Venting thread that still excludes eddy (2)

Discussions worth keeping around later.
User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Chagen »

If you tip-toe around and cherry-pick the correct subs (and by that I mean "stick to the leftist subs and stay far the fuck away from everything else") then it's okay. Unfortunately for me, my leftist sympathies combined with my otaku background result in me not always agreeing with my peers and then the popcorn explodes.

I despise the way the voting and link systems intertwine to prioritize anti-intellectual circlejerking however. Also the commenting system is a fucking mess compared a forum, if you're not quick to comment and get updankedvoted then it's basically impossible to actually get anyone to notice your comment (since they wont scroll all the way down to see your post), whereas a forum just lets you comment and then everyone who checks the end of the thread will see yours. Reddit as a whole seems designed to discourage discussion and promote mindless noncontextual comments without much thought placed behind them (why people use it as a serious discussion platform boggles my mind).

The most annoying part was that this guy just flat-out said "I don't debate with pedos" which means he gets to just slander me and then refuse to listen to any of my arguments.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
احمکي ارش-ھجن
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by احمکي ارش-ھجن »

Chagen wrote:If you tip-toe around and cherry-pick the correct subs (and by that I mean "stick to the leftist subs and stay far the fuck away from everything else") then it's okay. Unfortunately for me, my leftist sympathies combined with my otaku background result in me not always agreeing with my peers and then the popcorn explodes.

I despise the way the voting and link systems intertwine to prioritize anti-intellectual circlejerking however. Also the commenting system is a fucking mess compared a forum, if you're not quick to comment and get updankedvoted then it's basically impossible to actually get anyone to notice your comment (since they wont scroll all the way down to see your post), whereas a forum just lets you comment and then everyone who checks the end of the thread will see yours. Reddit as a whole seems designed to discourage discussion and promote mindless noncontextual comments without much thought placed behind them (why people use it as a serious discussion platform boggles my mind).

The most annoying part was that this guy just flat-out said "I don't debate with pedos" which means he gets to just slander me and then refuse to listen to any of my arguments.
I dunno how people can think anime is pedo, so fuck them. No-one will understand us man...
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Chagen »

Well the actual discussion was on the legality of lolicon/shotacon porn. This guy wanted to throw it in with real CP, I disagreed, and it pretty much went like this:

Him: Prosecute anyone who distributes this stuff,
Me: But it's fictional, and just a drawing. Feel free to disagree, but don't call for art to be banned just because you don't like it.
Him: lmao "it's not illegal" is the best think you can say about your drawn CP, pedo.
Me: But it's not illegal and that's all that really matters? It doesn't actually encourage molestation anyway *link to animenewsnetwork.com article on a danish newspaper reporting such a thing*
Him: lmao anime news site [never mind that it's well-known for being on the left when it comes to political viewpoints]
Me: Holy fuck that ad hominem *direct link to the fucking report itself*
Him: Whatevs pedo, I don't debate with perverts. Get some help sicko before you boink a kid!
Me: Well fuck you too then

In a previous thread I had been downvoted to the point of being able to only comment once every 8 minutes or so on that sub for the crime of pointing out that maybe fictional drawings shouldn't be banned. Fuckin' hell.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
احمکي ارش-ھجن
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by احمکي ارش-ھجن »

Well, it depends if it's not sexualized lolicon...
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Chagen »

That's implicit in the definition of the word.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
احمکي ارش-ھجن
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by احمکي ارش-ھجن »

Chagen wrote:That's implicit in the definition of the word.
And you don't see this as related to pedophilia?
Even if it's fictional, it's still a representation...
I'm sure no-one who looks at it wants to boink kids in real life, but still...
I might however, say, that it is better than... actual CP... or worse, doing the act.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Chagen »

Under that logic a murder in a film or a video game is pro-killing people in real life, or a BDSM porn film is pro assaulting and enslaving people.
Your logic is a little faulty.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
احمکي ارش-ھجن
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by احمکي ارش-ھجن »

That is not the same:
Most people don't watch the murder for the sake of sexual gratification, and people watch BDSM porn because they are sexually gratified by it. And BDSM is voluntary... so they can't be necessarily pro-enslaving or pro-assualting. In anycase, lolicon is not explicitly pro-pedophilia, but it is all the same; a sexual gratification towards mid-pubescent or pre-pubescent children, in the form of a fictional drawing.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

User avatar
Yiuel Raumbesrairc
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Nyeriborma, Elme, Melomers

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Yiuel Raumbesrairc »

Chagen wrote:Under that logic a murder in a film or a video game is pro-killing people in real life, or a BDSM porn film is pro assaulting and enslaving people.
Your logic is a little faulty.
There is representation, yes. There are many things seen in the world, yes. But pornographic art is not simply a representation, it is made to sexually arouse. It is not, simply, a representation. Also, lolicon or shoutacon are not exactly representations; both child sexual abuse and child pornography consumption can easily be achieved without any child representation.

