38 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

Dear people of the Invicta Forums,

 

Some of you have, of late, become fond of using the “I have an opinion that <unpopular thing>, you need to accept it or you’re the offensive one here” defense as of late. As the resident teacher (okay so I teach AI and machine perceptions), and qualified “Thought Policewoman”, check my badge, I thought I’d just fill you in on something important.

 

There are two kinds of opinions. Informed opinions, and uninformed opinions.

Uninformed opinions are the opinions you know and love. You think a thing, that’s how you feel it should be, and maybe you’ve heard from some other people or a blog or something that that is how it is. These are, of course, fine to have, for some questions it’s not possible to know any more, and most of the opinions any one of us hold are uninformed.

Informed opinions are a little different. They are opinions that have backing proof, not just people talking, but actual evidence, solid stuff we’ve seen, or have seen official reports of. Not “Studies show blah blah blah”, but peer reviewed stuff that we’ve had the chance to go in depth about. This isn’t always the case, but if there appears to be enough information (get it, informed) of enough quality that you can call back on when you need to, then you’ve got an informed opinion.

 

Now this is all fine and wonderful, but there’s a catch. Opinions can be wrong. You can still hold them, you’re just wrong that’s all. It’s like guessing the wrong answer while watching Jeopardy, you’re totally allowed to call bullshit, you’re just wrong. Being wrong is not neccisarily bad, but we’ll get to that.

Uninformed opinions are very often wrong, because they have no information behind them, you’ve picked an idea up, or picked it out of the air, and there’s no proof really that you can check to see if it makes any sense. Sometimes they are right, but that’s more luck than providence.

Informed opinions can also be wrong. People thought the world was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth, that Europe was the center of everything, that Zeus was the king of the Gods, that whites were superior, and that nuclear war was inevitable. These were all opinions that had information of a reasonably good quality behind it, and it was all wrong. What is important is that it was disproved by another informed opinion. Uninformed opinions don’t get to play.

 

Here’s where this all comes in to play. Due to the advancement of human society, and the rapid speed at which that advancement is coming along at, a number of informed opinions that were concrete cornerstones of the world are being rolled back by new, better, informed opinions. These old opinions were so powerful, so concrete and so dependable, that many people simply took them on faith and kept them as uninformed opinions. The problem is that now informed opinions are fighting uninformed opinions, and the two fight very differently. Informed opinions try to overpower with their facts, because surely the other informed opinion holders will go “Oh, well that is a lot of information that proves me wrong, I might have to research this more”. You’ll see something similar to that whenever Shokkou and I fight, when we’re not being terrible trolls, of course. Uninformed opinions fight by getting more and more aggressive and dismissive of the other, because it’s a core part of our beings and we’re not letting someone destroy that. You’ll see that whenever I fight with most of you about religion. Many of you already have.

 

The real problem here is, some of these wrong, old, strong, uninformed opinions are hurting people. Real people that really exist. They’re fighting with information, trying to get people to see what is really going on, and they’re fighting against people who are dismissive, aggressive, unreasonable, and offensive, because those people are fighting against something core to their being. And that’s the problem with having an opinion that is wrong. If you’re not careful, you’ll hurt a lot of people. You’ll become a monster, who won’t deserve to be in the conversation anymore.

 

I’d like for everyone to keep that in mind when derisively making fun of something they think is a Tumblr only phenomenon, or attacking liberals, or attacking conservatives, or attacking anyone at all. You have an opinion, and of course we all respect that. But if you’re wrong, we reserve the right to tell you that you are, and where you can find out what the truth is. And if you’re aggressive and offensive about it, or simply come with the unreasonable intent of starting a fight, we reserve the right to retaliate in kind.

 

Fight with ideas and knowledge, not with insults and derision. There are real people out there, with real problems that nobody has any right to quantify, and nobody wants to hurt them.

 

<3 ~ Redezra

 

PS: Goddamnit Anna, I wanted to rant, why’d you lock the previous thread?

PPS: PM me if you need snuggles <3

[*Anastasia]

You're right again, of course, though what I find most interesting about all of this is that the areas where you and I have often argued in the past have been areas where we're obviously both informed, yet still disagree, and both think each other wrong, to some degree or another.
 

Fight with ideas and knowledge, not with insults and derision.

QFT.
 

PS: Goddamnit Anna, I wanted to rant, why’d you lock the previous thread?

Mainly because I didn't see the thread going anywhere productive, and it wasn't ever intended to. I'm not a fan of the level of shitposting that exists on this forum, but I've learned to tolerate it. However, I'm not going to allow shitposters or trolls to give actual bigots yet another platform. There are plenty enough of those in other areas of the internet and the world at large without these forums amplifying them further.

[Shokkou]

You know what you should write an open letter to?

[Redezra]

You know what you should write an open letter to?

George Soros?

 

Was that the right answer? DId I win points?

 

 

You're right again, of course, though what I find most interesting about all of this is that the areas where you and I have often argued in the past have been areas where we're obviously both informed, yet still disagree, and both think each other wrong, to some degree or another.
 

Fight with ideas and knowledge, not with insults and derision.

QFT.
 

>

PS: Goddamnit Anna, I wanted to rant, why’d you lock the previous thread?

Mainly because I didn't see the thread going anywhere productive, and it wasn't ever intended to. I'm not a fan of the level of shitposting that exists on this forum, but I've learned to tolerate it. However, I'm not going to allow shitposters or trolls to give actual bigots yet another platform. There are plenty enough of those in other areas of the internet and the world at large without these forums amplifying them further.

 

 

First up, that's the beauty of subjective things, we don't know what the actual hard truth is, nor sometimes will we ever know. The point is that people should be "Well, I believe this thing, but I get why people would believe this other thing, and I understand how that might feel, and how me approaching this from another side might feel" regardless of whether or not you think you're right. Cause in some cases it's not possible to know.

 

Second, fair point, I think now after having a good sleep that it's own thread was probably a better place to put this too.

[Shokkou]

You know what you should write an open letter to?

George Soros?
 
Was that the right answer? DId I win points?

No. You should write an open letter to these:

Spoiler

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Ooh! Ooh! I know what he means!

 

On the main topic of this thread, too many people in general equate disagreement with persecution. 

[Shokkou]

Looking back through that thread, I'm disappointed I didn't get to jump in while it was unlocked. xoin's threads are always such a treat and he was in top form in that one.

[He who posts]

TL;DR

[Redezra]

TL;DR

 

I take this as official warrant to say whatever I like about you in other threads. You are warned.

[He who posts]

TL;DR

 
I take this as official warrant to say whatever I like about you in other threads. You are warned.

You weren't before?

[*Anastasia]

Ooh! Ooh! I know what he means!
 
On the main topic of this thread, too many people in general equate disagreement with persecution. 

Here's the thing, Jor, I get the point you're trying to make, but no. Just no. You're wrong, and now, in the spirit of this thread, I will counter your uninformed opinion with the reasons why it's wrong.

Here are some statements I disagree with:

• White people constitute the superior race
• Women exist solely for men's sexual pleasure
• Gay people are an abomination of nature
• There exist only two genders, determined by the genitals a person is born with

I find these statements very offensive, not because I disagree with them—my disagreement with them is tangential—but because they're bigoted horseshit, and if and when people express such opinions, I'm damnedwell going to call them out on that bigotry.

 

Look, I get that (there is at least the perception that) there are some groups of people who like to wield the word "offended" like some sort of EMP to shut down disagreement with them, but I feel, or at least I hope (for all our sakes), that most of the people who frequent these forums have risen above such petulance. I should further hope that, bearing that in mind, if someone claims to find offense in something someone else has said, we can all take a moment to evaluate whether or not that's warranted before spouting off as you have done, accusing them of having a persecution complex.

 

Because put quite simply, I'm not going to apologize for being offended by bigotry, nor am I going to let you try to argue, as was done in the thread this replies to, that I'm somehow unwarranted in my response thereto. As Redezra said, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and entertain opinions that concretely hurt real people. If you want to disagree with me on some abstract of ideology, be my guest. God knows a lot of people do. But these things aren't abstract, and the hatred they imply isn't abstract, and I'm not going to be told I have to put up with it solely because everyone's entitled to their opinions.

 

When people feel comfortable expressing hatred and bigotry, that hatred and bigotry goes mainstream. It finds its way into our stores, where people find it acceptable to refuse to serve others solely because of who they are. It finds its way into our streets, where people are harassed or even attacked because they don't look the way others want them to. It finds its way into our public policy, where those our ignorant prejudices have taught us to hate find themselves unable to function even at the most basic level as human beings. Bigotry enacted as societal fact is persecution.

 

So no, I don't have a persecution complex because someone disagreed with me about the basic facts of who I am as a person. And no, I don't 'equate disagreement with persecution.' But yes, actually, I will be offended by ignorant hatred, and I will seek to counter it. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

[He who posts]

Jesus christ people don't you have something better to do instead of these walls of text.

[*Anastasia]

Jesus christ people don't you have something better to do instead of these walls of text.

Don't you have something better to do instead of these shitposts? 

[He who posts]

Jesus christ people don't you have something better to do instead of these walls of text.

Don't you have something better to do instead of these shitposts? 

Sadly, no.

[Shokkou]

I can see this is a hot-button topic, but I can't not point out how some of this seems a bit self-contradicting on two levels. The first being "I hope we're all beyond using offense to shut down people we disagree with... except this time" (because however much of a twat that guy was being, that's exactly what happened). The second being "I don't equate disagreement with persecution... except in this case." I'm not saying you were wrong to in this case. I don't even think Jorost's comment was directed at you, but let's be real here. I don't think that this one guy is enacting societal fact, and if he is what good would shutting down his ability to speak in this one place do compared to shooting him down with some facts? Did no one have any good studies they could have linked in there to make him look like a fool? We'll never know now.

[*Anastasia]

I can see this is a hot-button topic, but I can't not point out how some of this seems a bit self-contradicting on two levels. The first being "I hope we're all beyond using offense to shut down people we disagree with... except this time" (because however much of a twat that guy was being, that's exactly what happened). The second being "I don't equate disagreement with persecution... except in this case." I'm not saying you were wrong to in this case. I don't even think Jorost's comment was directed at you, but let's be real here. I don't think that this one guy is enacting societal fact, and if he is what good would shutting down his ability to speak in this one place do compared to shooting him down with some facts? Did no one have any good studies they could have linked in there to make him look like a fool? We'll never know now.

 

Some fair points here. I initially littered this post with quote boxes and replies, but in the interests of keeping my thoughts coherent, I've streamlined my response somewhat.

 

Firstly, let me clarify that, for what it's worth, I'm not trying to claim that this particular discussion constituted some sort of persecution, nor that one person's opinion, by itself, is responsible for wider societal problems. Someone being an asshole on the internet isn't persecution, no matter how many reactionaries might try to lead you to that conclusion. The point I was trying, and perhaps failed, to make was that when hatred is given a platform, it's prone to lead to substantial societal problems.

I was trying to keep my post as broad as possible, but all the things I listed? Those are things that are happening every single day, in the US and around the world, because hatred has become the societal norm. Bakeries refusing to serve gay couples. Muslim women being assaulted because of their faith, and women with short hair being harassed in restrooms. Trans people being proscribed by law from safely using those restrooms. Women being told to see dentists for their reproductive healthcare.

 

These larger societal problems which could very rightly be called persecution certainly aren't the fault of one person on a forum, but they don't exist in a vacuum, either. No sane person wakes up one morning and decides to attack people because of their race, or their religion, or their gender, or to propose a law that concretely harms their ability to live normal lives because of such reasons. But these things happen anyway, because this hatred has been engendered by a society which permits bigotry to enter the cultural dialogue as if it were normal. It's not normal, and going back to Redezra's original post, these wrong, uninformed opinions are hurting people. Real people that really exist. This is precisely why most modern, developed countries have hate speech laws that specifically say, 'No, it is not okay to incite hatred against people just because they're different from you.'

 

Because yes, people could have engaged with these views in that thread, to try to put forth an argument against these views. And indeed, some did before I closed the thread, and at the time the original post was made, I had no intention of actually closing it in order to, as you put it, 'shut down his ability to speak.' As I said in my first reply to this thread, that's not why I ended up closing it, either. But what exactly does engaging or arguing against bigotry do? Yeah, maybe it makes the proponent look like a fool. Hell, maybe in a perfect universe it even persuades him to change his mind. But it still normalizes the views he was expressing; it still deems them worthy of debate. And that is the societal condition that exists that leads people to believe it's acceptable to hold those views in the first place.

 

Does stopping hate speech from one individual or in one thread or on one forum remedy all society's woes? Of course not. But I hope, at least, that it sends the message that in this one little corner of the internet that we call home, that's not going to be considered normal. I feel that makes Invicta a little bit better.

[Manoka]

So, the most hateful, derisive, insulting person on the forums who constantly attacks people instead of providing a logical argument and who is literally telling us our opinion's are wrong... is trying to tell us to back our points with logic and not, all of the described things. 

 

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

[The Dark Empire]

So, the most hateful, derisive, insulting person on the forums who constantly attacks people instead of providing a logical argument and who is literally telling us our opinion's are wrong... is trying to tell us to back our points with logic and not, all of the described things.

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

Maybe she's growing up. We all made stupid posts out of emotion in the past but we can always learn to be more civil and fight hate with kindness and understanding.

[Manoka]

So, the most hateful, derisive, insulting person on the forums who constantly attacks people instead of providing a logical argument and who is literally telling us our opinion's are wrong... is trying to tell us to back our points with logic and not, all of the described things.

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

Maybe she's growing up. We all made stupid posts out of emotion in the past but we can always learn to be more civil and fight hate with kindness and understanding.

Well, given that she literally said that our opinion's are not as good as her opinion's in the OP, I'd say it's evidence to the opposite but, one can hope. xP

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In reference to Ana's post, above: no, I was not talking about her comment. I wasn't really talking about anyone's comments specifically, just the general that being disagreed with = persecution. This is a very common feeling among conservatives, in particular, especially of the religious variety. Like when they equate the phrase "Happy Holidays" with a "War On Christmas." 

 

But to put it in the context of Ana's comments, the things that she was talking about are not persecution simply because they disagree with Ana's opinion; they are persecution for a variety of other, real-world reasons that have to do with equality, power, gender, and a lot more. No one's opinion is sacred just because it is their opinion. While everyone does indeed have a right to their opinion, so does everyone else — and that includes the right to disagree with other people's opinions. That disagreement in and of itself is not persecution. If you say chocolate is the best flavor and I disagree, am I persecuting you? No. But if you say chocolate is the best flavor and I disagree and kick you out of my ice cream shop, that's persecution.

 

Or, to put it in simpler terms, all persecution is disagreement, but not all disagreement is persecution.