Culture Wars

[Cognisant]

Just an interesting observation, the argument "there can be no peace because they won't leave us alone" is being used by all sides.

This applies to secularism vs religion, free media vs SJWs, vegans vs omnivores, nationalists vs globalists, etc.

 

[aiyanah]

yes and no
some things can't be "left alone"
while other things that should be left alone aren't being left alone
and things that shouldn't be getting left alone are getting left alone
...
and of course everyone is human so all sides are too proud to drop allegiances and actually figure out what's shared in each of our different universes which we just so happen to be the main character of.

granted the only reason there is a culture war at all is because the "center" has shifted further left on whatever scale you want to use.
those on the left who are now being expected to accept ideas further left than what they're comfortable with is a clear enough sign, likewise the right backing a liberal and winning.
not to mention jordan peterson being portrayed as an alt right figure.

albeit most of todays culture wars are aftershocks of 9/11, the collective has yet to grasp what cards have been played in the shadows.

 

[Cognisant]

I think it's more like an identity crisis, that everyone feels like they're under attack because the things they identify with are being attacked, and the attackers see themselves merely responding to an initial attack that was never really intentional.

For example the whole SJW gamergate thing, there's a lot of back and forth bullshit but the core conflict is over sexual content in games, interestingly the people who want it gone aren't the gamers themselves (at least if sales are anything to go by) but rather special interest groups (feminists mainly) who I think see it as an attack on the femininity they identify with.

And I can see their side of it too, women are portrayed in an extremely derogatory way in games, heck for the last week I've been playing Conan Exiles and choosing between who I would kill and capture based upon the size of their tits. For me this is just some innocent fun, to me the world of Conan couldn't be further from reality, but I can see how this could be offensive to someone for whom the size of their tits may be an important part of their iden-titty.

 

[aiyanah]

so thats what gg was about? sounds like the world in general needs to grow up.
knew i was right to stay away from that gamergate nonsense, i would have been tilted harder than a pinball table after getting kicked by a donkey.

what do you think about grid girls having their salaries barred from them by feminists?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

the reason that e.g. vegans are identified as a group, is that they, to varying extent, are engaged in a movement to change other people. If vegans were just a bunch of people who didn't eat animal products and shut up about it, no one would even know they existed. Same goes obviously for SJW and so on. These groups are either tacitly or explicitly fighting to control other people, hence they cannot be "left alone". That would entail just handing them the control they seek.

 

[aiyanah]

good observation
interestingly the progenitors of these ideas were all about everyone having their own freedoms. or it's more likely than not they were.
guess it's ye olde problem of "it's so great here we have to introduce this to everyone"

 

[Rook]

Long post of tall ship

Spoiler

One thing I have learned is to always allow for the truth of the overvocal minority: Thus, many religious folk have no love for atheists but won't publicly attack them, better things to do. So too many atheists have no problem working with or even marrying the religious.

Vegans are of set opinion, yet many would be found who do not oppose meat eaters. Etc etc.

And that is my point: The reason why there is no budge on such dualistic 0-1 eitheror topics is not becuase most people can not accept the views of others, rather, it is because those who shout the loudest and are thus heard are exactly the people who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints.

Those that at least respect the freedom of association of others never enter the ring, giving the impression that the other side is a gaggle of authoritarian busybodies and vice versa.

But! They grow in strenght exactly because they are heard. Who would the average person notice and remember:

"I follow no theismic creed, yet Im ok with those that do, as long as they do not force it upon me"

"These religious kooks are morons!"

"I like playing games, I happen to prefer this system"

"Nuh dumb fanbois, our platform is best, no question"

"Hey, I'm a cannibal, but I can understand if people object to it"

"Im gonna eat yer liver if you insult my lifestyle again!"

In truth, timidity or indifference not a good movie makes, as social creatures we are drawn to the drama, and 0/1 gives some people a purpose, an in-group and a tribal enemy that they otherwise would lack.

