Why choose between Left or Right?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  You seem to have backslid into an unnecessarily defensive mode and your post has come across as quite aggressive.

No, you choose to interpret such a tone, but whatever you read into my words which is - or isn't - there is something you do.
(though, being aggressive and defensive at once is a neat trick)

I could play facile games too, and say your facetious eagerness to call me everything from dishonest to defensive belies a few such feelings of your own, but that would be unnecessarily rude.
(see how easy passive-aggressive condescension is? how about let's not do that)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  You have again put words in my mouth which I didn't use and again even gone to the extent of accessorising them with quotation marks.

That's called paraphrasing.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, the problem is you asserting the existence of a phantasmal "problem" and not substantiating it...

Because the part where you said "choosing conformity over self-reflection is bad" is the part I wholeheartedly agreed with. The part where you said that was endemic, not so much.

Seems to be an unnecessarily aggressive response to me.

The key word there is seems.
(but also: "aggressive" and "unnecessary" - all are wholly subjective)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  You seem to have missed the several parts of my previous response where I wrote that we differ on point of view. From my point of view, this problem seems to me to be quite common. I even went as far as saying I have acknowledged your point of view that it is not so common from where you're standing. However, on a subject as niche and conceptual as this, I do hope you are not asking me to provide you with quantitative data or a study of some sort. How else can I substantiate it, other than telling you that it reflects my experience? My post is merely an opinion piece, hence the repeated use of terms like "it seems to me".

Your OP is definitive and overstated. I appreciate how you adjusted your tone in later responses.

I reiterate that, accepting as we both do the existence of a phenomenon, the the difference is in your asserting its commonness, as based on your personal experience, and my questioning that assertion, as based on skepticism, and the lack of corroboration from my personal experience.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Also - you have left your neck on the chopping block by quoting me with words I simply never used: "Choosing conformity over self-reflection is bad"... The part where I said that? Where? Whether or not that roughly reflects my point, it is still very bad practice to quote someone with words they didn't use. To do so, is to give the devil, the details in which he can hide. You must surely know this much?

Your fatuity is still unbecoming, yo.

Is it not accurate? I'd say so. And therefore it stands as a reasonable gloss for the sentence in question.

There is plenty of room for sound usage of paraphrasing. You must surely know this much?
(ie, cut the crap and just say what you find inaccurate, if anything - I would appreciate it)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. One example from 80 years ago makes it "common".

This is just a clear-as-day strawman. I gave one example and you have now created a strawman that this one example is the basis of my belief that the problem is common. How many historical examples must I provide you with then? Surely you must know that examples are used in discussion to illustrate a principle or point?

Oh, so now it's pseudofallacy time.

Nah, that's not good enough, sorry. I asked you to substantiate "common". You have given the ol' subjective personal experience as an answer. That's okay, so far as it goes. I can work with that.

But "X once happened, therefore X still happens" is terribly shoddy logic. Surely you must know that?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, they didn't "converge", they already existed.

"they already existed" did they? That's quite an assertion and this is not a "point of view" type claim. Do you care to justify how you know this?

Here, for example.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  ... but clearly it facilitated a platform for propaganda to be spread in the given context Germany found itself in after WW1.
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I can't tell what point, if any, you're trying to make here.

My point is that the label couldn't have come after the fact in this case.

And I think that the mere observation that the Nazis had a name for themselves is a rather pointless observation.

How could they possibly not have?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  My point in using the "black male" example was simply to counter your assertion that labels are incredibly useful by highlighting an example when they demonstrate they are not a perfect system.

(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But that's staggeringly irrelevant. Who ever claimed "perfection" was necessary or possible? Certainly not me.

Nothing is perfect. So there's that.

Again, your response is emotional and aggressive.

Bro, just 'cause you announce that you think it's "emotional and aggressive", doesn't make it so.

So there's that.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Why use the word "staggeringly"?

Because I can't imagine why you'd bother to bring up something irrelevant like that?

Having different words for different things is incredibly useful. It's a little disingenuous to call that an assertion. And also, incidentally, "but it's not perfect" is in fact not a counter to that statement.

Let's try it with another subject:
Me: Cars are incredibly useful.
You: Someone was once run over by a car. They are not perfect.

See?
(what's missing is the so what at the end)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  One kink in the armour should be enough for us to be wary of labels of any kind.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that the fact that words like "black" or "blond" exist is not a problem.

But I'd be fascinated to know what your alternative would be.

You have, again, missed the point. Labels like "black" or "blonde" exist and are necessarily useful...
[/quote]

Okay. Cool. We agree!

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  ... but any label can carry with it a potential stumbling block in a given context. Whether that stumbling block is incumbent on the audience or members of the in-group is not the issue.

In my opinion that could not possibly be more relevant.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  My point is that the observer should simply be aware of their potential pitfalls.

Which I never disputed...

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  I made this point, don't forget, in counter to your absolute assert that political labels are "incredibly useful" full stop. It seems to me better to caveat such an assertion with a disclaimer along the lines of "although they can be potentially stigmatic etc".

Which I never disputed...

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Surely you are not asking me to quantify social commentary on something as conceptual and subtle as the pitfalls of political labels? Like I said, our disagreement is one of paradigm.

(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That wasn't true last time you said it, and it hasn't become true in the meantime.
(is it just more convenient to say?)

Well it simply is. Can you describe to me the studies, data or analyses I must provide you with?

If you want to demonstrate something, it's your job to figure out how to do so.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  What we have been discussing is clearly nuanced and conceptual. The best we can do in this situation is substantiate our assertions with our own experience.

But, as I'm sure you know, there are actual studies on correlations between personal beliefs. There are actual studies on the psychological basis for group identity. There are actual studies on cognitive biases of all sorts.

I am not the one trying to prove anything.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  All I can do is tell you that from my point of view the problem seems to be common.

Yes. Okay. And? So what then?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Not only that, but I acknowledged that you don't agree and have taken that feedback into account. It is, of course, very possible that I have overplayed the problem in my mind and I am intellectually honest enough to grant this much. However, it is also possible that the problem is more common than you think and you simply haven't noticed it.

That is obviously possible.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, no.

It's the part where you stuck in weasel words like "all-too-common" and "frequent" that made me take pause. That's what I'm asking you to justify.

Aggressive terms like "weasel words" don't do you any favours if I'm honest.

What with the constant perceptions of aggression, one might almost say you have "backslid into an unnecessarily defensive mode".

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  There simply isn't any need to try and belittle the other argument. It seems to me better to try and understand where the other person is coming from.

That's a two way street, friend.

Also: remember the part where I granted, acknowledged, and endorsed most of what you said?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  1) I didn't say anyone was innately intellectually deficient
Dodgy
(17-04-2014 07:40 AM)Ewok Wrote:  the intellectual-laziness inherent in the Left-wing's DNA...

Well you've made this one too easy... "Intellectual laziness" (my words) is distinct from "Innately intellectually deficient" (your words).

That's an interestingly selective edit. What you actually said was "inherent intellectual laziness".

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  The former says more about someone's reluctance to expend intellectual energy...

Inherent reluctance.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  ... whereas the latter says that someone has been born with limitations to what they are intellectually capable of... This is another example of where you have tried to strawman my arguments.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this one to you, but okay. When I used the word "deficient", I meant an inherent difficulty or flaw. Inherently lazy, then, would signify an inherent lack of will and/or ability. Thus - a deficiency.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Calling someONE racist after they've made an argument which YOU* deem to be racist is to demonise that person.
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that's a hilariously unjustifiable claim. That's pretending you can read someone else's mind.

How is that pretending you can read someone else's mind?

Because you are claiming to know what someone else is thinking when they say or do something. Literally the exact same thing you proceed to accuse others of.

Or, how else am I supposed to take consistent use of such emotionally charged language as "demonise"?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  In fact, the opposite is true - the person who is pretending they can read someone else's mind is the person who goes around accusing others of being racists. How can the accuser possibly know what beliefs others hold?

I just explained how - since nobody knows what anybody else is thinking - labels like racist must necessarily only refer to words or deeds. A racist is one who [consistently] performs racist speech or acts. Therefore one who [consistently] performs racist speech or acts is a racist.

You are speaking against things I didn't say. At no small length.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  It assumes you have the authority on who is and who isn't racist...
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Um, yes. We all have that authority. It's called judging their actions so far as we are aware of them. That's all we ever have.

Exactly. And I am flagging this as an aspect of our culture I'm not overly keen on. Pointing a finger at someONE and saying "You are a racist" is (I find) aggressive and inaccurate.

Indeed. That would of course depend entirely on context.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  If someone has made a racist argument or come to a conclusion on the back of a racist premise, it would be better to show them how their argument is racist and encourage to recalibrate their thought process.

