Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[LiberalFox]

10 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Do you really think they didnt exist? 

Do you believe there are no gay professional footballers, or could it be that they ar not acceptable currently and until they are they will remain hidden?

Do you blieve that the increase in LGBTQI+ identifying people is because of advertising or something   Or maybe as they begin to feel safe, they are more likely to "come out" and the numbers will increase. 


 

I think he views it as a social trend.

[Dahnsouff]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.…

That resilience falling indicates it is less needed. That it is less needed is a sign of success, not failure.

Did I say it was failure? It may have been the assumption taken from my words, and honestly, it perhaps was.

[ozleicester]

fvcking trendy woke wannabes...


A study carried out by the University College London (UCL) found that the proportion of left handed people stood at just 3% of the population only 100 years ago, whereas now it has increased to 11%.

http://leftyfretz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/writing.jpgLeft Handed People Were Victimized For Centuries

Professors at UCL concluded that this increase may be attributed to the style of teaching in the early 20^th century where strict classroom rules forced all children to learn to write with their right-hand.  Even as recently as the 1960s some schoolchildren’s left hands were tied behind their backs to ensure that they wrote with their right.  Apparently lefties were also known as “gibble fists” in the 18^th and 19^th century and were severely discriminated against.

Edited 15 April 2022 by ozleicester

[LiberalFox]

Hitler wasn't inherently evil. He was both a product of his own upbringing and society both local and global and of his personality. 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Did I say it was failure? It may have been the assumption taken from my words, and honestly, it perhaps was.

Yeah, I made that assumption.

 

Like I have said many times before, IMO societal progress as a species is measured by how much "easier" the lives of everyone is by comparison to those who have come before, and the progress on that front is a good thing and something to continue to work to improve.

 

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

fvcking trendy woke wannabes...


A study carried out by the University College London (UCL) found that the proportion of left handed people stood at just 3% of the population only 100 years ago, whereas now it has increased to 11%.

http://leftyfretz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/writing.jpgLeft Handed People Were Victimized For Centuries

Professors at UCL concluded that this increase may be attributed to the style of teaching in the early 20^th century where strict classroom rules forced all children to learn to write with their right-hand.  Even as recently as the 1960s some schoolchildren’s left hands were tied behind their backs to ensure that they wrote with their right.  Apparently lefties were also known as “gibble fists” in the 18^th and 19^th century and were severely discriminated against.

People who haven't been discriminated against often underestimate the depth of that discrimination.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Hitler wasn't inherently evil. He was both a product of his own upbringing and society both local and global and of his personality. 

Evil (and good) is a name for what people do, not what they are. No aspect of character is truly inherent as they are all mutable.

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

People who haven't been discriminated against often underestimate the depth AND IMPACT of that discrimination.

Privilege 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Privilege 

Well, yes. Almost the definition thereof.

[Dahnsouff]

How is privilege being associated with a lack of perceived ethical behaviour?

[leicsmac]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

How is privilege being associated with a lack of perceived ethical behaviour?

Because such privilege *can* (emphasised) result in a lack of empathy that then leads to unethical behaviour.

 

Many examples of this exist.

[lcfc278]

13 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Hitler wasn't inherently evil. He was both a product of his own upbringing and society both local and global and of his personality. 

Yeah it was society and Hitler's parents that made him do what he did! Jesus, definitely the right place for this post.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Because such privilege *can* (emphasised) result in a lack of empathy that then leads to unethical behaviour.

 

Many examples of this exist.

And I am “sure” many examples of a lack of empathy exist among those without privilege, indeed due to the larger sample size, far more examples This is a very dangerous road being tread in what feels like a quest for some misplaced political righteousness, I see no need to push the sections of society into even more disparate groups than they already occupy. Privilege, like money, has many avenues open to it, the avenue chosen is down to the individuals involved, their ethical nature, not the privilege nor money.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

And I am “sure” many examples of a lack of empathy exist among those without privilege, indeed due to the larger sample size, far more examples This is a very dangerous road being tread in what feels like a quest for some misplaced political righteousness, I see no need to push the sections of society into even more disparate groups than they already occupy. Privilege, like money, has many avenues open to it, the avenue chosen is down to the individuals involved, their ethical nature, not the privilege nor money.

Oh yes, it comes down to choice, no doubt.

 

However, as such things as privilege and money also confer power, the effects of such lack of empathy can be further reaching than those with less power, which is an important distinction to make.

 

As you say, there's probably not much difference between "higher" and "lower" social strata in terms of their choices regarding empathy, but the choices of the former can have more overall effect than the latter.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Oh yes, it comes down to choice, no doubt.

