CreateDebate


Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

I can be convinced to change my opinion about matters where counter-evidence is available. The evidence I’m operating on is experiential. You cannot, in one debate, counter the evidence of my experience.

I am aware of the bias of the media I consume, and how that affects what information I would get if I relied solely on a given source. The perspective I have presented herein has been reinforced multiple interactions online as well as the relative lack counters to said perspective.

I am glad you asked about racism. If/when you encounter someone who discounts the primary definition of racism, be mindful of their other positions as well. Ask them how they formed their view.

I don’t know how else to present the examples you’re looking for. I referenced two specific protests, and the general mindset. Any example is an example of 1, which you can view as rare or few. So I provided some specifics and some broad categories. In my experience, even those who approach these topics in good faith (such as IDW types) meet SJW pushback of the kind I describe and rarely meet with any kind of nuanced or benign intersectional position.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

You don’t have to do a detailed response. It’s well established where we disagree. The next level of disagreement is likely to be concerning how prolific is the so called SJW mindset (for lack of a better word), since that is the common thread for the examples I gave.

While young, stupid activists represent a small portion of any population, they are loud, consistent and receive attention. They enjoy the agreement of many online and seem to direct a considerable Twitter/social media mob. It is my experience and perception of the size and scope of these people that cause me to call them a social movement. You won’t dissuade me from that position.

I don’t know if you caught it, but I have agreed with your articulation of intersectionality, I just disagree that it’s basic dictionary meaning is all it actually means today. In various personal discussions I have had concerning the topic, most understand it the way I understand it, which is the way most SJW’s present it. I have only received pushback from two, you and one other familiar with the academic side. That one other discussed intersectionality as you do, but expressed frustration at the common manner in which intersectionality is understood and used, rather than deny the situation.

Can you convince me that intersectionality originally or fundamentally means something somewhat benign? Sure. Can you convince me it is not commonly, publicly used the way I have described? No. Can you convince me that SJW’s who use it as I have described are rare or that they do not constitute a social movement? No. So I doubt you need to provide a detailed response, though you can if you wish. Regardless, please take me up on asking relevant people if they believe a black person can be racist.

1 point

Often? The overwhelming majority of professors don't get involved in political actions or protest. So considering a small minority get involved, how could "they" (as in the authority here) be professors as a whole?

Yes, often. If one professor is involved, that is a small minority of the professors on campus. The rest are just quiet. Now imagine the criminology department staying quiet if a bunch of white students marched against the scourge of black crime.

But you have not provided evidence that there is a "social movement" the way you are characterizing it.

Intersectionality is a widely known term for a reason, and not because it is an obscure sociological reference. Same with the new definition of racism. The rhetoric of the womens march, Antifa, Berkeley rioters, Evergreen rioters, or any given college protest of the last 5 years.

There is a pop trend surrounding it, but the theory itself isn't one.

What is the pop trend surrounding it?

There's a specific group of sociologists that refer specifically to a secondary/tertiary definition of racism that applies specifically to power dynamics.

That is taught in general sociology courses. Again, I'm not saying they mean to eliminate the original definition, but I don't hear much intellectual disagreement when protesters deny that someone cannot be racist because of their race.

I have spoken to quite a few people who primarily employ the definition of racism involving power dynamics, but not because they think the primary definition is wrong.

Ask them if black people can be racist. If they say no, then they deny the primary definition.

It isn't a pop trend, it's simply a new understanding of racial power dynamics. A new belief is not automatically a "pop trend", and characterizing it as such seems ridiculously belittling.

Absent the primary definition, it is an idea I am perfectly comfortable belittling.

Rather, they believe that the primary issues with racism in this country relate to power dynamics, and thus speaking of racism purely within the primary definition is counter-productive and leads many to the mistaken belief that racism in this country isn't something that still needs to be worked on.

If the primary definition is actually something that does not need to be worked on, then that's an achievement to acknowledge. What I see alternative definitions applied to is various statistical differences between groups, from which they derive a theory of racism. That's worth belittling too.

I don't understand why you feel justified in generalizing this group simply based on your experiences.

What group? Antifa? Berkeley protesters? Evergreen protesters? These people employ the terminology I am referring to. If you know people who don't, then I'm not referring to them. If your friends who study race believe a black person can be racist, I'm not referring to them.

Sociology also did not "abandon" the primary definition of the word racism.

No. And perhaps it is sloppy language on my part. The alternative definitions of racism is taught in general sociology courses. While those courses do not necessarily abandon original definitions, there are people who are happy to. Meanwhile, there is no one to remind them that the primary definition still exists. Perhaps they are afraid of appearing counter-productive.

But that isn't what happened. They are referring to another definition of the word, not a replacement definition.

I was referring to intersectionality. But on racism, if a member of an oppressed group cannot be racist according to someone, that someone has replaced definitions.

What is incorrect about what they said there?

The life experience of Jaden Smith is completely dissimilar from the life experience of rando in a Chicago ghetto, their shared race notwithstanding. Who has more authority to speak about social policy; straight white Rahm Emanuel, or black lesbian Lori Lightfoot? The correct answer from the information provided in the question should be I don't know.

By what right can you say nobody does so? That seems ridiculous, since you can't possibly believe that there isn't anyone critical of the "little mobs"

I told you, I see liberals who are critical of the little mobs. They get attacked by the left on social media as (group)phobic and ignored by the news until they find themselves on Dave Rubin or Fox. The "intellectual dark web" is primarily liberal.

So what if there has been criticism of criticism? I am confused as to what that is supposed to indicate.

They lose their jobs.

I'm sorry, I just didn't think I had to actually use all the words to explain why just about everyone believes that there should be some sort of racial parity in higher education akin to the statistical breakdown of society and that our government has looked at the statistics showing an imbalance (again, proportional to societal breakdown).

I see. Like the societal breakdown suffered by Asians, earning them less access to elite school emissions. It is not the case that just about everyone believes there should be racial parity. Many people believe pigmentation shouldn't be a consideration at all. You know, MLK Jr types.

You clearly believe this characterization applies to intersectionality as a whole. I don't.

I have acknowledged, throughout this thread, that intersecting group analysis in sociological academic papers is not identical to the rhetoric of SJW protesters. You are saying that what they call intersectionality is not actually intersectionality. That's fine. I wish there were louder voices with your opinion.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
2 points

That makes a lot of sense if you ignore 98% of the story. You can’t earn money off of lending to people who can’t pay you back. Not unless someone else will cover that loss. Dems demanded that such loans be made because homeownership is right. But they couldn’t make that demand without a governmental mechanism to cover the loss, which was also provided.

Did Republicans fuck up? Sure. Did bankers predatorily lend? Yeah. But that’s about as close to the whole story as opening credits. By the time we get to the end credits, it’s not a movie you’ll wanna watch.

2 points

My objection to it has NOTHING to do racism, and EVERYTHING to do with a god I DON'T believe in being praised at an event that I PAID to attend

Wow. Does it piss you off if team uniforms aren’t your favorite color?

I hear ya though. All I hear all day at church is Jesus this and Jesus that. That’s not what I’m here for assholes! Then ya know what? No donation from me! Not until you cut that god shit out of my services!

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

I don't think people are making it up, though.. You do?

Yeah. I do. I just read the lyrics and posted them. They aren't racist. Someone made that up.

2 points

Does this sound like the alt left or the alt right?

"primary targets...will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run"

1 point

Which is the racist line?

God bless America, land that I love

Stand beside her and guide her

Through the night with the light from above

From the mountains to the prairies

To the oceans white with foam

God bless America, my home sweet home

God bless America, land that I love

Stand beside her and guide her

Through the night with the light from above

From the mountains to the prairies

To the oceans white with foam

God bless America, my home sweet home

From the mountains to the prairies

To the oceans white with foam

God bless America, my home sweet home

God bless America, my home sweet home

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

I kneel like Tim Tebow. That's what you meant right?

Haha seriously, what makes you think it is a racist song?

1 point

I pointed out that humans are the only group in the animal kingdom with laws.

Informal law emerged as an evolutionary function.

"In social animals, retaliatory aggression is common, individuals often punish other group members that infringe their interests, and punishment can cause subordinates to desist from behaviour likely to reduce the fitness of dominant animals."

https://www.nature.com/articles/373209a0

You claimed animals kill and eat each other and then called me a neanderthal.

They do and you are, though not literally (I'm sure he meant to insult you, not neanderthals)

I repeated myself again that humans are animals.

