Funny events in anti-woke world

[Phoenixmgs]

When you talk about people having an anxiety-based adverse reaction to difference, you are explaining a theory for why people might be racist. I have no idea how you think that people somehow get from fearing difference to institutional racism completely bypassing racism. Actually, I do very much have an idea how, it's just not going to be constructive for me to say it.



Yeah. Perhaps you've missed the replies to this from me and Silvanus: it doesn't matter.

Silvanus and I are against racism and institutional racism, especially in organisations with the sorts of authority that the police can wield. Far right policemen are incredibly obviously likely to increase racism and institutional racism in the police. It does not matter a jot who started institutional racism: it's completely irrelevant.

Because if people are partial to those of their kind, then if you have like a company, you will tend to hire people of your kind. Then, people of your kind will then end up being good at said thing since they have experience in said thing. Then, kids of said people that work for that company will be more interested and have an upper hand in that job/career, much like kids who grew up with a father who played professional baseball for example. Institutional racism doesn't actually require actual racism.

None of you have shown the far-right are increasing institutional racism in these places. Sure, the few far-right in such places are probably being racist to other employees on singular incidents here and there.

They didn't create the Metropolitan Police, and thus we can't say they're prominent within the Metropolitan Police? That's what you're going with?



Not really interested in your catastrophising opinions on the measure. It wasn't going to leave the area without law enforcement, as you seemed to be implying; it was essentially just a reform of the police. And it didn't even pass. So 'defund the police' is not a rational reason to avoid the Democratic Party.

Edit: to be clear, there are dozens of legitimate reasons to avoid the Democratic Party. None of them include an excess of progressivism.



Uh-huh. Yet the justices have employed rationale just as flimsy, or more flimsy still, for their own decisions on other cases. It doesn't depend on the strongest reading of the law-- it depends on their political leaning.

Outlined how institutional racism happens up above.

Whether defund the police or other crime policies by the democrats, they are causing an increase in crime. The police there were already understaffed and you think the current police were gonna stay if defund the police actually passed?

Doesn't change the fact the liberal judges' decision made less sense than the conservative judges' decision.

The far-right is conservative and conservatism breeds racism. Saying the far-right didn't create institutional racism is like... yeah no, the far-right as it is today didn't, because the far-right of today is a response to leftist ideals that have gained ground over the decades, like the civil rights act and reproductive rights. Back then the far-right didn't cause racism because back then far-right was the default.

Also, funny how Roe v. Wade "making no sense" benefited millions of people and harmed virtually no one. But hey "it made no sense", so good thing that got scrapped, huh? And so nice of the supreme court to introduce an alternative so people still have reproductive rights, and the lack of Roe v. Wade doesn't suddenly cause hundreds if not thousands (and in the future millions) of women to suffer. Right?!?

But according to the left's ideas, everyone is racist so why would the far-right (a tiny minority) be responsible for institutional racism?

And when you know something that is overall good but is easily overturned is something you don't try to codify into much better law?

 

[Cicada 5]

This Oklahoma State Senator Really Doesn’t Want You Watching Porn

State Sen. Dusty Deevers (R) is hoping to push through a bill that makes the production and viewing of consenting porn a felony.

jezebel.com

 

[Chimpzy]

This Oklahoma State Senator Really Doesn’t Want You Watching Porn

State Sen. Dusty Deevers (R) is hoping to push through a bill that makes the production and viewing of consenting porn a felony.

jezebel.com

Inb4 this dude is caught with a giant porn collection (likely kiddy), or maybe with a prostitute (possibly male)

 

[Seanchaidh]

You are just making up sentences for other people to have said.

I interpreted this thought:

See, abortions have nothing to do with beliefs, they have to do with basic human rights.

to be compatible with your weird insistence that everyone label every thought they have as a belief (which is contrary to much everyday usage; outside of philosophy departments, 'belief' tends to carry a connotation of arbitrariness or even thoughtlessness) and made the exact same distinction:

it's not just a belief, it's a matter of human rights

And your response to me doubles down on arguing about nothing other than how something was phrased rather than the point being made.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Gotta speak to people in the language they can understand.

