Jump to content

Big Tech Twits Get Dumber and Corrupter!


Zorral
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, baxus said:

Sure there are. And if we complained about them using those words, and they said "you are trolls and your objections are trivially stupid" we'd all be in an uproar. I hope we at least agree on that one.

My objections in this thread were not about whether "cis" is a slur or not, they were about poor approach to debate.

 

Blithely accepting bad faith, nonsensical, and/or dangerous arguments as acceptable then you are allowing the Overton window to regress and devolve our discourse.

I.e., arguing about whether "cis" is a slur -- centering discourse about transgender respect, rights, and treatment on cisgender people whining about a word is an absolute waste of time and distraction from real harm and danger. Not all ideas are worth debate. This one, flat earth theory, racial essentialism, etc.

Eta- also, pretty much anything that comes out of RFK Jr. talking hole.

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh yeah it’s a moat and Bailey.

Ex. Man says adoption agencies  children should give their kids over to people qualified at raising children and then proceeds to say gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.

When that man is called homophobic a second man comes in and says there is nothing wrong in wanting adoption agencies to give kids over to qualified agencies and attacks the critics as wanting to endanger children through placing them with same sex couples who aren’t qualified. Doesn’t bluntly say gay couples should banned from adopting but does posit on how it’s silly for adoption to not and promote a ‘traditional’ family model.

*Motte & Bailey (motte being a mound that is easier to defend than the more exposed bailey)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cis is simply a descriptive term, the people who take offense are telling on themselves big time.

Terf does carry implicit criticism, it means that someone is a bigot, but being critical is not the same as using hate speech. People don’t enjoy being called out for shitty behavior, a lot of objectively racist assholes vehemently and loudly reject being called racist. These people throw piss baby fits because they abhor the notion of anyone being critical of them for any reason even if their stated beliefs fit the descriptor.  And Terfs do tend to be dishonest actors, spouting vile shit while claiming that they have no problem with trans women.

Oppressors adopting the mantle of victimhood are not trying to have honest debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, baxus said:

Sure, if they're trolls, ignore them. That's it. Don't get into the argument only to call their arguments trivially stupid.

No you can do that and explain why—I recently watched a debate featuring an fascist making the case for persecuting members of the LGBTQ community off of some vague spiritual sounding mumbo jumbo.

There’s this mistaken a idea productive discourse is a polite one where everyone feels respected no matter their ideas. This idea needs to die.

7 hours ago, baxus said:

Also, imagine if "the other side" did the same to people who objected to someone saying some terms they are regularly using were offensive? "This side" would go apeshit. "This side" can't ask for a debate if they call "the other side"'s arguments trivially stupid whenever "the other side" objects to something. That's the point - you want debate,

Not to end to itself usually no.

A popular far right religious leader once said something to  “if the election wasn’t stolen we wouldn’t be debating it” as he kept pushing the lies that’d been a thousand times over about the election to his congregation of thousands.
 

7 hours ago, baxus said:

treat the side across the table with respect you'd like them to treat you with.

I do think this worship of Liberal civility politics will be the death of liberal democracy. Not to say in every debate one need be from the onset really aggressive and screaming I’ve come to appreciate how engaging someone calmly and politely could lull people into a false sense of security enough to promote things they know can’t be easily defended.

    But no not every side on every issue have all their statements treated seriously and with respect because of some vague hope recipitory. 
 

“Cis is a slur” is a troll meme brought up by people who in a consensus either are apathetic about actual slurs or gleefully use in the way they were intended.

It’s no different from the super-straight crap made by 4chaners a couple years back.

They even made an ‘inclusive’ acronym of lgbs. 
 

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

objectively racist assholes

I’ve seen avowed white Nationalists and Nazis get prissy at being called racist or bigots.

3 hours ago, Week said:

Eta- also, pretty much anything that comes out of RFK Jr. talking hole.

Next joe Rogan interview with him?

Does hiv cause aids is it a pharmaceutical psyop?

