Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?
Discussion
Nanook said:
El stovey said:
The key to banishing inequality is for people in groups suffering from inequality to be given help.
The key to banishing inequality is to treat everyone equally.Not to exclude people based on their skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation.
You know this. I'm not sure why you keep arguing this poor point with your irrelevant comparisons.
Identifying and helping people that actually need help is what makes sense to me, be it via medicine or education or benefits or other kinds of opportunity to reduce any disadvantages and bring them up to the same level as the average.
Then preserve equality by treating everyone the same.
We clearly think differently. No need for name calling and you telling me how I think.
Nanook said:
I'll paraphrase here, because I can't be bothered with the quoting, but I said "The key to banishing inequality is to treat everyone equally"
So you disagreed with that. Then you said "preserve equality by treating everyone the same"
.
For the last time.So you disagreed with that. Then you said "preserve equality by treating everyone the same"
.
Some people think there is currently inequality.
Group A have some disadvantages for various reasons
Group B don’t have the same disadvantages.
Group A get some help to reduce or hopefully remove these disadvantages. If we treat everyone equally as you suggest, we simply maintain the inequality above.
There is then less or hopefully no inequality.
We can now preserve equality by treating everyone the same.
Lucas CAV said:
Nanook said:
El stovey said:
The key to banishing inequality is for people in groups suffering from inequality to be given help.
The key to banishing inequality is to treat everyone equally.Not to exclude people based on their skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation.
You know this. I'm not sure why you keep arguing this poor point with your irrelevant comparisons.
Any society that believes in helping less well off people is going to have some kind of discrimination in allocating this help because you have to prioritise help to those that need it, not giving the resources equally to everyone,
Treating everyone the same means nothing changes.
chrispmartha said:
Nanook said:
El stovey said:
I don’t know this.
(1 and 2) Identifying and helping people that actually need help is what makes sense to me, be it via medicine or education or benefits or other kinds of opportunity to (3) reduce any disadvantages and bring them up to the same level as the average.
(4)Then preserve equality by treating everyone the same.
We clearly think differently. No need for name calling and you telling me how I think.
I'll paraphrase here, because I can't be bothered with the quoting, but I said "The key to banishing inequality is to treat everyone equally"(1 and 2) Identifying and helping people that actually need help is what makes sense to me, be it via medicine or education or benefits or other kinds of opportunity to (3) reduce any disadvantages and bring them up to the same level as the average.
(4)Then preserve equality by treating everyone the same.
We clearly think differently. No need for name calling and you telling me how I think.
So you disagreed with that. Then you said "preserve equality by treating everyone the same"
You told me to stop with the name calling and telling you how you think (referring to your stupidity is an observation, using an adjective. It's not namecalling) then proceeded to talk down to me, and tell me what I think.
It seems to be impossible to have a rational discussion with you.
To get equality you have to help the disadvantaged otherwise nothing will change.
Do you think helping disadvantaged people is a good or a bad thing?
To make people less disadvantaged you have to
1 identity disadvantaged
2 help them
3 hopefully make disadvantage less.
4.then preserve equality by treating everyone the same.
Nanook I can’t make it any clearer than this,
Nanook said:
Helping disadvantaged people is a good thing, yes.
That was never my point though.
My point was that setting up a conference to battle inequality, and preventing certain people from attending based on their skin colour, sexual orientation or gender/sex (whichever you prefer) is not particularly clever.
Since then the conversation has spiralled as I've tried to keep up with stovey's ramblings and 'examples’
What’s the point of setting up a group to help disadvantaged people and then filling it with people you don’t think are disadvantaged? That was never my point though.
My point was that setting up a conference to battle inequality, and preventing certain people from attending based on their skin colour, sexual orientation or gender/sex (whichever you prefer) is not particularly clever.
Since then the conversation has spiralled as I've tried to keep up with stovey's ramblings and 'examples’
The discrimination in who can attend is to make sure the people you think need the help are getting it.
I can’t get medicine when I don’t need it, I’m being discriminated against so others that need it can get it.
Nanook said:
El stovey said:
What’s the point of setting up a group to help disadvantaged people and then filling it with people you don’t think are disadvantaged?
The discrimination in who can attend is to make sure the people you think need the help are getting it.
I can’t get medicine when I don’t need it, I’m being discriminated against so others that need it can get it.
You don't appear to understand what the word 'discrimination' means. Your 'example' is about as stupid as me complaining that they don't give out free tampoms in the gents toilets in work. The discrimination in who can attend is to make sure the people you think need the help are getting it.
I can’t get medicine when I don’t need it, I’m being discriminated against so others that need it can get it.
You’re complaining about not being allowed to go to a meeting about being disadvantaged because the people organising it don’t think you’re disadvantaged.
Rovinghawk said:
El stovey said:
the people organising it don’t think you’re disadvantaged.
They don't question advantage; their criteria is race & gender.They’re not arbitrarily saying only women or minorities can attend. They’ve linked being disadvantaged to being part of one of those groups.
Rovinghawk said:
BigMon said:
Everyone is free to have an opinion.
IMHO the left don't like the right expressing an opinion & try to silence it.I’d be a bit worried if I found myself labelling large groups of people like that.
The Dangerous Elk said:
El stovey said:
Do you really think that sounds reasonable? Who do you consider “the left” to be?
I’d be a bit worried if I found myself labelling large groups of people like that.
What ?....that is what political groups do themselves, they are called "Party" this or that.I’d be a bit worried if I found myself labelling large groups of people like that.
The truth is much more nuanced that these polarised positions some of the far left/right posters come out with on here,
Rovinghawk said:
El stovey said:
Do you really think that sounds reasonable? Who do you consider “the left” to be?
I’d be a bit worried if I found myself labelling large groups of people like that.
I'll start with the NUS & its no platform policy. I'll add the labour party, socialist groups and the vast majority of 'do-gooders'.I’d be a bit worried if I found myself labelling large groups of people like that.
As WWolf points out, you label large groups and should therefore 'be a bit worried'.
You’re labelling millions of people with nonsensical generalisations.
smn159 said:
And how do you think that 'exposing' people will create harmony?
Otherwise top marks.
My thoughts exactly Otherwise top marks.
But then I thought maybe it’s a bit like calling out bigots, and challenging their views. Does that make them have a think or does it just entrench them in echo chambers?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone in here recognise they used to be a an intolerant right/left winger and being called out has made them more reasonable.
captain_cynic said:
I'm confused at how people can get such messed up facebook accounts.
Me too. Mine is all pleasant and full of nice people doing interesting things. If friends of mine (or usually my wife) bang on about politics or how they’re in the first class lounge all the time, I just don’t follow them or delete them.Facebook is just an echo chamber algorithm.
If you’re getting nutty political posts and articles in your feed, it’s because you’re interacting with links it’s sending you and have friends who are nuts and you’re liking or reading their links.
untakenname said:
People complaining about the content of their news feed is similar to a decade ago people complaning about adverts tailored to their browsing habits.
Yeah, you used to get that in here with people complaining about adverts for rubber dolls and escorts or Russian wives without realising, when the adverts first started. Tuna said:
I spent the weekend with two halves of my family that are respectively Left and Right wing - one lot (guess who!) went to university to study humanities, the other lot a combination of science and engineering courses.
It was the left wing lot who lectured on environmentalism (inaccurately), assumed a lack of cultural knowledge and described any public figure on the right pretty universally as "horrible". "awful", "nasty" and other dismissive remarks.
Do you think your views might be a bit polarised and it’s you that’s the issue? It was the left wing lot who lectured on environmentalism (inaccurately), assumed a lack of cultural knowledge and described any public figure on the right pretty universally as "horrible". "awful", "nasty" and other dismissive remarks.
I visit my family and chat about stuff and have a good time. I don’t sit there defining them by their politics and trying to find evidence that opposite side are intolerant to post on a PHs thread.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff