Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[tooki]

I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation.  For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically.  They certainly believe it is their right to do so.

That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.

Nobody has an issue with people asking questions. The problem is that they don’t actually listen to the answer. I mean, yes, they perceive that an answer was given, but if it disagrees with their extant opinion, then they disregard it and attack or vilify the respondent. What we need is for people to ask questions and really listen to the answer, to try and actually understand the other position.

What I see instead is not questions, but simple accusations. Back and forth.

[JohanH]

not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.

Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.

[Zero999]

I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation.  For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically.  They certainly believe it is their right to do so.

That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.

Nobody has an issue with people asking questions. The problem is that they don’t actually listen to the answer. I mean, yes, they perceive that an answer was given, but if it disagrees with their extant opinion, then they disregard it and attack or vilify the respondent. What we need is for people to ask questions and really listen to the answer, to try and actually understand the other position.

What I see instead is not questions, but simple accusations. Back and forth.

Certain questions do invoke hostile responses and accusations of hate. They also more often than not yield logically inconsistent, or nonsensical answers. This is especially true when it comes to gender and to some extent race and religion too.

[Nominal Animal]

not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.

Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.

No, it does not work that way in real life, because humans are individuals, and not collectives or group intelligences.

What actually happens, is that individuals who lose opportunities to positive discrimination, will feel they are discriminated against.  This is not something you can train away, because it is fundamentally about fairness, which is deeper in humans than sentience (and is famously observed in many other species, especially primates and monkeys).  In essence, you just shift the discrimination into new people, you never reduce it.  In fact, you just increase the amount of discrimination experienced by individual humans.

Equality of opportunity is the only way to actually reduce the amount of discrimination.

The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.

No.  That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies).  It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science.  The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.

This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.

[JohanH]

No.  That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies).  It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science.  The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.

This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.

I don't believe it to be that simple. In the social democratic model of the Nordic societies (and also in the EU at large) society supports different needs on different levels (not necessarily by minority boundaries). So the support isn't necessarily directly to these groups, but on other levels, based e.g. on individual needs.

I agree with you that fundamentally, there should be fairness and equal rights for humans. But people are different and how you select to give different support to different people must come from some policy. These are very big questions and how that is implemented I'm not competent to comment on, neither do I have the resources or influence to impact on it, other than on lower municipality level, where I've been involved a bit politically. Because I'm not an expert in these matters, ultimately I, like many other people, might not care in the long run, or might follow some party political line and be content with that.

[Zero999]

The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.

No.  That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies).  It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science.  The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.

This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.

Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.

[JohanH]

The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.

No.  That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies).  It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science.  The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.

This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.

Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.

I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.

[coppice]

The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.

No.  That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies).  It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science.  The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.

This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.

Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.

In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.

[Nominal Animal]

These are very big questions and how that is implemented I'm not competent to comment on, neither do I have the resources or influence to impact on it, other than on lower municipality level, where I've been involved a bit politically.

They are big questions, and I definitely do not claim to have any answers.  I only want – no, demand! – the ability to discuss them without being labeled or punished for my current opinions.
Many of my current opinions are wrong, but because I can and want to learn, I want to find out which ones and why.
I may not be competent myself, but I refuse to leave such discussions to ideologically driven university students and activists alone.

I fully accept that whatever I discuss with someone may sour their opinion of me, and cause them to stop interacting with me.  This is acceptable, because all interaction has its risks and rewards.  (It is rare, though.  I do make an occasional blunder, especially linguistically, so I do worry a bit about that, about effects of miscommunication.)

What I do not accept, is when someone demands others to not interact with me, or else, especially if it is because of something they heard from some  another person attributed to myself.  And especially if they do so by labeling me as something I am clearly and demonstrably not.

(Obviously, I am projecting myself in Scott Adams' situation here, but that's just how I relate to other people: I imagine myself in their situation, reflecting their reactions on what I imagine (or know from experience) mine would be, and draw parallels to my own experiences.  I seek common ground, and try to build deeper understanding based on the commonalities.  I do fear I sound very self-centered, but this is just the way I've found I can effectively relate to anyone, regardless of their background or characteristics.)

