Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[pErvinalia]

I'm tired.

Surely we can agree that the vast majority of humans seek to feel good as opposed to bad, right? So can't we nearly objectively say that making someone feel bad is undesirable? That's what I am getting at in as few words as humanly possible.

[DaveDodo007]

Is it worth my effort reading that article? Your cut and paste doesn't tell me why I might actually be racist. And given I'm not, I'm not sure what the article could possibly say.

I agree with this comment in so far as other commentators should be able to articulate what they got from the linked piece. Links should be for scientific facts, evidence and studies to back up their claims. So lets get back to basics, your rant at anti-immigration person. Has it occurred to you that the people who suffer most in any said country from immigration are the poor, least educated, least able to cope with increased competition. It is all very well for the elite to have a bigger job seeking resource that will keep labour cost down and the immigrates in question are not going to be living in the areas they occupy. Are you so willing to dismiss their concerns and not accept that there might be some justification in their airing of grievances.

Edit: A word.

Australia is different from the US and wherever you are from. There's large parts of the country that are a cunt to live in and difficult to get to. If asylum seekers are willing to work in these places (which they are) and Aussies aren't for whatever reason, then I don't see a problem.

Look at it this way - The problem isn't with refo's taking the jobs of our poor, it's about the 4th richest country in the world being too selfish to share the wealth with those who need a hand (whether that is refugees or our own poor). It's not the refugees fault. It's the fault of neoliberal elite who want to see as much of the wealth flowing up the chain to them.

That's is a cope out and you should know it. Aussies would do a job if the pay was good enough but rather than increase wages the bosses are happy to exploit more desperate people to do the job for less pay.

[pErvinalia]

We have a reasonably good minimum wage here, so they can't actually pay them less.

As I said, this isn't a problem with asylum seekers. It's a problem with greedy capitalism.

[DaveDodo007]

We have a reasonably good minimum wage here, so they can't actually pay them less.

As I said, this isn't a problem with asylum seekers. It's a problem with greedy capitalism.

and how many immigrates are doing very dangerous jobs in shitty conditions with little or no health and safety around whilst they should be paying higher wages with better working conditions? Immigration doesn't only harm the the lower class of any country It also harms the the country they left. As in the most skillful and the most resourceful leave the country that needs them the most to work in the lower tries in countries which could simply educate its own population to fill the necessary gaps in the work force.

[DaveDodo007]

I'm tired.

Surely we can agree that the vast majority of humans seek to feel good as opposed to bad, right? So can't we nearly objectively say that making someone feel bad is undesirable? That's what I am getting at in as few words as humanly possible.

Is that a white flag as I only accept unconditional surrender.

[Audley Strange]

But they aren't similar levels of harm.

Perhaps not to the individual at the time no, but to consider one socially acceptable and the other intolerable is to create a culture in which bigotry against a specific group has tacit consent. I find that attitude worrisome but not uncommon. Especially worrisome since we are supposed to be living in a society where people are treated equal legally. When specific groups have the ability to indulge in socially acceptable bigotry with the support of the mainstream what we have is literally privilege, literally private law. I find that unacceptable and hypocritical in the extreme, I understand that most people don't. Beatsong re-emphasised my point for me w/r to RATSKEP, "It's okay when we do it." I see that, sadly, as more common outside that forum. People want to be spiteful and vindictive to their hate groups but wail when people are spiteful and vindictive to them.

Incidently, this is not about me defending the "poor white menz". I don't think they need defending. It is about the hypocrisy of the common pretence at liberal stance while being a totalitarian.

Why would they not be considered violent bigots? But your example raises a great demonstration of the difference here - what is the headline when those black youths beat an old man to death? "Violent Crime Among Blacks Still a Problem - Is Hip Hop Culture to Blame?!". What happens when a white guy shoots down a black dude because of a racist attitude? "Hero Protects Community and Acts in Self-Defence Against a Man Armed with M&Ms".

They simply aren't the same, there's no rationally debating that point.

