Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 737 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 30
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 8:32am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Axiom I apologize for the assumption. I have been trying, of late, to break the habit of defaulting to male pronouns.

In regards to you not wanting to "shut down discourse" I sincerely wish that I could believe that you are the rule, rather than the exception. Too often of late the idea of "conversation" has been code word for "we talk, you listen" on a short road to "we instruct, you obey" - designed it seems to provoke thd most hostile response imaginable and indeed, to "shut down" discourse.

But I have promised myself to listen more and attack less, despite how good it feels (temporarily) to fight fire with fire (as it feels in the moment).
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 7:30am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

"@ Omicron MadManMUC
I think what axiom wants to say is that criticizing Burnhams character is fine, framing it in ways which are often used here is not."

You're not the boss of how people may acceptably frame criticism. And regarding Axiom's point I'm sorry I don't see it on this board beyond rare exceptions and in most cases, coming from troll posters who are just $$$ in regards to everything.

Indeed he (and you) are exactly "tone policing" as he put it. Bang on.

You and him would do well to remember that not everyone yet cowtows to the shibboleths of your particular ideology. Maybe soon, but not yet.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:09pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

I predict Control turns out to be Michael Burnham's father.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 3:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

Peter your point is well taken. I am certain history must be littered with the corpses of theories that falsely promised to dig down to the true bedrock of 'human nature' but instead illuminated only the biases of a single culture (or individual).
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 1:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

Peter I can't answer your question. What I will say is that Haidt did travel to places like India in his research (citing some of that data). While there were significant differences found between Western and non Western countries (although mostly on educational and class lines rather than ethnic / national ones) Haidt takes great pains to avoid the trap of mistaking the cognitive behaviours of educated westerners for human nature (as he alleges others in the field did previously)

But that said, my response already presupposes that your thesis is aimed at the west. It is of course possible that certain cultural forces are *global* which means they may indeed be true everywhere and yet not, in fact, be truly inherent in human nature. This seems implausible but if true, it would obviously be extremely challenging to verify.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 12:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

Hey Booming, since you were interested in the education factor specifically, I did a keyword search in the book just for the heck of it. It cites a study from 1991 by Perkins and Bushy which attempted to measure the ability of participants to provide reasons in support of or against various arguments on social issues. The idea being that the participant would tell you what his opinion was (for or against) and then list the "my side" arguments in one column and "other side" arguments in another column. The study used high school students, college and graduate students from different grade levels within the same institutions.

So the idea being presumably the more educated a person was the more arguments would be generated on *both* columns - or that is what you'd expect if the thesis is that intellect / education serves a rational purpose versus merely buttressing a pre-existing conclusion after the fact.

Here's the money quote:

"Perkins found that IQ was by far the biggest predictor of how well people argued. But it predicted only the number of my-side arguments. Smart people make really good lawyers and press secretaries, but they are no better than others at finding reasons on the other side. Perkins concluded that "people invest their IQ in buttressing their own case rather than in exploring the entire issue more fully and evenhandedly"

The central thesis is that our underlying beliefs are *not* derived from reason, regardless of the iq or education level of the person. Rather, our reason acts as a kind of lawyer or press secretary whose job it is to explain and rationalize a belief that has already been adopted.

Anyway if this is your field I'm sure this stuff isn't anything groundbreaking. No idea if it's credible from an expert perspective, but as a layperson, I found it eye opening.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 11:14am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

Booming, I think I already may have recommended Jonathan Haidt's book to you on another thread.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

One of the things I enjoyed about it was that it was good about citing credible sounding evidence to support its thesis (which I very crudely summarized above)

For full disclosure I am just a layperson who read a book that very much appealed to his inner "elephant" (again, Haidt's metaphor). I don't presume to be an expert of any kind on the subject.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 10:53am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

"I have an observation about human beings in general. When humans dislike something, they are not really aware of why they actually dislike it. They are more likely to give the reason that seems most logical than the one that is the actual truth when explaining their distaste for something. Humans are not aware that they do this."

Your observation is consistent with the latest evidence on this subject. People generally come to conclusions from the "gut" and then employ reason to justify what they already believe after the fact. This is pretty much universal and transcends education and intellectual capability. Indeed, an educated smart person will only differ in that he'll come up with smarter (and more informed) reasons to justify his gut belief, but he's still using the same cognitive process to get there.

