Silencing of opposing views

Discuss Current Events, Politics, Theology, Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, etc. Please stay on-topic. Serious discussions/debates only. No personal attacks.
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Thu May 12, 2016 2:12 am

popcorn anyone?
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Thu May 12, 2016 2:37 am

I hope this thread never ends.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Phara
The Glue To This Bitch!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:13 am

Postby Phara » Thu May 12, 2016 3:54 am

Corgimom wrote:I hope this thread never ends.

(cwl)

i cant. seriously. cerreo is perfection.

and with that, i'm off.
Image
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
Image

Image Image
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Thu May 19, 2016 1:08 pm

I am in complete agreement with the first paragraph. The full accuracy is hard to cite, but even when extrapolating for the estimation of under reporting, the numbers are far less than the fear mongering perpetrated by those with an advantage for controlling the narrative. This crime is visceral. Thus it carries more weight than many other types of crime. Everyone has female family members, and the thought of such a think occurring to them is powerful. Yet, even with that, here is where a crack starts to form; most people do not know an immediate associate that has had this happen. Perhaps this is because of lack of reporting, but that in turn has an effect on the psyche of those whose experience, as they know it, is different from what is portrayed. Is there a definitive correction to this other than a universal declaration of every person who has had such an event and detailed description of the offending behavior (to allow clear differentiation between legally defined sexual assault and the studies that allow just discomfort to be included as assault)? This would certainly give a clearer picture of the reality of the situation, but I do not think either side wants it to come to light. For those pushing an agenda, it may, like the BJS report, show that it is not an epidemic and thus remove an arrow from their quiver. On the counter side if the statistics are far worse, then law enforcement will be called into question for not doing enough, despite the fact that the primary purpose of law enforcement is not the prevention, but reaction that is dependent on evidence (I have been a greater advocate of teaching women how to respond to rape to ensure a conviction in the event it happens than "tell men not to rape" which has very little effect on men so broken that they feel that is an acceptable behavior.)

The second paragraph. This is where you painted yourself in a negative light in my view. You started categorizing into groups and threw out feminist buzzwords. This gave me a clear indication of the ideology of the poster and exactly what I was dealing with. I was not aware of the MRA movement until a few months ago. It isn’t like they get the press that feminists get, but to automatically dismiss them out of hand is not a worthy attitude. While I will admit they have their bottom feeding trolls like any group does, it does not mean there is not validity to some of their claims. You assume all are misogynists, when in fact most of the things I have seen recently are in opposition to misandry and gynocentric attitudes from their opposition. The talking points of the legitimate speakers on the subject are the high incidence of male rape in prisons, the lack of services or support structures for male victims of domestic violence, and the disparity in legal and judicial proceedings relating to men and women. All of these are legitimate claims that are not addressed by feminism as they attempt to cloak their movement as egalitarian. To disparage those who seek to correct gender discrepancies that are not addressed by the dominant gender activist movement is narrow minded and highlights the need for someone to speak out about those issues, but I know, male tears and all that.

I will agree with you that the message was derailed by making the issue about trans bathrooms when that was no one’s fear at all in the issue, but those very same rapists using the laws that allow open access to have an easier time to commit crime. There are two arguments to be made there. First, those trans displayed for the purpose of derailing are quite obviously those who are on hormones and take great care to appear as their chosen identity, and those are not the people in question. They have and will continue to use the facilities of their choice. The problem is the postmodernist bullshit of gender fluid where I can just claim to be a female today and walk in where I damn well please. This allows for situations where the above straight male criminal with the intent to do harm cannot be questioned about his intent entering a place where females have an expectation of privacy. The ties in with the second point that while trans are certainly affected, the main outcome was not directed at them, but to not remove a societal safeguard that at least alerts others that someone with nefarious intent was in the area. Essentially, it was the equivalent of ordering that doors be left locked at night. Not to safeguard the honest, but to limit the access of the nefarious. Unfortunately, .37% of the population would potentially be negatively affected by this. This is the case with all laws, someone that it doesn’t apply to may be negatively affected because of the actions of others. It also strikes me as funny how the opposition seems to have no problems using bathrooms as their point of contention, while so easily leaving out the showers and changing facilities as they would likely get far less support for those areas. We all can acknowledge that in a female bathroom that stalls would prevent any exposure, but when locker rooms and showers are involved, then it becomes the infringement on the parents right to prevent their children from being exposed to nudity of the opposite gender. Some say it doesn’t affect them, some say it does. I am not researched enough to say what the definitive consensus of professionals is on the subject, but it is the parents right to make that decision for their children. Again, I think it was purposely framed to only include bathrooms, as there would not be the support if all areas of access were included. But that is already being discussed in another thread.

