First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Controversial threads/forum posts?
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 4/25/15 , edited 4/25/15

SweetPerplexity wrote:


dsjb wrote:

To bait people in to actual debate from the looks of it. As crazy as some of them have been they HAVE led us in to discussion.



tridragon1 wrote:

Any of them that get heat automatically get closed. Some of mine already suffered


I'm honoured to have two controversial thread starters posting on this thread.




AirMarshall wrote:

A lot of people like to debate/argue on Crunchyroll cuz they have nothing better to do with their lives, like me. I love it to be honest. I love seeing how others feel about certain topics



I honestly see discussion as the only viable route route to understanding people who disagree with you it can bring us closer together by understanding what makes us think differently. I don't agree with much of what AirMarshall has had to say but I have a better understanding of the person and why they beieve what they do than had we not expressed our thoughts and opinions. Without understanding and talking to people who disagree with you as people rather than a political label its too easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone is the caricature of the lable we put upon them. I have disagreed with allot of what he has to say but I have found consensus as well on other issues, we have more in common than I would have known had I just gone oh that guys right wing lets not interact with him.

We are all on this planet and if were going to get along a bit of empathy is needed, discussion helps this, you seem to see it purely as a force for division and think we are just trying to start fights.

EDIT: Also I don't think that quote is mine.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / West Lafayette, I...
Offline
Posted 4/25/15
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/15

SweetPerplexity wrote:


Schmooples wrote:


SweetPerplexity wrote:


Schmooples wrote:

At least some actual evidence. I don't really care if it is just one personal experience, even; It's just pretty silly when someone tries to act as though their view is absolute when they have nothing to back it up. Even when those people are confronted with a ton of actual evidence, though, they don't generally change their views. At the very least, they should keep from espousing false information.


"No amount of evidence is enough to reach a normative conclusion."
- David Hume.

David Hume came up with a lot of crap, by the way.
I had to sit a really hard exam based on arguments, fallacies, philosophies and meta-ethics. I could write an essay on how mistaken you are. It's super deep stuff. And I can't afford to spend time writing essays.


I'm saying that that is what I, personally speaking, would prefer to see. I'm not saying that it's really required or that having evidence makes someone correct. Evidence can conflict at times, evidence can be flawed in itself, and so it can support a point without proving it - unless, of course, a consensus was reached and there was little to no opposing evidence, like with gravity or aught like it. Still, it could later be changed if new ideas were able to stick. I never said that having evidence makes one right.

You can't get around the fact that false information is wrong to share, no matter how you spin it, and surely you would find it frustrating to argue with someone without any sort of basis for their beliefs. I would rather people not say that cats are simply the female versions of dogs because that is very clearly wrong, just as I don't want people to say that most pedophiles abuse children, or that motor vehicles run on magic.

I don't really even understand what point you're trying to make, nor do I understand why you ran to a "2 deep 4 u" position.


I crave acceptance, but I never receive it. So I constantly have to make myself feel superior online, because it's the only place I can get a gain of power to unjustly inflict my revenge on random innocent people due to my hatred for my peers, who don't actually do anything to me, but I feel inferior and paranoid around them and my inability to take responsibility for my own thoughts leads me to become severely deluded as it's the only coping mechanism I have to these problems no one understands. Now when I find others experiencing the same turmoil, I ridicule them to help me detach myself from it but deep down I know I'll always be a part of it, but I bury those feelings and read the news regularly to justify my cruel actions by looking at the atrocities of the world, and feeling as if it is my right to be a douche. I then proceed to mock others for not being up to date with current affairs and sometimes make up events just to catch them out.


Textbook.Well done.
1264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/15

dsjb wrote:


I honestly see discussion as the only viable route route to understanding people who disagree with you it can bring us closer together by understanding what makes us think differently. I don't agree with much of what AirMarshall has had to say but I have a better understanding of the person and why they beieve what they do than had we not expressed our thoughts and opinions. Without understanding and talking to people who disagree with you as people rather than a political label its too easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone is the caricature of the lable we put upon them. I have disagreed with allot of what he has to say but I have found consensus as well on other issues, we have more in common than I would have known had I just gone oh that guys right wing lets not interact with him.

We are all on this planet and if were going to get along a bit of empathy is needed, discussion helps this, you seem to see it purely as a force for division and think we are just trying to start fights.