However, Wikipedia makes needed distinctions in such a situation, some of which your angry guy failed to do.

Still, to use a sentence used elsewhere, lawful does not make good.
"Ez amnar o amnar e cauč."
- Daneydzaus

----
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by ---- »

احمک ارش-ھجنو wrote:I'm sure no-one who looks at it wants to boink kids in real life, but still...
lol you're being sarcastic right?

User avatar
Chagen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Chagen »

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:
There is representation, yes. There are many things seen in the world, yes. But pornographic art is not simply a representation, it is made to sexually arouse. It is not, simply, a representation
And the murder scene is meant to arouse excitement, tension, or worry. Your point? Us westerners have the strange tendency to elevate sexuality above everything else into this mystic thing which must be tightly controlled lest horrors happen. I'm not advocating for rampant licentiousness.
Also, lolicon or shoutacon are not exactly representations; both child sexual abuse and child pornography consumption can easily be achieved without any child representation.
I'm not even sure what this sentence means. By being fictional drawings, there is no actual child sexual abuse happening. Like, dude...the characters aren't real. That's the entire point.
Still, to use a sentence used elsewhere, lawful does not make good.
Correct, but I have yet to see one good argument for banning these kinds of works.
Theta wrote:
احمک ارش-ھجنو wrote:I'm sure no-one who looks at it wants to boink kids in real life, but still...
lol you're being sarcastic right?
The vast majority of lolicons or shotacons are not pedophiles and do not screw kids. I have literally not seen an single community for either kind of people which doesn't ban pedophiles on sight.
Nūdhrēmnāva naraśva, dṛk śraṣrāsit nūdhrēmanīṣṣ iźdatīyyīm woḥīm madhēyyaṣṣi.
satisfaction-DEF.SG-LOC live.PERFECTIVE-1P.INCL but work-DEF.SG-PRIV satisfaction-DEF.PL.NOM weakeness-DEF.PL-DAT only lead-FUT-3P

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by jal »

Chagen wrote:The vast majority of lolicons or shotacons are not pedophiles and do not screw kids. I have literally not seen an single community for either kind of people which doesn't ban pedophiles on sight.
Bold claims and anacdotal evidence do not proof make.


JAL

Thry
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Thry »

It is meant for arousal, but it is fictional. Those kids do not exist. That, epidemiologically, pedophiles will tend to like lolicon (maybe like zoophiles tend to like furry?) is debatable (as to which extent, I think it's evident there is correlation). But that's not a reason to ban it, is it? Gore films are there for narrative satisfaction too, one at killing and seeing people's insides, and surely the subset of violent psychopathic murderers in the population will be more drawn to it, but you don't try to ban those, which are at most a symptom for them - you address the problem and arrest the criminals. We think it's legitimate, even if some people think distasteful, to enjoy gore. Or, say, rape games in roleplay sex.

Thought is not a crime, despite what religion may say*, and as always it boils down to the same thing: religions are obsessed with sex and policing our sexual lives and fantasies. They always treat sex in a different way. It made sense for those views to exist when we actually died of simple STDs but now... give it a rest.

*See, not even psychiatric science (!) is as bold as to define someone who enjoys lolicon a "pedophile" (disorder: pathological sense) unambiguously:
DMS-5 wrote:Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.

Thry
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Thry »

Jal, I think he's right about the attitude of zero tolerance towards pedophilia within the lolicon/shotacon communities. In furry communities, zoophobia abounds. Whether it's a defense mechanism or reflects a strong dissociation I cannot say, but the phenomenon is there.

Thry
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Thry »

I'm not even sure what this sentence means. By being fictional drawings, there is no actual child sexual abuse happening. Like, dude...the characters aren't real. That's the entire point.
Would a depiction of a real person as a kid, but who is now a (consenting) adult, be bannable because they're real people, in your view?

