In a conflict, one should always amplify the voices of the marginalized so that they have equal representation. Agree or disagree?

[Still-alive]

I'm gonna ask a series of questions for awhile taken from this quiz i found online

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

It depends (say how)

im undecided/see results

[Bl0n6eguy]

Marginalisation can have entirely warranted reasons, such as ostracising terror groups, horrific criminals (e. g. ₱ed0s) and threats to community safety. This carte blanche statement is a harmful form of misplaced empathy that can destroy and compromise the safety of communal systems and peoples.

Gullible people are becoming far too easily mislead to believe that societal norms are top down impositions, and not the organic unilateral fabric that they are; creating boundaries, customs, rules and duties collectively to create, maintain and safeguard the tribe. The minority should never be amplified to a disproportionate degree above the average singular citizen; this will always lead to conflict, as the voices of the amplified may run counter to, or threaten, the safety and needs of the average person. This is no less than letting out of touch Celebrities dictate society; minoritarianism causes rebellion and revolution.

We all saw the Riots across the world in support of the attack on Jerusalem, and in defence of Palestine from retaliation. This is an example where amplification would directly enable and empower the ((fear causing)) hostage takers and their supporters.

[goaded]

Oh, this is where you're coming from. OK.

Conscious marginalisation is one thing; it's because we've heard what they have to say and don't like it. I think the marginalised the Asker is talking about are the unheard, the underprivileged, the neglected. A tolerant society cannot afford to tolerate intolerance, but they should listen to all voices.

"We all saw the Riots across the world in support of the attack on Jerusalem, and in defence of Palestine from retaliation. This is an example where amplification would directly enable and empower the ((fear causing)) hostage takers and their supporters."
I don't think we did. I saw protests against the reaction to the attack on Israel, but nobody supporting it. All Muslims are not Palestinians, all Palestinians are not Hamas, all Jews are not Israelis, and not all Israelis support their government.

[Bl0n6eguy]

I did, Personally. Gullible people repeat the opinions of others, meaninglessly virtue signal with flags and hashtags, and repeat standpoints given to them by Opinion Journalists.

Critical thinkers do not consume Opinion Journalism and seek out 1st hand experiences to evaluate situations themselves. They do not take statements at face value, they view all with the same level of scepticism and judgement; humans are base evil, to be anything more is simultaneously respectable and dubious; Especially in the age of "looking good > being dutiful" facilitated by social media.

[goaded]

This "humans are base evil" justifies you doing anything. You're projecting.

[loveslongnails]

So now a terrorist organization is a "marginalized group"? Huh?

[sawno]

Strongly disagree, I believe in the marketplace of idea's. If its a good idea it can get amplified, if its a bad idea it should not be heard. Most people don't understand who is marginalized anyway and systemic discrimination is more rampant now than for many years prior due to these incorrect equity efforts.

So if we are going to do this it would only be used for a power grab with the excuse the established side of the argument is marginalized.

[sawno]

Also worth pointing out, the illustration on this post. Literally none of those voices in the drawing is marginalized.

[Still-alive]

PoC are not marginalized?

[sawno]

No, they are the beneficiaries of discriminatory quota's and similar establishment talking points.
They tell us they are marginalized, but when so many large corporations and universities have black only talking points, spaces and advocacy for their supposedly "Marginalized" position while blaming white people for the issues you can easily observe its actually reverse as far as the systems go.

They basically perceive a problem that doesn't exist and overcompensate for it, the actual issue is a class issue. But the class issue isn't recognized and now the real marginalized groups which are poor people are discriminated against if they have the wrong skin color.

But in general anything you see big corporations promote isn't a marginalized talking point, look at how many corporations have sustainability and diversity talking points. Its THE main topic of the established corporate world, aka it has full establishment backing and support.

[FreyaRed]

Disagree.

Majority rule is foundation of democracy. Minorities have no right to demand parallel justice system and establishing of parallel societies.

[goaded]

It's just their voices, not their voting power.

[FreyaRed]

@goaded Why should minority voices have more influence than voices of majority? That's highly undemocratic and socially destructive

[goaded]

They don't have more influence, they don't even have as much influence as the majority; all they would have is the chance to be heard by the majority.

[FreyaRed]

@goaded What happens when such minority has the privileged much over their weight to be heard? They demand majority should grant them special treatment. So we are back on my first statement. It's quadrature of a circle. Conflicts will just escalate that way.

[goaded]

Should you close your ears to anyone?

[sawno]

I mostly agree with you but parralel societies can be needed if the society can not be unified. So I wouldn't say its universal, but in principle this is indeed how you defend a working democracy.

[menina]

I strongly agree. Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that...

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

I agree

[Still-alive]

why?

[Flatmanlewis]

I very, very, strongly disagree. A position on an issue should not be based on a population survey of the opinions being held. Plus, the term “marginalized” is a dog whistle word to me which already sounds like a manipulation of facts are behind anyone using it.

[goaded]

Strongly agree. There's a lot of nonsense recently about democracies being mob rule, but most people don't want marginalised people to be harmed. A working democracy will maintain laws that don't intentionally hurt people.

That's not to say society should bend over backwards to appease marginalised groups, just that they should absolutely hear their perspective.

[Bl0n6eguy]

OP is suggesting that we should amplify fringe voices that are outside the mainstream to an equal level with the general populace. This bends over backwards, as it devalues the voice of the average citizen and multiplies the voice of the outlier.

[goaded]

@Bl0n6eguy It only amplifies their speech, not their power. It just gives them a better chance to make people aware of their problems. You don't fix things you don't know are broken.

[Bl0n6eguy]

The presence and amplification of someone's voice in common parlance IS POWER. If one voice is amplified over the other simply because they are deemed an elite minority, that debases the fundamentals of a proportionately represented democracy. This breaks something that isn't broken; in fact, this already occurs, which is why there is such a divide in America (this is plain to see as a European outsider); the Celebrity Elite amplifying their own voices over the concerns of the every-man.

[goaded]

@Bl0n6eguy "... amplified over the other... elite minority..." We're not talking about either of those things, we're talking about making it possible to hear marginalised groups at all and they're not an elite, they're, well, marginalised.

US train drivers, for example, had no paid sick days and only one driver for a mile long train, but nobody had heard about it. It only got fixed (kind-of) after the public were made aware.

[Bl0n6eguy]

We ARE talking about elite minority; the prefix "elite" denotes amplification via status, media, or politically motivated promotion over the everyday citizen. Conflating media coverage of opinions that align with the general population's opinions on workplace fairness cannot be falsely equated with boosting the sentiments of the fringe to a level of publicity than the mainstream.

[Bl0n6eguy]

[Rewording]
We ARE talking about elite minority; the prefix "elite" denotes amplification via status, media, or politically motivated promotion over the everyday citizen. Conflating media coverage (where the situation of the workers is seen as an injustice by the majority) with boosting the publicity of fringe opinions to the level of the mainstream, is a false equivalency.

[goaded]

@Bl0n6eguy I see what you mean, but I disagree. Elites are people who already have amplified voices, marginalised people have had their voices muffled in comparison.

Consider reporting of missing women; missing black women typically only get media coverage when people notice that only missing white women are getting it already. It's even got a name: "Missing White Woman Syndrome".

www.npr.org/.../hbos-black-and-missing-offers-an-antidote-to-missing-white-woman-syndrome

[Bl0n6eguy]

The opinions of criminals and proponents of religious laws and executions are marginal minorities, the amplification of these to the level of mainstream, simply because they are fringe in number, is entirely invalid and harmful. It also spits in the face of proportionate representation of standpoints; something integral to democratic systems - and to violate this is to meddle with a democracy.

The whole missing person thing is an Americanism that can be explained by how atomised individuals are within their community; in less affluent areas, people are less caring of their neighbours' whereabouts, and this is usually where these incidents occur (this happens in atomised areas of European descent too. Look up the negative correlation between social trust and local differences in identity group). Most crucially, this is another issue of grievous false equivalency; it is not outside mainstream opinion to say that missing persons need coverage and protection, therefore this isn't a voice issue - this is a community, Media and policing issue.

[goaded]

@Bl0n6eguy You don't think proponents of religious laws have a large enough megaphone? Criminals are people, too, Florida voted to allow felons who have served their time to vote again, because their voices were heard and most people are decent.

"The whole missing person thing is an Americanism"
No, it has happened in many countries, and the whole point is that mainstream opinion has to know about the problem to react to it, hence the amplification of the marginalised problems.

White supremacy and fascism is elite, as well; Fox News and other major media outlets feed into that. They don't exactly try to convince their viewers that the majority of Muslims are people (of faith, even!) who just want to live their lives, do they?

[AngryCarl]

As long as we're not talking about "affirmative action" I agree. It's all too easy to trample on the rights of the minority in the name of democracy. I would know, I live in Ritchie Sunak's Britain.

PM Ritchie Sunak: believes what?

[normalice]

One should strive to but there isn't always the resources needed to do so.

[dreamstar72]

The problem is who ever is in charge of the power has main voice. So technically it is his way or no way.

[DextroShade]

This sounds like some woke fuckery that they use to justify antiwhite racism and Hamas savagery.

[Twalli]

There is virtually a scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and that humans are contributing to it. Yet when we five denial equal airtime people believe it's 50-50 as opposed to over 99-1.

[OddBeMe]

Guess it depends on “marginalized”. I mean Neo Nazis are marginalized. For good reason.

[OddBeMe]

Having equal representation isn’t the point per se, I’d say hearing their issues are. Not the same, necessarily.

[goaded]

They're marginalized because we've heard what they have to say, not despite the fact we haven't. Or they used to be, anyway. My point is that it was a conscious choice to marginalise them, not just ignorance.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded well, I guess marginalized is a negative action verb. It implies someone ignoring.

[douride2]

I disagree

[Still-alive]

why?

[WhitneySnow]

Strongly agree

[cherriibly]

I agree