SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the our-precious-little-snowflakes dept.
Turns out all of you who thought millennials were fascist little turds were 40% correct.
American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.
We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
And this is why you should not be allowed to vote until you're mature enough to consider the consequences of your actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:12PM
> Maybe you're just a person who disagrees with my values and logic, so you pretend that I ignore logic and facts
The lack of self-awareness is powerful in this one.
>> You never engage or consider, you only shout.
> I did respond to the comments above.
Responding is not engaging. All you ever do is shout back. You are a paragon of extremism. Trying to talk with you is like trying to talk to a westboro baptist. So much confidence all built on ignorance.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:45PM
The lack of self-awareness is powerful in this one.
To lack self-awareness, I would first have to not be able to conceive of the possibility that someone might think that about me, but I did.
Responding is not engaging.
I engaged and responded, from my point of view. Please tell me The One True Way of engaging someone.
All you ever do is shout back.
Prove it.
And since you're an AC and I don't really know what other comments you have made, I could say that all I know about you is that you make baseless accusations. It's so easy to do so when you disagree with the person you're speaking with. Not only have you claimed that I have "ignored" facts and logic, but that I haven't even attempted to engage anyone (probably using some subjective standard of "engage" so that no matter what I do or how I respond, it's impossible for me to do so). I might claim that others are being illogical, but I do no not say that they are not attempting to engage me at all.
You are a paragon of extremism.
What qualifies as extreme in your view or anyone else's view is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the validity of the position itself. That's why I do not care about these accusations of extremism: They're meaningless.
I just "engaged" you, in my view. Did I "shout back"? Is communicating or disagreeing necessarily shouting back or not engaging someone? If so, that applies to your comment as well. Please, define your terms, because otherwise I will not be able to conceive of a way to meet your standards even if I wanted to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:51PM
All you ever do is shout back.
Prove it.
You just wrote this in response to Tork:
I don't believe that speech can cause harm, or at least not any type of "harm" worth worrying about.
Utter dismissal that anything you don't believe in is of any import at all.
I engaged and responded, from my point of view. Please tell me The One True Way of engaging someone.
The "one true way" to engage is to take people's points into consideration rather than flat-out deny them. All you ever do is dismiss and then repeat your own beliefs. When someone engages with your beliefs and asks you for elaboration, background, explanation, etc all you do is turn away and dismiss their questions as not worthy and beneath you. Shouty and unexamined to the tee.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @09:29PM
Utter dismissal that anything you don't believe in is of any import at all.
How is that just shouting back? So in your view, I have to share other people's values and care about what they care about, or I am just shouting and not engaging at all?
The "one true way" to engage is to take people's points into consideration rather than flat-out deny them.
I flat-out deny them because they are either not important to me, or I think they are factually wrong. Others can do the same.
All you ever do is dismiss and then repeat your own beliefs. When someone engages with your beliefs and asks you for elaboration, background, explanation, etc all you do is turn away and dismiss their questions as not worthy and beneath you.
Oftentimes, it comes down to a battle of values. If someone values safety highly, they might be in favor of mass surveillance. Of course, since I value freedom over safety, trying to present me evidence that mass surveillance increases safety would be futile even if it was true, because I don't base my beliefs on the effectiveness of the surveillance in the first place. Instead, I base it on the fact that privacy is an important basic human desire, mass surveillance is too easily abused, and such surveillance threatens democracy itself. The fact that it may or may not stop terrorism sometimes is irrelevant to me. If someone doesn't share my values at least a little, then there is almost no hope.
But to say that I don't elaborate at all is false. Telling people that I value freedom over safety is a way of elaborating. Telling people that I don't trust the government due to the countless atrocities committed by governments throughout history is a way of elaborating. Informing people that I oppose their censorship standards partly because they are subjective and therefore impossible to actually follow is elaborating. Maybe that's not enough elaboration for you or it doesn't count somehow, but I don't know what to do.
What do you expect of me? I'm not going to discard my values for you or anyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:46PM
I flat-out deny them because they are either not important to me, or I think they are factually wrong. Others can do the same.
Yes others are free to be just as shouty and dismissive as you! Yay for freedom, boo for critical thinking!
But to say that I don't elaborate at all is false. Telling people that I value freedom over safety is a way of elaborating.
No, that's just repetition. That's the opposite of elaboration. You put in a lot of typing but it is all unexamined repetition of nothing more thoughtful than, "You are wrong, I am right."
What do you expect of me? I'm not going to discard my values for you or anyone else.
I don't expect anything of you anymore. You've proven time and again that analysis, critical thought and above all the ability to consider anyone else's perspectives are beyond your reach. You bring no insight, just one-sided ideology. And that is the definition of extremism.
Look at how you phrased your last sentence - its all about your personal ideology which has no room for anything but shouting it out over and over and over again. You are your own worst enemy. Who wants to give any consideration to someone who thinks giving consideration to anyone that disagrees with them is surrender?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @10:03PM
Yes others are free to be just as shouty and dismissive as you! Yay for freedom, boo for critical thinking!
Yeah, again, what do you expect me to do? This is somewhat similar to telling Richard Stallman to stop caring about the ethical arguments for free software and to instead just care about the technical merits; of course he's going to reject that, since he doesn't base his beliefs on the technical benefits that free software can have. I don't think that's because of a lack of critical thinking. I at least try to understand *what* my opponent believes and *why*, even if I end up rejecting their reasoning flat-out. You don't seem to be able to do the same, or at least you are not doing so now.
No, that's just repetition.
Yes, "repetition" which elaborates on my values. There was more than just that sentence, too.
But if I see countless people saying X, then there will be some repetition in my replies. That doesn't affect the validity of what I'm saying or mean that I am not elaborating, however.
You put in a lot of typing but it is all unexamined repetition of nothing more thoughtful than, "You are wrong, I am right."
You could easily oversimplify everything and say the same thing about all of your comments, just as you did here.
And that is the definition of extremism.
Your vague opinions about me seem pretty extreme.
Who wants to give any consideration to someone who thinks giving consideration to anyone that disagrees with them is surrender?
Straw man. I said that I would not change my values, not that I would not at least consider what they have to say. Even if I end up rejecting what they have to say, that doesn't mean there was no consideration at all.
And it seems to me that you're not doing a very good job of elaborating about what your own standards are and how, precisely, one could meet them. Which is kind of funny, because you keep saying how you expect nothing of me and are too tired of me to bother seriously arguing with me, so I don't see the point of all these comments and vague accusations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:17PM
> Straw man. I said that I would not change my values, not that I would not at least consider what they have to say.
The day you do that is the day hell freezes over. FYI "consider" does not mean "read and reject."
> I don't see the point of all these comments and vague accusations.
Turnabout is fair play. Content free repetition of my beliefs without a shred of consideration given to your position. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @10:24PM
The day you do that is the day hell freezes over. FYI "consider" does not mean "read and reject."
I think it's pretty clear at this point that unless I agree with your positions, you're going to say I haven't considered anything or engaged with anyone. If that's how you define those terms, there is nothing I can do.
Turnabout is fair play. Content free repetition of my beliefs without a shred of consideration given to your position. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
Truly amazing. However, I would still say that you have considered my positions; it's just that you rejected them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:27PM
> I think it's pretty clear at this point that unless I agree with your positions, you're going to say I haven't considered anything or engaged with anyone. . If that's how you define those terms, there is nothing I can do.
the lack of self-awareness is strong in this one!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @11:06PM
Actually, I never claimed that you didn't engage with me or consider my positions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:41PM
That's right. You just redefined "engage" and "consider" to something so shallow as to be meaningless as a way to avoid actual engagement as spelled out for you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it. Just like you redefined "elaboration" to mean repetition.
And, despite the fact that the only "position" I've mentioned is that the sum of your argument is that people are robots when they aren't, you decided to dismiss what I've said as hypocrisy, that I'm insisting on agreement when that tact is literally the entire sum of your posts: "You are wrong, I am right." Repeat (aka 'elaborate').
That is the lack of self awareness I was referring to. Not your literalist complaint.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:03AM
That's right. You just redefined "engage" and "consider" to something so shallow as to be meaningless as a way to avoid actual engagement as spelled out for you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it.
You simply redefined it to be something so specific and arbitrary that nothing I do could possibly satisfy you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it.
Just like you redefined "elaboration" to mean repetition.
Nope, check again. All I said was that repetition doesn't necessarily mean it's not elaboration.
And, despite the fact that the only "position" I've mentioned is that the sum of your argument is that people are robots when they aren't
Value-based arguments seem to be beyond your ability to comprehend, and you come up with all these straw men as if it will bolster your own arguments. Yes, I think people are "robots"; sure.
that I'm insisting on agreement when that tact is literally the entire sum of your posts: "You are wrong, I am right."
Speaking of repetition and a lack of self-awareness...