Most humans would not understand or accept my following statement, but the fact is: The majority of our race is ethically gray. They develop a localized system which consists of adherence to external themes, instead of letting external themes completely dominate their localized existence.

But a wave doth grow and then communism, facism, fanboism, fanaticism, fashions, etc etc etc come to power.

Always expect these factors as part of our race, ebbing and flowing.. county vs county culture vs culture vs culture citizen vs citizen idea vs idea.

We are still very much in the proverbial grass savannah. We create our own sabretooths now, throw them into a pit and prod them with sticks. It is our nature.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think it's more like an identity crisis, that everyone feels like they're under attack because the things they identify with are being attacked, and the attackers see themselves merely responding to an initial attack that was never really intentional.

For example the whole SJW gamergate thing, there's a lot of back and forth bullshit but the core conflict is over sexual content in games, interestingly the people who want it gone aren't the gamers themselves (at least if sales are anything to go by) but rather special interest groups (feminists mainly) who I think see it as an attack on the femininity they identify with.

And I can see their side of it too, women are portrayed in an extremely derogatory way in games, heck for the last week I've been playing Conan Exiles and choosing between who I would kill and capture based upon the size of their tits. For me this is just some innocent fun, to me the world of Conan couldn't be further from reality, but I can see how this could be offensive to someone for whom the size of their tits may be an important part of their iden-titty.

I'm not offended by videogame representations, and I don't identify with femininity. Yet I still take issue with this stuff.

 

[The Gopher]

I'm not offended by videogame representations, and I don't identify with femininity. Yet I still take issue with this stuff.

Yeah same I'm offended they don't portray men in extremely derogatory ways.

 

[Thurlor]

Too many people seem to become offended for the sake of others. Usually hypothetical others. I'm not sure if it is an over active sense of empathy or just virtue signalling.

Some groups see their cause as a moral issue and some people (maybe most) believe that they have an obligation to force their morality onto others.

 

[Black Rose]

Clearly their side is wrong and our side is right. Who is with me

 

[Hadoblado]

Pesky SJW's policing our actions at every step through their words and their disagreeingness. We should all get together and talk about how what they do is morally wrong. That'll show 'em.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Secular people are always bugging out Christians! It's just so unfair! :[

Wah!

No, but in all honesty I don't think it applies to the atheism/theism thing.. maybe atheism and your local/domestic church goers. Are people that annoyed by theists? I mean they're like 70% of the entire world.

 

[Rook]

Yeah same I'm offended they don't portray men in extremely derogatory ways.

Not to mention the glaring absence of horsedick. Truly, if I want to waste my time riding a virtual pony, there should at least be a fair pair of genitalia dangling about.

Sad sign of our times, these Equus eunuchs.

 

[Minuend]

I don't get the impression most/ a majority is that "extreme". But with the introduction of everyday internet, ofc the most opinionated people will be the most visible. Sometimes people also troll, or just write more extremely than they would present their views in RL etc. Which might give the impression most people sit angrily at home in front of their computer, shitposting all the time.

I guess there's also the question of when/ whether you should present your view. I mean, the gradual transformation to a more atheistic population probably wouldn't happen, or at least as quickly, if atheists never spoke up or explained their opinions. So voicing an opinion might be "necessary" at times (depending on what one wants to achieve). Only problem is, most people think this of their own perspective. They think it's important for the well being of others to turn people back into religion, or turn them out of it, to care about the environment etc etc. And then, who decides which perspectives are ok to be passionate/ opinionated about, and which we shouldn't? There are people who believe as strongly nudity and violence in video games is detrimental to children/ teens, as you would consider religion detrimental to people. So obviously, they'd want their opinion out there (whether they present it themselves or not) as strongly as you.

Also, sometimes the driving force behind change is outspoken individuals, not the reasonable keep to themselves type of people. Shrugs.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

@Cognisant What I see here is that you've identified "the other" as a key component of divide and conquer? So, like, this means you've actually learned something?

