|
Miltank posted:There is. A face is a massive aid to communication. Yeah, huge. I think this is almost certainly a definitional disagreement in relation to the term 'fundamental difference'.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Legally banning the burqa/niqab is dealing with a symptom of normalised misogyny and not the cause. What? A women who no longer wears a niqab an isn't able to is going to have a really hard time imposing that on her offspring, second the niqab significantly reduces the capacity of the individual to take in new ideas. So in a sense it does combat the cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
I mean, we could establish some other universal form of positive identification. DNA databases sound nice. Maybe dental record databases? It's pretty feasible to eat / chomp on a piece of putty while veiled, I'm told. Ooh, or retinal databases, although that only really helps niqab-wearers. This one might actually be not completely stupid, insofar as it might be possible to put the data part on portable personal IDs, but I don't particularly see (  ) a disabled-access-like push to overhaul identification standards for the sake of this particular minority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Sethex posted:What? A women who no longer wears a niqab an isn't able to is going to have a really hard time imposing that on her offspring, second the niqab significantly reduces the capacity of the individual to take in new ideas. So in a sense it does combat the cause. What, is it made out of special brain-blocking fabric or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In what way is that a good thing? That's an awfully strong statement; when did I claim such measures would "eradicate radical Islam"? Furthermore, I'm not sold on the overarching narrative that every possible effort to combat the symptoms of Islamic conservatism only strengthens it. The moment of economic weakness you mention was the cause of the Islamist takeover, not the very fact that Islamism was legislated against. It isn't possible to perfectly and flawlessly prevent any possibility of extremists gaining political power; a nation like Turkey just always needs to be ready to throw them out when they do.They were on a strong modernizing trajectory throughout the 20th century until the guardians of their constitution fell asleep at their proverbial posts. Main Paineframe posted:Two problems with that. First of all, it's not unsustainable. Highly religious people tend to concentrate in specific places, so there are tons of tight-knit religious communities where outsiders are unwelcome and nobody ever calls the police, so it doesn't mean she can never go outside, it just means she can't leave the tight-knit highly religious community. She's still able to go visit her neighbors and attend religious services and maybe even visit establishments that are deeply part of the community like that religious restaurant the next block over. There are places - even in the US - where people call the unofficial community religious vigilante group instead of the police. She's just unable to go to secular stores, restaurants, schools, or anything else secular. It just contributes to the insularity of the community and prevents her from getting even a glimpse of secular life and society. This is a not altogether invalid concern; however, when the niqab becomes the de-facto uniform dress code of an area, it becomes an instrument of collective oppression in the way that a niqab worn by an individual woman or small group of women is not. If a certain neighborhood or business district has more than 90% of the female population dressed in a single uniform fashion, we can be reasonably certain that there is coercion involved, whether is be gross or subtle. I don't deny women agency; in many cases they are consciously choosing to serve as signposts of community standards by congregating in public while wearing an aggressively de-individuating garment, and I am quite ready to criticize them for it. This goes hand in hand with the aggressive proselytizing and community activism certain immigrant communities in Europe are known for. There is a knee-jerk but not entirely unjustified desire among the local population to stop a horrifying medieval ideology from claiming new territory and establishing hegemony over slices of the public space. I am quasi-sympathetic to the individual woman who wants to wear such a garment as a fashion choice, but that argument is a bit of a square peg in a round hole in the case of a garment whose only purpose is to erase the wearer's visual individuality. Main Paineframe posted:What about the women who willingly dress like that, because they want to, with no coercion whatsoever? If you want to combat abuse of women, then combat it directly, don't just randomly ban elements of cultures you consider to be sexist and then pretend that helps anything. The law is always an imprecise instrument, but that limitation doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth using. And admittedly, there is a bit of a catch-22 in play here. If these modesty veils weren't aggressively pushed by certain insular communities to the point that they become the norm in certain public areas, then there would be no need or justification to legally restrict them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What, is it made out of special brain-blocking fabric or something? It is a non-verbal statement to the effect of "Any male non-family members should minimize their interaction with me." Isn't that normally the intention of those who wear it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That's an awfully strong statement; when did I claim such measures would "eradicate radical Islam"? Furthermore, I'm not sold on the overarching narrative that every possible effort to combat the symptoms of Islamic conservatism