We need to a lot of sympathy to get along, but that's as far as I can go in agreeing with you. Our objective is to maintain a peaceful, flourishing society, filled with positive people who wish to make a positive contribution to it. If we have any differences in opinion, they should be sorted out privately, and as peacefully as possible. Our ultimate objective should be to help each other, make each other happy and to try to be nice so we all feel welcome here. We shouldn't slide down a slippery slope to starting fights and breeding hatred, by testing the boundaries. As this website becomes more popular, more puerile people come here, and all they want is to have fun, even if it has to be by trolling and pretending to have a controversial opinion for attention.


Yuki_Narukami wrote:

I just say what's on my mind at the moment and if that were to offend the people in the thread then that's their own fucking problem.


You must have a very easy purposeless life.


violentlypukes wrote:

Mostly I'll just skim through some of the posts.
But I won't really comment.
I dislike conflict in my court so I don't play ball.


You have a good attitude.
6749 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Finland
Offline
Posted 4/25/15
I say: "Let it go, let it go, turn away and slam the door..."
2524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Out of sight (But...
Offline
Posted 4/25/15
Cocaine nominated for best drink of 2014?
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/15

SweetPerplexity wrote:


dsjb wrote:


I honestly see discussion as the only viable route route to understanding people who disagree with you it can bring us closer together by understanding what makes us think differently. I don't agree with much of what AirMarshall has had to say but I have a better understanding of the person and why they beieve what they do than had we not expressed our thoughts and opinions. Without understanding and talking to people who disagree with you as people rather than a political label its too easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone is the caricature of the lable we put upon them. I have disagreed with allot of what he has to say but I have found consensus as well on other issues, we have more in common than I would have known had I just gone oh that guys right wing lets not interact with him.

We are all on this planet and if were going to get along a bit of empathy is needed, discussion helps this, you seem to see it purely as a force for division and think we are just trying to start fights.




We need to a lot of sympathy to get along, but that's as far as I can go in agreeing with you. Our objective is to maintain a peaceful, flourishing society, filled with positive people who wish to make a positive contribution to it. If we have any differences in opinion, they should be sorted out privately, and as peacefully as possible. Our ultimate objective should be to help each other, make each other happy and to try to be nice so we all feel welcome here. We shouldn't slide down a slippery slope to starting fights and breeding hatred, by testing the boundaries. As this website becomes more popular, more puerile people come here, and all they want is to have fun, even if it has to be by trolling and pretending to have a controversial opinion for attention.


So don't rock the boat, even when one believes someone is clearly wrong? If communal feeling comes at the expense of the suppression of individuality, then why bother being part of a community? Is not the community for the enhancement of the individual? I at least think so. A community is an idea that one decides to believe in and adhere to, rather than it being a concrete entity. In other words, people share a common idea of what a community is through communication and constant affirmation.

If someone is seeking some sort of social acceptance, then should that acceptance not be based upon the acceptance of their true selves, rather than a false image that they put on? No doubt, many people here probably and intentionally put on false faces from time to time, but I would hardly qualify that as based upon a strict adherence to some sort of pacifist-like ideal.

The problem with what you are proposing is the fact that we cannot test or potentially falsify the existence of the community without communication. If people are to forgo their honest selves for the sake of some sort of false peace, then the community or society naturally cannot be scrutinized. In other words, what each and every person thinks is the society or community is not based upon any observation of honest thought. Of course, knowing whether or not someone's expressed thoughts are honest is well-nigh impossible. But this is no cause for despair. Just as we accept the value of our senses because that is all we really have, then we can accept what we perceive to be people's thoughts as probably true and honest expressions from the individual. But I digress. Once you start limiting what can or cannot be communication for the sake of a false peace, then the possibility of sharing and synchronizing the idea of what the community is ceases in many ways. Once that begins, people inevitably begin to hold very diverging views of what the community is (much more than normal), and therefore, the community as an ideal type (to borrow from Weber) ceases to exist. This therefore, impedes the success and purpose of the community since it is to enhance the individual. If the individual is constantly lying or suppressing themselves for the sake of the community, then they have subverted the initial purpose of the community to begin with. Such actions should not be construed as self-sacrifice, precisely because self-sacrifice is a form of honest expression of the individual.

