German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9823
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:26

I find it somewhat disheartening that people are still willing to call homophobia a simple difference in opinion. :/
Edit: Clarification: Do you expect LGBT+ people and those who respect us to not get upset about same-sex marriage being compared to pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality?

I have a lot more to say but I don't want to start a fight with strangers.
Last edited by shimobaatar on Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:28

Reyzadren wrote:Satire or not, I find it somewhat disheartening that people pounce on elemtilas just for expressing a different opinion, as if he must have the same thoughts as everyone else :/
If people hold oppressive views (and they aren't just "opinions") like homophobia, xenophobia, white supremacy, etc., should we just let them be? That's not justice.
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:30, edited 2 times in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Napa Valley, California

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 02:29

Not just homophobia, but a really terrible argument. Even people against same-sex marriage can do better than the stupid "slippery slope" stuff. I also don't subscribe to the idea that just because something's an opinion, I have to respect it.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6009
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by eldin raigmore » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 04:07

Reyzadren wrote:Satire or not, I find it somewhat disheartening that people pounce on elemtilas just for expressing a different opinion, as if he must have the same thoughts as everyone else :/
Oh, no! It's not that he must have the same thoughts as everyone else; it's that he must have the same thoughts as me!



[hr][/hr]


Spoiler:
(Is it clear that's a joke?)
If elemtilas had only the same thoughts I have, I would have missed many a great story and creative idea.
Hooray for people on this board who think things I don't think!


[hr][/hr]


KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:Not just homophobia, but a really terrible argument. Even people against same-sex marriage can do better than the stupid "slippery slope" stuff. I also don't subscribe to the idea that just because something's an opinion, I have to respect it.
For me there's a big difference between what I think I should do and what I have an easy time doing.

I believe that I should respect the rights of others to have opinions I disagree with, including opinions I abhor and deplore.
However I have serious, real difficulty, continuing to respect, rather than to abhor and deplore, those whose opinions I find abhorrent and deplorable.
I'm not the perfect person I've convinced everyone on this board I am.*

*(That's another joke. Of course I haven't convinced anyone here I'm a perfect person.)


[hr][/hr]

Ahzoh wrote:If people hold oppressive views (and they aren't just "opinions") like homophobia, xenophobia, white supremacy, etc., should we just let them be? That's not justice.
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson (sp?) said; "You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts."
IMO homophobes (not that I like that word!), xenophobes, white-supremacists, climate-change deniers, anti-vaxers, and others, are insisting on being entitled to their own facts.
But they don't think so. In fact, they think that some of my facts, for instance "evolution by natural selection", are just opinions.
That's what makes Dr. Tyson's comment so problematic to apply in practice.
(As Yogi Berra is reported to have said; "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.")
I go through life on the theory that my opinion as to what qualifies as opinion vs what qualifies as fact is, in fact, factual.
It's very hard to get other people to adopt that same point of view if they don't already agree.
User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2011, 21:11
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by lsd » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 07:54

I am always surprised that as soon as a community is constituted, it seeks to impose a common view on its members or tries to exclude them...
Why do you expect a conlang club (unconnected with some lobbying on sexuality (albeit ...)) to have a unique view on sexuality and marriage, while half the population has a different view...
If it is normal to always respect the opinions of each one, to approach a diving subject implies to find different opinions...
Diversity is at this price...
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 08:17

One shouldn't care that people have views, but one should care if people are considered lesser and thus oppressed because of those views. One shouldn't let those views be just because they don't affect oneself. Justice for all has priority over the comfort for the individual's ego.

