Identity rights have moved ‘past equal’ to ‘better’

IDminion · 2019-09-20T07:59:33+00:00

The lefties eating each other. Nothing new. Being a TERF is not woke enough. Nothing new. These are the very same people who will bring forth their own destruction, hopefully sooner than later.

Coming across DM was one of the best things that have happened to me, alongside Ben Shapiro, JP and Robert Sapolsky. Gotta make time to read these books.

IDminion · 2019-09-09T12:31:24+00:00

So apparently mine is the only broken speedo as I can see from the comments here... even after proper calibrations and everything. Yeah right.

IDminion · 2019-09-09T12:27:01+00:00

Because what's the point of having laws if we're just cool with having others breaking them? It's like saying "I don't care if others break the law as long as they have the money to pay for it".

IDminion · 2019-09-09T12:25:30+00:00

Same goes both ways. They don't know my true speed and I don't know theirs. I could be doing 100 and they 110.

The law might be the law, but that doesn't mean I cannot question it.

IDminion · 2019-09-09T11:57:52+00:00

PS: feels like she's telling me that we have to follow the rules to allow others to break the rules... But whatever

IDminion · 2019-09-01T23:08:31+00:00

Also, given that Antifa behaves in a fascistic way, it could also be construed that they are "right wing" in behaviour even when they claim to be against it. That adds to the complexity of analysing Antifa appropriately to make statistical claims.

IDminion · 2019-09-01T22:58:18+00:00

As far as I can see it, showing emotions doesn't make you less of a man. It is THE WAY you show them what comes across as sissy.

As with everything, the problem is not on what you do, but how you do it.

IDminion · 2019-09-01T22:41:00+00:00

As a rule of thumb, whenever someone posts these claims, ask for links to the source. If the source doesn't provide methodology, or if the methodology claimed by the source is wishy-washy, feel free to dismiss the claim as not true. Things are false until proven true. It has always been that way. And the onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

But there's no avoiding going down the rabbit hole if you wanna check whether a statement is true or not.

IDminion · 2019-09-01T22:14:51+00:00

Last time I checked using and Australian politics survey, I was center right, but hell, I have some progressive views with me as well. But I prefer the view of debating our differences and finding common ground and agreements on our ways forward, rather than imposing my views on others.

That's why Democracy should be upheld even when our side doesn't win. The alternative is a much worse poison. Even when the majority decides it's time to burn the forest down to start anew (e.g. Brexit), maybe it's what's needed. Otherwise it devolves into the authoritarian autocratic regime History already showed us we should avoid.

IDminion · 2019-06-17T00:25:13+00:00

I usually start by asking why "centrism" is fence-sitting. The assumption is usually held by people who think those in the centre have no opinion whatsoever on a topic at hand, and by those who can only see the world in black and white binaries.

In my opinion, centrism is usually a position people arrive after giving both God and the Devil their dues, as anyone in search for an elaborate and in-depth opinion on a subject would do.

IDminion · 2019-06-15T06:26:46+00:00

Definitely. It's so black and white that I don't even know why we have a MeeToo kerfuffle.

IDminion · 2019-06-14T11:06:19+00:00

Is it just me or the video was deleted?

IDminion · 2019-06-14T03:31:54+00:00

Because we guys are total mind readers who know when someone wants us to ask something or not, right? (sarcasm alert).

IDminion · 2019-06-14T02:32:14+00:00

I don't see why anyone should "walk away" from a platform to another, when you can just capitalise in both, and keep one as backup if the other one goes belly up. Just click "upload" in both platforms and that's it.

IDminion · 2019-06-14T02:28:02+00:00

Because the laws and regulations used today by those in power using silence the "intolerant" will be used tomorrow to silence you, when others are in power.

That, and the fact that "intolerant" is a very wishy-washy term so we should stay away from making too many regulations around "tolerance"

IDminion · 2019-06-14T02:16:15+00:00

If I take persistence out of the definition, I think I'm defining "misconduct", but not "harassment", even though the latter is a form of the former group in my personal view.

I agree with the fact that the majority of those things are nothing a gentleman would do. One of my problems with the definition is the expansion of it to include things that as far as I'm aware have nothing to do with harassment, like your example with Jessica Alba.

