Afraid of getting banned? fite slicer here! Only for EE suitable topics.

[super_slicer]

Apparently people think I ban them for disagreeing with me? I don't but hey, here's a thread in a sub where I have no mod powers so disagree without fear! Don't bother with whine about the rules though, I won't respond because fuck you! There are appropriate places for that and this ain't one of 'em.

Onto our first topic, I chose to create this thread instead of respond in a PM because well, this sub's so unused and I like to fite publicly not in PMs. Don't worry about the title, it's late and I'm at a loss for what to call it but I'll come up with something better another time.

You really shouldn't view social development in a different way than biological evolution - that is a process that is in no way directed.
Calling anything in that process "progressive" or "regressive" is just silly (and is fully subjective).

Well, first of all comparing anything to the actual process of evolution is just a poor choice as we currently lack the scientific evidence to substantiate any theory. Even if the most popular ( Natural selection; to sum it up when in an environment with limited resources those organisms which are better suited to the environment survive and thrive leaving those ill suited to die out ) were fact, it runs counter to what we've been seeing of late, and indeed the purpose of society; which is to make up for an individual's weaknesses or shortcomings and provide higher chances of survival and later on a higher quality of life.

"But slicer how is increasing the quality of life for minority groups counter to society's purpose" you say. It isn't, until that increase comes at a cost of the majority which we can clearly see with canada's compelled speech bill; some staggeringly small portion of people's feelings are hurt by certain words so now if a normal person uses them they are held legally responsible.

As for it not being directed? A normal healthy person acts in their own interest, perhaps not to the exclusion of interests of others but certainly not to their own detriment. How can you explain people passing laws to their own detriment not directed behavior? Do they suffer from some sort of self-harm disorder? I could see that being the case if it were a handful of people but it isn't, such a large group would need to be manipulated to a great extent. One might even think they were brainwashed like members of a cult.

Only time will tell which direction will prevail.


Pulling too hard in either direction should trigger a negative reaction -

I agree, thus my previous comment on backlash or to put it a different way: The rights of the many outweigh the feelings of the few.

humans can handle only so much change in their lives without trauma - but standing still is a suicidal move. The world changes, so we must too.

This just sounds like faux enlightenment attempting to play on the evolution comparison.

 

[Zepheral]

The bible is false.

 

[JustLurksHere]

...It seems to be one of those cases I both agree and disagree.

First a technicality: theory of evolution is a theory in the scientific meaning of the term, not as it's commonly used - those two differ significantly.
Also, any scientific theory is (or at least should be) open for future revisions - it's just a currently best available model.

Now, for the real matter.

"purpose of society" is just like "purpose of life" - there is none beside what we make up for ourselves.
It's more the other way around: various groups come together with a few aligned goals then stay together to benefit from the fruits of that cooperation.
Afterwards it's simply "The buddy system is essential to your survival; it gives the enemy somebody else to shoot at.".
Cause other groups get similar ideas too.

All human groups work basically on same principles, from Jehovah Witnesses to neo-nazi movements. It doesn't matter how they paint themselves.
All of them are a subject of erosion and all degrade faster the larger they get.
Shall any one come into power, it will pursuit more power and in the process abandon more and more of its initial goals.

As for "compelled speech laws", it might just be my tinfoil hat aspect, but I see the recent moves in Australia with the Murdoch tax a next step after GDPR.
It's about building a system...or rather restoring it back to the point when there were only a few access points to the mushroom feeding system.
It's not like in the current situation system can not be played (it can and it is), but it's easier with fewer players that get to decide who can join their group.

(not saying that Google/Facebook won't eventually join the old players, cause short of going bankrupt, it's almost a given, these moves are mainly aimed at future incursions)

After all, it doesn't matter what the *stated* purpose of any particular bill is, only how it will actually be used.

"compelled speech laws" somewhat play into that. On one hand, "there are no people you can't break, just underqualified interrogation staff" should be balanced with the fact that immune system can only be trained by exposure. Everyone has their breaking point and these days it's far easier to get the critical mass of people to hound them past it. Though without so-called "peer pressure" society just can't work (simply from its definition). On the other, most people don't have money/time to go though courts, so this gets most use from the organizations that support them...or those few that do have money/time. Even in the first case letting a random court decide on feelings is worse than a slippery slope. The second is obviously the golden rule.