(Also, best not to presume or otherwise that elimtilas holds those unprogressive and unkind views towards the LGBT community until explicitly indicated.)
lsd wrote:I am always surprised that as soon as a community is constituted, it seeks to impose a common view on its members or tries to exclude them...
That is any kind of group/society for you.
Best to remember "the personal is political" and all that.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2011, 21:11
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by lsd » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 08:39

Each one is lesser in front of a group and feels oppressed by the views of the group that it does not have ...
What is justice for all, to impose a common vision and to mark the deviants, or to tolerate the visions of each and not to evoke the differences of each one which do not affect the object of the group...
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Micamo » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 10:17

This is the fatal flaw of liberalism. The idea that different ideologies can coexist in peace, its adherents engaging in rational argument until the best ideas win out by convincing the majority, only works if each ideology holds a common set of base assumptions about the nature of argument itself, and their adherents are willing to engage in genuine debate. When someone breaks these assumptions, or argues in bad faith, liberalism has no defense.

If you allow neo-nazis, tankies, evangelical christians, TERFs, etc. into your conversation because "they're just opinions and they have as much of a right to share their ideas as anyone else", you bring a virus into a body with no immune system. These ideas have no handles which a rational argument can grab and move. They are not interested in a debate, they are only interested in destroying the people they have deemed unworthy of life by any means necessary, and have figured out they can do so while hiding behind "free speech" as a shield.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 10:36

Micamo wrote:This is the fatal flaw of liberalism.
I agree and it is something liberals need to work on.
Image
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Xonen » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 13:43

Ahzoh wrote:
Micamo wrote:This is the fatal flaw of liberalism.
I agree and it is something liberals need to work on.
Image
Right, we should just get back to administering some good ol' hemlock chemo to anyone who dares express radical views.

The very fact that we, as a society, now tend not to very much actually kill each other over different views is, from a historical perspective, actually quite an astonishing achievement - and one that I, for one, would like to hang on to. Especially since, you know, the very idea that women and minorities should have rights used to be the radical minority view until fairly recently (and obviously enough, still is in too many places). Sure, rational discussion is frustratingly slow and inefficient, but over the years, decades and centuries, embracing a culture where we at least try it before starting to bash each others' heads in with rocks has actually yielded some progress. Yes, it fucking sucks, to put it mildly, that generations of oppressed minorities have to live with the oppression while liberals try to slowly convince the majority that oppression is actually bad. However, if that's the only chance we've got, then it's the one we have to take. Attacking the other tribe with rocks, while perhaps satisfying in the short term, will end badly when they still outnumber you.

That being said, though, this is absolutely correct:
Micamo wrote:The idea that different ideologies can coexist in peace, its adherents engaging in rational argument until the best ideas win out by convincing the majority, only works if each ideology holds a common set of base assumptions about the nature of argument itself, and their adherents are willing to engage in genuine debate. When someone breaks these assumptions, or argues in bad faith, liberalism has no defense.
While I generally believe that it's better to assume that the other party is arguing in good faith and can be reasoned with at first, it's true that continuing to argue with someone who clearly has no interest in a rational argument is a waste of time. Especially on the internet, where it's entirely possible that you're just dealing with a troll. Then again, you should note that you're almost never just talking to the person you're directly arguing with, but to an audience of several onlookers. Having a better argument might not convince your opponent, but it just might sway someone else.

For those interested, Cracked has an article on how a conservative might change their views, written by an actual former conservative. (Actually several, all of them making similar points, but this one was the first I managed to dig up.)
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Xonen » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 14:10

The above post dealing strictly with my personal views on the merits of liberalism and rational discussion in general.

As a moderator of this board, I'll note that there are limits on what kinds of views we allow here. Specifically, expressing views that you should know are going to insult other board members, without even bothering to try to back them up rationally, is going to count as trolling.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2907
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 15:14

Right you 'orrible lot! I'm off to Iceland for a bit. Let's all hope everyone behaves because I won't be here to dole out a strong case of mostly politely written reminders [:P]

But yeah, going away for a bit, and we're generally a nice board and I don't expect that to change any time soon [:)] Hope you all have good times and keep on keeping on.