From you, I would genuinely like an answer to why you think thought processes carry more moral weight than membership in the same species.

The one who is pregnant carries all the weight, and if they say 'yes' it's a yes... if they say 'no' it's a no. The decision is theirs alone, end of story.

 

[Cicada 5]

Inb4 this dude is caught with a giant porn collection (likely kiddy), or maybe with a prostitute (possibly male)

Much as I find him ridiculous, let's not push those particular stereotypes.

 

[Ag3ma]

Why? Your evaluation of personhood based on those characteristics is as arbitrary as any random characteristics we could pick. You could just as well say we have to consider the weight, cause you're not a person until you weigh more than 10 pounds. You're insistent that a particular characteristic is required, but I'm saying a human being is a human being, full stop. You've got to justify why that added feature is required to be a human, you can't just say "we must consider" and "it really matters".

Because ethics is primarily concerned with pain (or suffering) rather than death. A being that cannot think or feel experiences no pain, and so it ceases to have weight. Death, of course, involves pain: the individual's sense of loss over their potential, hopes and dreams, and the grief of others. Thus the pain of death is measured against the pain of continued living. Take a saying such as "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants": this and many, many others examine the fundamental relationship and find that sometimes, the pain of death is better than the pain of continued life.

You want to throw around the term "arbitrary" at us, but you also need to consider how your own position has implications of arbitrariness, because you have all sorts of positions where you will accept death or killing as preferable to the alternative. Is human life absolutely "sacred" or is it not? You don't think it is. So arguing that human life starts at fertilisation is neither here nor there, because even by your own beliefs human life is something that can be overridden when appropriate.

 

[tstorm823]

I interpreted this thought:

You mean misinterpretted?

The one who is pregnant carries all the weight, and if they say 'yes' it's a yes... if they say 'no' it's a no. The decision is theirs alone, end of story.

From Silvanus I wanted an answer. From you, I wanted you to just give up. Your comments have no value.

Because ethics is primarily concerned with pain (or suffering) rather than death.

Only hedonistic ethics values things on a scale of pleasure and pain.

you have all sorts of positions where you will accept death or killing as preferable to the alternative. Is human life absolutely "sacred" or is it not?

Yes, human life is absolutely sacred. The only scenarios where death or killing are preferable to the alternative are where the alternative is also death or killing. If life is an option, life is the answer, always.

 

[Silvanus]

Which a zygote has. Given proper environmental conditions and sources of energy, any individual post conception will grow, produce cells, and chemically maintain itself in a way that a severed arm cannot.

Those environmental conditions and sources of energy constitute dependence. A zygote alone will not do any of that, and also has no will, awareness or thought of its own.

Quite honestly, this feels like you're claiming you don't exist in society at all. I cannot imagine any way that someone would exist in this society, and with neither knowledge of pregnancy nor an opinion on abortion would be thinking deeply about when human life begins, just devoid of all that context.

I did have some (basic) knowledge of pregnancy. I didn't have a formed opinion on abortion, no.

Really, I think the issue here is that you're assuming the abortion question has the same prominence in British society as its does in American society. It simply does not. Its not a massive hot button topic. It rarely comes up in public life. So absolutely, I would have thought about why some things should be treated with kindness, and thought about whether they can think or not. That's hardly thinking "deeply", it's rudimentary formative moral thought. And it came before any formed opinion on abortion for me-- that's simply a fact.

If life is an option, life is the answer, always.

It would follow from this that every human has an absolute moral obligation to have as many children as possible. Regardless of personal circumstances (including age), their ability to provide a reasonable quality of life for the child, or even future severe overpopulation.

That would strike me as unimaginably cruel and immoral.

 

[Silvanus]

Outlined how institutional racism happens up above.

Irrelevantly.

Whether defund the police or other crime policies by the democrats, they are causing an increase in crime. The police there were already understaffed and you think the current police were gonna stay if defund the police actually passed?

You haven't demonstrated that at all. This bill, which wouldn't have left Minneapolis without law enforcement and didn't even pass, certainly did not increase crime. If you want to draw a casual relationship between Dem policy and increased crime, you need something solid.

Doesn't change the fact the liberal judges' decision made less sense than the conservative judges' decision.

they didnt, though. The Conservative justices have twisted logic much more onerously to support their preferences-- its just that you like those conclusions, so you'll justify them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

From Silvanus I wanted an answer. From you, I wanted you to just give up. Your comments have no value.

Regarding abortion my particular comment holds all the value. The fact that it holds none for you - that the choice of the one carrying the pregnancy holds none for you - exposes the ugliness that is your religious beliefs.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You mean misinterpretted?

No. It's pretty straightforward what Casual Shinji is getting at.

 

[tstorm823]

Those environmental conditions and sources of energy constitute dependence.

Your existence is environmentally and energetically dependent.

 

[tstorm823]

Regarding abortion my particular comment holds all the value. The fact that it holds none for you - that the choice of the one carrying the pregnancy holds none for you - exposes the ugliness that is your religious beliefs.

This added nothing. You've contributed nothing. You have no beliefs that are open to interogation. You have only a blind dogma of hatred.

No. It's pretty straightforward what Casual Shinji is getting at.

If you think its straightforward, it's definitely a lie.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you think its straightforward, it's definitely a lie.

glad you think so

 

[Hades]

A funny event in anti woke world is Hassan interviewing pirates and asking them if they like One Piece. One could argue this goes in funny event of woke world but a shill for Putin and pirates by definition isn't woke.

 

[McElroy]

It would follow from this that every human has an absolute moral obligation to have as many children as possible. Regardless of personal circumstances (including age), their ability to provide a reasonable quality of life for the child, or even future severe overpopulation.

That would strike me as unimaginably cruel and immoral.

Tbf to tstorm he outlined a while back that the forming of a zygote is the starting point. edit: #1337,7th message in the thread! Let's go!! Epic!

 

[Silvanus]

Your existence is environmentally and energetically dependent.

Not on the continued and constant maintenance of another thinking creature. I also have feelings, thoughts and awareness of my own. I can be said to have my own interests, in a way that a wholly dependent, entirely unaware entity-- such as an organ-- cannot.

Tbf to tstorm he outlined a while back that the forming of a zygote is the starting point. edit: #1337,7th message in the thread! Let's go!! Epic!

The starting point for the individual entity to be considered unimpeachable, but not the starting point for that principle-- "life is always the answer if it's an option"-- to hold true. He gave every indication that principle was absolute, no caveats or exceptions. And if that's the case, overriding all concerns of quality of life and suffering, then my point stands.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You have only a blind dogma of hatred.

Attributing a woman's bodily autonomy to "a blind dogma of hatred"... Yeah, that makes total sense for you.

 

[Ag3ma]

Because if people are partial to those of their kind, then if you have like a company, you will tend to hire people of your kind. Then, people of your kind will then end up being good at said thing since they have experience in said thing.

Okay, that's a thing, at least. But it's a great deal more than that.

The organisation that tends towards being a monoculture also likely has greater difficulty understanding people from other backgrounds, has less empathy for them, and therefore becomes inclined to treat them worse. The lack of familiarity with difference within the organisation may make it become hostile to difference - harder for outsiders to fit in if they seek employment, thus disadvantaging them. It will make it harder for the organisation to recognise and deal with individual racism amongst its members, and easier for individual racism amongst its members to flourish and influence institutional attitudes towards institutional racism. This is even without considering that overt, mass individual racism was fundamentally part of the development of the organisation in the first place, and set the whole show running. Just as context here, consider that in the USA, deeply embedded racism predated the founding of the country itself, and thus some degree of racism was fundamentally embedded in its institutions from the start.

It is absolutely irrational to think that institutional racism and individual racism are two completely separated phenomena, such that they don't interact, feed off and reinforce each other.

None of you have shown the far-right are increasing institutional racism in these places.

That's not really true, though, is it? We can, and through various links already have, shown that the far right are a problem in terms of racism within US institutions. What you in truth mean is "None of you have shown evidence that satisfies me that the far right increasing institutional racism." The issue here being that you are not reasonable: you've made your mind up and refuse to accept you might be wrong. Thankfully, the world can move on and process reality irrespective of your opinion.