7 ms·

Wow, this is a classic case of "don't trust someone who describes themselves as neutral". To take the principal example under discussion, either you think loli

• Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  I never thought of neutrality like that - thanks, +1 Insightful and such! Although I wonder if that can be applied to other issues too. Like, if I were to have no opinion / consider myself neutral in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, which side would I actually be on? Or is there a neutral / indifferent ground there?
  • moomin 8y ago
    The quote at the bottom is from Desmond Tutu, who explicitly said that neutrality is a vote for the powerful/status quo. So if you were in Denmark, not caring that much could be treated as a pro-choice position, but in Texas it would be the other way around.
    • jtbayly 8y ago
      Wrong. Not caring anywhere in the USA would also be pro-choice since Roe v Wade overturned laws in all 50 states against abortion.
      • guelo 8y ago
        That was before 40 years of culture wars on the issue. Today the majority of the country is pro choice.
        • jtbayly 8y ago
          Which, if true, only further proves my point, which is that to "not care" is to be fine with the way things currently are—abortion being legal.
          • moomin 8y ago
            Just because you don’t understand that availability matters, people getting shot because they do legal things matters, and your entire entire Supreme Court being defined by and chosen on their attitude to a subject matters, doesn’t mean they don’t matter. Attempting to obtain an abortion in Texas will have dramatically different outcomes to that of Denmark. Appreciating this is true should not be controversial.
            • jtbayly 8y ago
              The people in Texas are actively fighting against the status quo of Roe. If the people in TX simply took a neutral position, the status quo would reign. Thus, the example is a bad one.
    • Fnoord 8y ago
      You confuse neutrality with apathy. Also, you use a classic "either you're with us or against us" fallacy (classic example of a bifurcation, famously used by G.W. Bush).
      • orbitur 8y ago
        You ended your comment before you countered.
        • Fnoord 8y ago
          My first line is the counter. If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain. The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily). As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia. The other line just describes the fallacy.
          • orbitur 8y ago
            You’re taking about intent, we’re talking about the very real consequences of inaction. The difference between apathy and neutrality is irrelevant.
  • dustingetz 8y ago
    "I'm not sure if Red harasses Blue thus don't advocate for action" by not taking action, you're against Blue
    • DuskStar 8y ago
      "I'm not sure if Blue harasses Red thus don't advocate for action" Am I against Red now? Am I against both Red and Blue if I don't advocate for action either way?
• struppi 8y ago
  Yep. I almost stopped reading (but read on) after this sentence: The coverage, all from Blue-aligned media, largely presented Mastodon as a cool new alternative to Twitter that would be free of "harassment," which is a Blue code word for the mere existence of the Red side. This is clearly not from a neutral person. He very clearly picked a side.
  • amazingman 8y ago
    You don’t think that’s a fair assessment of a significantly noisy subset of Blue? This is an earnest question.
    • eeeuo 8y ago
      Yes, some people on the Blue side can be overly sensitive. No, I do not think that "a significantly noisy subset" of the Blue side finds a dissenting opinion to be harassment. Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? I burst out laughing reading that sentence in the article, it's such an obviously preposterous statement. It's really quite comical that the author, in order: 1) Claimed that they were being objective and presenting the situation free of bias. 2) Claimed that any person on the Blue side who learns that anyone with a dissenting opinion is on the same site as them will feel that they are being harassed. 3) Claimed that the arrival of Blue users would ruin mastodon. I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.
      • rustler 8y ago
        > Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? Sadly yes. The logic works as follows: If you don't agree with me (let's say on gay marriage), you're saying my belief is invalid. The things I believe constitute my identity; therefore you are attacking my identity and thus existentially threatening me. On some forums this kind of disagreement is grounds for banning, no matter how politely expressed or well reasoned.
• snarfy 8y ago
  "not enough data for meaningful answer" is a valid answer. If I don't know X vs Y, then I didn't pick a side. The side picked me.
  • GW150914 8y ago
    ”not enough data for meaningful answer" is a valid answer. It is, but in some circumstances it can then call intelligence, sincerity, or familiarity with the subject into question. If you say that data isn’t present for a meaningful answer to the question of the existence of an afterlife, I’m inclined to take your position seriously. If by contrast your position is that there is insufficient data to support a conclusion as to the existence of gravity I’d question your intelligence or sincerity.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• waterhouse 8y ago
  > Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side. I can imagine another possibility: you believe that Red harasses Blue, but also that Blue harasses Red. Then neutrality might be sensible, unless perhaps there's a big difference in magnitude. Another possibility: you think that either you're not qualified to act as judge, you're not suited to act as executioner (what would the action be—retaliatory harassment?), or that, while you could serve as both, it would be better from a societal perspective if people in your position did not do so—it might be "vigilantism".
• vertexFarm 8y ago
  Yeah, the "neutrality" being touted here is so clearly a farce. This is ridiculous. I can't believe there's so many people discussing this pile of offal with such seriousness. "The coverage, all from Blue-aligned media, largely presented Mastodon as a cool new alternative to Twitter that would be free of "harassment," which is a Blue code word for the mere existence of the Red side." Give me a fucking break. There's this baffling and unnecessary plug of US politics--done seemingly for the exclusive purpose of sneakily putting down one side while maintaining an absurd claim of neutrality. It's not really relevant to the other subject he's discussing, which, by the way, is also total bullshit. Just look at how the subject is discussed. It isn't discussed, it's danced around vaguely. He not only refuses to explain the difference between the two genres of porn--he won't even spell them out. Uses "ロリコン" instead of lolicon, a term which is very commonly understood in the English-speaking world. Because it's a loanword from western culture and western concepts. It's not some mysterious eastern thing that we can't possibly comprehend, as he asserts. Katakana, the very alphabet that "ロリコン" is written in, exists in a large way to spell out loanwords from other languages. So why doesn't he just spell it out in the language the rest of the article is written in? Same reason he never explains these mysterious, forbidden concepts from the mystical eastern lands™ in a clear way: because he's trying to hide it. The idea that lolicon is not controversial at all--and to go so far to say that it is universally accepted in Japanese culture--is also an absurd falsehood and obvious bad faith in an argument that's trying to appear neutral but has a bald-faced agenda. Only otaku who knows of Japanese culture exclusively through cartoons and video games would ever think that was true. This is so obviously an article by somebody who a. wants to bemoan the oppression of right-wing opinions online and b. enjoys lolicon in a sexual way and wants to discreetly defend that habit. It's not even ambiguous. At all. I feel like the way the "culture wars" are presented in quasi-neutrality is meant to imply that any moral or political disagreement within a culture is irrational, that all sides are always the same, and he and other "neutrals" are above it all, yet they are simultaneously oppressed. That whole argument ignores historical fact that there are cultures which were objectively harmful and unethical, and it is not some irrational folly for current cultures to try to foresee that such a thing might happen again. Of course both sides™ think they're on the right side of history and ethics, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless and it doesn't mean that right and wrong won't become clear one day in hindsight. We can't pretend we are the sole exceptions in history.
• rustler 8y ago
  > Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. That's a bizarre dichotomy. Neither "Red harasses Blue" nor its converse is true in all cases. You've fallen into the trap of believing that when someone constructs a dichotomy, you must of necessity pick one of the two "sides". Do you support Hutu or Tutsi?
  • Fnoord 8y ago
    Yup, indeed. False dilemma (false dichotomy)/bifurcation.