Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

poizon

The "Everyone is Equal" Lie

150 posts in this topic
7 hours ago, thod said:

I reckon that the anger we see from minority groups comes from unmet expectations rather than a corrupt system. That they will always find something else to direct it towards. Someone to blame. That whatever the deficiencies in the system, it is basically pretty fair and that their lowly status is entirely down to their own shortcomings. 

Yours is not only a baseless belief, to be sure, but "entirely" without any semblance of understanding of the complexity of human life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

You'd be surprised, lol. Lots of minorities think white people are better than them. What a sad lot they are.

I'm not going to hold your hand through white supremacy 101. I think you're perfectly capable of understanding the concept.

Still don't care about neo-nazis/white nationalists/whitesupremacists. The government can protect their right to beat down on non-whites, feminists or LGBT people. I don't have to or care.

No, you're not Nazi. A Nazi would be direct and proud of their bigotry. Not that you're a bigot. Just stating what a neo-nazi would actually do. I think you think I'm attacking you so you're being defensive instead of reading. This is not an attack on you. I just don't care for neo-nazis. It is not in my best interests to care when they'd rather see me dead. Yes, believe it or not neo-nazis/white supremacists are not adverse to the idea of killing non-whites. Unless it's their Please login or register to see this link. . Submit to white supremacy like they have and you can be their pet too (not literally you, I think I have to state that).

Please login or register to see this link.

Yes, I understand. The whole point was about legal protection and legal equality. I don't know what you mean about "beat down" in this case because if they physically harm anyone I'd expect them to be punishable by the law, not helped by it. That's fine. No one is forced to respect one another. As much as I disagree with the various ideologies surrounding American culture nowadays, I think the logical position is one that truly advocates for everyone's equal rights. Not just the people you agree with or only the group you're a part of. That's just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Major Chord said:

And the other thing is that everybody in some context is some sort of minority.

Here are some reasons to claim to have been discriminated against. Fat, ugly, black, brown, gay, female, handicapped, short, poor, too young, too old, ex-convict, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, working mother, single mother, male in divorce proceedings, my IQ is too high, my IQ is too low, from a low caste, not a college grad, suffering from a mental illness, am an ex-convict, have a speech impediment, am a Jew, am not a Jew, came from the wrong social class, have the wrong kind of accent, have dyslexia, ADHD, social anxiety ...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Everyone's got a problem, so do I, so do you, so does the guy next door. Now can we please get on with life.

Holy edge lord, lol. #soedgy #intj5lyf

10 hours ago, poizon said:

Yes, I understand. The whole point was about legal protection and legal equality. I don't know what you mean about "beat down" in this case because if they physically harm anyone I'd expect them to be punishable by the law, not helped by it. That's fine. No one is forced to respect one another. As much as I disagree with the various ideologies surrounding American culture nowadays, I think the logical position is one that truly advocates for everyone's equal rights. Not just the people you agree with or only the group you're a part of. That's just my opinion though.

As long as the 1st amendment exist, neo-nazis can spread bigotry. Whether I or anyone else wants to advocate for that right lies with the individuals position in society. Not many people who aren't white can afford to endorse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maiohmy said:

As long as the 1st amendment exist, neo-nazis can spread bigotry. Whether I or anyone else wants to advocate for that right lies with the individuals position in society. Not many people who aren't white can afford to endorse them.

As long as the 1st amendment exists, everyone has free speech.

So everyone's willingness to respect others' rights is due to their position in society?? Could you expand on that?

 

You can support someone's right to free speech without endorsing their ideology/beliefs. Surely you can make that vital distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, poizon said:

As long as the 1st amendment exists, everyone has free speech.

So everyone's willingness to respect others' rights is due to their position in society?? Could you expand on that?

 

You can support someone's right to free speech without endorsing their ideology/beliefs. Surely you can make that vital distinction.

It's not about respecting anyones legal rights. Because I don't respect neo-nazi's legal rights in the least bit but who cares? It's the law. That sums of everything.

I think I've explained how ones position in society effects what they can afford to be lenient on. I already said I can't afford to care about their legal rights. That's the government's job, not mine.

How about I support the government upholding its laws? That seems fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Maiohmy said:

It's not about respecting anyones legal rights. Because I don't respect neo-nazi's legal rights in the least bit but who cares? It's the law. That sums of everything.

I think I've explained how ones position in society effects what they can afford to be lenient on. I already said I can't afford to care about their legal rights. That's the government's job, not mine.

How about I support the government upholding its laws? That seems fair.

It's a good thing we have these laws then or else people like you would only support the rights of your own group. Much like America first did in it's beginnings.

Because freedom of speech is dangerous to you?

That's what the discussion has turned into yet you'd refuse to support an opposing groups' rights.

You can't say you'll support the government upholding its laws and then turn a blind eye if it violates the law in your favor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poizon said:

You can support someone's right to free speech without endorsing their ideology/beliefs. Surely you can make that vital distinction.

Hold up there. It's 2017, and it's becoming patently clear that most cannot make that distinction. Most do not check facts, they don't think critically and worst of all they do buy ideas suggested by free speech rather than showing healthy skepticism for what is being said, and who's saying it.

It's sloppy thinking to just parrot that slogan as if its the last word on the subject. It may have worked last century - it doesn't work now. Reasonably, and with the above in mind, it isn't good enough to passively non-endorse something which is repugnant, deceitful, untrue, damaging or dangerous in both content and intent, because free speech has consequences beyond what is said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rickster said:

Hold up there. It's 2017, and it's becoming patently clear that most cannot make that distinction. Most do not check facts, they don't think critically and worst of all they do buy ideas suggested by free speech rather than showing healthy skepticism for what is being said, and who's saying it.

It's sloppy thinking to just parrot that slogan as if its the last word on the subject. It may have worked last century - it doesn't work now. Reasonably, and with the above in mind, it isn't good enough to passively non-endorse something which is repugnant, deceitful, untrue, damaging or dangerous in both content and intent, because free speech has consequences beyond what is said.

 

Yes, unfortunately and it's a problem that education should be fixing. People are too used to being able to find others with their opinions. They need to debate, discuss, think.

 

Society should and will, by the forces of the people that comprise it, create and maintain a status of ongoing change in favor of whatever the majority believes in.

As of now, the first amendment still stands and people like me will defend that right for all.

If there's a large push for censorship of speech (in an illogical/unreasonable manner) then I will be against it.

 

If one day, legislation passes to silence gays, lesbians etc. from speaking their mind, I will be against it.

If one day legislation passes to silence non-pc language, I will be against it.

 

My belief on this matter is consistent and logically sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, poizon said:

Yes, unfortunately and it's a problem that education should be fixing. People are too used to being able to find others with their opinions. They need to debate, discuss, think.

This is my default thinking on the matter. Ideally, yes - starting in questioning homes, reinforced by educational systems which hold questioning as the benchmark of a good education.

But realistically this isn't going to happen anytime soon. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned that you can't reason with the unreasonable. And you'll look like a fool for trying.

I always hoped to be proven wrong on the matter, but things aren't looking good. Even the best journalists are struggling with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, poizon said:

It's a good thing we have these laws then or else people like you would only support the rights of your own group. Much like America first did in it's beginnings.

Because freedom of speech is dangerous to you?

That's what the discussion has turned into yet you'd refuse to support an opposing groups' rights.

You can't say you'll support the government upholding its laws and then turn a blind eye if it violates the law in your favor...

*shrugs* I'm not going to deny it. So what can I say? It's not really about "my group" though. 

I'd openly support flat-earthers, 9/11 conspirators, ps4 players, gun nuts/2nd amendment fanatics, Mormons, cat people. I could go on. Lots of things I don't agree with that I would support people retaining the ability to speak on. Not supporting anything that seeks to encourage the violation of human rights-- on any side of a political spectrum. But again, I support the governments duty to do so.

We're going in circle at this point. I'm glad your position is consistent. Mine may change but probably not. When I'm in a position to let neo-nazi's advocate for the Please login or register to see this link.  (oPlease login or register to see this link.  for the road :laugh:)or Please login or register to see this link. of innocent black people, then I'll jump the fence. Until then, this is where I have to remain. 

