Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
Proposals
I've submitted three of the most moronic, ridiculous, destructive, and idiotic proposals:
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42420-proposal-i-redefinition-complaint-system
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42422-proposal-ii-disciplinary-action-normalization
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42434-proposal-iii-censorship-rules-modification
These proposals put into concrete terms the accusations, insinuations, and complaints a tiny minority of members have voiced recently.
And while I believe these proposals are stupid, I attempted to faithfully capture the essence of the position of this minority without rancor or judgement.
People who do not understand how to construct a coherent argument, an argument based on verifiable facts and one that reviews potential consequences, believe they can give lip service to understanding an opposing position and by doing so this will prove they have the moral high ground.
This type of argument is self-sustaining circular nonsense.
Because if you can define an argument that you do not believe is valid, fully define it and lay out the consequences and display of it a better and deeper understanding than those who can never quite articulate it, then dismissing the point of view is not a matter of intolerance, it is a matter of rational consideration.
Let's take an easy one, racism.
Now, some folks claim they oppose racism, but many of these people do not even know what racism is to them. This "to them" is important because dictionary definitions are rarely an end point, rather they are an opening discussion from which the parties involved must come to an agreement on what the term means to them.
Racism, to me, is the unverified stance that a person is better or worse at any aspect of life or thought solely because of their physical characteristics or cultural background.
For example. I maintain that people with darker skin are generally more tolerant of the affects of UV radiation than those with lighter skin. This is a fact and although there are exceptions, these exceptions do not disprove the conclusion. This is not racists, it is verifiable fact.
If I were to maintain that people with blue eyes are smarter than those with brown eyes, this would be racist. One reason it would be racist is that it is an arbitrary conclusion based on cherry picked examples and can be clearly demonstrated to be wrong.
But I can define the stance of a racist.
The racist will conclude a certain sub-group of the populace is superior. They will list a number of examples and reasons that, in their mind, prove their position and since they maintain this proof is both overwhelming and factual, they will state that it is a logical conclusion that the subgroup they have indicated is superior to others. Since this subgroup is inherently superior, it should be accorded special privilege, due as part of it inherent superiority and this is not a racist position but a recognition of the natural order.
Of course the argument has so many holes in it it could be used as a model for a colander, but positions that are inherently illogical are so full of justifications and contradictions as to provide endless entertainment. These positions are not sane and you will normally not get far through the use of facts.
So I can define the stance of the racists. Does that mean I should respect their point of view and give it equal weight and if I do not do so I am somehow displaying a moral failing?
Hell no.
I respect the right of anyone to hold any moronic opinion they desire. I respect the right of no one to voice that opinion as fact without providing hard, verifiable, and repeatable evidence.
If you are not OK with that, don't discuss anything with me because all I will do is mock your position and structure my argument to anger you in such a way that your prejudice and arrogance are fully displayed.
It's one of the things I do very well.
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42420-proposal-i-redefinition-complaint-system
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42422-proposal-ii-disciplinary-action-normalization
http://www.neopoet.com/forum/42434-proposal-iii-censorship-rules-modification
These proposals put into concrete terms the accusations, insinuations, and complaints a tiny minority of members have voiced recently.
And while I believe these proposals are stupid, I attempted to faithfully capture the essence of the position of this minority without rancor or judgement.
People who do not understand how to construct a coherent argument, an argument based on verifiable facts and one that reviews potential consequences, believe they can give lip service to understanding an opposing position and by doing so this will prove they have the moral high ground.
This type of argument is self-sustaining circular nonsense.
Because if you can define an argument that you do not believe is valid, fully define it and lay out the consequences and display of it a better and deeper understanding than those who can never quite articulate it, then dismissing the point of view is not a matter of intolerance, it is a matter of rational consideration.
Let's take an easy one, racism.
Now, some folks claim they oppose racism, but many of these people do not even know what racism is to them. This "to them" is important because dictionary definitions are rarely an end point, rather they are an opening discussion from which the parties involved must come to an agreement on what the term means to them.
Racism, to me, is the unverified stance that a person is better or worse at any aspect of life or thought solely because of their physical characteristics or cultural background.
For example. I maintain that people with darker skin are generally more tolerant of the affects of UV radiation than those with lighter skin. This is a fact and although there are exceptions, these exceptions do not disprove the conclusion. This is not racists, it is verifiable fact.
If I were to maintain that people with blue eyes are smarter than those with brown eyes, this would be racist. One reason it would be racist is that it is an arbitrary conclusion based on cherry picked examples and can be clearly demonstrated to be wrong.
But I can define the stance of a racist.
The racist will conclude a certain sub-group of the populace is superior. They will list a number of examples and reasons that, in their mind, prove their position and since they maintain this proof is both overwhelming and factual, they will state that it is a logical conclusion that the subgroup they have indicated is superior to others. Since this subgroup is inherently superior, it should be accorded special privilege, due as part of it inherent superiority and this is not a racist position but a recognition of the natural order.
Of course the argument has so many holes in it it could be used as a model for a colander, but positions that are inherently illogical are so full of justifications and contradictions as to provide endless entertainment. These positions are not sane and you will normally not get far through the use of facts.
So I can define the stance of the racists. Does that mean I should respect their point of view and give it equal weight and if I do not do so I am somehow displaying a moral failing?
Hell no.
I respect the right of anyone to hold any moronic opinion they desire. I respect the right of no one to voice that opinion as fact without providing hard, verifiable, and repeatable evidence.
If you are not OK with that, don't discuss anything with me because all I will do is mock your position and structure my argument to anger you in such a way that your prejudice and arrogance are fully displayed.
It's one of the things I do very well.