The Global Rants Thread

[Chase]

This thread was inspired by someone asking Ame something along the lines of "What is the biggest problem with the world we live in?" (to which she responded with "toxic masculinity", which is indeed something that exists as problematic.)

The premise though, is twofold. Here you can list the biggest issues you see with the world today, and respond to other issues in order to possibly bring about ways to fix those problems. This thread is different from the political soap box, that-feel-when, and general rants threads in that it's specifically talking about issues the entire Earth has, as opposed to ourselves and our governments alone.

Of course, I'll also leave you with a few of my own.

---

The Taker's Philosophy In First-World Areas - Wait and Expect

Areas of the world that are better off than others because in part because of what I like to call "the Giver's philosophy" - which is "to go, save, and serve." Living in America, I see first hand the reasons people want to be in a nation like this. It's a nation where it's poor people are more likely to be overweight than it's rich people because the issue isn't not having food so much as it is not having clean and real food. It's a nation where people make a living by starting a YouTube channel and a Twitch account and display themselves playing - not making or selling - but playing video games. It's a nation where people anguish over running out Pokeballs on Go more than they do not having water to bathe in and drink.

One of the things Go has really put into perspective is that the journey is just as rewarding as the reward itself. However, many people across the more fortunate parts of the world don't experience life like they do with the mobile Pokemon experience most of the time, and perhaps inadvertently ascribe to the antithesis - something I like to call the "Taker's Philosophy" - or "to wait and to expect." Patience is indeed a virtue - when accompanied by effort. Waiting is usually not what causes good things to happen and bad things to stop happening. You don't just put in an application and wait for a paycheck. There's an interview, some luck, and most importantly - some actual work to be done first. If you're going to be a Taker, do it actively - "Go, and Save."

Red Vs. Blue - Disunion Leads To Disrepair

Over the course of the last few weeks there have been several "Hatfields and McCoys" moments across the world. We have the US' black community trying to desperately put out a fire while the rest of the country seems to be standing next them and debating over if all houses matter as the one house burns. We have good police officers suffering the vengeful wrath of specific people in response. Such transgressions by division isn't uncommon either. Wars are fought by more than one faction. If there were only one gang owning all the turf, there would be far less gang violence. If the "Church" were often acting as if it were such and not "one of many churches in town", we might have Christians that are a bit easier to be around.

This is a multifaceted issue. People somehow stand to gain from division. People sometimes just hold too much enmity to forgive and forget. It's a global issue itself. However, the result en masse is only pain. It's possible for white people to grieve over the loss of black lives just as it is possible for blacks to grieve over the dead cops that were previously listening to their protesting. Loss of life is inevitable for all.

Uniting only gives us all the shoulders we could possibly want to cry on, and allows for us to heal much faster.

The Status Quo: Standards of A Worldly Moron

Harkening back to Amethyst's assertion that toxic masculinity is the greatest world issue - we naturally disagree because my name is Hunter and I disagree with just about everyone - especially Ame. However, she's not wrong because it isn't the greatest world issue. On the contrary, it actually very well could be the absolute worst - as a part rather than the whole.

Like all "types" of people - Men are held to social standards that are at times a bit ridiculous. They are taught and disciplined to be very insular and avoid letting things off of their chest in an effort to toughen them up. As a result, many men have what I like to call "the Elsa Complex" - where they literally "conceal and don't feel" until they absolutely explode. Such explosion of masculine pain often leads to catastrophic events, many of which incite more senseless loss of life. Like men, there are other groups with expectations. Women are taught to be soft, caring, and supportive at all times - causing a lack of independence and leaving them vulnerable. Black people seem to be taught to fend for themselves as opposed to taking care of one another - by any means, furthering the negative stereotypes the entire race has. If you're not a well-off, well-educated white person - you're trailer trash and a failure.

That's the rub. People of all walks of life are "stereotyped." - or given an absurd set of standards to hold fast to. What if I told you that if we abolished the "bro-code", we would have fewer emotional outbursts? What if I stick the knife in a little deeper and claim that if men weren't expected to be super soldiers - we wouldn't HAVE so many people feeling like changing their gender or identity was needed? What if black people let themselves be taken care of instead of leaving themselves out to dry? What if whites acknowledged that their skin color isn't the only thing that gives them comfort?

...that's all I got for now.

[PokeFailure]

Well that was a fun read.

I don't have a rant but I do have some Oxyclean you can have for the low low price of your dignity.

[Cobalt996]

As a good three quarters of my debating ability is based in personal empathy, nothing I put here, rant or debate will be remotely the same as spoken in person. I'll still leave thoughts on others' rants, though.

Hunter's remarks: (which are incomplete for now because life, slep, and the fact they are mutually exclusive for me) {incomplete marked [] }

1.

[]

2.

Pretty sure I wrote something up a while back on how America could benefit from a decade of Monarchy. Just got to dig through the floppies... [nope]

My current view on diversified representation is that either all sides are represented individually (currently Democrat/Republican), or none at all. Sadly, no man is pure enough to hold back all bias in a position of that much power, and be believe by those ruled. Beign a bit more frank, people don't tend to care as much about something if it doesn't affect them; if all of Alaska's volcanoes erupted, but it was never broadcast on the news, a person in Florida likely wouldn't care about it at all for a while; but what you don't know can hurt you. Eventually, the aftereffects of the eruptions would affect them, but by then it'd be a bit late to change anything. Back to the proposed problem, it isn't one of opposition, but rather care; there could be hundreds of political bodies, but if they didn't care enough to bicker mindlessly... well, I'd find it better than now, where any side cares mostly to just be on top. War, politics, turf, competition, service... anything you can fit under this topic is a matter of how much each side cares about the matter, and how they tie into it.

At the same time, to lack care is to become amoral, as morals are, in part, what allow us to care. I don't care for extrema, though; we are close to the "definitely cares too much" side of the spectrum, but "cannot care" is not the solution itself. The answer is one word that I wish everyone knew the full meaning of, down to the emotional level: discretion, or, as I interpret it in this environment, caring to care. []

4.

Oddly, though I see it in people, everybody I know in my area tends to break that; caring/open men, stern/self-prominent(?) women, and gregarious all in all. I'll openly say I have a tad of envy toward blacks (as my black friends are all too aware) on a functional level; let's just say sunscreen doesn't work on me and leave it at that. My brother takes what you say to a whole new level, since he does what I call "internet-style stereotyping." In short, everyone agrees with your mindset, so you can proceed, since everyone supports you (except they don't, because... internet? 'allo?) []

Edited July 15, 2016 by Cobalt996

[Guest]

Alright, first off i want to say that my world information is limited, but i've been trying to study such matters lately, because things are getting really messy around the world Also keep in mind my listings will be almost entirely out of a social POV, as i have next to no knowledge of how complex economics work.

I'd also like to say that i do not adopt any political flags what so ever and have come here purely as an independant thinker, even if you feel my points may relate to one side or another.

I'm just gonna give my 2 cents here, feel free to correct me if you feel the need to, it encourages the production of knowledge.

Now i'll leave you with my lovely text wall:

Issue 1: "Ideological Selfishness"

Allow me to explain what i mean by "ideological selfishness": many a time, parties of opposing views instead of reaching a mutualy tolerant agreement, try to force their view unto the other party, and conflict and hate escalates from there.

Let me use the gay marriage recently legalized as an example: at first, as a gay man, i was supportive of the outcome, and happy about it, but as i saw more of what this meant to the other side; the church and religion, i rapidly changed my views. (Even if i'm the first one to usualy bash on religion; people who know me closely know i have plenty of reason to hate the church.)

See, for their faith, it's simply as it is: homosexuality is a sin, it's part of their faith, it's what they believe in, it's not personal. And forcing them to adhere to something that would be entirely contrary to their beliefs would be selfish, yes.

At the same time, i believe the state should permit a legal, civil union between two individuals of the same gender and the rights that it would require to function well and the church should not force the queer person to adhere to their beliefs or worse: try to force them to become something they're not. (Pray Away the Gay camps anyone?)

I just used the gay marriage example because it was the thing on the top of my head, but i'm sure plenty of you can think of other cases of ideological selfishness based on your own knowledge. Things are really not as much "i can't exist if you also exist" as it seems, tolerance is possible in most cases.

Everyone has a right to their ideological freedom, be it religion, practices, or standpoints, as long as they're not harming anyone else, themselves or forcing their ideals into another group.

That is also why i think even the church could benefit from the separation of the faith and the state: having a state as a neutral, third party with no affiliation to any social standings but at the same time supporting everyone means their rights would also be enforced.

Issue 2: "He who fights monsters..."

... Should see to it that he does not become a monster themselves.

Allow me to explain: spiteful revenge. It's not constructive, and just makes the rabbit hole deeper. This directly relates to chase's second point of "Red vs Blue".

Example: Plain and simple? Hypocrisy. "Left-wingers" and "Right-wingers". (i say it between quotation marks, because those kind of people don't really represent the flag they wear. So if you're one of those two, keep in mind it doesn't apply to you personally. This is the kind of people that give their flag a bad name.)

"Left-wingers" have this whole beautiful ideology based on equality, freedom and tolerance, but when you get down to it, more often than not, they're also judging and condemning people just because they don't like them or because of a perceived opression even if sometimes a group did nothing to them, fighting back with the same hatred and contempt they claim to suffer. They're basically bringing Tumblr social justice extremism into politics, and don't get me wrong, i'm somewhat of a SJW myself at times and i agree social justice is important, but when you begin using opression yourselves, you've become a "monster".

"Right-wingers" are not exempt either. Here comes the "Right-winger" with this wonderful set of rules to enforce security, economical stability and how their traditions work (because they've clearly been working just fine till this point, obviously). They're basically Superman flying down to us feeble mortals with an american flag and a heart full of righteousness, but rather than being constructive and solving problems, they turn a blind eye to problems and just focus on getting things to stay as they are, or worse they regress. I've seen many "Right-wingers" defend the notion that religion should influence the state. We already had a period like that. It was called the Dark Age, and it was not good. They also get so caught up on their guidelines and definitions that they forget how being too definitive on those issues can invite plenty of loophole abuse, that's how corruption is born.

Another example: the recent heat in Dallas. Correct me if i'm wrong, but The Black Lives Matter movement rised after the perceived racism and use of excessive, needless violence and downright murder by part of the police to people of color, and it's all good to protest peacefully so that measures may be taken, but then some snipers appeared and shot random cops that may haven't even have anything to do with it on the first place. Not helping your case there, buddy.

Now, i can understand that sometimes strong measures need to be taken, but one should be careful not to become part of the problem, and exchange mindless, spiteful radicalism for efficient, strong, constructive measures. Which leads me to...

Sub issue 2.1: Too much Passiveness

This also relates to recent conflicts bewteen France and ISIS somewhat; now, i'm not french, i don't know french politics in depht, i'm saying this based on what i could gather by french people themselves. While i can see eye-to-eye with french authorities for trying to keep the peace, i really don't like the passive attitude they're having towards the terrorists.

I recall Prime Minister Manuel Valls went as far as to say that france needs to "learn to live with terrorism", that's a slap in the face of french people, they're basically throwing them to the hungry dogs instead of trying to come up with policies to defend them.

tl:dr: "He who fights monsters" should fight to defend themselves, and not to attack simply out of hatred, otherwise they'd just become what they hate and just deepen the issue.

Issue 3: Disinformation

You know exactly where i'm going with this, it's simple: people don't know what's going on (myself included, which is why i've been trying to study), and as such, they don't even know what to do or what to stand for. Or they think they do but only end up feeding the fire. People don't even know if they should care (yes, yes you should. seriously.), and it doesn't seem like the higher powers are making much effort at all to educate the masses. But i guess that's part of the plan, on the big game of "i have my personal interests and fuck the rest". It's sad really.

Damn, this was a lot more verbose than i wanted it to be, but i'm just bad with words.

If you really read this far, thanks a bunch.

[Chase]

You nailed it man.

It really is the American flag toting Clark Kent vs. "Social Justice Warrior Man." - and it should be blatantly obvious that neither side is inherently evil.

Speaking as one of the few "righties" in this community - we do care enough about certain supposedly "unalienable" rights just as much as the Left does.

As a straight Christian male with a very strict view on how the Constitution should have been interpreted - "Obergefell v. Hodges" (the case that resulted in same-sex marriage's legality nationwide here in America) was - surprisingly - tolerable. It's 2016 and the book of Revelations basically reads that God's got a plan for a different world to thrive in instead of the rock we're sitting on, so a legislative crusade is not something that can be theologically advocated. The person I was with at the time and many of my friends were also pleased with the outcome - and I couldn't help be be happy for them.

However - this isn't to say the Supreme Court did a fantastic job in rolling that verdict out - because it has resulted in egregious push back from churches that have every right to feel like their religious freedom is at risk due to poor judicial process. The LGBT community didn't play nicely either. We had people JAILED because they denied a marriage license based on their beliefs - essentially being denied their First Amendment right of free exercise. We had people sued because they employed the right of refusal based on their religious beliefs as opposed to simply "because" the couple was homosexual.

Dishearteningly, many churches have lashed out with even more "Pray the Gay Away" campaigns and division - when the church used to be about unity as opposed to division.

If you were to ask me what the biggest issue with the world is, it's a tie between holding humans to a certain standard and dividing them as much as possible.

[Guest]

If you were to ask me what the biggest issue with the world is, it's a tie between holding humans to a certain standard and dividing them as much as possible.

(really wanted to have replied to this sooner, but simply didn't have the opportunity)

That's a very good point, Hunter.

Allow me to get a little bit more philosophical here to ilustrate an idea.

I believe you're familiar with the concepts of Objective Morality and Subjective Morality?

"Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God." - Excerpt taken from Rational Wiki

That's the moral system a religious individual such as you would ideally adopt.

As it is, objective morality is currently deeply based on the asumption that there is indeed a God.

Subjective morality on the other hand, pertains to the morality that each different individual has within themselves. Needless to say, that's bound to create disagreements over right or wrong. However, even people that do not follow an ideal of "objective morality" can have the same values towards a multitude of topics, which leads me to an idea i've seen other thinkers call Shared morality.

The shared morality idea at it's core would be the values any sane of mind human being could adopt regardless of religious belief or social standing because theoretically, anyone would be able to relate to.

And here is where i'm going with all this: i believe the "certain standard" you're looking for would be the result of being able to pinpoint this shared morality and applying it to current society. It would be a standard anyone could adhere to while remaining "divided" enough to retain their ideological freedom and practices.

Personal note:

Personally, i follow the notion that, if what you're doing is not harmful to others or yourself, then go for it, specially if it's productive as a bonus.

I believe Amethyst said best herself in her AMA:

"If it harm none, do what ye will."

Edited July 19, 2016 by Telos

[Chase]

"Subjective Morality" is like....my least favorite phrase ever - but here, you weren't advocating for it so much as you were pointing out various types of people ascribe to it and that there must be some kind of "shared" morality code that every would ascribe to because they are a human being, so you're safe.

This is one of the few times where the Wiccan's Rede Ame supplied you there would be reasonably applicable - but not because it's a standard, it's more like a degree of apathy at worst and at best it's NOT holding anyone to a standard terribly much. Only prerequisite being that you don't harm others in doing whatever it is you want to do. It would seem on the surface that the Rede would at least fix a lot of the Earth's problems...except there are lots of "terrible" Witches (under the assumption every human being should live by this mantra, not actual Wiccan people of faith.) out there, because the first part of that clause is just as important as the second.

If the world truly payed attention to the first part of that phrase "if it harm none" we wouldn't be talking about wars, family violence, gang violence, rape, killing of black people/police officers unjustly, what have you. Unfortunately, several advocates of subjective or relative morality tend to believe that causing another harm IS a moral action - and if morality is subjective - then there's no way to claim that the person is wrong and -definitely- no way to charge them under that moral code.

I would agree that there needs to be a "shared" moral compass - but I would have a hard time believing it would be remotely subjective. The best advice I'd have for a non-Christian is just believe in objective morality first and live by it.

[Guest]

"Subjective Morality" is like....my least favorite phrase ever - but here, you weren't advocating for it so much as you were pointing out various types of people ascribe to it and that there must be some kind of "shared" morality code that every would ascribe to because they are a human being, so you're safe.

I too have a dislike for that idea myself. That's precisely because of that mindset that we even have many issues of "Red vs Blue" as you pointed out.

This is one of the few times where the Wiccan's Rede Ame supplied you there would be reasonably applicable - but not because it's a standard, it's more like a degree of apathy at worst and at best it's NOT holding anyone to a standard terribly much. Only prerequisite being that you don't harm others in doing whatever it is you want to do. It would seem on the surface that the Rede would at least fix a lot of the Earth's problems...except there are lots of "terrible" Witches (under the assumption every human being should live by this mantra, not actual Wiccan people of faith.) out there, because the first part of that clause is just as important as the second.

If the world truly payed attention to the first part of that phrase "if it harm none" we wouldn't be talking about wars, family violence, gang violence, rape, killing of black people/police officers unjustly, what have you. Unfortunately, several advocates of subjective or relative morality tend to believe that causing another harm IS a moral action - and if morality is subjective - then there's no way to claim that the person is wrong and -definitely- no way to charge them under that moral code.

That's the point.

What i'm saying is that the part of "no harm done" should really be payed more attention as you put it.

It would be less about adhering to it as a standard itself and more about using it as one of the bases for a standard.

Creating a law around it, with the purpose of enforcing tolerance of all parties while at the same time preserving their ideological freedom so that there's "no harm done" to any side.

This is the part when "then do what you will" comes in: once a code enforcing that no one or their ideologies should be subjected to "harm" has been created, any person would be free to exercise their individuality regardless of what it is as long as they respect other's individuality and don't try to override others with their own values.

But you might be asking, Telos, what do you objectively mean by "harm"?

I can only answer that that's honestly hard to pinpoint(and should be debated further, but i don't think this is the right topic for this right now), but i believe that at it's core, this "harm" has it roots on anything that creates unecessary suffering.

Consider it somewhat like this:

"Oh, we can't all agree with eachother, but we can at least create policies to coexist while doing our own thing. To preserve peace so we don't nuke eachother in a fit of rage someday."

I would agree that there needs to be a "shared" moral compass - but I would have a hard time believing it would be remotely subjective. The best advice I'd have for a non-Christian is just believe in objective morality first and live by it.

Pretty much, yes. It wouldn't be subjective precisely because it would be "shared".

But it wouldn't by definition be Objective Morality either because it wouldn't have a god at it's center.

I'm talking about principles any stable human being could agree on keeping in order to preserve peace, that could be based on values that are shared by people regardless of their positioning.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Telos

[Chase]

This is where we start trying to avoid "pie in the sky" hopes here. As much as nobody wants to be harmed - there is various causes of harm, including harming ourselves.

Pain, at least from my fingertips, will never be in this forum as something that's wrong with the world. It's a part of life.

That being said, we can operate in a way so that we don't intentionally cause harm to others.

---

Most of the time, objective morality falls on the standard of God yes... most of the time.

However, if only most of the time it must at least be possible for people to adhere to objective morality -without- believing in God. Historically, the presumed existence of a deity established what "right" and "wrong" was - so it's easy to see why most OM proponents are religious. However, if the standard isn't on God but something like the "Golden Rule" or even something inspired by the Rede - you can still say something like "cheating on your partner is wrong" or "helping an elderly woman carry her groceries is right." without question.

Your own quote from RationalWiki says "most of the time." - so it would seem objective morality shared between religious people and non-religious people is most certainly possible with that kind of evidence alone.

[Guest]

This is where we start trying to avoid "pie in the sky" hopes here. As much as nobody wants to be harmed - there is various causes of harm, including harming ourselves.

Pain, at least from my fingertips, will never be in this forum as something that's wrong with the world. It's a part of life.

That being said, we can operate in a way so that we don't intentionally cause harm to others.

You are correct.

I'm aware that my POV might be seen as too idealistic, but was just trying to highlight any options that could be taken so that one could operate in that way.

Most of the time, objective morality falls on the standard of God yes... most of the time.

However, if only most of the time it must at least be possible for people to adhere to objective morality -without- believing in God. Historically, the presumed existence of a deity established what "right" and "wrong" was - so it's easy to see why most OM proponents are religious. However, if the standard isn't on God but something like the "Golden Rule" or even something inspired by the Rede - you can still say something like "cheating on your partner is wrong" or "helping an elderly woman carry her groceries is right." without question.

Your own quote from RationalWiki says "most of the time." - so it would seem objective morality shared between religious people and non-religious people is most certainly possible with that kind of evidence alone.

Very well put.

I can agree on that. (by the way, the only reason i kept refering to OM as exclusively theocentric, was because i watched a lecture refering to it exclusively as such, regardless of what the wiki said. but i see what you're getting at)

I believe the real problem is determining what must objectively be followed.

One can be a good person without a "creed" after all.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Telos