Common sense is knowing not to touch fire because fire is hot. For the most part, in almost all scenarios if we place our hand in fire it will hurt us. This is the perfect example of what common sense is. Something readily understood and confirmed by our physical senses.
Beyond common sense is reaching into a fire to save another person’s life. Directly contradictory to common sense. But still the right choice, usually, nonetheless.
Why is this distinction important? Why am I making this topic? Because of the recent criticism I see (and supported by likes) of people using “Common sense” as a way to justify the rejection of gender beyond biological sex.
Common sense should not tell us to reject people’s gender identity due to predisposition and archaic norms. Culture changes, knowledge advances. There is scientific basis for the complexity of gender identity not directly adhering to biological sex.
It may come down to semantics but I’d argue common sense is to respect other people so we are treated in turn with respect.
To be more specific the comment with 60+ likes that caused this topic, was a response to the gender name changes.
And I quote: “Because this is designed as thinly veiled pandering to people who reject common sense, and it’s more important to them to score points with that crowd even if it means removing things that have no logical reason to be removed.”
This is using personal bias and dislike for someone or a group of people, but touting it as “logic” or “common sense”, when it is truly neither.
I made this topic to discuss the philosophy more so than the subject at hand in the other topic.
The change doesn’t matter to me either, honestly. What bothers me is people’s reaction.
I’m tired of “common sense” being used interchangeably with personal bias against groups of people. It’s either dishonest, or a strong misunderstanding.
Which leads to what… shutting down the opposing view since common sense is the topic of this thread so unless you want to discuss about the colour of the forum background then you are basically wanting an echo chamber that falls inline with your own opinion/belief and what have you.
Well this is a really circular argument. Not exactly what I was hoping for.
I made this topic in hopes to let people see my opinion and maybe open up their hearts. I do not want an echo chamber. I don’t even want to claim my political views as “common sense” myself.
I’d just hope to convince people that that common sense is not an excuse you should use to reject, dislike, or even hate a group of people. The last sentence not being an assertion but more speculation than anything.
That’s fine and while I don’t condone hate and violence.
People have a right to their opinion. As long as it doesn’t call to violence or hate.
We as human beings don’t all need to agree or love everyone. Our difference of opinion is the many things that makes us interesting.
I often think it is done to justify it as common sense helps you internalize without introspection or guilt. Which is why the philosophy behind it is so important to me.
It’s pointless to just tell someone they are “wrong” in cases like these. Open dialogue and questioning your reasoning is far more productive.
A lot of people throw the word “echo chamber” at this kind of discussion (as you can see already in this topic.). But ironically, it is more of an echo chamber without this very type of discussion. Although to some extent I think all people want to be part of an ‘echo chamber’ in some form depending on their mood. It’s comforting to have other people agree with you, whether which side of the political spectrum you are on.
That’s impossible to have with this topic you were referring too when anywhere it is brought up, it is automatically shut down, and people calling other people names. Open dialogue is just an illusion… you set the boundaries for your discussion here as an example, not wanting to discuss ‘common sense’ but a ‘philosophy’ behind it which makes no sense.
You are over complicating a retort that has little to dissect and little ground to maneuver with a person who has their opinion set in stone. It’s either an open dialogue or not, you can’t have it be half-way or selective.
I don’t believe their opinion is set in stone. But it was merely an example I used to bring up the subject, anyway. I don’t care about refuting that comment specifically.
