General Current Events/Political Discussion

[kuriatsu | 65]

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

You can get offended but you can't decide what is and isn't a joke on a general level. But you can decide it is abusive on a personal level, if someone aims it directly at YOU.

Jargon is how people talk and behave within a group. I didn't say it has to do with bigotry i said it relates to jokes because they both happen in a context. And that context excludes or includes bigotry depending on what it is.

 

You seem to be trying really hard to make yourself into a fool....:?

Jargon is not how people talk per se, jargon is exchanging of terms for the purpose of attempted(and usually failed) humour, or allowing for people to relate on some level to what is being said, just as I gave an example of in my previous post.

I never said that anyone can say that something isn't a joke, I said bigotry is bigotry. You said that by yourself.

Neither of us defined what abuse is.

Bigotry, is bigotry. No matter if its abusive or not.

There's clearly nothing I can do to convince you of that, as you're apparently not living in reality.

edit: However, abuse by itself is horrific as well.

Edited February 22, 2020 by kuriatsu

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, kuriatsu said:

You seem to be trying really hard to make yourself into a fool....:?

Jargon is not how people talk per se, jargon is exchanging of terms for the purpose of attempted(and usually failed) humour, or allowing for people to relate on some level to what is being said.

I never said that anyone can say that something isn't a joke, I said bigotry is bigotry. You said that by yourself.

Neither of us defined what abuse is.

Bigotry, is bigotry. No matter if its abusive or not.

There's clearly nothing I can do to convince you of that, as you're apparently not living in reality.

 

I didn't equate bigotry with jokes, you did. You don't recognize what a joke is and that's on you and not a general rule on how things are. 

[Link | 2,709]

3 minutes ago, kuriatsu said:

jargon is exchanging of terms for the purpose of attempted(and usually failed) humour, or allowing for people to relate on some level to what is being said.

Jargon is technical talk, often job- or military-related terms which are not generally known to or understood by outsiders.

[kuriatsu | 65]

1 minute ago, cartman said:

I didn't equate bigotry with jokes, you did. You don't recognize what a joke is and that's on you and not a general rule on how things are. 

actually, no I didn't. You'll have to show me where I did equate them.

I said bigotry is bigotry, and humor is humor.

Bigotry is bad, very bad, in case you hadn't noticed

 

[Link | 2,709]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

But it doesn't mean the person is or that he's abusing someone it's the intention that counts. As for the public they are not the ingroup so yeah you're right, it's not a smart thing to do. I mean they too should be able to read the intention for what it is based on tone and mannerism but it doesn't work.

 

56 minutes ago, cartman said:

Intent to make a joke. Nothing else. 

Intent is not what matters. It’s important to not have bad intentions, that much is true. But when our intended (or unintended) actions have bad effects, we should examine them and try to avoid repeating them.

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hesaid-intent-vs-impact-why-your-intentions-dont-really-matter/

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Link

[cartman | 195]

2 minutes ago, kuriatsu said:

actually, no I didn't. You'll have to show me where I did equate them.

I said bigotry is bigotry, and humor is humor.

Bigotry is bad, very bad, in case you hadn't noticed

 

You deciding some jokes are automatically bigotry and not jokes at all. 

[Tulpa | 3,493]

49 minutes ago, cartman said:

 

You know what jargon is? It's kind of a similar thing. You talk in a way that you wouldn't otherwise because that circle of people is in on the behavior.

 

The problem is that it doesn't stay in the circle. It affects the way people in the circle view outsiders. Reinforcing stereotypes, etc.

You can either choose to ignore this aspect and continue to be culpable, or actually recognize bigoted jokes for what they are.

 

And there are still plenty of things in this world to make fun of that doesn't make people feel shitty about who they are as human beings. You can adjust your humor. You'll be fine.

 

[kuriatsu | 65]

5 minutes ago, cartman said:

You deciding some jokes are automatically bigotry and not jokes at all. 

that's not equating them at all.

If your intent was to confuse me, you've succeeded.

I'm not sure what else you would have been doing...

 

[cartman | 195]

4 minutes ago, kuriatsu said:

that's not equating them at all.

If your intent was to confuse me, you've succeeded.

I'm not sure what else you would have been doing...

 

That's literally what it is.

[kuriatsu | 65]

Just now, cartman said:

That's literally what it is.

no....it isn't....

equating them, would be saying that every joke is bigotry.

If you were saying that I was separating them, then I could see why you'd think that, as I said bigotry is bigotry and humor is humor.

That's not equating anything...I'm really confused why you would even suggest that...:/

[VegHead | 127]

I see the word bigot and I cringe.  I have been called a bigot, and it was hurtful.  I do not consider myself a bigot, but others may disagree.  Even so, I think the word is losing much of its venom by being applied too liberally and carelessly.  I also don't believe labeling someone a bigot does anything particularly useful.  It's the same with calling someone a racist.  People rarely change their opinions on things because they've been labeled.  It's dehumanizing in its own way.  Conversation, understanding, commonality, and even agreeing to disagree is what changes people.  Kindness changes people for the better, and slapping someone with a label isn't kind.  It just puts their back up, and you've lost your chance to have meaningful dialogue with them.  

[cartman | 195]

11 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

The problem is that it doesn't stay in the circle. It affects the way people in the circle view outsiders. Reinforcing stereotypes, etc.

You can either choose to ignore this aspect and continue to be culpable, or actually recognize bigoted jokes for what they are.

 

And there are still plenty of things in this world to make fun of that doesn't make people feel shitty about who they are as human beings. You can adjust your humor. You'll be fine.

 

It doesn't have to be that way. I've noticed myself how one person is with me vs with 2-3 other people. He's closer to them and their mannerisms and everything is more amped up. That's an ingroup type of thing, a jargon. Me and him are more formal together.

[kuriatsu | 65]

10 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

I see the word bigot and I cringe.  I have been called a bigot, and it was hurtful.  I do not consider myself a bigot, but others may disagree.  Even so, I think the word is losing much of its venom by being applied too liberally and carelessly.  I also don't believe labeling someone a bigot does anything particularly useful.  It's the same with calling someone a racist.  People rarely change their opinions on things because they've been labeled.  It's dehumanizing in its own way.  Conversation, understanding, commonality, and even agreeing to disagree is what changes people.  Kindness changes people for the better, and slapping someone with a label isn't kind.  It just puts their back up, and you've lost your chance to have meaningful dialogue with them.  

I absolutely agree that it is dehumanizing in its own way, however the main problem is that so called bigots will not change their ways, or way of thinking.

I've heard of nightmare stories for even trying.

If I had the option of trying to converse and provide understanding commonality and agreeing to disagree, then I'd take it, but I've been harassed quite a bit, as well as people that I know for trying to do just that. I agree that kindness changes people for the better, but it won't always.(if you look through my previous replies in this thread, you'll see that I tried)

However, I will not hesitate to call it like I see it, (especially with jokes) especially in this type of situation and if someone proves me wrong, then I will admit fault.

These words, are ultimately just words, but they do still contain a monstrous amount of power.

I apologize that you had that experience.

 

[VegHead | 127]

1 minute ago, kuriatsu said:

I absolutely agree that it is dehumanizing in its own way, however the main problem is that so called bigots will not change their ways, or way of thinking.

I've heard of nightmare stories for even trying.

If I had the option of trying to converse and provide understanding commonality and agreeing to disagree, then I'd take it, but I've been harassed quite a bit, as well as people that I know for trying to do just that. I agree that kindness changes people for the better, but it won't always.(if you look through my previous replies in this thread, you'll see that I tried)

However, I will not hesitate to call it like I see it, (especially with jokes) especially in this type of situation and if someone proves me wrong, then I will admit fault.

These words, are ultimately just words, but they do still contain a monstrous amount of power.

I apologize that you had that experience.

 

I appreciate the sentiment, really.  I don't mean to imply that labels shouldn't be used, and I absolutely agree with you that some people are set in their ways and determined not to see things another way.  Those people can have those labels.  My point was that I have seen people jump to the labels faster than prudence dictates, and that frankly, I think it's better to just walk away from a conversation than slap them with a label.  Sometimes change takes time, but people won't forget how they were treated and that can affect whether change is impossible or just improbable with them.

That said, my pain in the matter was minuscule compared to what many of the groups we have been discussing experience, and I recognize that my experiences with attempting to change people's minds comes from a position of privilege that many minority groups don't have.  Arguing from a minority group toward a majority group is often fruitless; I think, unfortunately, it takes many people in the majority to come around to new thinking to enact real change.

[kuriatsu | 65]

1 minute ago, epiclotus said:

I appreciate the sentiment, really.  I don't mean to imply that labels shouldn't be used, and I absolutely agree with you that some people are set in their ways and determined not to see things another way.  Those people can have those labels.  My point was that I have seen people jump to the labels faster than prudence dictates, and that frankly, I think it's better to just walk away from a conversation than slap them with a label.  Sometimes change takes time, but people won't forget how they were treated and that can affect whether change is impossible or just improbable with them.

That said, my pain in the matter was minuscule compared to what many of the groups we have been discussing experience, and I recognize that my experiences with attempting to change people's minds comes from a position of privilege that many minority groups don't have.  Arguing from a minority group toward a majority group is often fruitless; I think, unfortunately, it takes many people in the majority to come around to new thinking to enact real change.

To be honest, I wasn't meaning to slap anyone with a label, just that bigotry is bigotry, point blank, theres no way around it, and one bigotted joke is bigotted and is unacceptable.

While your pain is miniscule, yes, you still shouldn't have experienced it, so again I do apologize for the cringing that I caused and that you have experienced that pain.

I would offer hugs, but I don't know either A: if you're the hugging type, or B: if that even works in forums

I just don't understand why we can't all just give each other mutual respect and not have to deal with people being a jerkface molduga with each other

[VegHead | 127]

1 minute ago, kuriatsu said:

To be honest, I wasn't meaning to slap anyone with a label, just that bigotry is bigotry, point blank, theres no way around it, and one bigotted joke is bigotted and is unacceptable.

While your pain is miniscule, yes, you still shouldn't have experienced it, so again I do apologize for the cringing that I caused and that you have experienced that pain.

I would offer hugs, but I don't know either A: if you're the hugging type, or B: if that even works in forums

I just don't understand why we can't all just give each other mutual respect and not have to deal with people being a jerkface molduga with each other

Indeed, I agree that mutual respect is the goal, and a worthwhile one at that.  Where I am disagreeing with you, though, is your assertion that bigotry is bigotry.  We are all intolerant of some things, and may passionately disagree on very core issues, but as long there is a willingness to have rational discourse and debate on these topics, I don't think it's good to lump someone in with the bigoted in the context which you are using.  cartman is arguing that comedy should be free from suppression, and I have actually seen cogent arguments to support that.  I don't think I agree with him, or that he even fully understands the underlying principles he is arguing for.  Yet, his point has relevance in that there should be concern that social censorship may lead to actual governmental oppression.  There is a line to be balanced upon, and falling off on either side leads to the same bad end.

For my part, the limit of tolerance isn't words.  I can tolerate words I don't like, but not an inch further.  When those words are followed by violence or persecution, then the line has been crossed.  I am not saying that words cannot hurt, but when that for the continued ability to express my own words as I wish, I will take those hurts because I value that freedom of speech much more than my own emotional well-being.  Conversely, though, I don't think we should tolerate one iota beyond words.  Violence toward others should never be tolerated, and violence should only be used in kind if no other means are effective.  There's a lot more layers to this view than what I've expressed, but hopefully the gist of it comes through.

[Lincoln | 230]

jfc how did this turn into someone talking down to a member in a minority group without a hint of self awareness

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

@kuriatsu

I don't know any trans women in real life(but if I did I promise I would ask them too! I'm always curious about how people feel from all backgrounds!)

One of the big controversies surrounding trans women at the moment are athletes that have gone through male puberty before transitioning. It is widely considered that they biologically have a distinct advantage over women born female and therefore unfair to allow them to compete in female athletics. This was recently again a mainstream question with the trans cyclist from Canada that absolutely dominated last year and carried a very cavalier attitude towards the women she competed against saying something to the likes of "you all need to stop hating and train harder." This incident was lampooned on an an episode of South Park portraying Macho Man Randy Savage as having come out as trans, thus dominating a female athletic contest that her ex girlfriend participated in.

What's your opinion on the matter? I'm genuinely interested.

Other people can chime in, I'm most interested in the opinion of a trans woman on the subject, however.

[kuriatsu | 65]

8 hours ago, Lincoln said:

jfc how did this turn into someone talking down to a member in a minority group without a hint of self awareness

  Your guess is as good as mine.....I'm just trying to defend myself and my views.

15 hours ago, epiclotus said:

Indeed, I agree that mutual respect is the goal, and a worthwhile one at that.  Where I am disagreeing with you, though, is your assertion that bigotry is bigotry.  We are all intolerant of some things, and may passionately disagree on very core issues, but as long there is a willingness to have rational discourse and debate on these topics, I don't think it's good to lump someone in with the bigoted in the context which you are using.  cartman is arguing that comedy should be free from suppression, and I have actually seen cogent arguments to support that.  I don't think I agree with him, or that he even fully understands the underlying principles he is arguing for.  Yet, his point has relevance in that there should be concern that social censorship may lead to actual governmental oppression.  There is a line to be balanced upon, and falling off on either side leads to the same bad end.

For my part, the limit of tolerance isn't words.  I can tolerate words I don't like, but not an inch further.  When those words are followed by violence or persecution, then the line has been crossed.  I am not saying that words cannot hurt, but when that for the continued ability to express my own words as I wish, I will take those hurts because I value that freedom of speech much more than my own emotional well-being.  Conversely, though, I don't think we should tolerate one iota beyond words.  Violence toward others should never be tolerated, and violence should only be used in kind if no other means are effective.  There's a lot more layers to this view than what I've expressed, but hopefully the gist of it comes through.

Hes not arguing that very well...

I'm sorry but I continue to disagree.

Bigotry is bigotry and is unacceptable. A lot of people seem to think that humor should be free of suppression except when it effects them personally, then its "crossed a line" I firmly believe that if you're knowingly an asshat, then you're an asshat.(not you personally) I recommend investigating what exactly these jokes do to people that they harm. I recommend checking out the pinknews.co.uk or go to the asktransgender subreddit and ask, they can explain more eloquently than I can most times.

I think I could excuse 1 time, but any more than that with knowledge of what it is, is the actions of a piece of shit.

I value free speech too, but if a comedian(or anyone else) is going to knowingly participate in things that are damaging to anyone, then they need to stop. period, no exceptions. You don't have any idea how damaging some things are that are "apparently innocuous"

Helicopter jokes for instance are a plague, and they show hatred, I won't hesitate to report them unless they have a damn good punchline and have nothing to do with being trans. (something something swa text to speech)

There are yet worse jokes than those of course.

I don't believe jokes should be told that make fun of disadvantaged people, celebrities? sometimes, banana peel jokes? often, irony? definitely. You need to have internal context for these jokes. there's a difference between someone telling jokes and someone telling jokes that should be told.

If you hurt someone, and someone asks you to stop and you don't or you know exactly what it can be, that's called being an asshole, a bigot, a piece of shit, more and all of the above.

 

6 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

@kuriatsu

I don't know any trans women in real life(but if I did I promise I would ask them too! I'm always curious about how people feel from all backgrounds!)

One of the big controversies surrounding trans women at the moment are athletes that have gone through male puberty before transitioning. It is widely considered that they biologically have a distinct advantage over women born female and therefore unfair to allow them to compete in female athletics. This was recently again a mainstream question with the trans cyclist from Canada that absolutely dominated last year and carried a very cavalier attitude towards the women she competed against saying something to the likes of "you all need to stop hating and train harder." This incident was lampooned on an an episode of South Park portraying Macho Man Randy Savage as having come out as trans, thus dominating a female athletic contest that her ex girlfriend participated in.

What's your opinion on the matter? I'm genuinely interested.

Other people can chime in, I'm most interested in the opinion of a trans woman on the subject, however.

Well, I think what you should take into consideration is that in the olympics and most other competitions, testosterone and estrogen levels are tested and if its above a certain point or below a certain point then the participant is disqualified. steroids tend to boost testosterone and as a result they need to make sure this stuff isn't giving an advantage to cheat.

How this relates to trans stuff with athletes, is that when an athlete starts taking estrogen, they are about the same as they normally would be, but as you continue to take estrogen throughout the days, weeks, months, years, it becomes harder and harder and harder to stay physically fit because your muscles are atrophied to an extent unless you keep a certain amount of exercise. At the year mark for most trans people, whether they're MTF or FTM, are basically the same in muscular structure and levels as the biological people. so if a trans woman starts taking estrogen a year in advance and keeps up their strength for a weight lifting competition in a year, enters and wins, then they effectively takes double the effort. Just because she transitioned gives absolutely no benefits whatsoever and if anything gives a detriment for that kind of competition. The same goes for FTM(female to male) taking testosterone to start a competition with men purely for the advantages and if they're not trans, that's going to screw them up mentally and physically, but if a trans man is competing with men, then they will take the appropriate measures to live life normally how they want to and happily.

Translation/TLDR: men cheat by taking testosterone boosting supplements such as steroids, they do not cheat by taking a years worth of estrogen to compete in the womens section. MTF and FTM people have absolutely no advantages past a certain point(usually about 3 months from my understanding, but I'm not an athlete) of active cross-sex hormone treatments.(meaning MTF is male to female taking estrogen for a few months, and female to male taking testosterone after a few months)

What people almost always fail to take into consideration is the other side. If taking cross sex hormones for a year doesn't do anything to even the playing field, then why are the objectors not also objecting to the FTM competitors, with the same objection and they may hurt?

 

[m308gunner | 352]

20 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Now white nationalism is “robust and mature” lol. Thanks for proving my point. Thats the exact legitimization I wanted you to save in your spiel. 
 

I am not trying to hear any defense of hate groups, sorry. 
 

Instead of saying “Yeah being supported by that group isn’t such a great look”  (which isnt even true)it’s one argument saying it’s not a big deal and another argument talking about how they’re not as powerful as they were before so it shouldn’t matter.  Quest could’ve just posted the link and instantly disproved the original comment, instead people are jumping to the defense of the KKK which is insane. 

  You (and about three other members) seem to be misunderstanding pretty much everything I'm trying to communicate here from start to finish. On top of that you've taken a point I was trying to make about the general social mindset, which observably tends toward over sensitivity, and twisted it into my somehow defending white nationalism or the KKK. A more blatant straw man argument you could not make.

  So let's try to clear this one particular point up. Today's culture is overly sensitive, and has been growing ever more so since the early 2000s. I posit that the pendulum of social norms is once again swinging back in the other direction (due to political-correction-exhaustion, among other things), and society is beginning to ease it's white knuckled panic over the mere mention of racism (something the left has enabled by continuously overusing and over applying the term). I don't like using analogies, but imagine a new doctor vs. a veteran doctor who has to deliver test results to a gravely ill patient. In this poorly built scenario, the new doctor enters the room overly excited and dramatically announces that all is lost unless the patient starts treatment yesterday ("we may even have to amputate!!!"), while the older doctor pulls up a stool and calmly walks through the problem and how they can treat the ailment. Both acknowledge that there is a problem, but one approaches the problem like it is death incarnate (today's waning SJW culture), while the other has seen it all before and know's how to handle it (Mr. Davis and hopefully the rest of us).

Now, please re-read my earlier post. 

 

[m308gunner | 352]

20 hours ago, epiclotus said:

As literal organization, I agree.  I think you see a staunch reaction to KKK imagery more out of concern for it becoming a symbol instead of a memory.  True Nazism died in 1945, but look how that has lingered, festered, and regrown.  

Hahahaha, that's hilarious.  

  Well, I'm sure I don't need to rattle off the old adage about forgetting and repeating history to you, but I don't think that's the direction you're coming from. I would argue that we should never expect true evil to disappear entirely. It will continue to fester, linger and regrow (because that's kinda it's thing). I merely suggest that we keep our "swords" (mind/arguments) sharpened and not freak out at the twitching corpse that it has become.

[m308gunner | 352]

19 hours ago, Tulpa said:

But the key to comedy is that you should always punch up, hitting those who deserve it, not target someone who can't help who they are.

Otherwise, you're a bigot.

 

Referencing the SJW left's opinion on comedy and characterizing in advance people who will not agree is the height of... words better left unsaid.

[Tulpa | 3,493]

3 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Referencing the SJW left's opinion on comedy and characterizing in advance people who will not agree is the height of... words better left unsaid.

It's not just their opinion. 

If you are attacking a group based on their very being, even if you are just joking, you are a bigot. Maybe you are a joking bigot, but you are still a bigot. Full stop.

"I tell jokes because they are funny to some people" doesn't excuse it.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Tulpa

[m308gunner | 352]

Just now, Tulpa said:

It's not just their opinion. If you are attacking a group based on their very being, you are a bigot. Full stop.

 

It is exactly their opinion, because we are not talking hard science here. We are talking about an ideology that groups people by their traits and makes assumptions based on those traits. What's more, they seek to establish a social hierarchy based on said traits (I believe it's been called the victimhood hierarchy, or the intersectional heirarchy, depending on who's talking). At that point they cease to hold any legitimacy and become one with the racists they purport to abhor.

Your fondness and readiness to throw around the word bigot and characterize jokes as attacks while offering no compelling argument does not speak highly of you. When is the last time you heard a working comedian talk about the left and comedy? The popular opinion that I have heard is that the left is the death of comedy.

[kuriatsu | 65]

1 hour ago, m308gunner said:

It is exactly their opinion, because we are not talking hard science here. We are talking about an ideology that groups people by their traits and makes assumptions based on those traits. What's more, they seek to establish a social hierarchy based on said traits (I believe it's been called the victimhood hierarchy, or the intersectional heirarchy, depending on who's talking). At that point they cease to hold any legitimacy and become one with the racists they purport to abhor.

Your fondness and readiness to throw around the word bigot and characterize jokes as attacks while offering no compelling argument does not speak highly of you. When is the last time you heard a working comedian talk about the left and comedy? The popular opinion that I have heard is that the left is the death of comedy.

The left is the death of comedy huh? Intersectional heirarchy? Bullshit. Its called the right being an asshole. Instead of saying "oh the left is the death of comedy" try to learn from the left so the left can learn from the right, that way we can all learn from each other and laugh and enjoy comedy toghether, all it takes is a little freaking empathy. Whos going to take that first step?

whats compelling to you and compelling to me are different things and your lack of being willing to empathize and be understanding does not speak highly of your capacity of human growth and development. I'm disappointed at your lack of even trying to hold a conversation rather than just repeat the same drivel over and over and over again. Grow up and be empathetic toward your fellow human beings.

But I don't know why I'm bothering to even try because you people never reciprocate, you people never learn, never grow, never change, never mature, never bother to even TRY to see other peoples points of view.

nevermind. Obviously you shits don't care and you never will because you are incapable of it, feel free to prove me wrong.

Edited February 22, 2020 by kuriatsu