University snowflakes: banning free speech, applauding

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › University snowflakes: banning free speech, applauding

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2102607 6-Oct-2018 18:12

elpenguino:

Bear in mind that on the internet (GZ included) there's usually a woefully low standard of discourse involved in any issue that involves political subject matter.

I don't agree with that. In my experience, the discourse on GZ is usually way ahead of the imbecilic name-calling and trading of insults that tends to pass for discourse on many other forums (cough, Stuff comments, cough). With some exceptions, most people seem to be pretty good about debating ideas and concepts without resorting to insults and crude jibes.

Of course, like all discussions where involving issues that people feel strongly about, things will sometimes get out of hand. But MF does a good job at quickly jumping on boorish behaviour, which keeps things fairly civil almost all the time.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2103301 8-Oct-2018 12:53

These days being offended has become a hotly contested form of social capital. There is so much material depicting people being offended and 'calling out' others. Usually followed by a unhelpful and partisan response from supporters, detractors and trolls.

I do wonder to what extent people with genuine and serious grievances get lost in the noise.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2103323 8-Oct-2018 13:19

Very good point.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2104106 9-Oct-2018 20:04

MikeAqua:
These days being offended has become a hotly contested form of social capital. There is so much material depicting people being offended and 'calling out' others. Usually followed by a unhelpful and partisan response from supporters, detractors and trolls.

I do wonder to what extent people with genuine and serious grievances get lost in the noise.

Totally agree. The internet fueled outrage culture really doesn’t help anyone except those who provide the platforms for outrage. The reality is that every issue is a shade of gray but the current culture is one where if you believe black is correct then anyone who suggests a white solution is a “snowflake” or a “fascist”.

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2104122 9-Oct-2018 20:53

Personally I don't think that's true it just happens to suit the talkshows.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2104141 9-Oct-2018 21:15

Handle9: The reality is that every issue is a shade of gray

Ummm - no.

Plenty of the most vigorous "debates" and "vociferous arguments" these days, when stripped down to the fundamentals, are issues of right and wrong, fact and fiction, fake news and truth.

The "both sides" (shades of grey) position gifted the world Trump, anti-vaxxers, and a belief by conservative talkback radio listening and facebook addicted drongoes that liberals want to ban Santa.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2104288 10-Oct-2018 09:29

Fred99:

Handle9: The reality is that every issue is a shade of gray

Ummm - no.

Plenty of the most vigorous "debates" and "vociferous arguments" these days, when stripped down to the fundamentals, are issues of right and wrong, fact and fiction, fake news and truth.

The "both sides" (shades of grey) position gifted the world Trump, anti-vaxxers, and a belief by conservative talkback radio listening and facebook addicted drongoes that liberals want to ban Santa.

Correct. People believe the Earth is flat despite evidence. People believe vaccines are harmful despite the original study that brought this idea to the mainstream was shown to be faulty and a money making scheme. People believe "there are good people on both sides" when talking about fascists and extremists.

In some discussions there is there's only right and wrong. Any "shade" is murking these topics.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2104327 10-Oct-2018 09:51

I also believe in absolute values. Some things are always wrong, regardless of circumstances, and some things are always right.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2105428 10-Oct-2018 11:35

freitasm:

Correct. People believe the Earth is flat despite evidence. People believe vaccines are harmful despite the original study that brought this idea to the mainstream was shown to be faulty and a money making scheme. People believe "there are good people on both sides" when talking about fascists and extremists.

In some discussions there is there's only right and wrong. Any "shade" is murking these topics.

The flat earth society recently posted they have members all around the globe. Disclaimer: I saw a post of the tweet not the actual tweet, but it's too funny to disbelieve.

Right and wrong is ultimately subjective. It's an evolving subjectivity with a reasonably high level of community consensus. Some things that most people would have considered 'right' a few hundred years ago are now generally accepted as 'wrong'.

Some researchers have looked to animal behaviour (especially primates) to develop 'bottom up' first principals of ethics. Based on what I have seen, they have come up with a shortlist of empathy, reciprocity and solidarity.

Something I find interesting about views on what is 'right' is they behave like any other successful invention. There are early and late adopters. Early adopters pay a high price for uptake and late adopters may experience difficulties because they don't adapt to a new view on what is 'right'.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2105486 10-Oct-2018 11:59

Kindly explain to me what can in any way be considered 'right', by any definition of the term, about an adult man having forcible sex with a two year-old girl, and then murdering her rather horribly? I believe this recently happened in India.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2105584 10-Oct-2018 13:22

Rikkitic:

Kindly explain to me what can in any way be considered 'right', by any definition of the term, about an adult man having forcible sex with a two year-old girl, and then murdering her rather horribly? I believe this recently happened in India.

Nothing. I have been taught that is wrong. Most people have an innate sense of right and wrong that was socialised into us at an early age. Your use of the term 'considered' emphasises that.

In the absence of that socialisation - what would we think of the atrocities you have described?

I'm not arguing that certain things aren't wrong, I'm just arguing those determination are largely social constructs.

For example: -

- There is evidence (https://teara.govt.nz/en/hokakatanga-maori-sexualities/print) that pre-european NZ was relaxed about same-sex sexual activity;
- Then European missionaries came along and made it 'wrong';
- That thinking persisted as a majority view until some time in the second half of last century in NZ, when tolerance emerged followed by increasing acceptance;
- It's now widely considered 'wrong' to think/say that being gay is 'wrong'.

IMO that recent change is positive. But then, I've been socialised to think that for the last twenty years.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2105605 10-Oct-2018 13:57

There are many examples like you cite, also amongst pre-invasion native Americans and other aboriginal cultures that had much more enlightened attitudes than the missionaries who 'civilised' them. My point is just that there are some things that are so wrong, that no creature capable of thought could possibly regard them any other way. I don't think these are relative, or a matter of socialisation. I think they are things that any reasoning creature would instinctively shrink in horror from. Which is not to say that some would not engage in such acts anyway. With cognisance also comes the capacity to do evil.

I think the fact that all societies have concepts of right and wrong at all, and that most agree in broad terms what those mean, indicates that we do have some kind of intrinsic values from which the rest stems. Many societies go off the rails and commit widespread atrocities, but they don't advertise the fact and they usually try to justify it in some way. This suggests that they know it is wrong and feel shame about it, even as they do it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2105659 10-Oct-2018 15:26

Rikkitic:

My point is just that there are some things that are so wrong, that no creature capable of thought could possibly regard them any other way. I don't think these are relative, or a matter of socialisation. I think they are things that any reasoning creature would instinctively shrink in horror from.

I'd like to think so too .. but can you point to evidence of this? I can't.

Lots of animals (including some quite primitive ones) find violence visited upon con-specifics distressing. Not sure if they shrink in horror but stress/flight responses are triggered.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2105675 10-Oct-2018 15:49

Some animals, like bonobos and elephants, are known to show compassion. This is the ability to put yourself in someone else's place and feel what they feel. This has to be the starting point for any concept of right and wrong. It is not learned. It simply is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2106060 11-Oct-2018 09:24

Rikkitic:

Some animals, like bonobos and elephants, are known to show compassion. This is the ability to put yourself in someone else's place and feel what they feel. This has to be the starting point for any concept of right and wrong. It is not learned. It simply is.

It's easy to anthropomorphise animals.

They show consoling behaviour - empathy isn't proven. For evidence of empathy, you have to know (not infer) what they are thinking.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4