Political Correctness VS. Factual Correctness

[Blademaster]

EDIT: This is taking too long, I'm tl;dr-ing it:

In the "What do you hate?" thread, Darkly (resident black guy and head ASB Mod, for you newbies) listed off a bunch of things he hates. One of them surprised me:


I hate most laws actually that base themselves on arbitrary numbers becasue the human race is inadequate in being able to disseminate and analyze a single persons's metabolic functions aside from everyone else to establish if a crime was committed-and instead have to falsify specific guidelines that everyone need follow when everyone is NOT the fucking same!

In a nutshell, Darkly is telling political correctness - a principle that was basically brought about to HELP minorities like him - to go fuck itself because it's getting in the way of actual facts, e.g. "Different races and genders have different strengths and weaknesses due to divergent evolutionary paths, cultural acceptance/restriction, diet, fitness, rate and speed of civil progress, etc etc etc.".

And it's true: Studies have been conducted on different groups of people and tests have been administered, and they suggest that there ARE factual differences between people. One test I remember causing a particularly big riot was one that showed whites getting steady 130's and higher on IQ tests while blacks struggled to hit 120.

Is this offensive? No. Science does not offend, or discriminate. It simply looks for facts...

Tell that to the poor guys who ran the test and were basically lynched by the media when they revealed their results, being called intolerant and insensitive and basically just being mobbed by angry idiots and liberals.

Now why am I posting this here? Just to rant? Not really. It's just that I've noticed something on the Internet:

I'm not alone. Darkly isn't alone either. I see people all over the big sites I frequent - Youtube, dA, 4chan, Facebook, Twitter... It seems pretty much anything that could be seen as 'offensive' (which is basically everything nowadays) has its fair share of people saying "I'm black/female/a robot and I don't care. Everyone's different. Stop getting mad at stupid shit." That's great to know. Seeing people be rational is awesome.

...So, that being the case, why does everyone still act like there's a piano dangling over their head every time the issue of political correctness comes up? If so many of us think it's a bullshit retarded philosophy (According to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Current_usage) its modern use actually began satirically!), why are we all still lying through our teeth about it in public? Why do we keep nodding and going along with what we know is stupid and wrong and ultimately detrimental to our progress, and what can we do to fix it?

[mattbcl]

...So, that being the case, why does everyone still act like there's a piano dangling over their head every time the issue of political correctness comes up?

Because we love being entitled to our own opinions, and we love acting like babies when we're exposed to one that we don't agree with. And we hate babies.

Now, with that note of snark out of the way, to address your last questions - the culture in which we live hails the victim card, and in order to assume the role of the victim, you have to adopt a sickening degree of self-defeatism. "Poor me, pity me, now listen to what I have to say, because what's going on with me will happen to you too."

And really, the only way I can see to fix it is to call out the defeatism when it happens. Don't let the pity party get to you. Case in point? Look where we're talking about this. On a forum dedicated to people who enjoy a children's game. We can whine all we like about the political landscape and how it's going to kick us all in the rear, but every time someone complains about it on the Internet, all I can think to myself is, "Look at the resources you've been able to afford in order to even present your argument to these people. I've been to an orphanage that knows NOTHING of the Internet or, really, the world at large, and the very first thing they asked us to do was take them with us. Poor you? Pipe down!"

[DarkestLight]

No. That's not good enough, Being entitled to our opinions is fine, you can say whatever the hell you wait. I was actually referring to the laws this country has erected that penalizes people for crimes they have NOT committed, but are charged with committing because of how the government chooses to interpret the meaning of words in situations-making it VERY arbitrary.

But Blade raises a great point that I will lunge into now. Sure, people may be argumentative, but it does not separate the base fact that people are REALLY stupid scared to stand by their words. If you ...thinking of a example..

DUI laws. Yes. DUI laws are varied across the US, except for the .08 rule. But in every state, and even in some counties within a state-there are different rules for how to deliver punishment.

But the language used is RETARDED! Its so subjective that it penalizes people that shouldn't be penalized because THERE IS NO CRIME COMMITTED at the time of police intervention. Surmising something from a scene and witnessing it happening ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Saying someone has a gun, but not seeing them have it, and seeing someone have a gun elicits a point of caution. This line is crossed ALL THE TIME.

Now. I'm going to drag this back on track. Having actual facts to back up statements is what science is for, but no one wants to use science, they want to use their subjective conjecture to be paramount. Its that thinking, that inherent "I'm entitled to my opinion BEING THE OPINION on the matter" is what has completely destroyed politics, religion...basically everything that humanity built up in the quest for equality.

We basically, as Blade said "Fucked ourselves over" in this damn quest to make everyone equal. Everyone is different. Everyone needs to be different in order for this world to exist. But we don't want to use science in order to note and accept these differences. We just want to draw lines in the sand and have everyone conform to them

That is unacceptable and I hate that. I truly hate that.

[Telume]

because of how the government chooses to interpret the meaning of words in situations-making it VERY arbitrary.

Adding on to this point.

This is about 80% of the reason I don't vote Yes or No in an election to local laws. The words are SO CONFUSING.

Getting back on track.

I usually subscribe to the "people are stupid" school of thought. It doesn't matter who you are, some how and some way, you're stupid.

And it makes sense, even someone who comes from Harvard can't claim to know more about medicine than a doctor or know more about a car than a damn mechanic.

So how could they possibly know how someone is going to act in a given situation?

[RedStarWarrior]

Political correctness was a good idea. However, it's kind of ridiculous in some instances nowadays.

I'm not calling someone African-American unless he or she is from Africa. If you were born in the US I'm just going to call you an American. The use of geographical nomenclature is wrong when applied to skin color differentiation in people anyway, as I know more white people who are actually African-American then I do black people.

The use of political correctness when applied to race, which are technically just different subspecies of Homo sapiens, is really stupid and only serves to highlight the differences in people. There's no reason to classify variations in appearance, especially in a society where we want to eliminate the concept of racism.

When you attempt to be strict in the use of terminology in reference to how people look you are only going to propagate the idea of separation of individuals into categories based on appearance rather then they're worth to society.

People are people.

Granted, I do see instances where describing complexion is useful (describing suspects of crimes, for instance), but it has no place in other parts of our society.