A hypothetical example would be something like, let's say California lost communication with the rest of the USA except that it can send and receive a limited amount of info once a month for the next two-hundred years. Naturally, each side would develop on their own course, and really any notion of CA as part of the USA gradually begins to be lost. This becomes very much apparent once you remove the barriers for communication after 200 years.

I see that you don't believe in verification, which is fair enough. I can agree on that much. But I am very much in Karl Popper's camp on this one. We can at least come up with conjecture, test, and refute much of it. In other words, an open society is the best society.


SweetPerplexity wrote

Yuki_Narukami wrote:

I just say what's on my mind at the moment and if that were to offend the people in the thread then that's their own fucking problem.


You must have a very easy purposeless life.


Quite possibly true, but considering the cultural norms for the West, I don't really see how you came to this conclusion.


SweetPerplexity wrote

violentlypukes wrote:

Mostly I'll just skim through some of the posts.
But I won't really comment.
I dislike conflict in my court so I don't play ball.


You have a good attitude.


And yet, you don't adhere to what you admire. Just above, you essentially called someone a loser for holding an idea you disagreed with. Instead of shying away, which you initially advocated, you engaged. But you did not engage in the discussion or the debate, rather you simply issued an ad hominem, which to me quite clearly contradicts the standards you have set for yourself and others as a guide towards a peaceful community.
41641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/25/15
Depends on the subject. If it has to do with gender/idiot pronouns/ sjw bullshit like I used to deal with on tumblr it'll likely get me riled up.

Like what moronic filth uses objective pronouns "it/it's" to describe themselves, no offense but that's dehumanization. I'm not going to dehumanize a human.:
1264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/15 , edited 4/25/15

Rohzek wrote:


SweetPerplexity wrote:

We need to a lot of sympathy to get along, but that's as far as I can go in agreeing with you. Our objective is to maintain a peaceful, flourishing society, filled with positive people who wish to make a positive contribution to it. If we have any differences in opinion, they should be sorted out privately, and as peacefully as possible. Our ultimate objective should be to help each other, make each other happy and to try to be nice so we all feel welcome here. We shouldn't slide down a slippery slope to starting fights and breeding hatred, by testing the boundaries. As this website becomes more popular, more puerile people come here, and all they want is to have fun, even if it has to be by trolling and pretending to have a controversial opinion for attention.


So don't rock the boat, even when one believes someone is clearly wrong? If communal feeling comes at the expense of the suppression of individuality, then why bother being part of a community? Is not the community for the enhancement of the individual? I at least think so. A community is an idea that one decides to believe in and adhere to, rather than it being a concrete entity. In other words, people share a common idea of what a community is through communication and constant affirmation.

If someone is seeking some sort of social acceptance, then should that acceptance not be based upon the acceptance of their true selves, rather than a false image that they put on? No doubt, many people here probably and intentionally put on false faces from time to time, but I would hardly qualify that as based upon a strict adherence to some sort of pacifist-like ideal.

The problem with what you are proposing is the fact that we cannot test or potentially falsify the existence of the community without communication. If people are to forgo their honest selves for the sake of some sort of false peace, then the community or society naturally cannot be scrutinized. In other words, what each and every person thinks is the society or community is not based upon any observation of honest thought. Of course, knowing whether or not someone's expressed thoughts are honest is well-nigh impossible. But this is no cause for despair. Just as we accept the value of our senses because that is all we really have, then we can accept what we perceive to be people's thoughts as probably true and honest expressions from the individual. But I digress. Once you start limiting what can or cannot be communication for the sake of a false peace, then the possibility of sharing and synchronizing the idea of what the community is ceases in many ways. Once that begins, people inevitably begin to hold very diverging views of what the community is (much more than normal), and therefore, the community as an ideal type (to borrow from Weber) ceases to exist. This therefore, impedes the success and purpose of the community since it is to enhance the individual. If the individual is constantly lying or suppressing themselves for the sake of the community, then they have subverted the initial purpose of the community to begin with. Such actions should not be construed as self-sacrifice, precisely because self-sacrifice is a form of honest expression of the individual.