Please let me know where I ever said otherwise.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  A culture of guiding people out of racism through open and honest discussion seems to me better than the finger pointing, demonising culture we have created for ourselves currently.

Okay.
(what you feel we have)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  To better illustrate where I'm coming from, here is an example of what I have personally observed; I have seen (on numerous occasions) someone criticise Islam only to be met with angry audiences yelling and chanting the word "Racist" in response. Clearly, this is wrong. What race is Islam? The audience feels morally justified in demonising someone when actually he / she was criticising an ideology, not a race of people. If it were culturally frowned upon to demonise someone instead of accusing their argument of being racist and thereby facilitating a response, we would have a more open and honest discourse.

Indeed. And I've seen that on a tiny handful of occasions.

Have you ever thought about why that reaction occurs?

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  ... and will immediately put defenses up.

(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because the prevailing cultural backdrop is one in which racism is bad.

I'd at least assume you agree that that's a good attitude, right?

You have missed the point.

No, but thanks anyway.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  When I said it will put defenses up, I was referring to the person who is being demonised.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Calling somONE "racist" will put their defenses up rather than facilitate an open discussion.

And I can just as freely assert that calling their words or deeds racist will put their defenses up - people don't like being called names, and the distinction you are belabouring is often immaterial.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Also - you would be right to assume that I agree that racism is bad. I sincerely hope you are not trying to raise the question of whether I think racism is good. That would be unnecessary. We should surely be able to discuss issues of this nature without having to resort to even subtle smear campaigns.

No, that's not at all what I meant.
(unnecessarily defensive mode what?)

I was attempting to suggest the idea that given all the flaws in all of our natures, being over-eager to condemn perceptions of strong prejudice is actually rather understandable, if unfortunate.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Worse still, if it becomes a cultural habit (which indeed it seems to have become), then some people will actually become scared to voice a point (even a potentially valuable point). This is how it can create a culture of censorship. It seems to me to be calmer and more accurate to tell someone you find their argument racist and then show how it meets the definition of racism.

Oh, you mean, like I literally said?
(17-04-2014 08:40 AM)cjlr Wrote:  f people interpret what [[i]one is] saying as racist, [one] should probably think of a better way to phrase it.

Except that isn't what you "literally" said is it? Not only have you changed words is your quote but your quote simply isn't consistent with mine.

Um, yes, it actually is. I amended "you" to "one", because you earlier had issues with the use of the rhetorical "you".

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Let me remind you of the order of play here:

1) I assert that the current culture of demonising people by calling them racist (rather than their arguments) can lead to a culture of censorship.

Yes.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  2) You respond by telling me I can't simply assert that and I need to substantiate it.

Yes.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  3) I elaborate with the above argument.

Barely and inadequately.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  4) You respond with "Oh, you mean, like I literally said?"

No, that's seven words out of hundreds.
(but, I see where it's rhetorically convenient to say that's the sum total)

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 02:19 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Answered above.
(18-04-2014 10:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah. You actually didn't. At all. Do you have any reason to think this happens much?

So far you've not provided any such justification. Which leads me, very naturally, to question the soundness of such a claim...

Yeah I actually did. You either didn't read my answer or weren't happy with it. Either way, you are incorrect in saying "You actually didn't. At all.".

One more time... My justification on something as nuanced and conceptual as the frequency of the pitfalls of political labels is my own experience.

Subjective personal experience is not compelling.

I'm more than happy to discuss pretty much anything, but there's a galaxy of difference between framing "what about X?" and "what about X, which is everywhere?"

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  Hence I have written many times that our disagreement is one of paradigm. From my point of view this is common. From your point of view, it is not.

Relative frequency is not a paradigmatic distinction.

(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  I have acknowledged your feedback and will even go as far as considering it. perhaps you could go as far as considering someone else's point of view too? Note, the incorrect use of question mark in that last sentence was intentional.

Ah, more fatuity. How delightful.
(was the incorrect capitalisation also intentional?)

Much as I appreciate the implied slander, I could do without it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not much substance to your last post. You suggest that my responses have been equally emotional. I simply dispute that. I have made an effort to remain neutral and to try see your side.

Yes, because accusing your interlocutor of being "defensive" and "aggressive" involves no subjective emotional interpretation at all.