Currently there simply doesn't seem to be even a decent solution and the process of coming up with one will be painful.

As for it not being directed? A normal healthy person acts in their own interest, perhaps not to the exclusion of interests of others but certainly not to their own detriment. How can you explain people passing laws to their own detriment not directed behavior? Do they suffer from some sort of self-harm disorder? I could see that being the case if it were a handful of people but it isn't, such a large group would need to be manipulated to a great extent. One might even think they were brainwashed like members of a cult.

Passing laws is in no way a part of the natural process, at least not in the last century or so, in Europe and countries originating from it. It's too meta at this point, due to golden rule, the need to put up a smokescreen and other stuff like that. "manipulated to a great extent" implies a low number of steps, but if that number is high enough, it's simply natural divergence. Going a bit Godwin here, but last century Germans exchanged Jews for Turks, even though the former integrated far easier (similarly French and North Africa).
Again, process of socialization is not all that different from brainwashing. For example, at the start of this year Evil Empire has offed a high ranked military officer of a country that due to power disparity fought EE by means of proxy guerrilla warfare (which in the last 50 years or so is indistinguishable from terrorism). Pretty much much all of EE's media, even those that politically publicly disagree with its leadership, eventually agreed with that move because "he was a bad man". Somehow they failed to notice that given EE's part in the sanctions against that country, such a description would fit many of their political leadership, given how such sanctions hit the common citizens the most (for example via medical shortages). That was before the pandemic hit...



...and I'd go more with "truism", than "faux enlightenment", was just trying to end on a lighter note. Something like "...but hopefully we all will figure out a way to eventually get past this bump too".

(...PS: this indeed looks like a soapbox monologue...)

 

[DarkFire1004]

A reminder that even in the H-Section, Slicer does not have the ability to do a full ban; he can only ban people from specific threads. I check the moderator logs daily and would be the first to know if he was abusing power like that.

A second reminder that if you have a disagreement with the rules, you are free to post about it in the Forum Development section or the Discussion section in H-Games.

 

[Zepheral]

A reminder that even in the H-Section, Slicer does not have the ability to do a full ban; he can only ban people from specific threads. I check the moderator logs daily and would be the first to know if he was abusing power like that.

A second reminder that if you have a disagreement with the rules, you are free to post about it in the Forum Development section or the Discussion section in H-Games.

I want sparkles on my name. You need to check your sparkle privilege.

 

[super_slicer]

...It seems to be one of those cases I both agree and disagree.

First a technicality: theory of evolution is a theory in the scientific meaning of the term, not as it's commonly used - those two differ significantly.
Also, any scientific theory is (or at least should be) open for future revisions - it's just a currently best available model.

At first I thought this was what you meant, you were just using the world evolution as a way to say something that changes over time. But you have the word biological before it and seem familiar enough with English to know that would rule the generalized usage of evolution out.

Now, for the real matter.

"purpose of society" is just like "purpose of life" - there is none beside what we make up for ourselves.
It's more the other way around: various groups come together with a few aligned goals then stay together to benefit from the fruits of that cooperation.
Afterwards it's simply "The buddy system is essential to your survival; it gives the enemy somebody else to shoot at.".
Cause other groups get similar ideas too.

You're attempting to compare a known behavioral mechanism with a philosophical quandary, it doesn't work like that, the two aren't equitable. Maybe you're using the wrong language and mean the purpose of lifeforms? In which case there is a clear and defined purpose, a goal to which it strives to fulfill: the passing of genetic material to it's offspring. Even if we take your explanation for the purpose of society here with less goals, it's still counter to evolution, it allows organisms that aren't better adapted to survive against those that are.

All human groups work basically on same principles, from Jehovah Witnesses to neo-nazi movements. It doesn't matter how they paint themselves.
All of them are a subject of erosion and all degrade faster the larger they get.
Shall any one come into power, it will pursuit more power and in the process abandon more and more of its initial goals.

That's the difference between a group in which you elect to join and that which you're part of regardless. Take say... a tribe of early humans for example, how would that abandon any of the goals for which it was formed? This seems to be a failing of language as there's no differentiation (or I'm unaware of it) in terms that are used for them, like a person is part of the society of a small town in which they live whether they like it or not, they have no choice in the matter, but they would have to actively choose to join a society of fascists.

