@ChaosEngine

I think we're getting a bit far off from the original topic, so I'll try to stay focused on my original point: you're still saying this guy in the video was presented with evidence and refused to change his mind.

He wasn't.

He was asked a rhetorical question to which he spontaneously replied in the way that he felt would be most in line with the thinking of his political party since he knew he was going to be on TV. His throwaway answer triggered your angry throwaway comment and here we are, with you apparently unable to grasp the irony of how your demonizing a group of "wooly thinking" bogeymen (who according to you are responsible for slavery, homophobia, and the drug war among other things) is completely mirroring the rhetoric of all the people in the video who are demonizing the BLM movement and the rhetoric of Trump in general regarding Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

You can see how well that approach is working for the Republicans, so it's baffling to me why you'd take that approach in dealing with something that is a real problem--convincing people to change their minds about beliefs that are deeply held but also based on what others would say is faulty reasoning (but seems perfectly reasonable to the person holding the belief). I think you'll find, along with the Republicans, that this approach of demonizing the "other" (who exists only in your mind--when was the last time you met someone who actually believed they were possessed by demons when they caught a cold?) does nothing to solve problems but in fact exacerbates them instead.

And that concludes all I have to say on the subject. I'll read whatever response you post but won't be replying in this thread again.

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

Well, first off, the part about sterilising and killing was pretty obviously tongue in cheek, although I take your point that some Trump supporters might make the same point seriously.

That said, I have an expectation that the people on this site are smart enough to read what I said as comic hyperbole. As for it being in poor taste, that's up to the listener. I certainly found it in much better taste than Jim Jeffries bit on Bill Cosby, but as you quoted Reginald D Hunter "take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

All comedy aside, I was being 100% serious when I said that if you really believe in something so much that no evidence will change your mind, then you shouldn't be voting let alone running for office.

As for getting the same response at the DNC.... you're almost certainly right. It would be about different issues (probably vaccines, GMOs and the like), but they would be just as wrong as the Republicans.

That anger is real and not at all misguided. Woolly thinking has held the human race back for millennia and caused untold suffering and horror: racism/slavery, sexism, homophobia, the "war on drugs", climate change, alternative medicine.... do I need to go on?

I'm not saying you can't have a firmly held belief, and I'm not even saying that everything you believe must be fully supported by evidence, but everyone (myself included) should be willing to at least question their own dogma.

"Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" should be the simplest question to answer for anyone.

The store was wrong.

And this is funny.

And the kid sounds gay.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. (Except it is always sad to me when gay people go all internalized homophobia.)

If anyone wants to talk about which races, religions and nations have the monopoly on slavery, sexism, homophobia racial and religious discrimination, it's not Europeans these days, and certainly hasn't been for a long time.

If it's not acceptable for white people do behave this way, why do people tolerate it in other cultures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U


Seems to me like Rapper Akala's anecdotes are a bit one sided.

So you do now see why I thought you were calling him an immigrant? It certainly reads that way. Glad to know you didn't mean it.

As for killing gays in the name of Allah -- turns out not so much, now that reporting and information gathering has had time to happen.

A man who lives in America, being told on all sides that being gay is an abomination and sinful -- by some Christians, Muslims, good lord how many different sources -- who hangs out in gay bars in what pit of self-loathing because of the messages he received during his life....

A perfect case of internalized homophobia. Do a google search to find out how many of the most virulently anti-gay people turn out to actually be gay.

When this first happened, my first thought was to go up those who say gay people are sinners, take them by their lapels, look them in their eyes and say, "The blood of these people is on your hands. Your attacks on the humanity of these people who were made as God made them, have led to this horrific event."

So a hint back at you -- it isn't just sharia law that led to this. It is old fashioned religious bigotry and fear of the "other" -- very few religions are free from this crap. Certainly not Christianity. Westboro Baptist Church ring a bell?

Donald Trump is unfit for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. This is a fact.

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

There's a difference between public and private speech. If you're talking to someone you know, well, by definition you know them and you know where to draw the line. My friends throw all kinds of anti-Irish racist slurs at me that I would take serious offence at coming from someone else.

As for the idea that PC "hides" racism/sexism/homophobia, fantastic! The more it's hidden away, the less people are exposed to it, until it becomes more and more socially unacceptable to be a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole.

Again re the opera: first, it was Perth not Sydney, and second, I agree it's stupid. But it was the opera companies stupid decision to make. No-one forced them to do this.

Here's the importance point: PC is not censorship. Censorship is saying you CAN'T say this, PC is saying "maybe you SHOULDN'T".

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If someone says something racist or sexist or whatever, I have the right to express my opinion that they shouldn't have said those things. If that's PC, so be it.

Leaving aside that the mormons are on barely on the legal side of sexism, racism and homophobia (to say nothing of the unfathomably dubious origins), if someone WANTS to stay in the church, well, that's their problem.

I'd probably think they're kind of an asshole, but whatever, maybe they have a nice (aka white, straight) community or something.

None of that explains why you think that anyone (good or otherwise) NEEDS the mormon church.

A sense of community, or spiritual well being can easily be had outside the mormon church (or any church for that matter). I admit that it would be difficult if your whole family was in the church, but it'd be difficult if your whole family was in the klan too.

No, the bible is fucked up all on its own.

That its adherents have made it worse is no surprise, when your moral code comes from a book that endorses slavery, rape, xenophobia, child sacrifice, genocide, war, homophobia, torture.

Oh and 12 year olds getting married? Oh look, religion endorsed that too.

And there's a reasonable argument to be made that rapists and child molesters were "born that way" in that they may have serious mental issues. That doesn't excuse them acting on it, but one day with enough study, we might be able to identify and treat them before it becomes an issue.

SJW = "social justice warrior", i.e. someone who thinks that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, are bad things.

The fact that it is used as a pejorative by some people tells you pretty much everything you need to know about said person. Most of them are content to just be racist, misogynistic assholes, but @shang seems to think that telling people not to be a complete fuck knuckle is somehow on a par with actual terrorism (ya know, murdering people, setting them on fire, that kinda thing).

That takes a special level of stupid.

What brand of racism? Well, thanks to the amazing technology of the sift, let's do a little search..... oh look.
"Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today."

"If Blacks did not commit more crimes than other groups then women would not be clutching their purses and other demographic groups would not be as afraid."

"Your right but in Zimmerman neighborhood there have been break in by young black men. Hence young black thiefs' set the precedent for Martin to be followed." Hey, crap grammar into the bargain too!

"Funny how you don't hear jack what Black pastors protest against GAY marriage" Racism and homophobia.... bonus!

"And you wonder why blacks are still call the n word."

No, you're a fucking beacon of racial harmony and enlightenment.

You're goddamn right I'm angry. Being angry is the correct response to this. And no, I don't need any "anger management" bullshit, because I control my anger and channel it into doing useful things.

I think at least a couple parts of his premise are illogical. For example, no matter how liberal the presenters, or whatever label you want to paste on, it doesn't mean that say 'the white guy' isn't the best actor. I do like that he points out that none of us are perfect and just because we don't want to be a certain way doesn't mean that we can't be a little. I see these and most things as continuums. So you have balls out racist on one end and barely racist on the other. If you're striving to get to the far end then I think you're doing a good job as a human. Same goes for homophobia, sexism, ...

These people aren't "real americans". They're bigoted uneducated fuckwits, if this is even real.

Seriously @Trancecoach, you're now upvoting bobs homophobia?
I knew you were an asshole, but I didn't realise you sink this low.