All-Purpose Smartypants Thread

Sometimes a very large group of people take the objectively wrong position on numerous issues.

Republicans make up a disproportionately large cross section of these people. The problem is that they are incredibly sensitive about it but like to project their fragility onto others.

  On 7/13/2018 at 10:17 PM, Candiru said:

Sometimes a very large group of people take the objectively wrong position on numerous issues.

 

Republicans make up a disproportionately large cross section of these people. The problem is that they are incredibly sensitive about it but like to project their fragility onto others.

To me there is no difference in saying this or saying "brown people are objectively more aggresive, look at the crime statistics"

The crucial issue is: the characterization might be true for a certain amount of people within the group, but you cannot from that draw the conclusion that this unequivocally applies to every individual member of that group (I know this is self-evident but what I see on the internet and media in general is a lot of content that reinforces this kind of thinking)

Another issue is that you create a moral stance (wherever you mean to or not), like when I hear/read things like "they are incredibly sensitive about it but like to project their fragility onto others." is implied that "they" are the only ones who do this and that you and your group do not act in this manner. I doubt you, or most people really mean that, but if you hear enough about it around you, you become convinced of the us/they worldview (I think. the reason for this is as far as I understand it is that the tribal worldview is our innate way to see people, and so is very hard to fight against it)

Now there is real utility in dividing people in groups, but the point is: group identity should not ever come above the individuals who compose them (because tribes kill eachother, that's how it is)

So next time you meet a trump supporter/republican, ask them genuinely about them.. you'll find most of them are way more similar to you than you'd probably like to think (this atleast in my experience)

edit: imho

A broader acceptance of ultraconservative views (be it for the purpose of dialogue) leads to brutalization of public dialogue and can even out the path to fascism. Conservative movements are forerunners of nationalist movements.

  On 7/14/2018 at 12:08 AM, darreichungsform said:

A broader acceptance of ultraconservative views (be it for the purpose of dialogue) leads to brutalization of public dialogue and can even out the path to fascism. Conservative movements are forerunners of nationalist movements.

A broader acceptance of ultraleftist views leads to communism. (which imo is just if not more pathological than nazism/fascism)

Both these pathological systems are characterized by a strong us/them worldview.

The only ultimate solution to prevent this from happening again is to fight against the us/them worldview in general. This can only be done trough dialogue (essentially: tell a better story than those you are opposing ), as exclusion devolves into the us/them worldview. (there is also on top of that the whole jbp solution, but that rabbit-hole don't lead good places in this forum)

Also, the amount of people who hold ultraconservative/leftist views I think are very very few. Most people probs don't think about these things too much and just get on with it.. the danger lies in something like people justifying doing horrible things because of their beliefs, something like that

edit: imho

This is really a crucial issue to solve in modern society (and mind you, has been forever): we cannot afford to be as morally infantile as we currently are.. we are too technologically powerful to be willing to kill each other because of our beliefs.

edit: imho

morally infantile?

  On 7/14/2018 at 3:39 AM, Salvatorin said:

morally infantile?

don't read me wrong, I don't mean we haven't made progress.. I mean there's a lot to do

How did my quote from the "Now that Donnie is PO(TU)S" thread end up in this one?

cuz I didn't wanna derail that thread (again) :)

  On 7/14/2018 at 4:48 AM, MIXL2 said:

 

  On 7/14/2018 at 3:39 AM, Salvatorin said:

morally infantile?

enough to be willing to kill each other for our beliefs

 

don't read me wrong, I don't mean we haven't made progress.. I mean there's a lot to do

 

morally infantile?

Alright so what does Moral Maturity (virility?) look like to you? gen-u-wine-lee curious

  On 7/14/2018 at 5:18 AM, Salvatorin said:

Alright so what does Moral Maturity (virility?) look like to you? gen-u-wine-lee curious

I guess is a utopian ideal of sorts: a moral code/mode if being such that the catastrophes of the 20th century do not repeat themselves and such that we do not develop technologies powerful enough to erradicate all of humanity

yaay contrapoints doing the same points :)

Everyone ITT

Is that motherfucker sharpening his quill with the blade pointed toward him?

  MIXL2 said:

I really need to hammer more thought on all of this stuff

not really

  On 7/25/2018 at 5:17 PM, chenGOD said:

Is that motherfucker sharpening his quill with the blade pointed toward him?

thankfully I don't know much about anything, just wanna learn

Flamingos are pink because of the crabs they eat. They absorb the dye through their food. In zoos they put carrot juice into their food so that they are pink even if they can't be fed crabs.

u smort

https://youtu.be/mKAWJbfMzGI?t=30s

There are more fake flamingos in the world than real flamingos.

Good read here which I think is relevant to the concerns of some people in this thread (and the JP thread RIP)

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

there are always two halves to every contensious iusse and depending on where your perception is aimed you will only see the facts that cater to that perception

up to everyone to find out both halves of the story as in my experience there are always elements of truth and falsehoods in both and then make up their minds etc

edit: imho

You haven't read it yet though