|
blarzgh posted:I feel like we should shift our objective from being Tolerant toward being Tolerable. Tolerance, as a singular principal, is a race to the bottom; without any guiding features its a bum-rush to the lowest common denominator. Tolerance is framed in the negative. "Don't [whatever]. Refrain from [whatever]." Working toward the acceptance of one form of tolerance is necessarily intolerance of its opposite. Tolerance thirsts for restraint, inaction. Tolerance naturally relies on categories and definitions to survive. It must identify groups or ideas to tolerate. Tolerance asks us to sit back and identify, catalog, and make value judgment about others. You got a weird idea of what those words mean. "Tolerance" requires none of what you said, only acceptance. It requires the outraged to think instead: "Yes it is different from how I do things, but it doesn't harm people, so I will accept it." "Tolerable" means changing yourself to suit the whims of everyone else, which is a vain and hopeless task you will never manage. The onus falls on the one who reacts to moderate their reaction as befits the situation. React reasonably. If you do not want to react reasonably then it is not everyone else's responsibility to pander to your unreasonable demands.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its a bad bit to judge people entirely on what they think, or what you think they think, or what they say they think. Its no good to issue value determinations of other people, on any grounds really, but particularly on the basis of something they said or seem to believe. That world is Temper Tantrum Thunderdome, where, so long as you "Are the Rightest" you can act however want; treat people however you want, call them names, accuse them of whatever - all under the banner of tolerance. Its like children playing king of the hill with social issues. It's called loving democracy - the battle of ideas, carried out in the social and political arena because the alternative was never "the battles stop happening" but "the battles happen violently". Censuring ideas and mindsets is the entire loving point of society, it is what the word means and what it is for. Again, you are using the cause of people who judge others based on the colour of your skin to claim that we shouldn't judge others on the content of their character. You are claiming it is bad to judge people entirely on what they think, and then proceeding to judge people entirely on the exact same basis. Or maybe I'm just confusing your argument, and you don't actually mean what you're saying. Are you claiming we shouldn't judge people at all, or that we shouldn't even judge ideas? (Because the whole anti-confederate thing is very much judging ideas, not people, which sort of reinforces the concept that this was a poor topic to discuss what you want to discuss, despite your protestations)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You got a weird idea of what those words mean. They're simplistic expressions of a complex concept; should we care more about what we believe, or more about how we treat others? I also think being Tolerable means something completely different than "changing yourself to suit the whims of everyone else." That's some kind of instantaneous, subservient polymorphy. Its not about garnering approval from others. If you're tolerable, it just means you try to get along well with others. You respect them, you are kind to them. And yes, I think you should still try to be kind to people who are acting unreasonably. I don't think society is best served by a burden-shifting framework of social responsibility. I think its better to just be kind to other; specifically I think its more important to be kind than it is to be right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Do you think we should stop censuring racism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:They're simplistic expressions of a complex concept; should we care more about what we believe, or more about how we treat others? I also think being Tolerable means something completely different than "changing yourself to suit the whims of everyone else." That's some kind of instantaneous, subservient polymorphy. Its not about garnering approval from others. I do that because I'm generally tolerant of idiots, and generally fond of the reasonable. Whether they find me tolerable or not is entirely their issue as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Censuring ideas and mindsets is the entire loving point of society, it is what the word means and what it is for. I don't think this is a widely held belief. GlyphGryph posted:I think your opinion is absolutely deplorable, from a moral, practical, and strategic perspective. It's also clearly dishonest (and inherently hypocritical) Deplorable? Do you really mean that? If you're asking for clarification of my point, its that I think we should start placing more value on how we treat other people, and less value on how or what they think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you're asking for clarification of my point, its that I think we should start placing more value on how we treat other people, and less value on how or what they think. My god, I wonder what the phrase, "being tolerant" means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I do that because I'm generally tolerant of idiots, and generally fond of the reasonable. Whether they find me tolerable or not is entirely their issue as far as I'm concerned. And I guess my point is that I think we should be more concerned with whether other people find us tolerable. When we order lunch, or get on the bus, we say, "excuse me", or "please" and "thank you" to total strangers. Its common human courtesy. Why would we treat someone else differently, because we happen to disagree with them on an issue?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And I guess my point is that I think we should be more concerned with whether other people find us tolerable. When we order lunch, or get on the bus, we say, "excuse me", or "please" and "thank you" to total strangers. Its common human courtesy. "We" generally don't, "we" are generally courteous to people until they are discourteous to us, persistently, and aggressively. Usually we respond to that by avoiding them, though funnily, some people can't let it rest at that and make it their mission to be even more persistently discourteous. At which point we expect them to improve their behavior and be tolerant of others. It is not the fault of a person if someone else is extremely rude to them because the other person is a tremendous bellend with no concept of social grace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My god, I wonder what the phrase, "being tolerant" means. Thats what I'm saying! 'Being tolerant' in today's social debate just means 'picking the right side and making GBS threads on those who disagree.' Thats why I think its a flawed platform. By definition, we aren't 'being tolerant' when we condemn or judge others on the way they think, no matter how wrong they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats what I'm saying! 'Being tolerant' in today's social debate just means 'picking the right side and making GBS threads on those who disagree.' Thats why I think its a flawed platform. By definition, we aren't 'being tolerant' when we condemn or judge others on the way they think, no matter how wrong they are. No it doesn't, not remotely. It means the same thing it always has, which is "just because you might disagree with some fundamental aspect of a person's being, doesn't mean you should be a oval office about it." It's a pretty low bar but a remarkably large number of people still have trouble meeting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats what I'm saying! 'Being tolerant' in today's social debate just means 'picking the right side and making GBS threads on those who disagree.' Thats why I think its a flawed platform. By definition, we aren't 'being tolerant' when we condemn or judge others on the way they think, no matter how wrong they are. Should we condemn or judge others when their thoughts manifest in harmful actions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats what I'm saying! 'Being tolerant' in today's social debate just means 'picking the right side and making GBS threads on those who disagree.' Thats why I think its a flawed platform. By definition, we aren't 'being tolerant' when we condemn or judge others on the way they think, no matter how wrong they are. Can't condemnation and judgment be distinguished? I don't think it's reasonable to say "don't judge other people based on what they express," or if it is, it's actually less respectful of the people in question because they're expressing those views for a reason. "Oh, that's nice," is non-judgmental but it's also patronizing and isolating disengagement. It's entirely possible to judge someone's views/beliefs/conduct without condemning them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you think we should stop censuring racism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"just because you might disagree with some fundamental aspect of a person's being, doesn't mean you should be a oval office about it." I 100% agree with this part of your post. I think we should emphasize this more. SedanChair posted:Should we condemn or judge others when their thoughts manifest in harmful actions? Like, what judges and juries do? The Warszawa posted:Can't condemnation and judgment be distinguished? I don't know that I intended a difference. What I mean is that people tend to treat "judgment" of others as a hall-pass to be lovely to them. I think we call "being lovely to people" condemning them now. Yes, I think we should stop censor/censuring racism and start fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Do you know what the word "censuring" means? Because it's pretty difficult to stop people being racist if you can't tell them it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yes, I think we should stop censor/censuring racism and start fixing it. How exactly do you think we should "start fixing it", considering censure has proven to be by far one of the most effective tools for combatting its effects? Why do you think we should not censure judging people based on the colour of their skin, but we should censure judging individuals based on the content of their character?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I 100% agree with this part of your post. I think we should emphasize this more. So, before I've been interpreting this as pretty standard secular styling on "hate the sin, love the sinner," but now I'm at a loss because what this is reading as is "love the sin, love the sinner."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you think we should stop censuring racism? How are you censuring racism now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:How are you censuring racism now? The general societal sentiment that racism and racists are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
If you are both asking about Blarzgh's 10 Step Plan to Eliminate Racism, I can tell you that internet-shaming people is not on the list. I think Racism is a bigger discussion than this conversation would like to make it, where the institutional effects of two centuries of social inequality are much more pressing than the Jesse Jackson meme Uncle Dan posted on his facebook page. And to say that trying to shame people for their opinions has been more effective than education, legislation, literature, organization, volunteering and protest in combating racism is disingenuous, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:How are you censuring racism now? Have you ever told anyone before that racism is bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
