Is this the end of liberalism?

[Grisu]

Bipedalism

let's face it: They had it coming

I agree. That's what freedom is.

What the left wants to do is impose on everyone their vision for the world, but in order to do that you have to deny people their freedom.

that's not really what 'the left' does, is it? That sounds a lot like authoritanism and don't try to pretend that conservatives have their fair share of those...

 

[civman110]

that's not really what 'the left' does, is it? That sounds a lot like authoritanism and don't try to pretend that conservatives have their fair share of those...

Conservatives aren't the one's that are going around telling everyone what they can and can't say, or what they are allowed to wear for Halloween, or banning the press from university campuses.

Also this is leftists doing this stuff to other leftists mind you!

 

[Wolfbeckett]

There's a big difference between something you don't like and something you believe oppresses you.

Not really. Note that key word you yourself used, "BELIEVES oppresses you". If the criteria which we're judging this by is based on feelings instead of evidence, then there is no functional difference between the two. Otherwise I can simply rephrase my earlier analogy to say that I believe worthless pop music like Taylor Swift is oppressing good musicians who deserve more success, which is offensive to me, and now you can't question that, that's my lived experience, it's beyond reproach.

 

[Rashiminos]

Conservatives aren't the one's that are going around telling everyone what they can and can't say,

Anti Gay marriage? Oh wait, those must also be leftists. The comics code authority in the 50s? Lefties. Get right with god? *******s. Gotcha.

what's wrong with limiting the amount of offense in the world?

There's some downstream argument of truth being offensive to power so perhaps we should limit truth-telling.

There's a big difference between something you don't like and something you believe oppresses you.

Go on..

 

[civman110]

There's some downstream argument of truth being offensive to power so perhaps we should limit truth-telling.

Opinion and feelings =/= truth

 

[Rashiminos]

Opinion and feelings =/= truth

It's telling that civman110 would take a statement partially in favor of his position and twist it so that he can be against it, if only to further support authoritarians dismissing opposing speech as "opinions and feelings."

 

[El_Machinae]

Conservatives aren't the one's that are going around telling everyone what they can and can't say, or what they are allowed to wear for Halloween, or banning the press from university campuses.

Also this is leftists doing this stuff to other leftists mind you!

I dunno, I'd have to say the Conservatives do a lot of 'banning of what people can say'. Maybe not in the same scenarios, but in analogous ones.

But I'm not sure which is worse, banning the press from university campuses or banning the press from Presidential Debates. Probably the first, I'll grant.

 

[madviking]

Precisely. I'm offended that people think Taylor Swift albums are good. That doesn't mean we should ban Taylor Swift from ever making an album again, not does it give me the right to demand that she not be played in public or demand that warnings be put up in any place where her music might be played.

there's a difference that i feel people aren't seeing.

one type of offense is caused by someone doing nothing wrong: your t swizzle example; the women (could be t swizzle) who frightens abradley in the bathroom for whatever reason. whatever the case, t swizzle is doing nothing wrong by releasing her music or being in a unisex bathroom.

the other type of offense is caused by someone who is doing something wrong. like wearing a stupid, insensitive costume. in this case, people who get offended by this are justified, as the idiot wearing the costume could as very easily wear a non-insensitive costume.

 

[madviking]

Opinion and feelings =/= truth

what theory of truth do you personally believe in?

 

[civman110]

It's telling that civman110 would take a statement partially in favor of his position and twist it so that he can be against it, if only to further support authoritarians dismissing opposing speech as "opinions and feelings."

I was agreeing with your point and elaborating on what you said.

Opinions and feelings =/= truth

what theory of truth do you personally believe in?

Truth can be proven and is not arbitrary. Feelings and opinion are arbitrary and can't be proven, so therefore they can't be truth. Personally, I find it to be very monotonous and a waste of time to deconstruct a concept as basic as "truth," which any adult with common sense knows what it is.

I dunno, I'd have to say the Conservatives do a lot of 'banning of what people can say'. Maybe not in the same scenarios, but in analogous ones.

I don't have any recent examples do you?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

there's a difference that i feel people aren't seeing.

one type of offense is caused by someone doing nothing wrong: your t swizzle example; the women (could be t swizzle) who frightens abradley in the bathroom for whatever reason. whatever the case, t swizzle is doing nothing wrong by releasing her music or being in a unisex bathroom.

the other type of offense is caused by someone who is doing something wrong. like wearing a stupid, insensitive costume. in this case, people who get offended by this are justified, as the idiot wearing the costume could as very easily wear a non-insensitive costume.

This is an arbitrary distinction based on what you have deemed right and wrong, opinion masquerading as truth. You have simply unilaterally declared that unisex bathrooms are not wrong but that wearing "offensive" Halloween costumes* is wrong. This is an opinion, it is unsubstantiated by any kind of facts or objective reality, it is a purely subjective judgement. The "idiot wearing the costume" could also just as easily not wear any costume at all, but that doesn't change the fact that he has the right to wear whichever costume he chooses.

* A ridiculous notion in the first place, as ALL costumes will be offensive to someone, for example Jehovah's Witnesses who are opposed to and offended by Halloween itself.

 

[Hygro]

Not really. Note that key word you yourself used, "BELIEVES oppresses you". If the criteria which we're judging this by is based on feelings instead of evidence, then there is no functional difference between the two. Otherwise I can simply rephrase my earlier analogy to say that I believe worthless pop music like Taylor Swift is oppressing good musicians who deserve more success, which is offensive to me, and now you can't question that, that's my lived experience, it's beyond reproach.

Your lived experience that Taylor Swift is oppressing people who aren't you? Great.

