Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@unseen  -Maybe it’s a ‘False equivalence’ fallacy that you are thinking of?

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

The problem with off-the-hinge wokeness is that much of it is a sideshow when we have many actually important things to worry about. Certainly there are some things we could be more aware of and sensitive to but what bothers many people is how petty and ultimately irrelevant some of it is. When the resent or ridicule wokeness, that is the stuff they are talking about. Gardens? Come on.

It’s an article in the GARDENING ADVICE section you big numpties. And the advice seems to amount to ‘If you want to attract the next wave of gardeners to the field, the word ‘gardening’ may be putting them off’. For crying out loud, get a grip. Seriously.

[UnseenParticipant]

@autumn

I was referring to gardens in a more general way than you have chosen to take it.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Unseen.

[AutumnParticipant]

I am not interpreting the word ‘gardens’. I am referring to an article that is being used as an example of wokeness when the article is neither woke nor emblematic of wokeness.

If you are not using that article as an example of “off-the-hinge wokeness” then I will confess I have misinterpreted what you are getting at. I don’t know what “off-the-hinge wokeness” you are talking about.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

I’m searching my mind for the name of the fallacy evidenced here, but basically, it’s a false comparison fallacy consisting of comparing what’s real, factual, and evident with something that doesn’t exist and can’t be supported with facts/evidence.

There is no fallacy at all here because the benefits of Genetic science are proven, such as bigger, hardier, more plentiful, more nutritious vegetation and meat on less land, as well as treatment of human diseases and conditions. Hence, suppressing Genetics would have resulted in more deaths on top of deaths by pogroms, persecution, and genocide.

(Addendum: In fact, if someone did willfully and forcibly suppress Genetics knowing of Genetic’s benefits, they too would be committing mass murder.)

By the bye, that article doesn’t make your case too well. By it’s own admission, genetic tests don’t increase Race Essentialism, they just reinforce it among people who already hold such views and are ignorant of genetics. (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” What else is new?)

The article especially flops with the link to The Daily Beast article on Stormfront. Those Stormfronters are wastrels, idiots, and hypocrites no matter what their genetic records say about their Aryan Pure Superman status and they are probably bigger dangers to themselves than to anyone else. Their whole lives are living proof for all to see that heredity is no indicator of intelligence. 😁😄😆😅😂🤣

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Doug Hanlon wrote:

Should this person’s writings be published? Or published in the first case, i.e. where the research cannot be faulted on technical grounds.

Well yeah. My problem is that I don’t see this issue as any more threatening than speech on twitter or facebook, for example. We’re already facing misinformation and propagandization of social media, and I think a bit of ill advised censoring in scientific journals can be overcome with the oppressed writers/university, whatever, publishing in other journals instead. By nature, caveat: so far, scientists are skeptical, and by nature take the path of proving or disproving experimental findings for themselves. They can do this now even before a paper is published, in pre-prints and new journals.

As Autumn pointed out, the problem is in the human interpretation of what’s published. I’ll add in human gullibility and senseless faith in unproven scientific sources, and their strange reliances on particular “authorities” of the political kind.

Doug, I inferred from your previous posts that you seem to understand the difference between Freedom of Speech as defined by the constitution, and “Free Speech”, which is too often conflated in spirit with the constitutional definition. I don’t like censoring speech or cancelling  personal viewpoints either, at least in many cases if not most, but I also don’t like any corporate powers buying media exposure for political speech, and I find it freedom-sucking to let corporations buy politicians and political campaigns, when all the citizens working for or owning or running that corporation already have freedom of speech and one person, one vote rights at the ballot box.

We’re at major upswing in political powers and big money combining to control what kind of news and propaganda reaches everyday users of social media. Assuming that manipulation of media channels and people’s perceptions can work for one party or the other in a political system limiting politics to only two parties exclusively, I think that’s a whole lot more dangerous than individual media outlets deciding, legally, who they want to cancel or censor.

But I’ll still admit, there are tradeoffs. I just see authoritarianism and perpetual one-party politics the much bigger threat at this time in American history. A bit of censorship in publication of scientific papers is a molehill compared to the mountain of truly selfish politics.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I see discussion of genetic differences as irrelevant to any discussion of human rights. I hope scientists can present papers on genetic research without fear, and I’ll bet that any respected publisher’s censorship of it will either be corrected eventually, or circumventable by other publishers. Unless (say) a university just avoids that kind of research, and I personally don’t see that as a trend unless ugly politics at a national level or in some states gets involved in censoring what they they don’t like. Remember Bush wrt embryonic stem cell research.

