This is what I have problem with too. I dislike most forms of dogma, and dogmatic liberalism, freedom of faith, speech and so on can be toxic too. I mean too often it seems like it just makes taboos shift. The smile-or-die mentality, the rainbow crew of Star Trek, the outrage that Witcher rooted in ancient slavic history and myth doesn't contain black characters...
I think one of the healthiest approaches was shown by the Monty Python group. They made fun of religious people as well as of atheists.
I would like to live in a society where it's okay to make a joke about race, religion, sexual preferences and gender once in a while. Many things are fine in moderation. It's bad when someone keeps hammering one group over and over. People always told jokes about forbidden subjects. When you can't tell jokes about X at all, I think it signals a problem related to X.
I have yet to explore lectures of Jordan Petersen, but I found one of his remarks interesting. One of his studies shows many similarities between right wingers and social justice warriors.
One way to define conservatives is people who want to force most of their rules on others. One definition of liberals is people who want to enable all people to live however they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Going by these definitions, social justice warriors can be considered conservative. They've just moved to another camp.
I'm trying to say perhaps liberalism/conservatism is not the value of the variable, but the algorithm. What you do with your values. You can try to force your rules on others, or try to inspire and lead by example, or... just don't care. Or something in between.
I'm being vague and general with most of my points because comprehensive error handling can obscure the message.
1) I haven’t personally seen outright outrage about it. I’ve seen some light criticism that there appears to be no black traders which would exist in those times, and that the characters are uniformly white while Slavic skin color is actually a range between pale and olive. These criticisms make sense to me and were not presented with anger. Could you show me example of outrage?
2) Jordan Peterson has not generally done much science lately, if at all about this subject with significant backing. He’s become more of an advocate of a specific viewpoint within his field(similar to other representatives Neil degrasse Tyson) and should not be considered an authority without several additional citations of more academically well regarded researchers. I wonder if perhaps this claim was more acceptable due to its palatability and not due to its actual veracity.
3) I agree that making jokes should eh universal, but as the OP mentioned empathy can teach someone why making a racist joke isn’t okay. Unfortunately we don’t live in a society where people make jokes but don’t actually act on them. Making jokes about oppressed groups in society, depending on their harshness, actually occurs in tandem with people tearing the same groups with harshness. For example, jokes about missing black fathers or single black mothers in America tend to be more hurtful than funny because it describes a real phenomenon where black men are disproportionately jailed and utilizes it for enjoyment. It’s similar to joking about assaulting a friend when one knows that that friend was recently stalked and assaulted by a stranger- it’s viewed as a ‘dick move’ because it is a joke that lacks empathy and understanding of ones audience. I believe this is an alternative viewpoint to your concerns that may he of interest to you to cosnsider.
> I’ve seen some light criticism that there appears to be no black traders which would exist in those times, and that the characters are uniformly white while Slavic skin color is actually a range between pale and olive.
Having been born and raised in a slavic country, I don't think I've seen a black person for the first 15 years of my life, except on TV. In a city with far more people than anything included in the Witcher. And skin color was very very close to uniformly white. So it's always fun to be told by Americans that no, actually, slavic countries have always been vibrant and diverse.
And there is evidence there were significantly more black people in slavic countries before that? Taking the example of Yugoslavia, this doesn't seem to be the case [1]. We're just assuming diversity, while demanding proof of homogeneity.
I think one of the healthiest approaches was shown by the Monty Python group. They made fun of religious people as well as of atheists.
I would like to live in a society where it's okay to make a joke about race, religion, sexual preferences and gender once in a while. Many things are fine in moderation. It's bad when someone keeps hammering one group over and over. People always told jokes about forbidden subjects. When you can't tell jokes about X at all, I think it signals a problem related to X.
I have yet to explore lectures of Jordan Petersen, but I found one of his remarks interesting. One of his studies shows many similarities between right wingers and social justice warriors.
One way to define conservatives is people who want to force most of their rules on others. One definition of liberals is people who want to enable all people to live however they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Going by these definitions, social justice warriors can be considered conservative. They've just moved to another camp.
I'm trying to say perhaps liberalism/conservatism is not the value of the variable, but the algorithm. What you do with your values. You can try to force your rules on others, or try to inspire and lead by example, or... just don't care. Or something in between.
I'm being vague and general with most of my points because comprehensive error handling can obscure the message.