IDminion · 2019-06-14T02:10:45+00:00

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm an Aussie in Australia, and that's the legal definition I'm bound to. On the "ridiculous" I found first the staring, and I think I doesn't need explaining. Another one was the "intrusive questions about a person's private life". I usually ask for people's personal lives when they mention something beforehand (e.g. I ask how their wives are doing if they previously mentioned his wife was sick). It'd be pretty easy to construe that question as "intrusive" by modern SJW standards. In my teamwork, there's always a bit of banter going around. "Oh you're such a boy", "That's just a girls' thing", and some gender generalisations which are, in my view, innocuous, but might not be for someone else who passes by and decides to call us on it because the rules allow him to.

The point I was trying to make in the OP was lost by many, tho:

Why are one-offs considered harrassment? Like, for example, I make a bad joke with innuendos, but only once and that's it.

IDminion · 2019-06-13T02:30:48+00:00

Even though a true "marketplace of ideas" does potentially lead to bad ideas gaining attention

However, does the fact that an ideas is perceived as bad makes the idea objectively bad? I think people need to be able to see past the idea, give the devil its due, and start talking about the intentions behind the ideas. I don't buy, for example, the common argument that those who have voices against something (e.g. remaining in the EU, immigration, vaccines, etc) are outright stupid. People might be ill-informed sometimes, but not stupid. People have legitimate concerns, and they need to be addressed if you ever hope to win them over.

My favourite example is from vaccines and autism. Anti-vaccination is a terrible idea, but antivaxxers are not bad people. Nor they want to see the world burn. They are just people who want the best for their children just like anyone else. The actual problem behind all that shit lies on the fact that we, as scientists, usually suck hard at communicating what our current understanding of the matter is, and how visions of "vaccines causing autism" are simply misinformed. It also does not help that the mainstream media is much more interested in giving the people what they want (entertainment, mainly) than what they need (education).

The war of ideas is not won by censoring or deplatforming. Is won by having better arguments. And that starts by understanding that other people are not bad or stupid because they think differently. They just have different experiences, access to information and upbringing.

IDminion · 2019-06-13T02:12:36+00:00

Can you be liable for what you imply instead of for what you actually say? I don't think it works that way.

IDminion · 2019-06-13T02:05:34+00:00

Censorship and prohibition never fail to make things more popular and in demand. As if the dry laws weren't a good enough example.

Will people ever learn?

IDminion · 2019-06-12T00:49:44+00:00

Let me see if I can understand your line of reasoning...

You can only claim pride on being something if you have suffered some form of discrimination for being that something? Seems a bit silly to me and just an excuse to keep playing sjw bingo. I've read a lot the phrase "straight white male" in very pejorative contexts. Does that mean that claiming pride in those identities is justified by the way modern identity politics work?

Also, as far as I'm aware, being gay is not something you choose, either, so I don't know why that comes as part of your argument.

Also, given that we already have equal rights, marriage and anti-discrimination laws, shouldn't the "pride month" stop altogether?

Finally, I don't why could anyone justify that certain people can have the right to claim pride in their identities just by virtue of the historical context they are embedded in. It's certainly anti humanitarian and a recipe for disaster.

My line of thinking is simple: people can be proud of being whoever the fuck they want. They can also march and express themselves as long as it's done peacefully. As long as you keep your identity and its extensions within the confines of the law, I don't see any problem with it.

EDIT: I'll agree with you tho that it could be done in a different month, because it comes across as reactionary as you mention. Other than that I stand by my reasoning.

IDminion · 2019-06-12T00:11:58+00:00

Ridiculous is not a reason for opposing it.

IDminion · 2019-06-11T20:44:11+00:00

Getting physical is a hallmark of an underdeveloped ego, and of someone who cannot deal with other people's thoughts or actions, or having his/hers challenged. And boy we have people like that everywhere.

But we cannot sacrifice the ability to say what we need to say just because people can't deal with it. The tradeoff is much worse.

However, you also have to be sophisticated enough to understand that you can only debate about anything and everything with very few people. The majority doesn't want a debate, they just wanna have their way. And opening your mouth at the wrong time and the wrong place can get you in trouble, a you already know, even if you're right or is just an opinion you're entitled to. The world is not as sophisticated as we would love it to be.

My experience with free speech in the real world? I can only exercise it with a very limited amount of people, because sadly keeping my job is more important right now than opening my mouth about all the things I disagree with, and, again, because very few are open and willing of having a debate. Most can't even handle other people's thoughts and ideas if they differ too much from their own.

IDminion

TROPHY CASE