UDT

How Dangerous is Postmodern Cultural Relativism?

183 posts in this topic

In George Orwell´s 1984 - the leading party "rewrites" history, cuts unwelcome words out of the dictionary and in so remains its power. It "rewrites" history to conform with its narrative.

Now I´ve heard from a german colleague - they banned the word for riding the train without a ticket as it is called "riding black" in German. 
The origin of the word for black comes from jewish for poor though. It is a little bit similar to censor saying "I like black coffee" bcs it is racist.

Do you think it is healthy to censor language to that extend? This is not the N-word. It leaves the door open for future censorship, which in the extreme, is used by Orwells nightmare dictatorship to change citizen behavior. 

__

What I see happening is people who share medical, scientific or other information are getting banned from platforms under the veil of it being "hate speech and misinformation". 

( the inventor of the mRNA vaccine getting banned off linkedIn for sharing pubmed study). 

Now, if everything can become mis-information or hate speech, because we do not clearly define, what it is or what it is not - we leave the door open for agencies to censor what they don´t want out there, just using "oh it was hate speech and fake news" as the argument - and no one can really see if it was true or not. 

Clearly a pubmed study has nothing to do with gender rights. But today it is enough for major platforms to ban, email you "this was taken down because it violates mis-information policy" and that´s it. 

This is what I am not happy with, and neither should anyone - who does want to preserve a healthy freedom of information and free speech, which is essential for a healthy society imo. 



Edit: 
Ive repeated this 3x times already but this threat is not about gender, sex, religion, or freedom of expression.  (again these are great things.)
-> Its about the censorship and dictation of which words are being allowed to use, the deplatforming of scientists in the name of "anti-hate speech, mis-information, fake news" which bears a lot of similarity to what is described in George Orwell 1984 by which a positive wording is used in a straw-man matter to push through censorship which has nothing to do with gender or other of these topics, but is just put forward as a justification for such action.


Stage Yellow Health Hacks -->  https://bit.ly/3cQ3DTB

<inactive>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In Germany there is a kids game called 'who is afraid of the black man'. Kind of understandable that it is not PC.

Anyway things are still quite volatile. Banned by the woke algorithm.
 

 

Edited by Epikur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'll fix itself eventually, when people start moving into stage Yellow.  Green right now hold all the power that will eventually fall to Yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're focusing on the wrong issue. LGBTQ has never been dangerous.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not even 1/10 that dangerous in comparison to the far right. You are taking a orange/blue perspective on this topic. I had people of colour friends who always joked about "riding black" here in swizerland. Nobody knows the origin of this word but you dont need to be a genious to see what connections you could make with this word. There are bigger dangers to our society than changing a potentially offensive word to a new harmless word. 

you should think about why you are triggered so hard by pettiness. It is nowhere realistic in the near future, that there is a danger of an arise of  a dictatorship or a hard cencorship from stage green progressives 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cookiemonster said:

You're focusing on the wrong issue. LGBTQ has never been dangerous.

Maybe not life threatening, but has always been annoying & misguided.

Soon, I suspect there will be an anti SJW/LGBTQ movement that brings balance to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Maybe not life threatening, but has always been annoying & misguided.

Please elaborate.

32 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Soon, I suspect there will be an anti SJW/LGBTQ movement that brings balance to the world.

Hahaha. That has always existed. It's called the republican party.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UDT

4 hours ago, UDT said:

In George Orwell´s 1984 - the leading party "rewrites" history, cuts unwelcome words out of the dictionary and in so remains its power. It "rewrites" history to conform with its narrative.

We see this stuff happening here in the U.S and Canada today!

Now I´ve heard from a german colleague - they banned the word for riding the train without a ticket as it is called "riding black" in German. 
The origin of the word for black comes from jewish for poor though. It is a little bit similar to censor saying "I like black coffee" bcs it is racist.

It seems quite obvious to me that the new censorship, the "I have to be careful what I say because I can get imprisoned" kind of danger comes from rainbow flag waving "leftists" or non binary offended people. 

Is this the case? Wtf is going on ?

   Well, it depend on which group likes to expand this narrative of cancel culture to it's members, because to some cancel culture is not a big deal. There are some dangers to cancel culture though, so it depends on the context and all the details of the cancelling in a situation.

   For example, biologically speaking, same sex increases the likelihood of contracting the HIV virus, which is nearly impossible to cure. While this is a hard fact for a long time, this fact can be challenged later in the future with advances in the field or in conjunction to a similar field, like advances in technology in developing better vaccines to counter HIV, all this occurring in the context of biology. Now, politically speaking, this hard-fact-at-the-moment  can be used to reinforce views against LGBTQ and demonize same sex specifically, up to any different forms of sex that is different from normal.

   Coming back to cancel culture and censorship, censorship depends heavily on context to see if it's good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, eliasvelez said:

It is nowhere realistic in the near future, that there is a danger of an arise of  a dictatorship or a hard cencorship from stage green progressives 

But censorship is happening, people losing their jobs or getting deplatformed, kicked out of universities etc. 

21 minutes ago, eliasvelez said:

think about why you are triggered so hard by pettiness. I

See that worries me. Its such a charged issue, instantly you attack me. It is not pettiness! (read below)

I guess its because (and again this is 1on1 out of George Orwell 1984) the name of the "movement" is associated with rights for all and equality, which is a great thing.

In Orwell, exactly the same happens.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

The ruling party establishes e.g. a

ministry of truth - whose job is to "correct" newspaper articles, and write new ones 

ministry of love - whose job is to torture "mind-offenders" , so people who do not align with the party ideology, until they break or die.

ministry of freedom etc. 

You get this? If the name of the organisation already implies goodness - e.g. "the party for equality and freedom" what the party actually does can be completely different, it is still able to achieve the perception of goodness. 

SO;
Now if a women shouts death to all men while wearing a rainbow t shirt - or a scientist is deplatformed for a counter-mainstream narrative,  the first is fighting for equality and freedom, and the latter is banned because "he violated the guidelines for anti-hate speech, mis-information and equality."

You see if I just re-name the action, I can create a completely new narrative. 
I am not censoring a scientist, I am protecting the platform from hate speech or fake news etc. 

@eliasvelez  Thats why it is not pettiness, if words are getting forbidden. 

In Orwell, there is "Newspeech" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
which leans onto this concept. 

I am not taking a blue pov here elias, you are not getting it thats why you say its "just pettieness". I dont give a f*ck about left or right ideology. 


Stage Yellow Health Hacks -->  https://bit.ly/3cQ3DTB

<inactive>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, UDT said:

Is this the case?

Not at all

6 hours ago, UDT said:

Wtf is going on ?

Basically just fearmongering from the right to increase support to the republican party. The danger is imagined, not actual. Wherever media you got your misinfo from, they have high stakes in you staying afraid. If you were to stop being afraid you might act in a way that is best for the majority, which is not good for the minority who wants to keep exploiting people for their benefit.

Edited by 4201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Bojan V said:

@UDT You are a homophobe.

 

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

Wherever media you got your misinfo from

 

2 hours ago, UDT said:

the latter is banned because "he violated the guidelines for anti-hate speech, mis-information and equality."


See that´s what I am talking about :D. You do not read what I´ve actually said, you are just attaching to the label of maybe the title or some fracture of a sentence. 
So what happens in discourse is, when someone has a different argument - it is not accepted any longer. Now the person becomes "mis-informed", or a homophobe, or whatever label to discredit the person so their pov is by default invalid. He is no longer a participant in an exchange, he is just the "enemy".  

Can´t you go meta and see how this is a problem, no matter what the underlying issue is? Even when we talk about something without much weight to it, e.g. if pineapple should be on pizza. There can never be an exchange of actual information.


It should be obvious how this development, in either direction of social-political views, is a problem for society. Who is "they" that you are fighting against? Well in the end its society fighting against itself.


@thisintegrated  I think you make a good point about yellow. According to the model, what I wrote above about the "meta perspective" cant be understood by tier I.
So what happens is they demonise it I guess. 
But consider, If I remember correctly, approx 2% of population are in yellow, thats not so much. 

Edited by UDT

Stage Yellow Health Hacks -->  https://bit.ly/3cQ3DTB

<inactive>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UDT 

You're still missing the broader point, that this has nothing to do with LGBTQ.

Media censorship and cancel culture is a problem, yes, but that's a systemic problem not a subjective one. The media could just as easily be waving the Palestinian flag, the Israeli flag, the Chinese flag or the Nazi flag. You're questioning the subject as dangerous when you should be addressing the medium.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about LGBTQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

idk if it's actually unhealthy.  This is a necessary step for human progression towards tier 2, after all.  It's just kind of annoying when Greens try to use their emotions, rather than logic, to push the case for censorship and LGBTQ.

Half of this thread is just triggered Greens.  And since they're the majority in such conversations, they win by consensus—regardless of the actual truth / validity of arguments from each side.

And yes, LGBTQ = censorship / cancel culture, when you zoom out.  That's what it's evolved to.  LGBTQ is as much about "acceptance" as feminism is about equality.. meaning not at all.

Edited by thisintegrated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thisintegrated Hmmm do you know many people part of the community? You are generalizing a large and diverse group. 


"You Create Magic" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

It's just kind of annoying when Greens try to use their emotions, rather than logic, to push the case for censorship and LGBTQ.

Green is actually more capable of rational thought than Orange. It just has an additional post-rational element that can be emphasized in different degrees depending on the situation. Nevertheless, the fight for LGBTQ rights is fundamentally backed by logically sound ethical concerns.

 

23 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

And yes, LGBTQ = censorship / cancel culture, when you zoom out.

No.

 

23 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

LGBTQ is as much about "acceptance" as feminism is about equality.. meaning not at all.

Where did you read about feminism?

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

@thisintegrated Hmmm do you know many people part of the community? You are generalizing a large and diverse group. 

I have a good understanding of the stages and how they can manifest in people, so it's easy to identify what's stage related / what's not.  People are, generally, very predictable, and few stray away from what's expected of their stage.

The correlation between LGBTQ and Green is very obvious, imo.  

Edited by thisintegrated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Green is actually more capable of rational thought than Orange. It just has an additional post-rational element with varying degrees of emphasis depending on the situation. Nevertheless, the fight for LGBTQ rights is fundamentally backed by logically sound ethical concerns.

Green isn't just "Orange, but better!", it's a swing to the other extreme.  This comes with pros and cons.

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, the fight for LGBTQ rights is fundamentally backed by logically sound ethical concerns.

Nevertheless, that's irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No.

Hmm, you make a compelling argument..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now