08-12-2017
, 04:00 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:00 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:02 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:03 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:05 PM
Again, it's well known to all OSJers that "radical leftists" are a completely different kinda "leftist" -vs- "far leftists" -vs- "hard leftists" -vs-/etc/etc. There really is a lot of nuance here you are missing.
Perhaps LordJvK expressed this best when he said...
Perhaps LordJvK expressed this best when he said...
Quote:
Foldndark, I've read a lot of broad sweep history books, and from every angle that I look at it, the Enlightenment is a truly exceptional outlier event / seismic shift in history.
There are other big huge changes, of course, for example 1453 is a year of great change when the Ottomans take Constantinople and Mehmed II inadvertently triggers the Renaissance (scholars flee to Italy -> Copernicus, Silk Road closed forcing traders to use sea rather than road -> Columbus)
But the changes that come after The Enlightenment make that seem like small fry. I think the last set of changes of that scale and significance for humans would have been right back when hunter-gatherer tribes first developed agriculture.
Everything shoots up after the Enlightenment: technology, population, wealth, health, productivity, everything. Every metric, through the roof. It is the first time in history in which a real, genuine, meaningful gap emerges between the East and West. This has been called "The European Miracle": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Miracle
I have long been fascinated by this.
Jared Diamond, Germs, Guns, and Steel has one answer (geography)
David Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations has another one (culture)
Ian Morris, Why the West Rules -- For Now has a third (mostly geography but also some culture)
What's the real breakthrough? I think back to when Haidt talks about the development of WEIRD people, and wonder if it is actually just that. This is basically Landes's thesis too.
He argues, for example, that you can draw a direct correlation between the economy of a nation and how it treats its women.
It's clearly some combination of:
- geography
- Protestant work ethic
- capitalism
- science
- individualism
And (more controversially):
- empire
One thing that I'm musing on though is ... given all of this, why should it be the case that people have become more compassionate over time in this general mode of being (eg in Western capitalism)?
Why did this way of thinking invariably lead to what Haidt calls "WEIRD"?
It's puzzling and certainly not a given. I'd include in this:
- ending slavery (people tend to think only of black slaves sent to Americas, but EVERY civilisation kept slaves, the Islamic ones especially)
- universal suffrage (for men)
- women's rights
- rights of property ownership for everyone
- eventually gay rights
None of these things necessarily or inevitably had to happen. And in other cultures these developments either don't seem like they have happened or will happen unless imported by western powers.
I actually think it's a great mystery how and why these things came about. As in, what gave the impetus for them in the first place? What drove them? And why did these things ONLY happen in the conditions created after the Enlightenment?
Huge question, I know, but it's something to ponder. I think it is really overlooked what a massive, massive outlier we are in this present moment to the rest of history. In terms of our values, our outlook, and virtually everything.
There are other big huge changes, of course, for example 1453 is a year of great change when the Ottomans take Constantinople and Mehmed II inadvertently triggers the Renaissance (scholars flee to Italy -> Copernicus, Silk Road closed forcing traders to use sea rather than road -> Columbus)
But the changes that come after The Enlightenment make that seem like small fry. I think the last set of changes of that scale and significance for humans would have been right back when hunter-gatherer tribes first developed agriculture.
Everything shoots up after the Enlightenment: technology, population, wealth, health, productivity, everything. Every metric, through the roof. It is the first time in history in which a real, genuine, meaningful gap emerges between the East and West. This has been called "The European Miracle": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Miracle
I have long been fascinated by this.
Jared Diamond, Germs, Guns, and Steel has one answer (geography)
David Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations has another one (culture)
Ian Morris, Why the West Rules -- For Now has a third (mostly geography but also some culture)
What's the real breakthrough? I think back to when Haidt talks about the development of WEIRD people, and wonder if it is actually just that. This is basically Landes's thesis too.
He argues, for example, that you can draw a direct correlation between the economy of a nation and how it treats its women.
It's clearly some combination of:
- geography
- Protestant work ethic
- capitalism
- science
- individualism
And (more controversially):
- empire
One thing that I'm musing on though is ... given all of this, why should it be the case that people have become more compassionate over time in this general mode of being (eg in Western capitalism)?
Why did this way of thinking invariably lead to what Haidt calls "WEIRD"?
It's puzzling and certainly not a given. I'd include in this:
- ending slavery (people tend to think only of black slaves sent to Americas, but EVERY civilisation kept slaves, the Islamic ones especially)
- universal suffrage (for men)
- women's rights
- rights of property ownership for everyone
- eventually gay rights
None of these things necessarily or inevitably had to happen. And in other cultures these developments either don't seem like they have happened or will happen unless imported by western powers.
I actually think it's a great mystery how and why these things came about. As in, what gave the impetus for them in the first place? What drove them? And why did these things ONLY happen in the conditions created after the Enlightenment?
Huge question, I know, but it's something to ponder. I think it is really overlooked what a massive, massive outlier we are in this present moment to the rest of history. In terms of our values, our outlook, and virtually everything.
Quote:
dereds, you need to leave me alone. My credentials are my credentials.
So the person posting the picture should fact check.
The person saying "Churchill didn't say that" is correct to point that out.
The person trying to use the fact that Churchill didn't say that or that the person posting the picture didn't fact check is still not really dealing with the argument being made.
Which, very simply, is that SJWs are the new fascists.
So the person posting the picture should fact check.
The person saying "Churchill didn't say that" is correct to point that out.
The person trying to use the fact that Churchill didn't say that or that the person posting the picture didn't fact check is still not really dealing with the argument being made.
Which, very simply, is that SJWs are the new fascists.
Quote:
No, it's just that I've spent a lot of energy spelling out all my arguments in those videos, and I don't feel like I have the will to do it all again.
Maybe in a week or so, but not right now. My arguments are all there in video form if anyone REALLY wants to know my thinking. If not, you'll have to wait.
Maybe in a week or so, but not right now. My arguments are all there in video form if anyone REALLY wants to know my thinking. If not, you'll have to wait.
08-12-2017
, 04:07 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:08 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:09 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:16 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:17 PM
08-12-2017
, 04:28 PM
It's interesting you mention the "leftists" being so "far gone" in this example. In his epic "safe spaces" thread over in Alta, our resident expert in Freeze Peach Rites on Cumpuss, had some very insightful comments in just this vein...
Quote:
Yeah, no crap you don't get it, and I hope that changes. Like you, I expect this row about safe spaces, trigger warning, microaggressions, even disinvitations, to work itself out for the best eventually.
You noticed the same thing as I did in the video a few days ago at NYU Law, how concerned professors are taking concepts like trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc., seriously and trying to figure out where they will fit in on campus without harming academic freedom and, ultimately the students themselves. I'm repeating their concerns and arguments here, and frankly, very few of your counter-arguments have been very relevant as I've shown.
Claiming I'm mischaracterizing things surprises me a bit from you. I could say it's you, along with others here, who are steadfastly wriggling about mischaracterizing things. For example, the quote mine of Obama you took out of context today to mean something it clearly did not. I actually debated with myself if you were performing some intricate sabotage and trying to help my argument by demonstrating how everyone here is clearly off base. Anyway, I do still expect good, smart, cool heads to prevail, as is usually the case eventually. Whether we're among them is tbd.
You noticed the same thing as I did in the video a few days ago at NYU Law, how concerned professors are taking concepts like trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc., seriously and trying to figure out where they will fit in on campus without harming academic freedom and, ultimately the students themselves. I'm repeating their concerns and arguments here, and frankly, very few of your counter-arguments have been very relevant as I've shown.
Claiming I'm mischaracterizing things surprises me a bit from you. I could say it's you, along with others here, who are steadfastly wriggling about mischaracterizing things. For example, the quote mine of Obama you took out of context today to mean something it clearly did not. I actually debated with myself if you were performing some intricate sabotage and trying to help my argument by demonstrating how everyone here is clearly off base. Anyway, I do still expect good, smart, cool heads to prevail, as is usually the case eventually. Whether we're among them is tbd.
Quote:
Seriously, like I am giving you the majority opinions throughout this thread and due to weird tribal group dynamics of this forum, many of you seem to think your unpopular opinions are worth being smug and trollish about. Newsflash here, the world takes turns being sick and tired of you and mocking guys like you for being complete douches.
Quote:
It's two separate argument that everyone is conflating, even after having their questions explained ad nauseum. So to answer your question, no.
The first argument is that perceived racism, sexism, etc., should not be censored, like talking about your belief in the moral and practical advantages of profiling, or segregation, or distrust of women, or whatever bad idea you may have. This is what all the free speech advocates have been arguing, and you can read quotes from them ITT, or listen to the podcast at theFIRE.org for a better grasp of free speech.
The second argument is that when carefully considered rules to censor are applied, like the first rule of this forum stating "attack the arguer, not the argument," that rule should be enforced without regard to viewpoint. So, if someone you are sure is racist decides to argue in favor of segregation, for example, you should attack his arguments, not him. If you call him a horrible racist and he calls you a slobbering idiot, he gets banned and you don't, that's unequal enforcement of the rules based on viewpoint, a policy that is openly defended and enforced in here, and is undeniably anti-free speech.
Okay. I think I'm done for now with this boring conversation of the rules, as my objections have been clarified once again. Soooo, back to safe spaces!
I don't know how I missed this one. Co-creator of hit television series The Office doesn't much care for the overly sensitive PC and fascist tendencies espoused by the safe space movement and in here either!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dani..._10588136.html
The first argument is that perceived racism, sexism, etc., should not be censored, like talking about your belief in the moral and practical advantages of profiling, or segregation, or distrust of women, or whatever bad idea you may have. This is what all the free speech advocates have been arguing, and you can read quotes from them ITT, or listen to the podcast at theFIRE.org for a better grasp of free speech.
The second argument is that when carefully considered rules to censor are applied, like the first rule of this forum stating "attack the arguer, not the argument," that rule should be enforced without regard to viewpoint. So, if someone you are sure is racist decides to argue in favor of segregation, for example, you should attack his arguments, not him. If you call him a horrible racist and he calls you a slobbering idiot, he gets banned and you don't, that's unequal enforcement of the rules based on viewpoint, a policy that is openly defended and enforced in here, and is undeniably anti-free speech.
Okay. I think I'm done for now with this boring conversation of the rules, as my objections have been clarified once again. Soooo, back to safe spaces!
I don't know how I missed this one. Co-creator of hit television series The Office doesn't much care for the overly sensitive PC and fascist tendencies espoused by the safe space movement and in here either!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dani..._10588136.html
08-12-2017
, 04:33 PM