It is crucial millions of people hear this environmental lawyer’s give his non-expertise take that flies in the face scientific consensus 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Next joe Rogan interview with him?

Does hiv cause aids is it a pharmaceutical psyop?

It is crucial millions of people hear this environmental lawyer’s give his non-expertise take that flies in the face scientific consensus 

He's got other bad ideas too --

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

He's got other bad ideas too --

 

 

I swear half this guy’s support is a vapid populism of “Establishment bad” .

6 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

*Motte & Bailey (motte being a mound that is easier to defend than the more exposed bailey)

Should have clarified. The motte here is the notion of Elon cracking down on harassment campaigns something hardly anyone including me disagrees with.

The Bailey is him actively declaring Cis is a slur. This sounds deranged, bizarre and/or evil to anyone who isn’t militantly transphobic and laughing along with him. 
Hence the need for the motte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2023 at 3:16 PM, Week said:

Blithely accepting bad faith, nonsensical, and/or dangerous arguments as acceptable then you are allowing the Overton window to regress and devolve our discourse.

I.e., arguing about whether "cis" is a slur -- centering discourse about transgender respect, rights, and treatment on cisgender people whining about a word is an absolute waste of time and distraction from real harm and danger. Not all ideas are worth debate. This one, flat earth theory, racial essentialism, etc.

Eta- also, pretty much anything that comes out of RFK Jr. talking hole.

I'm the first one to laugh at flat Earth theories, but I'm not saying it's not "worth the debate". I'm not willing to debate it because I find that it's been well covered and clarified in elementary school. Not being willing to debate it and it not being "worth of debate" are two different things.

Honestly, I think this "cis is a slur" is as ridiculous as "there is infinite number of genders". But if both sides reject the other side's argument as "trivially stupid" and trolling, then there will be no discussion and no middle ground will be reached.

Sure, if you don't think a middle ground can be reached, then skip the debate, but this "worthy of debate" argument is a slippery slope that can lead us into a stalemate where no conclusion will ever be reached and nothing will change.

EDIT:
Talking about RFK Jr, I saw there was some buzz about his appearance on Rogan's podcast so I listened to it. The guy is very dangerous. He is capable of phrasing his arguments in a manner that can make them appear insightful and when coupled with his family history, he might appear to be "in the know" to many listeners. I didn't hear anything that smart from him but the fact that Rogan called out some guy who opposes RFK Jr and his statements (I forgot the name, sorry) and the guy declined just allows RFK Jr to maintain this perception of credibility. The debate needs to happen, and conclusions need to be drawn. We need to be able to hear both sides in order to form an educated opinion. Sure, sometimes it will come down to who's a better speaker, but that shouldn't be as impactful when we're talking hard scientific facts.

Also, I hate how on topic of vaccines we have two camps - "vaccines are beyond reproach" or "vaccines are killing people". Due to circumstances, CoVid vaccines were made in record time and it's perfectly normal to examine their effectiveness and safety and whatever. Scientific community needs to analyse that, see what worked and what needs to be improved. If it is found that something is wrong with those vaccines it's not a win for "the other side", it's a win for everyone. We'll all get a safer and/or more effective vaccine. If everything turns out fine with vaccines, we've put the debate to rest.

Now, we'll always have some nutcases who don't listen to reason and proof, but when we decline to even debate them, we won't even "get" those that would listen to reason and proof.

Edited by baxus
Forgot something :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm the first one to laugh at flat Earth theories, but I'm not saying it's not "worth the debate". I'm not willing to debate it because I find that it's been well covered and clarified in elementary school. Not being willing to debate it and it not being "worth of debate" are two different things.

Honestly, I think this "cis is a slur" is as ridiculous as "there is infinite number of genders". But if both sides reject the other side's argument as "trivially stupid" and trolling, then there will be no discussion and no middle ground will be reached.

Sure, if you don't think a middle ground can be reached, then skip the debate, but this "worthy of debate" argument is a slippery slope that can lead us into a stalemate where no conclusion will ever be reached and nothing will change.

If the RKJ / Rogan thing has highlighted anything it's that 'debate' doesn't really get you very far, depending on the format. Rogan demanding scientists come on his podcast to debate RKJ on anti vax shit on the face of it sounds reasonable, until you realise that debating people on podcasts is not a matter of presenting evidence and letting it speak for itself. It's a debate and the person who sounds convincing is the one who wins, usually with the people who already buy into his arguments. You can't beat someone who says 'oh what about this study in 2006 that you didn't read! That totally disproves your theory' live because nobody can have all that research on them to hand.

It's possible to just keep publishing rebuttals of bad arguments somewhere online and hope people read it, but that requires everyone read everything. It's the whole 'do your research' bollocks where everyone is living in their own information ecosystem and doesn't cross over, and other sources are not trusted. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Rogan demanding scientists come on his podcast to debate RKJ on anti vax shit on the face of it sounds reasonable, until you realise that debating people on podcasts is not a matter of presenting evidence and letting it speak for itself.

I didn't mean to say that the debate needs to be on Rogan's podcast. But it needs to be held somewhere, and it needs to be well-moderated. Rogan's definitely not the guy to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, baxus said:

I didn't mean to say that the debate needs to be on Rogan's podcast. But it needs to be held somewhere, and it needs to be well-moderated. Rogan's definitely not the guy to do that.

I guess my point is more a general one about debates, in that the format of live debates often means its not about who is speaking the truth, but who sounds the best. I've changed my mind on this and these days I don't see them as especially useful, especially on matters of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, baxus said:

I'm the first one to laugh at flat Earth theories, but I'm not saying it's not "worth the debate"


Eh it can be, but likely not.

 

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Honestly, I think this "cis is a slur" is as ridiculous as "there is infinite number of genders". But if both sides reject the other side's argument as "trivially stupid" and trolling, then there will be no discussion and no middle ground will be reached.


Yes people can go “Nu-uh. You!” On any perceived insult or mockery—doesn’t mean the insult or mockery isn’t blithely warranted or effective.

And there’s no middle for most of The Who say ‘cis’ is a slur. They(like Musk who is a  nazi) want trans people removed from society and recognized as mentally ill and/or perverts

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Talking about RFK Jr, I saw there was some buzz about his appearance on Rogan's podcast so I listened to it. The guy is very dangerous. He is capable of phrasing his arguments in a manner that can make them appear insightful and when coupled with his family history, he might appear to be "in the know" to many listeners. I didn't hear anything that smart from him but the fact that Rogan called out some guy who opposes RFK Jr and his statements (I forgot the name, sorry) and the guy declined just allows RFK Jr to maintain this perception of credibility. The debate needs to happen,

No it doesn’t, anymore than Fauci’s has to get into a cage wrestling with Alex Jones over whether his brain pills work.

Public real time Debates are wrestling matches of rhetoric and charisma.

An evolutionary biologist can be a genius in their field and be quashed in a debate with a creationist whose skilled at public speaking and constructing an argument  regular people can follow along and empathize with.

A couple months back I was watching a YouTube channel between an anti-theist and a creationist on the question biblical slavery.

They both during the q&a complaining about the nature and point of debate.

Specifically how People can say a lot of shit real time that would to take a lot of time thoroughly debunk. if a person cites an incident, or study the other isn’t familiar, they’d still have to respond on the fly.

Truthfully I wish we’d just get more email exchanges like the one Sam Harris did with Noam Chomsky.

Both people I’ve come to hate for different reasons but whose exchange was interesting and I don’t think would have been as meaningful if they did a debate on some place Joe Rogan.

 

1 hour ago, baxus said:

The debate needs to happen, and conclusions need to be drawn. We need to be able to hear both sides in order to form an educated opinion. Sure, sometimes it will come down to who's a better speaker, but that shouldn't be as impactful when we're talking hard scientific facts.

