REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Troll Threshold

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Thursday, March 22, 2007 19:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6779
PAGE 2 of 3

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:35 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I guess what really disturbs me is that we've divided ourselves into camps: left and right. The two cannot get along, not around any subject because it's essential to the nature of each to oppose the other. So no real meaningful dialogue can take place, just flame and ugliness. And I just don't see any real way to fix it. None at all. And that scares the shit out of me, when it comes to the future of the West.



I agree. It's one of the most frustrating problems I have with political discourse these days. But for me, the problem isn't people with strong convictions. The problem is people who argue from affiliation and political identity rather than ideological conviction. It seems like most folks are just 'sports fans' - in the sense that they pick a side and cheer for their team. Scoring a 'victory' for your side is more important than persuasion or * gasp * actually learning something from the conversation.

But I do see a slender thread of hope in the situation. The right and the left, in their desperate attempts to beat each other at all costs, are showing just how empty and self-serving their convictions really are. Maybe the whole mess will encourage people to think for themselves a little more.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There are a very few people in RWED who ARE trolls. The question is not whether someone is a troll but what to do about it. I said it before and I'll say it again: on THIS board* there are just a few useful options:

a) Don't respond to the trollish comments. Stick to topical ideas in the post.

b) Don't respond at all.

Calling someone a troll or responding in kind is EXACTLY what a troll wants. Because as much as a troll may WANT to derail a discussion it can only happen with the active participation of others. I HAVE seen trolls ignored right off a board. It requires taking a deep breath sometimes, but the person who acts like a jerk becomes VERY obvious when everyone else is not. Yes, some people are infuriating, unfair, manipulative bullies. BUT this is cyberspace. Bones will not be broken, and in a short while the comment that just itched for a riposte will fade away.

*There are other boards with more options:
Ratings, either by the moderator or the users.
Rules. Banishment by the moderator for breaking the rules.
Loving the troll to death. (We'd never manage it here but I've seen it done elsewhere!)





---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:47 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I agree. It's one of the most frustrating problems I have with political discourse these days. But for me, the problem isn't people with strong convictions. The problem is people who argue from affiliation and political identity rather than ideological conviction. It seems like most folks are just 'sports fans' - in the sense that they pick a side and cheer for their team. Scoring a 'victory' for your side is more important than persuasion or * gasp * actually learning something from the conversation.

But I do see a slender thread of hope in the situation. The right and the left, in their desperate attempts to beat each other at all costs, are showing just how empty and self-serving their convictions really are. Maybe the whole mess will encourage people to think for themselves a little more.



Good post, Sarge. I think you're right on the money with most of this. Orson Scott Card (and please, oh please, God, let's not start that again) recently wrote a book with the premise of how a second American civil war might actually unfold. The book depicted not a north-south war, but a left-right war. And he said this, which I loved: "There are two sides that see the world so radically differently that they truly believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil or stupid or both." And I see this in my classrooms, and I see it on these boards--and it is only getting worse, and it scares the bejesus out of me. Because it really seems like we're piling oilly rags in a poorly ventilated room: just a matter of time before the whole thing comes down. Now, I've thought of starting a thread on this very point--I think it would just devolve into a political hate-fest (though that would give me tremendous told-you-so satisfaction).

I think you're right that most people don't truly think about what they believe: they just believe it. Maybe that's legitimate, maybe not; I'm not here to debate epistemology. But one thing I know: if you haven't thought your beliefs through, you really shouldn't be arguing about them, because you haven't put in the skull sweat to be able to do it in an intelligent, meaningful way. For example, I believe there's a God, but I do on the basis of a thought process, so I feel competent defending that position. Arguing that there's a God (or isn't one) merely because that's what you believe is just destined to turn into a flame war.

I guess I'm not as optimistic as you are--the fact that the rhetoric is getting worse indicates to me that people are getting less willing to think, not more.

*shrug*

Guess I better learn how to fiddle.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal,

"I guess it's the retaliation-in-kind thing I disagree with." But you defend, support and add to the initial attack when it's made from 'your side'. I have a problem with that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM

Inaccuracy of ANY kind bugs the shit out of me. When people purposefully post (how's that for alliteration) downright lies over and over, someone needs to respond or they become accepted.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Good posts Sarge and Causal. And BTW I like Orson Scott card. Not sure what you're referring to when you say "that again"- and I'm glad I missed it.

One of our problems "righteous anger". Dang it, we see so much of it in the movies that it seems like it's the answer to everything. Just be right enough and mad enough to beat the crap out of the "bad guy" and everything wil work out. Negotiating is for wusses, right?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Inaccuracy of ANY kind bugs the shit out of me. When people purposefully post (how's that for alliteration) downright lies over and over, someone needs to respond or they become accepted.
It is possible to respond effectively w/o creating animosity. Trolls use your anger to lead you down the path THEY want ... Don't give in to the dark side, Luke!

