bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  401

  So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

  i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

  ... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Let's try to discuss some of the things SJWs do wrong and what we might learn from it:

  • Instead of focusing their claims about systematic oppression on large-scale studies they tend to focus on particular cases of oppression and use these (as well as the emotional response they evoke) to garner support and outrage.
    Does that mean this type of focusing on particular examples of what a group does is a bad thing?
  • Their argumentation is build around catch-phrases and cliches meant to evoke a particular response: (the patriarchy, rape-culture apologist, white man tears, racist, white privilege)
    Does that mean we should do our best to avoid similar cliche language? (SJW, cuck, special snowflake, regressive left)
  • Their worldview is black and white: You are either with us or against us. People are labeled very quickly based on their opinion on certain hot-button issues (i.e. what is your view on police brutality?) in a manner that leads your thoughts to witchhunts. If you belong to the wrong group, you are at best a useful idiot
    ...SJW...regressive left....
  • Their argumentation lends heavily on outrage and ridicule: White men who object to them are ridiculous, hypocritical racists who don't understand their own privilege (another loaded word). You can't just disagree, you are then part of the patriarchy. Youtube videos by SJWs are full of snark, ridicule, "reading between the lines" (if he says we don't have a rape culture he is denying that women suffer rape more often than men), hyperbole and adding "implicit" context to someone's argument.
    any video of sargon of akkad
  • SJWs often just know things. For instance, we live in a society permeated by white privilege. What exactly does that mean? What is the factual basis for that claim? At most, it is strenuous and relates to personal opinion, special cases or other circumstances that do not point uniquely to white privilege (as opposed to other explanations). Yet the claim is made with great certainty even though it cannot be backed up with specific pieces of evidence.
    The general lesson here is that specific claims made with certainty should be backed up with exact and objectively verifiable pieces of evidence that uniquely support those claims
  • Male tears: A very interesting aspect of this culture is the preoccupation about how "the other side" reacts. The best thing is that if they are "sad" or somehow does something that can be seen as an emotional reaction ("crying"). Those reactions are then exaggerated and spread. I don't really know why this is seen as important, but it is.
    Nearly every day breitbart.com has a similar story about someone who is "crying" or "sad". It seems like a very dark aspect of human psychology...
• 
  401

  So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

  i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

  ... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  JRK:

  A "social justice warrior" is a term used for a particular type of advocate for feminism. I don't know who invented the term; it is used by some in a highly derogatory fashion to mean a "crazy feminist" and by some to mean something positive ("a very engaged feminist").

  The typical person who would be called a SJW is someone who believe that the patriarchy is a real thing influencing in a very negative way the lives of women (and men), that we have a systemic rape culture and who often subscribe to marxist ideas as well as postmodern notions of gender and gender identity. Note there is a huge range of opinions and persons that fall under the umbrella term.
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Simon: I still don't understand exactly what aspect of "gender misuse" JP and others are objecting to.

  I think it is relevant to have a debate about hate crimes (i.e. if there should be hate crimes in the penal code), but quite frankly that only affects JP if he goes on and murder someone on campus, etc.

  Could you explain in your own words what new "gender misuse" crime you are worried about?

  Whenever I try to dig into that issue (and JP made it very clear that gender misuse was a very serious concern to him in his first video) the discussion is diverted into generalities...

  Another way to ask this question is if this writeup of C16 is wrong:

  http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
  
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  seaname: Well, I think that is exactly the relevant text.

  That section does not (if you read it) introduce any new crimes. I.e. it does not make anything that was previously legal illegal. What it deals with is sentencing.

  So if I am raping you, that would normally mean I would go to jail for rape. If it turns out I am raping you because you are disabled (or gay, or Hindu, etc. etc.), then 718.2(a)(i) allows the court to determine that I am performing a hate crime and that could affect the sentencing.

  What the change means is that if I am raping you and that I am raping you because you are identifying yourself as a Zir, that rape could now also be considered a hate crime. Of course that would have to be proven and it is not entirely clear to me that pronoun misuse is even included in the text (it might be).

