Culture wars on the forum: amateur sociology

No, because even if that is the case there are always exceptions.

You really are from Christchurch aren't you.

White South African with Boer great grandparents or black?

Here's a good critical rebuttal of Cordelia Fine's book, includes a ton of references.

https://yeyoscorner.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/why-sexual-selection-matters-and-why-cordelia-fine-is-wrong/

I found this article and the related research quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

Getting off track again guys. 

Well if we are talking about race there is usually a difference when they talk about race relations  

Well if we are talking about race there is usually a difference when they talk about race relations  

Interesting debate on feminism.

I'm a white guy, middle class(I think!) and in my 30s. Guessing we got age ranges from 20s to 60s.

Also I like this article for it's perspective on who gets to decide who gets hurt. 

For example, it's not much skin off a fox commentator's nose saying the 'Nix don't bring anything to the comp and should be cut, but it is anti-Kiwi bs and makes me angry every time I hear it.

They don't get to say- you can't be upset by that because I'm not. It pisses me off. Fact. It encourages all kinds of anti-"nix and anti-Kiwi BS. 

Damn it can't link to it as it has the word 's hit' in the title.

 thespinoff.co.nz/society/15-01-2018/think-the-racist-menu-is-ok-fine-just-know-youre-making-others-feel-like-shi t/

I've taken out a https:// and I've put a space in the last word.

"First, I understand that you may not be a racist person. I get that you mean it when you say you genuinely don’t have a problem with anyone, no matter what race they are. But know it’s possible to not harbour genuine hate for another ethnicity in your heart, yet still support behaviour that perpetuates that hate. For example, encouraging and supporting this restaurant while they have this menu that openly mocks Asian people.

Secondly, as a result of the first point, it isn’t your job to tell the group of people affected by the behaviour what they should and shouldn’t be offended by. Put simply, if people laugh at Asians for speaking funny, it’s not going to affect your life, so of course it’s much easier for you to dismiss it. No one has ever come up to you and mocked you with Asian gibberish when you weren’t even bothering them, so you don’t know what that feels like, and so of course you’re not going to find it offensive. That doesn’t make you a bad person, that just makes you unaware of the situation. What you do after learning how said actions affect others is a whole other thing."

That bbc article was astonishing. Thanks for that. 

Really hammers it home. The science is very very clear. 

What is that supposed to mean?

Perhaps you can explain your prejudiced views on Christchurch?

And how is having prejudiced views on Christchurch seen as OK (as implied by your post) when on the other hand prejudices such as racial/sexual stereotyping etc are seen as bad and to be banished? Surely all prejudice is undesirable, no?

Your post seems very inconsistent to me imo

That's a fair enough point, but then I used to work in Christchurch regularly and saw a lot of racism that I haven't seen in Wellington or Auckland. The worst event was a bunch of skin heads chasing Algerian supporters (families with children) who were celebrating qualifying for the 2010 world cup in cathedral square, they'd driven in with Algerian flags all over their cars and jumped out to dance around and really enjoy themselves, it must have been immediately after the qualifying match. Anyway these skin heads started to yell at them and so they jumped in their cars and drove off with a few of the skin heads chasing them.

Also there's the whole thing with that restaurant. 

Still, that's obviously a small element of the city and one which I've heard has mainly disappeared since the earthquakes.

For me this thread has merely re-enforced what I already knew: people are inconsistent and biased with regard to practising what they preach.

There is an inherent dishonesty and duplicity amongst those preaching their leftwing/liberal ideas to the world:

*Tolerance for all but only if we find your views acceptable and compatible to our own.terms and conditions apply

*Diversity is good so long as we like what you represent. If we don't like it we will attempt to shut it down

*Prejudice is bad and a tool of oppression unless we are using it to mock people we don't like or agree with (ie chch comment above)

*If you criticise or disagree with us then you absolutely must be a right wing bigot. You are either with us or you are against us, choose your side.

Maybe this is down to people living in social media echo chambers where they are surrounded by like minds, all re-enforcing each others beliefs? I swear this has intensified since social media.

