Even more racist than tanning.....

Some people just don't get it.

Hell, why don't we have a debate about the validity of the laws of physics, given that they were clearly developed from a Eurocentric point of view?

Welp, I suppose it is the logical extension of the trends I've seen lately (thanks for all those links to Everyday Feminism, Hark (jerk!)).

It's kind of the ultimate communist thing to do, redistribution of truth. It's not fair that most discoveries in science to have been done by the western civilization. We need a new more fair science where all cultures have contributed equally.

It's also the kind of thing where culture elements from non-white peoples become sanctified; you can't say, for example, that skin walkers or men bringing down lightning don't exist, because you're using your white privilege to erase culture and keep the people down.

In such environment, it's kinda unsurprising we've arrived at "if science says a thing from an oppressed culture doesn't exist, fuck imperialist science". Though I hoped we wouldn't, but...

Then again, it's southern Africa, where "because fuck whites" is for some poeple a valid political reason to do something.


And I used to say that those "safe spaces" on campuses are harmless at worst, but I never thought there were going to be used to dispute science topics... shows what I know.

I think the the idea is that only people from within the group have the right to criticize and reform it. Since the dominant group outside is so disproportionately powerful that if allowed to speak, would by default drown out the inner group's voices and coerce it to its will.

This is, by the way, the whole idea behind what you, Hark, see as SJW groups trying to partition people neatly. It's the old "all sex is rape and all men are rapists", but applied to broad social groups and not sexes.

But it just doesn't work with science...

Well, this one I would not mourn so much.
It's generally understood that Internet disputes do not change people's opinions. And given that radicals seem to have absolutely all the time in the world and nothing better to do than to argue the same points over and over again... I mean, maybe it's a shotgun approach, but no one has an absolute right to talk with anyone else, and what of value is lost, anyway?

But this forum has always been mostly of the same opinions, sans Wordweaver. Lately Demon joined (and I don't think it ended particularly well) and you started bucking. And that's it.

Well I didn't just mean with social justice things.
You guys disagree with me constantly.
You, StyxD, initially seemed ot get into the comic because you liked telling me whats wrong with it.
Also you listed 3 people, which is quite a few on such a small forum, but I could name examples of others. I dont really want to call people out by name though, but I think theres a lot of other varied opinions out there.

I think your statement there is kinda telling that you view it as either "with us or against us". You have put poeple into groups of agree and ones that don't, rather than the spectrum of people who agree on some stuff and not agree on others.
I don't disagree with 100% of the things said by anyone on here.

Except Canuovea. I mean what the hell is he on about?

Yeah broadly I would say people here are mostly left wing (probably because its mainly a younger demographic here), but I don't think its everyone just agreeing all the time. There are lots of issues that people here feel differently to me and differently to each other.
I dont want to name names and single them out, but honestly a lot of the time I think its hard work on here to get you guys to agree to anything I say! And thats a good thing.

I think the idea that the dominant group will always drowns out smaller groups is weird. I don't think all discussions are just shouting matches and I don't think people all just agree. Like if you make a space for just blakc poeple to speak, it doens't mean those people will give a godo opinion. Former presidential candidate Ben Carson is a black person, and his ideas on black peoples are way worse than mine!
Using white poeple as the example, white poeple may have advantages in broader society, but that doesn't mean they have an advantage in one to one conversations. Like a white person comes into the room and is just some how so powerful all blakc people have to fall silent. It ends up seeming racist against the minority group, like they can't compete on an even footing!
It turns it into some kind of test before you can be listened to. "are you the right colour/gender/orientation? if not I wont listen to you."
Just as a concept I find that way of thinking repellant.


Blocking people online is fair enough, you dont have to talk to people, especially not people being dicks.
The problem is that it forms part of a broader way of thinking. Blocking people online, avoiding poeple who disagree, go to a safe space where only people who agree with me go. Its got exaggerated and encouraged to the point of becoming a whole world view of just blocking out all opposition. People in these movements see people disagreeing wiht them as enemies attacking them.

This idea that they can form a group where they can say science is racist and kick out anyone who tries to argue isn't some weird annomally. Its a logial continuation of that way of thinking.
If you dont want things to be true or find them uncomfortable, you are encouraged to just block them out rather than confronting them. this means if you are ever horribly wrong or uncomfortable wiht something that is true, your response is just going to be blokc out the disagreements that make you feel bad and assume you are 100% RIGHT.

Well, consider it me thresholding people on whether they agree on matters I consider fundamental for the world, or are willing to compromise on them. Of course we have different tastes, favorite Harkovast races, ideas how a RPG should work, and so on... but that doesn't amount to much.

I don't think this should be treated literally as "shouting matches". I think it means that all people are subconsciously conditioned to defer to the dominant group by the inescapable dominant culture. Or alternatively, that dominant group people are used to speaking whenever they want to and be listened to, and they should be silent for once to respect other groups.

Almost like applying statistical properties to individual cases makes no sense. But people are really bad at statistics. Hence we get the timeless "your oppression is not systematic, therefore no one should care about it, stop being such a baby" argument SJWs dispatch whenever the victim is not of the right kind.

It's more like "if you are not the right X you should be silent, and if you aren't, it means you're disrespectful and not worth listening to".

Thing is, it has always been like this on the Internet. Before blocking people on social media was a thing, people were grouping into self-selecting online tribes where members could find reassurance for any ludicrous idea they felt they needed. You can't stop people from doing that unless you take their Internet away. People desire confirmation bias.

As far as I know, auto-blocking by follower lists started during Gamer Gate, when it was understood that no one who had a life could possibly keep up with gg-ers' brigading and propensity for hurling the same insults over and over again.

I'm sure you have some crazy blog posts to back up the claim that this is a terrible thing now, because I haven't heard anything about this issue since then.