ChockrickBear Gaming

This is an index page listing all posts for this sub-forum. Use your browser search (Ctrl+F) to find the desired post and click on it to go to the real forum.

General Discussion

ChockrickBearAug 4, 2018 2:56pm EDT
[t]Welcome to the General Discussion Forum[/t]
You may discuss anything not related to my article topics here. I don't restrict discussion topics, but consider that the audience here is gamers, so I recommend posting gaming related stuff.
ChockrickBearMar 26, 2020 3:20pm EDT
I suppose I could start making use of my own forum system by posting some short, random thoughts.
[t]On Us-Versus-Them[/t]
Us-versus-them is a non-explanation of group conflict. It sounds academic, but it does not address any of the arguments being made. It does not see groups as people with common interests that they are entitled to protect, and instead, sees conflict in terms of nothing more than aggressor and victim with a clear moral power dynamic.

Its only solution to conflict is to eliminate the concept of "them" by being infinitely inclusive of who belongs to "us", which requires the erasure of differences and the assimilation of everyone into a collective hive mind. The goals of the collective are ultimately just an extension of the goals of only a handful of people at the top. Its failure to understand what different people want and its maintaining of distance from perceived aggressors is precisely the kind of dehumanization and othering that it claims to be against.
ChockrickBearMar 27, 2020 10:59am EDT
[t]Social anxiety and criticism[/t]
A major reason why I run this website is because I do not like socializing with people. The prospect of having to deal with people fills me with dread, and I wish I could just live my life being invisible. However, I know it is not possible to live comfortably without other people because they produce the things I like. Even posting on a public forum makes me tight in the chest. I know that I have only one chance to make a good first impression, and if I blow it, it will ruin any chance of me succeeding. I will attract bullies who will see me as easy pickings. If I stay invisible, at least I have the potential, the benefit of the doubt. I can prepare and wait for an opportunity to make my entry grand.

I am not so much afraid of people as I am afraid of being judged. It is ironic because I am a critic; my job is to judge. However, being afraid is not a good thing because it will not get me anywhere. No one respects cowards, and expecting others to cater to my weakness as the socialists do is the greatest cowardice. In order to not be afraid, I have to understand the thing that makes me afraid; I have to face my fear. Because I am afraid of being judged, I have to understand judgment, I have to tackle the criticism I am afraid of. Thus, I criticize in the way I expect to be criticized. And to be protected from criticism, I have to associate with the highest truth that cannot be criticized.
ChockrickBearMar 29, 2020 11:41am EDT
[t]The paradox of tolerance and free speech[/t]
An argument I have seen to justify deplatforming conservatives is that a tolerant society cannot tolerate the intolerant or else the intolerant will destroy the tolerant and make society no longer tolerant. This is a reference to [l=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance]Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance[/l]. However, to use this to justify restrictions on free speech is a gross misrepresentation of what Popper actually wrote.

The "intolerant" who Popper was referring to are those who not only refuse to debate, but go out of their way to prevent other people from listening to the other side of the argument. In other words, it is ironically the left who are the intolerant ones by deplatforming people no one is forcing them to listen to while teaching others to "punch Nazis". They are authoritarians deciding on your behalf who you are allowed to listen to and what you are allowed to like. If the relatively tolerant does not stand up against them, they will dominate public discourse and hijack the mainstream.

The whole point of free speech is to find the strongest arguments that supersede all other arguments so that everyone can associate with the irrefutable truth and benefit from the innovation. But to do so, you must listen to all arguments in the hopes of discovering new insights even if not everything one says is correct. If what you believe is truly correct, you should be able to refute the other side. You should have a mental network of arguments for why you believe the things you do relative to your opposition, so listening will not harm you unless you are intolerant. Free speech is not an arbitrary law, it is the very principle underlying tolerance.

You could say that there are reasonable limits to free speech, such as defamation and incitement, but free speech can counter those things, which is why I do not consider those to be reasonable limits. When people call for restrictions to speech, they are concerned about the connection to harassment and violence. However, those things are already illegal, but that has not stopped people from doing them because coercively stopping people from doing something does not address the underlying human motivation. Differences need to be resolved, and free speech is the most civilized way to do it.

A reasonable limit to free speech is preventing people from yelling over each other, which disrupts organized discourse and infringes on people's ability to speak freely. Free speech is about the transparent communication of ideas, not the unlimited flow of sound from one's mouth, so it is reasonable to control the flow of speech so that everyone gets their turn. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre disrupts the free speech of the theatre. Even then, the concept of incitement ignores the agency of the incited people. Every single person in the crowd is morally responsible for their actions. Speech is never the cause of harm, people acting upon it is. If you want to prevent incitement to violence, then exercise your free speech and educate people.
ChockrickBearMar 29, 2020 8:17pm EDT
[t]Consequences of expression, discrimination, and the lie of equality[/t]
Freedom comes with benefits, but it also comes with responsibilities because a free society is not some magical fantasy land where you can give everyone everything they want. If you present yourself differently, it is your responsibility to justify it. As leftists keep repeating, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. What they do not realize is that it goes both ways, but they only want to regulate in one direction. To them, there is harm if it is against minorities, but no harm if it is against conservatives. They do not understand that they are only a minority because they are unpopular.

Anti-discrimination laws present an exhaustive list of factors you may not discriminate against because leftists want to reserve the right to discriminate against the specific groups they want, reinforced by the fact that they came up with affirmative action exemptions because they do not know when to stop. Getting rid of Jim Crow laws weren't enough for them, they just had to force diversity on everyone, and now they are trying to push intersectionality to n-tuple-dip on entitlements. Anti-discrimination laws are not inclusive, they are redistributive. Someone has to fail for another to be given success, and leftists think it is their right to decide on behalf of others who should succeed and fail. You can rest assured that they won't choose themselves to fail because that would defeat the point of their activism.

Leftists take advantage of the nebulous definition of equality so that everyone agrees with the law using their own definition. The left wants it for equal outcome, the right wants it for equal opportunity. Then, the left uses this opening to push hard on their definition using the idea that unequal outcome is proof of unequal opportunity to get further bipartisan support. What nobody realizes is that you cannot have equal opportunity either because opportunities are created by the outcomes of the previous generation. In order to create equal opportunity, you must undo the previous unequal outcomes, completely undermining the distinction.

Equality is a disingenuous concept to manipulate the desirable into sacrificing themselves for the undesirable. No one treats everyone equally because it is physically impossible and socially dishonourable. You will just end up with a whole lot of shallow relationships, and there will still be plenty of people you have not gotten around to who you don't even know about. No one really cares about your ability to say "please" and "thank you". They care about whether you will actually commit your limited time and resources on them. If you do not give them what they want, they have no reason to give you what you want. To demand equality in this regard is evil.