I find it disappointing that all one has to do is be critical of leftwing logic and you are automatically branded a nazi or whatever. It has happened to me in this very thread yet in my life I am friendly, respectful and accepting of EVERYONE I meet in person until they give me reason to think different.

Why are the left so intolerant towards people who have different views and opinions? What is so threatening about someone having different views or beliefs? So long as no-one forces them on others, why should it even matter?

2018 could do with some critical thinking imo and needs to move away from the mob mentality that seems to be so prevalent. Come on people, step out of your idealogical cages and truly embrace diversity and difference, even if it means you might not like all that you see.

yawn.

The Christchurch shot was a cheap one and not the point of the thread. That said Id say from personal experience that Christchurch is more racist than Wellington or Auckland. Though there are a lot of pricks in AKL and welly too.

You say you are friendly,  but your contribution started with insults,  avoided lines of argument and then retreated into generalisation and persecution fantasy.  

As we've also established left and right aren't so easily definable.  

I reckon you'd be a handy DM but Ive learned nothing of interest from anything you've said

I'm still awaiting to know where from Africa he is from

Ive enjoyed a lot of what you've contributed- you've engaged. 

The balance thing is tricky. 

Sometimes it's the Solomon answer: 1/2 a baby each is balance! 

Sometimes there is no middle ground exactly,  but different groups fighting for what they can get. 

A more regulated economy redistributes power and wealth,  a less regulated economy does the opposite.  Where you chose to draw the line benefits one group more than the other. 

If you think about women's legal rights over the last 200 years in many societies there is a trend there. We have disagreements over what is the correct way to design a society,  but I don't think many here begrudge women the right to vote or enter medical school these days. 

I also think your last statement is a bit over the top personally.  Where is the debate shut down?  Select committee, National party leader selection,  twitter? US college campuses?  Having a voice in a debate is not the same as having authority or power. 

It's worth pointing out that a lot of 'the left' disagree with the people/groups that are calling for people's speech to be shut down. For a long time the left has been very strong on defending free speech principals, though some of these newer movements have different views.

You wouldn't get much more 'radical left' than me on most political issues, my view on free speech is pretty similar to Noam Chomsky, that being pro-free speech means being for free speech for views that you despise. Stalin was in favour for free speech for views he agreed with. If someone wants to write a book that is horrific and racist etc, they should be allowed to. Once you give up freedom of speech rights for everyone, you're in danger of giving up free speech for yourself as someone else at some point may decide your own views are harmful. A lot of left-wing people/media are still vocal on defending free speech in current cases. 

I think it's even a tactical mistake by groups to shut down free speech as it just fans more publicity of the views you're trying to stop anyway. For example, some countries in Europe have laws against holocaust denial. There's little evidence that actually reduces the amount of people that hold such views, in fact, it means there's regular headlines because some idiot says something stupid... which gives more air to their views. So, for example, if someone wanted to come to Victoria University saying 'Maori are awful etc' or some horrific point of view, rather than try to stop them coming, tactically the best idea would probably be to hold a counter lecture maybe at the same time that says why those views are dumb. You have to win the argument on these things, you can't just bludgeon them away. 

Everyone is a hypocrite, that's part of being human. You can only try though to be rational and learn from your hypocricy and mistakes.

I wish we all came from a place where we respected each other and therefore restrictions weren't required. But it's tough, why does one persons right to say what they want trump another persons right not to be subjected to bigotry and hatred? It's a balance that's impossible to find because there's always going to be overlaps where more freedom to one person results in less freedom for another.

I really don't like the idea of classifying people under an umbrella of left or right because ultimately we're all complicated and will have views on different subjects which defy our classification. Having the ability to categorise ideas under a banner and dismiss them without thought is most of the problem.

Ultimately it's about empathy.

or power

Yes, studies have shown how the brain is wired in certain ways that will lead to people not seeing their own hypocrisy.

Thing here is what do we mean by 'persons right not to be subjected to bigotry and hatred'?. So I think we'd all agree that it's not ok for racists to go and spray paint bigoted statements on someone's house, or harass someone for their race etc. But if someone wants to write a book, or give a lecture that contains bigoted statements, that isn't subjecting an individual to bigotry and hatred. Yes, it may contribute to a 'culture' of bigotry, but the best way to build a better culture is letting everyone have their say and winning the argument against bigotry.

Yes, putting umbrellas over whole groups is problematic. I can see though that people are just trying to use a term to describe who they are talking about to make their point, and there isn't always an exact correct term.

Yes, certainly we could do with a lot more empathy of the positions of the 'other side'.

It's clear to me if you look at the trends of history then as civilisation evolves we're seeing more acceptance and less bigotry, what we're seeing right now is a conservative backlash to what is the natural evolution as we civilize, but it's only a blip because change is hard.

So by empathy I don't mean empathy just to the 'other side', but I mean empathy in general.

As far as racist books and lectures, etc. go, I definitely see the point you're trying to make and in general you don't want to stop discussions but you say yourself their contributing to a culture of bigotry. It's a fine line between stopping hate speech and suppressing knowledge but there is definitely a line that can be navigated. And then, if we follow the logical thought process here, if it's someones right to say hateful and hurtful things about someone else, is it someone else's right to try and stop them? Why can they say things but not spray paint it on a house?

The other problem is nothing is private anymore and it's pretty easy for people to get positive reinforcement within their own little bubbles, that's why you see people make comments about controversial statements like "they're just saying what we all think." because as far as people know everyone thinks like them. The pressure to conform is a good check on bad behavior, the last thing you wan't to do is normalise hate speech.

I read a study once which found that about 25% of people are altruistic, 25% are selfish, and the other 50% just go with whoever is in ascendancy. If the evil 25% of society are on top then ~75% of society will be evil, if the good 25% of society are on top then ~75% of society will be good.

My basic thought is I don't know what someone has been through to be offended so I won't question it. It takes absolutely zero effort for me to refrain from using certain language so why worry about it?

I often think people are over reacting and I don't understand why something is offensive but I haven't been through what they have so what do I know.

I'm all for free speech but disagree on the gay pie thing. The word gay does not mean anything that is even remotely connected to the event of dropping your pie, or some equal inconvenience. 

The word gay in that context was specifically used because something that was gay was seen as something that was bad, and inferior to non-gay.

To me, the slang term is used specifically in a way that  associates negative events with the idea of being gay. 

I think the ad is fine, and people should be discouraged from using the term like that. However I also think that is as far as it should go. No term should be illegal. I would just hope that most people don't say it, and when someone does, the people within earshot are not impressed, and hopefully the person using it thinks twice next time. 

This way it will slowly disappear from our general lexicon, without too much hassle, and that's the way it should be. 

Bang. Couldn't agree more. Excellent way of putting it. 

That's quite interesting.

Also related, but not directly, I read a study about wealth, where they had a group of test subjects who were a good range of classes i.e. from quite poor to very wealthy. 

They filmed them in a variety of circumstances through a bit of subterfuge i.e. led them to believe they were being tested, but then on the way to the testing, they deliberately engineered some situations. Two of them for example;

- Walking past an un-manned reception desk with no one else around, there is a jar of sweets on the counter, with a notice saying "These are for kids only, please do not take any"

- Driving through a pedestrian crossing, with a person specifically planted to be waiting to cross right when they approach, thus giving them a decision to stop or not to stop

What they found was a direct correlation between the negative decision (stealing a sweet, not stopping for the pedestrian) and the amount of wealth i.e. the wealthier you were, the more likely you would basically be mean. 

It's a very interesting result. People who are ruthless in order to gain something for themselves, albeit minor, are far more likely to be wealthy.

I'm not one for running people down as a general group so won't go any further than that, but it's rather interesting. 

this is the "beauty" of people being offended, they are offended by what you've said - not what you meant - as clearly they didn't know what you meant - no one really can. Offense is taken - not given. It's a choice and people are all too easily offended for the sake of being offended. There are a few dicks out there who are simply out to offend and hate on people but there are probably more people out there just waiting for someone to say something that they can be offended by so they can jump on social media to get more clicks of sympathy,

Well, the other thing- like the 'ching chong' accent thing, is that if it makes it to a social media pile on you are probably seeing a reaction not to what you said just then, but a kind of trauma reaction to many, many instances of bullying over decades. 

Also, what you see is some people who ham it up on twitter and think that it is an over reaction. What you are not seeing is the people who are hurting and silent. There is a reason for example that LGBT youth suicide at a higher rate than others. 

While what you actually said may be innocuous, no different from how you'd been using it for some time and seemingly up against a huge over reaction, the way that the word has been used has hurt and is part of the culture that has lead to all kinds of problems.

LGBT suicide rate five times higher

If some one in the government is investing in a public service message the same way we do for speeding, drink driving and wearing seat belts, it's not because of some manufactured offense. It's because there's a genuine issue.

I'm so old that when one said that they were "Gay", it meant that they were happy. Even used in the Flintstones theme tune - "have a gay old time". It had no reference to one's persuasion.

Exactly. I have an old dictionary which says gay means keen,glad,bonny,happy,jolly,merry,bright,jovial and many more.

It still means that. Words can have more than one meaning. 

And the word awful used to mean full of awe, as in really good. And the word nice used to mean foolish.

Language evolves.

Get a new dictionary.

Also it sounds like you're reading a thesaurus. 

This thread has been treading a fine line up until now and generally staying on the right side of it - but justifying why you think you can use homophobic statements and arguing that it is okay to do so crosses it. I've hidden some posts on the previous page as a result.

I don't need one as I am a fantastic speller.

For me it's pretty simple - say whatever you want, as long as you're ready and willing to face the repercussions for doing so. Language shouldn't be actively policed

Isn't that what repercussions are?

Try telling that to the Spelling Police!! They hide everywhere !

If you aren't allowed to openly debate it in the first place, then we don't know if it is a good or bad idea. How can you give out repercussions when you don't know yet? 

I see that James Damore was at a speaking event this week, where he had a scientist backing him up on proven biological differences between men and women, and the scientist was explaining how this is 100% accepted amongst biologists - more easily proven than human-caused climate change, for example. 

So some people ripped the PA system out of the wall and started screaming that they were sexist, they were nazis, and they weren't wanted around here. 

That is not a repercussion for a bad idea. That is totally irrational, unhinged people, refusing to accept the proven evidence, because it doesn't fit with what they believe is the ONLY idea. That's not right. Debate is needed - who gets to decide what is right and wrong when evidence is being ignored like that?

However, I'm not dismissing your point at all. Because what are the repercussions for bad ideas? That's a very good question and I don't know the answer. If instead of James Damore, it was, lets say, someone speaking about holocaust denial, claiming it didn't happen, I would be entirely comfortable with that behaviour against them. The evidence is clear. It happened. So what should the repercussions be for someone claiming it didn't? I don't know. 

It is a cost of free speech that you will occasionally have to hear ideas you don't like.  Having to put up with the ramblings of some nutbars is preferable to having someone become an arbiter of what can and can not be said

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/3576...

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/201...

And the science backing him seems weaker than AGW

https://www.wired.com/story/what-james-damore-got-...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/g...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/10/a-sc...

So lets continue the cycle shall we?

Yeh the line between political agitators and controversial self-promoters and academics is an interesting one. Academics should be subject to peer review etc etc. 

Though fairly damn spot on. It is better to show people up, than to give them the publicity.

Where the argument tends to fall down is when people who trade in deliberate falsehoods, ignore science or are simply PR agents for companies in lucrative areas get their claims given equal credibility with academics or get a lot of promotion from the 'fair and balanced' lot.  

For example for a long, long time there has been a remarkable divergence between the public understanding of climate change and the scientific one. 

The other issue is how we get information and how we create agreement bubbles in social media etc. 

Coulter though hasn't been afraid to subject herself to Bill Maher and other more robust discussion, though she went on a roast of someone- can't remember who it was, but she was clearly out of her element there. Remember the burns on her, more than on whoever it was. Rob Lower or someone.  Prefer a Bill Maher/Anne Coulter vibe, than to some Mike Hosking type bully pulpit that answers to no one.