[Dark Sage]

I'm old enough to remember what Jimmy the Greek said that got him fired. He said that what he said was true. I say a lot of the things that happened during the dark parts of America's history of slavery were true, but he still was an asshole for saying it.

Another thing. I never found Don Imus funny in the least, and after the public lynched him for what he said about the Rutger's girls' basketball team, I was saying "I told you so".

The thing is, when someone says something that is politically incorrect, then whether it is true or not, it is still downright mean, and should not be tolerated.

And btw, I am not saying even for ONE MINUTE that I think that what Imus said was true.

[Oslo]

Granted, I do see instances where describing complexion is useful (describing suspects of crimes, for instance)

*CHOKES*

[Blademaster]

Because we love being entitled to our own opinions, and we love acting like babies when we're exposed to one that we don't agree with. And we hate babies.

Now, with that note of snark out of the way, to address your last questions - the culture in which we live hails the victim card, and in order to assume the role of the victim, you have to adopt a sickening degree of self-defeatism. "Poor me, pity me, now listen to what I have to say, because what's going on with me will happen to you too."

And really, the only way I can see to fix it is to call out the defeatism when it happens. Don't let the pity party get to you. Case in point? Look where we're talking about this. On a forum dedicated to people who enjoy a children's game. We can whine all we like about the political landscape and how it's going to kick us all in the rear, but every time someone complains about it on the Internet, all I can think to myself is, "Look at the resources you've been able to afford in order to even present your argument to these people. I've been to an orphanage that knows NOTHING of the Internet or, really, the world at large, and the very first thing they asked us to do was take them with us. Poor you? Pipe down!"

...I can't even tell if this is supportive of the topic or if it's telling me to shut up.


The thing is, when someone says something that is politically incorrect, then whether it is true or not, it is still downright mean, and should not be tolerated.

I don't know who Jimmy the Geek or Don Imus are, or what they said. But this statement perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with political correctness and why I started this topic.

A group of reputable scientists hypothesize that different people from different places have varying levels of intelligence. They test this, and find empirical evidence that one group is smarter than another group. Further testing by other scientists yields similar results. We are now past the point of hypotheses and have a theory.

According to people like you, this theory - these FACTS - are mean and should not be tolerated.

That sort of thinking implies that the laws of humans should supersede the laws of science. It is as arrogant as it is ignorant and IT is what shouldn't be tolerated.

[Dark Sage]

Blade, they...

Oh, look them up. I'm not going to waste time going into detail explaining who they are or what they said to someone who apparently can't use Wikipedia.

[Blademaster]

Blade, they...

Oh, look them up. I'm not going to waste time going into detail explaining who they are or what they said to someone who apparently can't use Wikipedia.

Oh. Well, I suppose it must be quite troublesome to find if you can't be bothered to cite it-


The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade … the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid

...


IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and—

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some—whew. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like—kinda like—I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes—that movie that he had.

...That took... all of maybe 2 minutes.

Regardless, the context of what is being said is less than professional.

However, what's not only unprofessional, but also outright irrational, is the notion that Group A can say certain things and Group B cannot. Without touching the first amendment, I can say that this is simply not logical and based on one's perspective it ironically clashes with the very principle of 'equality' that it was built upon.

Stop attaching stigmas to words. Start attaching them to negative contexts and those who use them intentionally.

[Oslo]

Okay, real response from Oslo. I've written a few draft replies to this topic and my inability to articulate any real point proves what I've always known: that I'm really bad at contributing to conversations like these. The truth is, I've done and continue to do a lot of scholarly work in the areas of critical race studies, queer theory and feminism. I'm reasonably well-versed when it comes to Marxism and disability studies. I go to protests. I write scathing letters to MPs. I'm passionate about these things. However, when I try to import my knowledge into conversations like these, I never succeed. Still, I will try my best.

Blade, I don't agree with your understanding of the scientific community. You seem to figure it as homogenous, like-minded band of chums uncovering truths that only somebody teeming with hubris would dare challenge. In reality, a lot of opposition to the scientific study of race comes from within the scientific community. For example, J. Philippe Rushton is one of the most infamous race scholars in the world. He held tenure status at my alma mater when I was an undergrad. He's since passed away. His work sparked great deals of controversy in the 70s and 80s, but the bulk of it did not come from bleeding heart pinkos outside of the sciences. Objections to his work primarily came from the scientific community: from geneticists, from physiologists, from psychologists, from evolutionary biologists. Plenty of other scientific race scholars have found their work facing similar scrutiny. You can't simply cite a study and say, lo and behold, objective proof is here. The area is far more muddied and self-contradictory than that.

The fact is, race exists. It should not be ignored. That said, the genetic differences between races are small and unremarkable. However, when you look at race from a sociocultural standpoint, that's when the differences become both remarkable and disconcerting.

So, let's take your original example at face value: that black people score lower on intelligence tests than white people. (We will briefly set aside the fact that shoddy methods and preexisting biases have clouded more than a few race-based studies.) I have yet to encounter a good reason to believe we need to take this as a necessary, essentialist distinction between races. Instead, let's invite context into the conversation. Let's consider the fact that poverty rates for black people greatly exceed the national average. Therefore, many black youth are forced to drop out of school so they can seek work. Because these unskilled labourers lack a high school diploma, this work is bereft of security and doesn't pay well. Moreover, let's not forget the fact that schools in poor neighbourhoods often can't afford experienced instructors, classroom resources and college-level prep courses. The students therefore score low on standardized tests, which the government, in its infinite wisdom, takes as a sign to channel money away from these schools. The cycle perpetuates. Specifically, race-related classism perpetuates.

So a scientist comes along and points out that black people overall are more likely to achieve lower scores on intelligence tests. Given the context, it seems like a no-brainer. Do the powers that be take this as a sign to direct funds to increasing education standards for black youth? No. Instead, white people draw ridiculous conclusions and say black people are naturally less intelligent and that's just the way they are. People do this all the fucking time. As a result, dangerous essentialist ideologies that were used to promote slavery, the Holocaust, apartheid and various other racist regimes persist into the present. Meanwhile, context gets swept under the rug. The data exists, but nobody seems to want to synthesize it with contextual factors and effect productive change. That's why the Humanities are far more able to serve as a forum for productive conversations about race than the sciences. (But hey, we have our backwards-thinking nutjobs as well. Every discipline does.)