User avatar
Torco
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Torco »

احمک ارش-ھجنو wrote:
KathAveara wrote:My current stance on same-sex marriage is: I really wish that it would all get sorted out and stop being an issue. I don't care what the outcome is, since it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I just want the discussions to go away, cos they're not interesting.
If you care about human rights and social equality, you WOULD care about the outcomes. It would be a problem if the oppressors succeeded in continuing further social inequality.
this is the kind of bleeding heart sentiment that quite frankly belongs more on tumblr than in civilized company. explaining to people why they *ought* to care about this or that is fine, and any proper person of character should, I think, encourage such a thing; indeed this is what a lot of people have been trying to do here: hey, kath, you should care about this because this and that [thought he quality of the cases made here is quite wanting]

but to go "if you were a good person you would care about this particular cause i care about otherwise you're a meanie", which is what arabic guy's post here amounts to... just, no. what? no.

One has a limited number of fucks to give. no one can sincerely care about all of the things that are unjust in the world, and making people care about this or that is half of what politics is about. Quite frankly, when there's bombs falling on hospitals and old people's homes, slavery with victims in the millions, hunger, disease, worldwide capitalism that creates artificial scarcity to bleed people of their time and energies, torture, racially motivated murders, and stoning to death of homosexuals in countries uncivilized around the world... i'm quite sorry for my french but excuse the fuck out of me for not caring about whether a large minority of first worlders from affluent countries have their monogamy recognized by their respective governments. the oppressors will win unless you care about my rights, you're a terrible person for not caring said the first worlder on his iphone made by foxconn employees. good grief. Now, I personally do, cause it does affect me, I have loved ones who are queer and I care personally about sexual freedom and whatnot, but someone might not care, and they're no kind of terrible people for not caring about it: what was the last thing you did to stop the really big injustices of the world? you know, the ones that aren't firstworlders having slightly less civil rights in affluent countries, but, you know, the ones causing billions of people to be killed, imprisoned, tortured, terrorized, their lives destroyed and their loved ones killed? no? nothing? but yeah, the slightly less civil rights of first worlders are Serious Business.

And yes, of course they are Serious Business... none of what I've said means, of course, that gay marriage is not important or just or a valid struggle for people to fight for: it absolutely is. may it be signed into law throughout the world, I do sincerely hope it. but you can't expect to go "if you were a decent human being you would care about this grievous oppression" and go unchallenged.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Civil rights" vs. "human rights" seems like a spurious distinction to me.
Respectully, I don't think that would be a phrase seriously taken by, say, the palestinians having their homes bombed and their loved ones shot because they're palestinians... nor by the homosexuals being denied the right to breathe, which is quite different from the right to marry and hold tax excemptions and hospital visitation rights.

_____

well, it looks like i'm kinda late to the party.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by jal »

Torco wrote:i'm quite sorry for my french but excuse the fuck out of me for not caring about whether a large minority of first worlders from affluent countries have their monogamy recognized by their respective governments.
That's a "dear muslima" fallacy, which was already a bad argument before it was called that.


JAL

----
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by ---- »

Torco wrote:
"Civil rights" vs. "human rights" seems like a spurious distinction to me.
Respectully, I don't think that would be a phrase seriously taken by, say, the palestinians having their homes bombed and their loved ones shot because they're palestinians... nor by the homosexuals being denied the right to breathe, which is quite different from the right to marry and hold tax excemptions and hospital visitation rights.
I don't get what you're trying to say. You didn't quote anything else in my post, but the rest of the post was my explanation of what I meant by that phrase, and what I meant was that in every instance where someone is fighting for their 'civil' rights they're either actually fighting for their human rights or fighting for something they aren't actually entitled to (I can't think of any examples of the second but I'm putting it here for completeness' sake). Human rights seems to include both not being bombed and being able to see your relatives when they're in the hospital. Is there something objectionable about this? Just because one is more serious than the other doesn't mean they aren't in the same category, in the same way that stepping on a rock and getting your arm cut off are both in the category of things that are painful.

(I also find it a little annoying that you seem to think I'm somehow removed from those more serious problems)

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by zompist »

Torco wrote:
"Civil rights" vs. "human rights" seems like a spurious distinction to me.
Respectully, I don't think that would be a phrase seriously taken by, say, the palestinians having their homes bombed and their loved ones shot because they're palestinians... nor by the homosexuals being denied the right to breathe, which is quite different from the right to marry and hold tax excemptions and hospital visitation rights.
So only people having their homes bombed need to have their problems solved? Don't you think that's... rather a low bar? Also a huge gift to all the oppressors of the world? Just avoid bombing people, and you can do anything else you want!

By the same logic, if you break a bone you should not bother to get it set, because it's not cancer.

Also, I don't think you're being bombed in Chile right now, so you're not being any more serious here than any First Worlder. You're playing at being Very Concerned With The Really Serious Things simply to shout down somebody else's issue. If you were that focused on the Palestinians, you'd be too damn busy to go help the homophobes.

User avatar
Torco
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Torco »

Theta: well, maybe civil rights are a subset of human rights? i think there's a case to be made here about that at a legal level... but when you say "human rights violation" you imagine some third world dictator using chlorine gas against some ethnic ghetto, not tax breaks and visitation rights, and there's a reason for that. We intuit that for something to be a violation of human rights it needs to be like... really really bad, like mass deportations and whatnot.
That's a "dear muslima" fallacy, which was already a bad argument before it was called that.
no it's not, it will become obvious why in a second

also, zompist, yes I am for all intents and purposes here a regular first worlders, as is most of the well off segments of my country, thank you very much. I have no idea what relevance that might hold. It doesn't make me less serious, because it's not somehow not serious to care about something which isnt' the most dire and terrible injustice in the planet: What *is* not serious is pretending that everyone who doesn't care about this particular issue, which is far from being the direst, is somehow a terrible terrible person: If we were speaking about someone saying "i don't care about the most evil thing that's happening right now" then *maybe* there'd be a bit of a case there -thought it still strikes me as fanatical to insult people simply for not sharing one's values and concerns-, but this is not even the case. I'm as first world as you here, but it's not me who's saying "either you care about my first world problems or you're awful", important as first world problems are.
So only people having their homes bombed need to have their problems solved?
By the same logic, if you break a bone you should not bother to get it set, because it's not cancer.
Of course not. This is transparently not what i was saying. see, because this is what you missed.
You're playing at being Very Concerned With The Really Serious Things simply to shout down somebody else's issue
I'm not. Unlike the rest of the fine guys and gals here, who are offering various defenses of Caring
More: show
like jal, calling my argument a dear muslima, which basically boils down to saying yes we should Care about that but also we should Care about this.
What i'm offering here is not a redirection of everyone's Caring, saying "you should care about kids being slaughtered instead of a certain legal status that's slightly advantageous and not available to a certain subset of people in affluent countries. " I'm saying people are not obliged to care about whatever it is you care about, and whatever you care about being a true and just cause doesn't change this reality. Kath's whole sin here, for which everyone promptly jumped to shout her down [sorry if i'm mistaking pronouns here, Kath, i've dreadful memory] is saying she doesn't Care about this issue and that she's tired of hearing about it. A good advocate for a cause, upon finding someone who doesn't Care about what the advocate Cares about tries to persuade, or leaves them be. A fanatic, on the other hand, immediately jumps at whoever doesn't Care for That Which Everyone Must Care . You don't speak that way about Our Savior, billy, he saved your soul and you're grateful and you will experience the appropriate emotional response to this which is sincere gratitude, and if you don't experience this sincere gratitude you're going to go to hell, mister. so repent.

No, I'm not offering a defense of Caring. I'm offering a defense of not caring. The struggle for equal rights for gays in the first world is important enough, but it doesn't mean you can get on some high horse and shout down people for not caring about it simply because you think it's important. The only reason i bring genocides and slavery to the table is to point out that there are plenty of causes that are Just and Good, such as gay marriage, and slavery, and all those other things. and someone not caring about any one of them, while it may be wrong, is certainly not good grounds for bile and scorn. Try to convince someone that gay marriage is indeed important and something they should care about? fine. shouting them down for failing to care about this one cause which you should happen to care about? not fine.

I don't approve of such behavior, of shouting down someone for expressing lack of concern for the shouterdown's pet cause, much less in a thread the sole purpose of is precisely expressing grievances, and I express this lack of approval. If the struggle is so acrid that doing that is now letting down the proglib side, or helping homophobes, or "setting back progress towards social justice" then maybe we're losing a bit of perspective here.

Thry
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Thry »

...much less in a thread the sole purpose of is precisely expressing grievances
That makes it worse, not better: if the topic was already present here, reacting to it is pissing on the people for whom it is important, to voice such a trivial thing as her not caring about it. It's the reason sirdanilot was kicked out. Someone vents about depression and I instantly vent the next minute that my depressed mother is such an annoyance to me because she no longer bakes my favorite cakes. My neighbors die in a fire and the ambulance is too loud for me. That something is true doesn't mean it's adequate to voice it, and doing so entails a reaction. Your lack of sympathy will make others be unsympathetical towards you, and you cannot prevent that once you have started it. So you make compromises - be completely honest, be adequate, be tactful, be selective, be self-centered, take risks...

Perspective and social skills are as very much a part of human interaction as the right to express ourselves.

An additional issue pops up when we believe it doesn't affect our lives, but we're just ignorant to what extent it does. If I'm from a traditional Christian family where everybody's heterosexual but my little brother, who is in the closet, and I voice these thoughts routinarily because they don't affect me, I may not realize how relevant they were until I've, said, destroyed a little boy's self-esteem. As much as I agree with you these feelings of not-caring are okay to voice, so do I agree that it's okay to shun them, because it makes for an overall a better society*. You simply do not know a priori where it's okay to voice them. Certainly somewhere where there are homosexual people, more so a venting thread where that topic was active, is not the place. Some people grow to be self-conscious of how selfish they come off and may improve for future interactions. And, *when enough people are self-conscious about this, we start getting a less hostile, indifferent society for homosexuals.

And as much as a particular individual could find the reaction hostile towards them and grow even less sympathetical to, say, this particular cause of gay marriage; it's also true that overall shunning it makes the voice of those who care louder (it emphasizes it's a Serious Issue to them - and the shunning person wasn't even relevant to the issue to begin with, per their own stance). By allowing someone to voice said thoughts - defending them even; and then simultaneously fending them off from the reaction they get, you're doing the cause a disservice - you dilute positive voice and are accomplice to the silence.

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by zompist »

Torco wrote:No, I'm not offering a defense of Caring. I'm offering a defense of not caring. The struggle for equal rights for gays in the first world is important enough, but it doesn't mean you can get on some high horse and shout down people for not caring about it simply because you think it's important. The only reason i bring genocides and slavery to the table is to point out that there are plenty of causes that are Just and Good, such as gay marriage, and slavery, and all those other things. and someone not caring about any one of them, while it may be wrong, is certainly not good grounds for bile and scorn.
You aren't normally given to excesses of rhetoric, so I don't know why you're doing it now. I think it's in really poor taste to invoke bombed-out Palestinians as pretend soldiers in your rhetorical war. It's simply not the case that everyone must focus all their attention on Palestinian bombing until they are allowed to talk about gay marriage. If that wasn't your intention, then maybe don't escalate the rhetoric up to 11. You brought up examples intended to rile people up. Don't act surprised because they got riled up.
Try to convince someone that gay marriage is indeed important and something they should care about? fine. shouting them down for failing to care about this one cause which you should happen to care about? not fine.
This is not a distinction in people's arguing styles. It's a distinction in how willing you are to listen.

When you find an issue you like— bombing Palestinians, I guess— then people are "trying to be convincing". When you find an issue you don't care about so much, then they're uttering "bile and scorn". Again, you're just dialing up the rhetoric for some reason. It certainly doesn't give anyone any guidance on how not to carry on an argument without offending Torco And His Backup Palestinians.

You're right that people won't care about all issues. On the other hand, declaring in a public place that you don't care is not just a bit of meaningless apathy. Furthermore declaring that racism and sexism are issues but homophobia isn't, basically right in front of a number of gay people, is also hardly just a passing cute remark. Saying such things is going to generate some pushback.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by KathTheDragon »

Torco wrote:[sorry if i'm mistaking pronouns here, Kath, i've dreadful memory]
Spot-on with your pronouns, Torco.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by KathTheDragon »

zompist wrote:Furthermore declaring that racism and sexism are issues but homophobia isn't
I do believe that's not what I said. I said they are issues that are much more relevant to me. Incidentally, they're also far more salient and deep-seated issues, and also affect a far larger proportion of the population. I believe both are over 50%. Try to tell me with a straight face that legallising same-sex marriage is more important than ending racism and/or sexism (or even writing full and total equality into law)

User avatar
Dewrad
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:02 pm

Re: Venting thread that excludes sirdanilot

Post by Dewrad »

KathAveara wrote:Try to tell me with a straight face that legallising same-sex marriage is more important than ending racism and/or sexism (or even writing full and total equality into law)
Is this something that anyone has actually said in this thread though?
Some useful Dravian links: Grammar - Lexicon - Ask a Dravian
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)

Post Reply