Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Irkjoe wrote: You aren't going to be able to "educate" people who have an entirely different world view. We no longer agree on first principles, we aren't even watching the same movie.
Given how much my own worldview has changed since I was in my 20's through education and exposure to different ideas, I would have to disagree with this statement.
Here's the thing - 'normalising' a point of view by repeatedly exposing people to it works both ways. The way to get people to accept your differences isn't to shout at them until they realise they're wrong, it's to make them so used to seeing your differences that they no longer perceive them as in any way noteworthy. That can be a power for good as well as evil.
Irkjoe wrote: You aren't going to be able to "educate" people who have an entirely different world view. We no longer agree on first principles, we aren't even watching the same movie.
If thats true the only way for you to stop them is to exterminate them. So... enjoy that. Do what they do because they do it. That type of juvenile logic always ends well.
So indoctrination and destruction are the only two answers? How did that work in the middle east?
@insaniak Does the point of view you're normalizing need to be contingent on facts? I read your post as forcing propaganda on people. For example, Nazis look at statistical biological differences between races; how do you educate them into egalitarianism when the data, while inconclusive, points toward a certain direction? How would you change Richard Spencer's mind about IQ differences?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:00:12
Irkjoe wrote: You aren't going to be able to "educate" people who have an entirely different world view. We no longer agree on first principles, we aren't even watching the same movie.
If thats true the only way for you to stop them is to exterminate them. So... enjoy that. Do what they do because they do it. That type of juvenile logic always ends well.
So indoctrination and destruction are the only two answers? How did that work in the middle east?
It's only indoctrination if the education comes without critical thinking.
Saying that person is a person because look at the evidence, and do the math isn't indoctrination.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Humanities greatest potential lies in our ability to assess the world around us and come to good conclusions. All of our great leaps forward come from that. People taught from an early age, not a list of facts with no evidence to support them, but how to assess the data and come to good conclusions, don't fall easily for indoctrination bs.
You don't educate people about another persons issues by telling them issues exist. You present the evidence, do the math, and come to good conclusions.
I could summarize pretty much every major issue between groups of people in the world right now as some group or another not even looking at the facts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:00:37
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
GoldenHorde wrote:Whatabout those ethnicities in current day forced slave labour camps being co-opted into production?
Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive concerns?
Why the need to derail from this one?
Jerram wrote:If people are advertising their beliefs on they're clothes, yeah I'm going to judge them. And if their wearing a swastika or a picture of Mao or the symbol of the red army, they're most likely douchebags I have no interest in being around them. If you don't like that I group those three together that's your problem.
I have to ask, why did you feel the need to mention that you group them?
I've no love for any of the three you mentioned, but why mention them at all?
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches its a natural part of the conversation, and heck peanut butter and jelly is a natural combination. Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together. Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
Because you're allowed to call people nazis and fascists here.
But have concerns about a products origin. Oh no no no no you're a whataboutist fashosauris-rex
I mean the "GW uses slave labour" thing was utter tosh and the poster couldn't actually produce evidence to support their claims and all it attracted was people like you who use threads as an excuse to foghorn your ideological hatred.
As for the mods, you know exactly who the bad actors on this site are and the fact that some of them are still active despite posting some of the most atrocious and vicious bile says a lot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:06:39
GoldenHorde wrote:Whatabout those ethnicities in current day forced slave labour camps being co-opted into production?
Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive concerns?
Because you're allowed to call people nazis and fascists here.
But have concerns about a products origin. Oh no no no no you're a whataboutist fashosauris-rex
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism as the owners of the capital are taking the excess value of the products which the workers produce.
And those capitalists will always seek to maximise the excess value they can take, which means finding workers they can get away with paying the absolute least that they can while still having a working product they can sell.
You don't want to support products of questionable origin? That is everything, you just pick and choose what the questionable origin you will accept is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:06:32
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
GoldenHorde wrote:Whatabout those ethnicities in current day forced slave labour camps being co-opted into production?
Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive concerns?
Because you're allowed to call people nazis and fascists here.
But have concerns about a products origin. Oh no no no no you're a whataboutist fashosauris-rex
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism as the owners of the capital are taking the excess value of the products which the workers produce.
It's ethical because
A> it's contractual that workers agree to trade their time and labour for capital.
B> they're not in a damn gulag or forced labour camp.
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches
But that's not what the conversation was about - it was about *peanut butter sandwiches*, not sandwiches in general. Why bring other sandwiches into it?
In an Ork tactics thread, do we bring in Space Marine tactics because they're both 40k factions?
Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together.
There is no hesitancy to bring them together when they're all present, except when they are brought together when there was no topic to do so.
Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
Because you're allowed to call people nazis and fascists here.
Since this keeps coming up, I'll point out that name-calling is against rule #1. So no, calling someone a nazi or a fascist does potentially land you a warning and/or suspension. That being said, we also look at the context and the discussion around it to determine whether an individual comment warrants a warning or if the whole thing just needs a lock or a reminder to get back on track.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism as the owners of the capital are taking the excess value of the products which the workers produce.
It's ethical because
A> it's contractual that workers agree to trade their time and labour for capital.
Working horrendous jobs to avoid homelessness and starvation isn't what I'd call an "agreement".
Not all contracts are made fairly. I'd have thought you knew that by now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism as the owners of the capital are taking the excess value of the products which the workers produce.
It's ethical because
A> it's contractual that workers agree to trade their time and labour for capital.
Working horrendous jobs to avoid homelessness and starvation isn't what I'd call an "agreement".
Not all contracts are made fairly. I'd have thought you knew that by now.
Irkjoe wrote: You aren't going to be able to "educate" people who have an entirely different world view. We no longer agree on first principles, we aren't even watching the same movie.
Given how much my own worldview has changed since I was in my 20's through education and exposure to different ideas, I would have to disagree with this statement.
Here's the thing - 'normalising' a point of view by repeatedly exposing people to it works both ways. The way to get people to accept your differences isn't to shout at them until they realise they're wrong, it's to make them so used to seeing your differences that they no longer perceive them as in any way noteworthy. That can be a power for good as well as evil.
I'm going to use a RL example that's slightly political but since I'm opening myself up maybe I'll be forgiven.
I'm old enough to where there was no serious discussion about allowing gay marriage and when it started being talked I was of course hell no.
Sometime later as I started to think about it I got to the point (even before main stream democrats) where I thought "well not marriage but maybe their should be a non religious equivalent."
That lasted for at least a decade until a couple things happened back to back, first I read an article arguing for gay marriage from a libertarian point of view that started the wheels turning, then a couple days later this young guy who worked for me comes up to me all excited to show me the wedding toppers for his cake because he was so happy to find a set that said Mr and Mr. and he was just beaming and I couldn't imagine wanting to deny that level of happiness to someone who deserved it as much as he did.
Humanities greatest potential lies in our ability to assess the world around us and come to good conclusions. All of our great leaps forward come from that. People taught from an early age, not a list of facts with no evidence to support them, but how to assess the data and come to good conclusions, don't fall easily for indoctrination bs.
You don't educate people about another persons issues by telling them issues exist. You present the evidence, do the math, and come to good conclusions.
I could summarize pretty much every major issue between groups of people in the world right now as some group or another not even looking at the facts.
I like your optimism but I disagree, I don't think most people's views are evidence based and I don't see much evidence of good conclusions around. See my edited post above. If I showed you undeniable evidence that some races were strictly inferior would you change your views and become a Nazi? What if we assess the data and come to uncomfortable conclusions?
I'm old enough to where there was no serious discussion about allowing gay marriage and when it started being talked I was of course hell no.
Sometime later as I started to think about it I got to the point (even before main stream democrats) where I thought "well not marriage but maybe their should be a non religious equivalent."
But why were you "of course hell no"? Then why did you think "not marriage but maybe a non-religious equivalent" when straight people have been able to get married in non-religious ceremonies for centuries? Marriage is not innately religious.
And LGBT people had been seriously discussing being allowed to marry the people they love for a very long time. Recognition of same-sex relationships was one of the points in the platform of the march on Washington in 1987.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:40:07
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches
But that's not what the conversation was about - it was about *peanut butter sandwiches*, not sandwiches in general. Why bring other sandwiches into it?
In an Ork tactics thread, do we bring in Space Marine tactics because they're both 40k factions?
Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together.
There is no hesitancy to bring them together when they're all present, except when they are brought together when there was no topic to do so.
Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
I don't actually like peanut butter.
Its not a speech, Its a conversation that means the topic is as broad as the participants make it. If I'm talking to a friend who tells me he doesn't like creamy peanut butter and I say yeah and I don't like crunchy peanut butter either and he says that's not part of the topic, I'm going to wonder what he's on.
I think that's the basis of the problem, you see them as different as salt and ketchup because you focus on A and I see them as two brands of peanut butter because I'm more concerned with B
You don't like peanut butter ?????? That explains everything!!!!!
Humanities greatest potential lies in our ability to assess the world around us and come to good conclusions. All of our great leaps forward come from that. People taught from an early age, not a list of facts with no evidence to support them, but how to assess the data and come to good conclusions, don't fall easily for indoctrination bs.
You don't educate people about another persons issues by telling them issues exist. You present the evidence, do the math, and come to good conclusions.
I could summarize pretty much every major issue between groups of people in the world right now as some group or another not even looking at the facts.