[tszaboo]

I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.

Why?
I'm serious, I'm asking it in the very philosophical sense, why? There will be always be people who are the last. They picked some arbitrary measure and that's the most important today. You can pick infinite different criteria, and the outcome will be different. You can pick IQ. Shall we have equal outcome for IQ? Hire board members from the bottom 5% of the distribution and force companies to do so? How about baldness? Or height? Or people with a stub toe? Or brown haired woman? People not living in the capital? How about fixing gender disparity on offshore oilrigs? Why not me, I'm from abroad, why am I not a CTO yet? Do we really want to reward someone based on their birth characteristics instead of their effort, merit and talent?
We put it into law, everyone is equal, discrimination isn't allowed. And then they flip it, and they call it progress.
I cannot wait, when 20 years from now we will be -ist, because we weren't picking some other characteristics that is the most important at that time. Or hopefully we move past woke by then. They are cancelling dead people, because they didn't follow the today's trend. There is now trigger warning placed on Shakespeare, because apparently he wasn't progressive enough. And we are burning books again. Did we learn nothing?

[JohanH]

Why?
I'm serious, I'm asking it in the very philosophical sense, why? There will be always be people who are the last. They picked some arbitrary measure and that's the most important today. You can pick infinite different criteria, and the outcome will be different. You can pick IQ. Shall we have equal outcome for IQ? Hire board members from the bottom 5% of the distribution and force companies to do so? How about baldness? Or height? Or people with a stub toe? Or brown haired woman? People not living in the capital? How about fixing gender disparity on offshore oilrigs? Why not me, I'm from abroad, why am I not a CTO yet? Do we really want to reward someone based on their birth characteristics instead of their effort, merit and talent?
We put it into law, everyone is equal, discrimination isn't allowed. And then they flip it, and they call it progress.
I cannot wait, when 20 years from now we will be -ist, because we weren't picking some other characteristics that is the most important at that time. Or hopefully we move past woke by then. They are cancelling dead people, because they didn't follow the today's trend. There is now trigger warning placed on Shakespeare, because apparently he wasn't progressive enough. And we are burning books again. Did we learn nothing?

It sounds like you are exaggerating a lot of confusing things. Like someone is triggered by a lot of hyped up things spread by social media. Whereas things to be demanded is basic human rights as per the UN declaration. For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.

[coppice]

I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.

No society really knows how to help people. Society is a complex dynamic system, and any engineer should realise that a system like that is impossible to analyse effectively. Engineers should be very conservative in their outlook, as they realise there are only a few ways to improve something, a myriad ways to screw it up more, and its hard to know which camp any change will fall in without long term evaluation. That said, so much of what passes for "help" is clearly harming people. Things like affirmative action as practised in the US, for example. There is an honest form of affirmative action. You try to identify capable people held back by their circumstances. You provide resources, like summer schools, to help them catch up to others of their capability. Then those people can run with their peers. Then there is the US system. Take people scoring poorly; don't look at the individual's capabilities or circumstances; feed them into things they are unprepared for, without an effective means to catch up; watch them fail. From figures I've seen there are a lot of people from minority groups in the US saddled with college debt for degrees they could never complete, due to this kind of mismatch. Having no degree they have a poor chance of achieving the kind of income needed to pay off that debt.

[tszaboo]

It sounds like you are exaggerating a lot of confusing things. Like someone is triggered by a lot of hyped up things spread by social media. Whereas things to be demanded is basic human rights as per the UN declaration. For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.

Hence, I wrote it as a philosophical question.
"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general. So what is your suggestion, let's go around like Bush senior, and try to export our values abroad, because that worked out fine the last time.
By the way, if we are talking about basic human rights, what happened to "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". All. Positive, negative. This was 1965, they were smarter than today.

Then there is the US system. Take people scoring poorly; don't look at the individual's capabilities or circumstances; feed them into things they are unprepared for, without an effective means to catch up; watch them fail.