"Racism is such a big issue so you shouldn't tell people it's bad to do it because that's mean." A novel approach certainly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you are both asking about Blarzgh's 10 Step Plan to Eliminate Racism, I can tell you that internet-shaming people is not on the list. I think Racism is a bigger discussion than this conversation would like to make it, where the institutional effects of two centuries of social inequality are much more pressing than the Jesse Jackson meme Uncle Dan posted on his facebook page. On the topic of shaming sanctions, here is a fairly prominent scholar repudiating his earlier defense of them as a viable tool. There are obvious differences between getting called out for being racist and institutionally imposed shaming sanctions for some kinds of criminal conduct, but the fundamental link between the two - both on the rehabilitative end and the restorative end - is sound in my opinion. That said, this seems to go beyond that. If we're considering an expressed negative value judgment on racism as being inappropriate or counterproductive shaming, we have gone too far down the hole. Fixing problems requires acknowledging them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Censuring racism is not the WHOLE solution ,but it is PART of the solution. In order to stop violence in society, society sometimes resorts to violence against those who commit unjustified violence against others, in a very strict legal sense, and we should be mindful that this is done in measure to the violence. In order to stop intolerance in society, society should sometimes resort to intolerance, mockery and ostracization towards those who show unjustified intolerance, mockery and ostracization of others. If you fly a confederate flag, you are showing a horrific amount of intolerance, quite similar to just shouting racial epithets. I have no problem with someone flying the stars and bars from being treated the same way as someone who went around shouting slurs in public. With utter disgust. Mind you, if you feel their intolerance shouldn't be censured, you shouldn't censure our intolerance towards their intolerance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think this is a widely held belief. Yes, one of the primary functions of socialization is teaching and informing people how to behave properly. This isn't something you can just handwave away. Both sides do it, the only question is which side is more correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you are both asking about Blarzgh's 10 Step Plan to Eliminate Racism, I can tell you that internet-shaming people is not on the list. I think Racism is a bigger discussion than this conversation would like to make it, where the institutional effects of two centuries of social inequality are much more pressing than the Jesse Jackson meme Uncle Dan posted on his facebook page. now this is just me, but maybe we could start by not having our representative government fly a symbol whose origins glorify racism and slavery That might help people realize racism is bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:now this is just me, but maybe we could start by not having pur representative government fly a symbol whose origins glorify racism and slavery But if you do that some white racists might get their feelings hurt!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Like, what judges and juries do? Answer the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:On the topic of shaming sanctions, here is a fairly prominent scholar repudiating his earlier defense of them as a viable tool. That article doesn't really have much to do with this discussion. Unless you are saying we should jail people for being racist assholes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you are both asking about Blarzgh's 10 Step Plan to Eliminate Racism, I can tell you that internet-shaming people is not on the list. I think Racism is a bigger discussion than this conversation would like to make it, where the institutional effects of two centuries of social inequality are much more pressing than the Jesse Jackson meme Uncle Dan posted on his facebook page. Except that this conversation wasn't even originally about trying to internet-shame people for their opinion, but about removing symbols of veneration for that opinion. And most of those things you listed would be pretty toothless without censure. Do you think racism is bad? Do you think it is okay to publicly speak about how racism is bad? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That article doesn't really have much to do with this discussion. Unless you are saying we should jail people for being racist assholes. It's an interesting digression on the issue of shame as a tool of institutional sanction, which has at least some bearing on its use as a tool of social sanction. Where I think it's most useful is the discussion of the issue of universally understood signals of social opprobrium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you are both asking about Blarzgh's 10 Step Plan to Eliminate Racism, I can tell you that internet-shaming people is not on the list. I think Racism is a bigger discussion than this conversation would like to make it, where the institutional effects of two centuries of social inequality are much more pressing than the Jesse Jackson meme Uncle Dan posted on his facebook page. Education: Telling children that all races are equal, and little Micky gets detention if he calls little Johnny slurs. That is censure. Literature: People reading about how horrible it is to be a racist asshat and flying symbols of racist asshats. That is censure. Organization: To do what? A lot of organizations are there. And one of the things they do? If some organization is being racist as gently caress, they call them the hell out. Censure. Volunteering: To do what exactly? One of these other fours? Or perhaps to assist the victims of racism/homophobia/intolerance, which is a good thing, and can be part of the solution without actually directly censuring the bigots of course. Protest: That is pretty much censure on a macro level. If your org has a protest calling you out for being racists, you're being hella shamed and censured
