Worst of Social Justice

[Ultimate Paragon]

Maybe I owe my guy an apology. Because I'm reading UP's words as trying to pass off past experience as inferior reasons for present actions. Not as good as hard evidence?

I'm talking about in terms of arguments, not actions.

[rookie]

Ah. Mea culpa.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Ah. Mea culpa.

It's fine.

[rookie]

I would like to point out that a one in anything chance of something happening is still a chance. Someone has to be that 1 in 5 or 10 or 100 or 1,000,000. Someone wins the lottery. And any decision based on what you're calling reason has to be made with the possible downside, or whatever you'd call populating the Cons side.

[Askold]

UP keeps talking about "harmless jokes" but the fact is that if someone tells you that joking about subject X hurts them, then it is not an harmless joke. Not only that, but even though the jokes may not have been aware that their joke hurt someone earlier now they do know it and continuing to make those jokes is now just being mean on purpose or simple ignorance on how they are being rude and hurtful.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Translation: "Edgy jokes are a Big Fucking Deal^TM and you should call out your friends for doing something that doesn't hurt anything except the feelings of people who may not even be present.  Also, jokes with friends are morally equivalent to sexual harassment."

Where does she say the jokes are just between friends? If your friends are making these jokes and don't do so recognizing their wrong then it clearly a sign of a bigger problem.

 
Except there are a lot of rape victims who tell rape jokes as a coping mechanism.

You do know why Jewish people get a pass telling Jewish jokes right, or why African Americans don't come off as insulting when they call their mates the N word? It's because they aren't punching down so much as sideways.

Except, as I've already demonstrated, not even that is okay with these people.

"Demonstrating" that some individual arsehole said something assholish demonstrates fuck all about any group of people, "these people", those people or those people over there.

And yes that goes for whoever it was who thought that prison rape was social justice. It demonstrates only that this particular wanker is a wanker.

More to the point, there's a difference between being passionate and being needlessly offensive.  It's not "tone policing" to ask somebody to be less hateful.  What I'm talking about is content, not tone.  I don't really mind if social justice activists get loud, or angry, or even profane.  My problem comes when they start being outright hateful.

UP having a problem with the content of what the eeevil SJWs say? Would you prefer they not say such hateful things would you prefer they *hoarse whisper* self censor?

Oh, I recognize their right to say it.  I'm not going to try and pressure them to stop saying it.  But it needs to be recognized that I have every right to criticize them saying it.

Great, so we can all safely ignore this as it's just more whinging about SJWs rustling your jimmies while not actually doing you any harm. Got it.

The difference is that particle physics are a matter of objective fact.

It's objectively true that lots of people are different from one another. You know, some poor, some rich, some black, some white, some never having experienced rape others less lucky. What's your point?

My point is that lived experiences are no substitute for hard evidence.

A lived experience is an objective fact. If someone is born black and indigenous in Alice Springs in Australia you'd better believe their experience with racism is going to be different to someone who was born white there.

[davedan]

I for one welcome My Vaginal Overlords and wait patiently to do their bidding.

[The_Queen]

Today, we feature a debate between the immovable object and the unstoppable force. In one corner, it is Ultimate Paragon. In the other, it is Ultimate Paragon. First word to Paragon, what do you have to say.

Dude. Hard evidence, please define it in context? You would rather women just talk about feminist issues using what? Statistics? Here, use this body of a murdered prostitute to help demonstrate those stats. She won't interrupt.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using lived experiences or emotional appeals.  But they ought to be backed up with logic and evidence to make a sound argument.

Compelling argument. Ultimate Paragon, your turn.

but instead of either side doing anything, we are bickering at one another in an online squabble. And that is exactly what you want. You want us to go into the internet and find these people to bicker. Nobody on this board has said DCS. Nobody I have met in real life has said that and I have over 100 transsexuals’ phone numbers in my phone. Quite frankly, I’ve always felt that the majority of people saying DCS are cissexual trolls, but there isn’t going to be a poll that can show this and I am speaking from anecdote.

Then why bring it up?

So much intellectual dishonesty.

[Ultimate Paragon]

UP keeps talking about "harmless jokes" but the fact is that if someone tells you that joking about subject X hurts them, then it is not an harmless joke. Not only that, but even though the jokes may not have been aware that their joke hurt someone earlier now they do know it and continuing to make those jokes is now just being mean on purpose or simple ignorance on how they are being rude and hurtful.

