This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

Running from the gender critical bans

submitted by Cat13 from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

feminism isn't just one thing, and like anything what it is probably isn't what it is represented as. Like anything the most easily found versions of it and the ones that seem everywhere are probably misrepresentations of what it is at its core. This is probably true for a lot of things you might be part of. I know the things I believe or the labels I feel an affinity for are grossly misrepresented even by people who loudly claim the label. They're "toxic mimics" usually (check out Derrick Jensen's youtube video on toxic mimics). I think with so many people migrating here from reddit, we should consider taking each other in at face value and ignore the labels. Socrates always started from a point of agreement, and I think we can do that on anything.

[–]manboy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, it's the same thing with BLM, at its core there are organizations and movements that do indeed strive for equality but unfortunately we only put the spotlight on the loudest ones and their actions never align with their message

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Socrates always started from a point of agreement, and I think we can do that on anything.

One of his better ideas, imo. I also love his view on the innate goodness of people (expressed as Socratic Intellectualism):

"one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best"

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm re-reading 'the Mo Tzu' and it occurred to me how many great thinkers or philosophical traditions can be broke up into "good human nature" or "bad human nature".

Moists I guess held to a good human nature and they thought like this: if we can not look to rulers for a generalized sense of what a ruler should be, where do we look? Well, as a people of a nation are under a ruler of that nation, so the nations are under the heavens, so we should look to the heavens. The heavens bestow their bounty to us freely with no discrimination such that all are loved equally (ie food and water are anywhere you look so we're all blessed equally by nature's gifts), so universal love should be the standard by which a ruler is measured the way plumb bobs (or plumb lines), levels, straight edges, and compasses (for circles) are used in building.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

universal love should be the standard by which a ruler is measured the way plumb bobs (or plumb lines), levels, straight edges, and compasses (for circles) are used in building

As a civil engineer, I find this especially beautiful.