Minecraft creator and fellow Exile Notch banned from 10 year anniversary celebration for wrongthink

"

Boem wrote:

How does one perceive sexual orientation exactly?

I'm not here to answer questions about things I haven't said. Make a point or don't, I don't mind either way.

"

Boem wrote:

Funny thing about power, it only works when you give it away.

Rhetoric similar to this can be useful to help remind people that they are strong as a community and that organisation and collective action matters. But this phrasing is far too reductive, and essentially transforms that potentially valuable idea into victim-blaming nonsense.

Genocide, for instance, is an act of the exertion of power. It is absolutely not a people organising to collectively give their lives away, and unfortunately it still "works" without anything close to consent.

Hiy now, you brought up homophobia and transphobia.

Genocide is the giving away of individual power to the state in order to divert responsibility of action.

Not from the victims, but from the actors committing the crime.

Can i assume you don't think every single german resident in the time of the third reich was actually intent on exterminating the jewish population to give one example of genocide.

If you create enough chains of command you can diffuse responsibility, that's how those systems operated and where successfull.(and that word seems incredibly out of place here, but if were talking destroying the individual self and his inherent power to uphold morals, it is accurate)

It's still the giving away of power.

And no, it's not victim blaming nonsense. If every single individual in the third reich refused to capitulate his morals we wouldn't be talking about the hollocaust nowadays.

Though arguably we would be lamenting the murder of milions of resisting german residents.
One could say there would be honor in a such a death though that would ring hollow for familie and loved ones. Assuming they wouldn't be the first to visit sint-pieters in order to break people which is usually how oppresive regimes move strong-willed people to action.

Nothing as motivating for an honorable human being then a pistol inside the mouth of his/her child while it's crying in absolute terror.

My point remains, power is only relevant once you outsource it.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

My assertion is that problems that involve deeply entrenched power structures causing sustained harm to particular communities are vastly more serious than "someone thought I was dumb once because I dress like a hippie".

Name the power structures. Proper names only, please. For example, you could say "Breitbart" or "the US Dept of Justice." Please explain what specific actions are being performed to cause sustained harm.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But you have been promoting an openly racist, equality-of-outcome-based policy, and I don't see any reason to back down on my condemnation of that vile policy. Racial quotas are ethnocommunism. Disagree or disavow.

Quotas are not necessarily an equality of outcome device, they are also in the substantive model of equality of opportunity.

I haven't mentioned racial quotas yet, though I will shortly. What I meant was (and I thought it pretty clear) that you need to have some device to counteract the rampant inequality (income/wealth) in your country or wherever. Underpriviledged kids from poor backgrounds would be the suitable candidates here, not only for scholarships and the likes (cause of insane tuition fees) but also for getting a foot in the door with a quota. It's terribly hard to compete when the game was rigged already, you were born into poverty and went to terribad schools to try and get into university.

Now the criteria could feasibly be race IF it was proven that said race is underpriviledged in the current society, possibly due to past events. I'm not a 100% sure, but if it's anything like Canada, Native Americans are afforded some positive discrimination due to race in the US, too, and I frankly don't see anything wrong with that either due to current situation and past history of them.

You guys are still under the illusion income and 'class' mobility exists in the US and it's the land of dreams and the hopeful. Even your Nobel prize winning economist, Stiglitz, has demonstrated how woefully wrong that is in this day and age. People stay where they are mostly, and very little can change that. At least correct an imbalance, and do some good in the world for once.

"

Boem wrote:

And no, it's not victim blaming nonsense. If every single individual in the third reich refused to capitulate his morals we wouldn't be talking about the hollocaust nowadays.

Though arguably we would be lamenting the murder of milions of resisting german residents.

You stated that power only works when you give it away. Then your example of people not giving away their power ends with them being collectively murdered by those in power.

I mean sure, you can then walk that back to "well if they didn't accept that government in the first place..." etc etc. I just initially assumed that you meant the people "giving power away" were on the victims side of the equation, because otherwise you're not really saying anything other than..."people's actions have consequences". And, you know, that's fine! I wouldn't call it a "funny thing about power", personally, but hey, to each their own.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Name the power structures.

I'm not your research assistant, don't tell me what to do. This is a completely unreasonable thing to demand; it's not remotely possible for me (or anyone, really) to provide you with a list of all the structures that contribute to causing harm to any number of communities, some disparate and some overlapping. That you already understand the list would contain things like media organisations and sectors of governments suggests you're entirely capable of investigating further yourself, so please don't waste my time with performative challenges.

ZZzzzz 4 post's later and still no mention how people perceive sexual orientation just by looking at them.

"

You stated that power only works when you give it away. Then your example of people not giving away their power ends with them being collectively murdered by those in power.

I mean sure, you can then walk that back to "well if they didn't accept that government in the first place..." etc etc. I just initially assumed that you meant the people "giving power away" were on the victims side of the equation, because otherwise you're not really saying anything other than..."people's actions have consequences". And, you know, that's fine! I wouldn't call it a "funny thing about power", personally, but hey, to each their own.

My assumption is that people would have ended up fighting one another, one side corrupted by an ideology and diffusion of responsibility and another side simply by resisting that part and unwanting to cooperate with it.

There is no "those in power". Your just looking at the "perceived victors" and calling them the ones in power while it could go both ways at either time.

Everybody that comes out on-top did so by "power" it's such an abusive world view when power is just one factor.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

ZZzzzz 4 post's later and still no mention how people perceive sexual orientation just by looking at them.

Nobody's stopping you talking about this thing you clearly want to talk about.

"

Boem wrote:

There is no "those in power".

Well, you're entitled to your definitions, of course. I don't share this one. The idea of "being in power" is an entirely common, well understood phrase that I see no reason to abandon.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

There is no "those in power".

Well, you're entitled to your definitions, of course. I don't share this one. The idea of "being in power" is an entirely common, well understood phrase that I see no reason to abandon.

Just like the concept of "being in power" also implies it's a continuum that shifts in time.

Some people call that nuance. I think your dismissing the fact people are allowed to be in power by other people and in the absence of that consensus power crumbles instantly.

Like, why do you vote if power is not a fluid attribute? It seems paradoxal to vote when power is static and fixed. It seems to imply you fear power moving from one location to another which would make it fluid and not something inherent but allocated.

Just like the whole 1% myth as if it's some stationary perceived entity and not a fluid part of society constantly in motion.

As for the other part, you started this with the homophobia and transphobia comment, not me. I'm just interested how people can have prejudice towards people based on sexual orientation when it's not visible on the outside.

Unless you make it visible, in which case, fair game we all have to deal with prejudices sling towards us and i see no distinction between prejudice for being gay and prejudice for being small. The only thing i see that changes is the trigger.

I assume where talking western nations though, because i can accept certain nations having institutionalized homophobia which is stupendous gives 21 century and all that. But there is more in this world thats unfathomable in this day and age that people seem to ignore willingly.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Just like the concept of "being in power" also implies it's a continuum that shifts in time.

Some people call that nuance. I think your dismissing the fact people are allowed to be in power by other people and in the absence of that consensus power crumbles instantly.

I'm not dismissing that at all; I'm just not making any statement about it one way or the other because it doesn't change anything about the nature of racism etc. Of course power can shift around. I don't think there's any disagreement there. But while it is where it is...well...that's where it is.

"

Boem wrote:

As for the other part, you started this with the homophobia and transphobia comment, not me. I'm just interested how people can have prejudice towards people based on sexual orientation when it's not visible on the outside.

Nobody said anything about it not being visible. I just noted that the topic touched on homophobia, transphobia etc, and you responded by saying that where I live people must be able to smell sexual orientation. It made no sense whatsoever.

"

Boem wrote:

Unless you make it visible, in which case, fair game

No, not "fair game", jesus christ what a disgusting attitude. People are not "game" to be abused. Homophobic, racist, misogynist etc behaviour is unacceptable. It is the opposite of "fair game".

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Unless you make it visible, in which case, fair game

No, not "fair game", jesus christ what a disgusting attitude. People are not "game" to be abused. Homophobic, racist, misogynist etc behaviour is unacceptable. It is the opposite of "fair game".

Is such behavior offensive, yes.

Is such behavior illegal, nope.

If you wanna come out in life as "insert anything" be prepared to take some slack for that from any amount of people that disagree or have different views then you.

That goes for anything in life, like people supporting trump getting prejudice for doing so or people saying they are religious or not religious.
Or people that enjoy some kind of kinky fetish etc

All are "life-style choices", being gay is no different.

So yeah, it is fair game, just like an atheist is fair game for religious people or a republican is fair game for a democrat or a small person is fair game for a tall person etc etc

You wanna advertise your life-style choice to the world, be prepared to get criticized by people that disagree.
Nobody get's a free pass.

Peace,

-Boem-