Okay. Two things. First of all most of the Mainstream media handled the Zimmerman/Martin case despicably, not just the right wing media. The Left wing media had Zimmerman portrayed as a racist even before his trial started. So to only point out the former shows a level of confirmation bias. Both sides flogged the body of a dead teenager to make a political point, that to me is utterly disgusting. No one gets a free pass on that.

Secondly. In your first sentence you are only quoting a hypothetical right wing source. I could easily quote a hypothetical left wing source that claimed the poor boys were forced to beat to death an old man because of social conditions.

If you think the death of a white man at the hands of black racists is somehow less harmful than the death of a black man at the hands of white racists, then you are correct, there is no rationally debating that point with you.

Again, arguably true but irrelevant. The positions are still different even if they were hypothetically created by similarly deranged individuals.

I think not. The positions are exactly the same, you just choose to see one as more harmful than the other. That is no different from people who think a white man being assaulted by a black man is somehow abhorrent yet the opposite is trivial.

Whether the responses are fair or not isn't the point here, the interesting part is the stark difference in approach depending on which group is being 'criticised'. But personally I'd point out that yes, the responses are unfair and largely come from a place of ignorance.

Fair enough. I think much the same but I'd go further and suggest that much of the demands for reparations and affirmative actions come from equally ignorant people.

Maybe, if it could be shown that institutions and companies that operated in that trade have benefited from it then yes, they should attribute some of their profits to the descendants of those affected.

Excellent. I agree.

Should the families of all the poor young men drafted into wars in the 17th to 20th century demand reparations too?

Did the draft result in a whole class of people being treated as second class citizens, to the point that it still affects their status and ability to function in today's society? If so, then definitely.
[/quote]

Yes it did, undoubtedly. So excellent, again we are on the same page at least with that. Let's go further. do the Australian people owe reparations to the Australian natives or do the British? Do the British also owe reparations to the Australians and Americans and Canadians who were forcibly exiled? Does the Vatican owe reparations to the entirety of Europe? At what point do you think it should stop?

Nobody is "blaming white men" though, that was part of the whole strawman position I describe in my comment above. It's simply a case of a society that wants a population of free and equal people making efforts towards ensuring that these people are free and equal.

Plenty of people are blaming white men. I have to say that since the start of 2014, I've seen some vehement pushback against it by mainstream Women's rights activists (mostly because the same horde thrive on accusation and have started to attack their own) which is great but there is plenty of open hatred against white men as a group on the internet, much of which would be deemed unacceptable and cause a public outcry if it was targeted towards any other group.

But I don't think anyone does that, outside of strawmen and probably some nutty extremists. It certainly isn't a popular view.

I suspect it is more popular than you imagine. Certainly they are nutty extremists, there's plenty of them to go round across the board in both MSM and on the internet.

Safe spaces can be used in different ways to suit the needs of people there. In terms of minorities, safe spaces are places where they can take a second to escape the world that discriminates against them before having to head back out into it.

Like a private members club. Okay, that's fair enough. However it should be private no? Not enacted in a public space.

That's just absurd though. It's not like these people aren't aware of the "dissenting views", it's just that safe spaces aren't the place to raise those views. Let's take your psychiatric patients for example and suppose that a person comes in saying that they're struggling to cope with the fact that they were raped. Should we allow "dissenting views" where people are allowed to blame them for what happened to them? Where people are allowed to make "reasonable contrary arguments" that suggest that maybe they brought it on themselves and deserved it? Of course not. And banning such talk in a safe space wouldn't make it an echo chamber.

No, however if someone in that group who had also been raped has different experiences and suggests to the person that by being fixated by the trauma and dwelling on it is unhealthy they not should be shouted down and accused of being rape enablers or whatever nor should they be cast out by the group for having a dissenting opinion.

Which means, by definition, it cannot be an echo chamber. The whole point is that nobody gets a free pass to bigotry just because you're a respected member of the community. As you say, they even criticise the behaviors of their friends when they step over the line, meaning that nobody is free from criticism.

