10 ms·

I have no idea what you're on about

by bogdan 5mo ago

analog8374 5mo ago
He's suggesting that there are several flavors of blindness going around so if we're going to point fingers then we might start with ourselves.
- danparsonson 5mo ago
  ...which is a blatant false equivalence, to be clear.
  - analog8374 5mo ago
    I think it's a pretty good equivalence, actually. And pretty good advice. Passionate certainty should raise a red flag.
    - danparsonson 5mo ago
      The equivalence between supporting the rights of oppressed minorities, and inciting violence towards foreigners, is a good one?
    - dijksterhuis 5mo ago
      i find that passionate certainty can be a good thing in some cases, especially when someone really does know what they are talking about. but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about. > Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy. note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.
      - kulahan 5mo ago
        I see a similar idea that often gets people talking past each other re: patriotism vs. nationalism
        dijksterhuis 5mo ago
        for me, and this is just me, if you have to shout about it then you’re possibly not doing patriotism.
    - boxed 5mo ago
      A red flag that is blowing into your face? :P
  - lynx97 5mo ago
    Matthew 7:3–5 I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.
    - AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
      Keep going. Look at Matthew 7:6. "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." That is (in this context), don't bother trying to give truth (or even have a reasonable conversation) with those who simply will not listen. Zealots, shill, propagandists... it's like talking to a brick wall. If anyone has a technique for getting them to stop being a brick wall and start actually engaging with what you're saying, I'd like to know what it is. You can call it "transmit only mode" (hat tip Patrick McClure). When you realize that the person you're talking to is in transmit only mode, you understand how the conversation is going to go if you continue it.
    - analog8374 5mo ago
      Yeah I was sorta thinking in that direction too. First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
    - danparsonson 5mo ago
      Forgive me if I'm mischaracterising you but you seem to be not only reinforcing the false equivalence but in fact doubling down on it? That trans rights protesters are not only morally equivalent to nationalist protesters, but in fact, in some way more of a problem? A plank in the eye vs a mote of dust? When I say 'false equivalence' in this context I don't mean 'nationalist protesters are all bad and trans rights protesters are all good'. Of course there are bad actors in the trans rights camp, people who are blinded by their own flag; likewise I'm sure there are well-intentioned and peaceful nationalists who are simply misinformed. I submit to you however that the number of, and danger presented by bad actors in the former camp is severely limited compared to the bad actors in the camp of people who hate foreigners and wish to see them expelled and/or commit violence against them. Even without comparing actual events, that would seem to be self-evident given the trans rights cause itself is centered around support and love for a group of people, and once you do compare actual events the difference is obvious. I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march. Do you really think the two are basically morally equivalent? That someone could not reasonably criticise rising and widespread nationalist hatred if they don't also, with the same vigour, also call out a handful of zealots aggressively pushing for acceptance and fair treatment? As I said I totally accept I may have misunderstood you and/or the other commenters here, so please enlighten me if so.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
tim333 5mo ago
I think he meant the statue would be unchanged but the meaning of it would be.

I have no idea what you're on about

by bogdan 5mo ago

I have no idea what you're on about

He's suggesting that there are several flavors of blindness going around so if we're going to point fingers then we might start with ourselves.

danparsonson 5mo ago
...which is a blatant false equivalence, to be clear.
- analog8374 5mo ago
  I think it's a pretty good equivalence, actually. And pretty good advice. Passionate certainty should raise a red flag.
  - danparsonson 5mo ago
    The equivalence between supporting the rights of oppressed minorities, and inciting violence towards foreigners, is a good one?
  - dijksterhuis 5mo ago
    i find that passionate certainty can be a good thing in some cases, especially when someone really does know what they are talking about. but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about. > Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy. note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.
    - kulahan 5mo ago
      I see a similar idea that often gets people talking past each other re: patriotism vs. nationalism
      - dijksterhuis 5mo ago
        for me, and this is just me, if you have to shout about it then you’re possibly not doing patriotism.
  - boxed 5mo ago
    A red flag that is blowing into your face? :P
- lynx97 5mo ago
  Matthew 7:3–5 I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.
  - AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
    Keep going. Look at Matthew 7:6. "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." That is (in this context), don't bother trying to give truth (or even have a reasonable conversation) with those who simply will not listen. Zealots, shill, propagandists... it's like talking to a brick wall. If anyone has a technique for getting them to stop being a brick wall and start actually engaging with what you're saying, I'd like to know what it is. You can call it "transmit only mode" (hat tip Patrick McClure). When you realize that the person you're talking to is in transmit only mode, you understand how the conversation is going to go if you continue it.
  - analog8374 5mo ago
    Yeah I was sorta thinking in that direction too. First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
  - danparsonson 5mo ago
    Forgive me if I'm mischaracterising you but you seem to be not only reinforcing the false equivalence but in fact doubling down on it? That trans rights protesters are not only morally equivalent to nationalist protesters, but in fact, in some way more of a problem? A plank in the eye vs a mote of dust? When I say 'false equivalence' in this context I don't mean 'nationalist protesters are all bad and trans rights protesters are all good'. Of course there are bad actors in the trans rights camp, people who are blinded by their own flag; likewise I'm sure there are well-intentioned and peaceful nationalists who are simply misinformed. I submit to you however that the number of, and danger presented by bad actors in the former camp is severely limited compared to the bad actors in the camp of people who hate foreigners and wish to see them expelled and/or commit violence against them. Even without comparing actual events, that would seem to be self-evident given the trans rights cause itself is centered around support and love for a group of people, and once you do compare actual events the difference is obvious. I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march. Do you really think the two are basically morally equivalent? That someone could not reasonably criticise rising and widespread nationalist hatred if they don't also, with the same vigour, also call out a handful of zealots aggressively pushing for acceptance and fair treatment? As I said I totally accept I may have misunderstood you and/or the other commenters here, so please enlighten me if so.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

tim333 5mo ago

I think he meant the statue would be unchanged but the meaning of it would be.