I think it's worthwhile trying to live in a politically correct world because prejudice exists. It may not affect you but it does. Currently, Aboriginal people in Canada are fighting for justice through the Idle No More movement. The Crown government has exploited their natural resources while permitting horrific levels of poverty on Native reserves. However, one look at the comments section of any online news piece on the subject shows how this fight has been received by our predominantly white population. I'm disturbed by the slander that goes on. Then, when I see H&M marketing Navajo prints to their white clientele or Lakota (a Canadian pharmaceutical company that always runs the most frustrating commercials) branding themselves with Native iconography in the pursuit white capitalist enterprise, I call it racist. A lot of people would say that I'm being too PC by taking a swing at a silly little fashion trend or an innocuous supplier of medication, but I realize that racism can become coded in invisible, seemingly innocuous spaces. By scorning those who are willing to critically examine those spaces, we perpetuate the problem.

Anyway, this has been rambly (especially that last bit). Probably shouldn't have posted it. Probably shouldn't respond to the replies it might get. The point is, identity politics is complicated. It's not as easy as declaring "science says this so it's true and if you disagree you're dumb/egotistical PC sack of crap!! :eng101:" Be critical. Recognize that everything doesn't neatly lend itself to scientific inquiry. Our relationship with categories such as race, gender, queer identities, etc. are a fuck of a lot more complicated than that. Instead of preying on easy targets, maybe crack the spine on a book by Fanon? Even if you disagree with his ideas, it's a nice place to start.


However, what's not only unprofessional, but also outright irrational, is the notion that Group A can say certain things and Group B cannot. Without touching the first amendment, I can say that this is simply not logical and based on one's perspective it ironically clashes with the very principle of 'equality' that it was built upon.

Stop attaching stigmas to words. Start attaching them to negative contexts and those who use them intentionally.

I see this all the time. So few people are willing to entertain the fact that the politics of reappropriation might be significantly more intricate than that.

[DarkestLight]

Its that intricacy Oslo, that also lends itself to be misappropriated. Sociocultural differences do not make a race, they make a tribe, a group, a culture, a society. The color conformity that is the main outlier when it comes to race needs to be abolished. If you throw 7 kids in a "African" culture from birth, they're gonna learn that culture They're going to understand how to live in that culture. There's your sociocultural aspect within all spectrums of color.

Race does not exist. Subspecies of Homo-sapien exist and we call it "race" even though we don't call it that for any other species of animal on the planet :/ Hypocritical of us. Black bears, Polar bears and Grizzly bears are all bears. Some slight differences, and they're different colors. But they're not different races of bears. Why not? Cause they're all BEARS. >.> Same species.

**Note: Drunk DL made this post. He stands by this and awaits a play back because it might do Oslo well to reply so he can get over the fact that he may not convey his points properly (which I felt were pointed out with enough facts, and a little bit of fluff with tags to names that I will look up and read some of their work on racial analysis.). Over time, the underlying truth will be adequately represented and where the hell is my peanut butter sandwich?

[Oslo]

I think we're basically saying the same thing, then right? That biological models of race are flawed (because, as you said, race is not an essential category) and sociocultural models are more effective?

Because when I say race exists, I mean that it exists in the manner that most matters: as a social construction with extremely real implications in all of our daily lived experiences.

[Blademaster]

Blade, I don't agree with your understanding of the scientific community. You seem to figure it as homogenous, like-minded band of chums uncovering truths that only somebody teeming with hubris would dare challenge.

Not really, no.


That said, the genetic differences between races are small and unremarkable.

I'm aware of this.


(We will briefly set aside the fact that shoddy methods and preexisting biases have clouded more than a few race-based studies.)

And this.


Meanwhile, context gets swept under the rug. The data exists, but nobody seems to want to synthesize it with contextual factors and effect productive change.)

Agreed.


I think it's worthwhile trying to live in a politically correct world because prejudice exists. It may not affect you but it does.

The thing is that prejudice DOES effect me, but in an inverse sense: I, as a white male, am held to a higher 'standard' of political correctness than any other demographic. I don't watch much news, but I can think of far more white guys that get basically lynched for being 'insensitive' than I can think of women, blacks, or robots that have done the same thing.

And regardless, I don't think making people walk on eggshells and repress how they feel is conducive to eliminating that prejudice. Prejudice is one of those things that exists because it gets acknowledged so much. I don't expect every minority in America to suck it up and get over hundreds of years of intolerance, but I don't expect them to treat it as their crutch forever, either. I respect people like Darkly far more than I respect people who use their gender or skin color as a voucher.


By scorning those who are willing to critically examine those spaces, we perpetuate the problem.

Also agreed.


Be critical. Recognize that everything doesn't neatly lend itself to scientific inquiry.


I see this all the time. So few people are willing to entertain the fact that the politics of reappropriation might be significantly more intricate than that.

But everything does lend itself to scientific inquiry. Maybe not NEATLY, but putting taboos on progress itself because that progress shows us things we might not necessarily like is asinine and archaic. We don't live in the time of Galileo where speaking the truth gets you killed. We live in the future. The sooner we ditch the taboos and the excuse of "It's more complex so it can't be covered by science because shut up.", the sooner we can learn more, understand more, and let go of the old retard beliefs we're anchored to and continue onward.


Probably shouldn't have posted it. Probably shouldn't respond to the replies it might get.

Preaching to the choir, man. I'm terrified of this thread because the modern world (at least the first world) is so tense and nervous about prejudice that bringing it up in a way that goes against the norm like this is one of the easiest ways possible to become a pariah for life.

[Dark Sage]

Truthfully, Blade, my computer is in the shop, and it's very hard to copy and paste using an iPad. Otherwise, I would have given you the link right there.

But since you asked so politely (sarcasm mode)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_the_Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus

There you go.

[RedStarWarrior]

Truthfully, Blade, my computer is in the shop, and it's very hard to copy and paste using an iPad. Otherwise, I would have given you the link right there.

But since you asked so politely (sarcasm mode)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_the_Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus

There you go.
It's easy on an iPad. It's hard on an iPhone.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Hm, this thread is slightly related to one thing I am wondering when Australians, New Zealanders and Argentinians come here. Or other people from the Southern Hemisphere. Is it politically correct to say it's winter? Isn't it more about factual correctness than political correctness?

