Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: What is happening to society?

  1. #1 What is happening to society? 
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    More and more i see opinions of people suppressed. Dialogue is being avoided. Scientific data is ignored in order to avoid hurting people's feelings. People are fired from speaking the truth. People are fired for having an opinion.

    I believed myself to be left leaning from the center. With a strong sense of the necessity for freedom for everyone. But why do people from the extreme left, seem like police state enforcers nowadays. Silencing free speech. And being borderline terrorists.

    Major corporations are now following suit by suppressing any opposition to this, as to stop people from discussing this fall of our freedom.

    There are quota's on everything, except for the ones deemed deeply privileged. (Somehow this doesn't include rich people, famous people, family of nobility or seats of power, nor those who are healthy)

    But why isn't it necessary to provide evidence for these privileges in order to do this "power shift"? As in all walks of science, evidence is the most important factor for everything. Why isn't evidence important when it comes onto society?

    I am strongly trying not to have any opinion about any of this, but the reasoning is quite obvious. Social media is destroying logic and free speech. It is too easy for people to oppose singular peoples opinions, and to silence them, and churn away at them bit by bit, up until there are no more oppositions.

    Can we restore tolerance and peace, without going into extremes and tolerating terrorists, pedophiles and racists.


    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Extremists screw it up for everyone...no matter which group they come from. What I find interesting is than in most cases, the moderates of a particular group generally denounce the extremists in their group, and don't wish to be associated with them. Moderate Muslims denounce extremists like ISIS. Moderate conservatives denounce extremists like the white supremacists or KKK. What I don't see a lot of is members of the moderate left denouncing the extreme viewpoints of the extreme left. It's one reason that I have began to move away from the left.

    As a centerist with some left-leaning beliefs, I am appalled by some of the viewpoints that I hear from the far left. IMHO, these viewpoints directly contradict what I believe are the core components of liberalism...Freedom, equality and tolerance. Because of this, I no longer consider the far left to be liberal anymore...it's something more akin to Marxism or even Fascism. When I hear members of the far left say things like "all white people are racists and evil" and "people of color can't be racist", to me, that's straight up racist and should be "called" for the bullshit it is. Another problem I have with the far left is the absolute lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do. If a person holds different beliefs, they are immediately labeled as a racist, sexist, white supremacist, Nazi or fascist...even if that person is none of those things.

    I believe that this tactic is used to attempt to shut down or discredit alternate opinions by labeling them with universally hated terms, even if those terms don't apply. This, to me, goes against core tenets of free speech. It seems to me that the far left wants to take a giant step backwards when it comes to civil rights, and I think the only solution is for moderate liberals and leftist to stand up and denounce the more radical viewpoints that violate their core values. You can't fight for equality with racism. You can't fight for tolerance by being intolerant of others. You can't fight for freedom by limiting other people's freedom.

    ETA: Holy crap! Mac just posted a political opinion....that's rarer than a virgin in a whorehouse!


    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,343
    Think it's equally bad on the right. There's a lot of good people, effectively bitting their tongue as they watch what's possibly the worst president in US history screw up day after day, but aren't' calling him out for fear of political retaliation that would hurt their constituents or label them a RINO and risk their next election.

    "Social media is destroying logic and free speech. " I'm not sure logic and free speech ever strongly went together, but tend to agree, the wholesale privatisation of all common communications (to include this forum for example) has done a lot of damage to free speech. Speech isn't made in a town square anymore--it's done through private communication forums and social media sites where "free speech" doesn't exist at all. Twitter just might be the one strong exception. I have no solution.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    As a centerist with some left-leaning beliefs, I am appalled by some of the viewpoints that I hear from the far left. IMHO, these viewpoints directly contradict what I believe are the core components of liberalism...Freedom, equality and tolerance. Because of this, I no longer consider the far left to be liberal anymore...it's something more akin to Marxism or even Fascism. When I hear members of the far left say things like "all white people are racists and evil" and "people of color can't be racist", to me, that's straight up racist and should be "called" for the bullshit it is. Another problem I have with the far left is the absolute lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do. If a person holds different beliefs, they are immediately labeled as a racist, sexist, white supremacist, Nazi or fascist...even if that person is none of those things.
    As a moderate liberal I am in total agreement with you on these points. And anytime I bring these points up to the far left they call me a shill or go on a rant about how I'm not a true liberal. I hate their attitude that if you don't agree completely with them then you are the opposition. And Lynx is right, there is a lot of similar behavior on the far right. We have good people on both sides biting their tongues and enabling these extremists.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,935
    One of the problems I see is the very attempt to frame something so complex as an individuals political tendencies in a one dimensional model like "left/right". This model is wholly insufficient to it's task, and leads to a false dichotomy, but is still referenced by media and the general populace. Although it is likely an apocryphal work, please reference the Willie Lynch speech.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Observing the wider community at large, there appears a change that is driving people apart, forcing them to take polarised and more extremist views. This change doesn't, thankfully, appear to have been replicated here on our online science community. I'm referring to a shift away from focusing on shared common viewpoints towards placing a much stronger emphasis on the areas where we might disagree. For this, I blame a shift in politics. Society, in general, has moved away from wanting to discuss things in a civilised manner, thus reaching amicable compromises, towards a more aggressive adversarial, confrontational emotion based extremism that just doesn't leave any room for compromise. No shades of grey, you're either with me or against me kind of mentality, gone are the notions of - well actually I'd like to consider what you've said and decide for myself on the specifics.

    Just from reading the previous posts I think this point was illustrated so well by recognition Falconer gave towards Lynx's comment regarding Liberal/Centrist views, recognising what they shared in common. I have repeatedly observed how we all strive to find the things we agree on, just by doing this we then have enough respect for each to have civilised debates and discussions over areas where we might differ. We can thus, avoid the necessity of having to take extremist positions, that would too often be governed by emotion rather than reason, discussing issues in a more factual manner.

    Given the current political climate it would seem reasonable that for free speech to be effective it needs to be supported by the courage of one's convictions, saying something that others might strongly disagree with is likely to provoke a fierce reaction, this certainly shouldn't prevent people from speaking their minds - they just need to be aware and mentally prepared for the reactions.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    Left and right used to mean, more policies (left), and fewer policies (right). But this changed into, hyper apologetic and enforcing opinions (left), and well the right voted for an unstable guy in the white house.

    While growing up, i had about 50% male/50% female teachers. Which gave me a good balance of the world. Nowadays the young and unemployed (loads of free time), grew up with 97% female/3% male teachers. I have always wanted to be a teacher myself, but in the end didn't, in favor of science. I wonder if i could have a positive effect on logic in those new generation of kids.

    Few weeks ago, our rail services changed from ladies and gentlemen, into travelers, because ladies and gentlemen wouldn't be inclusive to everyone. I studied molecular biology, so this didn't make sense to me. This makes me feel less included, as the change was in favor of 0,1% of people who don't assign themselves to any gender.

    What happened in your countries/cities lately?
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    While growing up, i had about 50% male/50% female teachers. Which gave me a good balance of the world. Nowadays the young and unemployed (loads of free time), grew up with 97% female/3% male teachers. I have always wanted to be a teacher myself, but in the end didn't, in favor of science. I wonder if i could have a positive effect on logic in those new generation of kids.
    I graduated less than ten years ago (barely) and I had about 90% male teachers/10% female. I don't think the sex of the teachers really matters in the shifting of politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Few weeks ago, our rail services changed from ladies and gentlemen, into travelers, because ladies and gentlemen wouldn't be inclusive to everyone. I studied molecular biology, so this didn't make sense to me. This makes me feel less included, as the change was in favor of 0,1% of people who don't assign themselves to any gender.
    What's wrong with trying to include everyone? It's just a simple change in wording, your dislike for this change sounds more like a dislike of change in general. But this is off topic of the increase in political extremism.

    I think a big component of why political extremism is growing with everyone becoming polarized is due to how we consume our news. A little over 20 years ago, we were very limited in how we got our news. We got most of it from newspapers, and from a select few television stations. Then Fox News and MSNBC came into existence. Then in the early 2000s internet journalism took off and people started being able to choose from even more diverse places to consume their news. This increase in choice led people to seeking out news sources with which they agreed and to avoid the ones that they disagreed with. This effectively cut them off from seeing opposing views or getting a more balanced view of things.