 

However, as such things as privilege and money also confer power, the effects of such lack of empathy can be further reaching than those with less power, which is an important distinction to make.

 

As you say, there's probably not much difference between "higher" and "lower" social strata in terms of their choices regarding empathy, but the choices of the former can have more overall effect than the latter.

True, great power, great responsibility and all but here you look at the headlines and not the numbers. If 10 Dukes commit substantial lacks of empathy, it is news, but if 10,000 normal folk commit lower grade lacks of empathy, it is not news, but which group is more ‘at fault’?

 

The answer is, I would suggest, dependant upon toward which group your personal empathy lies, or perhaps the opposite of which grouping you have more enmity/jealousy toward.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

True, great power, great responsibility and all but here you look at the headlines and not the numbers. If 10 Dukes commit substantial lacks of empathy, it is news, but if 10,000 normal folk commit lower grade lacks of empathy, it is not news, but which group is more ‘at fault’?

 

The answer is, I would suggest, dependant upon toward which group your personal empathy lies, or perhaps the opposite of which grouping you have more enmity/jealousy toward.

I think the newsworthiness and fault would in this case depend on the number of people affected by the event.

 

And I also think that those 10 Dukes could commit larger and far more reaching consequences due to their lack of empathy than the 10,000 "normal" folk. Historical examples of this exist.

 

Perhaps that's too quantitative a way of looking at it though.

[LiberalFox]

I do think privilege is likely to lead to lower empathy. Think of the tale of the prince and the pauper. The prince is treated as a poor peasant and comes to see first hand how socially unjust society is. He is also confronted with how little power he has when his inherent privilege is taken away from him. Meanwhile the pauper is able to make a more just prince because he understands society better than someone who has been coddled and whose power is unearned. 

 

On the other hand it can work both ways. There are those who would use power to seek revenge or who would still see themselves as victims no matter what. Lack of privilege encourages people to empathy in order to form collective power.  

[Fox92]

46 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Hitler wasn't inherently evil. He was both a product of his own upbringing and society both local and global and of his personality. 

He was evil. End of.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think the newsworthiness and fault would in this case depend on the number of people affected by the event.

 

And I also think that those 10 Dukes could commit larger and far more reaching consequences due to their lack of empathy than the 10,000 "normal" folk. Historical examples of this exist.

 

Perhaps that's too quantitative a way of looking at it though.

Yes, it is too quantitive but we should also recognise that we are in a culture where the one can shout louder than the many due to the nature of modern media. (Not that this media is uniformly a bad thing)

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes, it is too quantitive but we should also recognise that we are in a culture where the one can shout louder than the many due to the nature of modern media. (Not that this media is uniformly a bad thing)

People with power have always been able to "shout louder" than those without.

 

I'm thinking that social media has just changed the game in terms of who might have access to that power - if they are lucky enough.

[ALC Fox]

22 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I think younger people are just allowing themselves more freedom to express emotion. Emotional resilience is an internal thing. But also emotional resilience is a learnable skill. I was much much less emotionally resilient when I was younger. It is quite likely that as we age we look at younger people and we compare them to our current self rather than our younger self. 

I wish I was more emotional. I've grown up thinking it's right to just not show emotion and not be too outwardly upset or angry or happy about things.

 

Though I do remember my grandad telling me as a child that men and women are as emotional as each other, but while women often tend to show it more, men bottle it all up and let it all out once in a blue moon. It struck me then as a really unhealthy way for men to live but yet I still bottle things up and I don't think I can really control how I hide emotion.

 

I'm truly jealous of more expressive cultures who allow more outward displays of emotion. I think it's a far healthier way to go through life.

[frakenfox]

A propos of evil, I have pondered (for my next blockbuster novel) the existence of true evil. I recall Ossie Osbourne saying that despite his bat-biting reputation, he wasn't evil. He did after all, he pleaded, flush the toilet after using it. As a definition of evil, that struck me as up there with the best.

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

I wish I was more emotional. I've grown up thinking it's right to just not show emotion and not be too outwardly upset or angry or happy about things.

 

Though I do remember my grandad telling me as a child that men and women are as emotional as each other, but while women often tend to show it more, men bottle it all up and let it all out once in a blue moon. It struck me then as a really unhealthy way for men to live but yet I still bottle things up and I don't think I can really control how I hide emotion.

 

I'm truly jealous of more expressive cultures who allow more outward displays of emotion. I think it's a far healthier way to go through life.

Got to better for the old blood pressure.

