Are people in the West being persecuted for their political beliefs?

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

It's not a 'particular interpretation'. Foucault stated it quite clearly. 

he's just one of many PM philosophers. There's more than on view on this idea. You're also not forced into this pov as a social science researcher. 

 

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I don't think every person getting behind the 'anti-racism' movement is fiercely subscribed to PM, I think most are behind the general sentiments (which I think everyone is) & are understandably going with the flow. Some people pushing the course of action however, such as Kendi & DeAngelo, are the ones subscribed to it - and they hold high places of influence. 

 

And to be clear, the power structure PM espouses isn't hierarchical, it's that ideas - and their power - permeate through a society at every level. Which is where Kendi can make the claim (which he does) that everything is inherently racist, and if your not subscribed to his 'anti-racist' view of how to change society then you are upholding the current racist state - and by extension are a racist.

sure, thats a lot like people who say if you vote for a racist political leader, you're a racist. Its a compelling argument, if you're willing to support a racist leader or system, can you really claim not to be a racist yourself, or be supportive of racist policies? can you really split those hairs?

 

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I could illustrate how the PM view works in a different example, say women's attraction to height. 

 

If I were to take the post modern route, I would say that women have been merely socialized to like men of height, it's not natural, and if we could break that societal norm then society would be more equitable. But I don't believe that, I believe there is a biological basis for the bias to height.

but all women aren't attracted to height, as my wife will attest to. How would you go about proving the biological basis for this? 

 

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Regarding math. I don't think that's merely what they are saying, I think they are trying to make math less objective than it is, to make outcomes equitable in some bizarre way. And if Im wrong (possible) & it's just an accessibility issue, then thats not a mathematics issue & they are completely wrong in saying the practice of Math looking for objective answers racist.

Thats what the main point was tho (e.g.: https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sns-tns-bc-edu-math-racist-20191010-story.html). I haven't seen anyone claim the mechanics of math are racist, which is the absurdity some media outlets were trying to run with. 

 

I don't believe anyone saying the search for physical science answers is racist. I get you can make a post modern twist on that, but no credible physical science researcher is going there. It would be like saying looking at deep space radio signals is racist, and that would be stupid. If there are people saying that they would be a joke and not in the mainstream whatsoever. 

 

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

While I think there is certainly good in the 'AR' movement attacking biases, I don't think it's helpful in the 21st century to segregate groups & deal with people on the basis of their group identity. Nevermind the soft racism that comes with assuming Blacks are incapable of succeeding without enforced equity.

I see most people asking for two things, recognition that many of our systems have been (and some may continue to be) racist in structure, and for equal opportunity to succeed. I see most of the "enforced equality" ideas coming out of the right wing. 

 

8 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Lastly on the trans. I disagree as they've been trying hard to push social constructivism against biological sex & biological underpinnings of gender. And as that relates to athletics & raising young people, I think it is/can be problematic. 

have to agree to disagree here. I see people simply looking for recognition of who they are, again I see this idea of attacks on biology coming out of the right. 

[thedestroyerofworlds]

 

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/cpac-cancels-speaker-at-america-uncanceled-conference.html

CPAC Cancels Speaker at ‘America Uncanceled’ Conference

[The Lock]

On 2/22/2021 at 9:29 PM, Kryten said:

Yes this is what I mull over when conflating one side with the other in respect to scientific facts and the push back involved.

I wonder how many scientists experience the “Who Killed the Electric Car” scenario compared to others? A scary thought. 

 

The act of scaring young scientists into disciplines that are career safe and unchallenging might prevent innovations like the electric car from ever being created in the first place. I wonder if the first nuclear vehicle or other volatile propulsion system will face the scrutiny of the uninformed activist as opposed to the scientific peer? What could offend the activist? Environmental impact? Health impact? Social impact? Perhaps I am simply guilty of romanticizing the act of innovation. I hope so.

I see religion comes up often and I find it funny to be the one to offer up a minor defence for it since I am an atheist. IMO, religion and science can co-exist only if science takes precedence in real world applications. I have no problem if someone uses their religion to make themselves a better person. However, if it is used to coerce or police others then it can GTFO. 

 

I look at social media as a game changer, and not just for refuting science facts. A left-winger wielding a hashtag can force a CEO to fire anyone in his/her company who offends the “customer” simply because that CEO has chosen to publicly join the woke brigade of inclusion and is now obligated to do their bidding without due process or a proper analysis. Previously, a team of lawyers and publicists would shield a company from the wrath of public opinion but nowadays CEO’s are in the trenches trading blows with everyone and their dog and they are pressured to act immediately or risk losing revenue. 
 

A right-winger can barely find a platform to post their content haha. Yes, this consequence is largely their own damn fault (RIP Clam and Harvey), but there are liberals on platforms who are being called right-wingers and being banned for just bringing up controversial subjects that are not remotely conservative talking points. That is another slippery slope that worries me and puts me in the position of having to defend the right-wing’s right to a platform for them to post whatever crap they want, within reason of course. I would be bummed if I lost the ability to follow George Will as much as I would if I could no longer follow Noam Chomsky. Both are important voices.

 

I am aware that this online activism is a fairly recent development but I fear this is only the beginning. I want healthy debate across all platforms and I want a healthy opposition to better keep ourselves grounded in reality. I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts at the very least. 

I honestly think the biggest factor with scientific research is funding. "Scaring" scientists might be a thing, but regardless of if it is or not, if there's no funding, there's simply no research. The "scaring" might be more to do with scaring the government and corporations more than the scientists themselves since, if you believe in something, activists against what you believe in are generally going to motivate someone more than anything in my opinion, especially if other people benefit from your research. So scaring the government, who are more worried about public perception than the scientists themselves, are going to be more affected by protests naturally.

 

I do agree that religion and science can co-exist and, in fact, it has. However, that's ultimately going to depend on the religious people we are talking about and, ultimately, that's going to come down to whether the scientific research benefits them or not. Perhaps though that's more to do with a financial situation than it is religion. Therefore, if we take out personal interests, than sure, religion and science can go hand in hand. Unfortunately, personal interests often get in the way. It's arguably human nature to want power (I stress arguably with that because that's a whole new debate there lol) and if that power is removed due to scientific research, then that person's likely to be against the science. It just so happens that religion can be considered part of that power and that's where the problems arise, not the religion itself, but the power associated with it. A religion by itself is harmless. How people use that religion however is often the issue.

 

As far as who's being called left or right. It happens with both sides. Look at the fear-mongering of claiming that Biden's communist. Here, Biden's more right wing than left wing, yet the far right would so as make people believe he's extreme. As you've mentioned the left will often do the same where people who are simply trying to get conversation going do get condemned for it at times. I think ultimately, it's fear. People get into a zone where they deem their opinion as "fact" and then fear when someone comes up with something that questions that "fact".

 

I think perhaps the biggest thing we need to keep in mind is that the internet is still the wild west at the moment. There's little to no regulation of anything. There's not much to keep anyone in check aside from mob mentalities. I'm not saying we should have regulations or anything; that's not my point here at all; but we are in a situation that's new to us as society and, as a result, we're still learning as a society how to deal with it.

Edited February 24, 2021 by The Lock

[Smashian Kassian]

On 2/23/2021 at 9:00 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

he's just one of many PM philosophers. There's more than on view on this idea. You're also not forced into this pov as a social science researcher. 

 

This is fair but a different point. I guess I should've been more clear in stating the modern woke movement is taking from some of the post modernist ideas & applying them, rather than branding it as all post modernism.  

 

Quote

 

sure, thats a lot like people who say if you vote for a racist political leader, you're a racist. Its a compelling argument, if you're willing to support a racist leader or system, can you really claim not to be a racist yourself, or be supportive of racist policies? can you really split those hairs?

 

But this implies a choice, a conscious decision. The idea being spread by these people is that we are all inherent racist unless we support their 'anti-racist' ideologue.

 

Quote

For Kendi, “there is no such thing as a not-racist idea,” only “racist ideas and antiracist ideas.” His Manichaean outlook extends to policy. “Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity,” Kendi proclaims, defining the former as racist policies and the latter as antiracist ones.

 

 “Capitalism is essentially racist,” Kendi proclaims, and “racism is essentially capitalist.”

 

Which in Kendi's case seems to be enforced equity.

 

Quote

Kendi says what they probably believe but are too afraid to say: namely, that “racial discrimination is not inherently racist.” He continues:

"The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. . . . The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

....

“To be antiracist,” he claims, “is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups”––by which he means groups like Haitian-Americans and Nigerian-Americans––“as a problem of policy.” Put bluntly, this assumption is indefensible.

...

"To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principles: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined)."

 

"[The anti-racist amendment] would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."

