Offensive Joke Discussion

[Gendarme]

What if their perspective is that you should say your thing and not understand the other perspective?

[deleted_user0]

That's fine, but then you have no place in a discussion. Or in a community, for that matter.

[deleted_user0]

I posted in this thread because Xeelee asked for a response to her post. ESOC discussions are extremely unrewarding. Take a look at @Dolan's post history; he was the MVP of off-topic but he eventually gave up as his efforts were almost completely wasted.

Because most people, dolan included, aren't willing to actually discuss properly. Besides, discussions are unrewarding in general, as most people won't change their minds by arguments anyway, but do it rather through the gaze of the other.

I second this, a discussion is a two-way interaction, you just don't say your thing and not understand their perspective at all.

This is true, but it's not what I meant. The gaze and the face of the other is a term used by some philosophers, most notably Levinas. What I meant was that we can state dry facts and argue our cases eloquently, and they will serve only limited purpose, as most people are more compelled into action by the stories and sight of other people's suffering, rather than by logical arguments or statistical facts. As such, you can write an essay about the imbalances of the economic system and the aftermath of the collapse of colonial power structures, corruption and the effect it has on the common Sudanese. It can be accurate and truthful and well written, and yet it will probably stir less people to do something about the problem than a crying, poor, starved "African" kid. You can post the whole internet full of data about how we're screwing ourselves out of a future with our eating patterns, yet the most powerful catalyst is a video that shows you animal suffering for 90 minutes. Similarly, many people will avoid such a video, because they know that seeing that suffering will compel them to take action, and they don't want to or aren't ready to. So they will rather just ignore it.

Obviously arguments and such do change the minds of some people, usually those whose beliefs aren't set in stone yet, or whom have been doubting theirs for some time already. But most of the time, arguments and facts don't serve to convince other people that they are wrong, they only serve to convince people that they are right and justified in holding the beliefs that they do. As such they argue not really to convince others, but rather to convince themselves, even if they aren't aware of this.

[Goodspeed]

The extreme or controversial opinions will always be overrepresented in free media compared to their representation in the population, that’s fine as long as you are aware of it.

I am aware, that's why I think looking at people in your social environment is a better way to gauge this.

It's not hard to find stories of rape where it was actively encouraged by bystanders.

Really? I haven’t heard of many at all in our western cultures. If you go to the middle east or India, that would be different matter.

Ehh. Kavanaugh? I can understand why people have the tendency to say "rape culture" when someone who was accused of attempted rape, whose best defense against a very convincing story was "I don't recall", gets nominated for and confirmed into the US supreme court.

Sexual harassment is still widespread, and very often encouraged.

Is this also your conclusion from your circle of acquittances or from media?

Both

I don't think anti-PC culture is a huge threat. I think it's worrying because it shows a general lack of empathy in the population, and it shows how sensitive people are to shock politics and propaganda. We have bigger problems though.

I agree with you here with the addition of that I’m worried about people shutting down discussion with things like “you’re a racist” or “you’re a white straight male, you can’t understand/have a valid opinion”. I’m worried about the extremists at both sides growing in influence, while you seem to only be worried about one of the sides.

Overall, I think the world can use more tolerance and solidarity. So, while both are a problem, the fight against those things is, to me, a bigger problem than the use of questionable methods in the fight for them.

[martinspjuth]

The extreme or controversial opinions will always be overrepresented in free media compared to their representation in the population, that’s fine as long as you are aware of it.

I am aware, that's why I think looking at people in your social environment is a better way to gauge this.

I don’t doubt you are aware, my point is that if you are aware you can yourself make some restrictive guess for what is probably more likely. The media may exaggerate extreme standpoints, but your social circle is likely do not have one or more of them at all. I don’t have any Nazi or communists in my social circle, so by going by that I’d think they doesn’t exist, because the only reports I’ve seen of such people are from media.

It's not hard to find stories of rape where it was actively encouraged by bystanders.

Really? I haven’t heard of many at all in our western cultures. If you go to the middle east or India, that would be different matter.

Ehh. Kavanaugh? I can understand why people have the tendency to say "rape culture" when someone who was accused of attempted rape, whose best defense against a very convincing story was "I don't recall", gets nominated for and confirmed into the US supreme court.