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That article doesn't really have much to do with this discussion. Unless you are saying we should jail people for being racist assholes. No, this article goes to the heart of what I'm talking about. Everyone here is arguing for the utility of 'calling out' racists, as a tool for combating racism. I think its a long and complicated discussion about whether blowing up @jim_bob69 on twitter for using the n-word does anyone any good, or if its just makes us feel better to identify and ostracize someone. Does it just steel the resolve of the subject and his like-minded? I also think there is a much deeper conversation about what "racism" is; is it really just what Nana thinks about black people? Is it a socio-economic disparity, and all of its underlying pillars? If you could wave a wand and eliminate every economic and political disparity between blacks and whites, would the deeply held beliefs of a dying generation even matter to you anymore? Would waving that wand lead, over time, to the changes in the hearts and the minds of the people at large? I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues, and its my belief that internet shaming doesn't hold the utility that other people believe it does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues, and its my belief that internet shaming doesn't hold the utility that other people believe it does. Man, you've really moved those goalposts a lot over the course of this thread. We're getting down to the last tatters of your argument now, aren't we? Is it really just about internet shaming now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
"I just want to be able to call people the n-word. Why can't people tolerate meeeeeee!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No, this article goes to the heart of what I'm talking about. Everyone here is arguing for the utility of 'calling out' racists, as a tool for combating racism. I think its a long and complicated discussion about whether blowing up @jim_bob69 on twitter for using the n-word does anyone any good, or if its just makes us feel better to identify and ostracize someone. Does it just steel the resolve of the subject and his like-minded? The thing about the deeply held beliefs of "dying generations" is that they very often get communicated to younger generations, to say nothing of older generations actually holding a lot of social and political power. Unless you're at a startup, you're probably pretty likely to be answering to (or have your employment determined by) someone at least one generation older.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I feel like we should shift our objective from being Tolerant toward being Tolerable. Tolerance, as a singular principal, is a race to the bottom; without any guiding features its a bum-rush to the lowest common denominator. Tolerance is framed in the negative. "Don't [whatever]. Refrain from [whatever]." Working toward the acceptance of one form of tolerance is necessarily intolerance of its opposite. Tolerance thirsts for restraint, inaction. Tolerance naturally relies on categories and definitions to survive. It must identify groups or ideas to tolerate. Tolerance asks us to sit back and identify, catalog, and make value judgment about others. Is this something you came up with yourself, or is it a philosophy you got from someone else? Because your conception differs greatly from the widely accepted meanings and connotations of those words, to the point where you're pretty much swapping their definitions. "Tolerance" means that we should be accepting of others, while "being tolerable" means that other people should go out of their way to act in a way that won't offend us - it's basically victim-blaming. OwlFancier posted:No it doesn't, not remotely. It means the same thing it always has, which is "just because you might disagree with some fundamental aspect of a person's being, doesn't mean you should be a oval office about it." Did you mean to use a gendered insult here as a way of making a point, or was it just an unconscious usage stemming from failing to recognize its inherent sexism? Either way, it's an excellent indication of why racism and sexism need to be called out - the people doing it might not even be aware that they're being discriminatory, and even if they are, the people around them might not notice. For example, institutional racism: everybody at every level of the system will swear up and down that they're not racist, but for some reason white people always get much better outcomes than minorities with equivalent situations! Either somebody is lying about not being racist, or they've internalized the racism to such an extent that they don't even realize it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Man, you've really moved those goalposts a lot over the course of this thread. We're getting down to the last tatters of your argument now, aren't we? Page 1: blarzgh posted:Should we allow every debate to be solved by declaring whoever calls the other side a racist, "the winner"? Should we do or not do whatever it takes to avoid "racism"? Page 7: blarzgh posted:I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues, and its my belief that internet shaming doesn't hold the utility that other people believe it does. I feel like I've remained pretty consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Did you mean to use a gendered insult here as a way of making a point, or was it just an unconscious usage stemming from failing to recognize its inherent sexism? I don't generally regard oval office as any more gendered or sexist than any of the various profanities related to male genitalia or the act of sex itself. The point of cussing is to shock so sex and anatomy make good curses, to say nothing of its pleasing aural quality as a curse. I certainly don't use it in a gendered sense, though some folks dislike it so I generally avoid using it around them if and when they ask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:49
|
|