This fetishization of neutrality is why in comparison of most developed nations the so much of the US’ population is so far behind on things recognizing evolution and man made climate change is a real thing.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This fetishization of neutrality is why in comparison of most developed nations the so much of the US’ population is so far behind on things recognizing evolution and man made climate change is a real thing.

 

I appreciate the “fetishization of neutrality” can to taken to far.  But likewise the demonization of those who desire discussion and the opportunity to chew over what they perceive as serious issues, which we may see as giant slices of crazypie, isn’t particularly helpful.

Ultimately, we need to be willing to talk people out of their trees without merely calling them “stupid”.  Most folks react poorly to having their intelligence questioned whether they deserve it or not and in their anger we drive them further into the “crazypie” camp.

So, I propose that having public televised debates with RFKjr. or proponents of the “Flerfie” community are probably bad things.  But calmly and rationally talking with our acquaintances who hold such fringe beliefs or who are walking down the rabbit hole toward such is probably a good idea as we, through kind thoughtful individual engagement, may arrest such progress or pull them back out of such a rabbit hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate the “fetishization of neutrality” can to taken to far.  But likewise the demonization of those who desire discussion and the opportunity to chew over what they perceive as serious issues, which we may see as giant slices of crazypie, isn’t particularly helpful.

Ultimately, we need to be willing to talk people out of their trees without merely calling them “stupid”.  Most folks react poorly to having their intelligence questioned whether they deserve it or not and in their anger we drive them further into the “crazypie” camp.

So, I propose that having public televised debates with RFKjr. or proponents of the “Flerfie” community are probably bad things.  But calmly and rationally talking with our acquaintances who hold such fringe beliefs or who are walking down the rabbit hole toward such is probably a good idea as we, through kind thoughtful individual engagement, may arrest such progress or pull them back out of such a rabbit hole.

This is a reasonable stance in some cases at least. Sometimes even interpersonally a cut off can be the most optimal action in response to a person’s increased belligerency to get them to snap out of it, sometimes all it does push people deeper into bad circles. Both come with their own hardships that I can’t fault most normal individuals for trying to pursue.

I do think it’s pressing for society as a whole to off lift the burden of individuals in these things through sufficient public education and media regulation(both social and legal)
 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And there’s no middle for most of The Who say ‘cis’ is a slur. They(like Musk who is a  nazi) want trans people removed from society and recognized as mentally ill and/or perverts

You really don't see the problem with this train of thought? You really don't see the danger in labelling a part of the society as despicable. Pretty ironic that you mention nazis when they did the same to Jews (and others) back in the day.

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This fetishization of neutrality is why in comparison of most developed nations the so much of the US’ population is so far behind on things recognizing evolution and man made climate change is a real thing.

No, very high percentage of US population is not denying evolution and climate change because of "fetishization of neutrality", it's because higher education is so expensive most of the population can't dream of it and because very small minority of your population ever travels abroad. Guess what? The same happens in other countries in similar conditions.

And where in the US do you actually see this "fetishization of neutrality"? Where do you have people trying to reconcile anyone? Who calls for a more rational approach and civilised debate? If anything, "fetishisation of extremes" would be more to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, baxus said:

You really don't see the problem with this train of thought? You really don't see the danger in labelling a part of the society as despicable. Pretty ironic that you mention nazis when they did the same to Jews (and others) back in the day.

Also how does one have an honest debate with someone who is willing to completely misrepresent the position of people on the other side. If they are living in another plane of reality there is no middle ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, baxus said:

You really don't see the problem with this train of thought? You really don't see the danger in labelling a part of the society as despicable. Pretty ironic that you mention nazis when they did the same to Jews (and others) back in the day.

This is some wild, wild stuff.

The Nazis did a little more to the Jews and other than saying they were 'despicable' or complaining that they had unacceptable or unfounded beliefs. The comparison here is, in itself, pretty unacceptable. It's a reverse Godwin's Law. You don't get to compare people to Jews under the Nazis unless they are actually being subjected to comparable treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...