[LiberalFox]

Regarding Hitler I was simply thinking of the Nazis and how I perceive them. I see Mengele, Dirlewanger and Himmler as really evil. People who seemed to take delight in cruelty and genocide. Looking at Hitler I was struck at how he reminded me quite a bit of Oliver Cromwell. Both men endured hardship growing up and rose to prominence in part due to their aptitude for warfare. Both men were dedicated to a cause which they seem to have adopted out of a need for purpose, in Cromwell's case this was Puritanism and for Hitler it was Germanic Ethnonationalism. In both cases they weren't the architects of their ideology. Cromwell and Hitler both dabbled in democracy and were charismatic but weren't very competent statesmen. Both displayed a tendency to dither on important decisions but to commit absolutely once that decision had been made. They believed they were serving a greater cause. Cromwell isn't seen as evil in the same way as Hitler despite the fact he's the UKs only military dictator, at least not in the UK. He's less popular in Ireland. Much like Hitler, Cromwell;s government was atypical and after his death, the UK returned to being a monarchy. 

 

I'm still down with Hitler = Evil though. 

 

 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

Regarding Hitler I was simply thinking of the Nazis and how I perceive them. I see Mengele, Dirlewanger and Himmler as really evil. People who seemed to take delight in cruelty and genocide. Looking at Hitler I was struck at how he reminded me quite a bit of Oliver Cromwell. Both men endured hardship growing up and rose to prominence in part due to their aptitude for warfare. Both men were dedicated to a cause which they seem to have adopted out of a need for purpose, in Cromwell's case this was Puritanism and for Hitler it was Germanic Ethnonationalism. In both cases they weren't the architects of their ideology. Cromwell and Hitler both dabbled in democracy and were charismatic but weren't very competent statesmen. Both displayed a tendency to dither on important decisions but to commit absolutely once that decision had been made. They believed they were serving a greater cause. Cromwell isn't seen as evil in the same way as Hitler despite the fact he's the UKs only military dictator, at least not in the UK. He's less popular in Ireland. Much like Hitler, Cromwell;s government was atypical and after his death, the UK returned to being a monarchy. 

 

I'm still down with Hitler = Evil though. 

 

 

I’d argue that Cromwell only isn’t seen as evil in the UK for the same reason as the British Empire isn’t, because we usually “won” we get to dictate history whereas the  Germans don’t and we bury our head in the sand about our evil past (which is probably the most evil of any nation). And that the British mentality is that cowards to the British crown/state are worse than those who commit atrocities against foreigners or minority groups.

 

Said before that people often say the German psyche is one of guilt, but for me the British psyche is one of denial. It’s part of our eternal cynicism of the EU or “the European project” as it was called in it’s early days.

 

Cromwell was a brutal dictator who committed racial genocide of 1/3rd of the population of Ireland. He obviously should be considered evil in this country, but we don’t do that to our own In Britain.

 

in truth who are the “evil” people in British history? Even Henry VIII or Bloody Mary we often treat with intrigue and never treat them evil.
 

Instead the villains of British history tend to be people who we consider cowards or incompetent like Neville Chamberlain or Charles I rather than the commiters of atrocities. Says a lot about the British psyche to me.

 

Committing evil acts is sadly often considered better than committing cowardly acts in the British history books.

Edited 16 April 2022 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I’d argue that Cromwell only isn’t seen as evil in the UK for the same reason as the British Empire isn’t, because we usually “won” we get to dictate history whereas the  Germans don’t and we bury our head in the sand about our evil past (which is probably the most evil of any nation). And that the British mentality is that cowards to the British crown/state are worse than those who commit atrocities against foreigners or minority groups.

 

Said before that people often say the German psyche is one of guilt, but for me the British psyche is one of denial. It’s part of our eternal cynicism of the EU or “the European project” as it was called in it’s early days.

 

Cromwell was a brutal dictator who committed racial genocide of 1/3rd of the population of Ireland. He obviously should be considered evil in this country, but we don’t do that to our own In Britain.

 

in truth who are the “evil” people in British history? Even Henry VIII or Bloody Mary we often treat with intrigue and never treat them evil.
 

Instead the villains of British history tend to be people who we consider cowards or incompetent like Neville Chamberlain or Charles I rather than the commiters of atrocities. Says a lot about the British psyche to me.

 

Committing evil acts is sadly often considered better than committing cowardly acts in the British history books.

I think this has a lot to do with the earlier point about "winning".

 

The "winner" controls the narrative, and so as a result those who advanced the "cause" even over a mountain of corpses are rehabilitated as "brave" or at the very least "necessary". Those who didn't are "cowards".