Some basic facts such as this can be taught to even the simplest creatures, though you cannot progress beyond simple repetition. Even so, keep it up big guy.

1 point

I kneel for it. It's a protest. Hasn't caught on yet. Maybe if I had the privilege of a national spotlight every Sunday night .

2 points

Tasers are not as effective as guns at stopping a threat. When conditions are suitable for a taser, that's good. But often tasers are not a suitable or realistic option. A lethal force option is very often necessary to stop a lethal force threat.

1 point

it leads to an infinite regression where eventually every criminal must have a firearm to protect themselves from the police.

That depends on whose side you are on.

it is a considerably more reasonable plan for police to work to disarm criminals rather than arm themselves

How does an unarmed man go about disarming a man with a gun?

1 point

Each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellows, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes place.

THATS LAW. Durant says that law comes from property, marriage, and government. It need not be written down. This is going to be over your head but... an individual owns their body (property), people develop moral norms around sexual relations (marriage), and whatever determines the consequences for given actions (law) will govern a given group of people (society). There need not be elected officials passing down dictates for a group to have a government. Whatever mechanism they use to determine group norms and action is their government. Law need not be written for it to exist. All that there has to be is known consequences for specific actions ie breach of law. If Durant means to say that Laws must be written for them to be laws, he is quite simply incorrect.

These primitive people described by Wallace would face consequences for an infraction of rights, thus they refrain from said infractions. THAT'S LAW. SOCIETY REQUIRES IT.

Holy shit. I know you are completely incapable of grasping higher order concepts, but sometimes I just have to engage. It's why you are the best troll here. Sorry Ming.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

So can we not say that a hypothetical person is better off existing than not existing

No. They can be hypothetically better or worse off I suppose. But hypothetical Jane losses nothing by the fact that I made her up. If she were to spring into existence, however, she would presumably be better off not blinking back out of existence. At least she would likely think so.

Hypothetical suns do not have mass, however we can state that a hypothetical sun would have more mass if we added more material to it. I don't believe you would object and say "if the sun is hypothetical then it has no mass". Why then can we not compare hypothetical consciousnesses?

I would object actually. Once the sun has mass, it is not hypothetical anymore.

We can compare hypothetical consciousnesses. But we cannot compare the value of a non-existent condition to an existent one. Not in that direction I mean. As existing things, we can compare our value of our existence to a condition wherein we cannot value (non-existence). We presume non-existence is a lesser state.

We value our ability to value. But if we did not have that ability, we could not wish we did, as that would presuppose the ability to value.

To me it feels like you're making a case analogous to "we can't ever achieve objectivity so everything is subjective" but in regards to preferable states.

I’m not. I am making a case for the relative nature of value. I’ll explain the difference in what I mean by “subjective” as opposed to “relative”. The subjective is the experiential. This is why it is sometimes conflated with opinion. The relative is the contextual. No opinion or experience is required. The relative is an objective concept and can apply to non-experiencing bodies (Things move faster and slower relative to other things). Value is a relative term (and sometimes subjective). Things can be of value to you, without you subjectively knowing it. A plant can need sunlight without a subjective experience of desire for sunlight.

When you say a thing is valuable, I will ask “to whom?”. This is because value is relative. If you say a thing is valuable to no one, then it is not valuable. Existence is valuable only to existing things. Non-existing things cannot value.

Just because we are subjective beings does not mean that objectively better states don't exist.

I agree that there are objectively better and worse states for subjective beings. I hope my above explanation clarifies why.

Moreover, I believe my idea of a hypothetical universe without consciousness demonstrates this.

I’m noticing a slight shift in the language of our argument which may be relevant to this disagreement. Value is a relative term that does not require the subjective experience of the valuer. In that case living, non-conscious, things could exist in a universe without consciousness. They could arguably value things without being conscious of anything, according to my definitions. In that case, whether or it is better to be conscious would depend on whether or not the living non-conscious things would actually do better with consciousness. I am not sure a conclusion to that scenario is possible.

If something may as well not exist what is the practical difference between that and not existing?

Saying that something “may well not exist” it’s a value statement. It’s like saying “If they don’t case X actor, they may as well not make the movie”. You would prefer the movie include X actor.

However, when you define "better and worse" this way you lose the fact that a universe that lacks consciousness is worse than one that has it.