 

https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist 

 

Again, in the 21st century enforced equity, segregation, & racial discrimination just don't seem like the right path. At the very least - putting aside the moral issue - this is very divisive & won't help fix the problems currently. In pursuing this your rolling the dice on 'racism experts' like Kendi producing a better society when given full control how the society functions.

 

Quote

 

but all women aren't attracted to height, as my wife will attest to. How would you go about proving the biological basis for this? 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/after-service/201909/5-reasons-why-women-and-men-care-about-height#:~:text=1.,men attract more desirable partners.&text=A study on women and,8cm) taller than their partner.

 

Of course not all, but there have been study's on this. 

 

Quote

 

Thats what the main point was tho (e.g.: https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sns-tns-bc-edu-math-racist-20191010-story.html). I haven't seen anyone claim the mechanics of math are racist, which is the absurdity some media outlets were trying to run with. 

 

I don't believe anyone saying the search for physical science answers is racist. I get you can make a post modern twist on that, but no credible physical science researcher is going there. It would be like saying looking at deep space radio signals is racist, and that would be stupid. If there are people saying that they would be a joke and not in the mainstream whatsoever. 

 

I agree. 

 

The murky area is with this is enforced equity push, as I detailed above. I'm just confused why "getting the right answer" and "objectivity" would be problematic in the realm's of science & math. What's the spin on that? If its an attitude (of people in academia towards POC) or an accessibility issue, that's has nothing to do with the field of study themselves. Which is where I don't understand the problematization of objectivity/correctness in fields that demand it - other than to assume they're trying to bend things towards equitable outcomes. 

 

 

Quote

 

I see most people asking for two things, recognition that many of our systems have been (and some may continue to be) racist in structure, and for equal opportunity to succeed. I see most of the "enforced equality" ideas coming out of the right wing. 

 

I've already provided some proof of this coming from the 'anti-racist' proponents themselves, so I think this is wrong. Granted the right is overreacting perhaps in some instances, but I think there's enough evidence at this point that its not just the right wing pulling this out of thin air.

 

Quote

 

have to agree to disagree here. I see people simply looking for recognition of who they are, again I see this idea of attacks on biology coming out of the right. 

 

We can ultimately agree to disagree. But I'll pose a question, just cause I'm curious; Completely putting aside whether you agree or disagree with it - whether you think its right or wrong (and I'll do the same), is the new trend of parents raising children gender neutral not, atleast in some sense - to some degree, a social constructivist experiment?

 

(Edit: And am aware Gender/Sex are not the same, just to make that clear since the original points were about sex)

Edited February 26, 2021 by Smashian Kassian

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

This is fair but a different point. I guess I should've been more clear in stating the modern woke movement is taking from some of the post modernist ideas & applying them, rather than branding it as all post modernism.  

yeah I think thats fair for sure. 

 

15 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

But this implies a choice, a conscious decision. The idea being spread by these people is that we are all inherent racist unless we support their 'anti-racist' ideologue.

I guess this comes. down to how people think we need to get engaged with ending racism. Doing what we've been doing for decades probably won't end it, so maybe it will take something a bit extreme to root it out fully. Its easy to change laws, we've pretty much done that in Canada, but how do you shift cultures? takes a lot longer and much more work. Being forced to think a certain way does bother me though, we need something more collaborative than this. 

 

15 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Which in Kendi's case seems to be enforced equity.

 

https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist 

 

Again, in the 21st century enforced equity, segregation, & racial discrimination just don't seem like the right path. At the very least - putting aside the moral issue - this is very divisive & won't help fix the problems currently. In pursuing this your rolling the dice on 'racism experts' like Kendi producing a better society when given full control how the society functions.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/after-service/201909/5-reasons-why-women-and-men-care-about-height#:~:text=1.,men attract more desirable partners.&text=A study on women and,8cm) taller than their partner.

 

Of course not all, but there have been study's on this. 

 

 

I agree. 

 

The murky area is with this is enforced equity push, as I detailed above. I'm just confused why "getting the right answer" and "objectivity" would be problematic in the realm's of science & math. What's the spin on that? If its an attitude (of people in academia towards POC) or an accessibility issue, that's has nothing to do with the field of study themselves. Which is where I don't understand the problematization of objectivity/correctness in fields that demand it - other than to assume they're trying to bend things towards equitable outcomes. 

 

 

 

I've already provided some proof of this coming from the 'anti-racist' proponents themselves, so I think this is wrong. Granted the right is overreacting perhaps in some instances, but I think there's enough evidence at this point that its not just the right wing pulling this out of thin air.