I’ve only heard the name Kavanaugh associated with something around sexual assault, never set myself into what exactly it was. I have read up a little now (on Wikipedia). It doesn’t seem to me like he is convicted of anything, imo you are not guilty until proven otherwise. Neither do I see anything that implies that those acts were encouraged by others. I don’t find it strange that he doesn’t remember. If it was an event (if it even occurred) that held no importance to him, there is no reason why he would recall it 30 years later. I certainly wouldn’t be able to remember something so far back unless it was something i found very important at the time, I doubt you could either. What I do find strange is for someone to wait over 30 years to come with such accusations. I also don’t see why people would put so much importance on them when so long time has gone since the crimes are suggested to have been committed. Especially since it isn’t even about rape but sexual assault or attempted rape in the worst case.
By your reasoning it is enough that he is accused of a crime for a revoke of his nomination. Basically, ruining his career. All this even though there have been no judge or jury convicting him of any crime. By that way of thinking if there is politician who I don’t like that is gaining power, I could simply pay someone who could theoretically have encountered this person and have this someone fabricate some accusation. There we go, I got rid of someone whose politics I didn’t like.
So, I don’t see how mentioning him would prove that rape is actively encouraged by bystanders in western culture.
I’ve based everything around Kavanaugh solely on what I’ve just read on Wikipedia, so if there is anything important missing or wrong, please fill me in.

I don't think anti-PC culture is a huge threat. I think it's worrying because it shows a general lack of empathy in the population, and it shows how sensitive people are to shock politics and propaganda. We have bigger problems though.

I agree with you here with the addition of that I’m worried about people shutting down discussion with things like “you’re a racist” or “you’re a white straight male, you can’t understand/have a valid opinion”. I’m worried about the extremists at both sides growing in influence, while you seem to only be worried about one of the sides.

Overall, I think the world can use more tolerance and solidarity. So, while both are a problem, the fight against those things is, to me, a bigger problem than the use of questionable methods in the fight for them.

The fight against tolerance and solidarity may seem like the biggest problem. However, you could say they are of equal magnitude when people using questionable methods to fight them is one of the biggest reasons for that sides continual growth. (No, I don’t have any sources on that statement, that is a conclusion that is my own, tear it apart if you want to.) Frustration with the establishment, extreme PC policies and extreme SJW causes people to look for some counter movement. Sadly, many find no other counter than the far right.

[Goodspeed]

The extreme or controversial opinions will always be overrepresented in free media compared to their representation in the population, that’s fine as long as you are aware of it.

I am aware, that's why I think looking at people in your social environment is a better way to gauge this.

I don’t doubt you are aware, my point is that if you are aware you can yourself make some restrictive guess for what is probably more likely. The media may exaggerate extreme standpoints, but your social circle is likely do not have one or more of them at all. I don’t have any Nazi or communists in my social circle, so by going by that I’d think they doesn’t exist, because the only reports I’ve seen of such people are from media.

I don't mean I have friends who express this sentiment, they probably wouldn't be my friends if they did. Rather I have met people at work and online who did.

I’ve only heard the name Kavanaugh associated with something around sexual assault, never set myself into what exactly it was. I have read up a little now (on Wikipedia). It doesn’t seem to me like he is convicted of anything, imo you are not guilty until proven otherwise.

I didn't say he's definitively guilty. There is no way for us to know, considering it was never allowed to be properly investigated. But it is a story of (attempted) rape where there was encouragement from a bystander (a friend of his who was in the same room, to be specific).

What I do find strange is for someone to wait over 30 years to come with such accusations.

Not that strange. It's very common for this kind of thing to go unreported. But when your attempted rapist gets nominated for one of the most important jobs in the world, I can imagine that would inspire you to come forward. You'd want the world to know what kind of man he is.

I also don’t see why people would put so much importance on them when so long time has gone since the crimes are suggested to have been committed. Especially since it isn’t even about rape but sexual assault or attempted rape in the worst case.

Because he was nominated for the supreme court, obviously?

By your reasoning it is enough that he is accused of a crime for a revoke of his nomination. Basically, ruining his career. All this even though there have been no judge or jury convicting him of any crime. By that way of thinking if there is politician who I don’t like that is gaining power, I could simply pay someone who could theoretically have encountered this person and have this someone fabricate some accusation. There we go, I got rid of someone whose politics I didn’t like.

I never said the accusation alone is enough to revoke his nomination. But there should have been an investigation. An innocent man's reply to an accusation like this would be to have it investigated to clear his name. If anything, even if he is innocent, the way he handled this clearly shows he is unfit for that office. In my opinion, anyway. if you're interested you should watch the hearing where they interviewed the woman and him. See the difference between these 2 people, and tell me who you find more convincing.

Trump did order an FBI investigation, but only for ammunition to spin it. The FBI was explicitly not allowed to question certain people who were of obvious interest to the investigation, including the friend that was allegedly there and other people who were close to Kavanaugh at the time. It was a complete sham, and "finished" in a week time. Of course, after that, his supporters could claim the issue was over and done with and he could be confirmed into the SC without too much political backlash.

Pretty disgusting, all put together.

[martinspjuth]

Show hidden quotes

The extreme or controversial opinions will always be overrepresented in free media compared to their representation in the population, that’s fine as long as you are aware of it.

I am aware, that's why I think looking at people in your social environment is a better way to gauge this.

I don’t doubt you are aware, my point is that if you are aware you can yourself make some restrictive guess for what is probably more likely. The media may exaggerate extreme standpoints, but your social circle is likely do not have one or more of them at all. I don’t have any Nazi or communists in my social circle, so by going by that I’d think they doesn’t exist, because the only reports I’ve seen of such people are from media.

I don't mean I have friends who express this sentiment, they probably wouldn't be my friends if they did. Rather I have met people at work and online who did.

Didn’t think you did either. I meant that the people you meet (at work, friends, school, sports, festivals, the mall etc.) are unlikely to represent the general populations opinions proportionally. If for example you’re an engineer living in the rich part of the city you might never or very rarely encounter the opinions of groups from the poor parts of the city. You might also not encounter the opinion from groups of people that are mainly located in the countryside. If you live in the south part of the country, you may never encounter the views held by extremist that exist in the north part. Maybe this concern isn’t so relevant to countries with so small surface area as the Netherlands, but in most other countries and globally it is. Even if you know media is not completely accurate and that they exaggerate things, they are your only way to get an idea of the opinion of groups you never personally encounter.

I’ve only heard the name Kavanaugh associated with something around sexual assault, never set myself into what exactly it was. I have read up a little now (on Wikipedia). It doesn’t seem to me like he is convicted of anything, imo you are not guilty until proven otherwise.

I didn't say he's definitively guilty. There is no way for us to know, considering it was never allowed to be properly investigated. But it is a story of (attempted) rape where there was encouragement from a bystander (a friend of his who was in the same room, to be specific).

Ah, I missed that there was a third person in the room.

What I do find strange is for someone to wait over 30 years to come with such accusations.

Not that strange. It's very common for this kind of thing to go unreported. But when your attempted rapist gets nominated for one of the most important jobs in the world, I can imagine that would inspire you to come forward. You'd want the world to know what kind of man he is.

Only you don’t know either, a lot can change in 30 years. I’m not sure I think people should get punished for something they did 30 years ago if they have a clear record since then, except for murder and actual rape. There should also be a clear difference between attempted rape and actual rape. Minimizing the importance of it being “only” attempted rape and not actual rape by putting up parentheses around attempted is very wrong imo. What a girl perceives as attempted rape could be a guy coming on to her way to hard. It is still wrong by him, but something completely different than going forth with the act of rape. One is poor judgement added with some offensive behavior, the other is pure evil. Of course, it is hard to know if someone had intentions of rape or not, but you should keep in mind that there doesn’t have to have been any just because the would be rape victim perceived it as such.
Yes, I can understand that you would want people to know what kind of person it is they nominate to such an important position. I’m still not sure I think one case of sexual harassment/attempted rape 30 years ago is relevant today.

I also don’t see why people would put so much importance on them when so long time has gone since the crimes are suggested to have been committed. Especially since it isn’t even about rape but sexual assault or attempted rape in the worst case.

Because he was nominated for the supreme court, obviously?