Or even worse, where the most of stimulation package ended up with people overdosing on their choice of sedative.

mod: Johan, you are probably right, I've worked myself up in the past few days. Kinda reached my breaking point where I had enough bs.
Im giving myself a timeout.

[JohanH]

"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general.

I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.

[Zero999]

For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.

What do you mean by women?

"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general.

I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.

So what, women are not equal? We know that. There are innate differences between the sexes, which have nothing to do with society and law.

The statistics you cite, don't prove women, don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who are much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection. 

[JohanH]

So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.

The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.

With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.

[Zero999]

So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.

The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.

With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.

How exactly?

Inequality is not evidence of discrimination. If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.

Inequality is essential in a free and fair society. The best we can do is ensure procedural fairness, by having a society which doesn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.

[JohanH]

How exactly?

Inequality is not evidence of discrimination. If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.

Inequality is essential in a free and fair society. The best we can do is ensure procedural fairness, by having a society which doesn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.

I don't think I'm able to answer, I haven't studied these things enough. I reacted to your comment because to me it looked like you showed some kind of contempt for the achievements of equality for women. I.e. so women shouldn't deserve having e.g. voting rights? The same arguments against them were presented in the past, i.e. their physical and "emotional" inferiority. I'm not sure if it should be called equality, justice, fairness or what. These are just words and need better definitions for me to fathom (there's also the language barrier).

<sarcasm>
I thought it was the Soviets that mastered procedural fairness. They sent any random person to Gulag to fulfill the procedures that circumstances demanded. If it was the person that deserved it, had less importance. </sarcasm>

[Zero999]

I reacted to your comment because to me it looked like you showed some kind of contempt for the achievements of equality for women. I.e. so women shouldn't deserve having e.g. voting rights? The same arguments against them were presented in the past, i.e. their physical and "emotional" inferiority. I'm not sure if it should be called equality, justice, fairness or what. These are just words and need better definitions for me to fathom (there's also the language barrier).

Where did I say that? It was your misinterpretation.  One could have easily assumed my post painted men in a bad light, more than women. I merely stated facts. Always assume, the person you're debating, is well-intentioned.

The best thing for society is to interfere as little as possible. This will ensure maximum wealth and prosperity for all. History has shown mass social engineering projects have a tendency to go badly.

[JohanH]

The best thing for society is to interfere as little as possible. This will ensure maximum wealth and prosperity for all. History has shown mass social engineering projects have a tendency to go badly.

I'm not sure "maximum wealth and prosperity for all" is possible in our life time. Something has to change radically for that, i.e. free energy or something. What we have for now, though, is many factors that contribute to happiness and a good life. The Nordic countries have many of these factors. It's a fact that the society's interference has contributed a lot to this. On the contrast, in the US, from what I've heard, they've tried to have the society interfere as little as possible. What has it done? Yes, "maximum wealth and prosperity" for very few people. Still, they need tax money for their roads.

[TomKatt]

America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it.  I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.

[Kim Christensen]

If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.

Pro Tip: When arguing a subject that has nothing to do with communism, a sure way to lose any headway with us lefties is to keep bringing up communism.

[CatalinaWOW]

America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it.  I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.

I'm all for correcting economic inequalities that result from disparity of opportunity.  But I also think that those who excel in creativity, effort or effectiveness should be rewarded for their efforts, and that those who put less into society should not get equal rewards.  That set of beliefs makes me a pariah in both left and right oriented groups.

Part of the problem is that there is little agreement anywhere on what disparity of opportunity is, and also on what constitutes a contribution.

[TimFox]

America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it.  I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.

I'm all for correcting economic inequalities that result from disparity of opportunity.  But I also think that those who excel in creativity, effort or effectiveness should be rewarded for their efforts, and that those who put less into society should not get equal rewards.  That set of beliefs makes me a pariah in both left and right oriented groups.

Part of the problem is that there is little agreement anywhere on what disparity of opportunity is, and also on what constitutes a contribution.

It is also difficult for one (especially one with good opportunities) to estimate the level of opportunity for other people in different circumstances.

[james_s]

Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.

In what way, specifically?

In lots of ways.

Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/

I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.