Oh, I agree.  Telling jokes only to hurt other people is really dickish.  But there's a simple rule: telling jokes about a certain topic around people comfortable with them is fine.  Making those kinds of jokes around people who've made it clear that they don't like them is hurtful.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

UP keeps talking about "harmless jokes" but the fact is that if someone tells you that joking about subject X hurts them, then it is not an harmless joke. Not only that, but even though the jokes may not have been aware that their joke hurt someone earlier now they do know it and continuing to make those jokes is now just being mean on purpose or simple ignorance on how they are being rude and hurtful.

Oh, I agree.  Telling jokes only to hurt other people is really dickish.  But there's a simple rule: telling jokes about a certain topic around people comfortable with them is fine.  Making those kinds of jokes around people who've made it clear that they don't like them is hurtful.

And who else is "around" if you tell the joke on the World Wide Web?

[Ultimate Paragon]

UP keeps talking about "harmless jokes" but the fact is that if someone tells you that joking about subject X hurts them, then it is not an harmless joke. Not only that, but even though the jokes may not have been aware that their joke hurt someone earlier now they do know it and continuing to make those jokes is now just being mean on purpose or simple ignorance on how they are being rude and hurtful.

Oh, I agree.  Telling jokes only to hurt other people is really dickish.  But there's a simple rule: telling jokes about a certain topic around people comfortable with them is fine.  Making those kinds of jokes around people who've made it clear that they don't like them is hurtful.

And who else is "around" if you tell the joke on the World Wide Web?

Well, obviously, it depends on the platform used, among other things.

[niam2023]

Wow, Ultimate Paragon's reached Donald Trump levels.

I wonder if his hair resembles the pubes of an undead warlock too...

[mellenORL]

As Tol so succinctly put it, lived experiences are hard evidence. So is a murder victim's body, which gives mute testimony of a lived experience so intense, it became a death experience. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as witness testimony and presentation of physical evidence in court. So, let me just re-name lived experience as witness testimony.

Contrast this with "witnessing" for Jesus is, i.e., people expressing their emotions to others in context of their experiences and beliefs. Although I become bored and annoyed when a Christian "testifies" or "witnesses" to me for more than ten seconds, I would not be so disrespectful as to call them out for being brainwashed. I would just make an excuse to leave. They are just gushing with happiness like an innocent, deluded child. There are no hard facts being discussed, just emotional reactions to coincidence and hyper application of pattern recognition.

However, if some woman described her lived experiences of male domination, such as being constantly interrupted by a douche bag during board meetings, but you don't like her choice of words or angry tone, maybe just focus on the particulars, the facts in the testimony. Although she is not testifying in a court of law, she is not in a debate contest, she has not spoken where she should expect her testimony to be judged as worthy of your approval, her testimony could nevertheless be admitted in court. She is describing actual events that really happened in real time, which others present at that same event could corroborate. Unlike someone witnessing their Happy Jesus Feels because gawdamighty made the bus run late, just so they could made it to work on time.

Everybody ultimately exists as a thinking, feeling entity inside their own head. Sometimes opening a window into that mental reality can expose some harsh or disturbing imagery. Life can be very harsh and disturbing. If you had a harsh and disturbing experience and expressed your feelings about it, I seriously doubt you would tolerate being judged by strangers as to the tone or word choice or on the facts of the incident you lived through.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Okay, I think I see the problem.  We seem to be working off two different definitions of "lived experiences."  From what I can tell, you and Tol are using the traditional definition, which focuses on the events themselves; that is to say, the objective truth of what happened.  I, on the other hand, am using the newer definition.  This refers not only to the events themselves, but the interpretations thereof.  That's where things start to get murky.

Before I continue, why don't you watch this Key and Peele sketch?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c</a>

While obviously exaggerated, it's a demonstration of what I'm talking about.  Most people have biases towards themselves, thinking they're in the right.  This can lead to them dismissing other people as wrong.  And sometimes, this can lead to them believing others are biased against them, which is the entire motivation for the conflict/disagreement/whatever. 

The logical extension of this is assuming that bigotry is a motivator, when that may not be the case.  Maybe a coder isn't looked down on because she's a woman, but because she hasn't mastered the language.  That's not to dismiss the possibility, of course, but negative reactions to you and the fact that you're a member of a disadvantaged group don't always overlap.  Sometimes, it's not about what you are, but about who you are.

[mellenORL]

Your example of a female coder lights a bit of fuse about an industry sector which has been plagued by over representation of dumb rude guys. Maybe change that to female astronaut, which is also a field demanding of high performance, yet is not all that notorious for having a lot of insecure nutsacs working in it.