[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1671335950407.png (392.88 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

Something I've been thinking about lately:

We all have a list of things we consider essential to our survival and basic dignity.  For me, it's shelter, food, a correct name, a correct gender, and a capacity to do or attempt to do the work I consider important.  Oh, and not being assaulted or tortured is a plus, etc.

But whoever you are and whatever your list, there are probably people you will become acquainted with who will have an opinion that you should not have these 'necessities.'  I suppose this is an opportunity to ask if you can, in fact, tolerate fewer freedoms.  Perhaps these people have something to add about not being entitled or greedy.

But in most cases you will not want to amend your list of needs, and so you will have to accept that many people do not care for you to exist in a way you find appropriate.  I struggle to feel...good about this, I guess.  To be open-minded and tolerant, since we must give ponies/people the freedom to share opinions.  Maybe some tips would be nice.

This picture is not relevant, I just thought it was nice (https://derpibooru.org/images/2225879).


File: 1671345547066.png (90.45 KB, 325x309, 325:309, 5e7ef1cdec06f96968139fd39c….png) ImgOps Google

>Existential Threats
I think that an unaligned superhuman AI is the biggest existential threat to humanity.  


File: 1671347697946.png (211.42 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.png) ImgOps Google

OK, we can work with that.  

Do you think dangerous AGI is feasible within your lifetime?

Do you think unaligned AGI will be sufficiently dominant (I guess versus aligned AGI) to be a threat to you within your lifetime?

Are there people that you see as favoring, expressing ideas in favor of, or working toward harmful AGI?

Are you human?

Now, if all those are so, how do you respond respectfully to people who don't care for your wish to have a life free of Terminator AGI, but are not actually threatening you with Terminator AGI in the moment?


Humanity in general and Americans in particular can't even come to an agreement on whether multiple groups of people even have the right to exist (to actually be alive, far beyond the question of thriving and being happy with life) at the very basic level.

So, alas, talking about something like freedom of speech or the right to health care is kind of supremely flawed from the beginning. If you don't think, say, transgender people should be allowed to breathe, why would you possibly want them to be able to publish books and set up public demonstrations? If you don't think somebody should be able to call themselves a Satanist, why for goodness' sake would you allow them to run for office someplace?

I think a core part of being an adult in these troubled times is to recognize that what you see as clearly morally obvious, 2+2=4 style fact is going to be firmly opposed in every way by your neighbor. That's just how it is. What you think is the absolute bare minimum of ethical decency is to your neighbor as extreme to them as requiring them to sprout wings and fly. I suppose it boils down to patience, humility, determination, grit, and other aspects of personal character: we are more different on the inside than orks versus elves versus hobbits and such are on the TV/movie screen but must still coexist. Accept that your neighbor might wake up one morning with the desire to chew one of your arms off because such is the nature of humanity currently. Live on.


>transgender people should [not] be allowed to breath
Right, it's about civility and patience.  This is a valid opinion that you should expect to find in your day-to-day life and you must treat with kindness.  You need only respond negativly or defensively when someone issues a credible and immediate threat to you as an individual.  At least, that's the route I see to peaceful coexistance


>this is a valid opinion
Valid in that a person holds the "opinion," sure. Valid in that it is based on logic or fact, no.
Secondly, thinking that a group of non-cis-heteronormativity people should be culled is not an opinion. It is demonstrably inhumane and wrong.

>you should expect to find in your day-to-day
No, I shouldn't. I should not expect to be told daily to be told I deserve to die because I do not conform to arbitrary social constructs. Be it in the form of media or conversations.

>You need only respond negatively or defensively when someone issues a credible and immediate threat to you as an individual
Like people actively pushing to make it nigh-impossible for people to get gender-affirming care that is shown to reduce the suicide rate? Or people pushing misinformation for decades that has led to trans youths being pushed onto the streets because their parents refuse to listen to the bulwark of science and increasing the suicide rate?
The laws and policies that current legislators at all levels that target trans people are credible and immediate threats to life.

>At least, that's the route I see to peaceful coexistance
You cannot coexist with people that want you dead.


Serious question.
Are you trying to operate in good faith because this response leaves me questioning that?

Why is your immediate response "you can't just genocide them because they want to genocide you"?

No where is the implication of violence in my post.

You educate, you make policies to protect the marginalized.
You build a society in which being a bigot has negative consequences.


>You cannot coexist with people that want you dead.
What does it mean to not coexist?


It's an opinion, for sure, but I wouldn't call it 'valid' per se.

While I don't like the fact that people who believe in violent coercion against those they don't like must be fought back using persuasive methods and other forms of nonviolent organization, I suppose things can't really go any other way. Fire doesn't stop fire. Water stops fire. Still, it feels like you're a sheep going against a wolf in some kind of contest given how much the socio-political deck is stacked against pacifistic people and for the militantly active.


A hypothetical question could be asked, "does everyone deserve to act in self defense?"  If so anyone may resist violence with violence.  But opinions having to do with violence are not violence and may just be hyperbole.  Anger at people's opinions can be used against you.


Making policies to "protect the marginalized" is just creating different marginalized. This is genuinely how the nazi party in Germany prior to WW2 saw themselves, as marginalized to a jewish elite. They saw the anti-jewish laws they passed as a form of equity, as a means of taking back what they deserved from an undeserving elite (who was never really that much of an elite in the first place).

To prop up a group through law is to make them the elite. To favor one group over another through law is to marginalize. Plain and simple. To pretend like it pointing at the *correct* people is fundamentally different is simply you identifying yourself as a supremacist of that particular flavor. There's a very, *very* fine line between passing laws to protect the marginalized, and establishing a legal system of oppression.


It is true anyone may claim to be oppressed.  The NAZI's had the opinion that the Jewish elite were their oppressors.  The Jewish people probably had to think about how to respond kindly to that opinion.


Yes, I think Nazis and bigots should be marginalized.

If you think that ant-jim crow law, anti redlining laws, and law that oppose segregation and discrimination are on the same level as the fucking Holocaust, I doubt we can ever have a meaningful conversation.

If saying bigots and Nazis should be marginalized makes me a supremacist then that really tells me all I need to know about you.



It's just an extreme rhetorical example to make the general point without the muddiness of a more grey area to confuse. It's not a statement of moral comparability. Same as using tiny models to explain the behavior of larger things.

The point is not that they're morally equitably, just that being "marginalized" is relative and subjective.

I'm also making the point that it's easy to overlook relative marginalization when you have an overly rigid dogma regarding certain groups, like how many people don't regard hate crimes committed by "less marginalized people" against "more marginalized people" as hate crimes. Just because, for example, asian people are seen to generally have it easier in America than black people, that doesn't make a black person committing violence against an Asian person, motivated by their race, any less bad. A lot of social justice dogma would dismiss such hate crimes, and that's morally repugnant and hypocritical, in my opinion.

Nazi and bigot are ideologies, which are generally acceptable to socially marginalize, so that's not a problem.


The Jews engaged in some terrorism in Nazi Germany, but that is generally seen as less important than the oppression Jews experienced during that time.  This worries you, I gather.


So you agree with me you are just being needlessly obtuse in doing so.

One, anyone that engages in that thinking is wrong, I agree. However that is in no way the broader understanding of how intersectionality or marginaliztion operates. You're tilting at windmills.

So again we should pass laws that protect groups that have historically be marginalized against by bigots to protect their civil rights.



No, you're missing my point. My point is the Nazis saw themselves as social justice warriors fighting against the oppressive overclass, just like how you see yourself. If you stay as dogmatic and uncritical as you're being, what with people falling into a "marginalized" scale and their acts being only meaningful in the context of their relative marginalization, then what stops you from holocausting those groups you see as not marginalized? If racism against Asians by blacks isn't racism, then is assault not assault? Is murder not murder? Is genocide not genocide? You've already laid a philosophical framework that would see another 6 million dead by racial motivations and not see it as wrong. That's pretty dangerous and wrong, is it not?


The point is that the thinking of the both of you would dismiss a lot of bad shit just because the "right people" are doing it. Oppressing people with laws isn't bad because the wrong people are being oppressed by them. It's the difference between writing a law that says "shall not discriminate based on race", and "shall not discriminate against black people", or "shall not discriminate against people with a marginalization score greater than or equal to 12". The writing of most modern anti-discrimination law specifically contradicts your more "marginal groups" way of thinking, as you would want to see discrimination against some groups, while the letter of a lot of anti-discrimination laws would not allow any form of discrimination. Why break the more obviously moral like of egalitarianism to try and recreate discrimination in the name of fighting against it? Surely you know that's not a path that will end in racial harmony?


The most bigoted people I've met regarded themselves the most egalitarian. Fighting, or so they claimed, for equality.

There is reason we have rules that apply to everyone, equally, regardless of who you are.
Less inevitably results in abuse. Especially by the well intentioned.


If we were to forgive Jewish violence against Nazi's because Jews were marginalized, what's to prevent us forgiving the Jews killing 6 million Nazi's in concentration camps?  Is that your question?


Who exactly do you think I want to marginalize?

You are putting words in my mouth. I agreed that oppression Olympics is bad.

But we don't.
You can't honestly tell you think the law is applied like that.


As is, sure.
But your suggestion in >>11811 seemed to suggest you desired particular legislation for certain groups everyone else doesn't get.

>"So again we should pass laws that protect groups that have historically be marginalized against by bigots to protect their civil rights."


Do I really need to explain why groups that have historically been the victims of systemic malfeasance need legal protection? Do you think that the 14th amendment is the be-all and end-all?
Do you think the ADA is creating a separate group of marginalization for disabled people?

I outlined the people I think should be marginalized. Never have I said that only gays get this, or Asians this. I again said that oppression olympics are bad and get us nowhere in this conversation. No one is arguing for a tiered system of rights.

I am arguing for equal protection, which does not exist/is actively being fought against by certain political groups.


Memory serves, the ADA is quite general, and doesn't specify disabilities, as you put it, "that have historically be marginalized ".

Regardless, this line is why ultimately I am under the perspective that, contrary to what you say, these are unlikely to be applied equally.
Now, if you're saying that post was in error, and those words said weren't what you meant, by all means, I'm happy to accept that.
But I've still got my opposition to inequal treatment under the law, nonetheless.


Do you think that disabled people have not been historically marginalized? Do you honestly think I am arguing that blind people should have different rights than deaf people?

Is it really just because I used the word marginalized? Do you think this is some gotcha? Is this really you just splitting hairs over the subjectivity of words?

Your smugness is both unearned and uncalled for. No one is for unequal treatment in this argument and your insinuation that I am is appalling.


In their totality, for every single disability one might have, to the point of including new classifications previously unknown?
No, not really.
Some, yes. All, no.

The rest here seems to be you simply flailing because I had the audacity to take issue with what you've said.
I don't see benefit nor productivity in addressing such things. You can assume my motive all you like, I'm afraid I don't overly care what presumptions you deign to ascribe for the sin of pointing to a phrase you've given that seems to contradict what you're saying now.


Incidentally, it isn't the word "marginalized", which would've been apparent if you bothered to read what I've said.
But you were quite clearly too busy being affronted by some perceived slight on your pride to engage which such honestly.

If it's such an emotional subject for you, I'd suggest taking a breather, and coming back to it, instead of jumping down people's throats for petty presumptions.


File: 1674013404860.png (256.02 KB, 944x911, 944:911, 1507233.png) ImgOps Google

It sounds like a conflation of wants and needs.  A person won't die if someone doesn't recognize their "correct name" - even if this goes on for years or decades or indefinitely.  In contrast, a person will die without food relatively quickly.


Except for, you know, the mental and emotional toll that this sort of things takes on a person, which very provably often results in suicide.

There are more existential threats than just those that affect your physical body directly, like not having enough food or protection from the elements. Mental and emotional damage can have terrible effects on a person physically, both psychosomatic and through self harm.

Its like the Heirarchy of Needs. Obviously you need to care for your physical needs first or you will die very quickly, but if you ignore the mental and emotional needs, you get trapped in a slow death.


We need a word for something that is a bit more than a preference but will not actually cause imminent death.  Like X describes a desire to not spend life as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement.


I suppose food is only a need for those who are starving and not going to die from some cause other than starvation (eg, disease).  Food is not a general human need as few are starving at any given time.

We need better words, perhaps. As you say, a Heirarchy of Needs [and Wants].

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]