6 ms·

What a strange one-sided debate you’re trying so desperately to have. I suggest re-reading my comment again, but without the “I’m completely triggered by any m

• kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I'm not sure what made you think this is a debate. I'd just like to understand how you came to your conclusions. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. You don't have to answer. The process takes some back and forth, that's all. It sounds like your observations about how people interact socially are as clear as watching a ball travel through the air. Is that right?
  • orf 3y ago
    In this world we live in there exists an objective truth to things. "things" in this context can be fuzzy, like if something is "good" or "bad", or they could be physical, like if something is getting "hotter" or "colder". Wrapping those "things" in "politics" doesn't detract from the objective truth of the "thing", whatever that may be. It's merely a lazy distraction that reframes the debate in a way that favours the person or entity positioning themselves against the "thing" (for whatever reason). Here are some examples: > The planet isn't getting hotter. These "scientists" are just begging for grant money and so have to say the planet is warming else they won't have a job! > The planet is getting warmer. These "politicians" are just begging for oil-industry money and so have to say the planet is not getting warmer else they won't have a job! > men cannot be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a politically motivated idiot trying to tear down good honest family values and those who indoctrinate our students with this nonsense should be purged > men can be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a hard-headed idiot who must vote republican/conservative/other-bad-party, is probably racist and is trying to bring us drag us back into the stone age where women didn't have the vote. anyone who indoctrinates their kids with this nonsense should be purged None of these unfortunately common arguments are actually saying anything, or are really about the actual "thing" in question. Just like the original comment I was replying to. The "thing" is a segway to attack the person. The original commenter doesn't understand the nuances of systematic racism or sex vs gender any more than the layman. But that's not what they are attacking. They are attacking a perceived, fictitious persona that they don't personally like, or have been indoctrinated to not like by others. And that's lazy as hell.
    • kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Interesting. Help me understand, how do peoples' differing social ontologies exist within an objective social reality?
    • shapenamer 3y ago
      I'm still super curious what the "objective truth" is in this case.
      • orf 3y ago
        No idea, but it’s worth looking into rather than painting the people doing so as a caricature and celebrating as they are “purged”.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • shapenamer 3y ago
          I still don't understand. The person you originally replied to was celebrating "politically motivated academics" not interested in the truth being purged and you replied, vaguely, that there's an objective truth and then insulted the user's intelligence for celebrating a politically motivated purge. Something tells me you wouldn't have made the same post if the politics were the other way around.
    • karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      Nicely put!