- Joined
- Nov 8, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 20
And yes, this means sensitive issues as well. This does not mean to look at things in a cold and indifferent way, but to have the ability to.
There's a huge advantage to "Playing Spock" for societal issues because that would reach no conclusion in debate because both sides are, justifiably perhaps, bringing all their emotions to the table alongside their arguments. The magnitude of the decisions proposed does not negate the importance of having a "Point A to Point B because this is an optimal solution" discussion, but in fact makes it vastly more important alongside impassioned debate.
I personally believe a good example of this in practice is to use the metaphor of marginalized people having more rights than their current society affords them, wherever that it. In this case, imagine bringing up that marginalized people are still human beings who can be useful in society if treated equally and not systemically pushed down, and that the social climate that allows some people to be considered "better" or "worse" in their locale and therefore not allowed opportunities to advance in their society through their own efforts and hard work is a genuine loss for the whole of the society because, numerically, there are less people overall who are in a position where they can enact further movement in an economic system, advancements in art and the sciences, and that is not optimal in any way, shape or form because the oppressed group cannot contribute the number of working individuals due to social circumstance.
That cold, hyper logical stance doesn't invalidate that oppressing a group of people for no reason other than stigma or some shit is a massive breach of justice and human rights, one that makes families with children suffer and develop scars in their lives that they may individually never heal from. But it does make a case for the people who are not empathetic to the emotional cause to find a logical reason to just be a good fucking person.
There's a huge advantage to "Playing Spock" for societal issues because that would reach no conclusion in debate because both sides are, justifiably perhaps, bringing all their emotions to the table alongside their arguments. The magnitude of the decisions proposed does not negate the importance of having a "Point A to Point B because this is an optimal solution" discussion, but in fact makes it vastly more important alongside impassioned debate.
I personally believe a good example of this in practice is to use the metaphor of marginalized people having more rights than their current society affords them, wherever that it. In this case, imagine bringing up that marginalized people are still human beings who can be useful in society if treated equally and not systemically pushed down, and that the social climate that allows some people to be considered "better" or "worse" in their locale and therefore not allowed opportunities to advance in their society through their own efforts and hard work is a genuine loss for the whole of the society because, numerically, there are less people overall who are in a position where they can enact further movement in an economic system, advancements in art and the sciences, and that is not optimal in any way, shape or form because the oppressed group cannot contribute the number of working individuals due to social circumstance.
That cold, hyper logical stance doesn't invalidate that oppressing a group of people for no reason other than stigma or some shit is a massive breach of justice and human rights, one that makes families with children suffer and develop scars in their lives that they may individually never heal from. But it does make a case for the people who are not empathetic to the emotional cause to find a logical reason to just be a good fucking person.