Now where's the psychological and sociological frameworks that have decades of research to validate your claim? They aren't operating on an arbitrary taste-based framework. You can build a logical framework that validates your example, but mostly by changing the semantics.

Go on..

Yes. One is something you can avoid and the other is not. One is something that costs you no agency and the other reduces your agency. One has trivial consequences and the other has meaningful consequences.

 

[Rashiminos]

I was agreeing with you and elaborating on what you said.

Opinions and feelings =/= truth

I'm surprised that you consider siding with the power side of the statement against the side of truth (which your elaboration demeaned as opinions) as "agreeing" with me.

I don't have any recent examples do you?

Remember Neo, there is no bottom of the post.

Yes. One is something you can avoid and the other is not. One is something that costs you no agency and the other reduces your agency. One has trivial consequences and the other has meaningful consequences.

Keep going...

 

[civman110]

I'm surprised that you consider siding with the power side of the statement against the side of truth (which your elaboration demeaned as opinions) as "agreeing" with me.

I have no idea what the point is you're trying to make.

I simply stated that truth is not feelings or opinion.

Remember Neo, there is no bottom of the post.


Keep going...

So no recent examples for you as well? I see.

 

[madviking]

This is an arbitrary distinction based on what you have deemed right and wrong, opinion masquerading as truth. You have simply unilaterally declared that unisex bathrooms are not wrong but that wearing "offensive" Halloween costumes (a ridiculous notion in the first place, as ALL costumes will be offensive to someone [for example my grandmother, who is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore stridently opposed to all things Halloween]) is wrong. This is an opinion, it is unsubstantiated by any kind of facts or objective reality, it is a purely subjective judgement. The "idiot wearing the costume" could also just as easily not wear any costume at all, but that doesn't change the fact that he has the right to wear whichever costume he chooses.

i disagree that the two examples possess an arbitrary distinction.

if there exists a unisex bathroom, there is nothing wrong with a man and woman using it at the same time. this is kinda of a tautology as this is essentially the definition of a unisex bathroom. this holds for whatever the surrounding society believes because, to put it into more colloquial terms, what happens in the unisex bathroom, stays in the unisex bathroom.

however, there isn't the same kind of example with costumes. if one is wearing an offensive costume (slash if an offensive costume exists, to keep it line with the prior example) it doesn't immediately follow that wearing it always okay. this is because wearing a costume is a fundamentally social act. think of it this way: if you wear a costume and no one is there to see it, did you really wear a costume? no. on the other hand, there doesn't need to be any (meaningful) social interaction in a unisex bathroom. hence, if you went to a unisex bathroom and no one is there to see it, it would be dumb to argue that you didn't.

since wearing a costume is a fundamentally social act, you have to factor into account the opinions and views of the people around you. if the attitude of those people is remarkable negative, then yes, you did do something wrong.

 

[Rashiminos]

I have no idea what the point is you're trying to make.

Yes. So why are agreeing with an idea you have yet to understand?

I simply stated that truth is not feelings or opinion.

And now you invert the ordering, probably unconsciously. What you said was

Opinions and feelings =/= truth

Plug that in to my statement, and then revise it just so, and

'There's some downstream argument of opinions and feelings undermining authority so perhaps we should limit story-telling.'

So no recent examples for you as well? I see.

I fail to recognize how that will do any good. You insist on it being recent, because if we go back in time slightly, you may have to make a concession, and if someone does say something recent, you can simply pretend it isn't there. You can also pretend right is left and truth is opinion.

 

[civman110]

Yes. So why are agreeing with an idea you have yet to understand?

Do you understand what "elaboration" means? Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post?

Do you want to coherently explain what the point is you are trying to make? and I will respond, or are you simply looking to butt-heads?

 

[Rashiminos]

Do you understand what "elaboration" means?

Do you want to coherently explain what the point is you are trying to make? and I will respond, or are you simply looking to butt-heads?

Explain to me why you chose "opinions and feeling =/= truth" over the more common response "might =/= right." My previous post has already pointed to a conjecture as to why that might be...

 

[civman110]

Explain to me why you chose "opinions and feeling =/= truth" over the more common response "might =/= right."

Can you please coherently explain what your point is? because I'm not going to continue to respond a bunch of incohesive comments.

 

[madviking]

Truth can be proven and is not arbitrary. Feelings and opinion are arbitrary and can't be proven, so therefore they can't be truth. Personally, I find it to be very monotonous and a waste of time to deconstruct a concept as basic as "truth," which any adult with common sense knows what it is.

ironically, i feel that most adults have a feeling what truth is, but don't actually know the truth of truth. and luckily for you, i find it incredibly valuable to deconstruct concept as basic as truth, because rarely do we think about basic things meaningfully.

as for truths being provable, there are examples where truths cannot be provable (by logic, if i can infer your meaning of 'prove') and feelings can be rather truthful. it is true that 2+2=4, but i feel most (non-mathematical types) cannot really say why 2 and 2 make 4. we've been taught it all our life. a lot of us possess an intuitive grasp on why 2 and 2 is 4. but, like i said, there isn't a really robust and persuasive way (seeing as most people lack degrees in advanced mathematics) to prove the fact.

as for feelings being truthful, suppose someone is walking alone at night in deep and dark forest. if they tell us after the fact that they were scared, we'd interpret that as being as a true statement, as most of us can relate to the fact that walking alone at night in a deep and dark forest is a pretty damn scary thing to do.

this is why i ask you to elaborate on your feelings of the word 'truth'. you cannot simply just handwave away any objections to something as philosophically profound as "opinions or feelings are not truth"; you simply have to provide a robust and persuasive justification for the statement. otherwise, as i mentioned at the beginning, you're violating your own statement.