|
Main Paineframe posted:"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. You took, "stop worrying so much about what people are, and start worrying more about how you treat them." and interpreted it as "telling someone to be tolerable is victim-blaming" and I don't know how.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
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? But there is no such magic wand. And the fact that these rich old white dudes (and let's not pretend like the new generation isn't capable of racism) hold a lot of socio economic power does in fact mean that these beliefs cause very deep and lasting harm. And even discounting the economical and political ramifications of racism, it is still an immensely painful thing. Racism is not a dying problem; Racism is not 'a few harmless old people' Racism is an institution that is still remaining, and is doing a shitload of harm, and will continue to do so. You cannot seperate racism and the politicla-economical divide. To reduce one problem, you need to reduce the others. And shaming would help. If not in making the racists mend their ways, then at least in making them shut the hell up. If all a racist does is post on Freep all day and complain about how he disowned all his children, good enough. And even if it doesn't do that. At least public shaming by the white community shows to the target of the intolerance that this is not a unanimously held belief, and reduces the feeling of isolation. And again, if you don' think censuring of intolerance has any value or justification, why are you censuring ours? You're saying what we're doing is 'bad', that is all that is proposed. Just that when someone is racist, he's called out, in the various social ways this can happen, from official to informal, that 'racism is bad'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted: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. Social sanctions work, they just often take decades of back and forth debate, if you can call it debate. Our entire society is built upon social sanctions, and you start learning them in school when the teacher tells you to shut up and sit down. Every civil rights issue has been effectively realized through social debate like this. Like I said, it just takes decades. People are arguing about tone a lot. What I think we are seeing is that out groups are really drat tired of tone arguments and they are pushing harder than ever to get their message across. They aren't willing to wait decades anymore for their message to resonate. We could discuss how effective their messaging is, but I don't think we can stop or slow their messaging at this point. I read that article and I think about domestic violence and prostitution, not public discourse on history, racism and gay rights. Violent offenders should be in jail, as the author said, because they expect punishment. People that think differently than me should not be in jail; which is where shame comes in. Some people are just not going to care if you call them out for being assholes, they may relish it, even. The point of shaming is that the majority of people will stop and think twice before saying or acting in a manner that makes them look bad socially. That brings us back to tone, where suddenly in the last decade or so, it has become OK to swim against those tone arguments in public, which probably has a lot to do with the internet. Like any out group, these people can find people that agree with them everywhere rather than forming a small cult locally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
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? Now that's actually a topic worth discussing, as it's interesting to evaluate at what point does criticism of something lead to a more entrenched support for it. But the problem is that you've approached this topic with the flying of a symbol of slavery being flown on state property, that had been put up there for the express purpose of rallying people around the cause of segregation and anti-miscegenation. Is there really any discussion to be had about how no longer flying a flag with such a tarnished history on state property is perhaps going too far in shaming others to align with social norms? Maybe if there had been debate on a blanket ban of all displays of the flag this would have been a good way to broach the topic of how social groups can counter-productively criticize something, but it just doesn't seem the case with an object that should be in a museum rather than flying at the state capitol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you think racism is bad? Do you think it is okay to publicly speak about how racism is bad? Also, Do you think its acceptable to no longer let my children spend time with a family member who regularly spews racist rhetoric? Do you think it's okay to tell my children why? Do you think it's acceptable to stop inviting someone over for a gaming weekend because they keep launching into racist rants that make my other guests uncomfortable? Do you think it's okay to tell them why? Is it acceptable to write books where a white supremacist is cast as a bad guy, explicitly because of the things he says and does he does as a result of white supremacism, even if those things are non-violent? I'd really like to understand exactly how far your opposition to censure goes, because no, you haven't been consistent, you've been consistently jumping around to whatever argument let's you deflect whatever point people have brought up to oppose your arguments, and you've only recently come out and said things as solid and concrete as you thinking censure, on the whole, is wrong. (Which is why suddenly moving the goalposts to "oh no I was just saying internet shaming is wrong" when I tried to follow that up is pretty silly) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You took, "stop worrying so much about what people are, and start worrying more about how you treat them." and interpreted it as "telling someone to be tolerable is victim-blaming" and I don't know how. That seems to be the entire point of your argument, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Pohl posted:They aren't willing to wait decades anymore for their message to resonate. You're probably right, and its a curious case what kind of difference that makes? Are new changes going to be less resilient to challenges in the future because they happened too rapidly to be well thought out? Is there a risk of abdicating parts of the political process for quick, sweeping changes? I've heard it said that "the worst laws are the ones named after someone." because legislators will run to their committees to pump out a new law in response to a singular tragedy; a law that doesn't really work to the effect is was intended because the impetus for the new law was so unique. Along the way, other legislators are afraid of social(political) pressure to stand up to the law, even in an effort to improve it, because they don't want to be seen as "opposed" in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Maybe if there had been debate on a blanket ban of all displays of the flag this would have been a good way to broach the topic of how social groups can counter-productively criticize something, but it just doesn't seem the case with an object that should be in a museum rather than flying at the state capitol. In my opinion a 'tone' argument, as I've seen it called here, works better where there isn't much debate to be had about the outcome. Should it have been or be a different process is an easier debate to have when the result is the same. Its kind of the opposite of like a 'voter registration' debate, where process=outcome, voter registration pretty clearly suppresses one category of votes, so its nearly impossible to separate the 'process' portion of the debate from the 'outcome.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're probably right, and its a curious case what kind of difference that makes? Are new changes going to be less resilient to challenges in the future because they happened too rapidly to be well thought out? Is there a risk of abdicating parts of the political process for quick, sweeping changes? Are we talking about the stupid confederate flag? Because this is not a new argument with no public debate, this has been a running debate for decades. I wouldn't say the debate about the confederate flag is happening rapidly or is not well thought out. People should be afraid of looking like they are standing up for it because it is a lovely symbol that dehumanizes an entire population. I don't care if some people think it just symbolizes heritage or fun or whatever the hell they think it represents, it has a historical meaning and it was put in place on the statehouse for a specific purpose. The fact that people view it as harmless does not take away those historical meanings. In fact, it makes it even more sad because the people that stand beside it without knowing the historical reason it is flying over the statehouse just makes it more questionable. They adopted a symbol they don't even understand, and maybe it means something to them now, but historically it means something to other people in a much different way. Who is right? The answer should be easy. Pohl fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
If you really want to see people get mad, burn a neo-confederate book. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You took, "stop worrying so much about what people are, and start worrying more about how you treat them." and interpreted it as "telling someone to be tolerable is victim-blaming" and I don't know how. Because that's the actual meaning of the words, as opposed to the one you made up just now. If you want people to give your words the same meaning you give them, try making up your own words instead of redefining existing ones and expecting everyone to go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:If you really want to see people get mad, burn a neo-confederate book. Hash tag SouthernLivesMatter
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:If you really want to see people get mad, burn a neo-confederate book. Hey, we aren't talking about burning the bible or the koran. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Hey, we aren't talking about burning the bible or the koran. You joke, but if you say "I am going to burn The Iron Curtain Over America because it says the civil rights movement was a plot by Jewish Bolesheviks to corrupt the white race" liberals will rush out of the woodwork like millipedes to go "But how could you destroy a book in protest, that could destroy all knowledge!" You set that baby on fire and you make the racists and the free speech people have a conniption fit. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You set that baby on fire and you make the racists and the free speech people have a conniption fit. You're on to something: maybe the best way to start sorting people into social groups is to build a pyre, toss a specific book on it, and see who shows up in protest. Edit: Fallout: Equestria
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. Bad news for you champ
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Bad news for you champ Maybe he is British. They use that word constantly. To me, it rates right up there with the N word.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. But the question is, does your regard have any value?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Maybe he is British. They use that word constantly. It is more common here in the UK yes. Weirdly, Americans seem to be OK with calling people a twat but not oval office, despite them meaning the same thing here, though oval office is somewhat more vulgar. Also fanny, which is endlessly amusing to Brits watching overly prudish Americans using a coarse word for vagina repeatedly. Anyway regardless of what I think about it, if someone asks me not to use it around them I won't, I think it's a good word when you need to be particularly coarse about something but I don't need to keep using it if someone would rather I didn't. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is more common here in the UK yes. Weirdly, Americans seem to be OK with calling people a twat but not oval office, despite them meaning the same thing here, though oval office is somewhat more vulgar. Also fanny, which is endlessly amusing to Brits watching overly prudish Americans using a coarse word for vagina repeatedly. i have never ever heard an american call someone a fanny
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i have never ever heard an american call someone a fanny No but the word is used as a polite form of arse, but over here it is a rude word for vagina. So it sounds funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is more common here in the UK yes. Weirdly, Americans seem to be OK with calling people a twat but not oval office, despite them meaning the same thing here, though oval office is somewhat more vulgar. Also fanny, which is endlessly amusing to Brits watching overly prudish Americans using a coarse word for vagina repeatedly. As someone that grew up with someone/anyone/etc. being completely replaced with somecunt/anycunt/etc. in friendly circles neither English (as far as I can tell it hasn't caught on there) nor American posters make any sense on the topic. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No but the word is used as a polite form of arse, but over here it is a rude word for vagina. So it sounds funny. That is going back like 30 years. We don't do that anymore, not even in movies unless it is a joke, and the word 'fanny' is part of the joke. Kaislioc posted:As someone that grew up with someone/anyone/etc. being completely replaced with somecunt/anycunt/etc. in friendly circles neither English (as far as I can tell it hasn't caught on there) nor American posters make any sense on the topic. See, that was probably funny in England/Scotland but that post makes no loving sense. \ Edit: I think I parsed it. Good point. Pohl fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Until like the mid 2000's I thought all Americans drove the car from the blues brothers because that was all they showed in the old 1970's cop show reruns that was my primary experience with American culture. So I will concede that I may not have an especially accurate view of current American trends. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That is going back like 30 years. We don't do that anymore, not even in movies unless it is a joke, and the word 'fanny' is part of the joke. Don't you call those little belt bags touists have "fanny packs"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Until like the mid 2000's I thought all Americans drove the car from the blues brothers because that was all they showed in the old 1970's cop show reruns that was my primary experience with American culture. Like half the cars on my street look like that so it's still mostly true in some areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Don't you call those little belt bags touists have "fanny packs"? Yes, but usually they're wearing them in the front or the side to begin with. So not really associated with the butt anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That is going back like 30 years. We don't do that anymore, not even in movies unless it is a joke, and the word 'fanny' is part of the joke. It featured prominently in the theme song to The Nanny which is phenomenally popular in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
We need to really address and solve racism in our society. Step 1: Hang a racist flag at the state capitol Step 2: Tell everyone it's okay to be racist and encourage racist comments so white supremacists feel accepted. Step 3: Tell black people who have a problem with any of this that they need to be quiet and stop being so mean, they're really poisoning the discourse
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Seditious abolitionist literature: a threat to civilized society and reasoned debate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hash tag SouthernLivesMatter The neo-confederates are pushing the idea that taking down the flag is some sort of genocide because they depend on the idea that all Southerners believe exactly the same things they do. They can handle some sort of outside "thought police" far better than they can another Southerner contradicting them. My family included Moravian missionaries who moved to western North Carolina in the 18th century and the community was divided at best. They were as likely to join the Union as the Confederacy so why should I ignore some and all but worship the others? Why am I obligated to uphold their honor by implying that they fought for state's rights when they wouldn't have considered it dishonorable to fight for slavery? Why am I obligated to ignore that the worst possible humiliation to them would be to let their former slaves govern them? They would find the very idea that they really believed in racial equality rather than white supremacy to be insulting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The neo-confederates are pushing the idea that taking down the flag is some sort of genocide because they depend on the idea that all Southerners believe exactly the same things they do. They can handle some sort of outside "thought police" far better than they can another Southerner contradicting them. South Carolinians are the ones who decided to take down their own flag, you say? We should pass a federal law requiring the South Carolina Assembly to fly the confederate flag even though they no longer want to in order to protect freedom of speech. We can establish Amazon's and Wal-Mart's minimum quota of Confederate flag products in the same bill. Freedom!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
I'm Not A Racist That's What's So Insane About This
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:As a proper leftist, I turn my attention to the regular folk who were born, lived, and often slowly and painfully died from infection in that territory. An aristocratic cabal, mad with greed and power, forced millions of non slave owning citizens, without any notion of a democratic process, into an unjust foolish war to protect their wealth alone. Violating any ideal of liberty by instituting America's first draft, exploiting exclusively poor, slaveless people of all ages to prop up a weak army where desertion and low morale in "the cause" was rampant. Come to think of it I did have ancestor who joined the Union army when some confederate soldiers stole his horse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We need to really address and solve racism in our society. That sounds like a pretty stupid plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:That sounds like a pretty stupid plan. Your censuring isn't helping the situation, maybe you should try being more tolerant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Your censuring isn't helping the situation, maybe you should try being more tolerant. No, no, he needs to be more tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:No, no, he needs to be more tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
 If you fly that flag you are clearly a traitor. Why else would you fly the battle flag of a bunch of
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 08:00
|
|