Yes

Nah, what I did was point out that you're very quick to make such spurious accusations but won't stand for even a jocular hint of turning the tables. That's not cool.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I have not used emotional adjectives to describe your take on things, whereas you have done precisely this on enough occasions to warrant me shining a light on it. Adjectives like "staggeringly"; "hillariously"; "phantasmal" have been met with no counterpart from my side.

Um, yeah, "phantasmal" is not an emotion, so there's that. Also: no, if there's any tone to my responses it'd be along the lines of flippant.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not to mention the fact that you have used words like "buddy", "bro" etc without knowing my gender and are now trying to suggest that I am the one who is being condescending.

I am using such terms because I don't know anything about you and I felt something more genial than "you" would be nice.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Mudslinging. Pass.

So... fine when you do it, "mudslinging" when I respond in kind?

You must make a lot of friends that way.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  No, it's not. Using quotation marks is called a "direct quote". The words contained within quotation marks should match exactly the words used by the person being quoted.

So... you haven't heard of paraphrasing. Right, then.

Protip: the quotation marks are to clearly delineate where my words and your [paraphrased] words begin and end.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  You seem to have missed the several parts of my previous response where I wrote that we differ on point of view. From my point of view, this problem seems to me to be quite common. I even went as far as saying I have acknowledged your point of view that it is not so common from where you're standing. However, on a subject as niche and conceptual as this, I do hope you are not asking me to provide you with quantitative data or a study of some sort. How else can I substantiate it, other than telling you that it reflects my experience? My post is merely an opinion piece, hence the repeated use of terms like "it seems to me".

(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your OP is definitive and overstated. I appreciate how you adjusted your tone in later responses.

I reiterate that, accepting as we both do the existence of a phenomenon, the the difference is in your asserting its commonness, as based on your personal experience, and my questioning that assertion, as based on skepticism, and the lack of corroboration from my personal experience.

My OP was indeed more definitive and overstated than my subsequent posts.

Okay.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that.

Why did you take such an opening tone? I do not think it is a very useful one.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  My OP is an opinion piece. This much should be clear from (1) the obviously niche and subtle constitution of the subject matter; (2) The fact that the OP was entitled with a question and (3); you acknowledged that your assertions are much tacitly your own as mine are mine. However, since writing the OP, I have had to answer challenges from you more objectively.

You've just repeated your unsubstantiated assertions. Yes, you identified them as assertions, and that's appreciated, but... so what?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  It seems you are unaware of the distinction between paraphrasing and using direct quotes.

Nope, that's just you.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  This is just a clear-as-day strawman. I gave one example and you have now created a strawman that this one example is the basis of my belief that the problem is common. How many historical examples must I provide you with then? Surely you must know that examples are used in discussion to illustrate a principle or point?

(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But "X once happened, therefore X still happens" is terribly shoddy logic. Surely you must know that?

There you go with those quotation marks again. Who are you quoting?

You, since that's the gist of what you said. I asked you why you think this is common in the present. You said "Nazis".

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The point of the example I gave was to show that the label could not have come after the fact.

And I don't think that's a relevant or even meaningful observation.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I did not say nor imply that this any phenomenon still happens because of this example. So when you say "therefore X still happens", these words are meaningless. I did not say anything like that, nor did I use the same logic.

What I wanted to know from you, all along, was why you present "labels" as such a bad thing (a stance since amended to "imperfect", which, sure, but so what?), and more importantly why you think this problem is as widespread as you claim.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Very simply, a general wikipedia page on antisemitism does not prove in any way you assertion that the large number of antisemetics "already existed" before the label.

Nice try - but we're speaking specifically of the Nazis.

So yes. Antisemitism existed in parts of Europe long before the Nazis became politically relevant.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not a big fan of context are you? The car example you just gave has no context. If you had said that political labels are "incredibly useful" in isolation, I wouldn't have cared. You didn't though, you used those words as a counter to my OP and so I insisted you caveat your assertion.

Which I never didn't. So there's that.

Notwithstanding that that's not an assertion. That's a fact of language.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  It's not relevant. Stumbling blocks exist in the label business. Whether these stumbling blocks are incumbent on the audience or incumbent on members within the label who have the power to influence other members within the label doesn't matter. They all add up and we should thus employ a strategy of wariness when encountering labels.

Except for the part where one's response is necessarily


(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  What we have been discussing is clearly nuanced and conceptual. The best we can do in this situation is substantiate our assertions with our own experience.
(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But, as I'm sure you know, there are actual studies on correlations between personal beliefs. There are actual studies on the psychological basis for group identity. There are actual studies on cognitive biases of all sorts.

I am not the one trying to prove anything.

None of these studies you mention are on topic.
[/quote]

Really, now? Investigations into how and why people believe the things they do are not on topic when it comes to the ways and reasons people believe the things they do?

Group identity as a predictor of beliefs? Prevalence of dogmaticism? Not on topic? For real?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Remember the topic is "the frequency of the potential pitfalls of political labels". If I come across a study that (1) acknowledges the phenomenon we have been discussing; (2) defines appropriate parameters and; (3) measures the frequency of this... I'll let you know.

So... you are just talking about pure subjective personal experience.

Okay.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  All I can do is tell you that from my point of view the problem seems to be common.
(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. Okay. And? So what then?
Nothing. We get on with our lives.

Then what was the point of your OP? To remind us that things aren't perfect?

I mean, sure, but that's kind underwhelming.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Actually I said "Intellectual-laziness inherent in the Left-wing's DNA"... You might recall earlier I explained I was personifying Left wing ideology and not referring to anyone specific.

Indeed. Nor was I.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I would have hoped the word "DNA" would have been a clue that this was a figurative bit of rhetoric. The word "inherent" is thus referring to something which is embedded in the ideology, and not in anyone specifically.

No - only, of necessity, the believers in that ideology.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The word "demonise" seems to be tripping you up. It is not emotionally charged, it is (in my opinion) an accurate description of what happens to the person being accused of being a racist. He/ she goes from being someone who has made an argument to a living, breathing "racist"... and all the negative stigma that label embodies.

And, once again, that's you inventing motivations and thought processes in an entirely constructed hypothetical scenario.

Which again I admit the possibility of, but if the sum total of what you've got to show that this is a real thing that really happens is "I feel like it does", well, that's not very much to go on, now is it?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Key word here is "consistently". This is why I said earlier it is not accurate to call someone "racist" on the basis of a racist argument. It implies prior knowledge of their consistent racist "speech or acts".

My offhand remark was "calling a racist a racist", which had the - I had hoped - implied context of, y'know, not being a knee-jerk suppressive action based on a single (possibly misinterpreted) act.

What, then, makes you feel a need to say such obvious things?

'Cause, "don't be too judgemental", while indisputably true, and good advice, is right up there with "labels are imperfect" in terms of things it doesn't seem particularly necessary to point out.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  To better illustrate where I'm coming from, here is an example of what I have personally observed; I have seen (on numerous occasions) someone criticise Islam only to be met with angry audiences yelling and chanting the word "Racist" in response. Clearly, this is wrong. What race is Islam? The audience feels morally justified in demonising someone when actually he / she was criticising an ideology, not a race of people. If it were culturally frowned upon to demonise someone instead of accusing their argument of being racist and thereby facilitating a response, we would have a more open and honest discourse.
(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. And I've seen that on a tiny handful of occasions.

Have you ever thought about why that reaction occurs?
I have, yes.

...

And?

You... gonna follow up on that?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The key word here is "literally". You are free to amend something. I have no problem with that. However, you do kinda lose the licence to say it is "literally" the same after you have amended it.

A highly debatable quibble. Changing the generic-rhetorical "you" to the generic-rhetorical "one" changes absolutely nothing about the sentence in question. It has the same literal context, intent, and meaning.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  
(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  I have acknowledged your feedback and will even go as far as considering it. perhaps you could go as far as considering someone else's point of view too? Note, the incorrect use of question mark in that last sentence was intentional.
(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, more fatuity. How delightful.
(was the incorrect capitalisation also intentional?)

Much as I appreciate the implied slander, I could do without it.

The question was: "perhaps you could go as far as considering someone else's point of view too?"

I take from your response that your answer is "no".

Oooh, I love when you make those unfounded personal accusations. Don't stop!

Look, dude. Your OP was pretty ridiculous, but my reply was not the politest thing I've ever written. And now we're doing... this.

So, I'll take a do over if you will.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
Get a room guys. Wink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 11:11 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
(19-04-2014 04:07 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Get a room guys. Wink

They're in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
20-04-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
cjlr Wrote:
(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not much substance to your last post. You suggest that my responses have been equally emotional. I simply dispute that. I have made an effort to remain neutral and to try see your side.

cjlr Wrote:Yes, because accusing your interlocutor of being "defensive" and "aggressive" involves no subjective emotional interpretation at all.

Yes

Nah, what I did was point out that you're very quick to make such spurious accusations but won't stand for even a jocular hint of turning the tables. That's not cool.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I have not used emotional adjectives to describe your take on things, whereas you have done precisely this on enough occasions to warrant me shining a light on it. Adjectives like "staggeringly"; "hillariously"; "phantasmal" have been met with no counterpart from my side.

Um, yeah, "phantasmal" is not an emotion, so there's that. Also: no, if there's any tone to my responses it'd be along the lines of flippant.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not to mention the fact that you have used words like "buddy", "bro" etc without knowing my gender and are now trying to suggest that I am the one who is being condescending.

I am using such terms because I don't know anything about you and I felt something more genial than "you" would be nice.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Mudslinging. Pass.

So... fine when you do it, "mudslinging" when I respond in kind?

You must make a lot of friends that way.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  No, it's not. Using quotation marks is called a "direct quote". The words contained within quotation marks should match exactly the words used by the person being quoted.

So... you haven't heard of paraphrasing. Right, then.

Protip: the quotation marks are to clearly delineate where my words and your [paraphrased] words begin and end.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  My OP was indeed more definitive and overstated than my subsequent posts.

Okay.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that.

Why did you take such an opening tone? I do not think it is a very useful one.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  My OP is an opinion piece. This much should be clear from (1) the obviously niche and subtle constitution of the subject matter; (2) The fact that the OP was entitled with a question and (3); you acknowledged that your assertions are much tacitly your own as mine are mine. However, since writing the OP, I have had to answer challenges from you more objectively.

You've just repeated your unsubstantiated assertions. Yes, you identified them as assertions, and that's appreciated, but... so what?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  It seems you are unaware of the distinction between paraphrasing and using direct quotes.

Nope, that's just you.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  There you go with those quotation marks again. Who are you quoting?

You, since that's the gist of what you said. I asked you why you think this is common in the present. You said "Nazis".

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The point of the example I gave was to show that the label could not have come after the fact.

And I don't think that's a relevant or even meaningful observation.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I did not say nor imply that this any phenomenon still happens because of this example. So when you say "therefore X still happens", these words are meaningless. I did not say anything like that, nor did I use the same logic.

What I wanted to know from you, all along, was why you present "labels" as such a bad thing (a stance since amended to "imperfect", which, sure, but so what?), and more importantly why you think this problem is as widespread as you claim.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Very simply, a general wikipedia page on antisemitism does not prove in any way you assertion that the large number of antisemetics "already existed" before the label.

Nice try - but we're speaking specifically of the Nazis.

So yes. Antisemitism existed in parts of Europe long before the Nazis became politically relevant.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Not a big fan of context are you? The car example you just gave has no context. If you had said that political labels are "incredibly useful" in isolation, I wouldn't have cared. You didn't though, you used those words as a counter to my OP and so I insisted you caveat your assertion.

Which I never didn't. So there's that.

Notwithstanding that that's not an assertion. That's a fact of language.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  It's not relevant. Stumbling blocks exist in the label business. Whether these stumbling blocks are incumbent on the audience or incumbent on members within the label who have the power to influence other members within the label doesn't matter. They all add up and we should thus employ a strategy of wariness when encountering labels.

Except for the part where one's response is necessarily


(19-04-2014 03:49 AM)Ewok Wrote:  What we have been discussing is clearly nuanced and conceptual. The best we can do in this situation is substantiate our assertions with our own experience.
(19-04-2014 10:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But, as I'm sure you know, there are actual studies on correlations between personal beliefs. There are actual studies on the psychological basis for group identity. There are actual studies on cognitive biases of all sorts.

I am not the one trying to prove anything.

None of these studies you mention are on topic.

Really, now? Investigations into how and why people believe the things they do are not on topic when it comes to the ways and reasons people believe the things they do?

Group identity as a predictor of beliefs? Prevalence of dogmaticism? Not on topic? For real?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Remember the topic is "the frequency of the potential pitfalls of political labels". If I come across a study that (1) acknowledges the phenomenon we have been discussing; (2) defines appropriate parameters and; (3) measures the frequency of this... I'll let you know.

So... you are just talking about pure subjective personal experience.

Okay.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Nothing. We get on with our lives.

Then what was the point of your OP? To remind us that things aren't perfect?

I mean, sure, but that's kind underwhelming.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Actually I said "Intellectual-laziness inherent in the Left-wing's DNA"... You might recall earlier I explained I was personifying Left wing ideology and not referring to anyone specific.

Indeed. Nor was I.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I would have hoped the word "DNA" would have been a clue that this was a figurative bit of rhetoric. The word "inherent" is thus referring to something which is embedded in the ideology, and not in anyone specifically.

No - only, of necessity, the believers in that ideology.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The word "demonise" seems to be tripping you up. It is not emotionally charged, it is (in my opinion) an accurate description of what happens to the person being accused of being a racist. He/ she goes from being someone who has made an argument to a living, breathing "racist"... and all the negative stigma that label embodies.

And, once again, that's you inventing motivations and thought processes in an entirely constructed hypothetical scenario.

Which again I admit the possibility of, but if the sum total of what you've got to show that this is a real thing that really happens is "I feel like it does", well, that's not very much to go on, now is it?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  Key word here is "consistently". This is why I said earlier it is not accurate to call someone "racist" on the basis of a racist argument. It implies prior knowledge of their consistent racist "speech or acts".

My offhand remark was "calling a racist a racist", which had the - I had hoped - implied context of, y'know, not being a knee-jerk suppressive action based on a single (possibly misinterpreted) act.

What, then, makes you feel a need to say such obvious things?

'Cause, "don't be too judgemental", while indisputably true, and good advice, is right up there with "labels are imperfect" in terms of things it doesn't seem particularly necessary to point out.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  I have, yes.

...

And?

You... gonna follow up on that?

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The key word here is "literally". You are free to amend something. I have no problem with that. However, you do kinda lose the licence to say it is "literally" the same after you have amended it.

A highly debatable quibble. Changing the generic-rhetorical "you" to the generic-rhetorical "one" changes absolutely nothing about the sentence in question. It has the same literal context, intent, and meaning.

(19-04-2014 02:41 PM)Ewok Wrote:  The question was: "perhaps you could go as far as considering someone else's point of view too?"

I take from your response that your answer is "no".

Oooh, I love when you make those unfounded personal accusations. Don't stop!

Look, dude. Your OP was pretty ridiculous, but my reply was not the politest thing I've ever written. And now we're doing... this.

So, I'll take a do over if you will.

Are you trying to build the walls of Constantinople, John?

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
(20-04-2014 09:43 AM)ELK12695 Wrote:  Are you trying to build the walls of Constantinople, John?

I'm... afraid I don't quite see what you mean.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
Man, you guys are flailing with your hatchets at every twig and branch and just clogging up the road through the forest.

Ewok's got a problem with people letting groups speak for them; Cjlr agrees but doesn't think the scale of the problem makes it a problem. I think that's it - it's hard to tell with the road so covered over with heaps of slashed foliage.

I don't think letting a group speak for me is a problem. Yes, it means the group espousing and acting on ideas occasionally contrary to my personal beliefs or desires, but this is a trivial disadvantage against the clout and effectiveness of a group to accomplish what I could never achieve as an individual. It is the very essence of why politics is party, not person. You just try to attain political office as John Doe and see how far you get. Only John Doe, Party X, will garner votes.

Are there risks that a group's malfeasance overwhelms its beneficence? Of course. But mankind isn't dumb and such groups are marginalized or have brief tenure. The world thus far (see Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature") is very strongly trending toward less dumb and less inclined to tolerate maleficent groups.

Insofar as personal ideology goes, there are those of us who prefer to think for ourselves and others might be happy to not think at all. So what? The mere fact that my ideology happens to be self crafted does not make it automatically superior to the ideology crafted by a group. I'm just as capable of making the same mistakes a group would make - probably even more so, because mine is just one mind vs several.

What matters is what gets acted on, regardless of its individual or group intellectual genesis. What gets acted on is what affects us. I'd much prefer the ACTIONS to be beneficent; I almost don't care what drove them.

I do think thought is important; I don't mean to discount it. Educated thought protects us from manipulation and exploitation by the unscrupulous. But the whole trend of mankind is toward literacy, not away from it, and literacy is impossible without thought.

So I don't think we have as much to worry about as the OP thinks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Why choose between Left or Right?
(20-04-2014 10:03 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-04-2014 09:43 AM)ELK12695 Wrote:  Are you trying to build the walls of Constantinople, John?

I'm... afraid I don't quite see what you mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Constantinople

Because, wall of text and... aw fuck it
[Image: tumblr_m987q6JPCw1qd9n6d.gif]

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: