America is in trouble...
#2 is claiming that in the phrase "the only people who were really invested in keeping confederate statues in place are hiding some deeply distasteful views and should be flushed out" should be flushed out applies to views and not people. I am not a native English speaker but it does not appear a fact, much less a straightforward one. In the pattern "X is Y and should be Z" Z applies to X and not Y in my understanding.
I thought that meant parent was saying about 50% of the electorate voted for Trump but I could have misinterpreted.
OK yeah that's a good point. I was wrong.
What? “Bad” is an opinion. Pretty hard to argue objectively bad.
We have laws that represent our current consensus of good and bad. They can change over time.
We also have cultural beliefs that function similarly.
So, when I say, racism is bad, if someone says, "well, that's just like, your opinion, man", are they right?
Seeing that its meaning is in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions and bad here is used as morally objectionable "objectively bad" comes out as an oxymoron.
One common meaning of “objectively” in practice is as an intensifier of an inherently subjective description.
Severity seems to play a role, but by that mechanism (it's severe so it should be obvious, it's severe so it's worse if you miss it, etc) more than apart from it.
It's not a... literal use of "objectively", but words are frequently put to other uses.
Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all?
Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...
But, I think we're kind of losing the thread here. Let's just pretend the post that kicked off our conversation said "Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is bad" instead of " ... objectively bad", and carry on from there.
Because it's not about the use of the word "objectively". It's about the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States, and people who are dying because of how the current administration has mis-handled the Covid-19 pandemic. And white supremacy being a destructive force in U.S. culture, society, and politics.
Let's talk about those, instead of the proper use of the word "objectively".
So far we have two opposite opinions. Neither is objective and both reflect the poster's experience if we assumed good faith, as we should.
Next step, the side A brings in evidence: allegedly you cannot openly support conservative views in many coastal firms. It's not some strong, factual evidence but hearsay. Nevertheless it is an argument. So what does the side B do in response? It proclaims that conservative views are inherently, objectively bad and thus cannot be possibly supported at workplaces.
If you drop "objectively" from it then it's not an argument at all. It would actually mean that side B agreed with the side A: yes, you cannot show your views because we don't like them, deal with it! It also fortifies the original argument about the partisan divide.
But no, the side B does not agree. The side B makes an argument that supporting one of the two major parties and/or a president of the USA is inherently bad so this is not a partisan issue at all. It's just a fact of life: water is wet, sky is blue, Trump is evil and so are you.
So you want to discuss why you think Trump is evil? I, honestly, don't care. Neither I want to explain why I think he is not. I can, however, discuss, why neither party is objectively good or evil.
But look man. A part of me wants to back you into a corner, rhetorically. But honestly this conversation really isn't helping anyone. We're both probably rage-posting at this point.
I think all this started with someone saying that "racism is objectively bad."
To circle back to that, it's my own belief that the killing of George Floyd was a terrible reminder of how white supremacy subtly functions in our society, and, of our responsibility as citizens to work to improve our Union and make a more just society.
I think that doing that would ultimately be to everyone's benefit, because I believe that an injustice done to one person is, eventually and ultimately, an injustice done to everyone. We're all from the same (human) family, at the end of the day.
My arguing with you probably didn't help either of us. That's my bad.
Now, imagine that instead of discussing their findings directly and arguing about them, both made some judgment about their answer and discussed just the result of that judgment. E.g. Alice asserts that the answer is positive and Bob insists that the answer is negative.
How well would they fare if one side, say Bob, insisted that the other side claims that -1 is positive and hence is completely nuts and objectively cannot perform as a mathematician due to inability to compare -1 to 0? And no, Bob does not think questioning correctness of his answer by Alice is feasible because people who do not understand that -1 is negative do not deserve a courtesy of an argument.
I posit that even if both agree on what numbers are positive and negative there is no discussion and no agreement possible unless both sides allow to discuss the roots of the equation.
By the way you might find this interesting ; )
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
LOL OK I should stop my linguistic dick-waving.
It’s pretty damned easy to argue objectively bad. It’s lazy to argue that “bad” is merely an opinion when there’s some pretty clear examples that prove you wrong.
Would you prefer that we call Trump’s policies “evil” (which I believe that they are, but usually avoid that term because it typically has a metaphysical meaning people associate with it that I don’t mean as someone who doesn’t _do_ metaphysics of any sort)?
No one is covering the violence. Not one ABC clip covers the rioters breaking fences or setting things on fire. The NY Times recent video places the blame on untrained DHS/US Marshalls while independent journalists like Andy Ngo show the constantly destruction every night.
Modern US journalism is yellow to its core. It's so limited, so one-directional, so divisive and so misleading that everyone should greatly question the narratives put before us and view every alternative before coming to a conclusion.
This is why you need two perspectives. Let's take a look at another one:
Curious. Examples?
I am a bit confused though. Big corporations support all sorts of things - arts foundations, politicians who pass policies that will help the corporations make money, environmental groups, union-busting groups, groups against climate change legislation, children's sport's teams, etc.