I like your optimism but I disagree, I don't think most people's views are evidence based and I don't see much evidence of good conclusions around. See my edited post above. If I showed you undeniable evidence that some races were strictly inferior would you change your views and become a Nazi? What if we assess the data and come to uncomfortable conclusions?
It should be noted that purely logically speaking, even if certain races of people were somehow proven to be "genetically inferior," whatever that means, that wouldn't create a logical basis for those people to be oppressed. No normal human being is currently advocating for the oppression of people with physical and mental disabilities.
That being said, that fact actually supports your position. People in the real world don't become Nazis because they think they found scientific proof that certain people "deserve to be oppressed," because that claim is inherently not scientifically provable in the first place. Instead, people adopt racist talking-points because they want to believe that the things they already feel (e.g., "my group deserves special rights") is logically justified, even if it would never be the result of any coherent scientific narrative. The entire institution of American slavery and anti-black racism is spawned from a flimsy excuse used by white slaveowners to not feel bad about their actions.
However, I still do disagree with your claim that Nazis and racists can't be convinced that they're wrong. All it takes is to talk with them on an emotional or instinctual basis rather than a logical ones. There are countless stories of literal Klan members and Neo-Nazis who suddenly stopped being racist, just because they made friends with someone in a racial minority who they really liked. If you're fighting against an illogical belief, you fight against it on irrational grounds. Figure out why a person holds the prejudices they do, then combat the core cause (whether it be insecurity, jealosy, financial instability, a wish for belonging, etc.) instead of the symptoms. It's really that simple.
I'm old enough to where there was no serious discussion about allowing gay marriage and when it started being talked I was of course hell no.
Sometime later as I started to think about it I got to the point (even before main stream democrats) where I thought "well not marriage but maybe their should be a non religious equivalent."
But why were you "of course hell no"? Then why did you think "not marriage but maybe a non-religious equivalent" when straight people have been able to get married in non-religious ceremonies for centuries? Marriage is not innately religious.
And LGBT people had been seriously discussing being allowed to marry the people they love for a very long time. Recognition of same-sex relationships was one of the points in the platform of the march on Washington in 1987.
Yeah and I've been around longer than that. Between this and you ignoring Insaniak to argue with GH, its apparent you're not interested in doing anything but arguing with people, good bye.
I understand that some people believe these kinds of things can be "educated" away. But humans are not rational, and people are less likely to change their mind when presented with evidence
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:45:16
A Town Called Malus wrote: But why were you "of course hell no"? Then why did you think "not marriage but maybe a non-religious equivalent" when straight people have been able to get married in non-religious ceremonies for centuries? Marriage is not innately religious.
State control of marriage is a dangerous form of eugenics used by autocratic regimes to control what populations are allowed to reproduce and confer them privileges. Never been anything but.
The entire point of civil unions is to remove that possibility, leave the religious part out and put the rules around marriage in the hands of the local community. That can include religion, but doesn't have to.
It can also not include marriage. The institution is not universal and no one should be entitled to it outside of a specific cultural / religious context.
I'm old enough to where there was no serious discussion about allowing gay marriage and when it started being talked I was of course hell no.
Sometime later as I started to think about it I got to the point (even before main stream democrats) where I thought "well not marriage but maybe their should be a non religious equivalent."
But why were you "of course hell no"? Then why did you think "not marriage but maybe a non-religious equivalent" when straight people have been able to get married in non-religious ceremonies for centuries? Marriage is not innately religious.
And LGBT people had been seriously discussing being allowed to marry the people they love for a very long time. Recognition of same-sex relationships was one of the points in the platform of the march on Washington in 1987.
Yeah and I've been around longer than that. Between this and you ignoring Insaniak to argue with GH, its apparent you're not interested in doing anything but arguing with people, good bye.
You've been around longer than the centuries when straight people could get married in non-religious ceremonies and be recognised by non-religious governments, such as, say, the government of the United States?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 00:58:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Marriage existed in ancient Rome and Greece, did it not? Am I high? What about marriage in all the countries outside of Europe? What about the separation of church and state?
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
I don't actually like peanut butter.
Its not a speech, Its a conversation that means the topic is as broad as the participants make it.
And why do the participants want to make it about other stuff? Why is it not enough to talk about the undeniably awful stuff and simply leave it there? Why must it always be a "but what about XYZ"?
If I'm talking to a friend who tells me he doesn't like creamy peanut butter and I say yeah and I don't like crunchy peanut butter either and he says that's not part of the topic, I'm going to wonder what he's on.
If I tell my friend how much I love dogs, and they reply saying "oh, so you must hate cats then", then I'll also wonder what they're on.
I don't see why bringing a completely different entity into the conversation has to do with anything, or *why* it was even relevant.