  I am not sure I like the concept of hate crimes particular well but that is a separate discussion: I think if there are hate crime laws then it is very reasonable (at least, not dangerous) to extend them to the hypothetical situation where someone is targeting people who call themselves "they".
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Simon:

  It's hard to prove what will happen under any particular law, we can only point out what the law says and scenarios that it would appear to cover

  I agree, that's why I tried to google scholarly opinion on what the law did and I could not find something that supported Jordans interpretation. That the items in the bill are already in effect (and Canada is not an Orwellian nightmare) seems to heavily contradict Jordans interpretation.

  The issue with the HRC is the combination of the inclusion of certain things as a hate crime combined with their lack of accountability and normal legal protections.

  Let me try to understand your worries. You are saying that if someone in Canada asks me to address him as Zip, and I refuses (for instance, I do not use pronouns to address him but rather use his name), that will now be a hate crime under canadian law?

  Yes, "hate crime" is a particular legal category and so called mis-gendering should not be included in the definition of it.

  So you are claiming that mis-gendering is now a hate crime in canada?
• 
  401

  So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

  i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

  ... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I disagree with that part. I think the lecturing comes from both the hollywood types AND the ground-level leftists so it becomes a wall of sound that just turns regular people off. Seriously, look at this shit:

  At the core of the rhetoric of BLM is the idea that "the police" (notice: one, uniform blob) can and should be evaluated based on the actions of individual police officers in individual cases; the cases are then selected as those where the police officer acted (or is thought to have acted) in the least favorable way. I don't think that is sound.

  Now we are evaluating "the march" and "the liberals", and we got a tweet with some bullsh*t....

  How do we evaluate a movement like the people in the march?
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Simon: The HRC and the particular bill are two separate issues. I focus on the legal implications of the bill which is what is front and center in JPs first video and if those implications are as JP claim they are. I do that because it is something which is easier to evaluate and get a black/white answer to. So far JPs claim does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.

  Regarding the HRC, I am not 100% sure what the HRC can actually do and what it in fact does. Most of what I have to go by are general concerns like those you list, but I don't know what those concerns translate to in practice (i.e. what have the HRC actually done in real cases to real people).

  Oh, you called me "he" but I self-identify as "Ze" today, that's a hate crime and someone should pay me money. Nothing to do with being given a C on my last paper ..

  Can you provide any evidence that I can be charged with a hate crime for not calling you Ze? I mean objectively true evidence and not the opinions of JP.

  "Hate crime" is a very particular legal category, as I understand it I would first have to commit a serious crime, for instance, I would have to be raping you and THEN calling you "Ze" while I did that before THAT could be considered a hatecrime. And as I understand it even using the wrong pronoun during the rape would not ACTUALLY make the rape a hate crime.

  That would of course have to be tested by the courts...
• 
  29

  Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

  i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

  hope some of you get a chance to listen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  She is no doubt coming at things from a legal perspective and what could be prosecuted in court.
  The problem is that the human rights tribunals are like judicial committees - they make the rules, they decide the outcome and they are stacking the deck to give themselves more power and they can and do use that power to shut people up.

  I am concerned about what the legal implications are and if they are what Jordan claims they are... not seeing much evidence in support of that so far.
• 
  401

  So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

  i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

  ... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Of course. But if you are protesting a general concept, then it should be made general.
  To ignore the worse offenders of the thing you are apparently so concerned about you organized a big march to demonstrate against it seems ... well, retarded.

  Okay but this has implications. First off we can probably agree that the women and men participating in the march did so for many, diverse reasons. Let's suppose Jill participated in the march because she think that a person who makes the remark Trump did is not suited to hold office (she does not like her daughters hearing that language, plain and simple, and she knows from her experience with HR that this type of language would never fly in a normal workplace) and because she is very concerned with climate change.

  Just so I get it right: Jill acknowledge that women are treated horribly in the middle east, something she is aware of but does little about. She is mainly concerned with Trump because Trump happens to be her president. That's why she finally went to the streets today in her first protest.

  Does Jills actions and motives also make you angry?

  I predict the next one will be to support the right of women to accept Sharia law and they'd probably get takers.

  Do you want to bet 100$?
• 
  401

  So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

  i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

  ... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I just heard a new word today -- alternative facts -- Is that worth protesting even though things are no doubt worse in north korea?