    Sorry if that was a little rambling. Basically an increasing number of people nowadays only get their news, and therefore politics, from sources they agree with. Which leads to them not trusting opposing views and closing themselves off from the possibility that those views may have some merits.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Looking at the most recent examples where the polling got it wrong and we ended up with seemingly extreme results at the polls, suggests to me, a reaction against ideas and personalities provided the real motivation for voters actively seeking out groups or people promoting even the most extreme versions of their, for the most part, more moderate viewpoints. Here in the UK the Leave Campaigners whipped up a frenzy of near hatred towards the European Union, rather than a sudden love of the major Eurosceptic Party UKIP, or its then leader Nigel Farage. Equally, the rather shocking result in the US Presidential Election just appeared to be a case of who do you dislike the least. It's hard to believe many of the Bernie Sanders supporters had a great love for Hillary Clinton, however, when faced with a binary choice between her or Donald Trump they chose Hillary. Whilst Hillary is a Democrat, I think many will freely acknowledge she wasn't/isn't nearly as liberal or progressive as Sanders - though, so many true believers in the Sanders cause were driven into her corner, almost by default because she isn't Trump.

    Changes in technology have definitely influenced how we access news content, you make a valid point relevant to the far greater choice we now have in selecting our news sources and being able to seek out specifically, those which reinforce our preconceptions. Politicians now appear to exploit this phenomenon to polarise voters - given the interactive nature of modern sources, pointedly social media, they are even able to get the public to make their case for them, thus driving people further apart as they themselves find ever more extreme ways to disagree without the normal political restraints of acceptable political etiquette.

    Advancements in communications technology dictate that choice and interactivity in our news consumption is here to stay - If a change is to occur in our rejection of experts and facts if we are to become less adversarial then change is required to come from our politicians setting us a higher standard than we have at present.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    What's wrong with trying to include everyone? It's just a simple change in wording, your dislike for this change sounds more like a dislike of change in general. But this is off topic of the increase in political extremism.
    Nothing is wrong with including everyone. But what about people who aren't travelling, but are working in the shops, or those picking up or waving goodbye. There are a lot more of those. It may not be what the announcement for delays was intended for, but this doesn't include more people. They should just not name anyone. They should say. "Announcements everyone".. This includes everyone.. But i am very nitpicky right now, because every minor change will somehow lead to a big one.


    I think a big component of why political extremism is growing with everyone becoming polarized is due to how we consume our news. A little over 20 years ago, we were very limited in how we got our news.
    People consume the news they want.. In stead of everyone getting the same news.. This shifts opinions and divides people.. You say a propaganda machine without intended purpose will drive a wedge in society?

    I found this video from 1940 that kind of made me think of the same issues we have now. (its a cartoon, and about communism)
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    More and more i see opinions of people suppressed. Dialogue is being avoided...
    Um.

    I think that's the trend talking. The trend is for ever-expanding individual expression and opinion. Of course to participate one must have something to say - that is contrary or at least nuanced from the mainstream.

    Technology enabled it. Media thrives on it, because it is - we are - the media. It plays up counter-argument. So even a no-brainer like is Trump a viable president invites counter argument. We're doing this to ourselves. We can't help second-guessing and ultimately outsmarting ourselves.

    After the Brexit thing I predicted (here) the next US election would be a super tight race regardless of the candidates or campaign. Then likewise "down to the wire" for my provincial election. It's no conspiracy. We're doing this to ourselves. Test my prediction on your next local election or referendum!

    If I'm right, it'll take a few election cycles for mass consciousness to perceive/talk about this phenomenon. Then of course half the population must rise to deny it!
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    69
    quota's on everything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    69
    Social media is destroying logic and free speech.?is this forum social media?i hate facebook and twitter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Think it's equally bad on the right. There's a lot of good people, effectively bitting their tongue as they watch what's possibly the worst president in US history screw up day after day, but aren't' calling him out for fear of political retaliation that would hurt their constituents or label them a RINO and risk their next election.

    "Social media is destroying logic and free speech. " I'm not sure logic and free speech ever strongly went together, but tend to agree, the wholesale privatisation of all common communications (to include this forum for example) has done a lot of damage to free speech. Speech isn't made in a town square anymore--it's done through private communication forums and social media sites where "free speech" doesn't exist at all. Twitter just might be the one strong exception. I have no solution.

    https://gab.ai/ seen.life forums wordpress email lists the street
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by SHolmes View Post
    quota's on everything?
    Watch it: nasty case of "greengrocer's apostrophe" you have there!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SHolmes View Post
    quota's on everything?
    Watch it: nasty case of "greengrocer's apostrophe" you have there!
    i dont get the joke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    More and more i see opinions of people suppressed. Dialogue is being avoided. Scientific data is ignored in order to avoid hurting people's feelings. People are fired from speaking the truth. People are fired for having an opinion.
    Agreed - but that's nothing new. In many ways we have been getting better, not worse.

    Whistleblower laws now protect people from being fired when they speak up about injustice and crime.
    Kids are no longer taught creationism in schools, for the most part.
    Anyone can express their opinion on-line and be pretty sure that _someone_ will see it.
    There are quota's on everything, except for the ones deemed deeply privileged. (Somehow this doesn't include rich people, famous people, family of nobility or seats of power, nor those who are healthy)
    Can you give an example of this?
    I am strongly trying not to have any opinion about any of this, but the reasoning is quite obvious. Social media is destroying logic and free speech.
    Huh. I see exactly the opposite. Anyone - and I do mean anyone - can create a blog and start posting their opinions.
    Can we restore tolerance and peace, without going into extremes and tolerating terrorists, pedophiles and racists.
    Well, there's the balance right there. If you want to ban people who express racist opinions, then the racists have a good argument to ban people who spread "lies" about how the climate is warming up. I say let them both express their opinions via forums and the like, and let readers figure out which are valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    17
    I think 'identity politics' has a lot to do with it too. people 'identifying' as members of a group distinct from humanity in general, based on their differences, not on our commonality as Human Beings.('As opposed to...)

    Seems to me 'Identity' is a subjective environment, made up of all it contains, that 'shapes' that environment. Defined by a common belief of self. If thats true, then the human identity is fragmented by Identity politics. It does not promote a common belief in humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    I think 'identity politics' has a lot to do with it too. people 'identifying' as members of a group distinct from humanity in general, based on their differences, not on our commonality as Human Beings.('As opposed to...)

    Seems to me 'Identity' is a subjective environment, made up of all it contains, that 'shapes' that environment. Defined by a common belief of self. If thats true, then the human identity is fragmented by Identity politics. It does not promote a common belief in humanity.
    Identity politics is surely a response to treating other groups as inferior. It is a reaction. We have a vicious circle with a clown prince atop the shitting throne as we speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    I think 'identity politics' has a lot to do with it too. people 'identifying' as members of a group distinct from humanity in general, based on their differences, not on our commonality as Human Beings.('As opposed to...)

    Seems to me 'Identity' is a subjective environment, made up of all it contains, that 'shapes' that environment. Defined by a common belief of self. If thats true, then the human identity is fragmented by Identity politics. It does not promote a common belief in humanity.
    Identity politics is surely a response to treating other groups as inferior. It is a reaction. We have a vicious circle with a clown prince atop the shitting throne as we speak.
    But it is also an immature form of politics, that sanctions an unthinking, tribal approach to it and destroys social cohesion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    But it is also an immature form of politics, that sanctions an unthinking, tribal approach to it and destroys social cohesion.[/QUOTE]
    So how do we extricate ourselves from it? We can't wish it away can we?

    Does it have a tendency to disappear or will it always be with us ? (both manifestations)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    But it is also an immature form of politics, that sanctions an unthinking, tribal approach to it and destroys social cohesion.
    So how do we extricate ourselves from it? We can't wish it away can we?

    Does it have a tendency to disappear or will it always be with us ? (both manifestations)[/QUOTE]

    It will always be with us, but I believe politicians need to resist the temptation to divide society into factions that they then tailor specific policies for. The market researchers' segmentation approach, that has become so prevalent in Anglo-Saxon politics, has a baleful influence in my opinion.

    We do better when politics and political commentary are mainly concerned with the issues that affect us all, rather than catering to specific interest groups.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    The market researchers' segmentation approach, that has become so prevalent in Anglo-Saxon politics, has a baleful influence in my opinion.

    We do better when politics and political commentary are mainly concerned with the issues that affect us all, rather than catering to specific interest groups.
    Like turkeys voting for Christmas ,perhaps. Unless change proceeds in a new direction and the necessity for that fades into something as yet unforeseen?(with acknowledgement to Donald Rumsfeld the third)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    I think 'identity politics' has a lot to do with it too. people 'identifying' as members of a group distinct from humanity in general, based on their differences, not on our commonality as Human Beings.('As opposed to...)

    Seems to me 'Identity' is a subjective environment, made up of all it contains, that 'shapes' that environment. Defined by a common belief of self. If thats true, then the human identity is fragmented by Identity politics. It does not promote a common belief in humanity.
    Identity politics is surely a response to treating other groups as inferior. It is a reaction. We have a vicious circle with a clown prince atop the shitting throne as we speak.
    Its an ironic reaction. In the 60s to 80s we seemed to be progressing well to a new recognition of humanity in all its diverse conditions.
    Now, in the name of diversity?, it seems we are being directed to choose our condition and support it unreservedly. Once we agree on how its going to be defined. Or 'Fixed'.

    We can't wish it away. But re thinking the way we teach social and biological sciences in our schools might go a long way. The concepts we promote.
    Instead of selection based on 'survival of the fittest' for example, whats wrong with the concept that environment statistically favors the response that brings value. With environment being the space available. Value to the space of a subject either allowing for greater density or area.
    Last edited by naitche; January 14th, 2018 at 08:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post

    Its an ironic reaction. In the 60s to 80s we seemed to be progressing well to a new recognition of humanity in all its diverse conditions.
    Now, in the name of diversity?, it seems we are being directed to choose our condition and support it unreservedly.
    Do you have examples of "being directed to choose our condition and support it unreservedly"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    17
    Anecdotal, though many.

    The simple retort that a person who does not agree with a promoted perspective of identity is not representative of it. ie not a true liberal, not a true black, aboriginal, Muslim etc. they have no place claiming that identity with out supporting a 'consensus' of its beliefs.
    Last edited by naitche; January 14th, 2018 at 09:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    Anecdotal, though many.

    The simple retort that a person who does not agree with a promoted perspective of identity is not representative of it. ie not a true liberal, not a true black, aboriginal, Muslim etc. they have no place claiming that identity with out supporting a 'consensus' of its beliefs.
    Presumably this pressure is being applied by section of that society who share what you describe as "more extreme perspectives of identity".

    Are they not entitled to express these views to their co -identificators? If they apply their (moral) pressure in a way that accords with the law of the land ,what is the problem?

    Obama was referred to as "coconut" in that he was not properly black but only so in a skin deep way. By example he showed that he was his own man. He was well able to resist those pressures and so are surely countless others.

    We do not have to march to the beat of our slowest co marchers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,666
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    Anecdotal, though many.

    The simple retort that a person who does not agree with a promoted perspective of identity is not representative of it. ie not a true liberal, not a true black, aboriginal, Muslim etc. they have no place claiming that identity with out supporting a 'consensus' of its beliefs.
    The thing is, "No True Scotsman-ing" has been around pretty much all of history, its just easier to see, record, and report that behavior now that the digital era is here, and so its easier for people to report it. Its also typical behavior ONLY to report those things that annoy you, so its a biased reporting that happens.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by naitche View Post
    Anecdotal, though many.

    The simple retort that a person who does not agree with a promoted perspective of identity is not representative of it. ie not a true liberal, not a true black, aboriginal, Muslim etc. they have no place claiming that identity with out supporting a 'consensus' of its beliefs.
    Presumably this pressure is being applied by section of that society who share what you describe as "more extreme perspectives of identity".

    Are they not entitled to express these views to their co -identificators? If they apply their (moral) pressure in a way that accords with the law of the land ,what is the problem?

    Obama was referred to as "coconut" in that he was not properly black but only so in a skin deep way. By example he showed that he was his own man. He was well able to resist those pressures and so are surely countless others.

    We do not have to march to the beat of our slowest co marchers.
    I see freedom of expression as essential to keeping a healthy balance, yes. It seems identity is open to evolve and change in this way, if it recognizes a diverse environment. Can contain enough diversity.
    I doubt these narrowly defined identities do. Dismissal and/or rejection don't indicate they do. Thats not freedom of expression, more rejection of environment. No response given. Familiarity refused : No recognition.

    The pressure is not exclusive to members of that identity tho'. Others are pressured into recognition of 'set' beliefs of other identities through the same pressures.I've been part of debates where pointing out alternative perspectives by 3rd party identities saw the person who presented the piece accused of 'cherry picking' for a racist agenda. That the view expressed by that 'minority person' was not representative. Seems like internal and external pressure to accept a racial or other identity.

    Your Obama example demonstrates the value of self belief. A personal responsibility. I think thats the best asset to combat the pressures. But I don't think that is being promoted by identity politics either. Rather alternate identities and self belief are discredited to accomodate or be replaced by a standard perspective and expectation.

    Direction is blocked. that can be overcome. At a cost. And requires one to accept and respond to a more diverse identity.

    We have progressed to to the idea that its not O.K to decide who is representative of humanity. Identitiy politics tho', must limit who is representative of that identity. Its limited by definition.

    I'd rather identify as a human being, with all the diverse potential that offers, than as a feminist with all its implied limitations on my gender, or condition.
    I don't see it can work to 'demand' the human environment favors my condition as a woman. That imposes a cost for my condition on all who don't share it. that can only lower expectations of what I offer. The environment is not responsible for my condition. My condition sets limitations, yes. But as long as the female condition is recognized as no less human, Its my response to those limitations that can over come them, and alter the environments expectations of the value my condition has to offer the human one..

    Maybe Trump and Brexit are the reactions. = and opposite force to retain diverse personal identities rather all accepting the same disguise to mask them.

    Debate is fine . I don't see dismissal is the same thing. That denies a person space. Trumps election and Brexit could also be seen as claiming it.
    Last edited by naitche; January 15th, 2018 at 11:07 PM. Reason: clarity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,944
    Parents throughout history, a common lament........

    "Look at those kids, all they do all day is.......

    send smoke signals, beat on drums, paint cave walls, carve stones, etch tablets, send pictograms, alphabets et al , write letters, email, text and on and on"

    What's happening to society?"
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Parents throughout history, a common lament........

    "Look at those kids, all they do all day is.......

    send smoke signals, beat on drums, paint cave walls, carve stones, etch tablets, send pictograms, alphabets et al , write letters, email, text and on and on"

    What's happening to society?"
    The pace of change is rising exponentially though ,isn't it? Can human nature/behaviour adapt(quickly enough)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,944
    Despite all the advancements in communication technology, this forum seems to have a pace all ages have to adjust to in order to allow conversation between the generations. Made sure as I got older that I wouldn't be left behind, so I acquainted myself with advancing technology. Seems to be that primal need to communicate and if there's a difference, it tends to manifest itself at the generation gap. Maybe as adults were more suspicious and distrusting when we don't understand, don't know.

    Do you like there being a camera within 100 yards of you at all times? Suppose we need to get use to it?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,343
    I don't think so. While the technology is changing quickly what a generation learns and are comfortable in most certainly doesn't change as one ages for most of us. Sometimes is only little things, for example if someone handed me a slide rule I'd still be able to quickly get you a pretty accurate solution to a multiplication or division problem versus I've had a smartphone for 2 years and still struggle to make a phone call--usually mess up trying to use or saves a contact and more often than not disconnect someone trying to call me--it's not intuitive in the least for folks my age. On the other hand, it's often more serious-- for example a US president still clinging to what he learned as a child-- that all homosexuals are mentally sick or child molesting perverts, blacks and Hispanics can't be trusted or lazy--so much so that there are thousands of towns and cities where they MUST be out by sundown; women were like ornaments to be worn on the arm at social events, sex, and only go to collage to find a husband --- you know the '50s when "America was Great"
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,944
    In hindsight I don't think it was great to be an adult male during war years. I'm assuming in a majority of wars, women were not expected to fight. IMHO...This primarily male duty to country has had to affect social constructs over the centuries in many countries, more than we think. And now with civilization busting weapons is there less issue with women donning a uniform? Has a lack of conventional war in the atomic era actually helped narrow the gender gaps?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    17
    Pretty sure there is/should be a theory of 'Identical containment' , whereby a defined 'Identity' behaves according to the same selection and replication processes as genetics that could change a lot to do with how humanity progresses.

    Not that identity is detrimental, just that exclusive definitions of identity are self limiting, with a continuing process of elimination to define its 'self' against the environment, while discrediting the supporting environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What Has Been Happening in Libya?
    By galexander in forum Politics
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: November 13th, 2011, 07:53 AM
  2. What Has Been Happening in Libya?
    By galexander in forum In the News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 28th, 2011, 02:57 PM
  3. what's happening to me?
    By gib65 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 29th, 2010, 01:59 PM
  4. HELP!! WHAT IS HAPPENING?
    By ESSS in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 07:10 PM
  5. What is happening with light's refraction?
    By That Rascal Puff in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 13th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •