When Did It Stop Being OK TO Disagree??

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Perhaps nature has a different agenda. 

A decent and selective cleansing of our kind might be most beneficial for the environs.

This is why equal time and deference to opinion is no longer always appropriate.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That established agenda is the survival of our species. Remove science and we are doomed. Climate change is a case in point.

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

[Kanada]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

Only 30% of the earths surface is land…take away mountains, jungles, forests, deserts etc humans live on about 9% (approx) of the earths surface!

With that in mind I think to say we destroyed the environment is pretty presumptuous and we’re only overpopulated in “certain areas”…Alaska and NWT just as 2 examples are capable of supporting many many times their population as are 100’s of others places on earth!

Many  might not want to live in those places but that doesn’t change the facts….if you could somehow comprehend how huge the earth is you might now be so quik to say we’ve destroyed it????

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, Kanada said:

Only 30% of the earths surface is land…take away mountains, jungles, forests, deserts etc humans live on about 9% (approx) of the earths surface!

With that in mind I think to say we destroyed the environment is pretty presumptuous and we’re only overpopulated in “certain areas”…Alaska and NWT just as 2 examples are capable of supporting many many times their population as are 100’s of others places on earth!

Many  might not want to live in those places but that doesn’t change the facts….if you could somehow comprehend how huge the earth is you might now be so quik to say we’ve destroyed it????

Sure, we can reproduce ourselves to the point we all live in floating cities and eat seaweed and insects, but is that a future to want?

 

As for destruction, the rainforests are vanishing at an accelerating rate because overpopulation increases demand.

[ozimoron]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

"science" has never been the problem. "science" was telling us in the 60's that both land clearing and fossil fuels were problems. It's unbelievable how the dark ages is having a renaissance in the 21'st century.

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As for destruction, the rainforests are vanishing at an accelerating rate because overpopulation increases demand.

No, it's because conservative politicians and people who don't care about the environment won't protect it.

[Kanada]

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sure, we can reproduce ourselves to the point we all live in floating cities and eat seaweed and insects, but is that a future to want?

 

As for destruction, the rainforests are vanishing at an accelerating rate because overpopulation increases demand.

The rainforests have been disappearing for 50 years (actually 45 years…we started paying attention in 1978)….still disappearing and if they didn’t reproduce or replenish themselves at all they’d all be gone in approx. 100 more years!

Floating cities….eating seaweed and insects???

Now that’s the true fabric of conspiracy theories don’t you think!

***Not different than than the conspiracy theories fabricated by anti vaxxers (but that’s another story….similar but another story for another post.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Kanada

[Fat is a type of crazy]

28 minutes ago, Kanada said:

The rainforests have been disappearing for 50 years (actually 45 years…we started paying attention in 1978)….still disappearing and if they didn’t reproduce or replenish themselves at all they’d all be gone in approx. 100 more years!

Floating cities….eating seaweed and insects???

Now that’s the true fabric of conspiracy theories don’t you think!

***Not different than than the conspiracy theories fabricated by anti vaxxers (but that’s another story….similar but another story for another post.

I think the answer is in your comment regarding anti vaxxers. I haven't  read through the comments but this has probably been said - i.e. the reason is the internet.

 

The internet allows people to group together, and group issues together, and the effect can become exaggerated. In the past if someone was an anti vaxxer no one would care. It wouldn't make the news. You might get a leaflet in the letterbox and a few people may have a clandestine meeting but that's it. But now anti vaxxers can group together, and add on other FREEDOM issues, and have power that they may not have had before - and that power can affect a whole country - like in the US leading to many unnecessary deaths.

So those who are anti vaxxers can talk loudly against the status quo and those who aren't anti vaxxers have somewhere to focus there annoyance and it goes back and forward and drama ensues. 

Good that people have freedom but there is a cost. 

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

And there was a time when the Chinese were criticized for there one child policy.

Now there going ape to to catch up with the west. ????

[Will B Good]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

The 1979 World Climate Conference (12 to 23 February) of the World Meteorological Organization concluded "it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at higher latitudes....It is possible that some effects on a regional and global scale may be detectable before the end of this century and become significant before the middle of the next century."

[zzaa09]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where was "science" while we were destroying the environment, and IMO overpopulating ourselves beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us?

Science will naturally turn a blind eye when raping and pillaging the earth becomes grotesquely profitable. 

In a round about way, science is akin to convention with a few dissenters - but not enough to make a dent.

[pacovl46]

On 9/16/2021 at 11:02 AM, Mac Mickmanus said:

10 30 PM, Friday March 6 th , 2012

You forgot the exact seconds, mate! Pfff!! ????

[pacovl46]

On 9/16/2021 at 5:08 PM, Tanomazu said:

It is a curious paradox: Censorship is flourishing in the information age.

 

I still remember how discussion was on talkboards in the early 90s. You were free to express your opinion, there was a belief that the Internet would defeat censorship for good. How wrong that was. Gone are the days of robust argument, now replaced with a stage for the narrow prejudices of a few.

What’s way worse is that most people don’t even use the internet to fact-check the BS they read online because as soon as it is online it is set in stone because it’s online and that’s it! 
 

During pre-internet times you had to sift through at least one, more often, though, numerous books to get any proper information on any given subject. Nowadays all you have to do is use a search engine and it is right there. It’s never been easier, but no one takes the time to cross reference anything of their favorite “gurus!”

Edited September 19, 2021 by pacovl46

[pacovl46]

On 9/16/2021 at 7:12 PM, Tanomazu said:

Rather than kill of censorship what the internet did was to give would-be censors the tools to pursue ever greater censorship, right now the internet is full of milions of little PC Plods deleting what they deem unacceptable. Many of them sit in the Philippines, the main hub of Facebook censorship, who, of course, outsource censorship to the cheapest and least educated labour. It's rare you'll find a genius working in censorship.

So true! I have a jokes group on Facebook and the stuff that gets censored there is ridiculous. Obvious jokes, nonetheless in a JOKES group, are labeled fake news! Just stuff that’s so obviously meant to be funny, which makes me think it’s either their AI that doesn’t get it or it’s someone who doesn’t speak proper English! 

[ozimoron]

The "equal time" and equal deference demand for conspiracy theories and other wack job ideologies has its roots dating back to 1968 when creationists demanded that creation theory be given equal time in schools alongside evolutionary theory. This was eventually struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

 

What we have today is a renaissance of culture wars as embodied by "cancel culture" and push back against attempts to correct history (example, removal of confederate statues and symbols) and the advancement of racism disguised as critical race theory. Much of it is driven by the ascending and ever more militant evangelical right who see their influence diminishing.

[Kanada]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

So true! I have a jokes group on Facebook and the stuff that gets censored there is ridiculous. Obvious jokes, nonetheless in a JOKES group, are labeled fake news! Just stuff that’s so obviously meant to be funny, which makes me think it’s either their AI that doesn’t get it or it’s someone who doesn’t speak proper English! 

Done by computor!

[wprime]

There are plenty of people who can have a good debate then share a beer afterwards with no hard feelings. It's just that snowflakes tend to be the loudest so it seems like they're the norm.

[sucit]

Here’s why is not ok to disagree. No vaccination required as far as I can tell. No masks. 
 

Look… the world is not ending! Did a few extra people get covid? I don’t know, maybe. I know life is going on however. 
 

 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, wprime said:

There are plenty of people who can have a good debate then share a beer afterwards with no hard feelings. It's just that snowflakes tend to be the loudest so it seems like they're the norm.

It's fine to denigrate snowflakes. I have no problem with that. I assume you mean a snowflake is a person who becomes unreasonably offended by offensive comments? On the other hand, a necessary part of the bargain is that the other party must be willing to demonstrate due deference and regard by refraining from making offensive comments. Is it just a one way street?

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, sucit said:

Look… the world is not ending! Did a few extra people get covid? I don’t know, maybe. I know life is going on however.

For some it isn't and only because some refused to wear masks and get vaccinated. That should be a felony, much the same way as deliberately infecting somebody with HIV is.

[kingstonkid]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

For some it isn't and only because some refused to wear masks and get vaccinated. That should be a felony, much the same way as deliberately infecting somebody with HIV is.

Covid is the least of the worries.

 

Imagine life as a kid without bugs bunny and friends.

MASH would never have made it to pilot 

No all in the family

No Happy Days

 

I can honestly say that I have had a lot of friends that definitely did not agree with me.  It made life better as well as made me better.

 

The P.C culture is ruining the world.

 

Consider this the top American News station on line or on TV is Fox news.

 

I am teaching a class in DESIDERATA.  Something that was written almost a hundred years ago.

 

The scary thing is that my Thai Matayom and university students see how much it pertains to today.

 

Desiderata

GO PLACIDLY amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.  As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

 

Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by kingstonkid
added desiderata

[wprime]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

It's fine to denigrate snowflakes. I have no problem with that. I assume you mean a snowflake is a person who becomes unreasonably offended by offensive comments? On the other hand, a necessary part of the bargain is that the other party must be willing to demonstrate due deference and regard by refraining from making offensive comments. Is it just a one way street?

I'm using snowflake to mean people who are intolerant of views they don't agree with.

 

How would you define an offensive comment?

 

There was a chap in Australia who lived in a Chinese area and had a sign up on his front lawn that said Covid came from China. A man filmed himself trespassing onto the man's property and destroying the sign and posted it up on social media. The sign was reasonably likely to cause offense as Chinese people are quite sensitive about their nationality; But in his subclass of Australian culture it's completely acceptable to state your opinion, especially if it's most likely true.

 

A Thai friend of mine who studied in Australia told her Kazakh classmate that he "smelled like Indian people". This was her opinion and she certainly didn't mean to cause offence. It is just that in her culture it's not offensive to say such things.

 

In parts of rural Pakistan if a girl dresses provocatively, she causes offence to the men around her and it can even be considered her fault if they rape her.

 

That's the problem with the line of thinking that argues for the right not to be offended. Every culture, or indeed everyone has different views on what is offensive. Part of being tolerant is learning that you are responsible for your own emotions and responses, and that nobody can cause you to feel offended but yourself. Being tolerant is not about avoiding saying things that might be offensive, it's about hearing other people's views without feeling offended.

Edited September 19, 2021 by wprime

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

I'm using snowflake to mean people who are intolerant of views they don't agree with.

That would involve statements of fact as well. I don't think that's a reasonable definition of snowflake, I think it should be defined more narrowly.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

How would you define an offensive comment?

99% of it goes to intention. More on this below.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

There was a chap in Australia who lived in a Chinese area and had a sign up on his front lawn that said Covid came from China. A man filmed himself trespassing onto the man's property and destroying the sign and posted it up on social media. The sign was reasonably likely to cause offense as Chinese people are quite sensitive about their nationality; But in his subclass of Australian culture it's completely acceptable to state your opinion, especially if it's most likely true.

Was the intention of the sign poster to establish a front lawn based encyclopedia? I don't think so. The sign was clearly intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. No other intention can be reasonably inferred from his actions. This wasn't a situation calling for the defence of free speech. This was out and out racial vilification as outlawed by clause 18c of the racial vilification act.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

 

A Thai friend of mine who studied in Australia told her Kazakh classmate that he "smelled like Indian people". This was her opinion and she certainly didn't mean to cause offence. It is just that in her culture it's not offensive to say such things.

I think you believe Thais to be unsophisticated. I'll warrant that a great many Thais understand perfectly well that such a comment would be offensive.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

In parts of rural Pakistan if a girl dresses provocatively, she causes offence to the men around her and it can even be considered her fault if they rape her.

That argument was even common in Australia not very long ago before courts refused to allow it. I have seen many comments that "she invited rape" because she dressed provoctively.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

That's the problem with the line of thinking that argues for the right not to be offended. Every culture, or indeed everyone has different views on what is offensive.

Only the uneducated and unenlightened. Everyone else knows what the rules are.

 

5 minutes ago, wprime said:

Part of being tolerant is learning that you are responsible for your own emotions and responses, and that nobody can cause you to feel offended but yourself.

The other part of being tolerant is understanding and appreciating what causes offence to others and refraining from engaging in offensive behaviour. It is not about demanding that other people not be offended by your behaviour and labelling them as snowflakes when they are.

[wprime]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

That would involve statements of fact as well. I don't think that's a reasonable definition of snowflake, I think it should be defined more narrowly.

 

I realise it's not a precise definition, I used it that way for lack of a better word.

 

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

99% of it goes to intention. More on this below.

 

Was the intention of the sign poster to establish a front lawn based encyclopedia? I don't think so. The sign was clearly intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. No other intention can be reasonably inferred from his actions. This wasn't a situation calling for the defence of free speech. This was out and out racial vilification as outlawed by clause 18c of the racial vilification act.

I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about my views about freedom of expression, but for your information, both truth and expressing genuine belief made in good faith about matters of public interest are valid defences so calling it 'out and out racial vilification' is wrong.

 

Regarding his intent, that's your assumption. While I tend to assume the best in people (perhaps to a fault), I don't think he had any motive at all. I think he was just angry about the impacts of the virus and in the typical fashion of people who lack agency in life, he's looking for someone to blame. If that's the case, he's not looking to offend anyone, he's seeking validation from like-minded people.

 

That being said, I would tend to agree that intent to cause offence is a good point to draw the line though. The problem though is that some people who lack empathy tend to make assumptions about intent (they feel bad, therefore someone intended to harm them). Because of this, people may still consider expression of opinion that they find offensive to be wrong because they assume intent to cause harm. People rarely intend to cause offence by expressing themselves, almost all expression of opinion is done to seek agreement.

 

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I think you believe Thais to be unsophisticated. I'll warrant that a great many Thais understand perfectly well that such a comment would be offensive.

 

Only the uneducated and unenlightened. Everyone else knows what the rules are

Those Khazak people weren't offended. Just because something would offend you, doesn't mean it would offend someone else. What you don't understand is that there is a great deal of cultural diversity around the world; not everyone shares your views and you taking the position that your views are superior and that anyone who doesn't share them is unsophisticated, uneducated, or unenlightened is arrogant and intolerant. There is no one standard set of rules about what should and should not offend, everyone is different. Your assumption that I share your views in thinking she's unsophisticated for speaking her mind is also close-minded. I greatly respect her for being honest.

 

You are a classic example of what I'm referring to with the word 'snowflake'. You consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be inferior so you close yourself off from learning about other people and surround yourself with like-minded people making you feel this kind of intolerance is normal. It's not beneficial for anyone, particularly yourself, as you close yourself to plenty of really kind and well-minded people just because they don't conform to your views.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

No, it's because conservative politicians and people who don't care about the environment won't protect it.

So you think increasing the population from 3 billion last century to 8 and rising now has made little difference to "demand" now?

Just how would all those extra mouths get fed without land clearing to make more food? As it is IMO the oceans are being "strip mined" for every possible fish, and polluted because people treat the oceans as a sewer and a good place to dump all their garbage.

But it's all the conservatives fault, of course 5555555555555555555.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, wprime said:

You are a classic example of what I'm referring to with the word 'snowflake'. You consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be inferior so you close yourself off from learning about other people and surround yourself with like-minded people making you feel this kind of intolerance is normal. It's not beneficial for anyone, particularly yourself, as you close yourself to plenty of really kind and well-minded people just because they don't conform to your views.

There are a lot of such people out there now, and it seems to be an increasing problem. I was lectured by someone I never expected to be closed minded the other day, and I was shocked at how he considered me to be a bad person because I didn't agree with him.

The corona thing seems to be creating them at an accelerating pace, and I put it down to the increasing amount of government "advertising" that is being broadcast multiple times on the public media every day. Must be costing a great deal of tax payer dollars for saturation "advertising".

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, wprime said:

Being tolerant is not about avoiding saying things that might be offensive, it's about hearing other people's views without feeling offended.

I actually disagree with that. I think it's unlikely that people won't be offended by in their opinion offensive sayings. IMO being tolerant is about accepting that other people have different opinions and have a right to say them even if offensive to some. That doesn't cover speech legally wrong such as slander or libel.

Shutting down speech that a certain segment of the population doesn't agree with is going to end badly, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Kanada said:

Floating cities….eating seaweed and insects???

Now that’s the true fabric of conspiracy theories don’t you think!

NO, I think it's an entirely reasonable assumption to make for anyone that pays attention to what is happening in the real world.

If the land is destroyed, as is actually happening by destruction of the tree cover and over exploitation of arable land ( without fertilizer, much land would be barren ) to feed an ever increasing population it would be entirely possible to grow edible seaweed in the oceans, especially if the fish vanish, as is already happening. There is already research into using insects as food, and insects can be bred in massive amounts.

As there is already massive pressure on land to live on ( it's becoming beyond the ability of average people to buy land in western countries ) sea based cities are already being considered.

 

However, keep on making knee jerk responses ( conspiracy theories! ), if it makes you feel good. I am tolerant of other's right to say things I disagree with, short of actual personal insults.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

And there was a time when the Chinese were criticized for there one child policy.

Now there going ape to to catch up with the west. ????

That was something the CCP did that I agree with. However, it seems that Chinese women, like Singaporean and Japanese women have seen the light and are not actually having lots of children, preferring their career to staying home with babies.

Edited September 19, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[chalawaan]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:02 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

10 30 PM, Friday March 6 th , 2012

I disagree