only strengthens it. The moment of economic weakness you mention was the cause of the Islamist takeover, not the very fact that Islamism was legislated against. It isn't possible to perfectly and flawlessly prevent any possibility of extremists gaining political power; a nation like Turkey just always needs to be ready to throw them out when they do.They were on a strong modernizing trajectory throughout the 20th century until the guardians of their constitution fell asleep at their proverbial posts. What is it then that you're expecting these policies to do? Because 80 years or so of forbidding hijabs and staging a coup every time the government seemed like it wasn't being secular enough did not prevent Islamists from having an electoral base from which to eventually lead the country. It shows these policies to be completely useless for your purpose. So we are left with useless policies, which are also an infringement on personal liberties. Why keep pursuing them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Do elaborate. By completely covering the body of the wearer, the fully-concealing niqab or burqa + veil makes a strong statement that the woman has no public identity and that her body is the sole property of her family. The argument that women are going to be 'ogled' uncomfortably if anything more than their eyes are visible is ludicrous on its face, especially within the borders of a modern European nation. The particular social system which the niqab confines women to is one where arranged marriage, a form of rape in which the woman's family is complicit, is the norm. Furthermore, the broad imposition of the full veil and "modesty clothing" in general reinforces the idea that any woman who ventures beyond her proper sphere (the home) without the maximum possible covering is inviting sexual assault onto herself. Not coincidentally, the most conservative Islamic countries where such garments are the norm are more likely to issue a criminal charge to the female victim of gang-rape than any of the rapists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What is it then that you're expecting these policies to do? Because 80 years or so of forbidding hijabs and staging a coup every time the government seemed like it wasn't being secular enough did not prevent Islamists from having an electoral base from which to eventually lead the country. It shows these policies to be completely useless for your purpose. So we are left with useless policies, which are also an infringement on personal liberties. Why keep pursuing them? There is a massive wave of Islamic reactionary fervor sweeping the globe, one more delayed bit of backlash from the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the abortive campaign of western imperialism in the early 20th century. That Turkey still has cities where men and women can meet in public, music and video is freely available, or homosexuals can go out on the town is a testament to the efficacy (and necessity) of those "useless" coups and policies you mention. If it hadn't been for Kemalism, a political party backed by the rubes would have taken over half a century ago and Turkey would probably be part of the Islamic State by now. What evidence do you have that a theocratic regime will not take root in the absence of stringent secularist law like Turkey has/used to have? What success story is there for allowing Islamists into the political process?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:There is a massive wave of Islamic reactionary fervor sweeping the globe, one more delayed bit of backlash from the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the abortive campaign of western imperialism in the early 20th century. That Turkey still has cities where men and women can meet in public, music and video is freely available, or homosexuals can go out on the town is a testament to the efficacy (and necessity) of those "useless" coups and policies you mention. If it hadn't been for Kemalism, a political party backed by the rubes would have taken over half a century ago and Turkey would probably be part of the Islamic State by now. The US has yet to be taken over by a theocratic regime even though, get this, people get to wear religious garb here, including niqabs. But the onus is not on me to prove a negative. You need to show that the policies you are promoting, which have a clear cost in individual and religious liberties, actually have a benefit. You have failed to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Sethex posted:What? A women who no longer wears a niqab an isn't able to is going to have a really hard time imposing that on her offspring, second the niqab significantly reduces the capacity of the individual to take in new ideas. So in a sense it does combat the cause. And you assume that the woman secretly desires to not wear the dressing but does it just because her misogynist husband forces it? Are these woman thick as cattle to you? For better or worse, the woman in this case believes that in order to be pious she must not reveal her shape to men outside of immediate family. A religious ban would do nothing to change this self-imposed view. Women who are victims of misogyny are not all 100% aware of their oppression and legislating against her one walk-freely-in-public excuse is not going to help this situation. There are many other things you can do to counter this including public outreach to the mosques to have the staff discuss religious dress and acceptable wear under Islam. Legislating social issues is not always the best way to solve a problem. This is one instance where I see it being not very productive. Liberal_L33t posted:It is a non-verbal statement to the effect of "Any male non-family members should minimize their interaction with me." Isn't that normally the intention of those who wear it? No, it is about piety. It's the same reason nuns wear a habit, which is also the same level of covering as described in the Qu'ran. If you agree to ban the Amish clothing and nun habits then I'd be more open to this blanket ban on religious wear, but if it's purely Islamic ones than I'm not on board, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:54
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You would save yourself a lot of trouble and everyone else a lot of grief if you didn't start by trying to suss out the underlying, probably sinister motive of everyone arguing against you. This is blatant hypocrisy, because you're trying to suss out the "underlying motive" of my initial post. But you're not very good at it, because you're trying to crush my posts into being about whether women wearing the niqab should be required to unveil for security purposes. However, my post came right after several direct responses to this post: Sethex posted:TIL face an tits are in the same category as far as sedanchair is concerned. And, in fact, they are, when it comes to modesty. If breasts are inherently sexual, so is the face. But neither is inherently sexual, in an objective sense, and even if we live in a society where one or the other is inherently sexual in a subjective sense, that doesn't mean that modesty should be compelled. I believe that an achievable society is one where the main reason you don't go around naked is because of the weather, bugs, wanting to wear clothes, etc., rather than the implicit threats of rape and violence that compel the wearing of clothing today. I believe that an ideal society is one where nobody is ever threatened with violence, and so feel that this achievable society is one people should be working towards. So with that in mind, criticisms like Sethex's are quite simply a case of seeing the mote in thy brother's eye while missing the plank in thine own. The big issue is not what we demand be covered, but that we demand it be covered at all. People arguing that the two are different because of expressiveness don't understand or believe what they're saying. I can say this because in the next paragraph, I will espouse the actual conclusions from that line of thinking and nobody will seriously endorse it. Those arguments reside from the ideological belief that breasts should be covered, rather than any conscious thought. So let's take "covering the face is different because the face is more expressive" seriously. If we propose that expressiveness should be maximized, then the natural conclusion given the support for state force to prevent people from wearing the niqab is that we must violently annihilate all existing languages. Even given someone who rejects the use of force to force off the niqab, we still have the end-goal being a pacifist way of achieving this destruction of all existing languages. Because languages select from a subset of the total capacity for expressiveness, in order to maximize expressiveness we must construct a language that selects from the whole set and remove all others (in practice even if not in theory, because languages die well before they're no longer spoken). While you could argue that people will eliminate ranges of expressiveness, that just moves it to linguistic fascism, where you have a constant struggle to annihilate the old language and bring in the new. Of course, you could argue that expressiveness should exist at some point X where the niqab is disallowed but languages can continue to exist, but there's no reason for this other than ideological beliefs about what is acceptable. That being said, although this will assuredly fall on some deaf ears, the above idea is idiotic on a Titanic scale. But it is the natural consequence of taking certain aforementioned ideas seriously, rather than letting them be shorthand for the real, ideological reasons. This has nothing to do with why the face is usually used for identification. We don't ask people to make funny faces so we can identify them. We use faces because faces are more distinct and we are more familiar with them.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What, is it made out of special brain-blocking fabric or something? To spell it out to the unimaginative person that you are, if you are interacting with people less and treated as an 'other' by everyone, you are going to encounter less ideas, hindering your personal growth as an individual. An regarding your previous terrible comment about niqabs and 'what if they want to wear it' the answer is they mostly all want to wear it because that is how they were raised. But the cost of forcing them to not wear it is smaller than the price people forced into the lifestyle at an early age pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
Its not about personal expression at all. Its about effective communication. A worldwide language would be a powerful asset for humanity as examined in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:59
|
|
Sethex posted:To spell it out to the unimaginative person that you are, if you are interacting with people less and treated as an 'other' by everyone, you are going to encounter less ideas, hindering your personal growth as an individual. So why aren't you going after the people who Otherize people on the basis of their garment, religion, sex, etc.? I mean, why are we implicitly threatening violence for wearing the wrong clothes, instead of implicitly threatening violence for mistreating people? Is it because the majority of society wouldn't go for somebody getting beaten with a nightstick for glaring at a woman in hijab? Miltank posted:Its not about personal expression at all. Its about effective communication. When I said that no one would seriously agree with that proposal, that wasn't a challenge. Also, I'm starting to suspect that you're incapable of understanding this, but "expressiveness" in that post does not mean "personal expression."
