Good question. I'll think about it.
First thought is just 'If I see it, I'll know it'. Present me with a problem and I can tell you if it's a real problem or not. In my opinion it would be fairly self-evident.
That leads to my second thought of 'Well, it's not self evident to everyone, is it? Some people think it's a real problem'.
Which leads to my third thought of 'The problem can be subject to a 'reasonable/almost any person'' check'. In the first article it talks about the concept of 'trauma' and how conceptual change affected it. It used to be that for an experience to be considered 'traumatic' it would only be traumatic if 'almost everyone' would agree that it was indeed a traumatic experience. Another way to look at it; many countries have the concept of a 'reasonable person' embedded in their legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). If any 'reasonable person' would consider x to be x, then x is x. If any reasonable person considers microaggressions to be a bullshit problem, then microaggressions are a bullshit problem.
Which leads to my fourth thought 'Shit, what if a 'reasonable person' isn't actually reasonable anymore'. Pretty much nothing is safe from concept change (except maybe hard, concrete realities). What if almost everyone gets sold on the idea of microaggressions being valid (microaggressions are now 'reasonable'). What if everyone decides it's a reasonable thing to no longer clap (it's 'anxiety-inducing' for some), and everyone starts jazz-handing instead. What if that becomes the new norm?
Which leads to my final thought (for now) of 'No, that's ridiculous, people won't just accept bullshit because SJWs tell them they should'. So, I guess I stand by my 3rd thought. We can distinguish actual modern problems from pathologized problems through an 'almost everyone/any reasonable person' check. For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
First thought is just 'If I see it, I'll know it'. Present me with a problem and I can tell you if it's a real problem or not. In my opinion it would be fairly self-evident.
That leads to my second thought of 'Well, it's not self evident to everyone, is it? Some people think it's a real problem'.
Which leads to my third thought of 'The problem can be subject to a 'reasonable/almost any person'' check'. In the first article it talks about the concept of 'trauma' and how conceptual change affected it. It used to be that for an experience to be considered 'traumatic' it would only be traumatic if 'almost everyone' would agree that it was indeed a traumatic experience. Another way to look at it; many countries have the concept of a 'reasonable person' embedded in their legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). If any 'reasonable person' would consider x to be x, then x is x. If any reasonable person considers microaggressions to be a bullshit problem, then microaggressions are a bullshit problem.
Which leads to my fourth thought 'Shit, what if a 'reasonable person' isn't actually reasonable anymore'. Pretty much nothing is safe from concept change (except maybe hard, concrete realities). What if almost everyone gets sold on the idea of microaggressions being valid (microaggressions are now 'reasonable'). What if everyone decides it's a reasonable thing to no longer clap (it's 'anxiety-inducing' for some), and everyone starts jazz-handing instead. What if that becomes the new norm?
Which leads to my final thought (for now) of 'No, that's ridiculous, people won't just accept bullshit because SJWs tell them they should'. So, I guess I stand by my 3rd thought. We can distinguish actual modern problems from pathologized problems through an 'almost everyone/any reasonable person' check. For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 10, 2020 at 08:13 PM.
Beating them senseless isn't the same as disciplining them for doing something wrong -_-.
[SIGPIC]https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6[/SIGPIC]
| Dargon Moderated Message: |
| Infracted for having the best goddamn replays in Toribash history. |
Originally Posted by Maya
All of this assumes that the majority of people are reasonable and understand the implications of their actions.
For instance, the majority of people are still queerphobic and casually spread queerphobic ideas through jokes or otherwise. Just because the majority doesn't see it as an issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. The majority of people have been bigoted for the entirety of human history. Leaving any of this up to "most reasonable people" is ridiculous because of this context. Centrism doesn't help us here (or ever).
I'd challenge your contention that most people are queerphobic, at least in modern western societies. You can't go out and call a gay person a faggot. That is a shunned act - You would get shouted down by onlookers. I also think that you can't draw a straight line between someone telling a joke (e.g. a wife-beating joke) and then some bozo going out and beating his wife because he heard that joke. It doesn't happen.
With respect to making jokes, I think this is another appropriate time to drop this quote;
"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."
Disregarding universal queerphobia (which isn't a thing), the views that reasonable people hold change over time, of course. American founders were quite content to own slaves, as was everyone in the ancient world. It was a reality of the times. There are doubtless other 'moral revolutions' waiting to happen - And if they've valid, reasonable people will jump on board and establish new moral norms. That's how it happens.
Using the 'not wanting to fuck transexuals is bigoted' example, that ain't a valid problem. Tonakai, one of the most level-headed dudes I know, even agreed that that specific point was 'dumb'. The world will never come to a place where everybody thinks it's bigoted not to fuck a transexual, because that is simply not a reasonable concept (not now, not ever).
Factory farming is a legit problem, and if you talk with people about it, while they may view it as a necessary evil (there's a lot of mouths to feed), they'll also contend that when it no longer becomes necessary (and yes people will argue about whether its even necessary right now), it ought to stop immedietely. There's a moral revolution here waiting to happen, and it probably will happen. Reasonable people (spurred on by activists) will make it happen. This brings me back to what I said earlier;
Originally Posted by Ele
For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 11, 2020 at 07:59 AM.
Originally Posted by Maya
You'd like to think that, I would too... but that's actually not the reality. In most places even here in the US people do not feel comfortable coming out as queer, nevermind being visibly queer on the street.
There's gays kids everywhere. It is not a taboo these days - It ain't the 50s.
Every now and again you'll see a video of some person being racist/sexist/homophobic to another person in some public place (like a bus). You ever see the comment sections for these videos? It's full of people calling the racist/sexist/homophobic person a piece of shit. Bigotry aint acceptable and any reasonable people knows that.
Originally Posted by Maya
It removes weight from these issues, makes light of them.
Yes, that's what jokes are supposed to do. You take serious issues and you turn them into comedy. I think that putting a category of people into a space where they're 'protected' from jokes actually just disempowers and furthers the notion that these people are victims who should be treated differently from everyone else.
All comedy is fair game. There are bad jokes and there are good jokes. I've heard funny woman-beating jokes and I've heard horrible woman-beating jokes. Woman-beating jokes ought not to be banned. If they're bad, don't laugh.
Originally Posted by Maya
So the majority of German citizens just being complacent with the alienation and subsequent genocide of Jews... the reasonable people jumped on board because it was a valid moral revolution? It's not that simple at all.
There's some historical ignorance at play here. The German citizenry was not aware that Jews were being slaughtered in concentration camps. It wasn't until after the war that the true horrors of what was taking place came to light.
People rallied behind Hitler because he was 'Making Germany Great Again', not because 'Fuck The Jews'. In fact, many Germans were uncomfortable with the Nazi party's stance on Jews, so much so that Hitler and Goebbels substancially toned down that sort of rhetoric as the war progressed. The 'Fuck The Jews' thing was more of a personal project for Hitler (and some others of his inner circle).
If America was at war with Mexico and it came out that Hispanic Americans were being slaughtered in concentration camps, everybody would be suitably shocked and appalled. No reasonable people would agree with that shit.
Originally Posted by Maya
Would you like me to ask Tonakai if I can share the screenshot of the discussion between him and I on this, where he changed his mind and agreed with me on the issue? He sure is level-headed, as you said.
Sure. I'm somehow not surpised that you got him to tell you he changed his mind. I hope you didn't do it using that same 'logical' argument you used in that thread, because that was shithouse.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 11, 2020 at 09:19 AM.