I think that's the basis of the problem, you see them as different as salt and ketchup because you focus on A and I see them as two brands of peanut butter because I'm more concerned with B
I'm focusing on A because A is what the issue was about in the first place. Why the hell do I care about B in a discussion about A, and why are people so eager to bring B into a conversation about A, and change the entire focus away from the topic on A?
I'm just asking why, is all. *Why* is there a need to change topic, or bring other topics in? Why must there always be a "but what about XYZ"?
A Town Called Malus wrote: And LGBT people had been seriously discussing being allowed to marry the people they love for a very long time. Recognition of same-sex relationships was one of the points in the platform of the march on Washington in 1987.
Yeah and I've been around longer than that.
Longer than the concept of wanting same sex marriage? It ain't a new thing, by several dozen centuries.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:03:03
Maybe, the most efficient and quickest and most pain free method would be to move the people that are capable of discussing how evil nazis are without whatabouting the entire spectrum of socialism into a different forum, and we can just let the rest have dakka? I think it's a win win. The mods won't even have to really moderate anything at that point and the rest of us don't have to deal with this gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:03:40
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
trexmeyer wrote: Marriage existed in ancient Rome and Greece, did it not? Am I high? What about marriage in all the countries outside of Europe? What about the separation of church and state?
Marriage probably existed as soon as Ugg's tribe wanted to bash Ogg's tribe but didn't have the numbers, but Ugg did have a daughter that Oog liked the look of and the combined strength of Ugg and Oog could bash Ogg.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches
But that's not what the conversation was about - it was about *peanut butter sandwiches*, not sandwiches in general. Why bring other sandwiches into it?
In an Ork tactics thread, do we bring in Space Marine tactics because they're both 40k factions?
Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together.
There is no hesitancy to bring them together when they're all present, except when they are brought together when there was no topic to do so.
Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
I don't actually like peanut butter.
Its not a speech, Its a conversation that means the topic is as broad as the participants make it.
And why do the participants want to make it about other stuff? Why is it not enough to talk about the undeniably awful stuff and simply leave it there? Why must it always be a "but what about XYZ"?
If I'm talking to a friend who tells me he doesn't like creamy peanut butter and I say yeah and I don't like crunchy peanut butter either and he says that's not part of the topic, I'm going to wonder what he's on.
If I tell my friend how much I love dogs, and they reply saying "oh, so you must hate cats then", then I'll also wonder what they're on.
I don't see why bringing a completely different entity into the conversation has to do with anything, or *why* it was even relevant.
I think that's the basis of the problem, you see them as different as salt and ketchup because you focus on A and I see them as two brands of peanut butter because I'm more concerned with B
I'm focusing on A because A is what the issue was about in the first place. Why the hell do I care about B in a discussion about A, and why are people so eager to bring B into a conversation about A, and change the entire focus away from the topic on A?
I'm just asking why, is all. *Why* is there a need to change topic, or bring other topics in? Why must there always be a "but what about XYZ"?
Conversations flow and drift that's just their nature and its not a change of topic just a continuation. In your new analogy asking what about cats would be perfectly logical in that conversation. More I don't see them as different as dogs and cats I see it more as German Shepherds and Russian Wolfhounds.
And to address you other point, how old are you, do you remember life before the internet ? Sorry but despite what you may think it really wasn't some huge part of the national zeitgeist until late eighties early nineties.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:13:58
I feel like the marriage thing has missed the point that was actually being made. Regardless of whether or not you personally think that same-sex marriage should have been allowed in the '80s, the point being made was that some people didn't think that, but have since come to realise that they were wrong.
In other words, many people holding a specific worldview that was just 'the way things are' eventually came to realise that this was a poor reason to keep things this way, and that their preconceptions on the issue were incorrect.
Through exposure and education, a worldview can change. And no, that doesn't just mean presenting people with the facts, because if there's one thing that past two years or so have proved it's that facts just don't matter to a lot of people because they're incapable of separating fact from fiction... It means normalising the thing so that it stops being 'other' and starts just being a thing.
It's generally easier to hold irrational prejudices against a theoretical concept than against a friend or family member.
insaniak wrote: It means normalising the thing so that it stops being 'other' and starts just being a thing.
This goes both ways. Allowing people to repeatedly bring up racist/fascist talking points and try to deflect from the actions of fascists and derail criticism of fascism through bad faith argumentation can normalise fascism in the exact same way that people being exposed to other cultures can normalise those other cultures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:23:12
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
insaniak wrote: It means normalising the thing so that it stops being 'other' and starts just being a thing.
This goes both ways. Allowing people to repeatedly bring up racist/fascist talking points and try to deflect from the actions of fascists and derail criticism of fascism through bad faith argumentation can normalise fascism in the exact same way that people being exposed to other cultures can normalise those other cultures.
Yes, that's the exact point that you're responding to, from the start of this page.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:28:46