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Because if you can't see someone's face then they have already deliberately 'otherized' themselves for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
More communication was a good thing and your logic is a stinky turd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:05
|
|
Miltank posted:Because if you can't see someone's face then they have already deliberately 'otherized' themselves for you. Not really. I mean, it's possible that you spit in the face of people who're wearing ski masks, attack people who wear masks to Halloween parties, and so on, but it's not likely. Or do you have some sort of personal definition that is undoubtedly extremely intelligent, meaningful, and not just an attempt to justify your fear of a woman in a scarf? Miltank posted:More communication was a good thing and your logic is a stinky turd. Why don't you tear it apart, then? Should be easy.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Sethex posted:To spell it out to the unimaginative person that you are, if you are interacting with people less and treated as an 'other' by everyone, you are going to encounter less ideas, hindering your personal growth as an individual. Theyre only an other to you due to the cultural disimmilarity. And have you ever actually talked to woman who wears a niqab? One of the most spunky, self driven women I know wears a niqab on the regular and it hinders her none. You are the one otherizing the by simply not accepting their choices or understanding the realities of the societies and culture they come from. And the cost of forcing them not to wear it is not having these women ostensibly on your side when you do want to negotiate and discuss the inequalities of the society they live in. How can they even begin trust you have their best interest in mind when you wont even let them dress the way they want? Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
I would just like to say, I would totally love to continue reading an Ask Me Why The Khan Translation Sucks / Let's Read The Koran whether it is in this thread or not. I hope we didn't scare the gentleman off. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:More communication was a good thing and your logic is a stinky turd. This is why the internet is the best thing ever and is a perfect place of social harmony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
The internet might literally be the Best Thing Ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
Miltank posted:The internet might literally be the Best Thing Ever. Why don't you explain why the logic is wrong, instead of saying it is and then engaging in vacuous one-liners? Is it because you can't, or won't?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
On the internet no one knows you are wearing a niqab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I would just like to say, I would totally love to continue reading an Ask Me Why The Khan Translation Sucks / Let's Read The Koran whether it is in this thread or not.  I was really enjoying those posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why don't you explain why the logic is wrong, instead of saying it is and then engaging in vacuous one-liners? Is it because you can't, or won't? I'm not going to meaningful engage anything you say because you are an lovely poster. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:35
|
|
Miltank posted:I'm not going to meaningful engage anything you say because you are an lovely poster. Okay, so ideas are inherently entangled with the people who espouse them, and if I can trick you into saying fascist things, that makes you a fascist. This is certainly intellectual.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Ok sounds good. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:No, it is about piety. It's the same reason nuns wear a habit, which is also the same level of covering as described in the Qu'ran. If you agree to ban the Amish clothing and nun habits then I'd be more open to this blanket ban on religious wear, but if it's purely Islamic ones than I'm not on board, really. You mean except for when you said otherwise a few lines above in the same loving post? Tesseraction posted:For better or worse, the woman in this case believes that in order to be pious she must not reveal her shape to men outside of immediate family. Rigged Death Trap posted:Theyre only an other to you due to the cultural disimmilarity. And have you ever actually talked to woman who wears a niqab? One of the most spunky, self driven women I know wears a niqab on the regular and it hinders her none. What then, are the "realities of the societies and culture they come from" that make these garments empowering rather than a symbol of submission? What do us ignorant western critics not understand? It seems to me that most women who truly and fully voluntarily wear the niqab will hold an extremely conservative view of human sexuality and individual liberty. On what issue are they going to be "on [our] side"? Are you really telling me that more than a tiny minority of such religiously conservative women aren't in favor of a communalist ideology that allows for enforcement of community mores (I.E. the kind of ideology that is toxic and incompatible with an individualist western society)? And if they are in favor of such - why should we care about alienating them by banning religious garments in an attempt to give the younger generation an escape route from said horrible culture?