Fair enough

By your reasoning it is enough that he is accused of a crime for a revoke of his nomination. Basically, ruining his career. All this even though there have been no judge or jury convicting him of any crime. By that way of thinking if there is politician who I don’t like that is gaining power, I could simply pay someone who could theoretically have encountered this person and have this someone fabricate some accusation. There we go, I got rid of someone whose politics I didn’t like.

I never said the accusation alone is enough to revoke his nomination. But there should have been an investigation. An innocent man's reply to an accusation like this would be to have it investigated to clear his name. If anything, even if he is innocent, the way he handled this clearly shows he is unfit for that office. In my opinion, anyway. if you're interested you should watch the hearing where they interviewed the woman and him. See the difference between these 2 people, and tell me who you find more convincing.

That there even is an investigation can sometimes be enough to stop someone from being nominated/elected, especially since you do not know how long such an investigation would take. If an investigation is started it is because there is a reasonable possibility that the accusations can be true, so that there is an investigation would in public opinion already point toward the possibility of the accusations being true. So, I can understand that he didn’t want one. If, like it may seem in this case, he gets so much bad publicity anyway, I would say he should have wanted an investigation to clear his name. I agree that if he really was innocent he should have done anything he could to help if an investigation really was started.
No, I’m not interested enough to go watch for myself to decide who I find more trustworthy. But from what you have written about the case and Trump’s FBI investigation I guess I would not find him trustworthy.

Trump did order an FBI investigation, but only for ammunition to spin it. The FBI was explicitly not allowed to question certain people who were of obvious interest to the investigation, including the friend that was allegedly there and other people who were close to Kavanaugh at the time. It was a complete sham, and "finished" in a week time. Of course, after that, his supporters could claim the issue was over and done with and he could be confirmed into the SC without too much political backlash.

Pretty disgusting, all put together.

Ye, this is truly disgusting, total crap. Way to undermine the judiciary and “all are equal before the law”. This slightly reminds me of old soviet trials.

[deleted_user0]

Any people you meet or know by acquaintance will be unlikely to represent the mean of society. That's why it's important to talk with people outside your usual social circle. Not just one or the other, but all of them combined, media, friends, colleagues and people in your neighbourhood but also trying to talk, one way or another, to people with a different world view, will give you the best understanding of sentiments in society. But of course it requires you to step outside your comfort zone, it requires them to do the same, and it's time consuming. So most people, even if they would've thought of doing it, won't get to it.

I agree that some cases in the #metoo movement forego the implication that people can change over time. And indeed, it might not always be the case that people who committed a bad action some time ago (can even be less than 30 years) are still the same kind of person, in fact it's very unlikely that it would be so. This is implicated in most law systems anyway, as most cases expire after 20 years, iirc.

But this case made it pretty clear why people don't come forward easily with such accusations, as it's very often that they're not only believed, but they, who are presumably more often a victim than someone who made up a false accusation (this is obvious if you just look at the statistics), are frequently vilified as well. You have to be prepared to be totally shamed and discredited if you want to go through with it, you have to be prepared to have your own life and that of your family turned upside down, and even then, the chance of conviction is low, and even when convicted, the sentences aren't even always very high. That case with the swimmer in california is an example. He got convicted, but only sentenced for 3 months. That's why most people are dissuaded to go to court, not just by what they see in society, but by the actual professionals who deal with such cases. As long as this type of attitude doesn't change, you're never going to see many people come forward. Which is incidentally, most likely the reason why they call people who do come forward "attention seekers". Because you must have to be an attention seeker to go through all this kind of mess, just to be defeated by "justice"... The whole Kavenaugh case was a complete farce, but it does highlight all the difficulties involved with (alleged) rape.

Also just basing opinion on who appears more convincing is a dangerous method. Nonetheless, I do agree that mr. Kavenaugh didn't really exhibit the kind of behaviour and mental fortitude under pressure that you would expect from a supreme judge. While it says nothing about his guilt, it does say something about his competency. Which is another reason why this system seems so flawed to me. Judges are supposed to be impartial. But how can you be impartial when the highest nomination you can receive in your career depends on party affiliation (even though perhaps not publicly, I doubt anybody believes that there weren't deals made privately)