[DarkestLight]

Mika: Its politically and factually correct to associate the exact place you are in with the concurrent weather pattern. So like, when Tony came to Ny, he acknowledged it was summertime rather than winter where he currently resides. Its all in perspective. But that's not a taboo area, people may remember its a different time of weather pattern in their home and instinctively say that.

Its no fault of their own, they just call it as they remember it best. Some do, some don't.

[Oslo]

The thing is that prejudice DOES effect me, but in an inverse sense: I, as a white male, am held to a higher 'standard' of political correctness than any other demographic. I don't watch much news, but I can think of far more white guys that get basically lynched for being 'insensitive' than I can think of women, blacks, or robots that have done the same thing.

And regardless, I don't think making people walk on eggshells and repress how they feel is conducive to eliminating that prejudice. Prejudice is one of those things that exists because it gets acknowledged so much. I don't expect every minority in America to suck it up and get over hundreds of years of intolerance, but I don't expect them to treat it as their crutch forever, either. I respect people like Darkly far more than I respect people who use their gender or skin color as a voucher.

I'm also a white male. I benefit everyday from being a white male. I've gone over the employment statistics for the profession I intend to enter: not only do I have a better shot of being employed, but I'll also be paid on average higher than my coworkers who weren't born into the same circumstances. Lucky me. Thus, knowing how much I've benefitted from white privilege, I choose not to participate in the subjugation of my less privileged peers. I don't look at it as society holding me to a higher standard and/or forcing me to walk on eggshells; I just try to behave in such a way that doesn't make me a shitty person. It's generally quite easy and not at all like some precarious high-wire act. (Your lynching example is a little hard to address since it's grounded in subjective perception, but the vast majority of hate crimes are committed by white men against non-white victims. In an age where rants about "reverse racism" are commonplace, the idea that it's really the other way around has risen in popularity, but it's not true.)

The whole "crutch" and "voucher" complaint is another thing I see all the time. I've had non-white peers in seminar courses explain how difficult it is to have any kind of conversation about systemic, racialized discrimination outside of academia without being accused of playing a certain card. In a manner of speaking, the issue is similar to diatribes against so-called "feminazis" (such as the ones in the hate thread). Our collective discourse would suggest I need only take five steps out my front door before I'm waylaid by a roving band of militant feminists, but this is far from the case. I'm convinced the vast majority of people who participate in these diatribes have never actually encountered a "feminazi" or heard about one through a reputable source. I feel the same about people who ramble about minorities playing the race card. It's easy but unproductive to allow conversations about social justice to become monopolized by outliers whose existence seems largely to be a delusion in the collective unconscious of the privileged majority—a delusion with the express purpose, as far as I can tell, of reinscribing white male hegemony.


But everything does lend itself to scientific inquiry. Maybe not NEATLY, but putting taboos on progress itself because that progress shows us things we might not necessarily like is asinine and archaic. We don't live in the time of Galileo where speaking the truth gets you killed. We live in the future. The sooner we ditch the taboos and the excuse of "It's more complex so it can't be covered by science because shut up.", the sooner we can learn more, understand more, and let go of the old retard beliefs we're anchored to and continue onward.

I don't really want to repeat myself about why scientific inquiry is ill-suited here, so I guess I'll just leave this one be.

[Dark Sage]

You know, I can honestly say, I've never met a "feminazi".

Sure, I've seen charity workers asking for support for women's rights issues. But NEVER have I seen the type of feminist who fits the profile, the type who claims that all men are potential chauvenists and that we'd truly live better under a martriarchal society.

I don't even know if there are such women, truthfully. I have seen environmentalist groups with members that are space cadets, but no "feminazis", I can honestly say.

[Blademaster]

Oslo, you're both more eloquent and more versed than I am. Your huge responses are hard to absorb, and what little I can translate of that last post I can only respond to with anecdotal evidence.

... Can I get a handicap here? This is harder than when 4chan argues or Roy and DS yell at each other. I'm out of my league. :(


I do agree on the whole "Don't be a shitty person." part of your talking points, though. That one was easy enough to understand.


I'm amused by the fact that two white guys are more engaged in a debate on how far political correctness extends than the black guy, who's just kinda popping up now and then to be Uncle Ruckus (no relation).

[Dark Sage]

You know Blade, the worst part about stuff like this is, many people think that when black people do it, its okay.

Don Imus defended his comment by saying that "nappy-headed hos" was a common term used in the African-American community to refer to women, and sadly, he was right, at least among hip-hop singers and rappers. A lot of these "artists" use the N-word frequently in their "songs", and many think this is okay because they themselves are black.

Me? I beg to differ. These clearly uneducated people would likely be shocked if they actually did some research and found out the origins of that word. You think it's a bad word? Suffice to say, it's even worse than most people think it is. The idea that one would think that such slurs are okay for ANYONE to say shows utter ignorance on their part.

Not to mention the fact the so-called "music" of such people is just plain... bad.

[DarkestLight]

Uhh nappy headed hoes is not used as often as you might think :/

But now Igotta attack DS. Because now he's generalizing things. The use and origin of that word is steeped in sadness, hate and misery. Yes, one would think that its unable to pull that word from its origin and ever be able to use it in a manner suitable for context today, but its that type of thinking that LIMITS a society.

You are now prescribing the notion that things cannot change when that word is used. If you believe that, fine. But I don't. And alot of racially ambiguous people don't. Because they, alongside us (black/brown people)-are tired of having a word harm us-so the word has been reconfigured, reconstructed and reused in common nomenclature.

Yeah, its still derogatory.
Yes, it can still be demeaning.
Yes, there is an imbalance of power in the use of the word
But there will be until equality is met and everyone can either 1) say it without any negative connotation attributed to it or the "race" of the person who said it or 2) It's completely erased from our lexicon, and that's hard to do when its so ingrained in the culture of America-and has been since America's inception really...

So to say that it shows ignorance on anyone to use, change and evolve a slur into a positive (which is challenged every day) is ignorance on your part because you don't believe it CAN change. And that mentality is what holds America back from growing into a better nation. Maybe it DOES need to be eliminated. I don't know. But if it can be changed and used for the betterment or for a weird reverse empowerment, why the hell would you not allow them to use it?

Now, as for "music" >.> Find that to be offensive in the sense that while you may not think its music, its still a form of expression for a group of people and you SHOULD have respect for it. I'm personally not offended (different strokes for different folks), but I hope you realize how offensive your last sentence can be to someone else.

I hate generalizing things :/ And yes, I can come in this thread with long winded points and wordy explanations, but it's not needed when peacefully conversing with people who have grown up and rational strong ideological principles on topics such as this. I'm reckless and impertinent and I just believe that anything can change, if given the chance.

[RedStarWarrior]

Nigger is just a word and people are just hypocrites. Welcome to the world!

[Dark Sage]

It isn't "just a word", RSW, it's a racial slur with roots that date back to slavery.

And DL, as for rap being music... I'm sorry, I really am, but I don't see it that way. I realize that no-one reads Playboy for interviews, but they still have them, and I read somewhere that 60% of ALL cuss words in ALL interviews in the magazine's history can be found in the one they did with Snoop Dogg.

And considering how long the magazine has been around, that's saying something.

And given the fact that people with his profession often consider a criminal record something to be proud of (until a judge throws the book at them for something really serious) it gives you an idea of what kind of people they are.

[Blademaster]

These clearly uneducated people would likely be shocked if they actually did some research and found out the origins of that word. You think it's a bad word? Suffice to say, it's even worse than most people think it is.

I just Wikipedia'd it out of curiosity. And... You're kind of wrong.

The word 'nigger' has existed since the early 1600's, and an early variant of it was used to denote the Africans shipped to Virginia at the time. At this time, the word was used neutrally, more or less out of convenience ('Neger' is easier to say than 'African,' 'dark-skinned person,' etc.). Later, it was actually used CASUALLY (It was basically the word "dude" but in mid-19th century America), and even more amazingly, it was used to describe almost anyone: blacks, Mexicans, Amerindians, and even the French and the English!

The word 'nigger' used as a pejorative, on the other hand, has only been around for a little over a century. Mark Twain was a bit tentative about it, and it was documented as inappropriate by the early 20th century (hence its replacement by the less offensive but now anachronistic 'colored'), and the rest is pretty much history.

Which means that the people who use the word as we know and loathe it didn't even exist until after the civil war, which was STARTED due to issues with the ethical implications of keeping slaves!

We live in quite a quirky world, don't we?


While on the same Wikipedia page, I noticed some other uses. FUN FACT: The term 'black' in the racial sense was apparently first coined by Thomas Jefferson.

[ChobiChibi]

The gender wage gap does exist, it's just the fact that the feminists don't look at it from a broad enough perspective. It's a simple fact that many women take time out of their careers in order to raise families, meaning there's a good number of years where they are not climbing the career ladder. Perhaps when they go back to work, they do not wish to focus on their career any more.

But they still earn the same amount in whatever job they're doing as a man does. Sometimes you have to put into consideration the occasions where a woman (or man) has to take time off work to care for their child. It's not as point blank as feminists would like it to be.

Anyway, I understand the intentions behind political correctness, it just bugs me when people take it to such extremes when it's not necessary. And if you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of feminism either.

[RedStarWarrior]

It isn't "just a word", RSW, it's a racial slur with roots that date back to slavery.

As much as it pains me to say this, read Blade's post.

It is only a word. Any word can be used as an insult, but it's only when you give that word such power.

Part of this power comes from black people proliferating the usage of it and variants. You could say it was under the guise of diminishing the negative connotations, but that is counterproductive when you limit who is 'allowed' to say it.

[RedStarWarrior]

The gender wage gap does exist, it's just the fact that the feminists don't look at it from a broad enough perspective. It's a simple fact that many women take time out of their careers in order to raise families, meaning there's a good number of years where they are not climbing the career ladder. Perhaps when they go back to work, they do not wish to focus on their career any more.

But they still earn the same amount in whatever job they're doing as a man does. Sometimes you have to put into consideration the occasions where a woman (or man) has to take time off work to care for their child. It's not as point blank as feminists would like it to be.

Anyway, I understand the intentions behind political correctness, it just bugs me when people take it to such extremes when it's not necessary. And if you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of feminism either.

True feminism (at least the original intention) was to have women be equal to men. Statistically, women do not earn as much as men in similar positions, so the movement is still relevant. However, some people take it to the extremes.

Also, I hate women who want equality and chivalry.

[ChobiChibi]

Yeah, I have a massive feminist friend that says that women should be able to do the same jobs as men do and get paid the same for it. Which yes, in most cases, it should happen, but there are some jobs that women actually can't physically do. Like a job that involved a lot of manual labour and heavy lifting (I'm talking srsly heavy lifting, not just oh this box in a store is really heavy I can't lift it on my own, lifting) that it would be extremely difficult for a woman to do because most don't have the upper body strength to handle it.

Also, there are some jobs that women simply don't go for. For example, construction. I'm not gonna try and make up a ratio, but you can imagine the male to female ratio on a building site.

On the chivalry side... Pfft. I just treat men and women the same when it comes to holding doors open and all that shit. Doesn't matter if you're male or female, it's just being polite surely? I also hate the feminists that are all like "men are chauvinistic pigs". No. A woman can look down on you and say they're superior to you, not just a man. ERGH. I'm done >>

EDIT: I'm clearly not done XD
I lived with someone whom you might describe as a chauvinist, but he's gay. His attitude makes him seem like he thinks he's above everyone else, including his boyfriend. So if you're looking at this from a sexuality point of view, does that mean that his partner is therefore the more feminine of the two? No, it doesn't. Basically, I think that word is thrown around too easily in a man's direction, just because he happens to be male and be a bit of a prick.

Not sure of my point anymore, perhaps someone will get it... So I am now done.

[Magmar]

Oslo, seriously marry me.

I read through this topic and ASDHLJFDSHLDSFAJLASDFJLFSDAL @#&#@*$#@$)*#@$)(@*# REALLY?????? I know that's irrational to type and such, but... REALLY. REALLY.

About the whole "hey, different groups in the U.S. have different results on testing" thing. It's an easy enough statement to refute. Think about where large populations of minority children who score lower (Black, Hispanic, Native American) on standardized exams live. Now think about the resources allocated to those schools. Think about the average income level and education level of the average adult who lives there. It's a problem with resources, availability of high-quality teachers, and a little something called "white flight."

I don't even know where to begin about the other things brought up in this topic. Like Oslo, much of my undergraduate and graduate studies have focused on topics pertaining to the diversity of humanity... so perhaps I just know too much and don't know how to break it down to a level of understanding without my brain going "GAHHHH".

Okay! Let's play with some studies. I'll cite them if you wish, but that requires going to my library, where I know exactly where they are.

-Fictional men and women with equal qualifications applied for the same jobs. Some were given typically "White" names such as Dorothy, Aiden, and Mackenzie. Some were given typically "Black" names such as Lashawn and Jazmin. Many of the White applicants were given prior drug convictions and other felony convictions while the equivalent Black applicants were not given any convictions; all other factors on the resumes were the same.

Whites with criminal records were substantially more likely to be called in for interviews than Blacks who did not have a criminal record. Racism exists.

Women with a high school degree make on average somewhere around 65% of what men with a high school degree make at the same job with the same experience. The wage differential fluctuates by race; Black and Hispanic women with similar levels of experience, education, and mastery of English make something like 58% of what White men make. At the master's level this all finally evens out, with women across the board making about 60% the wage of White men. Asian men and women tend to make close to what White men and women make, but the gap between men and women still exists; the gap is just closer to 100% of a White woman's wage for an Asian woman. Racism and sexism exist.

In Minneapolis and surrounding communities (Minnesota, USA), parents are able to freely choose what elementary schools, etc. their children attend. Parents with White children are substantially more likely to send their children to a school with predominantly White children, regardless of the school's performance, than any other racial group is likely to choose a school based on racial statistics. White Flight exists and so does racism.

Black men are far more likely to serve more time and receive harsher penalties for committing the same crime as White men. Drug laws that target drugs that are more expensive (cocaine) result in substantially lower sentences than drug laws that target cheap drugs like crack. Who's more likely to be of lower income? Racial minorities. Why? Because of the wage differential and the lack of resources in predominantly non-White communities. Racism exists.

Gay men make 70% the wage of straight men. Married men with children make more than unmarried men. Married women with children make less than unmarried women without children. People who use wheelchairs or have hearing aids/other visible disability accommodations hit that same glass ceiling. This is why "othered" groups stand up and say "This isn't right" and organize. It's because of the system of power that advantages one group over another.

That's why the Age Discrimination Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and affirmative action even exist. That's why LGBT people fight for equal rights under the law.

I haven't even gone into the whole topic of Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs), which have been established by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics in order to identify issues with managers who discriminate against women and people with disabilities saying they "can't" do a job when in fact, they are perfectly able to do the job as long as they can carry out all essential job duties. For example, a woman firefighter who trains physically and can point and hold a water jet is just as able as fighting a fire as is a man firefighter who can do the same job. An administrative assistant who uses a wheelchair can just as easily do her or his job as long as there is no proof of unreasonable burden on the employer to accommodate said employee. You wouldn't hire a person who uses a wheelchair to test stair-stepping machines, but someone who is blind could certainly do it. Denying that person the job because of the disability is what results in so many people with disabilities living below the poverty line, and that kind of discrimination is illegal. No one says that if you have two candidates and you select an equally-qualified, able-bodied person to do the job, that you have discriminated. But if you are hiring 100 people, and you have 150 able-bodied applicants and 50 with visible disabilities that do not impair the individual to complete the BFOQs of the job, but hire 100 able-bodied individuals anyway, that's cause for a discrimination lawsuit. (It's called the 4/5ths rule, and is rarely called upon unless egregious discrimination is apparent.)

Weight discrimination exists as well. A fat man or woman can just as easily sell Abercrombie clothing as a thin man or woman. That was another awesome lawsuit.

Pregnancy discrimination exists. Discriminating against single mothers exists. All kinds of discrimination exist because there is a structure of power that exists in the American sociocultural environment that manifests in which groups in power tend to stay in power because they hire, retain, and promote people based on no other qualification other than the "Similar to Me" fallacy.

Have I made my point? The system is broken, in a very big way.

[Blademaster]

As much as it pains me to say this, read Blade's post.

nxzX3tyHHMg


And if you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of feminism either.

Egalitarian master race ITT? (http://redcelt.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/feminist_humanist.jpg)

Yes, I realize the irony of that combination of words, before someone points it out.

[RedStarWarrior]

Andrew, affirmative action is racism.

[Roy Karrde]

Systemic discrimination is invisible and often unconscious; it is coded within everyday practices and absences and not always sitting on a platter in clear sight. It often takes critical thinking to recognize. Your expectations of proof seem indebted to a masculinist scientific model, but we've already covered why that thinking is incongruous here. Also, "it's illegal and no company would do it" smacks of very weak and rosy a priori reasoning. Indeed, companies violate the law all the time. That's not a sufficient argument. As well, the idea that women suffer lower pay because of maternity leave does not properly explain the fact that women are statistically more clustered in low-paying, service-oriented positions. We're also not touching on the fact that women continually take on the majority of the domestic responsibilities, which includes taking time off work to care for newborn children long after the woman's pregnancy/recover period. Often, this occurs not by choice but rather because that's the prevailing expectation in our patriarchal society.

"So what causes the variation in pay? Personal and workplace choices account for much of the gap. Labor Department research shows that men choose more dangerous and high stress jobs. Men choose higher paying career fields. And men hold more full time jobs, work longer hours, weekends, and nights than women. All these factors lead to higher wages regardless of gender.

Stanford economist Thomas Sowell shows that "women are typically not educated as often in such highly paid fields as mathematics, science, and engineering, nor attracted to physically taxing and well paid fields as construction work, lumberjacking, coal mining and the like." All these factors create differences in pay that have nothing to do with the exploitation of women.

Maybe the biggest reason is biology. Women make up 50% of the workforce but give birth to 100% of the babies. And if women choose to have children, their incentives change and this affects their choices of jobs, careers, continual service and hours spent on the job. The New York Times reported that among Yale alumni in their forties, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90% of the men. It goes without saying that traditionally men do not face the same incentives of biology and child rearing as women."

"If we actually compare apples to apples in the workforce, the facts will disturb those who are married to the vision of female victimization. According to Marty Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men. In a 2010 study of single childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. And according to the Labor Department, "of men and women who work 30 to 34 hours a week, women make more, 109 percent of men's earnings."

Sowell backs up these findings, "comparing never-married women and men who are past the child-bearing years and who both work full-time in the twenty-first century shows women of this description earning more than men of the same description.""

