Even more Wankery that we find acceptable...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

While I generally disagree with his politics I think Mr. Savage raises an excellent point.

Now consider this...

Bill Maher and NYT's David Carr the "Middle Places" and "Low-Sloping Foreheads".

I apologise for linking as I seem to be having trouble embedding the video.

Now I would assume that both men in the second video consider themselves to be reasonably intelligent and enlightened men. If accused of being racist or bigoted I would imagine that they would be properly offended.

Which is why I'm going to ask an uncomfortable question, why is it ok to disparage one socio-political/ethnic class as stupid, dangerous, useless, ect... but not another. Would his comments have been more or less offensive had he been talking about "Fags" "Twats" "Spics" "Wops" "Chinks" or *Gasp* "N*ggers"?

Discuss.

Comments

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Hrm. Very astute observation.

Do you have anything to say on what "fair" is, either your own opinion or what you perceive others' is?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I thinking throwing around pejoratives like "neanderthal" are warranted here, no? :P

I'm interested, in an "eye for an eye" moral system, how do you overcome the destructiveness inherent in such a system? I mean, an eye for an eye, we all go blind. Also, how do you deal with the horrible subjectivity as to the value of eyes in todays current market?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

More head jobs, less steaks.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would say that because "fairness" is entirely subjective and thus impossible to quantify it has no place in a rational discussion, then again that's just the Math Student/Engineer in me.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Yep, I can dig that point, not sure if I agree with you though.

No, actually, I agree with: "fairness" is entirely subjective and thus impossible to quantify i but not it has no place in a rational discussion. We're talking humans here, we don't work like computers, if you try to keep things too rational you fail to encompass the full scope of human existence; which if you process through your engineer brain, you're trying to come up with answers with only half the information. Perhaps quantum physics analogies can help; you know all that "maybe logic" shit that's going on? I'm not saying that it's possible to actually answer, but I think the process of attempting to come to conclusions in an irrational system is more productive than produce rational conclusions from an incomplete system.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Than we are faced with a dillema, we must either ackowledge that our opinions are irrational (and thus accept that our opponents have an equally valid point) or we must seek to bannish such concerns from our decsion making process.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Not really a dilemma; our opinions are irrational.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Including yours.