controversies
It seems every time one racially-charged incident ends, a gender or religious controversy takes its place; Ruminate on the issues dividing our nation and world.
Blacks Can't Be Racist
Allow me, if you will, to set the fucking record straight. Black people cannot be racist—I repeat—cannot be racist when it comes to white people. We're bigoted and prejudiced as SHIT!!!!!!! But nah, we're not racist. Black people are disadvantaged in a world ruled by a white power structure. We do not control or own any of the economic, legislative, judicial, military, academic, or legal institutions in Western civilization. We're literally guests in a house we, more or less built, but do not own.
By Dre Joseph9 years ago in The Swamp
Philosofail
Every once and again some philosophical dilettante gifts us with unparalleled sapience in video format. Incredible largess is displayed as complex philosophical ideas are broken down into bite-size pieces. Everybody's a fan. However, by that same token, we are, at times, treated to a buffet of word salad where sentences knot themselves together into argumentative catastrophes. I am speaking, of course, about one Philosophy tube. For some time now, Olly, who runs said channel, has amassed a considerable following, thanks in part to his unmistakably charming accent. Sometimes, however, his arguments are rendered far less persuasive than his character. For one thing, Olly pushed out an unscheduled video recently imploring viewers to imbibe his message about conservative voters. Clunky, disoriented, and haphazard, this video portended what calamity might unfold if Olly doesn't reorient his channel's ethos. Specifically, towards his videos end he, perhaps inadvertently, bifurcated his audience between those regular, left-leaning individuals, and everyone else. Needless to say, everyone else cocked their head at this unusual gesture. Philosophy tube, we thought, was dedicated to relaying important philosophical information in a manner that is both digestible and entertaining. However, on this occasion, Olly seemed to have pivoted his channel's purpose to pedaling those political issues that he regards as particularly exigent. Worse still, our gracious host closed the video's comment section to avoid potential squabbling. To me, Olly's actions here represent anti-philosophy's apotheosis. The imperative to close discussion unilaterally in an effort to have one's voice "heard" is an unpersuasive argument all together. On the one hand, scientific journals that pass peer-review gain clout as they demonstrate their robust defenses. Consequently, we generally revere articles that result from this process. On the other hand, theories or opinions that are produced without any analogous peer-review are, in a similar vein, looked down upon. This fact, of course, begs the question of why anybody militating on behalf of those thing's philosophical would decide to close himself off to criticism. So, for his credibility's sake, here I will offer a brief criticism of just one point made in his video. At one point, Olly indicated that America's invasion in Iraq was immoral on account of how many casualties there were at day's end. I find this reasoning wholly unconvincing. To Olly, our moral analysis of wartime conflict ends partially, if not wholly, when every body has been counted. There is one problem with this; that is, that this argument draws no meaningful distinction between consequences that are intended, and consequences that are foreseen. Intended consequences are subject to moral criticism because their agent desired them actively. Whereas foreseen consequences are pardonable by definition due to their un-intended nature. To illustrate my example, two thought experiments are required. For our first thought experiment, imagine that John was strolling in his local park when, suddenly, a drowning child arrested his attention. Impulsively, John flew into the water in an attempt to rescue this endangered child. Unfortunately, however, John’s efforts were thwarted when an alligator swallowed the boy. Now, would we judge John's actions as morally neutral? Surely not. His intentions speak volumes about his moral character. From what evidence has cropped up, we could surmise that physical limitations were all that prevented John's well-intentioned rescue mission. In other words, if John had possessed perfect rescuing-technology, then the child’s demise would have been averted. We should expect this conclusion in light of John’s impressive moral character. If, after all, John was eager to save the drowning child, then we can expect a fortiori that he would perform the task instantly if he had the right technology.
By Roger Smith9 years ago in The Swamp
No’SoHa,’ NowOrEver
When I lived at 125th Street and Fifth Avenue in the borough of Manhattan, it was a hard-won badge of honor. I’d hopscotched around New York City for more than a few years, moving from Hell’s Kitchen (in what is now predominately known as Chelsea, in a victory of urban planners with no sense of urban poetry) to Greenwich Village, and even vacating the city altogether, spending a brief stint in Jersey City.
By Michael Eric Ross9 years ago in The Swamp
Institutional Balance vs. Separation of Powers
Introduction The concept of institutional balance—much used in EU legal publications appears to be a concept that is as elusive as the Unicorn. It is further clouded by parallels often drawn between it and the principle of separation of powers.
By Jim Gilliam9 years ago in The Swamp
Conservatives are Zionists
Reports on the events at Grenfell Tower last month have begun an outrage of claims that Grenfell Tower victims were "murdered by Zions" who had been funded by the Conservative Party. Not sure this is true but the outburst of comments is now being investigated by the police, just to cover all bases in case it is true in this age of complicated terrorist attacks.
By Lizzy Arrow9 years ago in The Swamp
Justice is Color Blind
You know, I sit back emotionally drained as I watch the tolerance level for injustice, racism, police brutality and hate rise to an astounding level. The images of Black men and women laying in pools of blood in situations where you would expect them to live through situations like selling CDs or being a legal gun owner who informs an officer that you are a legal gun owner, or even walking home with a bag of skittles.
By Regina Watson9 years ago in The Swamp
The Battle for Freedom of Religion
The battle over religious rights is escalating to new heights. It seems everywhere we look, some Atheist group is trying to force a Christian organization to stop an assembly outside of the church or to take down a symbol that shows and speaks of their faith. However, this is a strike at Freedom of Religion.
By Jenna Logan9 years ago in The Swamp
Racial Prejudice in America. Top Story - July 2017.
Racial prejudice is defined as an irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion that typically arises from race-based stereotypes (Nittle). The media has played a major role in distorting the images of many races with stereotypes that have made society come to believe they are all true and apply to everyone in the race. Vincent Parrillo’s “Causes of Prejudice” indicates that prejudice is not from a single cause but from psychology and sociology. He explains that people become hostile towards others when they feel their security is being threatened (Colombo). This essay will present a few images from the media that demonstrate the pervasiveness of inequality. These images prove that America is far from having equality among all races. Self-justification involves denigrating a person or a group to justify maltreatment of them.
By helianthus 9 years ago in The Swamp