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/05/the_female_wage_gap_is_a_major_economic_myth_99969 .html

[Roy Karrde]

The maddening thing about debates such as these is the ease with which they devolve into your-study-vs.-my-study (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/03/gender-in-the-masthead/188842/) quibbling. Also, the piece you supplied overlooks the manner in which the pay gap is bolstered by the clustering of women in low-paying fields and does not interrogate the normative expectations relating to maternity leave, but we'll get to that.

Okay here is the problem, the two things that you listed, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A PAY. It has to do with choices. If a woman decides to carry a baby to term that is her choice, if a woman decides to take a lower paying job, that is her choice. The question is if a man and women with the exact same circumstances were placed in the same job would they make the same money? The U.S. Labor Department says yes. As such the only conclusion I can reach is that talk of the pay gap has nothing to do with pay for the job, and everything with victimization as if women have to be treated as children when it comes to the consequences of their choices.

[Blademaster]

Oh God what happened?

[shazza]

I just read the entire thread. Shit, son. My mind unfortunately does not really work in responding to specific arguments, so I'll just express my thoughts (which are mostly just a repeat of what everything has been said!): there is nothing black and white (lol) regarding racial and gender discrimination. It is such a wide and varied issue with meticulous details and an entrenched history: and there is a certain amount of ignorance apparent to decisively adhere to one side that it blinds you to the potential and validity of the counter argument (that is not to say that there has not been an appreciation for other posters in this topic).

In the end of the day, it would be naive to deny that there is an unfortunate amount of inequality still existing within society. Race and gender are the roots, and these have derived expansively into stereotypical roles and socioeconomic factors that the authentic, originating divergences have seldom to do with the protracted discrimination: they are nothing more but verbatim perceptions of society with little to no relevance of the actual reality of life, and this issue is a more broader kettle of fish.

However, this doesn't directly concern the topic at hand: political correctness is a definitive problem and is in of itself its own form of discrimination! Many people unfortunately abuse this heightened awareness of equality - perhaps to be more forgiving, are oblivious to the difference between discriminating on unfounded grounds and observing something factual pertaining to their differences. It feels the past few years, in Australia anyway, we have to ignore the obvious differences - that aren’t better nor worse - in fear of being accused of racist. They are certainly allowed to express their own self-evaluations and boast of their differences, and attack another race, but to conversely do it is automatically racist. Even articulating this observation feels to be taboo, and the current Government does nothing but underpin this desperate need for political correctness, seeking forgiveness for wrong doings. In doing so it comes across as obtuse. It may well indeed be a political tactic to appease the majority. Yet, for me, and certainly a :083: claim, a bizarre indication that they have yet to resolve their own issues regarding racial discrimination.

[ChobiChibi]

Okay here is the problem, the two things that you listed, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A PAY. It has to do with choices. If a woman decides to carry a baby to term that is her choice, if a woman decides to take a lower paying job, that is her choice. The question is if a man and women with the exact same circumstances were placed in the same job would they make the same money? The U.S. Labor Department says yes. As such the only conclusion I can reach is that talk of the pay gap has nothing to do with pay for the job, and everything with victimization as if women have to be treated as children when it comes to the consequences of their choices.

Okay, so I am a Masters student, female and I work in a fairly low paid job. You're telling me it's my choice to be in such a low paid job? I am more than qualified to teach one to one lessons, where I am able to earn £30-40 an hour, but it's simply a case of I can't get that job. And it's not because I've not tried, it's the simple case of cutbacks in the arts and a bad economy. People can't afford the luxury of music lessons because the cost mounts up. So now the only way for me to make a career out of my degrees is to get another one and teach in a classroom instead.

Alright, so these are mostly choices, I'll agree, but they're not as simple to make as you make it seem. Most of these things are because I have to, not because I want to. And I'll think you'll find that's the same with most women when it comes to employment.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay, so I am a Masters student, female and I work in a fairly low paid job. You're telling me it's my choice to be in such a low paid job? I am more than qualified to teach one to one lessons, where I am able to earn £30-40 an hour, but it's simply a case of I can't get that job. And it's not because I've not tried, it's the simple case of cutbacks in the arts and a bad economy. People can't afford the luxury of music lessons because the cost mounts up. So now the only way for me to make a career out of my degrees is to get another one and teach in a classroom instead.

Alright, so these are mostly choices, I'll agree, but they're not as simple to make as you make it seem. Most of these things are because I have to, not because I want to. And I'll think you'll find that's the same with most women when it comes to employment.

Well in your case the question would be would a man being a Masters student, be able to find a job? You say there are cutbacks and a bad economy, which would suggest that if you were a man in the same position, you would still be struggling to find a job right now, and would currently be in a low paying job right now. But anyway my post was more geared toward the women who take part time jobs so that they can be home when the kids get home from school, instead of sending the children to daycare, that I would say is a choice they are making instead of taking a full time job in which they can earn more, but would cause them to be away from home more.

[Heald]

The funny thing is is that what a graduate in Gender Studies learns in 3 years, a sociologist learns in 1 hour, and an economist learns in an hour.

[Roy Karrde]

I do wish to point out that I think there is a time and place for Feminism. I believe the game industry is in a desperate need of rethinking how they design and create female characters, not just to attract a female audience, but to also serve as better examples for boys that not everything is about boobs and ass.

I also think that the Middle East is LONG overdue for a feminist uprising, and how countries treat women should be a prerequisite when it comes to military and financial aid in the Middle East. Along with taking many of the feminist organizations over here and turning to export their work into the Middle East.

[ChobiChibi]

Game industry is better than it used to be. Other than the bum and tits (I went british on yo ass, suckit), girls aren't just the ones that need rescuing anymore. Lightning and Fang in FFXIII, FemShep and Jack in Mass Effect (holy hell her VA is hot)... In fact, the fact that you're actually able to select female characters in RPGs like ME, Skyrim and Pokemon is truly a step forward in that respect. That and the stereotypes that surround girl gamers too... "Oh they only play Harvest Moon"... Pffftttt, that is virtually gone.

But as for the Middle East... A feminist uprising would be suicide... I mean, they shot a girl for speaking up about her education rights, they're not gonna be so easily persuaded towards a more equal existence when it states in their Religion that men are superior to women... Not saying it shouldn't happen, just saying it's not as easy as that.

[Plantae]

I think the problem with women's rights in the Middle East is more multi-faceted than some would like to believe. A lot of unproductive discussion arrives from some bad assumptions that are made by the majority of Westerners. It's important to realize that opposition by male (usually religious) authority is not the only issue. Moreover, it would be a rather blunt interpretation of Islam that suggests that the Quran holds women to be inferior. It's more complex than that. Many "feminists" in the Middle East work within an Islamic framework.

Female identity is different in the Middle East. For example, I think a lot of people assume that Muslim women would like to be "freed" from wearing the traditional garment, the hijab. For some women, the hijab is an imposition, but for others, it is an expression of their religious devotion and a personal choice.

As Westerners, we also tend to assume that the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) is somehow a homogenized Muslim culture, which is very far from the truth. Women are not unilaterally oppressed, and in some Middle Eastern nations, often have a considerable amount of freedom.

There is certainly a staunch opposition to women's rights in the most patriarchal Middle Eastern societies, but many countries in the Middle East have made recent gains in women's rights, even in the last ten years. There's hope for improvement, especially as the international community becomes more involved.

Nevertheless, I'll agree with Roy here that we should take women's rights, and more generally, human rights, into account when we determine what sort of aid we give to foreign nations. But I think it's important to recognize that sometimes, certain Western values can be an imposition on women in the Middle East and we must be sensitive to these concerns too.

[Heald]

I often passed several posters at university advertising all the different social and support groups there were for non-white, non-straight, non-male peoples (e.g. Asian society, Black society, LGBT society, women's society etc.). I always wondered what would happen if I put up a poster like the below up next to them:


WHITE? STRAIGHT? MALE?
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/39651869/David+Hasselhoff+hoff.jpg
No pussy support group here,
just a friendly reminder to keep being awesome.

[Blademaster]

Do it faggot.

I double dare you.

[Asilynne]

:cawg: please do it.

[ChobiChibi]

Or perhaps the simple need to not argue pointlessly back and forth for weeks and weeks. I believe this simply shows that Oslo is more mature than certain nameless, but blatantly obvious, members that didn't know when to stop.

Or he's a busy bee *shrug*

[Oslo]

Oslo mature? :O That's the craziest thing said this entire conversation. I appreciate the sentiment, though, Becki.

Nah, I'll get around to making a response. Truthfully, I thrive off respectful, level-headed discourse; it mobilizes me into becoming a better thinker and a better person. I've had numerous civil conversations with masculists and I've loved those exchanges for their cooperative, generative potential. This conversation, with your misrepresentations and ad hominem smears and willingness to cry bigotry at ideas you've misunderstood, doesn't excite me. I have 4/5 of a response drafted in a Word Document—and it's quite a good response, actually, albeit omg so long—but I dread participating in conversations that risk bringing me down to a lower level, so I'm putting off finishing it.

But I'll post my reply eventually.

[ChobiChibi]

Okay, so the TPM mature scale goes like this:

Nameless, blatantly obvious members -> Oslo -> Becki -> Other people. XD

[Oslo]

I'm pretty sure I'm on a lower plateau than that. It's a cool place to be, though. We got stuffed Patamon toys and Kool-Aid. :3

[DarkestLight]

Okay, so the TPM mature scale goes like this:

Nameless, blatantly obvious members -> Oslo -> Becki -> Other people -> DL (top of food chain)

>.> Kool-aid is up here too, durr pe durrp!

[ChobiChibi]

Oh hush, DL, you're blates down near the bottom with Oslo and I.

[Blademaster]

Does x -> y in this instance imply that y is more mature than x or more immature than x?

Also where do I fall on this scale? Because Oslo kinda kicked my ass at debating which implies he's higher but I knew when to quit which has to count for something, right?

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Also where do I fall on this scale?

Me too! Meaning I'd like to know where I fall.

Also, this has become a crazy thread and I even have one post here w00t. No offence to anyone, I just don't comprehend this myself. Should read it through, but the only way to get it all read and understood would be after printing it. For me.

[Oslo]

I'm Oslolling right now.

Expect my response in, idk, a week?

[Oslo]

A few reasons, but "systematically annihilated" for the most part.

I didn't realize I was debating Duke Nukem...?

[Oslo]

Fair enough, but just recognize that we're coming at this from two vastly different mindsets. I take part in debate because I'm a student of the dialectical method. The sublation of opposing views is how knowledge is created. We don't just cut one another down; by forwarding cogent arguments, we build something. I don't expect to "systematically annihilate" anything because that's destructive, not generative. We don't get anywhere when we call the other a puppet or liken the other to a religious fundamentalist or claim the other is lying or accuse the other of gender hate or rephrase the other's arguments in a reductivist/patronizing manner. Sure, continue this Mack Truck style of debate if that really is how you roll—but I truly believe it takes us backwards, not forwards.

But even if we put my idealist cornball hippie tomfoolery aside, I'm quite confident that you have not successfully "annihilated" my points in any capacity, but we already know we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that...

[Oslo]

If you truly believe in the rhetorical validity of mud-slinging and suggest there is nothing destructive about a style of debate modelled after systematic annihilation, our views are too incompatible for there to be anything left to say on the subject. Hold tight until I get around to my actual response, I guess?

[Oslo]

You’ve misunderstood.

The dialectical method: thesis + antithesis = synthesis

Which is to say, opposing viewpoints come against one another to create a new understanding for both parties involved. This is the generative potential for civilized debate: using reasoned argumentation to build knowledge that is broader than the scope of either argument. It does not always play out like that and it certainly is not playing out like that between us—and here I implicate my own fallibility by suggesting I should perhaps be doing more to make this potential a reality—but this in my opinion is the ideal.

On the other hand, a form of debate focused on the totalized negation of “all” opposing views destroys that potential for collaborative knowledge-building. Discourse instead becomes a zero-sum game of winners and losers; indeed, judging by your earlier eager attempt to declare unilateral victory, this is clearly your terminal goal. While it’s the more common and socially validated method of conducting debate, it’s simply not my ideal method, especially when it lends itself to easy mud-slinging.

That’s all I mean when I say our mindsets differ.

[Oslo]

That was certainly, um, something. Welp, at least it's no longer hard to decide whether I want to continue with this topic, so that's good, I suppose?

[Blademaster]

XKg74ZOsDKk

Everything listed fits on your computer screen.

The posts a few above my own do not.

Do the math.