I don’t lose that fact. It is the point of our contention whether it actually is a fact.

We don't need to point to someone to make this claim and, in fact, there is no one in the case of the former.

If value is a relative term, then we do need to point to someone if we are to make a value claim. To say that a thing is of value to literally no one, is to say that a thing is not valuable. This is the crux of our impasse.

Nothing would matter, which I would argue is a worse state.

Yes, for you. But only because you exist and can value such states.

Yet surely you can see that it's better to exist than not to exist? Is something or nothing better?

It is better for the existing thing to exist. It doesn’t matter to unicorns that they don’t exist.

1 point

No, laws emerged historically as a direct consequence of property rights.

That’s not true in the slightest.

Wtf? I don't even know what this has to do with the conversation.

That’s because you don’t understand what laws are, even though I defined it for you in its most basic form. I don’t know why I repeatedly attempt to educate you, it clearly can’t be done. You can have the last word little guy. I’m done with you for now.

1 point

They is professors. Professors often show their support

To my knowledge, there is no representative organization for the professors that would do what you are describing, which is why I am still confused as to why you are speaking as if this is some far-ranging truth.

Social movements don’t require an organized center to proceed. But if a social movement proceeds on the false understanding of an academic idea, typically some academic speaks up in correction. In this case there are academics in the social movement.

What has led you to the conclusion that this is so widespread that you can speak about it in such general terms?

The manner in which proponents of intersectionality discuss matters on social media, at protests, and at speaking events.

Intersectionality, at its foundation, isn't a pop trend.

It is composed of more than its pop trend.

It's the process of determining if multiple factors that have negative impacts can have a compounding effect.

It’s the theory that it does.

how could it be a pop trend because a term came up for using it within sociology?

The same way that sociologists came up with a meaning for racism that is different than what most people understand racism to be, and the new definition has become a pop trend. This popular new definition is used by the same protesters, to the exclusion of the more common original definition. That’s partly how they get so racist. They just say that’s not racism anymore. Sociology gave them that, even if sociology didn’t mean to abandon the original term.

My appeal was not to an authority, but to the concept itself, by its very definitions.

A definition is an authority. Since meanings change, insisting that a concept does not mean what it is popularly used to mean relies on the authority of a “truer” definition.

If you read a basic dictionary definition, then intersectionality seems fine, as you said. But if you take an explanation from an intersectional advocate, such as the top google result, IWDA, they will tell you that “your life experiences are based on how your multiple identities intermingle”. They apply the statistical to the particular.

Even the Webster definition emphasizes intersectional affects “especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals”. While that doesn’t say specifically to judge a book by its cover, it implies something about the individual with many intersecting identities from statistically marginalized groups. Again, if that individual application is wrong, professors aren’t attempting to correct it.

You speak about people who "work in racial statistics", but this isn't a matter of racial statistics as much as statistics as much as statistics as a whole and the ways that people correctly or incorrectly apply them.

This is not simply statistical analysis. Not according to the definition. Intersectionality includes a premise of “creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”. That’s theory, not analysis.

Here’s why I brought up racial stats. A criminologist addressing the issue has to acknowledge increased rates of violent crimes among black populations. They, and everyone else is quick to correct the ignorant application of such stats so as to imply that a black person is more violent. But when it comes to intersectionality, no one steps in to correct the little mob that says you have to shut up and listen because you, as an intersectionally privileged person have had your say for hundreds of years. If nobody ever corrected the misuse of criminal stats, you would have to wonder at the motives of all those silent criminologists.

You have not been questioning individuals here, you have been questioning the underlying concept, based on the actions of individuals, hence my objections.

I have. This is due to the overwhelmingly uniform apparent misapplication of the concept without said application being corrected.

Is it that you have yet to read left-wing criticism of the behavior you are referring to?

No. I have read left wingers criticize such behavior, but then they are also attacked. You don’t really believe Bret Weinstein is a conservative do you? (I don’t believe his example is obscure)

As has always been the case, the overwhelming majority of academia does not care for the spotlight. The fact that there are a few loudmouths doing stupid shit doesn't really change that.

Fair point.

I think a pretty basic thing that is being missed here is that if you study intersectionality (I mean as a concept, rather than applying it), there isn't a foundation for or justification for the behavior you are criticizing.

Is the concept become less legitimate in its application?

Concerning the Affirmative Action bit, you said Statistics support the idea of increasing African American attendance in colleges. In this example you have commingled the study of statistics with a specific policy application. Perhaps it was just loose language, but the fact that statistics can’t support an affirmative policy positions on its own is similar to the fact that intersectional analysis can’t support negative applications on its own.

The stats just showed the disparity, the policy makers decided what to do about it. If intersectionality leads from simple analysis to toxic application then perhaps we should separate the analysis from the application, because they have functionally, though perhaps not definitionally, come to mean the same thing.

More to the point you meant to make at the end, I agree. Affirmative Action Laws are problematic for various reasons. Even supporters have to concede deficiencies and unintended consequences.

0 points

Every society has laws. Property rights are only one category. If you don’t believe me, go to some indigenous tribe and assault someone. See what happens.

1 point

You know, if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, that's stealing..

Sometimes paying your taxes is stealing.

You, on the other hand, wanna prevent some crime from happening, that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen..

Yeah. Crime prevention through laws against activity that severely endangers many many innocent bystanders is something I’m ok with. Say, should the second amendment allow for personal nukes? After all, we can just punish them if they happen to use it.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

And why do professors need to object?

They often show their support for disgusting, racist little protestors operating from their new found knowledge of intersectionality. If that is not reflective of what professors are teaching, they should not support it.

There is no authority on this matter to appeal to the way you are.

I’m not appealing to authority. I’m describing intersectionality as a pop trend. Your counter to its public image was an appeal to perhaps a proper authority of what it supposedly actually is. I am saying that if you are correct, then that does need to be appealed to. But no one is doing it. So I maintain my doubts.

As for statistics being applied to individuals, that has always happened, and will always happen.

Typically those who work in racial statistics are not out there being racist along with those who misuse their stats. If they do, I question their original work.

why treat it as if it is new or unique when it involves intersectionality?

Everywhere people work against these errors in very public ways.

With intersectionality I hear some people here and there say that oppression mongering isn’t really what intersectionality is about. Meanwhile little riot mobs preaching “intersectionality” will often have a professor among their ranks and not one voice says “this is not what I teach”.

it's a fundamental flaw in countless laws and regulations in every level of government.

This could be an interesting side-bar. Of the countless laws, which one comes most directly to mind?

1 point

Of course we need laws against murder, rape, stealing, and hurting each other.. But beyond that, we're good..

The question is about laws as such, which is what I was answering.

You know, taxes are imposed by law.

why is it the governments business if you drive drunk?

The roadways are public and publicly maintained. A drunk driver is an inherent threat to all other members of the public they encounter. Imposing consequences for that kind of public endangerment is absolutely the proper role for the government. By the way, we do come down HARD. Since it usually kills someone, it’s usually a murder charge.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

You are conflating second and third wave feminism.

I didn’t mention waves for a reason. Whether some feminists were racist or not, classist or not, rich or not, achieving the vote for women did just that.

If there is a brand of new wave feminism that distinguishes itself for whites etc, I have yet to hear of it. Feminism need not articulate the specific inclusion of specific classes and types of women for those women to benefit.

You are describing how some people react to their understanding of intersectionality

With no public correction from their professors.

as a sociological concept, it of course refers to macro level trends

Sure. And any reasonable person knows you cannot just an individual by the statistics of their group. But that’s happening here. It is not only a sociological concept, it is a pop trend with characteristics distinct from any valid sociological concept. A pop trend left uncorrected.

it only judges a book by its cover as much as any sociological concept does.

When judging a tree by its fruit, I cannot agree.

1 point

Laws are fundamentally the establishment of known consequences. Society is fundamentally a community.

In order for people to live together for any extended period of time, they have to know the consequences their fellow humans will impose for given actions. Otherwise people would isolate themselves from one another for lack of certainty or trust. It would be Hobbes’s state of nature.

No. Society cannot exist without laws.

Amarel(4816) Clarified
1 point

Yes, I meant “now”. Thank you.

I’m judging by the college students within academia. They come out in large numbers to protest based on intersectional theory, as they explain it. They often have the support of their professors.

It’s not my area, but if students marched out and began spouting misrepresentation of what they are learning, I would expect them to be corrected rather than encouraged.


1 of 338 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]