Edited by Maiohmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't acknowledge that discrimination exists while calling equality a lie. Like wtf are you talking about?

1 hour ago, poizon said:

Yes, unfortunately and it's a problem that education should be fixing. People are too used to being able to find others with their opinions. They need to debate, discuss, think.

 

Society should and will, by the forces of the people that comprise it, create and maintain a status of ongoing change in favor of whatever the majority believes in.

As of now, the first amendment still stands and people like me will defend that right for all.

If there's a large push for censorship of speech (in an illogical/unreasonable manner) then I will be against it.

 

If one day, legislation passes to silence gays, lesbians etc. from speaking their mind, I will be against it.

If one day legislation passes to silence non-pc language, I will be against it.

 

My belief on this matter is consistent and logically sound.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rickster said:

This is my default thinking on the matter. Ideally, yes - starting in questioning homes, reinforced by educational systems which hold questioning as the benchmark of a good education.

But realistically this isn't going to happen anytime soon. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned that you can't reason with the unreasonable. And you'll look like a fool for trying.

I always hoped to be proven wrong on the matter, but things aren't looking good. Even the best journalists are struggling with it.

I  agree.

 

9 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

*shrugs* I'm not going to deny it. So what can I say? It's not really about "my group" though. 

I'd openly support flat-earthers, 9/11 conspirators, ps4 players, gun nuts/2nd amendment fanatics, Mormons, cat people. I could go on. Lots of things I don't agree with that I would support people retaining the ability to speak on. Not supporting anything that seeks to encourage the violation of human rights-- on any side of a political spectrum. But again, I support the governments duty to do so.

We're going in circle at this point. I'm glad your position is consistent. Mine may change but probably not. When I'm in a position to let neo-nazi's advocate for the Please login or register to see this link.  (oPlease login or register to see this link.  for the road :laugh:)or Please login or register to see this link. of innocent black people, then I'll jump the fence. Until then, this is where I have to remain. 

Completely understandable. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest for Neo-Nazi agenda to be realized. Think of it this way though. There's a group of people that nobody likes. All they do is suck the life out of society and bring their weird backwards ideology to our country. Who cares about their rights? Lets' pass laws to silence them.

*Passes law*

*crickets*

They're still ruining out country, bringing their offensive and weird symbols

*bands symbols*

*crickets*

These people are the worst of the worst. This is a problem and they should be rid of.

 

Sound familiar? tl;dr: Nazi's could be the first people to to lose their right to free speech and noone would do anything about it because their ideology is horrible. Next thing you know, it'll be other groups.

 

8 hours ago, MissKat said:

You can't acknowledge that discrimination exists while calling equality a lie. Like wtf are you talking about?

You can acknowledge the fact that equality is a myth yet still acknowledge the fact that people are treated differently based on a variety of reasons.

What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poizon said:

You can acknowledge the fact that equality is a myth yet still acknowledge the fact that people are treated differently based on a variety of reasons.

What are you talking about?

you are so WRONG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MissKat said:

you are so WRONG!

Are you drunk?

Discrimination is literally only possible if there is no equality.

If everyone were the same, then what's there to discriminate?

 

Discrimination = no equality

no equality = discrimination

Share this post


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

Are you drunk?

Discrimination is literally only possible if there is no equality.

If everyone were the same, then what's there to discriminate?

 

Discrimination = no equality

no equality = discrimination

reread my post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, poizon said:

@MissKat

I'll take that as a yes.

So basically what you're saying is if somebody disagrees with you, they must be drunk. lol k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@MissKat

Are you going to explain your position/supporting logic now or are you just going to waste more of my time?

Edited by poizon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, poizon said:

@MissKat

Are you going to explain your position/supporting logic now or are you just going to waste more of my time?

what's the point of explaining when my initial post was a waste of your time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, MissKat said:

What's the point of actually explaining my position and logic when I can avoid doing so by being lazy and pointing at you instead?

Well at least you're being honest but next time when making an opposing claim and the opposition asks you to clarify, it's in the best interest of the debate that there's utmost understanding of both participant's position.

Otherwise you come off as in-genuine (You don't really care about whats being discussed) and unable to form a coherent message. Giving off this impression may obviously deter future debaters from arguing with you or considering your viewpoints.

Wish you luck next time.

Edited by poizon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2017 at 0:59 PM, EchoFlame said:

I don't believe people are equal. But I do believe they should be treated equally and given equal opportunities.

Giving everyone a decent and equal opportunity will unlock society's highest potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decent is subjective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, poizon said:

There's a group of people that nobody likes. All they do is suck the life out of society and bring their weird backwards ideology to our country. Who cares about their rights? Lets' pass laws to silence them.

This is a bit of a stretch from what I'm saying. Fuck neo-nazis, white supremacists, their supporters, etc and their "rights." Absolutely, this is what I am saying to be clear. But like I also keep saying, it's the governments job to enforce its laws. That's a stretch from saying the government should change its laws to silence them or that I am advocating for them to do so. I just don't care if did or not. I can't say I'd lose any sleep if all of sudden they couldn't advocate for the eradication and subjugation of me and other people who look like me. It's really hard to sell me this, lol.

15 hours ago, poizon said:

Sound familiar? tl;dr: Nazi's could be the first people to to lose their right to free speech and noone would do anything about it because their ideology is horrible. Next thing you know, it'll be other groups.

Yeah, I've never been one to buy into that idea. Seems like a huge leap that skips over a lot of things that would logically have to occur to enact censorship like that. It doesn't happen overnight. Nor would it be easy to enforce given the internet. Interesting to think about I suppose(?)

Not all speech is created equally, you know that right? Social power to inflict harm is a huge part of why nazis and their supporters are dangerous. Their interests directly align with the current government and power structures. That's why there's been a spike in hate crimes against all non-whites; all in the name of their all white ethno-state utopia/wet dream and subjugation of other races. They feel empowered to behave this way.

You can stand firmly by their rights and respect them. That's fine. I'm not white or a white supremist. Once more, I don't have any room to follow suit and do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

This is a bit of a stretch from what I'm saying. Fuck neo-nazis, white supremacists, their supporters, etc and their "rights." Absolutely, this is what I am saying to be clear. But like I also keep saying, it's the governments job to enforce its laws. That's a stretch from saying the government should change its laws to silence them or that I am advocating for them to do so. I just don't care if did or not. I can't say I'd lose any sleep if all of sudden they couldn't advocate for the eradication and subjugation of me and other people who look like me. It's really hard to sell me this, lol.

Yeah, I've never been one to buy into that idea. Seems like a huge leap that skips over a lot of things that would logically have to occur to enact censorship like that. It doesn't happen overnight. Nor would it be easy to enforce given the internet. Interesting to think about I suppose(?)

Not all speech is created equally, you know that right? Social power to inflict harm is a huge part of why nazis and their supporters are dangerous. Their interests directly align with the current government and power structures. That's why there's been a spike in hate crimes against all non-whites; all in the name of their all white ethno-state utopia/wet dream and subjugation of other races. They feel empowered to behave this way.

You can stand firmly by their rights and respect them. That's fine. I'm not white or a white supremist. Once more, I don't have any room to follow suit and do the same.

Well I certainly don't respect them. They're horrible people. I do believe in our constitution and the first amendment however.

I'm just trying to look at this issue with foresight, something that not enough people use when discussing things like this.

You're right, I also think it would happen over a period of time and not overnight but that would just make it easier to disguise the fact that people would be slowly losing their rights.

Would our world be better off without people like nazis to spread there hateful ideology? Sure, but guess what? Who's job is it to determine what's hateful? Plenty of people talk about Islam (sharia law) and how it's oppressive to women and others talk about how our system is run by white supremacy. So who gets to decide who's voices are silenced? Should Islam be banned and white people prevented from political office because some people view the world differently? It seems much more logical and consistent to be an advocate of everyone's rights, even if you don't respect the group. and if we do decide to rid ourselves of the "bad" kinds of free speech then we sure as hell better be very careful and extremely specific with how we limit it to prevent people like you and me from having our voices silenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are equal when in the grave. Until then it is our destinations on earth are equal. Unless space ships or that kind of thing.

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