Scrolls of Lore Forums

Scrolls of Lore Forums (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/index.php)
-   Halls of Lordaeron (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   SABs (Social activist bullshit) (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/showthread.php?t=216883)

SmokeBlader 04-06-2015 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feltongue (Post 1287850)
... it is?

Because:

Yes it is. Plenty of forums are infested with this stuff.

Mutterscrawl 04-06-2015 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeBlader (Post 1287907)
Yes it is. Plenty of forums are infested with this stuff.

Humans have a diverse range of thoughts and opinions

SmokeBlader 04-06-2015 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl (Post 1287934)
Humans have a diverse range of thoughts and opinions

It's more of a hivemind these days.

Mutterscrawl 04-06-2015 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeBlader (Post 1287942)
It's more of a hivemind these days.

You're exaggerating so much it's hard to discuss with you

Yaskaleh 04-06-2015 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl (Post 1287945)
You're exaggerating so much it's hard to discuss with you

He's right though, for once.

Anansi 04-06-2015 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaskaleh (Post 1287958)
He's right though, for once.

Those elements which subscribe to a hive mind do, indeed, subscribe to a hive mind.

Those elements which do not, do not.

Noitora 04-06-2015 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anansi (Post 1287964)
Those elements which subscribe to a hive mind do, indeed, subscribe to a hive mind.

Those elements which do not, do not.

I'm going to punch you.

Anansi 04-06-2015 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noitora (Post 1288018)
I'm going to punch you.

Oh, I bet you say that to all the pretty girls.

SmokeBlader 04-06-2015 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noitora (Post 1288018)
I'm going to punch you.

I'm going to oppress you.

Insipid_Lobster 04-06-2015 12:09 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CB6U93pUEAEw-z5.jpg:large

Ruinshin 04-06-2015 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insipid_lobster (Post 1288043)

<3

Ujimasa Hojo 04-06-2015 07:55 PM

Quote:

Queen must protect the king.
Isn't the notion of a woman protecting a man an attack on the patriarchy?

SmokeBlader 04-06-2015 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ujimasa Hojo (Post 1288245)
Isn't the notion of a woman protecting a man an attack on the patriarchy?

He's the king though. He holds more authority by default.

Sagara 04-07-2015 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ujimasa Hojo (Post 1288245)
Isn't the notion of a woman protecting a man an attack on the patriarchy?

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/52e4...d9ddc04156.jpg
From a certain point of view.

If the women acts on her own volition against accepted norms of the hierarchy (note the nuance), yeah.
If she acts as she is expected to, she's simply reinforcing the rule.

That paradox is pretty interesting in explaining the strenghts/weaknesses of social justice, actually.

Ma Caque Attaque 04-07-2015 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagara (Post 1288313)
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/52e4...d9ddc04156.jpg
From a certain point of view.

If the women acts on her own volition against accepted norms of the hierarchy (note the nuance), yeah.
If she acts as she is expected to, she's simply reinforcing the rule.

That paradox is pretty interesting in explaining the strenghts/weaknesses of social justice, actually.

I prefer:

You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Sagara 04-07-2015 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ma Caque Attaque (Post 1288319)
I prefer:

You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

That's the annoying/fascinating thing: if all that matters is perception, then everyone's perception is equally valid, because, hey, it's 100% real perception, with real chuncks of perception inside!

Which leads to the ultimate point that debate and conflict is useless - because the other guy's opinion is equally valid. So, in a way, basing yourself on perception is impossible, because you have to inherently accept either the paradoxes of all perceptions being true, or else that some perceptions are more valid than others.

Now, let's not throw stones - the entirety of human existence is about looking for more valid perceptions, so it's actually a common problem. The only thing that really changed is the window dressing.

Leading then to what I believe to be the one REALLY interesting question: how does one define, in logical terms and accepting that the whole of our experience is perception, what makes one perception more valid?

Ma Caque Attaque 04-07-2015 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagara (Post 1288327)
That's the annoying/fascinating thing: if all that matters is perception, then everyone's perception is equally valid, because, hey, it's 100% real perception, with real chuncks of perception inside!

Which leads to the ultimate point that debate and conflict is useless - because the other guy's opinion is equally valid. So, in a way, basing yourself on perception is impossible, because you have to inherently accept either the paradoxes of all perceptions being true, or else that some perceptions are more valid than others.

Now, let's not throw stones - the entirety of human existence is about looking for more valid perceptions, so it's actually a common problem. The only thing that really changed is the window dressing.

Leading then to what I believe to be the one REALLY interesting question: how does one define, in logical terms and accepting that the whole of our experience is perception, what makes one perception more valid?

Individual versus the collective/society makes a point either valid or not valid.

One person alone does not make a perception a valid for the society as a whole, but as that one person builds concensious, then the perception they espouse becomes valid as the societle norm, until another individual builds another or opposite perception and then they duke it out until one perception is declared the norm for the society.

It's kinda like the old saw: In Communist Russia everyone is equal. But some are more equal than others.

Yaskaleh 04-07-2015 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ma Caque Attaque (Post 1288331)
Individual versus the collective/society makes a point either valid or not valid.

One person alone does not make a perception a valid for the society as a whole, but as that one person builds concensious, then the perception they espouse becomes valid as the societle norm, until another individual builds another or opposite perception and then they duke it out until one perception is declared the norm for the society.

It's kinda like the old saw: In Communist Russia everyone is equal. But some are more equal than others.

Consensus is stagnation.

Sagara 04-07-2015 03:21 AM

a.k.a. Tyrrany by the majority.

I'm more inclined to believe that applicability leads to validity - i.e., does your pet theory help explain and understand, or does it confuses thing further?

Quick note that it does not imply your idea need to be absolutely bulletproof - quite a few ideas had holes in them that required extra ideas to finally make sense of.

That's the one thing I really enjoy with SJ - it brings up interesting theories on social structure and interaction. It's just a matter of sorting out the muck of self-obsessed BS to get to the real researchers (see above, applicability).

Noitora 04-07-2015 04:34 AM

Tie up all whites?

PajamaSalad 04-07-2015 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ujimasa Hojo (Post 1288245)
Isn't the notion of a woman protecting a man an attack on the patriarchy?

Maybe.

Anansi 04-07-2015 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ujimasa Hojo (Post 1288245)
Isn't the notion of a woman protecting a man an attack on the patriarchy?

I think that's part of the joke. That she selectively targeted the rule that best fit her agenda even though there was a 'feminist' rule present as well.

Ma Caque Attaque 04-09-2015 12:04 AM

My Little Pony: Social Marxism is Magic?

PajamaSalad 04-09-2015 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anansi (Post 1288545)
I think that's part of the joke. That she selectively targeted the rule that best fit her agenda even though there was a 'feminist' rule present as well.

Do you think the people that the comic is mocking would ever protect anybody?

Saranus 04-09-2015 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pajamasalad (Post 1289022)
Do you think the people that the comic is mocking would ever protect anybody?

Sounds like the kind of thing that could be argued back and forth for a page and a half or so.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.