I think this topic is very much related to the use of terms like "Mary Sue". I agree with what others said, which is that this type of term is especially unhelpful. It is a dog whistle designed to signal a "gut" reaction in the listener, either positive or negative. It simply serves to polarize and shut down any chance of rational debate. To use a legal parlance, its prejudicial effect vastly outweighs its probative value.
Set Bookmark
Jason
Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 4:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

That just means the visions are malleable like that one DS9 episode where O’Brien sees the future. No one really expects the vision of Leland coming on the bridge and killing everyone to come true, right?
Set Bookmark
Jason
Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 3:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

Uh, guys? Michael touched the time crystal before evacuating which gave her flashes into the future - much like Pike in the last episode. She remembers one of the flashes right before they fire the torpedo. Jet Reno touches the time crystal later and has a similar vision. I don’t understand the confusion.
Set Bookmark
Jason R
Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Sanctuary

Seth McFarlane has done it again. I was mesmerized from the teaser on. Marina Sirtis is lightning up the stage just like she did in TNG! I’d award this 6 stars but since Jammer’s system doesn’t let me I’ll content myself with 5. Onward!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Apr 9, 2019, 2:29am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: The Jem'Hadar

"I forgot to mention that the Federation released the morphogenic virus (into Odo to infect the Great Link) before the war even started. So the Feds embark upon committing genocide upon a group who has not even declared or waged war upon them. They conform precisely to the caricature shapeshifters have of solids"

I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) that the virus was transmitted to Odo during the events of Home Soil at which time 1. Changelings had already infiltrated earth 2. Changelings had attempted to start a war between the Federation and the Zenkathi (The Adversary) and between the Federation and the Klingons (Way of the Warrior with changeling Martok).

The changelings had already explicitly declared their intentions following the events of The Die is Cast where they orchestrated an attack on their own home world as a trap for the Tal'Shiar and the Obsidian Order and then told the Feds "you're next".

It is ludicrous to suggest that they had not all but declared war by this point, especially given the events of The Adversary.

As for the claim that the Federation invaded Dominion space, Peter and others already mentioned earlier on this thread that this was a nonsense claim. The Federation had been exploring the Gamma Quadrant for months leading up to the events of Jem'Hadar even establishing colonies and the Dominion was nothing more than rumour by this point.

Then later it takes the Dominion months to get ships to the wormhole when they send convoys to Cardassia. It is reasonable to infer that the Dominion does NOT control the immediate territory around thd wormhole. They essentially claim ownership over everything in their field if vision (to quote Worf) and eventually even claim the Alpha quadrant as their own.

In your WW2 example it would be less like America sending a carrier into Tokyo harbour and more like America having ships anywhere in the Pacific ocean being considered a violation of Japanese territory.

I happen to think that taking the changelings at face value there was no real prospect for peace at the outset. It was only a combination of the virus, Odo returning to the link, and the Dominion being driven out of the Alpha quadrant that made peace possible.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 2:31am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Perpetual Infinity

"I have given countless hours of thoughs to this, and my conclusion that any parallel universe 'me'' is not really me, or even not me at all.
I could maybe accept a parallel universe girlfriend as a close enough girlfriend, but no parallel universe me is a close enough me. They're all frauds. I would kill all parallel universe me if I could, so that there's only one me."

Yes this was the plot to a a Jet Li movie which ends with evil Jet Li brawling the population of an entire prison planet and ending with the exclamation: "no! you are all my bitches!"
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Trent, no identity is "reasoned into".
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:43am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Hi Brian, those are some good examples and I guess I have to concede that some questions are a matter of emphasis and perspective. On economics and guns, for example, I see things as more of a draw. Citizens United was enormously influential but it still isn't clear to me that this is some great victory for the "right" - especially if you accept the premise that the influence of corporations and plutocrats seems to straddle both sides on the traditional left / right spectrum.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:19am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Well Booming, your response may be accurate but seems to miss the forest for the trees.

if you are hypothetically a left wing black female gay atheist in search of an abortion, would your preference be to be living in 1969 or 2019, assuming for argument's sake that you are otherwise healthy?

If the answer is 2019, why?

And do you think that this answer has some bearing on which political movement has "won" the last 50 years.

Incidentally, I never confined by statement to the USA. But if you prefer to keep the focus on that country that is fine too.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:14am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Trent your post focuses on different things than what I was alluding to, which is fine. For instance, when I ask myself the question, who is "winning" (recognizing that is subjective) I am pretty results oriented about it. I don't really care about who is committing terrorist acts (although I take strong issue with the stat you cited) or who has more funding, but about how law and society has evolved in the last 50 years. When I said the right was impotent I did so because:

1. Abortion is legal
2. Gay marriage is legal
3. Anti sodomy laws have been overturned
4. Prayer and religion have been largely banished from classes
5. Church attendance and religiosity are in the toilet
6. Atheism is on the rise
7. Pornography is ubiquitous

Those are a few examples.

I am not saying that your examples are irrelevant but I don't see them as being particularly significant in the grand scheme. What good is funding if it's impotent to implement your agenda?

But let me end this tangent by saying that like Peter I think it is perfectly fine to disagree on issues like this. But motive speculation is almost never constructive. Even if you *know* the other side's motives are corrupt it is almost always a bad idea to say so if the intent is to have meaningful dialogue. It's bad because if you're right it is futile and if you are wrong, it is worse than futile - it poisons civil society.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 4:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Booming I wanted to give an example of what I mean to illustrate.

Let's say someone says he thinks illegal immigration needs to be curtailed to prevent criminals from infiltrating the country.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a substantial subset of the people who espouse this view, are motivated by racism. Instead of addressing the merits (the cost is disproportional, the security threat is exaggerated, etc...) you say that it's a racist policy advanced by racists.

Let's say your statement is true. The actual racists don't care. They might agree with you and then double down. Your statement does not affect them. Then the people who aren't racists (maybe they are just mistaken or they are ignorant) now form the impression that you slandered them unfairly. Their shields go up and henceforth your credibility goes down to 0. Indeed, now when you (or anyone perceived to be in your camp) makes statements on other issues, they assume *your* motives must be corrupt, because if you lied once you'd lie again.

Then a demagogue comes along and tells them exactly what they want to hear, and sets you up as the enemy, which is now easy to believe.

And maybe a different kind of demagogue tells *you* what you want to hear - that the other guys are racist villains and hate everyone like you. And before you know it, demagogues and extremists on both sides are running the show.

Have you read The Righteous Mind? It is an amazing book that deals with how people make decisions on morality. It should be required reading for anyone hoping to go into politics or to understand politics.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 4:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Booming you misunderstand me. I am not referring to the anti Israel types specifically although they are a concern. You again assume my motive lies with my ethnic identity group. As a classical liberal, I don't like the very illiberal strain on the left that is seeking to curtail free speech and crush dissent.

My honest assessment is that the extreme right in North America is a pathetic rump, a spent force that has lost every major engagement on almost every social issue of significance in the last 50 years, regardless of which party controlled the levers of power at any given time.

The extreme left, on the other hand, is just finding its legs. It is no co-incidence that protesters on one side routinely outnumber protesters on the other side by a huge margin. And it's not the radical right that has the numerical advantage in any of the confrontations I have followed of late.

But I digress again. It is not my intention to get into this specific debate. I am simply saying that if you want to make discourse *civil* you have to take the high road and simply ignore motive, even if you know that your opponent (or at least some faction) is disingenuous. This is not being a "boy scout" in the sense of being naive or bringing a knife to a gun fight. It is the only chance to have a real debate and not a shouting session. The alternative is to end up with armed camps shouting at each other.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 3:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Booming, as an aside I'm Jewish. And while the extreme right hasn't been a friend to Jews to put it mildly, the extreme left has been no friendlier. I am personally not convinced that the gravest threat is emanating from the right at present. Quite the opposite.

But that should teach you something about motive speculation shouldn't it? You got me wrong making at least two false assumptions.

But I digress. I suggest to you that motive needs to be ignored in any civilized debate, even knowing the fact that some are arguing in bad faith. Especially knowing that, because as soon as you go down that path, you're in the mud with them and no one can tell the difference between you. Guys like Trump thrive in such an environment.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 12:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

"That in theory is how I see it but there is a problem. For example when people use euphemisms. Trump is a good example here. For a long time it was the norm for republican politicians to say that they want strong borders to protect American jobs or something similar which is a euphemism for "We don't want Latinos to come over our southern border." but without sounding racist. The racists know what you actually are saying and you get these 5-10% of the electorate to vote for you. Trump started his whole campaign with the famous "Mexico sends us rapists and drug dealers " line and people voted for him anyways. Trump didn't need the euphemism anymore. The same applies to the "good people on both sides" line. "

I understand the difficulty in addressing fairly arguments one perceives to be self-serving, or even outright disingenuous, which is what you are alluding to. It is extremely difficult to resist the temptation ti disregard another's point of view entirely if you perceive that some are exploiting the situation for nefarious reasons.

But you should resist this temptation, because once you go down the garden path of attacking perceived *motive* behind an argument rather than the argument itself, you're lost in the weeds of partisanship and all hope for true understanding and compromise is lost.

The problem is bias, quite simply. The human ability to address arguments opposed to one's group affiliation on any given subject (and like it or not *everyone* has a team that they naturally identify with on any set of political beliefs) is dodgy at the best of times. If you are going to cut off those arguments at the pass by focusing on motives instead of logic, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy where *every* argument leads to the same conclusion.

That's the partisan disease everone is so up in arms about.
Set Bookmark
Jason
Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 2:12am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Blood of Patriots

There's no point in changing language if people still believe it is a sin or crime. If you don't believe that then no language is going to make you believe it, and if you believe it then no change in language is going to make you disbelieve it. Change your mind, not your language.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Mar 10, 2019, 11:26am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

"YES! Yes it is, real love is single minded and essentially selfish, it is a beautiful insanity. "

While I get where you are coming from on an emotional level I can tell you as a father I wouldn't blow up the world to save my daughter - especially since she also kind of lives here.....
Set Bookmark
Jason P
Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 4:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: If Memory Serves

@Trent

Say what you will about the Looking Glass line, but at least the show has established on multiple occasions that Michael and Spock both have read "Alice in Wonderland". This is opposed to DS9 where someone from the MU references the same line without Lewis Caroll's works existing in their reality.
Set Bookmark
Jason P
Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 10:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: If Memory Serves

This was quite the mixed bag. Lots of good historic and intriguing Trek stuff paired with a somewhat incoherent mounting crisis. The AV Club was guessing (maybe jokingingly) that the menace in the future is none of the than the Borg. Well, let’s hope we get something more inspired than that.
Next ►Page 1 of 30
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.