But genetics is often relevant to differences in diseases and treatments, i.e. relevant in many scientific discussions. Any denial of this is detrimental to the human race, and it’s up to scientists and science journalists to help the less educated understand this topic, and many others. Which might also require some sensitivity to contemporary cultural circumstances and issues. It’s not always easy, so tolerance of misunderstandings is sometimes necessary, as long as the misunderstandings are detected as soon as possible, and dealt with in positive ways.

Constantly mocking, berating, or preaching down to others is counter-productive. I’ve seen that here before. Albeit I’m not a saint.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

James Wong’s call to give up the words “Gardener” and “Gardening” is not because of concern for accuracy in using terms, but because the terms somehow have oppressive social stigma that supposedly hurts somebody’s “feelz.”

That is what makes his proposal “Woke.”

And we’re not talking about ugly slurs against people for their immutable traits, but perfectly innocent words denoting a life-sustaing, pleasant pursuit and those who perform it. That is what makes his proposal so aggravating and ridiculous.

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn, James Wong’s call to give up the words “Gardener” and “Gardening” is not because of concern for accuracy in using terms

I didn’t say it was.

but because the terms somehow have oppressive social stigma that supposedly hurts somebody’s “feelz.”

Incorrect. He’s just talking about gardening culture and bridging the gap between generations. The older generations tend to lean on terms like ‘gardening’, while younger tend to prefer alternatives perhaps finding ‘gardening’ to be stodgy or emblematic of a gardening culture that is too stiff and ‘proper’ for the way they approach horticulture. He’s asking if terminology is relevant to bridging the gap between generations of horticulturists. From the article:

My question to plant lovers is: do we need to ditch the term “gardening” to reach new people? Or do we need to reclaim the word by demonstrating it to be more inclusive? I am tempted to say the former, but rather hoping for the latter.

See? He has no issue with the term itself and wants to keep it. His concern is just that it’s a turnoff for younger people who have different views about horticulture. And that concern is linked to a desire to bridge gaps between generations, simple as that. (I know I’m repeating myself but you seem desperate to make this into something it’s not, so it bears repeating).

Why would he write such a piece? Is it because it’s a pressing social issue of the day? Probably not. The simpler explanation is that he writes for the gardening advice section of the paper and he was looking for something to write about having already written hundreds of articles on gardening.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I am not particularly well informed in the woke-spoke debate.

However it is my impression that the woke-haters are really most pissed about the uppity-out groups having power. Cancellation is not cool. It is however the human way. Religions are the greatest force for cancellation. No need to elaborate. Any kind of totalitarian government cancels the piss out of dissenters/non-conformists. Culturally the in-groups cancell the marginilized groups. So it reminds me of Jews who finally have some power in Israel. How dare those mother fucking Jews act like Europeans! Being a mother fucking prick is our privilege and god-given right. The hyperfocus on Jews and Israel speaks volumes.

I liked it when Rip Van Winkle woke. His home town was barely recognizable.

[UnseenParticipant]

I think some people see woke-ism as basically the end of humor. We all have potentially sensitive areas, each and every one of us, and if not just comedians but all of us have to navigate a minefield of things that can upset or unintentionally hurt people, no matter they are against it.

Don Rickles was a genuinely funny insult comic because he was 100% equal opportunity. He even made fun of Jews (he was Jewish) and fat people (he was not slim by any means).

On the other hand, the comedian Michael Richards (rightly) trashed his career using a string of n-words that weren’t even part of his routine, in repartee with the blacks in his comedy club audience.

The difference: good-natured versus intentional insults.

Humor always has the potential to offend or even cause hurt, but of course that leaves a gray zone of humor that wasn’t intended to hurt but the joker should have known better.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Unseen.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Rickles was funny.

Unseen, isn’t that about political correctness? Are the terms interchangeable or overlapping?

[jakelafortParticipant]

I will cop to not wanting a culture in which you have to constantly be on guard against saying something offensive.

What we say among friends, family, loved ones is one thing. In public it is another. When out any obvious derogatory shit against marginilized groups or racist-speak is never ok in my estimation. But always knowing the right terms? Or feeling like you have to use the neologism or euphemism is not my cup of Earl Grey.

[AutumnParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I will cop to not wanting a culture in which you have to constantly be on guard against saying something offensive.

The major trick to managing this is to not be thin-skinned if someone doesn’t like something you said. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong. Maybe you have to think on it before you can decide whether they made a fair point or not. But it doesn’t actually do much of anything to you.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Autumn, that works for me.

But a great many people seem to be all about the people around them even when they are strangers. For instance if i am at a restaurant and i enjoy the food-that is all i care about. On the other hand too often i am with someone for whom the experienced is ruined if the server is cold/aloof. (something less than what i consider rude/nasty) My point is that we are by and large a highly social animal and how others react to us has a lot to do with our well-being.

[Author]

Posts