Currently there simply doesn't seem to be even a decent solution and the process of coming up with one will be painful.

Here's the solution: put mentally ill people in institutions where they belong and stop simping.

Passing laws is in no way a part of the natural process, at least not in the last century or so, in Europe and countries originating from it. It's too meta at this point, due to golden rule, the need to put up a smokescreen and other stuff like that. "manipulated to a great extent" implies a low number of steps, but if that number is high enough, it's simply natural divergence.

It was not my intention to imply that the process was simple, but I've never been particularly verbose. The less words I can use to communicate something the better. My counterpoint would be that when you convince someone that a man can be a woman and must be referred to only using the words reserved for them or else it is a damaging attack on their person and must be punished by the governing body; essentially convincing them to ignore quantifiable facts and science in favor of fefe simping, there is nothing natural about that. Nor is it logical or just.

I probably missed some stuff but damn it took me the better part of this evening to pick through and find what relevant stuff I could.

The bible is false.

HERETIC! WITCH! WHORE OF SATAN!

 

[JustLurksHere]

This will likely as haphazard as your response, but whatevs...

You're attempting to compare a known behavioral mechanism with a philosophical quandary

Actually, in that context, it was only meant to say "...as non-existent". Also, while in part it was in the sense of "philosophical quandary", in another it was sort of inspired by Carlin's "Save the planet" monologue. I think I've meant "purpose of life" more in "purpose of sapient life" sense (as in human or any other at least on that self-awareness level, should such exist).

...but they would have to actively choose to join a society of fascists.

True to a point. That point being: what if that whole society is fascist (at least from an external POV) ? Also, like with many social terms "fascist" is a relative. "fascist" compared to what ? I don't really recall that quote from Farscape, but it went somewhere along the lines of "Sebaceans are a bunch of space-Nazis; Scarrans are even worse.".

Here's the solution: put mentally ill people in institutions where they belong and stop simping.

Funny enough, this is the point where I both agree and disagree.
On one hand, I see much of the transgender stuff as a case of eating disorder, handled very badly. You may not fit into one of the available buckets, but tampering with the labels on them tends to be seen as changing the rules while the game is on. Though, of course, that was the same with any major changes throughout history. On the other, part of the problem is real and sending people to funny farms in bulk won't solve it.

Back when civilizations began and languages were formed, physical dominance was nearly always the winning card. Due to men being statistically stronger than women, that eventually led to societies being built the way they are. But that reason also led to a the traditional gender roles being somewhat cemented into languages.
When we reached the point where intellectual abilities started to have nearly as much impact, this model began to fray. Yet, past cosmetic adjustments, the languages were slow to follow, simply cause any real changes would need to done at foundation level and at this point it would throw the whole system into disarray.

It's hard to express concepts if you lack the vocabulary to express them, especially if that vocabulary doesn't exist yet *and* your language is nearly incompatible with those concepts. Translating puns rarely leads to pleasant results and dissonance is really aggravating. Also, NewSpeak tends to happen then.

Getting back from pseudo-philosophy to the transgender problems: when dissonance between your physical sex and the role in society you'd feel comfortable in happens, the need to fit in tends to kick in (the reason peer pressure works) and you're left with few options.

- you could deny yourself
- you could go insular, surrounding yourself with just like-minded people, cut off from the rest of society (not really an option these days and nearly never a long term solution)
- you could try working with the society to accept you...that is if society is willing to accept you in the first place

What I'm (somewhat ineptly) trying to say is: both society and the language will need to somehow adapt to people combining gender roles more fluidly (just likely it's slowly doing with people of non-heterosexual orientation (though I don't see those two as close as they've became in the current narrative)), yet the current method these people picked is unlikely to produce successful results (as far as language goes, my personal bet would be on getting the language to be more gender-neutral, but a timeline measured in just decades seem beyond highly optimistic; as for society...no clue). Also, unless/until our biotechnology jumps several tiers, there's one role only biological women can fulfill.

...TBH, it's a big steaming pile of shit, mainly because there are many intermingled problems here and while there might be a simple, efficient and even mutually agreeable solution for some of them, applying them would significantly aggravate some of the remaining ones, so we're almost stuck in a stalemate. And Final Solution isn't really a solution, at least not a final one, cause it would just make the next cycle even more volatile.