Oh I am sorry, did a conversation (which is what this is) not go the direction you wanted it to go? Yes, I gave a tiny bit of lip service, because my main intent even when it was on FB was that the information was not cited and thus not credible. My very first post on it was “Citations Needed”. So the conversation went exactly the direction I had intended. My intent was never to discuss trans rape, or rape in general, but to talk about the veracity of memes and the spurious nature of the information given. BTW there is already a thread on the Bathroom bill topic on another location. That would be the place to discuss it and that is where I have been discussing it.

I have no problem addressing the topic. But that topic was not the intent of the initial post or what I was trying to have a conversation about. As I started the thread I think I have some say in what my intent for it was. And in fact it was going exactly the direction I was hoping to. I get it, you have an agenda and it means something to you. That is all swell and dandy. But what I am seeing, and correct me if I am wrong (someone not invested in this) but you appear to be attempting to derail the conversation to suit what you want it to be about. It is this very response that is allowing you to do so. I could have just stopped posting and moved on to other topics and the thread would die out. I think I am being generous in doing so, because in reality this is a different topic for another thread. But I love an argument, even if I am wrong, because it allows me to find weaknesses in the argument to shore up for the next debate.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Thu May 19, 2016 5:34 pm

Neon Samurai wrote:The talking points of the legitimate speakers on the subject are the high incidence of male rape in prisons, the lack of services or support structures for male victims of domestic violence, and the disparity in legal and judicial proceedings relating to men and women. All of these are legitimate claims that are not addressed by feminism as they attempt to cloak their movement as egalitarian.
(emphasis added)

While this is not a huge field of study by feminist scholars, feminist criminologists are actively investigating these issues. In fact, it could be argued that feminist scholars are leading the charge in these areas of study due to the unique role that sex and gender have in discussions and research of prison rape and domestic violence.

Neon Samurai wrote:Oh I am sorry, did a conversation (which is what this is) not go the direction you wanted it to go? Yes, I gave a tiny bit of lip service, because my main intent even when it was on FB was that the information was not cited and thus not credible.


I addressed the citations here: The FB Debacle Continued
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Silencing of opposing views will never be an issue here. And we are glad to see your return.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Fri May 20, 2016 12:20 pm

Yes, Phelon, there are criminologist working on it, but they are not the activist in the public sphere. How often do we here from them outside of reports that rarely get traction in the public conversation. And yes you did discuss them. My point was, as I created the thread, then I have the initial control of the direction. While certainly conversations develop organically, to criticize a participant because they are not talking about what you want to talk about is not how polite conversations go. Certainly bring up something you want to talk about is acceptable, but not criticizing a participant for it. While I know there are those here with fiery personalities, I would not think that is how one is expected to conduct oneself.

