SuperEgo's Introduction

Completely off-topic conversational diarrhea that the rest of the internet won't let you post anywhere because it's so pointless and irrelevant to anything important.
User avatar
SuperEgo
Kick me, I'm a n00b!
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:01 am

Post by SuperEgo » Thu May 21, 2015 6:14 pm

Jackie Wrote:
The opponents of free speech are lairs who claim to prevent emotional suffering when actually they are using it shape the world to their idea of right and wrong, and they don't care how many people have to suffer to make this happen
I don't think it's wrong for an authority to ban the word "nigger" for example. If you and I were black, we wouldn't want to hear white racists barraging us with that word. The reason they use that word is because they know that it will have an effect on us, and will make us uneasy. They get off at seeing us react to a simple 6 letter word.

Jackie, if you haven't read John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" argument, then I desperately urge you to do so. The concept is so simple, and so beautiful. I have been looking for an ethical framework that makes sense, and I have finally found it. The "Veil of Ignorance" is a genius work of meta-ethics, in my opinion.

Here's how we apply it:
Let's say you and I are standing behind a "veil of ignorance", and will be simulated into society. In this society, one of us will be black, and the other will be a racist who hates black people. Standing behind the veil of ignorance, we don't know who will be who.
So we ask ourselves, would we want to simulate such a society? Would we want to live in a society where one of us will be discriminated against because we happened to be born with black skin?

Clearly, the answer is "No". We wouldn't want to live in such a society.

Personally, I don't mind individuals who hate black people. I don't care at all. But if someone asked me if hating black people is FAIR, I would say no, and I would bring up John Rawls.

That is why I am understanding when authorities make a certain word illegal. John Rawls' meta-ethical framework justifies it.
Venomous Wrote:
No question for me. #2. Take all the warning labels off everything and let the morons all kill themselves. A Darwinian society where only the people who are least moderately intelligent survive.
What if you were the one who was born with intelligence that is below the threshold? hehe

User avatar
Jackie
Lonely Lamer
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:36 pm

Post by Jackie » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:43 pm

Venomous wrote:What criminal advice? I don't know what you're talking about! Virtual private networks and anonymous browsers are perfectly legal and used by governments and law enforcement every day. There's nothing illegal about them. =)


Yes, but making others aware that these recourses are useful for undertaking criminal endeavors is definitely criminal advice, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, that's right. Don't try to deny it, you've been showing us quite a bit of your deviant side lately. And that's a good thing, shouldn't you be the one to set the example for us anyway?
SuperEgo wrote:I don't think it's wrong for an authority to ban the word "nigger" for example. If you and I were black, we wouldn't want to hear white racists barraging us with that word.


I do believe it's wrong. Once we ban one word, more will follow, and eventually our speech is so censored we can't even have a normal conservation anymore. Maybe it's not fun to hear slurs, but I always think that the people who are hurt by these words have a far bigger mentality problem than the ones who use the slurs. Did you know black people use the word nigger far more than white people do? Did you know white people are generally far more offended by the term nigger than black people? It's something to think about.
SuperEgo wrote:Let's say you and I are standing behind a "veil of ignorance", and will be simulated into society. In this society, one of us will be black, and the other will be a racist who hates black people. Standing behind the veil of ignorance, we don't know who will be who.
So we ask ourselves, would we want to simulate such a society? Would we want to live in a society where one of us will be discriminated against because we happened to be born with black skin?

Clearly, the answer is "No". We wouldn't want to live in such a society.


The concept of the veil of ignorance is new to me, so correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read it means you have to create a new society. But the catch is you won't know what kind of society it will be or how you are going to end up in it. You won't know how everything is governed. You won't know how the political climate will be, how the economy will be, how the social workings operate. You also don't know if you'll be healthy, what your physical or mental state will be, you won't know if you'll be surrounded by people or if you're all along, you won't know how you'll live your life there... so you have to think “what kind of society do I want to see?”, realizing you have no idea who you are going to be or what kind of world you will live in.

It's an interesting idea, clearly something cooked up by a philosopher. The concept is entirely theoretical, and most of the time what seems great in theory is not possible in practice. The veil of ignorance is a good example of that. But let's say, for example, we would take a group of people who are considered both smart and intelligent, put them in a state of artificial sleep, and strip them of their knowledge and memories of who they are. Then connect their consciences with some sci-fi tech, and let them create their plans for a new type of society, thus truly operating behind the veil of ignorance. This would take a kind of technology that is currently not available. But assuming we had this tech, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. If I look at our current situation, almost anything would be an improvement.
SuperEgo wrote:Would we want to live in a society where one of us will be discriminated against because we happened to be born with black skin?


Look, these things are unavoidable because everyone is prejudiced, racist, and close-minded to a certain extend. In recent times, it's very popular to pick on those who are being open and honest about these feelings they harbor. Ironically the ones who scream “racist” and “discrimination” the hardest, are usually also the most racist and oppressive people in existence. You're better off in a society where everyone can call you whatever they want, but you won't have to worry about more serious issues.
SuperEgo wrote:That is why I am understanding when authorities make a certain word illegal. John Rawls' meta-ethical framework justifies it.


I really cannot support this. The mentality and the type of people who support censored speech, also support very backwards forms of oppression and discrimination for the sake of appearing good natured. As a matter of fact, that's the sort of society we live in right now. And it's pretty damn horrible.

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:17 am

What is often wonder is, if we accept that it's unacceptable to use the word "nigger", how would we feel if the moral majority decided to outlaw the word "pineapple"? Or "blue"? Or "venomous"? =)

It's the same as the age of consent consideration in the other recent thread, in my eyes. Why is "nigger" a dirty word, but "nogger" or "nagger" are not?

One might argue the "nigger" is a an actual established word that is used to denigrate a class of people. Okay, so why aren't "idiot", "fatty", and "shitty driver" also considered utterly unspeakable? What makes one word more taboo than another? Why do one class of people get to have their personal offense so loud that it becomes a global taboo, when say, fat people, have no recourse?

And how would I feel if I were born too stupid to survive in a world with all the safeties removed? I guess I will never know, because if I was I'd be too stupid to know it, and too stupid to be able to hypothesize the differences on this forum. =)
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
Jackie
Lonely Lamer
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:36 pm

Post by Jackie » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:22 pm

Why? Political correctness, that's why. The sole purpose of banning words and making some terms taboo is all for the sake of political correctness. Making yourself look good, and others bad. It's all window dressing.

Once a certain (a)social group has enough foothold, and keeps whining and moaning enough, eventually they'll be allowed to prohibit some words. The best way to deal with this problem is to keep using these words even if they're uncalled for. It's especially important to say the taboo words straight to their face. A word of caution is advised: there could be consequences like spending time in jail, an angry mob beating you up, or facing 'sensitivity training' or other bullshit. It's good to be informed and to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary punishment, and maximizing the effectiveness of your brave efforts for a good cause.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest