The World is Stupid

[none]

15 pages over a single incident and it's the world that's stupid.

catch two in the pink and one in the stink, bravo

 

[KeepTalking]

You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

Do they constitute coercion?

Given that coercion is using force as a means of persuasion, then no, they do not constitute coercion.

 

[KeepTalking]

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry.

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

 

[Politesse]

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry.

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

Isn't it obvious? You post on an internet forum "I am a liberal. I am not a racist". Then you pretend the problem is already solved, and get angry if anyone suggests actually doing anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

Isn't it obvious? You post on an internet forum "I am a liberal. I am not a racist". Then you pretend the problem is already solved via laissez faire techniques (i.e. ignoring it), and get angry if anyone suggests actually doing anything.

Added to the statement.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry.

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

What? You are making no sense

 

[KeepTalking]

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

What? You are making no sense

Please explain how one can challenge bigotry without applying social pressure, or shaming the person espousing bigotry.

I ask you to to so because you have made clear that in your world those things constitute force, and have been arguing that they should not be done as a result.

Does that make sense?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are incorrect, none of those things is force.

Do they constitute coercion?

Tautological. "Coercion" by definition refers to the use of force.

This is misleading. Force is a possible element of coercion, but the two are not synonymous.

Coerce:
1) to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:
They coerced him into signing the document.
2) to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact:
to coerce obedience.
3) to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coerce

 

[Emily Lake]

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry.

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

It's a mystery...

How does one teach a child that temper tantrums aren't acceptable without shaming them?

Seriously people... challenging someone else's beliefs and views does not require that they be shamed, ridiculed, harassed, or otherwise mistreated. It can be done with common courtesy and decency.

 

[KeepTalking]

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

It's a mystery...

How does one teach a child that temper tantrums aren't acceptable without shaming them?

Seriously people... challenging someone else's beliefs and views does not require that they be shamed, ridiculed, harassed, or otherwise mistreated. It can be done with common courtesy and decency.

It's a good thing DrZ did not restrict it to shaming then, but also "social pressure". Social Pressure does not preclude courtesy and decency.

 

[Politesse]

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

It's a mystery...

How does one teach a child that temper tantrums aren't acceptable without shaming them?

Seriously people... challenging someone else's beliefs and views does not require that they be shamed, ridiculed, harassed, or otherwise mistreated. It can be done with common courtesy and decency.

So when teaching a child not to throw temper tantrums... what do you do? I feel like this would be useful and relevant information, given that people crying about "oppression" because you can't flash gang signs on TV without being criticized for it clearly were never taught not to throw temper tantrums, that being essentially an adult version of the same.

 

[Swammerdami]

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

I believe that unchallenged bigotry leads to more bigotry.

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

What? You are making no sense

It sure made sense to me; indeed I wondered how you would respond to it.

Now I know.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm confused. The name of the thread is the World is Stupid which is apparently shaming some nameless Jeopardy champions who are alleged to be "the left" because they are using decency to make an argument that such and such ought to happen...requesting an apology politely and requesting such-and-such of Jeopardy producers politely. So, how exactly is this alleged "the left" being indecent while the op calling them stupid is quietly ignored, totally reframing everything from here to there as the opposite? What's even worse here is that the very people doing the shaming and using indecency like calling people stupid are also completely silent on the 3-percenters who wanted to murder congress people, i.e. cancelling them. How does any of this inconsistently applying principles make any sense at all?

Let's put this in the context of a child throwing a tantrum. Imagine a parent is in a grocery store aisle. Their kid is throwing a tantrum. So the parent says politely to the kid, "Can you please stop throwing a tantrum? We're going to get kicked out of the store for bad behavior and we're almost done shopping anyway." Then, suddenly a conservative comes along and screams, "Stop shaming that kid!!!11 You need to be decent. You are STUPID!" Then, the conservative walks into the other aisle, pulls out an AR-15 and shoots someone. The state of the thread right now is like criticizing the parent. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I see a disconnect here. How does one challenge bigotry without applying social pressure or shaming in your world in which these things constitute force?

What? You are making no sense

Please explain how one can challenge bigotry without applying social pressure, or shaming the person espousing bigotry.

I ask you to to so because you have made clear that in your world those things constitute force, and have been arguing that they should not be done as a result.

Does that make sense?

By saying that bigotry is wrong? Don't you think that works?

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

 

[KeepTalking]

Please explain how one can challenge bigotry without applying social pressure, or shaming the person espousing bigotry.

I ask you to to so because you have made clear that in your world those things constitute force, and have been arguing that they should not be done as a result.

Does that make sense?

By saying that bigotry is wrong? Don't you think that works?

Don't you think that is social pressure?

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

The individual destroys their own livelihood with behavior disruptive to the workplace. It is worse than having an employee who is technically incompetent as these behaviors affect not just the individual’s performance but the performance of those around him.
No public shaming need take place. If your comments/behavior affects your work environment, this can be explained to you in private in the form of a formal counseling.

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

 

[Derec]

The individual destroys their own livelihood with behavior disruptive to the workplace.

Speech outside of workplace is not disruptive to the workplace. Same people who criticized 49ers for letting Kav go for protesting while on the clock are positively ecstatic for people losing their livelihoods for private speech outside the workplace.

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

Which is a very disturbing practice to begin with. That people may lose their jobs for for example tweets critical of Jacob Blake is beyond the pale.
ASU radio station board votes to remove manager over tweet about Kenosha police shooting victim

She did not say anything bigoted at all. She only stated an opinion, based on actual facts about St. Jacob Blake, and lost her position over it.
Should somebody lose their job because they point out that Jacob Blake had a warrant for sexual assault? Or anything contrary to "he didn't do nothing, about to turn his life around, church every week" narrative pushed by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo?

 

[Trausti]

Oh, my.

 

[zorq]

My oh my.


Nobody ever said that there was only one meaning for the gesture.

Your bad faith arguments are pathetic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't you think that is social pressure?

Sure. But a type of social pressure that encourages dialogue and honesty. Instead of shutting people up you don't agree with.

In conflict management one of the first things we learn that is that one side might, instead or introspection and honest reflection resorts to power games. Raising ones voice, threatening language, threatening behavior, actual violence. All of these tactics kill discussion and debate. It creates a "might makes right" environment. It is toxic and unhealthy. It leads to a bad world. It also resolves zero conflicts. It only puts a lid on it, which over time leads to accumulating conflicts which eventually leads to some sort of violent cataclysm.

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.