The philosophy thread general discussion

We really gearing up for another round of "social justice is bad"? We really doing that?

Oh and it's not an inability to let go of privilege. It's a refusal.

edited 15th Feb '18 1:30:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Only if you take the bait.

For now, it's not "people", it's just you, and making up imaginary positions about DM making up imaginary positions, unless I'm misremembering what De Marquis' position was. Please do take it to PM's like he suggests, if you're so eager.

I'm certainly not interested in retreading that topic. It was a rather tiresome and futile effort and I'm actively not interested in any sequels.

edited 15th Feb '18 1:40:02 PM by TheHandle

Sure, blame people for "taking the bait" instead of the guy trying to set up a strawman about social justice.

While I remain prepared to defend my position, I dont want to force the thread into a direction the others do not wish to go. If enough tropers are interested in debating this I am happy to. Otherwise why dont you pm me and I will try to address your concerns.

People being too nice will be bad is a argument said for, surprise, jerkasses trying to justify why they are not being nicer.

?

“Pacifism is bad” says the warmonger. “Social justice is bad” says the bigot.

Basically this.

Fortunately no one around here said anything like that.

You did. A couple hours ago. When you tried to make a comment about "social justice taken too far." That's literally what started this conversation.

There is a difference between saying pacifism ‘’can’’ be bad and saying pacifism ‘’is’’ bad. IE, a person can use pacifism to rationalize cowardice, but it’s an obvious good to avoid unnecessary violence.

Yes, but when the person saying that social justice can be bad previously derailed the thread to insist white privilege be maintained they lose the benefit of the doubt.

Pacifist until the other guy isn't.

Most definitions of pacifism already believe that.

Of course, the extend of it varies (from people that is willing to kill for punishment, others that kill to protect others and others that kill ONLY in self defense, is a WIDE thing)

edited 15th Feb '18 6:02:03 PM by KazuyaProta

X4 It can also be used to justify racism and isolationism, which is my issue with Stop the War. ,

X12 We didn’t relay have a debate last time, you said that you support white supremacy because it helps your kids, we explained that it doesn’t help your kids, you ignored our evidence and logic, we called you a white supremicists and a bad parent.

I’m totally up for doing all that again, but I don’t think it will lead anywhere productive.

@Handle, if your memory of the previous go around is different from what I just listed than I’d say your memory is wrong, I’m pretty sure Amber at least remembers it the same as me.

edited 15th Feb '18 6:32:36 PM by Silasw

My memory of that also matches Silasw’s and Ambar’s.

Seconded.

Hmmmm....multiple other people remember it the way that I do. Could it be that I am not, in fact, mis-characterizing the way the debate went last time?

What you described (""Social justice is bad"") and Silas' summary are not the same thing. I remember it the way Silas' does, except for one detail: DM did find some counterarguments satisfactory in the end and conceded that his initial conclusion ("racial privilege is best for my kids") though not the original ethical premise ("my children over the world, right or wrong"), which to him seems axiomatic/dogmatic.

What was it that did it in the end, DM? "Banding with the poor to tax the rich is more useful to my kids than banding with the white to exclude the rest"?

The interest of that discussion, I think, was that many voters have been trained to think that way. You can either convince them or outnumber them. If you can't do the latter reliably, this kind of debate is a good exercise.

As for social justice going too far, I don't know exactly what is meant by that. That there can be mistakes and injustices if the punishment and prosecution side of things executed too severely and expediently seems like a truism. "Justice must be tempered by mercy" and all those clichés. I don't think the idea itself is controversial, but there's bound to be a lot of fighting as to where the lines are and how much is fair.

edited 16th Feb '18 2:50:12 AM by TheHandle

"Any principle or value, regardless how enlightened it is, becomes dehumanizing when taken to its logical extreme. That includes social justice."

Where do you read "social justice is bad" into that?

When it’s being said by an outed white supremacist.

It’s a benefit of the doubt situation, when a person tries to defend white supremacy people remember that and take things they said in that context.

I’ve just been discussing the possibility of toxic pacifism, but nobody has jumped on me, because I don’t have a history of racism that colours their perspective of what I’m saying.

They're not a white supremacist: they don't think white people are inherently better than others or that it is right, fair, or just that they should be "above" or "supreme" hierarchically. Their interest in racial discrimination is strictly conditional to it advantaging their children, personally and specifically.

You could say it's a pedantic distinction for the purpose of moral judgment, but for the purpose of debate we're dealing with someone who's at least allegedly pragmatic and open to being reasoned with, and maybe I'm being too charitable but all their past interactions, which are much, much older than the incident we're concerning ourselves with, point to DM being a reasonable and compassionate person who cares about justice, helping the oppressed, and diminishing pain in the world, so long as it doesn't negatively affect his children.

Do we have such a thing as an Immorality Pet, for when someone who is otherwise a decent human being would however sink to any low for the sake of loved one(s)? Could be a Supertrope for Vicariously Ambitious and Love Makes You Evil.

In general we have a large body of experience on these fora that suggests that it's best to take people at their word and not make guesses. Bigots and idiots will always eventually spell out their positions explicitly or dance around them until the logical inconsistencies leave nothing else to fill the gap. No need to try to anticipate the process, and in fact it's harmful to civil discussion and mutual understanding.

edited 16th Feb '18 4:28:09 AM by TheHandle

This is exactly what happened last time, you may have missed it but several of us didn’t.

Care to point me to the particular exchange where DM supposedly "outed himself as a white supremacist"?

If memory serves, he conceded that racism wasn't in his kids' best interest and that "taxing the rich" was more likely to get him what he wants.

He was fairly low-key about it and made no apologies, so I don't blame you for overlooking it.

Anyway, he can damn well defend himself if he wishes to. I'm done advocating patience and discernment in judgment.