(I might be on sporadically through the day, but after this evening I'm basically gone)
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6123
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 15:21

Xonen wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
Micamo wrote:This is the fatal flaw of liberalism.
I agree and it is something liberals need to work on.
Image
Right, we should just get back to administering some good ol' hemlock chemo to anyone who dares express radical views.
Radical views? No. (Violently) harmful views? Yes. And it need not be hemlock chemo. Well-meaning people could just stop apologizing for them and giving them a platform.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Napa Valley, California

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 15:52

I more or less think "entitled to your opinion" is a meaningless phrase. If you're entitled to your opinion, then I'm also entitled to my opinion of your opinion. Expressing that I disagree with your opinion isn't "taking away your right to an opinion". Disagreement =/= attack, or violation of rights. Some people seem to think that "entitled to your opinion" means that you should be able to post your opinion without having anyone disagree with it or comment on it unless they absolutely love it. That's not how an open forum works.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9823
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 16:41

sangi39 wrote:Right you 'orrible lot! I'm off to Iceland for a bit. Let's all hope everyone behaves because I won't be here to dole out a strong case of mostly politely written reminders [:P]

But yeah, going away for a bit, and we're generally a nice board and I don't expect that to change any time soon [:)] Hope you all have good times and keep on keeping on.

(I might be on sporadically through the day, but after this evening I'm basically gone)
Have a great time! [:D]
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Micamo » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 17:08

Two things.

First, engaging in debate with an ideology is a signal that "this other idea is worthy of respect and is a valid position to have." This is the second reason why creationism, antivax, etc. all have such deep intellectual hooks in our society, the media keeps giving them space to spread their bullshit cause "we gotta show both sides." (The first reason is they're backed by people with considerable financial and political power.)

Second, the default assumption of rationality and good faith is very dangerous when you're dealing with a violent, irrational ideology. For example. I can debate with a conservative if our disagreement is "We performed cost-benefit calculations and arrived at different values for the optimum distribution of taxation and social welfare." I can point out benefits they did not consider, and they can point out costs I had neglected, and the conversation can be productive.

However, I cannot debate with a conservative who says "social welfare is bad because the only people who are poor are those that deserve to be poor." It violates the common assumptions of liberalism that enables rational discussion, like that of the common humanity of all people. Maybe, *maybe*, I could make some headway with this person if they were just raised neck-deep in evangelical culture and I'm the first person they've ever talked to who doesn't hold this idea as a given.

Much more likely though? They've heard the arguments I have to give them from thousands of other people and they just do not care. They are not interested in a debate, they are only interested in maintaining and reinforcing a social order of exploitation and greed regardless of its costs. The only thing I gain from engaging with this person is that I give their ideas legitimacy in the eyes of others.
User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2011, 21:11
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by lsd » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 18:09

Politically correct too soon led to the witch hunt ...
Let's keep the reason ...
Even bad humor should not lead to the pyre...
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9823
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 18:23

lsd wrote:Politically correct too soon led to the witch hunt ...
Let's keep the reason ...
Even bad humor should not lead to the pyre...
Wrong.
Homophobia isn't reasonable.
"bad humor" can be as harmful as genuine hate, if the two can even be distinguished.
User avatar
lsd
greek
greek
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri 11 Mar 2011, 21:11
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by lsd » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 18:45

so bad humor could lead to the pyre..
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 9823
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by shimobaatar » Sat 01 Jul 2017, 19:02

lsd wrote:so bad humor could lead to the pyre..
For those who are the butts of insensitive jokes, yes. Look up antisemitic humor, especially in Europe, and its role in the buildup to a culture willing to ignore the Holocaust happening around them, for an example of how bad this can get.

For people who tell them, I have little sympathy. Some people with "edgy" senses of humor seem to have gotten the idea that they're being persecuted for telling jokes, without understanding the repercussions their jokes can have ("it's just a joke" is a meaningless excuse). I have no idea how anyone arrived at the conclusion that the people they've offended with their potentially harmful, tasteless jokes are oppressing them.

I'm not accusing anyone on here of this; I'm just talking about people I've dealt with in general.
Locked