Any talk that is about Google's systemic influence or role is political by definition, nothing wrong with political. People and companies have political ideologies and it's good to discuss them.
I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: 'In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.' I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game.
That's quite a grab bag. Should we throw in radical veganism, Zionism, and libertarianism too? How are you going to measure the "moral equivalency" or non-equivalency of these positions?
So, to get started, these are all objects in some category, but I'm not sure what the defining features of this category are. They all have beliefs about groups of people, sort of (libertarianism going for "all individuals" often, veganism involving animals on par with people with respect to certain rights). Several involve thoughts on government (black nationalism, Zionism, libertarianism) and others don't (white supremacy, feminism, veganism) so that can't quite be it. Some explicitly put down other groups ("supremacy" is a giveaway) and others don't (feminism doesn't, black nationalism often doesn't, depends on the flavor of veganism and Zionism).
Even if you leave out my additions, what makes feminism, black nationalism, and white supremacy comparable? Why did you put them together? One's racist, one's separatist, and one is about equality; they don't have the same relationships to governance; going back to category theory how are you going to construct morphisms between these to compare them?
Which is what I was trying to get at - I don't think that identity politics are useful anymore in the modern age we live in.
What's inconsistent to me is if one accepts the moral superiority of one type of identity politics over another. Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all.
> Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all.
"Identity politics" is not about what people say, it's about how they organize. It neither validates nor invalidates one's arguments. I reject your assertion.
That's an opinion. I've seen quite a few feminists committed to blanket assumptions of what's wrong with men, or that feminism requires women be chosen over men, as opposed to having equal opportunity. It is entirely possible to see certain feminists in much the same vein as I'd evaluate a white supremacist.
Bear in mind, there's a "feminist" out there who's advocated for reducing the male population of the earth by 90%. Obviously a radical example, but my point is, you can treat these widespread viewpoints as cut and dry as you've placed them.
What kind of question is that? Only the most ridiculous strawman of feminism could compare to __ supremacy. (I won't address "black nationalism" because the term is too unspecific.)
> You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor.
Nah. If someone who believes the Earth is flat is willing to spend 12 hours a day arguing on forums, your best move is to refuse to engage. You will never convince them, and they will always outlast you and feel victorious.
I think it was meant more in the general sense, not the absolute. Naturally you have to ascertain the good faith and sanity of your potential counterpart, but in general, there's a difference between attempting to have a discussion and being unable to find common ground in a reasonable time frame and flat out refusing to engage with someone whose beliefs you've illegitimately labeled taboo.
The issue is not that people make a serious and earnest effort to understand the opposing side, but tire before they're able to understand the other POV. The issue is rather that they apply one or more of a handful of ethereal, unfalsifiable labels to their opponent, and then believe that gives them license to dismiss the opponent's POV out of hand without addressing or processing it.
When such people hear something challenging to their favored notions, instead of saying "Wow, I'll need to think about that", they say "You're a [bigot|racist|%phobe|redneck|yuppie|commie|socialist|...].", mutter additional insults under their breath, tell you not to try to show your disgusting ignorant face around here anymore or else, and pat themselves on the back for their righteousness while they walk away.
Sure, you should try to pause and understand someone's opinion. But equally important is not doing that ad infinitum. Some people are just wrong. Rejecting someone's arguments entirely should be done very sparingly, but sometimes it's a valid option.
Oh god ^this. There is a particularly broken specimen of human on a skeptical website who's username reflects his obsession, "Sfseaserpent". He believes that there is a sea serpent, essentially a biblical dragon, living in the San Francisco bay. There is no amount of debating or reasoning which can move him one iota, and the most you can achieve is to cause him to stop acknowledging your existence for a time.
I have had experience elsewhere with someone who trolls various forums in an effort to spread the "good word" about Jehova. Sometimes, "The only winning move is not to play." It's not always the case, and sure, that line can be used as an excuse by people in bad faith to avoid an argument; it's still the prudent course sometimes.
This sounds like the textbook definition of trolling. If you honestly believe the sea serpent guy I think you're probably the one being taken for a ride. You're right with the Wargames quote in any case though.
I've never engaged with him personally, but having seen him over literally many years, I doubt that he's anything other than a sincere maniac. He's not good at getting a rise out of people... he always ends up being the one to lose his temper and flame OUT. Same with the Jehovah's Witness.
Trolls are there, all over the place, but there are "True Believers" too, and they're even more immovable and pointless.
Musk would like to sit down for coffee with the border guards who are detaining him and try to steer them onto a wiser course. Which will totally work super well any minute now! All he has to do is show he supports them and is willing to work with them and they'll certainly change how they operate!