Also, I think most of the ppl here post sincerely. They may be sincerely wrong, but they're sincere. Whatever issue they're defending or point they're trying to make is because they are so emotionally invested they literally cannot see their ideas from a different viewpoint, or argue an objective point. Any disagreement becomes an attack, any discussion a bar fight. Keep that in mind.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Also, I think most of the ppl here post sincerely. They may be sincerely wrong, but they're sincere." And I think very few here are trolls - people intentionally, maliciously baiting and derailing - but there are a few.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:48 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I guess what really disturbs me is that we've divided ourselves into camps: left and right. The two cannot get along, not around any subject because it's essential to the nature of each to oppose the other. So no real meaningful dialogue can take place, just flame and ugliness. And I just don't see any real way to fix it. None at all. And that scares the shit out of me, when it comes to the future of the West.

Strangely enough I've never had this problem when debating politics with anyone but Americans, I've gone over all the same things with British (even Australian and Canadian, but never French) conservatives, half the people I drink with and most of the people I work with are conservative, without problem. Although I'm sure that's just proof that I hate Americans or something I find it's much harder to discuss things with Americans sometimes because things have to be polarised (you're liberal, I'm conservative we have to disagree on everything) and it so often has to be about whose saying what rather than what is being said. I find American approach to politics to be somewhat different to British, more about the cult of personality rather than anything approaching issues.

What's most frustrating is that so often you can predict someone's opinions based on whether they vote Democrat or Republican (actually what is most frustrating is how a country like the US with such a huge right wing slant to both it's politics and media has so many talking about the liberal bias of the media which is simply not there). I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.

It's certainly true that this board is mostly full of thick skinned posters that attack each other, I'm certainly aware that I am not blameless there. I'm also aware that in many posters those quickest to talk about how 'everyone is attacking them' are the first to attack, I'm also aware that I post on other boards with little or no problem, so find the many accusations that it is 'all down to me' to be somewhat baseless.

I'd also like to point out that there are a number of Trolls who frequent this board, and that they have chosen a right wing persona, doubtlessly because they realise that there is a strong liberal presence here, I also find it frustrating that some of the real conservative posters here give some of the Trolls a free pass, seemingly because of this.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Lemme Clarify that one bit.

When I say "Fairy Tale" I mean a claim that's been proven utterly false, totally debunked, and blown from the water.

Not a personal opinion or perspective, but a deliberate statement of bogus info that even five minutes of investigation will prove untrue regardless of political affiliation.

Being more or less an anarchist, I don't have a "side", politically, and in light of certain realities I am willing to settle for any progress towards personal freedom I can get, even though the Constitution is substantially flawed, it's better than anything we currently have to replace it, and I swore an Oath to uphold and defend it, and thus I do so.

I really hate good threads being droned out of existance by a constant left-right flamefest, but as SixString pointed out a while back, the other end of that is being too PC to even debate or discuss tough issues.

People here need to learn to agree to disagree, it's been done on occasion, even here - if a point becomes untenable, instead of drawing a line in the sand and creating a verbal furball that accomplishes nothing at all, simply state your disagreement and leave it at that.

I may come off pretty harsh at times myself, but I'll stay on the topic till things are hashed out or till an impasse is reached, and then bite my tongue and go elsewhere.

Nobody's perfect, but I don't think it's too much to ask of each other to just leave an impasse without fortifying positions and lobbing bombs at each other - we got plenty enough of that in the real world, thank ya very muchly.

And this post was written half-cognizant on not enough sleep so be forgiving if it rambled.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And I think very few here are trolls - people intentionally, maliciously baiting and derailing - but there are a few.
Rue- let me be blunt: Yeah, and so what?

Trolls go out of their way to provoke people. Responding to their posts with anger puts you in danger of being controlled by them. For the vast remainder who are sincere but who may seem deliberately provocative, responding in anger simply makes them defensive. In other words, frustration and anger don't work no matter WHO you're posting to.

Yes (sigh) I KNOW there are trolls on this board. So do a whole bunch of people. Why do you keep bringing it up? Just make sure that in your frustration you don't become one of them. Or if you do, be more effective about it.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:39 PM

CAUSAL


Well, there's argument and there's retaliation-in-kind of the sort I object to. Take, for instance, your labeling me as one of the "assholes." Retaliation in kind would be to respond to that by applying some sort of insulting label to you, which I have not done. When I think you're wrong, I'll call you out on it; but that's not the sort of thing that I was thinking of above.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal,

I was attacked for no reason.

When you were invited to look back and state what I had posted that deserved it, you couldn't come up with anything valid. What you eventually posted after being repeatedly asked by others (and which was really, incredibly, shamefully stupid) was that if I didn't like the thread I didn't have to post. Really? Only people who agree with everything in a thread need apply? Only people who agree with everything you support on a thread need post? Or is that a special standard only for me?

You went so far as to encourage, applaud and participate in that ongoing undeserved attack on me. All the while berating ME for replying in kind.

If you think it's a problem, mebee a look in the mirror is in order.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:48 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.


I've been starting to wonder about that my own self. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent over the past three decades in the United States in an attempt to make the word liberal a slur. And, for the most part, it has been successful. I have friends in red parts of the country that keep very very quiet about their liberal beliefs.

I guess it's sorta similar to being an atheist. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian. That is the cultural norm in this country. Atheists are zero threat to Christians. But they consistently poll at the bottom in terms of trustworthiness. And it goes beyond that. Some Christians seem to loathe atheists with the same fervor usually reserved for mass murderers.

Sometimes, when you're a member of the dominant culture, any viewpoint from a member of a minority culture can seem threatening. Or just wrong. You know that's not the way the world works. The world works the way it works for your group. I've seen valid criticisms dismissed out of hand by people who have never been in the position of a minority. They just can't grok.

But to get back to the negative product branding that has been done on the word liberal. One of my goals, on this site, is to put a human behind the slur. So you think that liberals are traitors and deserve to be shot? Then you think I'm a traitor and that I deserve to be shot. So you think liberals love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Then you think I love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Both statements are absurdly wrong. But easy to believe and utter in the abstract. Just listen to talk radio for a while. And it's especially easy if you don't think you know any liberals. Well, you know them.

I could go on further about my suspicions regarding enforced homogeniety of towns and suburbs wrt race and how that seriously stunts the development of many Americans. But that got little traction before...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sorry Soup, but this little voice is going through my head in an imagined self-conversation -

Well, I have nothing personal against liberals. Even some of my best friends are liberals. And besides, you might be a liberal but you're not like those other liberals. You're a regular person just like me. I'm sure, push come to shove, we'd agree on the same things. So we can get along fine and be friends.

End result, it's possible for people to get along with you just fine and still rant about 'liberals'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:45 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Yeah, Rue, you're probably right. And if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak. But a boy can dream .

Off on a tangent...

I just got done reading a book that I found profoundly unsettling (Sundown Towns by James Loewen). I highly recommend it. And I wish that he had the years left to continue on with this research because, as he acknowledges, this is very early stages. Unfortunately, he's a professor emeritus so he probably won't be around much longer.

It just boggles the mind that sundown towns and suburbs reached their peak in 1968. And that some of the towns that drove out their black population after 1890 (or suburbs that were created all white) are still all white to this day. That narrowing of experience that results from forced similarity in neighbors has been trained into generations of Americans.

"Living in a place where not everyone looks alike and not everyone votes alike is surely good for the mind as well as the children."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:26 AM

CAUSAL



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:00 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.


I've been starting to wonder about that my own self. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent over the past three decades in the United States in an attempt to make the word liberal a slur. And, for the most part, it has been successful. I have friends in red parts of the country that keep very very quiet about their liberal beliefs.

I guess it's sorta similar to being an atheist. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian. That is the cultural norm in this country. Atheists are zero threat to Christians. But they consistently poll at the bottom in terms of trustworthiness. And it goes beyond that. Some Christians seem to loathe atheists with the same fervor usually reserved for mass murderers.

Sometimes, when you're a member of the dominant culture, any viewpoint from a member of a minority culture can seem threatening. Or just wrong. You know that's not the way the world works. The world works the way it works for your group. I've seen valid criticisms dismissed out of hand by people who have never been in the position of a minority. They just can't grok.

But to get back to the negative product branding that has been done on the word liberal. One of my goals, on this site, is to put a human behind the slur. So you think that liberals are traitors and deserve to be shot? Then you think I'm a traitor and that I deserve to be shot. So you think liberals love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Then you think I love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Both statements are absurdly wrong. But easy to believe and utter in the abstract. Just listen to talk radio for a while. And it's especially easy if you don't think you know any liberals. Well, you know them.

I could go on further about my suspicions regarding enforced homogeniety of towns and suburbs wrt race and how that seriously stunts the development of many Americans. But that got little traction before...




Enjoyed the post; I think it's a good project to put some humanity behind the word liberal. I hope that the opposite works, too, of course. Because the reverse also happens: all social conservatives are evil morons, therefore I'm an evil moron. Well, come now, can it really be that easy? The kind of thing you describe really works both ways. You said how some atheists feel persecuted when the majority is theist--well on this board republicans, conservatives and Christians sometimes feel persecuted because they are in the minority. Maybe your project of humanization can be pushed out to everybody such that we all see each other primarily as people, and only then liberals, conservatives, or what have you.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:11 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Strangely enough I've never had this problem when debating politics with anyone but Americans, I've gone over all the same things with British (even Australian and Canadian, but never French) conservatives, half the people I drink with and most of the people I work with are conservative, without problem. Although I'm sure that's just proof that I hate Americans or something I find it's much harder to discuss things with Americans sometimes because things have to be polarised (you're liberal, I'm conservative we have to disagree on everything) and it so often has to be about whose saying what rather than what is being said. I find American approach to politics to be somewhat different to British, more about the cult of personality rather than anything approaching issues.



Well, yeah, I guess I can't help but speak from an American perspective (being one myself). My apologies, but I don't keep track of other country's political systems as closely as maybe I should. I think that you're right about the polarization of American politics. We can't come together and discuss things calmly anymore, because we've divided all the issues and taken opposing positions. Both sides think that the other is not just wrong, but bad for the country, and so there's no need to talk with them. But that's just wrong, and downright disturbing. BTW, I don't think you hate Americans. More like you're frustrated with us over this (and other) issues. But you can still be civil (mostly; but who among us doesn't have their moments, eh?).

Quote:

What's most frustrating is that so often you can predict someone's opinions based on whether they vote Democrat or Republican (actually what is most frustrating is how a country like the US with such a huge right wing slant to both it's politics and media has so many talking about the liberal bias of the media which is simply not there). I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.



Funny thing about that: the way one perceives the "slant" to the media tends to go opposite to one's own political views. I started out on the right and thought that the slant was left. Then I swung over to the left and thought that the slant was to the right. Then I wound up fairly close to the middle and have realized that if there's a slant it's more a person-by-person thing (and maybe channel by channel) than it is the whole media. I guess my point is that both sides make the argument that the media is slanted against them, and I think they're both wrong, on the whole. The media reports what sells, and that varies tremendously from place to place.

Quote:

It's certainly true that this board is mostly full of thick skinned posters that attack each other, I'm certainly aware that I am not blameless there. I'm also aware that in many posters those quickest to talk about how 'everyone is attacking them' are the first to attack, I'm also aware that I post on other boards with little or no problem, so find the many accusations that it is 'all down to me' to be somewhat baseless.



Well, back to the issue of dividing ourselves. There're a fair number of people who, once you're on their shit-list, will disagree with you on anything you say, merely because you had some run-in with them in the past or because they disagree with you socially or politically. These seem to be the people who muddy the waters of discussion, because rather than talk about this issues calmly, they go on the offensive with ad hominem attacks and accusations. So the people who want to actually discuss the issues get drowned out and ultimately just leave the discussion. Happens all the time.

Quote:

I'd also like to point out that there are a number of Trolls who frequent this board, and that they have chosen a right wing persona, doubtlessly because they realise that there is a strong liberal presence here, I also find it frustrating that some of the real conservative posters here give some of the Trolls a free pass, seemingly because of this.



Yeah, and that last bit is what frustrates me. I'm often on the minority side of a debate (as, for example, the abortion discussion), but I try hard to keep things calm and rational (though I'm not perfect at it, by any means). So when one of the right-wing-persona trolls marches in, it frustrates me to no end, both because some of our real conservatives view the troll in a sort of enemy-of-my-enemy fashion, but also because the troll's stupidity somehow is transferred onto me, even if I never endorse their posts.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:17 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Sorry Soup, but this little voice is going through my head in an imagined self-conversation -

Well, I have nothing personal against liberals. Even some of my best friends are liberals. And besides, you might be a liberal but you're not like those other liberals. You're a regular person just like me. I'm sure, push come to shove, we'd agree on the same things. So we can get along fine and be friends.

End result, it's possible for people to get along with you just fine and still rant about 'liberals'.



But of course, the reverse holds. Just substitute "conservative" for "liberal" up there, and it's just as true.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind" (escalated, actually) by calling Rue obssessed, unfunny. Then in response Rue said Geezer was delusional to which Geezer replied that Rue was snarky and created an implied threat as well as insult Meet me outside Spagos, Rue, and I'll show you Uber-man." The humor-challenged liberal commentator and sometimes stalker has not yet issued a reply. More as it occurs....stuck-up killjoys.

In that exchange, I think Geezer was being a name-calling jerk, and claiming it was all a "joke" is the oldest trick in the book (one that Ann Coulter knows well ). Causal- your support for that kind of behavior Hear, Hear! was less than what I would expect from you.

So how SHOULD that thread have gone? Well, I don't support name-calling, starting with "Slick". It's hard to call "foul" on name-calling if its part of your repertoire. But assuming that Rue had not started with "Slick" and the thread had gone on exactly as before, where you you be in that exchange, and why?


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:43 AM

CAUSAL


place holder

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:57 AM

SHINYED



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Holding a place for you Causal.

I'm going to try a say something, but I'm having a hard time making myself clear even to myself.