I think this ^ kind of thing applies to applications of math where there is a lot of interpretation and assumption use, like statistics and economics. Don't see much of a place for it in the physical sciences. 

 

15 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

We can ultimately agree to disagree. But I'll pose a question, just cause I'm curious; Completely putting aside whether you agree or disagree with it - whether you think its right or wrong (and I'll do the same), is the new trend of parents raising children gender neutral not, atleast in some sense - to some degree, a social constructivist experiment?

 

(Edit: And am aware Gender/Sex are not the same, just to make that clear since the original points were about sex)

... is in an experiment... yes probably to some degree. If you're letting your kid discover who they are on their own thats one thing, forcing them to take on aspects of identity that hey don't necessarily have seems like a bad idea to me.

 

The point I was making was it seems like a lot of the arguments on the. right try to say that sex and gender are the same, which they are not. Its silly that we still see that equivalence made by some people. I think we are born who we are and our parents can support that or make it harder on you. 

 

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I guess this comes. down to how people think we need to get engaged with ending racism. Doing what we've been doing for decades probably won't end it, so maybe it will take something a bit extreme to root it out fully. Its easy to change laws, we've pretty much done that in Canada, but how do you shift cultures? takes a lot longer and much more work. Being forced to think a certain way does bother me though, we need something more collaborative than this. 

 

I think liberalism has done a pretty good job of improving social relations, relative to the whole of human history.

 

I agree its tough. Biases implicit or explicit are deep seeded. There's a desire now to accelerate progress, which is good, and I think the social justice movement overall has done good in bringing the issues right to the forefront.

 

I agree on a collaborative approach, I'd like to see more focus put on how the US can work to help elevate people out of the crime ridden neighbourhoods/schools, that would go a long way IMO - versus being caught up in micro issues of the culture wars.

 

Anyways, its just some of the more radical stuff that I wanted to bring to light, as these people are quite influential at the moment - to the detriment of everyone IMO. 

 

Thanks for engaging on that Jimmy. 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

... is in an experiment... yes probably to some degree. If you're letting your kid discover who they are on their own thats one thing, forcing them to take on aspects of identity that hey don't necessarily have seems like a bad idea to me.

 

The point I was making was it seems like a lot of the arguments on the. right try to say that sex and gender are the same, which they are not. Its silly that we still see that equivalence made by some people. I think we are born who we are and our parents can support that or make it harder on you. 

 

Well said, I agree. This issue is one where I find I gaslight myself over it. 

 

On one hand I think there's something beyond just social construction to gender. But its a real grey area, b/c I'd also like for trans people to figure themselves out earlier in life.

 

I guess its finding the balance of not imposing/influencing binary children down a trans path that could be detrimental, while also trying to ensure trans people don't suffer with their identity anymore than necessary. Though I don't claim to be an expert.

 

Its not an easy issue that's for sure.

[Ilunga]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah I think thats fair for sure. 

 

I guess this comes. down to how people think we need to get engaged with ending racisism.

Walk a mile in the other person's shoes.

 

For years researchers  used the Harvard implicit bias test which came to the conclusion that all white Americans were somewhat biased against African Americans.

Further research found test to be inaccurate on an individual level.

 

What I can state for a fact is that both America and Australia treat black skinned people differently than they do whites.

One glaring example is the prison population.

In 2017 African Americans made up 12 percent of total population however they represented 33 percent of the prison population.

Here in Aus Aboriginal and Torres strait islanders make up 2 percent of the population however they represent 27 percent of the prison population.

 

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Walk a mile in the other person's shoes.

"Always walk a mile is some one else's shoes, that way you are a mile away from them; and they aren't catching up, without shoes."-- Jack Hady iirc.

[Ilunga]

13 minutes ago, gurn said:

"Always walk a mile is some one else's shoes, that way you are a mile away from them; and they aren't catching up, without shoes."-- Jack Hady iirc.

I will put it more succinctly,try and emphasize with others.

 

I understand that this means using that part of the brain- supramarginal gyrus- and some people have minimal neural connections to it.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ilunga

[Red Light Racicot]

On 2/10/2021 at 11:54 PM, VancouverHabitant said:

Call me crazy here, but I'm seeing more and more people losing their jobs over their political beliefs.  We saw it with the Canucks' anthem singer.  The latest is Gina Carano who lost her role with The Mandalorian because of her political views.  

 

We all have our views shaped by the mainstream media and the social media, which feed into each other. I'm noticing that anybody that dares side with the Republicans/Conservatives is having their views twisted and included with whatever the worst stereotypes of the right wing are.  It's kind of sickening to see.  

 

I've voted NDP, NDP, NDP, Green, and Liberal but this latest trend is really turning me off the left.  I still remember when the Conservatives were in power a while ago, and wanted to pass an omnibus bill that included a part where the government could essentially spy on you....  one of the Conservative MPs said "If you're not with us, you're with the child molesters".  It was the most blatant case of the strawman argument at the time, but now it's almost becoming common place and we're all desensitized to it. 

 

Sadly, we've gotten to the point where anybody that dares say that they are republican or has any sort of skepticism about Covid and the way it's handled is called out and cancel.led. 

The problem is that it's bad for the bottom line.

 

People who insist on espousing unpopular beliefs in public are bad for business. If their employers ignore the controversy by keeping them on the payroll it's going to cost them.

 

These people should have known better and shut their yappers rather then embarrass their employers for no good reason. If you are trying to produce a movie the last thing you'd want is one of your actors making sure everyone knows about why they think doctors should go to prison for performing abortions, or why mandating people to wear masks during a pandemic is tyranny. "Why am I not allowed to cough and breath on people with a deadly virus flying around?" They might ask.

 

Some people have this silly idea that free speech means you can say whatever you like and not have to worry about any consequences. None of this happens at the behest of a bunch of feminazi snowflakes. It's just people trying to run a business.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Red Light Racicot

[JM_]

16 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I think liberalism has done a pretty good job of improving social relations, relative to the whole of human history.

 

I agree its tough. Biases implicit or explicit are deep seeded. There's a desire now to accelerate progress, which is good, and I think the social justice movement overall has done good in bringing the issues right to the forefront.

 

I agree on a collaborative approach, I'd like to see more focus put on how the US can work to help elevate people out of the crime ridden neighbourhoods/schools, that would go a long way IMO - versus being caught up in micro issues of the culture wars.

 

Anyways, its just some of the more radical stuff that I wanted to bring to light, as these people are quite influential at the moment - to the detriment of everyone IMO. 

 

Thanks for engaging on that Jimmy. 

 

 

 

Well said, I agree. This issue is one where I find I gaslight myself over it. 

 

On one hand I think there's something beyond just social construction to gender. But its a real grey area, b/c I'd also like for trans people to figure themselves out earlier in life.

 

I guess its finding the balance of not imposing/influencing binary children down a trans path that could be detrimental, while also trying to ensure trans people don't suffer with their identity anymore than necessary. Though I don't claim to be an expert.

 

Its not an easy issue that's for sure.

thanks for a good yap on this too, its refreshing. 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

This isn’t a political thing but apparently Gen-Z is trying to cancel Eminem for his lyrics?

 

I feel like they are like 20 years late on that. 

[Gurn]

14 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

This isn’t a political thing but apparently Gen-Z is trying to cancel Eminem for his lyrics?

 

I feel like they are like 20 years late on that. 

Frank Zappa versus Tipper Gore, reboot.

[RUPERTKBD]

29 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

This isn’t a political thing but apparently Gen-Z is trying to cancel Eminem for his lyrics?

 

I feel like they are like 20 years late on that. 

Yeah. It's really going to cut into his CD and Cassette sales....

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

Frank Zappa versus Tipper Gore, reboot.

 

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yeah. It's really going to cut into his CD and Cassette sales....

Eminem actually made a song recently in response to these people. 
 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

18 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yeah. It's really going to cut into his CD and Cassette sales....

I'm still waiting to bring my 8-track player out of mothballs.

 

You just wait, it'll make a comeback!

[Tortorella's Rant]

.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Tortorella's Rant

[RUPERTKBD]

48 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I'm still waiting to bring my 8-track player out of mothballs.

 

You just wait, it'll make a comeback!

I remember several years ago, we were moving house and I purged the 8 track collection. Thinking of all the great titles I had, it still stings....

[Lancaster]

23 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

This isn’t a political thing but apparently Gen-Z is trying to cancel Eminem for his lyrics?

 

I feel like they are like 20 years late on that. 

 

[CBH1926]

Saw this story earlier today.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barcelona-publisher-removes-white-translator-for-gorman-poem/ar-BB1euIpx?li=BBnbfcL