police violence and rape culture: 2 sides of the same coin?

Post Reply New Topic

Sometimes

I didn't see you agreeing. I saw you suggesting that the OP was being emotional and, therefore, illogical. Perhaps I'm wrong that this is what you meant, but I don't think that I'm wrong that this is what was said.

I disagree with you on that, unless your definition of 'emotion' is so broad that the claim that it's inimical to rationality is false.

I'm not sure that the claim is that emotion is bad or that it's not universal; the claim is more like 'emotions are softer, weaker, feminine, irrational and/or 'intuitive' experiences for interpersonal relationships; rationality is tougher, stronger, harder, masculine, and for dealing with the 'real' world.' It's not that interpersonal relationships or femininity are bad, or that rationality or masculinity are bad, it's that this view falsely confines the feminine to one realm and the masculine to another (and renders males and females who cross over as 'deviant.'). It says that women (or emotional people) trying to address the 'real' world are being deviant/illogical/outside of their realm, and men who show tenderness and affection are being deviant/weak/taking on a lesser role.

I'm actually rather enjoying it, so write away.

^^note that you did not use any qualifiers or weakeners in this statement..


...and the only qualifier ^here^ is 'if,' which is less wishy-washy than 'in my experience,' or 'I feel that...'

And I don't get the feeling that you were being too aggressive or harsh; It looks more like you were simply confident of being correct.

You got a point there, I must say LOL

I still believe in using qualifiers, especially in writing.

i mean before that point. i had already responded to the op before


there's a difference between a drive and a perspective. i said "an emotional perspective" (or something to that effect. i don't remember the exact wording). "logic is the beginning of wisdom", while emotion is what drives the search (and is also the end goal in itself, because life is what we experience, regardless of any objective reality). nobody will start discussions or come to conclusions on their own if they don't care about it. "it's not the one or the other that makes things bad, it's imbalance and incongruence", and things need to be acknowledged for what they are. there's venting and there's deliberating. different things

when you're venting, it simply doesn't matter if you're right or not. it's only supposed to be self-validation of what's bothering you. but when venting is expected to be taken as deliberation, different standards apply, and it's really a recipe for invalidation and conflict. because you essentially expose your feelings to be judged logically by others. feelings aren't subject to the domain of right-or-wrong. when they are subjected to it, that's when bad things happen


i see that as a subset of the issue, which won't go away if the underlying principle itself won't change. or maybe it will go away, but then some other equivalent thing will take its place

whether or not it's realistic to expect the underlying principle itself to go away without some other equivalent thing taking its place, i don't know. i'm skeptical about it, to be honest. civilization itself is based on unsustainable imbalances, and has been from the very beginning. i think what distinguishes us as a species (even from, or particularly from, other hominids) is the illusion that we can control anything (even the very fundamentals of inequality) if we apply ourselves enough or sacrifice to the right gods, which in practice results in the continuous deterioration of the very environments we depend on or have come to depend on (both natural and human-made, both concrete and abstract)

that being said, even being skeptical about it, i do have faith that it's possible. i know that it's not a rational expectation, and i always keep that in mind, but it's something that i need to believe in

well*, there's different levels (and even different types) of certainty and hesitation. it's very difficult to convey them, because it goes deep into the abstract aspects of language and communication and social/cultural context. it takes knowledge of other people's assumptions to be effective at it. and i think this is a key aspect of the way how hfa/aspergers manifests itself, and the impacts it causes throughout your life

the fact is, if you never specifically convey uncertainty, you'll come across as arrogant and overconfident (regardless if you actually are). and you'll probably end up buying into it yourself to an extent, because the process of thinking and the process of verbalizing your thoughts are interlinked (even if not necessarily to the extent that they are to me in particular). and also the continuous process of identity formation is interlinked with social perception and feedback, which in turn is interlinked with communication in general

and the same principle applies to the other extreme. if you get too concerned with conveying uncertainty, you not only come across as subservient and over-apologetic, you effectively become more subservient and apologetic to an extent because of it

----

* hesitation marker right there . it's meant to imply that "i see your point, but i believe that there's more to it"

I wouldn't say that I want to convey "uncertainty," necessarily.

All I want to convey, really, is the fact that anything I say--which is not a documented fact--is open to question. There are times when I feel that I'm approximately 95% certain that what I'm saying is true. It would be presumptuous, though, in the absence of documented fact, to insist that my impression is absolutely the correct impression.

I think one of the best qualifiers, probably, is: "Based upon my experience...."

but then just the act of justifying yourself, when the listener doesn't think there's any reason for you to justify yourself, already conveys an apologetic attitude, even if you don't mean it at all. that's why it's complicated. "why is he going out of his way and wasting so many words to say something i already know? of course this is only based on his experience. why would i think otherwise?". and then the listener will fill in the blanks with their assumptions on what they think or feel that you actually mean with your logical qualifier

to be honest, i often do feel 100% certain of what i say. but to me that's all the more reason for me to maintain an awareness that "i can always be wrong", even if it's not tied to any thought or statement in particular. from my point of view, it's always implied that "if you say something that i haven't thought of before or that i have forgotten, there's a pretty good chance that i'll change my mind about something, and maybe i'll agree with you, maybe i won't, maybe i'll realize we were actually agreeing all along. even if i don't change my mind about it right away". i may sound sometimes like i don't listen, but it's only because it takes time for me to listen. because my thought processes are delayed like that, and because i have a naturally oppositional disposition

Within the PPR section, you have to make sure you "cover all bases." The level of rigor here, at times, resembles a debating society. But it does keep you sharp.

Usually qualifiers are simply being honest.

Instead of saying "everyone who drives a Ford Explorer is a nimrod" as if you were issuing a Papal Bull, or a fatwa, coming from God that that "fact" is the absolute eternal truth, you say "in my experience all drivers of Ford Explorers are nimrods".

Or "its my understanding from my extensive research on the topic that drivers of Ford Explorers tend to be nimrods".

But if you declare that "humans usually have two arms" then you dont need qualifers because you are certain that what you're saying is an accepted fact (unless you're being sarcastic).

In some cases its not only unnessary to use qualifiers, its is necessary to NOT use them.

Like you wouldnt say "it is my opinion that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president" because being the 16th president of the US is part of the dictionary definition of who Abe Lincoln was. So giving that definition as your "opinion" about Abe Lincoln just sounds like a ret*d tautology (or it sounds like being really sarcastic).

there's that

Lincoln WAS the 16th President----no ifs, ands, or buts.

And the Square Root of 9 is 3; no ifs, ands, or buts.

that depends on the base and axioms you're basing your algebra on

everything is relative, but yes, i'm just being silly. some contexts leave no room for doubt, and some things only cease to be absolute in unusual contexts

I don't know anybody who uses something other than Base 10.

Obviously LOL, if you're using a binary system.....then that wouldn't be true.

i do know. americans

jokes. jokes. imperial units are a pain the ass, but of course, it's not the same thing as mathematics

I meant in simple arithmetic.

I'm an American. I use Imperial units--but I'm pretty good at converting Imperial units to Metric units.

To figure out the price of petrol in the UK (gas in North America) in US dollars, one has to only multiply the litre price by 3.76 (there are 3.76 litres to a US gallon), then multiply the result by the exchange rate of the Pound vs. the Dollar.

The highest gas prices in the US, ever, was approximately $4.50 a US gallon. In the UK, one was paying about $10-11 a US gallon at one point.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 10 Aug 2016, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are 10 kinds of people in the World.

Those who understand binary, and those who do not!