For some, what they say and how they act flows directly from their ideology. I ran into that in another bbx in which politics and religion were both banned. When I pointed out that “God bless America” was both political AND religious, I was accused of “bringing politics into everything”. (And for my pains I was turned in to the FBI. But that’s another story. ) I can’t say much about other cultures, but I do know that as an atheist I run into this with my fellow Americans quite often. The reason why this is so, I think, is because many Americans are culturally and intellectually sheltered. A fundamentally different POV offends and even frightens them.

If we intend to have honest and meaningful discussion - and I realize that’s not some people’s intent- then we have to moderate our behavior even when emotions are running high. That means no name-calling, no sniping, no rhetorical dirty tricks. But certain people violate conversational etiquette all the time. They call names, they change the topic, they mischaracterize others’ positions. For most this is simply an unconscious response to feeling threatened. There is ONE person who seems to do this deliberately. I can imagine this person looking into the bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and thinking… what shall I use now? Sarcasm? Innuendo? Name-calling? Re-direction? Occasionally this person just dumps a whole trash-bin into a thread.

What to do?

Ignore.

Ignore.

Ignore.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:54 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind" (escalated, actually) by calling Rue obssessed, unfunny. Then in response Rue said Geezer was delusional to which Geezer replied that Rue was snarky and created an implied threat as well as insult Meet me outside Spagos, Rue, and I'll show you Uber-man." The humor-challenged liberal commentator and sometimes stalker has not yet issued a reply. More as it occurs....stuck-up killjoys.

In that exchange, I think Geezer was being a name-calling jerk, and claiming it was all a "joke" is the oldest trick in the book (one that Ann Coulter knows well ). Causal- your support for that kind of behavior Hear, Hear! was less than what I would expect from you.

So how SHOULD that thread have gone? Well, I don't support name-calling, starting with "Slick". It's hard to call "foul" on name-calling if its part of your repertoire. But assuming that Rue had not started with "Slick" and the thread had gone on exactly as before, where you you be in that exchange, and why?


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.



Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Holding a place for you Causal.

I'm going to try a say something, but I'm having a hard time making myself clear even to myself.

For some, what they say and how they act flows directly from their ideology. I ran into that in another bbx in which politics and religion were both banned. When I pointed out that “God bless America” was both political AND religious, I was accused of “bringing politics into everything”. (And for my pains I was turned in to the FBI. But that’s another story. ) I can’t say much about other cultures, but I do know that as an atheist I run into this with my fellow Americans quite often. The reason why this is so, I think, is because many Americans are culturally and intellectually sheltered. A fundamentally different POV offends and even frightens them.

If we intend to have honest and meaningful discussion - and I realize that’s not some people’s intent- then we have to moderate our behavior even when emotions are running high. That means no name-calling, no sniping, no rhetorical dirty tricks. But certain people violate conversational etiquette all the time. They call names, they change the topic, they mischaracterize others’ positions. For most this is simply an unconscious response to feeling threatened. There is ONE person who seems to do this deliberately. I can imagine this person looking into the bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and thinking… what shall I use now? Sarcasm? Innuendo? Name-calling? Re-direction? Occasionally this person just dumps a whole trash-bin into a thread.

What to do?

Ignore.

Ignore.

Ignore.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.



Ditto


----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:59 AM

CAUSAL


Having taken a step away from this thread, let me try to start over again.

I’m certain that no matter who we picked in this thread, we could go back and find some post where they were rude, insulting, harsh, or what have you. I’ve done it, Rue’s done it, Sig and Citz and Frem have done it. We all have. It’s not a matter of some being innocent and some guilt—we’re all guilty. Let me say that again, so that maybe we can restart the discussion from an honest place: we’re all guilty. All of us have been hurtful and mean and ugly at one time or other. All of us have made ad hominem attacks, all have insulted, all have been mean. I’ve done this at some points, just as we all have. I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical in calling for change, because I’m not excepting myself from what I perceive as the problem. I’m saying we are all, on one level or another, participating in a couple of patterns of behavior that I think are problematic. And to change those patters, I think there are two key areas we all need to work on:

1) Calm, rational discussion. I think that if we all worked at it, we could talk about the issues with dignity and civility, and, if necessary agree to disagree. I think we’re all guilty of the kind of emotional back-biting that makes these threads ugly and hurtful. And I’m hoping that we can all back away from our petty enmities and hurts and grudges (all of us, myself included) and talk with one another calmly, rationally and civilly (myself included).

2) Transcendence of partisan/ideological camps. Some of us identify with these camps more than others. Some do on particular issues, others wholesale. But I believe that, once again, all of us are guilty of engaging in partisan/ideological attacks at some time or other. And I think this muddies the waters of discussion. I’d like to see us approach each other as people who have ideas, not as members of some camp or other. I’d like to see us give up our shit lists of people we don’t like (myself no less than anyone else) and re-engage with each other as mature adults who want to be involved in discussion with each other.


________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:12 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I've stayed out of this thread, but the Soupcatcher/Causal exchange caught my eye. I want to contribute this.

I'm a liberal, ain't no secret about that. My current boss is a conservative, literally a member of the John Birch Society. He is also well educated, in particular a student of history. We manage to discuss politics every few days, enjoyably. We find a lot of common ground. He's a veteran and a militarist, yet we both disagree with the War in Iraq. Maybe for different reasons, but we have reached the same conclusion. Neither of us likes the Bush Administration very much, mostly for the damage they've done to civil liberties in this country. We disagree, politely, about the nature and threat of the Communist Menace, and about economic theory.
There are several areas where I think he's just flat wrong, and I'm sure there are areas where he thinks I'm nuts, but we step carefully around those.
And most importantly, we work together well. I'm becoming his go to guy, his best resource after himself, when there are troubles.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Agreed. When I said some ppl are unconscious, I wasn't pointing to any particular ideological "side". I think we're all unconscious at one time or another about one point or another. I've made a sincere effort in the past few months to bring my most rational side to the board and (pats self on back) I think it's working.

But there ARE people- NOT YOU- who deliberately create turmoil. You won't find them genuinely pledging to make the same effort as you. And my point was... what to do about THAT?

IMHO we're past "naming and shaming". Besides, it generally doesn't work and it risks internet gang-warfare. So maybe we should just set certain rules of behavior so that everyone knows ahead of time what to expect. Name-calling, for example should be banned. Threats or implied threats. Directly misquoting or mischaracterizing another's position. Them if rules are violated, that person goes into internet timeout. It works for K-garten, it should work here!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:04 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Enjoyed the post; I think it's a good project to put some humanity behind the word liberal. I hope that the opposite works, too, of course. Because the reverse also happens: all social conservatives are evil morons, therefore I'm an evil moron. Well, come now, can it really be that easy? The kind of thing you describe really works both ways. You said how some atheists feel persecuted when the majority is theist--well on this board republicans, conservatives and Christians sometimes feel persecuted because they are in the minority. Maybe your project of humanization can be pushed out to everybody such that we all see each other primarily as people, and only then liberals, conservatives, or what have you.


The first step to changing a group from the other - to be feared and defended against - begins when you personally know someone from that group. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you asked an American, "Do you know any Christians personally?" they would answer in the affirmative since about eighty percent of Americans self-identify as Christian. I would expect an alternative question, "Do you know any atheists personally?" to elicit a much smaller affirmative response for a variety of reasons. If the first conversation you've ever had with an atheist occurs on a message board then I'd argue atheists are still the other. If the first conversation you've ever had with a Christian occurs on a message board then I'd really like to know where you grew up, because I'd put the odds on that at slim to none.

When someone from a strong majority, a majority that is a cultural norm, tells a member of a non-cultural norm minority that they need to be able to see things from his/her perspective it highlights a lack of awareness. Everyone in this country is exposed to the perspective of the cultural norm on a daily basis. You can't escape from it. That is what it means to be the cultural norm.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:49 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


that person goes into internet timeout. It works for K-garten, it should work here!



It's a good idea , but how's it going to work?
" You've been bad, now go sit in the corner and I'm unplugging your modem for 5 minutes."

:<)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind"...



I would like to point out that Rue has called me "Slick" for quite a while and has refused several requests to not do so. Rue also has unflattering nicknames for other people on this forum.

And yet I get referred to as "a name-calling jerk"? Curious. Looks like double standard time again.

Consider how you would feel if every post someone addressed to you was prefaced with "SickoM".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Slick, I'll stop calling you that when you stop using multiple tactics to right-wing-nut bias, divert, misinform and otherwise derail every discussion you get into. AS YOU KNOW, there are more ways to BE a troll than use an inoffensive nick-name.

POOR INNOCENT LITTLE VICTIM. Yes, please play the pity card, and the shift blame card. You do that kind of thing so well.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, may I politely point out that you're mischaracterizing my position as a "double standard"? I said that I didn't think name-calling was acceptable, starting with "Slick". So- time out for YOU, old buddy! I'll not bother to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue- tsk tsk tsk. Yeah, I get it. Geezer is a troll so what? "He started it!" It never worked before and it ain't gonna work now. Take the high road.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:20 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The first step to changing a group from the other - to be feared and defended against - begins when you personally know someone from that group. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you asked an American, "Do you know any Christians personally?" they would answer in the affirmative since about eighty percent of Americans self-identify as Christian. I would expect an alternative question, "Do you know any atheists personally?" to elicit a much smaller affirmative response for a variety of reasons. If the first conversation you've ever had with an atheist occurs on a message board then I'd argue atheists are still the other. If the first conversation you've ever had with a Christian occurs on a message board then I'd really like to know where you grew up, because I'd put the odds on that at slim to none.

When someone from a strong majority, a majority that is a cultural norm, tells a member of a non-cultural norm minority that they need to be able to see things from his/her perspective it highlights a lack of awareness. Everyone in this country is exposed to the perspective of the cultural norm on a daily basis. You can't escape from it. That is what it means to be the cultural norm.



But that doesn't mean that those in the majority aren't viewed as The Other by those in the minority. Has every atheist had a conversation with a theist? Almost certainly. But that's not sufficient for knowing a theist, let alone being friends with someone. I think both the majority and the minority see the other group as The Other. It's not just that one side is guilty and the other isn't.

As well, the status of a certain thing as majority opinion does not in any way entail that the non-holders of that opinion understand it. What we need is for everyone to try to understand everyone. Tolerance, respect, understanding--these are things we should all be striving for.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:29 AM

CAUSAL


Can I just suggest that we use this very thread as an example of what not to do? Heavens. Even in a thread where we're supposed to be talking about how not to relate poorly, we're relating poorly. And people wonder why I'm so cynical? Read the interactions on this. Damned. Thread.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:38 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
But that doesn't mean that those in the majority aren't viewed as The Other by those in the minority. Has every atheist had a conversation with a theist? Almost certainly. But that's not sufficient for knowing a theist, let alone being friends with someone. I think both the majority and the minority see the other group as The Other. It's not just that one side is guilty and the other isn't.


I disagree. And I think it's on a pretty fundamental level that relates to privilege. I think that you are basing your statements off the assumption of a level playing field between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. Which, in my opinion, does not exist. It's not even that the field isn't level, it's that the teams are playing with different equipment to different rules in different leagues of a different sport.

Try the following statement on for size and let me know if you agree or disagree: I, as a heterosexual man, have to think about things from a homosexual perspective in order to successfully navigate my daily life.

I disagree with that statement. I can live my entire life never once having to think about things from the perspective of a homosexual man in order to successfully navigate situations. Because I am a member of the norm. I can always operate from a heterosexual perspective without being accused of rocking the boat. I can openly acknowledge my sexuality without causing a stir. Etc.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Aye Aye sir.
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue- tsk tsk tsk. Yeah, I get it. Geezer is a troll so what? "He started it!" It never worked before and it ain't gonna work now. Take the high road.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Even in a thread where we're supposed to be talking about how not to relate poorly, we're relating poorly."

YUP

"Geezer, may I politely point out that you're mischaracterizing my position as a "double standard"? I said that I didn't think name-calling was acceptable, starting with "Slick"."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal,

If you want to feel what being in the minority feels like, take a stroll through a barrio some day. Just you by yourself. Now imagine living your life there are being dependent on that society for your job, your housing and everything else that keeps you alive.

Which is not to say that people of the barrio would do the things white folk have done to them. But it's a thought experiment to help you understand how alienated and helpless you might feel if you even thought the society was stacked against you - as a minority.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Causal, Soup- each one of you has convinced me that you're correct. I can see instances where it is necessary for a minority- especially a minority that is not in power- to have to be especially cognizant of the majority opinion. But that doesn't necessarily mean understanding it, just developing a procedure of how to respond to it.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, may I politely point out that you're mischaracterizing my position as a "double standard"? I said that I didn't think name-calling was acceptable, starting with "Slick". So- time out for YOU, old buddy! I'll not bother to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.



Just wondered why you brought it up in the first place, since I hadn't been posting in this thread. And stating you don't think name-calling is acceptable and then calling me a "name-calling jerk" does seem to be a double standard. Calling me a "troll" in a later post seems to validate that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:11 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
One of our problems "righteous anger". Dang it, we see so much of it in the movies that it seems like it's the answer to everything. Just be right enough and mad enough to beat the crap out of the "bad guy" and everything wil work out. Negotiating is for wusses, right?



Sooo true SignyM. Cable news is as much to blame as movies. Look how cranky Bill Oreilly and Shawn Hannity make the Republicans. And look how bent Jon Stewart and Phil Maher make the Dems. Embracing these shows as THE TRUTH inhibits gaining knowlege from people with different points of view.

I'm pretty new here. I came to the site because I love Firefly. I have found here an interesting mix...Trolls, stuffy Brits, Ne-Cons, flaming liberals, people who consider themselves very very intelligent, and so on... What confuses me is why some people expect the thread to be orderly in accordance with whatever criteria they've created in thier heads. It's politics!, which should be chaotic. You can't put all these variations in one room and expect sanity, or even civility for that matter!


"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Double post. What to do?

I think a lot of the problem with supposed mis-direction of threads is that different folks care about different parts of some of the broader ranging issues we discuss. If I want to talk about tax complexity and someone comes in with a post about electronic security of tax data, it's probably because that's the part of "tax" they are concerned about, not because they work for H&R Block and don't want discussion of simpler tax forms.

Unfortunately, as noted in another thread, some of us have pretty set opinions of others of us. You begin to expect an argument rather than a discussion, and get too touchy. When I get this way I usually try to just not deal with the other person for a while.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In fact, to continue the thought on understanding versus responding to. In some cases, our responses actually prevent understanding because we may be so intent on responding as we see ourselves (a homosexual, a woman, a white guy) that we simply reinforce stereotypes in our own head. Perhaps we may even precipitate the reaction that we fear.

For example, my stroll through the barrio. I can take the "potential victim" view... I'm so white. I stand out. These places are dangerous.

This view is not conducive to understanding.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, I apologize for name-calling.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I apologize for name-calling.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.



Thank you. I'll try to keep it down also.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM

That's the point. Now imagine you're black or Hispanic driving through a 'nicer' part of town in your less than pristine chariot. You're not obviously a maid or gardener. People who do look at you look at you askance. Someone calls the cops. And you're arrested for driving while Black (or Hispanic).

The majority doesn't understand that just by being the majority they have blinders on. They're moving through a world made by them and for them; and in their eyes it's a fact of life. It's just the way 'things are'.

BTW, I think Europeans may have the advanatage over USers b/c they have to deal cheek by jowl with other cultures, religions and political systems every day. It keeps their awareness levels up. And I truly believe the US cultivates an ignorant mindset - 'I don't know much about art ...', 'don't know much about history, don't know much geography; don't know much about science books ...'

It may not further your undersanding of Hispanics, or Anglos, or Blacks*, but it illustrates what being in the minority is like.

*Any more than watching dubya clearing brush helps him understand us regular non-folk, or helps us understand the lives of people who have all the money they could possibly use and power over a big chunk of our lives.
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In fact, to continue the thought on understanding versus responding to. In some cases, our responses actually prevent understanding because we may be so intent on responding as we see ourselves (a homosexual, a woman, a white guy) that we simply reinforce stereotypes in our own head. Perhaps we may even precipitate the reaction that we fear.

For example, my stroll through the barrio. I can take the "potential victim" view... I'm so white. I stand out. These places are dangerous.

This view is not conducive to understanding.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:20 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I disagree. And I think it's on a pretty fundamental level that relates to privilege. I think that you are basing your statements off the assumption of a level playing field between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. Which, in my opinion, does not exist. It's not even that the field isn't level, it's that the teams are playing with different equipment to different rules in different leagues of a different sport.

Try the following statement on for size and let me know if you agree or disagree: I, as a heterosexual man, have to think about things from a homosexual perspective in order to successfully navigate my daily life.

I disagree with that statement. I can live my entire life never once having to think about things from the perspective of a homosexual man in order to successfully navigate situations. Because I am a member of the norm. I can always operate from a heterosexual perspective without being accused of rocking the boat. I can openly acknowledge my sexuality without causing a stir. Etc.



I don't disagree with any of this--but then again, this isn't what I was talking about. I wasn't referring to needing to know certain things in order to get on in life. I'm talking about other-ness. The guards at Guantanamo saw their prisoners as the Other, and justified doing all manner of horrible things to them. Racists see minorities as the Other and do terrible things. So what is it that allows people to see groups as the Other? My contention is that it has nothing to do with majority/minority status. All that's required is dehumanizing the other side. Take some trivial thing, say left-handed-ness. If lefties were thought to be lazy, imbecilic lawbreakers, and persecuted accordingly, it's pretty clear that they're the Other to the righties. They've been dehumanized, and reduced to a single feature. But equally, lefties could come to see righties as the Other--that is, dehumanize them and see them only with respect to their status as persecutors. This is a dehumanization and Other-ness just as much as they suffer, and it's wrong, too.

Take racial minorities. Racists see them as the Other and treat them accordingly. But a member of the minority might just as easily come to see all those in the racial majority as evil oppressors (thus making them the Other)--and that's wrong two. What I'm suggesting is that we all need to see each other as human beings first, because we all see someone as the Other.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:22 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Causal,

If you want to feel what being in the minority feels like, take a stroll through a barrio some day. Just you by yourself. Now imagine living your life there are being dependent on that society for your job, your housing and everything else that keeps you alive.

Which is not to say that people of the barrio would do the things white folk have done to them. But it's a thought experiment to help you understand how alienated and helpless you might feel if you even thought the society was stacked against you - as a minority.



This is a worthy suggestion: put yourself in someone else's shoes. But I would also suggest we're all of us in the minority in some way or other, and so we could all of us be bettered by drawing on that experience when we come up against people who disagree with us.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL