5 ms·

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this i

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society. You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.

macspoofing 8y ago
>I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society. I didn't say anything of the sort. What I meant to communicate to you was that I don't see any evidence that the SPECIFIC (and arbitrary) power structures you choose to use, have any actual explanatory power. Typically, ideologues of your persuasion will attempt to explain any disparity in society like this. Those claims are almost always unfalsifiable and can be twisted and contoured to fit any data point. Do you understand my point? There are many power structures and many hierarchies in our society. If you were to explain the particular status of a specific individual here are some characteristics: - race - ethnicity - gender - sexual orientation - height - IQ - Extrovertness vs introvertness - Disability Physical - Disability Mental - two-parent vs single-parent household - household income - geographic location of upbringing - geographic location of present residency - education level - sense of humour - religion - political alignment - marital status - number of dependents - hair color - attractiveness level - language - athleticism - etc. etc. Ideologues of your persusain tend to argue, with ZERO evidence, that immutable genetic characteristics dominate all others, even though most evidence suggests the opposite. So it isn't about denying the idea that power structures and hierarchies exists, but rather denying the idea that the SPECIFIC power structures and SPECIFIC hierarchies you choose have any value for explanation.
- snackbugs 8y ago
  Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary. I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms. Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    If anyone's arguing in bad faith here, it's you. Power dynamics may lead to hate speech but they are not an intrinsic part of hate speech.
    - snackbugs 8y ago
      Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. Stop making up your own terms.
      - macspoofing 8y ago
        >Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. That's not a universally accepted definition. You're simply asserting it to be true. It's very similar to the way the definition of 'racism' was contorted from a conceptually simple "somebody who hates someone based on their race" to "somebody who discriminates (usually in some abstract ill-defined, overbroad way) and who is part of some power dominance hierarchy (also arbitrarily defined) against a marginalized sub-group" or paraphrased: "If you're non-white, you cannot be racist". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that and you don't get to just assert this to be true. I also believe that this is a deeply immoral way of looking at the world.
      - Chazprime 8y ago
        This here is a perfect example of a bad faith argument; asserting that your definition of hate speech is the only acceptable definition is disingenuous.
  - macspoofing 8y ago

macspoofing 8y ago

>I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society. I didn't say anything of the sort. What I meant to communicate to you was that I don't see any evidence that the SPECIFIC (and arbitrary) power structures you choose to use, have any actual explanatory power. Typically, ideologues of your persuasion will attempt to explain any disparity in society like this. Those claims are almost always unfalsifiable and can be twisted and contoured to fit any data point. Do you understand my point? There are many power structures and many hierarchies in our society. If you were to explain the particular status of a specific individual here are some characteristics: - race - ethnicity - gender - sexual orientation - height - IQ - Extrovertness vs introvertness - Disability Physical - Disability Mental - two-parent vs single-parent household - household income - geographic location of upbringing - geographic location of present residency - education level - sense of humour - religion - political alignment - marital status - number of dependents - hair color - attractiveness level - language - athleticism - etc. etc. Ideologues of your persusain tend to argue, with ZERO evidence, that immutable genetic characteristics dominate all others, even though most evidence suggests the opposite. So it isn't about denying the idea that power structures and hierarchies exists, but rather denying the idea that the SPECIFIC power structures and SPECIFIC hierarchies you choose have any value for explanation.

snackbugs 8y ago
Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary. I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms. Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  If anyone's arguing in bad faith here, it's you. Power dynamics may lead to hate speech but they are not an intrinsic part of hate speech.
  - snackbugs 8y ago
    Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. Stop making up your own terms.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. That's not a universally accepted definition. You're simply asserting it to be true. It's very similar to the way the definition of 'racism' was contorted from a conceptually simple "somebody who hates someone based on their race" to "somebody who discriminates (usually in some abstract ill-defined, overbroad way) and who is part of some power dominance hierarchy (also arbitrarily defined) against a marginalized sub-group" or paraphrased: "If you're non-white, you cannot be racist". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that and you don't get to just assert this to be true. I also believe that this is a deeply immoral way of looking at the world.
    - Chazprime 8y ago
      This here is a perfect example of a bad faith argument; asserting that your definition of hate speech is the only acceptable definition is disingenuous.
- macspoofing 8y ago