The video and its subsequent response sparked a significant reaction on social media, with numerous users rallying behind Sangwan's statement. However, some others disagreed, asserting that personal opinions should not be shared within classrooms.
I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.
There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.
Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?
If you want a hot take I was looking at the supercola borehole and everything turns to lava at 14 miles down. This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball. I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit. I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time. Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?
I will try to understand the point you’re trying to make here, but I’d like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.
“…everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.”
-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I’ve, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth’s crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn’t fully magma either, so I don’t think it’s fair to claim “everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.” The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).
“This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball.”
-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?
“I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit.”
-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?
-But also, like @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn’t be an issue.
“I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time”
-Might be a bit of a tangent since it’s not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don’t try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?
“Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?”
-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won’t? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn’t deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?
-Why is having “actual green energy” leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?
That’s rather simplistic, though to be fair reducing politics to left and right is oversimplifying anyway. There are many variations of right and left ideology. For example, people on this site tend to identify left wing politics as anti-capitalist when leftism can definitely include capitalism in a multitude of ways.
Politics is complicated, because people are complicated. There will be some left and right ideologies that require or demand strict adherence, but that’s not true of everything.
Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.
I’m open to carrying a conversation that has freedom rather than backing someone into a corner in what you believe you said. What you said was that calling out the current state of politics as ignorant. I think it’s equally as ignorant to just put blinders on and say it’s a bad idea. I give you the premise that it is in fact a bad idea, but denying it just leads to more problems.
Leaning anyway is already an admittance that one must behave a certain way to be considered as apart of, creating a precedence of behavior they feel socially obliged to in a very simplistic give and keep format. Current state politics is ignorant and what makes me form these conclusions and compare them to cults.
I’m a centrist, I think about problems and the nuance involved without using identity politics to form my decision.
I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.
There is no identity bc centrists have an infinite amount of variations in beliefs while the left and right require a strict adherence that is often not even in line with the dichotomy that they have created.
Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?
If you want a hot take I was looking at the supercola borehole and everything turns to lava at 14 miles down. This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball. I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit. I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time. Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?
What climate data is bullshit? And what evidence do you have for your superheating core theory? That’s not centrism, that’s just making shit up.
I will try to understand the point you’re trying to make here, but I’d like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.
“…everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.”
-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I’ve, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth’s crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn’t fully magma either, so I don’t think it’s fair to claim “everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.” The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).
“This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball.”
-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?
“I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit.”
-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?
-But also, like @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn’t be an issue.
“I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time”
-Might be a bit of a tangent since it’s not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don’t try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?
“Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?”
-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won’t? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn’t deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?
-Why is having “actual green energy” leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?
That’s rather simplistic, though to be fair reducing politics to left and right is oversimplifying anyway. There are many variations of right and left ideology. For example, people on this site tend to identify left wing politics as anti-capitalist when leftism can definitely include capitalism in a multitude of ways.
Politics is complicated, because people are complicated. There will be some left and right ideologies that require or demand strict adherence, but that’s not true of everything.
Most people are centerists. My thesis is Poli-Sci was centered around the two party system being a downfall for democracy. However saying it’s ignorant to identify is not going to help the situation. At least for now where at least 40 percent give or take are on one end of the extremes.
How does pointing out cult like behavior not help?
Insulting people hardly ever inspires change
I’m open to rebuttable of why choosing a side of predisposed conclusions is not ignorant.
I’m open to carrying a conversation that has freedom rather than backing someone into a corner in what you believe you said. What you said was that calling out the current state of politics as ignorant. I think it’s equally as ignorant to just put blinders on and say it’s a bad idea. I give you the premise that it is in fact a bad idea, but denying it just leads to more problems.
Leaning anyway is already an admittance that one must behave a certain way to be considered as apart of, creating a precedence of behavior they feel socially obliged to in a very simplistic give and keep format. Current state politics is ignorant and what makes me form these conclusions and compare them to cults.