Culture wars on the forum: amateur sociology

That's not true, one side want's everyone to be treated fairly and with respect, the other side want's to force their belief systems on others. Look at abortion, the liberals want abortion made into a medical issue, the conservatives want it banned. Conservative people can still choose not to have abortions even when it's legal. The same with removing prohibition, the same with pretty much any issue. The only one that I can think of that the liberals are trying to force conservatives into reducing their rights is gun control, but even then in a NZ style system you can apply for a license to own firearms even hand guns and automatic weopons.

What a load of twaddle.

Fixed.

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-man...

I was not arguing the history, but referring to it to be a rallying point. Just rubbish

here's a video on that:
https://youtu.be/dOkFXPblLpU

is there something i said that offended you?

https://youtu.be/LXGd8w1xFgw

fudgen depressing talking points and 2 out of 10 for most of you.  Heh oh well

And stuff fighting tge battles of a country which hands guns to people willy nilly

This was a really interesting thread until it started getting personal toward the end there (I’ve hidden those posts). 

I know they can be emotive topics but Let’s keep it interesting and civil, instead of personal and nasty. 

Ok rephrasing- sorry Tegal and Leggy.

1) if someone writes a whole post I don't want to read a post where someone gives them the well thought out reply- 'twaddle'.

2) The above is simple lazy insults off alt-right inspired troll forums. I don't want to read that here either thanks.

I guess I was hoping this thread might be a bit more reflective than combative. 

Why have they achieved the outcome that they did?

Do you think the way this grievance has been raised and settled is okay?

If not, what would have been a better way to settle it or deal with it?

Wasn't a lot of that done by the self appointed leader Steve O'Reagan because he was an ex civil servant?

So if one side wants to treat everyone "fairly and with respect" then why are they always working hard to shutdown anyone whose opinions or beliefs they disagree with?

If people lived by the words they preached then perhaps I would have more respect for them :)

Here we have classic case of someone who simply cannot fathom the idea that someone may have different opinions to themselves and so resorts to labeling and name calling.

Alt right?

Troll?

Then you openly admit you only want to read things you don't like...

maybe you yourself need to be a bit reflective

Virtue signalling overdrive  :)

"bigoted"

"hateful"

"ignorant"

You do realise of course that every country, empire, creed and race have a history of using slaves....yep even the Maori

but it seems some slaves misery is worth more than others

You misunderstand, you can have what opinions you want, what you can't do is push those opinions on others.

And every person on this planet is a hypocrit, me and you included.

Not at all :)

Keep posting: I like hearing what others opinions are and sharing my thoughts on it and feel free to critique what I post as well

Once again your deliberately being obtuse. Everyone has a dark history, you don't blanket over history but you also don't celebrate it in modern times by putting up monuments and putting out text books statues extolling the virtues of slavery.

If you're defending people who think that slavery is a good thing then I have zero time for you.

But here is where you seem to be misguided: the social justice "movement" IS pushing their opinions on others.

They have been working hard to shut down gigs, talks, websites that they don't like

In the US they have pressured employers to sack people because the SJW folk didn't like what that person believed in

etc etc

If it were just people having opinions and allowing others to have their own opinions then that would be perfect...but it is way more than that; it is people forcing their views onto others and I don't care who is doing it, left or right, I am going to call it out for what it is.

Tolerance by shutting down others views just does not even begin to make sense 

Where did I defend slavery?

Where did I say you defended slavery?

It's pointless discussing things with you because you obviously see what you want to see.

If you look at it this way you have two sides, one side is simply saying just let me live my life in peace, the other side is saying conform or else.

One is just asking people to be nice, the other is forcing them to change.

Just because people take either side too far doesn't make both sides wrong.

You said:

"If you're defending people who think that slavery is a good thing then I have zero time for you"

Which is quite a strong statement. I asked you to point to where in my posts did I defend slavery. Seems a reasonable request given your post don't you think?

If this is the case Then how does that explain SJW campaigns to shut down talks, gigs, websites etc? How does this explain SJW websites set up to identify people whose views they oppose and work to get them fired from their employment?

Surely that comes under the umbrella of forcing ones opinions on to others, does it not?

But I didn't say you defended slavery. You seem to be perfectly fine with with people in the modern era putting up statues celebrating slavers and got offended when people pulled them down. Hence I said "if you're defending people..." 

Nothing about what you believe in but what rights you believe people have.

People shouldn't be singled out for their beliefs, but also by talking and building websites they're inciting hatred. It's a fine line.

This discussion is going nowhere.

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon..................

1) First ignore the content of the post

2) Write the post off with some alt-right designer buzzword. The KKK and David Duke aren't bigoted and hateful? It's not a bit ignorant to claim that the statues are OK because your ancestors had been too poor own slaves? Though I might argue that the statues weren't at all ignorant, they were a systematic response to the civil rights movement done in full knowledge.

3) Distract from the argument by claiming that others do it too. 

Then in another posts claims they only want things to be fair and balanced respectful.

Eh. 

Can't be having with this American clap trap. There's plenty of places for it on the net. 

Was genuinely interested in the way people identified with the club and how they reacted to a couple of things. Wasn't sure where it was going to go, but here it is now. 

gotta return to the football side of things,,,

that's where they test the nukes you know!

Found an indepth discussion of the yuppie/plain speaking divide from Britain in the 1990s:

Society and peoples' position in that society has a large impact on how they view their world. I think it is fair highlighting that. People should be more aware of their own position in society so that they can try better understand their own biases towards others.

The argument between ryan and christchurch rangers, to me, is representative of current issues. 

I feel that the comments of both at different stages, suggest that they are firmly in their respective tribes, far right and far left. 

This is the sort of thing that means we will go nowhere, because they are both right, and they are both wrong. You can't have it either way, history tells us that is the recipe for disaster. A stable nation needs to have both left and right aspects, and when it swings too far one way, it has to swing back. In my opinion we went too far right, we're now correcting, and we're going too far left. 

We need a balance. 

Yes the statues are bad, they were put up for bad reasons, and should probably not be there.

But on the other side, yes, removing them creates a precedent, and how far does it go? The pyramids are an excellent point that I've not seen answered in here. 

I don't know the solution, I'm not advocating to keep them or remove them, I simply don't know the answer. 

But what both Ryan and Chch are suggesting is not the answer entirely, while at the same time, neither of them are incorrect with what they say, so where do you go.

Ultimately, despite what Ryan is claiming, both sides DO just want to live their lives in peace, and both sides are feeling that the other is enforcing something other than that upon them. Ryan believes he is totally correct and the other side is completely wrong, which is the prevailing thought on the left, and is also wrong in my opinion.

No society ever, that has tried by force to re-distribute wealth evenly, has ever succeeded. They have all tried different methods of doing this, but all have been catastrophic failures, and have resulted in terrible atrocities. It just doesn't work. 

Just the same on the other side, a fully globalist free market with zero regulation will never work. 100% true capitalism with no backstops, no welfare safety net, etc etc, will never work. 

A balance is required, which is what a reasoned debate brings. 

My fear at the moment is that the far left in particular is preventing the debate now. By picking and choosing who is allowed to say what, free speech is eroded, the debate cannot be had, and we descend into chaos. 

 

I am saying that both sentences are wrong. You will not get people represented in the same numbers as the community in a sufficiently large organisation of any kind. This is not true in any society, even the utopian fair and equitable one you mention in the 2nd sentence. 

Your sentence immediately before that paragraph said "you don't want to hire more of one sex than the other or people just because they're minorities, because you do want the best people that you can regardless of anything else."

So that sentence and your paragraph above are mutually exclusive points. You cannot reasonably expect to have a 50/50 split of males/females in an organisation, AND have the best people regardless of anything else. The odds of a 50/50 split also having the best person for every job within it is virtually nil.

I'm really interested to hear from you on how this is possibly wrong? 

I am sounding like a broken record, but why are you focussing on equality-of-outcome? Do you understand that on the whole, males and females enjoy different things? Why are you wanting an organisation to have the right split? 

Would you want to force female teachers out of the profession and replace them with males, who may not have the same passion and drive for the job? Who does that benefit? 

Do you want to force males out of the coal-mining business so females can be better represented, even though most of them don't actually want to work in the industry? 

What would you do if you can't find the males or females to do these jobs? 

That's why I said it's simplistic.

The one group that's worse than both the far left and the far right, are the far centrists, pick a side, dweebs! 

Yes, I agree it is simplistic. And wrong. 

After that original post, and your responses since, I actually don't know where you stand on this.

Do you believe that any organisation/workplace/industry should be a direct reflection of society's make-up? Or are you actually agreeing with me here?

I said that in a fair and equitable society you'd expect people in a workplace to be represented in equal proportions to how they're represented in your community. The simplistic part is the fact that people don't always want to work in those industries. So, we're looking broadly at overall trends here within industries.

You still want the best people regardless of sex or race, there should be no quotas in an ideal world. Then, all that would come of it was personal preference.

I work in software in a large office at the moment, we have hundreds of employees but only a hand full of females (and mostly in administration). In my last job it was roughly 50% females, same industry but significantly different make up. The only visible difference is that in my current job all the management are males in my previous job one of the founders (but not CEO) was female.

What I believe is that people should be hired on merit, but I also believe that they're not. How we fix that I don't know, what I do know is that letting market forces dictate hiring processes isn't working so perhaps government intervention in the short term is required.

I've also found that workplaces which are predominantly white male are much more sexist and racist than workplaces which are more diverse. I suppose if you work with and interact with other people you start to see them as humans and not broad categories.

A lot of the differences between male/females you are highlighting is a result of how our society has molded individuals, directly and indirectly, to fit the norm. You can replace male/female with white/black etc. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/11/delu...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/test...

In other words, being male or female isn’t enough to make you into your society’s version of a man or a woman. There is no “male brain” or “female brain”. But as soon as your maleness or femaleness is recognised, other people start to treat you in ways that form you into a man or a woman, with the support of toys, books, role models and a million other subtle nudges.

Specifically looking at how our society treats and views males/females differently has real impacts on the outcomes of individuals. Maybe those on the left are not necessarily forcing equality of outcome but possibly trying to break the cycle of bias?

So the information that has not been provided, is how many females want to work for your former company, versus how many males? 

If more females want to work there but couldn't, then there is an issue with someone preventing equality-of-opportunity for those females. 

However it could be that your current work are the ones with the problem. What if far less females want to work in that industry than males? Then someone at the top is preventing equality-of-opportunity again, for the males this time. 

You cannot know which company is right without getting the right data on preferences. 

It's very tough, I don't know the solution, but I know that focussing on enforcing what we perceive to be correct outcomes will not work.