Here's Justin, who recently got me back in touch with my anarchist roots: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYcr5ute99R-M86rfVyUUyQ/

Here's how he brilliantly rectifies such false dichotomies as "Beau":
>10x more subscribers in only a month.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Pesky SJW's policing our actions at every step through their words and their disagreeingness. We should all get together and talk about how what they do is morally wrong. That'll show 'em.

ah, what do we have here – the standard hado saracastic-anti-anti-SJW post

 

[Hadoblado]

Stop whiteknighting for the anti-SJWses with your wry observations you anti-anti-anti-SJW

 

[redbaron]

i like how people complain about people's inability to have reasonable discourse and then follow it up by asserting that without religion we'd be incapable of having effective legislation in a modern society

why won't anyone debate my stupid ideas reasonably?

engaging in 'rational discourse' against fundamentally flawed arguments (e.g. climate change deniers, implication that relijjun is holding duh fabric of modern sosssiety togetherrrr) actually just serves to further spread the fundamentally flawed argument - because people who believe this stupid shit don't make informed decisions. they either don't want to, or just don't have the capacity to.

which means that the Most Best Scientific Way™ of not circulating and spreading ideas is actually to laugh, mock and ridicule them and to not actually engage them on any level of reasonable discourse, because their ideas are so fundamentally flawed that it implies a false equivalence that doesn't exist.

was tested on a number of things like anti-vaccine debates where factual debunking of stupid anti-vaxxer arguments just resulted in further propagation of anti-vaccine sentiment, because anyone not enough of a fucking moron to believe in their propaganda was already not believing in it

so you know the best way to not have all these really dumb ideas spread? shut up and stop engaging them

it's not fair but science says that if you want to have less stupid fucks in the world you need to not pretend that 'everywun is entitle 2 opinion and safe from criticize, pls 2 be reasonable about my shitty ideas thx'

This Post Has Been Brought To You By Sleep Deprivation

 

[Cognisant]

What I see here is that you've identified "the other" as a key component of divide and conquer? So, like, this means you've actually learned something?

I don't understand what you're saying, so probably not.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

which means that the Most Best Scientific Way™ of not circulating and spreading ideas is actually to laugh, mock and ridicule them and to not actually engage them on any level of reasonable discourse, because their ideas are so fundamentally flawed that it implies a false equivalence that doesn't exist.

This in particular advocates a feedback loop that at best drives harmful behaviors underground, where they bleed into other actions in a similar way to how a kid who hears "drugs are bad" their whole life underestimates the harm of harder substances after they smoke weed the first time.

It's exactly the same process that leads emasculated young males to shoot up schools with their phallic semi-automatics. Though people say "Oh, they weren't disciplined enough as a child," code for further emasculated, the psyche doesn't care if an attack is verbal or physical, which is what you're advocating: an attack.

The core issue is ignored, whether that be redefining masculinity to mean having integrity and standing up for others vs posting selfies holding an AR-15 in body armor on facebook, or allowing an anti-vaxxer to redirect the well-intentioned curiosity that led them to question vaccines, to other outlets, which allows them to feel like a good parent.

So yes, quit engaging them, which includes directing hostility towards them, because defending themselves drives them deeper into communities and resources that reinforce their perspective.

If someone doesn't have the skill to fix a problem, they don't have to keep attacking it with what skill they do have and risk exacerbating it. It's like a plumber feeling, for some reason, immense pressure and stress for not being able to teach someone to paint a Van Gogh. Unnecessary.

Having the ability to recognize the limits of one's own perspective as a critic is necessary if they don't want to become exactly what they despise. Scientism included.

What I see here is that you've identified "the other" as a key component of divide and conquer? So, like, this means you've actually learned something?

I don't understand what you're saying, so probably not.

Divide and conquer simply implies that other third parties outside of the conflicts you've identified, benefit from said conflicts. "The other" is used to start and perpetuate conflicts. It's any label: globalists, blacks, Jews, vegans, etc., posing a threat, real or perceived.

If you've realized this, then the implication is that you've finally come to see the futility in actively cultivating conflict with groups you dislike, but for some reason, I'm expecting a "but my dislike of certain labelled is a special exception, because _______," a.k.a. the snowflake defense.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

i like how people complain about people's inability to have reasonable discourse and then follow it up by asserting that without religion we'd be incapable of having effective legislation in a modern society

why won't anyone debate my stupid ideas reasonably?

engaging in 'rational discourse' against fundamentally flawed arguments (e.g. climate change deniers, implication that relijjun is holding duh fabric of modern sosssiety togetherrrr) actually just serves to further spread the fundamentally flawed argument - because people who believe this stupid shit don't make informed decisions. they either don't want to, or just don't have the capacity to.

which means that the Most Best Scientific Way™ of not circulating and spreading ideas is actually to laugh, mock and ridicule them and to not actually engage them on any level of reasonable discourse, because their ideas are so fundamentally flawed that it implies a false equivalence that doesn't exist.

was tested on a number of things like anti-vaccine debates where factual debunking of stupid anti-vaxxer arguments just resulted in further propagation of anti-vaccine sentiment, because anyone not enough of a fucking moron to believe in their propaganda was already not believing in it

so you know the best way to not have all these really dumb ideas spread? shut up and stop engaging them

it's not fair but science says that if you want to have less stupid fucks in the world you need to not pretend that 'everywun is entitle 2 opinion and safe from criticize, pls 2 be reasonable about my shitty ideas thx'

This Post Has Been Brought To You By Sleep Deprivation

there is no conceivable situation where the best strategy is to simply ridicule and dismiss people with certain opinions. Yeah, there will be a bunch of uninformed people up for grabs by stupid ideas, but you're not exactly improving the situation by merely joining a club of people with the "right" ideas. And when it comes to the people in the other club, they will just dig deeper into their convictions. Like, do you think scientologists become more reasonable when people make fun of them? A scientifically proven fact is that one of the most effective ways to make people question their own beliefs is to make them explain their beliefs to you (they did some experiment where people had to explain why they supported a certain political party). I.e. the best way to change people's minds would be to engage in discourse – without trying to force any opinion on them and especially not ridiculing them.

 

[Cognisant]

If you've realized this, then the implication is that you've finally come to see the futility in actively cultivating conflict with groups you dislike, but for some reason, I'm expecting a "but my dislike of certain labelled is a special exception, because _______," a.k.a. the snowflake defense.

Actually I was thinking these conflicts are so intractable because the people in them don't really understand why the other side is fighting, that each side has its own false narrative that paints the other as the bad guys and that if I better understood what each side really wants I might be able to find a compromise all sides can agree to.

As an atheist I would like to see the end of all religious institutions but that in of itself isn't really what I want, being able to coexist with them would be sufficient, I'm merely trying to defend my borders.

I'm entertaining the notion that theists would likewise find coexistence acceptable under certain terms since they too are just trying to defend their borders.

The problem is that there's an inherent overlapping of borders, we can't simply ignore each other because there's countless issues that bring us back into conflict, so I think what we need is a carefully mediated, clearly defined, mutually agreed upon truce, that way each side can keep its own people in check by enforcing said truce, a truce that both sides see value in having.

 

[Cognisant]

Japan is an interesting mix of futurism and traditionalism, they're paradoxically one of the most non-religious cultures and yet they hold their shrines/temples and annual rituals in great esteem.

More on this later.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I wouldn't say Japan is non-religious. They're an awkward mix of Shinto-AncestoryShamanism and Buddhism. If anything their 'idol' is their country itself. The politics there speaks for themselves. The conservatives, the ones in the Diet (their version of congress) during the war are the same root as the ones who are in office today. Considering that the Japanese populace continuously voted these people in without stopping, goes to show they have an idolistic notion towards their country.

 

[redbaron]

there is no conceivable situation where the best strategy is to simply ridicule and dismiss people with certain opinions

i might have agreed with you once but science wins

sorry but you're wrong

 

[redbaron]

@Lagomorph yeah school shootings happen because people don't take flat earthers, climate change deniers and the KKK seriously. we should all spend our time taking them seriously :^)

i'm not talking about debatable spheres of discussion, i'm talking about genuinely ridiculous shit where the evidence is already well and truly stacked against it.

laugh and move on

there's other issues worth debate, or worth questioning. plainly stupid things get mocked

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

there is no conceivable situation where the best strategy is to simply ridicule and dismiss people with certain opinions

i might have agreed with you once but science wins

sorry but you're wrong

I have no clue what you're talking about

 

[Jennywocky]

I read this thread and had no idea what the flow of conversation was in places. Like wtf are people even responding to?

Then I remembered to click on "show ignored members" and everything became clear.


There's a problem at both extremes -- folks who don't give reasonable ideas a fair shake, and folks trying to create false equivalence between ideas that have been firmly established vs preposterous ideas that to even give credence to them confuses the conversation and lends false legitimacy.

But that's what happens when we lose a standardized method of evaluating ideas and everything becomes subjective AND people live in cultural settings where what they believe doesn't impact their survival. I kinda miss the days outside of first world nations when, if you held a shitty idea, it would weed you out of the gene pool pretty quickly. We have too much cushion against the realistic ramifications of beliefs nowadays. People are unwilling to change their opinions until it either threatens their happiness, their survival, or hurts the people they actually know and care about.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think RB's way of doing things did work once. Some loon would say something dumb, they'd pay a cost in poorly concealed laughter resulting in diminished social status and therefore diminished ability to spread their idea, and thus the position would be given the attention it deserves: None (with some margin of error).

But now a person will just double down and find someone who will listen. They'll take the resentment they feel, and through the power of the internet, channel it into some cabal of like minded individuals that they never would have had access to before. Global unification of loons means they can no longer be made irrelevant through ridicule.

What's worse, this extremist is now energised to assert their world view, they can't persist without righting the wrongs against them. It's the energised individual who is heard, not the complacent. Energised individuals vote, and argue, and support other individuals to be more like them.

Cognisant, for whatever reason, is an energised atheist. He's been here for years but still seeks out conflict with theism. Despite there being a large number of atheists on this forum, Cog is 'the' atheist. Now I happen to agree with Cog on this issue to some extent, but I don't want energised people such as Cog taking up positions that are wrong. Thus, I think ridicule largely doesn't work, and often empowers the ridiculed indirectly.

 

[cheese]

Great point Jenny. (*edit and Hado!) I think that's the first new thing I've seen in a while on this topic.

Ridicule can also create its own kind of false equivalency. For the lazy moderate not sure what to believe, seeing two camps ridiculing each other makes it seem as if they're both equally biased, or even have equal claim to truth ("they must both be PARTLY right").

 

[Pizzabeak]

So basically appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, and doesn't mean someone is right or correct?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

@Lagomorph yeah school shootings happen because people don't take flat earthers, climate change deniers and the KKK seriously. we should all spend our time taking them seriously :^)

i'm not talking about debatable spheres of discussion, i'm talking about genuinely ridiculous shit where the evidence is already well and truly stacked against it.

laugh and move on

there's other issues worth debate, or worth questioning. plainly stupid things get mocked

You're not dumb enough to believe I made that fallacy, smiley be damned. I suspect you don't fully understand the "bleeding" aspect of tribalism.

Do you have any science beyond anecdotes? There's a large body of research available on the treatment of delusional disorders.

 

[redbaron]

i dunno i just wanted to see what people would say tbh

sorry

 

[aiyanah]

 

[Cognisant]