(...yes, scatter-brained doesn't even begin to cover my writing style; again, )

 

[super_slicer]

True to a point. That point being: what if that whole society is fascist (at least from an external POV) ? Also, like with many social terms "fascist" is a relative. "fascist" compared to what ? I don't really recall that quote from Farscape, but it went somewhere along the lines of "Sebaceans are a bunch of space-Nazis; Scarrans are even worse.".

I made a mistake here in using the same term to describe both, my apologies. I'd amend the statement to: but they would have to actively choose to join a gang of neo-nazi bikers. What matters is that you can't be part of them without actively embracing what they stand for.

Funny enough, this is the point where I both agree and disagree.
On one hand, I see much of the transgender stuff as a case of eating disorder, handled very badly. You may not fit into one of the available buckets, but tampering with the labels on them tends to be seen as changing the rules while the game is on. Though, of course, that was the same with any major changes throughout history. On the other, part of the problem is real and sending people to funny farms in bulk won't solve it.

And yet we do put people that can't function in today's world properly in institutions. Because killing them isn't okay and the, albeit naive, hope that medical treatments that allow them to function properly will be discovered. I for one find it unacceptable to even suggest that the majority must change to suit the minority, especially when we know that the minority is defective. After all it'd be ludicrous to suggest that we must go along with the delusions of people suffering from a different mental illness like say... a paranoid schizophrenic.

Back when civilizations began and languages were formed, physical dominance was nearly always the winning card. Due to men being statistically stronger than women, that eventually led to societies being built the way they are. But that reason also led to a the traditional gender roles being somewhat cemented into languages.
When we reached the point where intellectual abilities started to have nearly as much impact, this model began to fray. Yet, past cosmetic adjustments, the languages were slow to follow, simply cause any real changes would need to done at foundation level and at this point it would throw the whole system into disarray.

It's hard to express concepts if you lack the vocabulary to express them, especially if that vocabulary doesn't exist yet *and* your language is nearly incompatible with those concepts. Translating puns rarely leads to pleasant results and dissonance is really aggravating. Also, NewSpeak tends to happen then.

You've lost me. Gender exists because sex exists yet biology is imperfect and most humans consider others viewing their naked bodies an intimate act, gender is used to signal what sex you are without whipping out your genitals and it's baked into language for the exact same reason.

Getting back from pseudo-philosophy to the transgender problems: when dissonance between your physical sex and the role in society you'd feel comfortable in happens, the need to fit in tends to kick in (the reason peer pressure works) and you're left with few options.

- you could deny yourself
- you could go insular, surrounding yourself with just like-minded people, cut off from the rest of society (not really an option these days and nearly never a long term solution)
- you could try working with the society to accept you...that is if society is willing to accept you in the first place

What I'm (somewhat ineptly) trying to say is: both society and the language will need to somehow adapt to people combining gender roles more fluidly (just likely it's slowly doing with people of non-heterosexual orientation (though I don't see those two as close as they've became in the current narrative)), yet the current method these people picked is unlikely to produce successful results (as far as language goes, my personal bet would be on getting the language to be more gender-neutral, but a timeline measured in just decades seem beyond highly optimistic; as for society...no clue). Also, unless/until our biotechnology jumps several tiers, there's one role only biological women can fulfill.

You've missed two options: don't give a fuck about what others say your role should be ( this is my go-to ) or seek proper treatment for the disorder you suffer from. Funny thing; people who suffer from gender dysphoria are no less likely to commit suicide if you use the pronouns they want. But I guess that's just a problem for the people whose victimhood this movement is attempting to profit from, the rest are just ingenious attention whores.

...TBH, it's a big steaming pile of shit, mainly because there are many intermingled problems here and while there might be a simple, efficient and even mutually agreeable solution for some of them, applying them would significantly aggravate some of the remaining ones, so we're almost stuck in a stalemate. And Final Solution isn't really a solution, at least not a final one, cause it would just make the next cycle even more volatile.

I don't think anyone's going to glass the world over pronouns. Besides, if the conflict comes to violence it's pretty obvious who the victor would be given that logic, reason and science are just as useful in warfare as they are debate.

 

[JustLurksHere]

There's something that makes me cringe about that solution.
While Evil Empire had McCarthy and his shenanigans to deal with internal opposition (in later variants used simply with more smokescreen), Soviet Union had a different set of methods. One of them was locking people up in mental hospitals...

