Trump's Tax Return

The E wrote:Also, Fly, here's something for your useless ass to consider: Telling people what to think, what to research and what to be interested in isn't really in line with that whole "freedom of speech" thing you americans are so keen on. Or that whole "freedom of science" stuff that made the US into the power it is.

Problem is, that BOTH sides of American political spectrum are eagerly eroding the whole concept od freedom of speech. And I must point out, that neo-liberals are especially aggressive in the idea of replacing the "free" speech with the "safe" speech - i.e. strict moral censorship under the pretense of protecting "vulnerable minorities" from harm.

Dilandu wrote:Problem is, that BOTH sides of American political spectrum are eagerly eroding the whole concept od freedom of speech. And I must point out, that neo-liberals are especially aggressive in the idea of replacing the "free" speech with the "safe" speech - i.e. strict moral censorship under the pretense of protecting "vulnerable minorities" from harm.

And? Telling people not to study something as fundamental to the human condition as sexuality because you don't like the results (as exemplified by Fly's little rant there) is absolutely the mark of a bigoted idiot.

Telling people that free speech means that you have a responsibility for your speech or that they are expected to maintain a minimal level of empathy and respect for their fellow members of society is not even in the same ballpark.

The E wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Problem is, that BOTH sides of American political spectrum are eagerly eroding the whole concept od freedom of speech. And I must point out, that neo-liberals are especially aggressive in the idea of replacing the "free" speech with the "safe" speech - i.e. strict moral censorship under the pretense of protecting "vulnerable minorities" from harm.

And? Telling people not to study something as fundamental to the human condition as sexuality because you don't like the results (as exemplified by Fly's little rant there) is absolutely the mark of a bigoted idiot.

Telling people that free speech means that you have a responsibility for your speech or that they are expected to maintain a minimal level of empathy and respect for their fellow members of society is not even in the same ballpark.

Dilandu is pointing out a serious issue though. I know I don't like pc either. It can become an unhealthy orthodoxy.

But on the other hand, there is no such thing as an absolute freedom. With each freedom we exercise there comes a corresponding responsibility as E was saying in his post. Or as my father would have rather crudely put it, "Your freedom to swing your fist stops short of my nose."

Don

-

n7axw wrote:Dilandu is pointing out a serious issue though. I know I don't like pc either. It can become an unhealthy orthodoxy.

But on the other hand, there is no such thing as an absolute freedom. With each freedom we exercise there comes a corresponding responsibility as E was saying in his post. Or as my father would have rather crudely put it, "Your freedom to swing your fist stops short of my nose."

Don

-

Look, I won't argue that there are people who have carried the idea of political correctness way, waaaaaayyyyy too far.

But at the same time, this railing about "safe spaces"? It's bullshit. We all need and want spaces where we can safely experiment with ideas and concepts. We absolutely need and want spaces where likeminded people can come together to pursue their interests without someone intruding on them. If a college introduces a space where LGBT+ people can meet and discuss issues affecting them, what's the harm?

In other words, if you think the concept of a safe space is meritless and harmful, you are obligated to stop posting on niche internet forums dedicated to highly specific interests (like, for example, forums dot davidweber dot net).

Similarly, there will always be people who, for one reason or another, will take offense at someone else's speech and not hesitate to call the offender to task over their offense. You may not like that it's you being called out over it, but you absolutely cannot complain that a generation that was brought up with messages of "speak your mind" will actually speak their mind on occasion.

The E wrote:

But at the same time, this railing about "safe spaces"? It's bullshit. We all need and want spaces where we can safely experiment with ideas and concepts. We absolutely need and want spaces where likeminded people can come together to pursue their interests without someone intruding on them. If a college introduces a space where LGBT+ people can meet and discuss issues affecting them, what's the harm?

The problem is, that the idea that "for the safety of minorities we need to isolate them from public harming influence" erodes the concept of egalitarian unity. Distancing some group from its peers automatically led to such group being considered either below, or above others. The whole idea of LGBT movement was, that LGBT peoples would be able to live in the whole society without presecution - not that they would need some kind of "special protection".

The E wrote:
And? Telling people not to study something as fundamental to the human condition as sexuality because you don't like the results (as exemplified by Fly's little rant there) is absolutely the mark of a bigoted idiot.

Most of those studies are not scientific, and merely cultural (i.e. have little to zero objective value, since culture is subjective by definition), but pretend to be the actual sciences. Of course, they are not alone - ecomomic is trying to present itself as a science for more than a century, despite having little sucsessfull prediction, and many dismal failures.

My point is, that most of those "sexology" studies does not actually dealt with finding new knowledge as much as giving more and more explanations to what we already knew. And, of course, those explanations are mostly fitted to confirm the point of view, not to actually explain the situation.

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:

But at the same time, this railing about "safe spaces"? It's bullshit. We all need and want spaces where we can safely experiment with ideas and concepts. We absolutely need and want spaces where likeminded people can come together to pursue their interests without someone intruding on them. If a college introduces a space where LGBT+ people can meet and discuss issues affecting them, what's the harm?

The problem is, that the idea that "for the safety of minorities we need to isolate them from public harming influence" erodes the concept of egalitarian unity. Distancing some group from its peers automatically led to such group being considered either below, or above others. The whole idea of LGBT movement was, that LGBT peoples would be able to live in the whole society without presecution - not that they would need some kind of "special protection".

Could it be that the key here is not to care whether or not the LGBT people meet? The goal would be for it to be desensitized to the point where it makes no more difference to join that than the science club. All of us choose communities of interest or commitment with which to identify. LGBT should be no different.

Don

-

Dilandu wrote:The problem is, that the idea that "for the safety of minorities we need to isolate them from public harming influence" erodes the concept of egalitarian unity. Distancing some group from its peers automatically led to such group being considered either below, or above others. The whole idea of LGBT movement was, that LGBT peoples would be able to live in the whole society without presecution - not that they would need some kind of "special protection".

This is, to put it mildly, a bullshit argument. LGBT+ groups want spaces where they can discuss issues affecting them specifically as LGBT+ people; since we are not yet at a point where their existence is universally accepted, those issues do exist and so too do people willing to organize to work on them. I, as a cis-het male, can't meaningfully add to their discussions; I can only listen to them as they present their case. Similarly, I cannot tell muslims what issues there are that affect them because they're muslims, or people of color about their issues etc etc.

Point being: We are not yet at a point of universal equality of all sexes, races, creeds and orientations. As long as we aren't, those people do need to be able to organize and discuss their issues in private, without interference from the majority.

n7axw wrote:Could it be that the key here is not to care whether or not the LGBT people meet? The goal would be for it to be desensitized to the point where it makes no more difference to join that than the science club. All of us choose communities of interest or commitment with which to identify. LGBT should be no different.

Don

-

And yes, absolutely this. The correct reaction to people creating a club where membership is dependant on some <x> is to shrug and move on.

The E wrote:I, as a cis-het male, can't meaningfully add to their discussions; I can only listen to them as they present their case.

Therefore I, as cis-homo male, have all reason to demand you to be removed from this discussion. You are violating my safespace, and demonstrate your intolerance by calling my arguments "bullship". Since you are, by your own words -

The E wrote:I, as a cis-het male, can't meaningfully add to their discussions;

- then my point of view on LGBT matters, as homosexual male, by your own definition have much more weight than yours, and how dare you claim my arguments "bullshit"?

Do you like the feeling of being labeled as intolerant bigot and being kicked out, just because other side, for some reason, could invoke the argument of being of some group you aren't? Ah, the sweet taste of Russian treacherousness...

Dilandu wrote:Do you like the feeling of being labeled as intolerant bigot and being kicked out, just because other side, for some reason, could invoke the argument of being of some group you aren't? Ah, the sweet taste of Russian treacherousness...

Your trap is less effective than you think. I can't tell LGBT people how to organize their meetings and groups. If they decide to not admit people like me, then that's their decision and I respect that, just as I respect a decision to eschew such exclusionary measures. I fundamentally do not care; I cannot tell them what their (and your) environment is like and what they need to do in order to feel safe and free in it.

The gay spaces I've been to have all been inclusionary, but my stance has always been and will always be that I can only help their activism; it is not my place to shape it.