I don't understand, in your mind are you there killing nazis and I'm loving Hitler from a distance? I'm speaking of engaging a person in conversation, the things we do here. — All sight

We got into a hypothetical which will help me to understand your views. Now, can you answer my questions please? As again it will help me to understand whether you are taking a principled approach or even a coherent one. I'll answer yours...

How much physical force are you exerting, how many people are you making stop their wicked ways through force? — All sight

I'm not presently exerting physical force.

I'm saying that if we were attempting to dissuade someone that having love for them, and treating them with kindness and respect does wonders. — All sight

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Isn't that obvious to you just from your observations of real life?

No, it's not brow-beating.If anyone (including you) advocated standing by and not doing anything except expressing love for Hitler while he proceeded to wipe out the Jewish race then that person would be doing something morally wrong or evil or use whatever term you like (Agree or disagree?). If anyone (including you) thinks that loving Hitler would have stopped him killing the Jews, they are delusional, very mistaken etc. (Agree or disagree?). In order to have a conversation about ethics, we have to make ethical judgments, do we not? Or is there no act you consider evil and no opinion you consider delusional?

If you stood by "loving" Hitler without making any attempt to forcibly stop him while he proceeded to annihilate the Jewish race, you would be the evil one. If you think giving him love while he was doing this would have stopped him then you're also highly delusional. But you don't really think that, do you?

You'd kill your child to save your own life? — All sight

Where did I say I'd kill my own child. I said "harsh discipline". Why would you think that meant an execution?

Like raising your child, you do need to disapprove of some things that they do, but you have to have such a relationship where they care about your approval in the first place. — All sight

When you have total power over someone, it's much easier to advocate unconditional love. And I would go along with this (unless my child acquired a case of psychopathy and a dangerous weapon, in which case some harsh discipline may be appropriate).

I would rather reduce hatred and violence in the world, not increase it... — All sight

So would I, but (sticking with the more extreme examples we spoke of) loving Hitler wouldn't have stopped him in WWII. It took an invasion of Europe. Loving him would likely have resulted in mass enslavement for those loving souls and actually increased hatred and violence against his victims. So, while I wish love was always the answer (and agree that it is the most desirable answer) the fact that it's obviously not, doesn't mean hatred or violence has to be either. Sometimes you just need to act decisively in context on the basis of an ethical decision that may require you to do that which is not immediately emotionally comfortable but leads to a better long-term outcome.

Well, the point with people as dangerous as Nazis (to stay with this example) is primarily to stop them doing the damage they do. There are different ways to achieve that including marginalizing them through the use of discourse and avoiding giving them a platform for their views (as we do here where Nazis are insta-banned). So, while I agree with your sentiment in general, the specifics complicate things. For example, to take another extreme, it's arguable that the best response to Hitler and his followers in the early 1930s (supposing you knew what would happen) would have been to shoot them all rather than to try to engage them in reasoned debate. On a utilitarian calculation at least. Now, I'm not in any way suggesting violence be used with the Nazis of today, just pointing out that the appropriate way to deal with those who expose extreme ideologies may sometimes be extreme, or at least more severe than with those in the mainstream. And may certainly extend beyond the bounds of polite debate which in a way legitimizes their positions (and again that's why we don't allow them here).

In any case, out of curiosity, what rational arguments do you think Nazis and their ilk would be responsive too? Because, honestly, I don't think people at that level are open to rational argumentation. If you can manage to believe the holocaust never happened, and Hitler was actually a good guy, you are very likely too far gone to be convinced of anything to the contrary (on an internet forum at least). Having said all that, do whatever works. Anyone who reduces the number of racists, Nazis etc in the world, short of using physical violence to do it, has my unconditional support and appreciation.

You pass the tinman test for having a heart (just about). @Sapientia needs to go see the wizard. :starstruck:

Interesting example about school integration. Thanks. BTW I forgot to reference the troop numbers thing. If anyone is curious: https://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy. — All sight

If it's just about how best to market your idea to your opponent in order to convince him/her you're right and they're wrong, i.e. to "win", it's more about effectiveness than appropriacy, which is a different issue, I'd say.

That would make sense in an intuitive way. I’m interpreting it as “the map is not road”. Still, don’t all philosophical narratives intend to expound of that which is real or reality? This taking it for granted that they’re not instances of intentional deception. So, allegorically speaking, if the map is true because it accurately depicts the road, then wouldn’t the map be an expression of Truth? — javra

Agree, and that was more or less the point of some of us here. I don't see how the big T can be avoided with a coherent philosophical narrative even if it's not explicitly put as such.

It depends on the context. Take an extreme: say you're arguing with one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us", it would absolutely not be inappropriate to say to them "How could you possibly say that!" or "That's a wicked viewpoint!". At the other extreme, calling someone an idiot for preferring Coca cola to Pepsi would absolutely be over-the-top (I'm only giving extreme examples to illustrate that there's no foolproof black and white answer to your question btw. I know they're untypical). Then you've got everywhere in between where generally direct name-calling is unhelpful and may be considered abusive, but tones of disbelief are generally acceptable.

In terms of the rules here, you can report anyone who flames you (calls you an idiot, fool etc.) and that post will most likely be deleted unless, possibly, if it's in the Lounge category, which is more casual and where there's more tolerance for that type of the thing.

Short answer: As per the guidelines: Expressing yourself strongly is ok but flaming tips over into abuse. (And context will always be considered.)

Aw, don't give up you big jellyfish ;). There's surely a happy medium achievable between belief in an imminent utopian revolution and despair at any change occurring at all, no?

The heck is capital-T Truth supposed to be anyway — javra

I think csal is talking about philosophical narrative as "Truth" and criticizing that.

That could make a good story: Boy steals ring; boy goes on quest with ring; quest reveals boy shouldn't have stolen ring as halfway through quest booby-trapped ring explodes blowing boy's hand off. Boy learns valuable lesson and owner of ring gets revenge. Happy ending all round. :100:

Your child is avoiding sleep by thinking of reasons to leave their bed. You would like to sleep. After many rounds of this ongoing situation, your emotional response could be frustration. In frustration one could consider the value of the scenario negative or annoying - or ascribe the value as "bad", but upon further investigation we can conclude that the scenario *does* retain value. I believe value does not stop at emotion, but that emotion plays a factor in our ability to assess a situation to deduce it's value. — Lif3r

Good point. :up:

And you know what the concrete outcome of all this was? PFFT. Zilch. Zero. Nada. The war lasted another 5 years, unabated. It is as safe to criticize SJWs now as it was to criticize hippie faggot peaceniks in 1970, because there was very little of importance that hinged on their efforts. — Bitter Crank

[My bolding]

Not true. It did not continue "unabated". Here are the numbers for the last years of the war. It's no coincidence that its winding down coincides with increasing levels of protest.

Year------U.S. Troop numbers
1968-----536100
1969-----475200
1970-----334600
1971-----56800
1972-----24200
1973-----50

I disparage social justice advocates now no more than I disparage peace efforts 50 years ago. But let's be clear: Neither peace advocates nor social justice advocates ever got anywhere close to getting their hands on the levers of social and economic policy. Those levers are never left unattended or unguarded and they are well protected behind locked thick-steel doors.

The benefits of social justice advocacy and peace activism flow primarily to the activists, to the benefactors--not to the beneficiaries. Why? Because the act of protesting is good for the protestor. Literally. It's a healthy exercise in every sense of the word. It just happens to be totally ineffective as a method of getting at those policy levers. — Bitter Crank

Not getting direct hands on the policy levers (though this does happen in the case of revolutions—what about those SJWs in France in the 1700s?) doesn't make protest ineffective. It can be very effective, and the benefits flow to everyone. Society doesn't move on its own but when it's pushed. And those that are pushing are those that will be mass-labeled and disparaged as SJWs by actors with ulterior political motives who would just as well see society not move at all, but stagnate and rot rather than to give an inch to their political opponents.

She came across as a psychopath with a very chilling view of politics and economics. — Andrew4Handel

That's my impression too. The only positive thing I can say about her is that she wasn't a bad stylist. She could actually write decent sounding sentences, which probably more explains the success of some of her novels (at least) than their "philosophical" substance.

Caliing #JeremyCorbyn: Sapientia has transformed into a self-serving Tory. Please excommunicate him forthwith. Thanks!

Christ, if everything is about short-sighted self-interest, let's just continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb school buses. After all, we'd be mugs not to take the money. This is BS Sap.

I'd have to be pretty desperate to think myself a mug for not stealing someone's wallet. Maybe if I was homeless and starving, I'd have a greater responsibility to look after myself. But I'm just another spoiled westerner reaping the benefits of being born in a highly developed country. The harsh truth is that having some moral self-respect is much more important than having an extra bit of unnecessary cash on hand. It also undermines calls for a fairer tax system, which I would think being a lefty you support. Wouldn't those who don't benefit directly from that be right in thinking themselves "mugs" to agree with it? I know what it is, you've turned into a Tory...

I'm liking that fire idea... :fire: :fire: :death:

Which sarcastic one-liner just underlines my point. I hardly know any poster here who's been less civil and thoughtful in his attitude towards the targets of his political criticisms than you. You set up a bunch of right-wing stereotypes of hated lefties, proceed to tell us how much they're hated, and then complain about you being the victim of demonization. And for some odd reason you can't see the problem with that. Why don't you set an example by offering some nuanced criticisms rather than these paper-thin caricatures of the left you present? Then you might have a right to expect some reciprocation. As it is, you're not giving your opponents a reason to take you seriously.

You better hope it's not me and I look around mate! Seriously though, I expected you to have a bit more of a social conscience on that one considering your general political views. It's not being a mug not to steal someone's wallet ffs. I mean, really... *Shakes Sapientia vigorously to remove the evil spirits *

Sure, but it's fine for you to demonise and mock young people interested in a fairer society as "SJWs" and teachers at universities as despised elites etc. What civil discourse is possible with the targets of your scorn? Again, your hypocrisy makes your position incoherent.

but that wouldn't stop me from keeping the ring in order to sell if I found out that it was worth a significant sum of money. What would stop me is if I thought I'd get myself in some kind of trouble. — Sapientia

? If someone walking in front of you dropped their wallet and no-one but you saw (so there was no issue of you getting into trouble), would you pick it up, check there was a significant amount of cash in it and then pocket it if there was?

On a similar note, someone I know lost their phone recently. It was on so we could trace it, but before we could get to it, some thief picked it up and stole it. Maybe he's on an internet forum somewhere now trying to find justification for his action...

You must be in pretty bad company. If it wasn't intended for you as part of the transaction, to keep it would be to steal it. There's no ethical ambiguity here.

What @fdrake said, and to reiterate that by using the term "SJW" disparaging, you're buying into a phrasing invented and pushed by people who don't share your sense of nuance, who consider any moves towards social justice anathema, and who consider this kind of language a weapon to be used broadly against anyone who doesn't share their right-wing viewpoint. Their goal, and it's succeeding to an extent, is to turn us all into "useful idiots" unwittingly arguing on their loaded terms.

"People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me."

I have no idea what it's about, but it sounds good anyway.

I didn't know all that, but it fits. :up: :up: It seems to be a fairly exclusively American trope as is thankfully. I can't imagine it gaining much currency across the pond due to the incoherence and ethical perversity you pointed out along with the less influential media presence of the right here.

Oh, it resonates with some broader issues, so the criticisms are not aimed at you personally. Also, there are different strands of conservatism not all of which are anti-intellectual. The anti-intellectual strand just seems to be dominant at the moment (there are far more Trump/Alex Jones conservatives than George Will ones around as things stand). And as I said, I don't know where you stand politically. I'm just dealing with the issue you raised.

Anyway, despite the possibility of idiots, those people who are passionate about social justice historically are the suffragettes, the followers of Luther and Malcolm, the Haitian rebels etc. and we commend trying to act for the good of us all. Right? That's what motivates a social justice warrior, a desire for things to be better. Who could think that is a bad thing? — fdrake

Exactly. It takes a massive and dedicated effort at perverting the social sphere to get to where you can make people (other than manipulative elites) believe social justice and those fighting for it are the enemy.

(It should also be clear that my criticisms in other posts are made primarily of the right in general and some positions taken by @gurugeorge. I don't think our disagreements are as serious.)

Nowhere in my list did I suggest you secretly wanted anything in the article to be true. It's perfectly legitimate to post an article like that in support of a point and also perfectly legitimate to critically analyse it and ask for more evidence. I don't know where you stand politically on it because you haven't made that clear.

(I was using the word "you" in the general sense btw if that's what it was.)

Nothing in the post you replied to was directed at anything other than an analysis of the article you provided. What do you think I was insinuating about you? And what in the post gave you that idea?

The prevalence of snake oil changes the contours of persuasion, we have to try and redeem certain features of commonality far more than we need to mock the ridiculousness of our opponents. — fdrake

I tend to agree and I'm happy to leave that (mostly) to the comedians. The reason I came into the conversation really was less to be on the offensive than to push back against the predictable recycling of the anti-SJW/lefty professor theme, which I find creeping outwards from the right, which pushes it relentlessly, and into acceptance in moderate circles (in the US. anyway).

This is a political discourse that has more in common with advertising than with any prior political order. — fdrake

Everything in political discourse has turned into a signal of consumer identity. Politics nevertheless affects a common reality to which no agent can access and no group can establish. Reality has been customised for the consumer. — fdrake

Yes, for the same reason people buy branded products of a lower value/price ratio than alternatives, the right buy low-value branded right-wing tropes (about SJWs or professors or whoever).They want to be sold the stereotypes because they're comforting, and now they've got their very own media that's only too happy to sell them to them in huge quantities (along with brain pills and gold apparently). It happens on the left too, but I don't see the same degree of delusion (as is apparent in this discussion) particularly regarding science, intellectuals and anything to do with social justice, which to those selling this anti-intellectual poison reduces down to nothing more sophisticated than the frightening prospect of other people feasting on their precious tax dollars.

Not the most taxing of ethical dilemmas. Do what you would wish be done unto you, which (fantastical scenarios aside) is obvious.

Shapiro got in on Alex Jones' fake pill racket? Nauseating...