Actually it can mean its an echo chamber. By ousting those who make the slightest transgression as they see it, they can only be left with those who agree completely and utterly. This does mean the groups get smaller and smaller as they shun the unbelievers, this is cult behaviour, this is the behaviour of extremists and terrorist cells.

Nonsense, free speech and freedom of expression is to say what I want and to use whatever means I can (barring legal censorship) to shut down views that I disagree with. If I started my own newspaper dedicated to how awesome Pikachu is as a pokemon, then as the editor I can refuse to publish any articles saying that Charizard is better than Pikachu. This is a demonstration and exercising of my freedoms. Because of freedom of speech and expression, that person is then allowed to start his own newspaper or submit articles to other newspapers.

To accept freedom of speech does not mean that I have to implicitly support every possible view by refraining from drowning it out.

Granted, but if, as many do, you are calling for legal action to silence a group because of what you see as controversial opinion then you are not defending free speech, you are defending only your right to speak. When people are making claims that specific words should be banned or made illegal, they are not defending free speech.

The confusion lies in the ambiguity of the word "discriminatory", which has the trivial use meaning "to decide between things" and the more serious use to mean "to arbitrarily refuse someone a service based on prejudice". I absolutely allow private businesses to be "discriminatory" in the first sense - restaurant doesn't want to allow people without shirts and ties? Go for it. Newspaper doesn't want to publish an article by someone who is as interesting as a rock? Go for it.

The problem comes when someone is arbitrarily discriminated against, so if a restaurant has no shirt and tie policy but chooses to refuse a guy service because he doesn't have a shirt and tie, then that's shitty. Then throw in the huge societal issue of minorities struggling to find work, find somewhere to eat, etc etc, and you have a problem that requires government intervention - unless we're happy with watching these people either die, live in slums and turn to crime, or pay higher taxes to help them survive in the world.

Right I'm not actually sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying businesses should be entitled to discriminate but only allowed discriminate based on your criteria?

Also I reject your notion that the societal issue of poverty is not an issue of minorites, it is an issue of class.

I appreciate the responses Samsa.

[pErvinalia]

We have a reasonably good minimum wage here, so they can't actually pay them less.

As I said, this isn't a problem with asylum seekers. It's a problem with greedy capitalism.

and how many immigrates are doing very dangerous jobs in shitty conditions with little or no health and safety around whilst they should be paying higher wages with better working conditions? Immigration doesn't only harm the the lower class of any country It also harms the the country they left. As in the most skillful and the most resourceful leave the country that needs them the most to work in the lower tries in countries which could simply educate its own population to fill the necessary gaps in the work force.

We have good work conditions here that are mandated by law (although the current bunch of conservative cunts are doing their best to undo that).

It really depends on what you are talkoing about. Immigration - sure, limit it. I don't think the gov should be loosening the requirements on "457 visas" while our unemployment rate is so relatively high. Asylum seekers are a different issue.

[pErvinalia]

I'm tired.

Surely we can agree that the vast majority of humans seek to feel good as opposed to bad, right? So can't we nearly objectively say that making someone feel bad is undesirable? That's what I am getting at in as few words as humanly possible.

Is that a white flag as I only accept unconditional surrender.

Well I presented an argument. You can address that if you like.

[Mr.Samsa]

But they aren't similar levels of harm.

Perhaps not to the individual at the time no, but to consider one socially acceptable and the other intolerable is to create a culture in which bigotry against a specific group has tacit consent.

Sure, okay, if there was any chance of that happening against dominant social groups then I'd agree but (at least at the moment) this is obviously hugely unlikely.

Especially worrisome since we are supposed to be living in a society where people are treated equal legally. When specific groups have the ability to indulge in socially acceptable bigotry with the support of the mainstream what we have is literally privilege, literally private law. I find that unacceptable and hypocritical in the extreme, I understand that most people don't.

I don't think people can legally engage in such bigotry but even if I accept that there's somehow a loophole in law which makes it so that you can discriminate against a guy for being white, this is such a hypothetical problem that I think it's only worth addressing if it ever manifests in reality.

Beatsong re-emphasised my point for me w/r to RATSKEP, "It's okay when we do it." I see that, sadly, as more common outside that forum. People want to be spiteful and vindictive to their hate groups but wail when people are spiteful and vindictive to them.

I don't think anything he said explicitly or implicitly supported that conclusion.

Incidently, this is not about me defending the "poor white menz". I don't think they need defending. It is about the hypocrisy of the common pretence at liberal stance while being a totalitarian.

That's a little silly now..

Why would they not be considered violent bigots? But your example raises a great demonstration of the difference here - what is the headline when those black youths beat an old man to death? "Violent Crime Among Blacks Still a Problem - Is Hip Hop Culture to Blame?!". What happens when a white guy shoots down a black dude because of a racist attitude? "Hero Protects Community and Acts in Self-Defence Against a Man Armed with M&Ms".

They simply aren't the same, there's no rationally debating that point.

Okay. Two things. First of all most of the Mainstream media handled the Zimmerman/Martin case despicably, not just the right wing media. The Left wing media had Zimmerman portrayed as a racist even before his trial started. So to only point out the former shows a level of confirmation bias. Both sides flogged the body of a dead teenager to make a political point, that to me is utterly disgusting. No one gets a free pass on that.

I don't really care about left or right wing politics.

Secondly. In your first sentence you are only quoting a hypothetical right wing source. I could easily quote a hypothetical left wing source that claimed the poor boys were forced to beat to death an old man because of social conditions.

Well I'm not sure that would be considered "left wing", as much as it would probably be an accurate description of relevant causal variables. Rarely do I see such a thing presented as an excuse though, but rather highlighting a problem that needs to be addressed.

But my point is simply about the dominance of the reaction - the overwhelming response is what I've described, whether right wing or left, and even when attempts to point out relevant causal environmental variables are made, the reaction to them is usually pretty negative.

If you think the death of a white man at the hands of black racists is somehow less harmful than the death of a black man at the hands of white racists, then you are correct, there is no rationally debating that point with you.

I've never claimed nor implied that. The point is still that the power and the social responses to those two situations are undeniably different. We're not debating the harm to the individual, as I think I've made quite clear.

Again, arguably true but irrelevant. The positions are still different even if they were hypothetically created by similarly deranged individuals.

I think not. The positions are exactly the same, you just choose to see one as more harmful than the other. That is no different from people who think a white man being assaulted by a black man is somehow abhorrent yet the opposite is trivial.

It's not about "choosing" at all, there are undeniably huge detrimental effects on society when discriminatory comments and attitudes towards minorities are displayed in society, and these harmful effects are not equal when directed at dominant social groups. And both of those assault situations are abhorrent, as I've already agreed.

Did the draft result in a whole class of people being treated as second class citizens, to the point that it still affects their status and ability to function in today's society? If so, then definitely.

Yes it did, undoubtedly. So excellent, again we are on the same page at least with that. Let's go further. do the Australian people owe reparations to the Australian natives or do the British?

Arguably both, but since it's Australia attempting to improve its country then the onus is on them.

Do the British also owe reparations to the Australians and Americans and Canadians who were forcibly exiled? Does the Vatican owe reparations to the entirety of Europe? At what point do you think it should stop?

Are Australians, Americans, and Canadians treated as second class citizens in their own country, struggle to find jobs, and are constantly mistreated due to their historical struggles?

Nobody is "blaming white men" though, that was part of the whole strawman position I describe in my comment above. It's simply a case of a society that wants a population of free and equal people making efforts towards ensuring that these people are free and equal.

Plenty of people are blaming white men. I have to say that since the start of 2014, I've seen some vehement pushback against it by mainstream Women's rights activists (mostly because the same horde thrive on accusation and have started to attack their own) which is great but there is plenty of open hatred against white men as a group on the internet, much of which would be deemed unacceptable and cause a public outcry if it was targeted towards any other group.

I honestly haven't seen it. Usually I see a valid criticism of something like white or male privilege and in response someone will raise the strawman of: "Oh, so white men are evil now?!" etc.

But I don't think anyone does that, outside of strawmen and probably some nutty extremists. It certainly isn't a popular view.

I suspect it is more popular than you imagine. Certainly they are nutty extremists, there's plenty of them to go round across the board in both MSM and on the internet.

Maybe it is, but I see no evidence of it and if it is as popular as you suggest, that seems strange to me.

Safe spaces can be used in different ways to suit the needs of people there. In terms of minorities, safe spaces are places where they can take a second to escape the world that discriminates against them before having to head back out into it.

Like a private members club. Okay, that's fair enough. However it should be private no? Not enacted in a public space.

It can be anywhere, as long as the rules are clearly posted on entrance.

That's just absurd though. It's not like these people aren't aware of the "dissenting views", it's just that safe spaces aren't the place to raise those views. Let's take your psychiatric patients for example and suppose that a person comes in saying that they're struggling to cope with the fact that they were raped. Should we allow "dissenting views" where people are allowed to blame them for what happened to them? Where people are allowed to make "reasonable contrary arguments" that suggest that maybe they brought it on themselves and deserved it? Of course not. And banning such talk in a safe space wouldn't make it an echo chamber.

No, however if someone in that group who had also been raped has different experiences and suggests to the person that by being fixated by the trauma and dwelling on it is unhealthy they not should be shouted down and accused of being rape enablers or whatever nor should they be cast out by the group for having a dissenting opinion.

They should, however, be reminded that such comments are not appropriate for the safe space and if the behavior is repeated then they must be removed from the group. The problem isn't "dissent", it's violating the basic principles of a safe space.

Which means, by definition, it cannot be an echo chamber. The whole point is that nobody gets a free pass to bigotry just because you're a respected member of the community. As you say, they even criticise the behaviors of their friends when they step over the line, meaning that nobody is free from criticism.

Actually it can mean its an echo chamber. By ousting those who make the slightest transgression as they see it, they can only be left with those who agree completely and utterly. This does mean the groups get smaller and smaller as they shun the unbelievers, this is cult behaviour, this is the behaviour of extremists and terrorist cells.

How regularly do cults attack and challenge seniors and leaders, and question their behavior?

Nonsense, free speech and freedom of expression is to say what I want and to use whatever means I can (barring legal censorship) to shut down views that I disagree with. If I started my own newspaper dedicated to how awesome Pikachu is as a pokemon, then as the editor I can refuse to publish any articles saying that Charizard is better than Pikachu. This is a demonstration and exercising of my freedoms. Because of freedom of speech and expression, that person is then allowed to start his own newspaper or submit articles to other newspapers.

To accept freedom of speech does not mean that I have to implicitly support every possible view by refraining from drowning it out.

Granted, but if, as many do, you are calling for legal action to silence a group because of what you see as controversial opinion then you are not defending free speech, you are defending only your right to speak. When people are making claims that specific words should be banned or made illegal, they are not defending free speech.

That hypothetical example would be irrelevant to what we're discussing though.

Right I'm not actually sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying businesses should be entitled to discriminate but only allowed discriminate based on your criteria?

Not "my" criteria but according to legal standards. They are allowed to refuse service to people when they have a good reason to do so - for example, safety or hygiene reasons, or standard of dress codes, etc. When people refuse service on arbitrary matters, like the colour of someone's skin, then an entire section of society suffers, which in turn causes a bigger strain on society as a whole. We, as a group, have generally agreed that such a thing is bad and have taken steps to stop it from happening.

Also I reject your notion that the societal issue of poverty is not an issue of minorites, it is an issue of class.

I'm not quite sure what position you are ascribing to me here. Lower classes and those in poverty are minorities.

I appreciate the responses Samsa.

Although I fear that we're starting from such fundamentally opposed assumptions that little value will come from the discussion.

[Audley Strange]

I'm not quite sure what position you are ascribing to me here. Lower classes and those in poverty are minorities.

I think that you will find the lower classes and those in poverty are the majority, unless you are using some arcane sociological definition which I'd likely dismiss.

I appreciate the responses Samsa.

Although I fear that we're starting from such fundamentally opposed assumptions that little value will come from the discussion.[/quote]

Well I agree it is getting a bit long in the tooth and I don't think either of us is going to convince each other but I'm not completely opposed to what you are saying, I do have some sympathy for your position, I just don't wholeheartedly agree with it. Again thanks for the time you took, it was a pleasure.

[Brian Peacock]

Progressive Racism: The hidden motive driving modern politics

Progressive politics is rooted in racism. Look carefully at most social or fiscal policies advocated by progressives and you’ll see that underneath their false public rationales lie hidden racist fears and assumptions — some of which the progressives may be too embarrassed to admit even to themselves, much less to the world.

Progressive politics is rooted in class. The class war isn't over comrades, unless you're happy to grant the rich that pyrrhic victory and bow down before them like good little peasants, to content yourselves with economic slavery and a fight for the meagre and pitiful scraps they occasionally toss into the great pit you willingly climbed into.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm not quite sure what position you are ascribing to me here. Lower classes and those in poverty are minorities.

I think that you will find the lower classes and those in poverty are the majority, unless you are using some arcane sociological definition which I'd likely dismiss.

"Minority" in this discussion doesn't refer to statistics, it refers to the relative societal power a group has (as is the standard definition in this context).

[DaveDodo007]

We have a reasonably good minimum wage here, so they can't actually pay them less.

As I said, this isn't a problem with asylum seekers. It's a problem with greedy capitalism.

and how many immigrates are doing very dangerous jobs in shitty conditions with little or no health and safety around whilst they should be paying higher wages with better working conditions? Immigration doesn't only harm the the lower class of any country It also harms the the country they left. As in the most skillful and the most resourceful leave the country that needs them the most to work in the lower tries in countries which could simply educate its own population to fill the necessary gaps in the work force.

We have good work conditions here that are mandated by law (although the current bunch of conservative cunts are doing their best to undo that).

It really depends on what you are talkoing about. Immigration - sure, limit it. I don't think the gov should be loosening the requirements on "457 visas" while our unemployment rate is so relatively high. Asylum seekers are a different issue.

I'm not even anti-immigration and especially not against asylum seekers, my point was you were smearing all the anti-immigration side with the racist tag. Some are racist and if that's their reason they should be called on it but this tactic has been used too successfully to quell all descent for too long. There are legitimate reasons to be anti-immigration and their voices need to be heard.

[DaveDodo007]

I'm tired.

Surely we can agree that the vast majority of humans seek to feel good as opposed to bad, right? So can't we nearly objectively say that making someone feel bad is undesirable? That's what I am getting at in as few words as humanly possible.

Is that a white flag as I only accept unconditional surrender.

Well I presented an argument. You can address that if you like.

I was being flippant, we are still on Rationalia after all.

[pErvinalia]

We have a reasonably good minimum wage here, so they can't actually pay them less.

As I said, this isn't a problem with asylum seekers. It's a problem with greedy capitalism.

and how many immigrates are doing very dangerous jobs in shitty conditions with little or no health and safety around whilst they should be paying higher wages with better working conditions? Immigration doesn't only harm the the lower class of any country It also harms the the country they left. As in the most skillful and the most resourceful leave the country that needs them the most to work in the lower tries in countries which could simply educate its own population to fill the necessary gaps in the work force.

We have good work conditions here that are mandated by law (although the current bunch of conservative cunts are doing their best to undo that).

It really depends on what you are talkoing about. Immigration - sure, limit it. I don't think the gov should be loosening the requirements on "457 visas" while our unemployment rate is so relatively high. Asylum seekers are a different issue.

I'm not even anti-immigration and especially not against asylum seekers, my point was you were smearing all the anti-immigration side with the racist tag. Some are racist and if that's their reason they should be called on it but this tactic has been used too successfully to quell all descent for too long. There are legitimate reasons to be anti-immigration and their voices need to be heard.

I don't think I was. Where was I doing that? I was only ever discussing asylum seekers as far as I was aware.