For psychotherapy to work, just like in the case of addiction therapy, cooperation of the patient is somewhat essential.

Also, to turn around your argument, how would you feel if you were put into such a therapy for some of your views ?
Just who gets to decide what's normal and why ?

Given that, I prefer my response to this set of problems to go along the lines of: "sure, there is a problem, just not exactly where you see it and your proposed solutions are quite nutty; let's talk about it more".

Of course, my preferred solution would also go "don't give a fuck about what others say", but often you just don't get that option.

...and I think "religious belief" is a closer comparison than "a paranoid schizophrenic".

 

[super_slicer]

For psychotherapy to work, just like in the case of addiction therapy, cooperation of the patient is somewhat essential.

Also, to turn around your argument, how would you feel if you were put into such a therapy for some of your views ?
Just who gets to decide what's normal and why ?

Never been a fan of such inaccurate things, I was thinking more of a surgical or chemical solution than therapy. But that's rather wishful thinking.

I won't be in such a situation (because I don't try to force my crazy bullshit onto others) so I don't need to empathize. But if you really want to go down that road, were I to be in their situation ( delusional ), I'd want to be able to function in the world so I'd accept the treatments and try to get better. For deciding what's normal, well one simply needs to look at the data and there's a pretty cut and dry conclusion that you come to, though the issue is not that they're abnormal but that they're trying to force their abnormality onto others.

Given that, I prefer my response to this set of problems to go along the lines of: "sure, there is a problem, just not exactly where you see it and your proposed solutions are quite nutty; let's talk about it more".

I highly doubt anything will come of that. These people reject the very notions on which our society is founded. It won't take much of a search for you to find them spouting thesis on how objective truth isn't a thing, or that biological sex is a lie, or even that math is racist. They seem willing to believe just about anything as long as it allows them to claim victimhood, and this is where the stop simping part comes in ( thought I forgot about that didn't you? ) if they can no longer use victimization as currency they may take some personal responsibility.

Of course on the other side you've got people like me who refuse to give validation, respect or even compassion on principal. I'll defend my right not to give a fuck about people's insignificant bullshit to the death. Kind of funny though, if others are required to give those things to you they lose any meaning.

...and I think "religious belief" is a closer comparison than "a paranoid schizophrenic".

For liberals? Sure, I'll give you that XD

 

[JustLurksHere]

I won't be in such a situation (because I don't try to force my crazy bullshit onto others)

I do hope you realize you're playing a variant of "First they came..." here...
I think threads like https://ulmf.org/threads/un-to-ban-yer-hentai.12860/ give a nice example of how that can be turned against you.
After all, part of Henry Morgan's career was slave trade and he was still a national here for a time - back then it was simply a profitable job.

To clarify above: that's about ever changing social norms. But...

For deciding what's normal, well one simply needs to look at the data...

Back around the turn of the twentieth century, western civilization had "all the data" to declare blacks and Asians inferior races, yet later they backtracked...
In short: that's a really bad argument.
This is the type of data, which meaning heavily depends upon the way you interpret it. In other words, another case of "beauty is in the eye of beholder" - here as confirmation bias.

Public opinion is fickle and easily roused against targets of opportunity. It rarely lasts long, but it only needs to last long enough to stomp you flat.

You may not force your "crazy bullshit" onto the others, but you'd still want to live according to it, don't you ?

 

[super_slicer]

I do hope you realize you're playing a variant of "First they came..." here...
I think threads like https://ulmf.org/threads/un-to-ban-yer-hentai.12860/ give a nice example of how that can be turned against you.
After all, part of Henry Morgan's career was slave trade and he was still a national here for a time - back then it was simply a profitable job.

To clarify above: that's about ever changing social norms. But...

Nope, I'm pretty firm on my stance of not empathizing with them.

Back around the turn of the twentieth century, western civilization had "all the data" to declare blacks and Asians inferior races, yet later they backtracked...
In short: that's a really bad argument.
This is the type of data, which meaning heavily depends upon the way you interpret it. In other words, another case of "beauty is in the eye of beholder" - here as confirmation bias.

Public opinion is fickle and easily roused against targets of opportunity. It rarely lasts long, but it only needs to last long enough to stomp you flat.

You may not force your "crazy bullshit" onto the others, but you'd still want to live according to it, don't you ?

You've gotta admit that it's pretty easy to see how they thought that way, given the technological level of the areas where those ethnicities civilizations were found.

With this there's nothing to interpret
majority of humanity: works as intended
gender whingers: don't

You forgot this part:

But if you really want to go down that road, were I to be in their situation ( delusional ), I'd want to be able to function in the world so I'd accept the treatments and try to get better.

Yes, I will take that hypothetical bullet, hell I'll take a hundred of them.

 

[JustLurksHere]

You know, while I do agree on some general points, there's something that irks me about the way you're presenting your case.

I think it's because it looks so close to richsplaining: "it can never happen to me, therefore my solution is...".

You seem to forget, that where's a will, there's a way. There's always a chance you'll play the role of the Jew when the next round of scapegoating comes.
Just like there are no people you can't break, there's always someone who sees you as curbstompable minority. Show trials are a thing even in so-called democracies - perhaps even especially there.

 

[super_slicer]

You know, while I do agree on some general points, there's something that irks me about the way you're presenting your case.

I think it's because it looks so close to richsplaining: "it can never happen to me, therefore my solution is...".

Oh, that's most likely because I've no interest in being politcally correct. If I said "Well I can't possibly empathize with these people because the circumstances of my life are so radically different I couldn't begin to know what their lives are like, so then isn't it an insult to even try? A degradation of their struggle?" it'd probably sound alot nicer. But it's making use of the same ideology I detest.

I'm also quite unwilling to compromise. For a number of reasons, but the foremost being: their entire argument is absurd.

You seem to forget, that where's a will, there's a way. There's always a chance you'll play the role of the Jew when the next round of scapegoating comes.
Just like there are no people you can't break, there's always someone who sees you as curbstompable minority. Show trials are a thing even in so-called democracies - perhaps even especially there.

That's why we fix them! Or at least try, if we succeed then they won't have a reason to want crazy things because they'll be all better. I'm not trying to put these people in a furnace... jeeze. Nor am I attempting to curbstomp them, people that are sick need help and no, telling them "you're right and everyone else is wrong" is not help. Medical treatment is not violence or oppression.

 

[JustLurksHere]

My point is less about empathizing, more about acknowledging the fact that eventually someone may find you crunchy and tasting good with ketchup.
The social game often needs to be played on MAD rules. Otherwise you'll get stuck with making up new minorities to be used as new scapegoats.

I'm not trying to put these people in a furnace... jeeze.

Now, this is seem to be the point that IMHO many people tend to miss.
In the subhuman game, the hardest part is singling out an arbitrary group and declaring them subhuman in a way that sticks. Your initial solution for the problem they cause doesn't need to involve furnaces (or "reeducation" camps)...that can be always adjusted down the line. It doesn't even need to happen during your lifetime.

I mean in case of this particular group, I do think their self-diagnosis is not quite correct and their proposed solutions tend to be counterproductive, yet the group at least seems to be too large for the problem to be completely artificial. Shooting the messenger rarely changes the message. So, if there is a real problem generating this group, what is it exactly and should we go about moderating it and - if possible - potentially even solving it ?

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

There was a quote about how an insane society must view a sane man as the only insane person. I can't recall who said it, but it pretty much applies to selective groups of people who, for all intents and purposes, must be larger than an exact minority, but smaller than a majority and are still relevant enough to have their voices heard. I think when you go the route of compelled speech and kowtowing to the demands of those who may not be "normal" by the perception of their peers, you start to see people who are increasingly radicalized from both sides. Those who are mentally ill need treatment, not empathy. They need to be told that they are the problem with themselves, and there are ways to alleviate their condition, if nothing else. When you kowtow and give them free reign to do as they wish and the consequences are only felt later, you start seeing people who will try to restore the status quo come out of the woodwork,

The issue is, when you have places like 4chan, reddit, twitter, etc that are essentially confirmation-bias echo chambers, you do little to assuage the common man of their concerns over the current trajectory of society. Either the right-wingers will hold all the power for however long, or the lefties will exert their influence and make it difficult to hold an opinion openly. Both are basically treading their extreme policies too close to the norm, and that's concerning. We need an even-minded centrist to take control and right the ship before this fucker hits an iceberg. At that point, the lefties will be demanding more lifeboats be construction out of the sinking ship while the right-wingers will deny that the ship is sinking until it becomes too obvious to deny, at which point they will then claim they knew it all along and the sinking isn't as bad as it actually is.

 

[JustLurksHere]

If you want to go through quotes, a well-known one is: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”. While you may never know which changes are really necessary and productive, playing towards calcification a.k.a. "preserving status quo" is a long-term loosing strategy, at least if you consider a long enough term (and 20 years is at most medium range when it comes to societal changes; many of the recent problems seem to come from technology changing far faster than society is able to adapt to it; also hitting physical limits of human species).

Of course, that quote somehow fails to acknowledge that's it's usually the winners that decide afterwards what was good and what evil. (also, arguably, there should be air quotes around 'good' in that quote) In more recent popculture IIRC it went somewhere along the lines of "why nobody calls it a treason if it succeeds ?".

My take on this is something like: "Let me tell you a secret: every single tradition began one day. So, why couldn't this be the day ?".

 

[super_slicer]

My point is less about empathizing, more about acknowledging the fact that eventually someone may find you crunchy and tasting good with ketchup.
The social game often needs to be played on MAD rules. Otherwise you'll get stuck with making up new minorities to be used as new scapegoats.


Now, this is seem to be the point that IMHO many people tend to miss.
In the subhuman game, the hardest part is singling out an arbitrary group and declaring them subhuman in a way that sticks. Your initial solution for the problem they cause doesn't need to involve furnaces (or "reeducation" camps)...that can be always adjusted down the line. It doesn't even need to happen during your lifetime.

Nah, we in the civilized world have laws against those sort of things.

If you want to go through quotes, a well-known one is: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”.

Since you're so worried about being persecuted, I'd think this would be great motivation for you to get on the side of good ( you know, the people who aren't using subversion and militant action to try to destroy best the civilization ever created ) and exactly why we must make a stand against these people. If by some miraculous feat they succeed; humanity will be thrown into a dark age of racism, witch hunts, and intellectual ( maybe even technoogical ) regression.

We had a pretty nice landmark victory the other day when ultra chad Donald Trump banned the filth that is critical race theory training from being conducted at federal agencies here in the U.S.A. . Hopefully next will be a ban from schools and any universities that want some of that federal backing. Then onto the outright fabrication that is gender studies.

My take on this is something like: "Let me tell you a secret: every single tradition began one day. So, why couldn't this be the day ?".

This isn't about tradition, it's about: truth, science and facts. The ideologies these people believe in were created explicitly to be self-serving by those that had a grudge against the established order because it didn't put them above others.

 

[XSI]

(A whole post)

I'm not sure what sides you're actually arguing for there, but I will point out that a centrist is considered an extremist by the extremists. After all, the center is an extreme to people who consider their brand of extremism to be normal
And that's pretty much what happened in society. All the centrists are told they're impossible extremists now because they're still holding their centrist views, so you will never get a centrist in charge- They either get the support of one of the extremes or they don't have the votes

 

[JustLurksHere]

Nah, we in the civilized world have laws against those sort of things.

...like Jim Crow or Blutschutzgesetz ? or - you know - like certain topics on this forum are kind of illegal or there are plans of making them so ?
That's the 'might makes right' right there and doesn't really work. ...Well, it kind of does, but not quite in the sense you've probably meant it.

Using laws against social changes tends to be the wrong answer, even if it initially seems effective.
Once you declare a group "subhuman" or "a slave race", the social contract around it breaks up.
If you're in position to eradicate it fast enough, it may even benefit you in the short run. But if they're given the Jewish dilemma of either getting shot on the street or peacefully waiting on their ticket to Auschwitz, they could still do quite a bit of damage on their way out.
Though even if you succeed, you risk either morale damage or making your side more rabid.

...try to destroy best the civilization ever created

Once you forget that building such is a process that should never end (at least as long as a species remains sapient and capable of free thought) as the goal changes a little with every step you take, you're already a living fossil.

As for EE's current Bully-in-Chief, DJ Fraud, the only significant reason to bring him up (wrt. EE's internal politics) is to point out how much he fucked over significant portion of people that elected him. Not that the opposing candidate is any less fraudulent, if for slightly different reasons. The shell game the EE's election process is, rigged so that One Party (a.k.a. The Funding Fathers) always wins, just makes me sad. Especially given the corruptive effect it has on elections in Europe - both directly and indirectly.