Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

snip

Lul.

[Reelya]

No names were called, no men were straw (note the use of "wonder if"), and that last one I think you just imagined.

"wonder if" doesn't make something less toxic or targeted. e.g. if someone doesn't support Israel's occupation of the West Bank then you say "I wonder if you'd be there gassing the Jews if it came to that", you don't get an "out" on the Godwin there because of the "wonder if" clause being "hypothetical".

In fact "wonder if" is a little worse because "wonder if" is imaginary, thus whoever uses it is no longer constrained to arguing by facts, but is directly attacking the person's character for what they might do, or might support. But only hypothetically ("wonder if" you support Hitler: is clearly a Godwin, but a passive-aggressive one) so it's ok I guess

[NullForceOmega]

You know, I was just trying to express concern that people might get killed over a protest that isn't even really working anymore.  I seriously don't even understand why that makes me a target for this shit.

I guess wanting people not to die when there might be better options to accomplish something is a hate crime now.

Oh, also, thinking that internet debates are pretty inherently worthless, that's clearly the mark of a hatemonger.

[wierd]

Per invocation of Godwin, this branch of conversation is irredeemable.

Thanks human behavior, for another job well done. (this is why we cant have nice things.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No names were called, no men were straw (note the use of "wonder if"), and that last one I think you just imagined.

"wonder if" doesn't make something less toxic or targeted. e.g. if someone doesn't support Israel's occupation of the West Bank then you say "I wonder if you'd be there gassing the Jews if it came to that", you don't get an "out" on the Godwin there because of the "wonder if" clause being "hypothetical".

In fact "wonder if" is a little worse because "wonder if" is imaginary, thus whoever uses it is no longer constrained to arguing by facts, but is directly attacking the person's character for what they might do, or might support. But only hypothetically ("wonder if" you support Hitler) so it's ok I guess

NullOmega's whole thing here was about how the protestors are complicit in what he sees as the toxicity of the protest, see the "both sides screaming at each other" comment. His statements regarding the death threats towards the players and that the players should stop because the protest is toxic and causing people to be mad at them, you don't see that as leading at all?

I'm not coming out of left field here. This is literally just the next step of the rhetoric he was playing out, and thus wondering if he'd do that is reasonable. Particularly due to the conversation shifting into the Apathy-Zone topic at that point.

Even if I wasn't right about where he was going to go with it, that isn't trolling, or toxic, or whatever.

[Culise]

Per invocation of Godwin, this branch of conversation is irredeemable.

Thanks human behavior, for another job well done. (this is why we cant have nice things.)

Techncially, Godwin only covers the inevitability of reductio ad Hitlerum.  The irredeemability of the conversation is entirely independent of any hypothetical goosesteppers in fancy Hugo Boss uniforms. 

So, in lighter news more germane to the thread topic, the latest proposal for Arizona's school science standards remove mention of evolution, either replacing it where possible or downplaying it as "theoretical," while dancing around court precedent barring the introduction of religious belief (intelligent design) in schools.

No, wait, that's not really lighter at all. 

[smjjames]

Maybe they can introduce the blind watchmaker concept, seems to fit in with the whole idea of some superior being sorting things out.

[MrRoboto75]

Maybe they can introduce the blind watchmaker concept

DC Comics was right, the universe was created by Dr Manhattan.

[redwallzyl]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893/aclu-report-detained-immigrant-children-subjected-to-widespread-abuse-by-officia

This is what happens when you create zones of exception.

[smjjames]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893/aclu-report-detained-immigrant-children-subjected-to-widespread-abuse-by-officia

This is what happens when you create zones of exception.

And possibly holding illegal immigrants (I find calling them (illegal)aliens wierd because it’s almost like calling them not human or something, also, if there are illegal aliens, where are the legal aliens, if you get my drift) on places where the agents there cannot be held accountable.

[wierd]

A person with a work visa, or a green card, Or an H1B visa, --- all of those are "Legal aliens."

As for the atrocious behavior-- See also, the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Any time there is a "sanctioned" segregation of a social hierarchy where there are authorities and non-authorities that MUST obey, and are not given any kind of redress against their authority figures, abuses appear. Seemingly normal people turn into horrible people, in a matter of days, or hours.

Zimbardo himself admits to having succumbed to the role as commandant of his "prison", and only canceled the experiment at the begging and pleading of his peers.

People dont want to admit that such tactics and institutions are direct mechanisms toward horror; They want to punish those "Dreaded OTHERS!", and the system gives them that power through these institutions. 

We have known about this connection for decades. However, the populace at large refuses to accept that these institutions need to be closed, and new methods of dealing with illegal immigration, recidivism of criminal behavior, and other issues that require incarceration need to be implemented. At the very least, the notion of "YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHTS" needs to be burned at the stake with such prejudice that it can never again rise from the ashes.

[WealthyRadish]

I'm not sure about "alien", but my understanding was that at least the popular use of the word "illegal" was introduced around the '80s or '90s as part of a push to associate immigrants with criminality (when a lack of papers was something that previously nearly no Americans cared much about). It's interesting how small phrasing like that can have such a large effect on perceptions, since now it's so common hear tough talk about how undocumented immigrants have already broken the law, that of course it would be ok if they had just come here "legally", etc.

[wierd]

A good number of "Illegal aliens" come "Legally."

They STAY illegally.

[Starver]

And possibly holding illegal immigrants (I find calling them (illegal)aliens wierd because it’s almost like calling them not human or something, also, if there are illegal aliens, where are the legal aliens, if you get my drift)

I have less problems with "alien" (the times I've been to the US, I would have been a legal alien) than the whole illegal (or indeed legal) aspect. One can act (un)lawfully, but not actually be intrinsically (il)legal.

This side of a dystopia with radical redefinitions of personhood. (Or failure to add/maintain otherwise widely recognised personhood to automata/uplifted wildlife, maybe.)

[Reelya]

Yeah, most "just put a wall up" or border patrol stuff is just political grandstanding. e.g the Australian example is that 96% of illegals come on planes, not boats, yet the government makes a big deal of intercepting boats and locking up the boat-comers in camps. If you came on a plane however then seek asylum then basically none of that happens to you and you're just allowed to hang out in the regular community while they do your paperwork. e.g. the "tough" system turns a blind eye to 96% of illegals, picking on only the weakest and most visible.

e.g. recently Australia hosted the Commonwealth Games, and ~255 of the athletes and visiting officials have escaped into hiding in Australia (edit: there were a total of 8000 people, so it's a fairly high rate). They're mostly from places like Nigeria. Since they're Visa overstayers, those ones won't be herded into camps like we do to e.g. Rohinga refugees coming on boats from Myanmar. And the most appalling thing was Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who'd built his whole campaign on anti-refugee sentiment, suddenly did a 180-degree turn and said he'd invite in (I think) 10,000 Syrian refugees. I thought that was an odd reversal for someone like him who was so virulently against refugee boats, then literally one week later his own party voted him out of the leadership. So in other words, the tough-on-refugees guy who only cared about the "good of the nation" was suddenly heavily pro refugee if he thought it would allow him to cling onto personal power for a little longer.

Trust me, none of those people like e.g. Trump, but he's not the only one, give the first fuck about how many Mexicans their are, illegal or otherwise. They only care that you (you in general, not anyone specific) are dumb enough to care. After all, if someone else doesn't have the proper paperwork, but is living and working in America, it's far more their problem than it is a problem for anyone else.