I was out of town last week. I drove the equivalent of halfway cross country and never left the state (job hunting to move to the western part of Carolina.) I appreciate the welcome back. I fall into the same category as some philosopher that I cant remember said along the lines of I do not know that which is true, only that which I am told to be true. I have confirmation bias just like everyone else. I know what I think, but my opinions are not blindly accepted. I have reasoned them out for myself. They may indeed have false information influencing them. But unless I am given credible refuting evidence, how am I to know the information I based my decision on is false. I welcome data that I can look at, but that is part of my problem, which a number of professors and colleagues have pointed out over the years, is that I am far too focused on the empirical data and that tends to make me seem like an asshole when there is an emotional component to a discussion. I have never been good with the feels, but the story behind that is for another time.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Fri May 20, 2016 6:30 pm

Neon Samurai wrote:Yes, Phelon, there are criminologist working on it, but they are not the activist in the public sphere. How often do we here from them outside of reports that rarely get traction in the public conversation.


Blame mainstream media. They essentially dictate what gets traction in public conversation. Also no one listens to criminologists anyways. for instance, the American Society of Criminology (ASC) has two main official policy positions-concerning the use of incarceration and the death penalty (ASC POLICY PAPERS). It is safe to say that criminological research has very slowly gained traction in regards to the use of incarceration. That being said, criminological positions on the death penalty have largely fallen on deaf ears (this is where politics, emotions, and the media come into play). Politicians need to appear "tough on crime" and criminals in order to get votes. Thus, politicians and the media play on the emotions of the public citizenry's fear of crime. This is why the use of executive pardons have consistently declined over time (and why there is an uptick of pardons during lame-duck periods), and why we have harsh policies for convicted felons-many of which make no sense (it is easier for a convicted murderer to get college funding than a convicted non-violent marijuana dealer).
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Silencing of opposing views

Postby cerrodepedro » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:22 pm

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately. And didn't want to create a new topic when there is some excellent context and discussion already present in this one. To emphasize something that has already been discussed, I think the concept of false dichotomies is relevant. False dichotomies, or in other words, comparisons that are not valid, that present no additional truth beyond existing arguments, that present "two sides" when a mountain of proof exists to establish an argument of fact, have come very much into play in how the press communicate in dominant cultures.

Take for example climate change: The way any given media outlet presents it lately is that there are two sides. VALIDLY and LOGICALLY and CRITICALLY playing Devil's Advocate, I say, "okay, if there are two sides, perhaps there is proof that rapid changes in mean temperature is not the result of human activity," or "perhaps the methods used to sample data in support of the notion of human-caused climate change are flawed." When I say that, I am then required by principles of intellectual integrity to provide a critical analysis on what could be lacking in the collective theoretical body behind human ecological interactions.

ABSENT said critical analysis, when scientific communities have presented a critically reviewed point of view, an opposing view does NOT merit equal footing in public discourse. It does NOT merit equal time. In the realm of education especially, it does NOT merit a place in any curriculum. It could be said that the presentation of false dichotomies is a form of "trolling," an attempt at escalating a war of attrition where, instead of the opposition being obligated to present coherent arguments that are backed and evidenced, the accepted point of view is obligated to entertain every whimsical argument that is made, EVEN if that argument has been discussed at length, or EVEN if that argument has no relevance to what we can refer to as the conclusions of a proven hypothesis.

I do not want to talk about climate change specifically beyond its value as an example to explain a principle. What I REALLY want to talk about is, where have you seen false dichotomies? Do you feel they exist as presented by the press, mainstream, niche, or even in the form of 'observer' groups Tweeting a lot? How do false dichotomies shape conversations? Is everyone held to the same standard of intellectual integrity? What about confirmation bias as presented by social statuses quo?
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
ink
God's Fountain Pen
Posts: 2159
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:22 pm

Re: Silencing of opposing views

Postby ink » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

cerrodepedro wrote:
I do not want to talk about climate change specifically beyond its value as an example to explain a principle. What I REALLY want to talk about is, where have you seen false dichotomies? Do you feel they exist as presented by the press, mainstream, niche, or even in the form of 'observer' groups Tweeting a lot? How do false dichotomies shape conversations? Is everyone held to the same standard of intellectual integrity? What about confirmation bias as presented by social statuses quo?


this is another one of those fully loaded shorts.. i want to chew on this for a while, but i know ive something to add..
we are, what we allow to occupy us..





Image

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests