close to becoming the president. Etc. Etc. To argue that the system is against you because of your race is a hard argument to swallow now.

rubberstamp 10y ago

The basic issue is people now a days are not using language properly. Its hard to accurately convey what you are actually trying to convey. When you are writing on some topic, its easy to read what you have just wrote and correct it if it came out wrong. But when you speak, unless you are speaking to a calm and patient crowd, if anything comes out wrong then that will be used against you to smear you. That is what makes politics dirty and out of reach for most people. People often wanting the same things are just fighting each other believing that everyone else is wrong. One should learn to use language properly. Another important point is do not resort to personal attacks at all. Personal attacks makes sure the other person won't listen. Everyone needs to be civil and consider what the other side is saying and the reason why they are saying it. Media needs to report actual facts of things, which is very very rare now a days. Unless these kind of basic issues go away, democracy is a lost case.

masondixon 10y ago
Well said. Obama is against political correctness. > It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either. http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correct... This means that somewhere you have a white male SJW college student calling out a black president for betraying their cause. The left has moved pretty-far-left if you ask me.