A hypothetical example would be something like, let's say California lost communication with the rest of the USA except that it can send and receive a limited amount of info once a month for the next two-hundred years. Naturally, each side would develop on their own course, and really any notion of CA as part of the USA gradually begins to be lost. This becomes very much apparent once you remove the barriers for communication after 200 years.

I see that you don't believe in verification, which is fair enough. I can agree on that much. But I am very much in Karl Popper's camp on this one. We can at least come up with conjecture, test, and refute much of it. In other words, an open society is the best society.

Quite possibly true, but considering the cultural norms for the West, I don't really see how you came to this conclusion.

And yet, you don't adhere to what you admire. Just above, you essentially called someone a loser for holding an idea you disagreed with. Instead of shying away, which you initially advocated, you engaged. But you did not engage in the discussion or the debate, rather you simply issued an ad hominem, which to me quite clearly contradicts the standards you have set for yourself and others as a guide towards a peaceful community.


What is a person's true self?
We all seem to define it differently.
And people within the community should be allowed to disagree with each other, but not over controversial topics, they can disagree over what their favourite anime is, or what their favourite beverage is. When they disagree they should do it in a civil manner. The community can still flourish if people choose not to talk about controversial topics. It's better to bite your tongue and be nice, then breed hatred or enmity between individuals. The purpose of the community is to provide an environment for the individual to identify with others with similar interests to his/herself.
I would think Karl Popper would subscribe to my philosophies, since he founded negative utilitarianism, and my view coincides with a negative utilitarian's beliefs.
I came to my earlier conclusion about an individual having an easy life, because that individual hasn't learned how toxic hatred can be to a community, or has an external locus of control and surrenders to the issues in the community by becoming a part of them.

Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/15


A person's true self is essentially what an individual decides is their true selves. It is based upon their own criteria, and cannot objectively be verified by other people. Hence, why I said we should take what others think as honest thoughts for the most part. However, my moral objection was that if a person was not acting according to their true selves, then the society or community no longer serves its primary purpose: the benefit of the individual, precisely because the individual is not engaging and exchanging with others in an honest fashion. Therefore, they will never truly identify with their fellow men and women. You might like to avoid controversy and thus remain your true self in your acts and associations. However, not everyone has those same inclinations. And they shouldn't feel inhibited to suppress themselves if it comes at the price of self-betrayal. So you deciding to avoid controversy, and someone like me deciding to engage in controversial debates are in many senses similar. We would both be acting according to our true selves, because that is how we conceive of our respective individualities.

I would also like to point out what is or isn't controversial is very much a subjective line indeed. The potential for offense and controversy is as endless as your dictionary. While one might feel the need to ignore this article due to its title, I urge you and others to at least read it and not judge a book by its cover: http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/in_defense_of_prejudice/

As for Karl Popper's political philosophy, I am inclined to disagree with it. The problem with his idea is that the demarcation relies on the very same mechanism as the Marxists and historicists he so adamantly opposed. I am a big fan of Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science, but I have some serious disagreements with his political philosophies. That being said, I do enjoy his book The Poverty of Historicism.


SweetPerplexity wrote


I am specifically referring to your response to Yuki_Nakurami, in which you did not merely refer to them as having an easy life, but a purposeless life as well. That doesn't sound very "let's all get along" to me at all.
1264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/26/15 , edited 5/27/16

animegirl2222 wrote:

Depends on the subject. If it has to do with gender/idiot pronouns/ sjw bullshit like I used to deal with on tumblr it'll likely get me riled up.

Like what moronic filth uses objective pronouns "it/it's" to describe themselves, no offense but that's dehumanization. I'm not going to dehumanize a human.:


It's good that you're not willing to dehumanise a person and everything. However, you and I can't possibly understand people who need others to refer to them using pronouns such as "it/it's" and since we're not willing to refer to them using those pronouns why don't we use "they/them" at least that way it's not as dehumanising. Since we can't understand these people we have no right to get angry at them.
Posted 5/27/16 , edited 5/27/16
This is the internet, where people argue over problems ranging from huge to petty with minor provocation. If a topic manages to catch my eye, of course I jump right into the fire and start arguing. It's fun and I like logically breaking down ideas and finding both merits and flaws. Or offending easily offended people. That's fun too.

If the discussion starts to make me upset, I can just leave without even having to come up with an awkward goodbye. That's the nice thing about bickering with people you will probably never meet through a screen and a keyboard.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.