4 ms·

> objectively bad What? “Bad” is an opinion. Pretty hard to argue objectively bad.

halostatue 6y ago
Putting kids in cages as policy is objectively bad (it’s also immoral and against international law, but if there’s anything that the Republicans and Trump have proven over the last four years/decades…they don’t actually care about obeying the law, just other people obeying _their_ laws). It’s pretty damned easy to argue objectively bad. It’s lazy to argue that “bad” is merely an opinion when there’s some pretty clear examples that prove you wrong. Would you prefer that we call Trump’s policies “evil” (which I believe that they are, but usually avoid that term because it typically has a metaphysical meaning people associate with it that I don’t mean as someone who doesn’t _do_ metaphysics of any sort)?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  No kids were 'put in cages,' outside of normal detention processes that predated Trump and even some of the Obama era. If you only get your news from your "trusted source" you're going to get it wrong. The world media is horrifically bad; and nothing show it more than Portland. No one is covering the violence. Not one ABC clip covers the rioters breaking fences or setting things on fire. The NY Times recent video places the blame on untrained DHS/US Marshalls while independent journalists like Andy Ngo show the constantly destruction every night. Modern US journalism is yellow to its core. It's so limited, so one-directional, so divisive and so misleading that everyone should greatly question the narratives put before us and view every alternative before coming to a conclusion.
  - halostatue 6y ago
    Sorry, but there are _not_ good people on both sides when one side is intent on the dehumanization of people not like them. The violence at the protests is _initiated_ primarily by the police reacting against calls for their accountability. There are police shooting journalists, medics, and legal observers in the head. And yes, there have been kids in cages without sufficient care given: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b2af0921ae66238008b5360-1920-960.jpg https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b2af0921ae66238008b5... Please, try again, without the bothsidesism nonsense.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      > There are police shooting journalists, medics, and legal observers in the head. This is why you need two perspectives. Let's take a look at another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8
adamsea 6y ago
Let's put our thinking caps on .... We have laws that represent our current consensus of good and bad. They can change over time. We also have cultural beliefs that function similarly. So, when I say, racism is bad, if someone says, "well, that's just like, your opinion, man", are they right?
- pandaman 6y ago
  The word "objectively" has a meaning so when you say "racism is bad" it has different meaning from when you say "racism is objectively bad". Seeing that its meaning is in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions and bad here is used as morally objectionable "objectively bad" comes out as an oxymoron.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The word "objectively" has a meaning One common meaning of “objectively” in practice is as an intensifier of an inherently subjective description.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      I hear it not quite as an intensifier as an assertion that the same subjective conclusion would be frequently reached... and often implication about those who would (pretend to?) fail to reach those same conclusions. Severity seems to play a role, but by that mechanism (it's severe so it should be obvious, it's severe so it's worse if you miss it, etc) more than apart from it. It's not a... literal use of "objectively", but words are frequently put to other uses.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...

Putting kids in cages as policy is objectively bad (it’s also immoral and against international law, but if there’s anything that the Republicans and Trump have proven over the last four years/decades…they don’t actually care about obeying the law, just other people obeying _their_ laws). It’s pretty damned easy to argue objectively bad. It’s lazy to argue that “bad” is merely an opinion when there’s some pretty clear examples that prove you wrong. Would you prefer that we call Trump’s policies “evil” (which I believe that they are, but usually avoid that term because it typically has a metaphysical meaning people associate with it that I don’t mean as someone who doesn’t _do_ metaphysics of any sort)?

djsumdog 6y ago
No kids were 'put in cages,' outside of normal detention processes that predated Trump and even some of the Obama era. If you only get your news from your "trusted source" you're going to get it wrong. The world media is horrifically bad; and nothing show it more than Portland. No one is covering the violence. Not one ABC clip covers the rioters breaking fences or setting things on fire. The NY Times recent video places the blame on untrained DHS/US Marshalls while independent journalists like Andy Ngo show the constantly destruction every night. Modern US journalism is yellow to its core. It's so limited, so one-directional, so divisive and so misleading that everyone should greatly question the narratives put before us and view every alternative before coming to a conclusion.
- halostatue 6y ago
  Sorry, but there are _not_ good people on both sides when one side is intent on the dehumanization of people not like them. The violence at the protests is _initiated_ primarily by the police reacting against calls for their accountability. There are police shooting journalists, medics, and legal observers in the head. And yes, there have been kids in cages without sufficient care given: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b2af0921ae66238008b5360-1920-960.jpg https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b2af0921ae66238008b5... Please, try again, without the bothsidesism nonsense.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > There are police shooting journalists, medics, and legal observers in the head. This is why you need two perspectives. Let's take a look at another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8

adamsea 6y ago

Let's put our thinking caps on .... We have laws that represent our current consensus of good and bad. They can change over time. We also have cultural beliefs that function similarly. So, when I say, racism is bad, if someone says, "well, that's just like, your opinion, man", are they right?

pandaman 6y ago
The word "objectively" has a meaning so when you say "racism is bad" it has different meaning from when you say "racism is objectively bad". Seeing that its meaning is in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions and bad here is used as morally objectionable "objectively bad" comes out as an oxymoron.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The word "objectively" has a meaning One common meaning of “objectively” in practice is as an intensifier of an inherently subjective description.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    I hear it not quite as an intensifier as an assertion that the same subjective conclusion would be frequently reached... and often implication about those who would (pretend to?) fail to reach those same conclusions. Severity seems to play a role, but by that mechanism (it's severe so it should be obvious, it's severe so it's worse if you miss it, etc) more than apart from it. It's not a... literal use of "objectively", but words are frequently put to other uses.
- adamsea 6y ago
  OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...