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:46
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:You mean except for when you said otherwise a few lines above in the same loving post? Oh, word? It "seems"? Don't you at least have some sort of clobber statistic? This is some sad, sad bullshit. In any case, would you be willing to personally beat people who repeatedly refuse to take off the niqab, or are you a coward on multiple levels?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The US has yet to be taken over by a theocratic regime even though, get this, people get to wear religious garb here, including niqabs. But the onus is not on me to prove a negative. You need to show that the policies you are promoting, which have a clear cost in individual and religious liberties, actually have a benefit. You have failed to do so. In the context of a modern western nation, the state is virtually always a lesser threat to individual liberties than intrusive communities. If I had been born on a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound (the nearest American analogue to the kind of hyper-conservative communities springing up in Europe) I would be a lot less worried about CIA wiretapping or whatever than my sociopathic pedophile neighbors and family members.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Oh, word? It "seems"? Don't you at least have some sort of clobber statistic? This is some sad, sad bullshit. If I was a European police officer charged with enforcing such a law, and the presence of women wearing such garments was making non-hijabi women in the area uncomfortable to the point I received a complaint about it (especially if accompanied by other trappings of morality patrols), I would be personally willing to arrest individuals refusing to return to their homes, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:00
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If I was a European police officer charged with enforcing such a law, and the presence of women wearing such garments was making non-hijabi women in the area uncomfortable to the point I received a complaint about it (especially if accompanied by other trappings of morality patrols), I would be personally willing to arrest individuals refusing to return to their homes, yes. I'm not talking about "arresting", but thank you for admitting that you wouldn't enforce the laws that you want. I want to know if you would be willing to use violence to enforce the law. I want to know the exact level of your physical, moral, and intellectual cowardice.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If I was a European police officer charged with enforcing such a law, and the presence of women wearing such garments was making non-hijabi women in the area uncomfortable to the point I received a complaint about it (especially if accompanied by other trappings of morality patrols), I would be personally willing to arrest individuals refusing to return to their homes, yes. Clearly, the Islamic Menace is the greatest threat to our civil liberties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Because if you can't see someone's face then they have already deliberately 'otherized' themselves for you. Yeah gently caress burn victims and women who've have acid thrown in their face. OH HEY WAIT THAT LAST ONE HAPPENS IN MISOGYNISTIC CULTURES. Liberal_L33t posted:You mean except for when you said otherwise a few lines above in the same loving post? You are illiterate. Let me bring you back to the line that I just used. Tesseraction posted:For better or worse, the woman in this case believes that in order to be pious she must not reveal her shape to men outside of immediate family. Wait! I'm talking to an idiot! *puts on Horatio shades* Zoom. Enhance! Tesseraction posted:the woman ... believes Gasp! The crux of the issue! It's almost like I used words to mean things. Please understand what belief systems mean and then re-read the post you made. Then re-read the post I made. Then re-read what I was replying to. Then stop making posts that make no sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Criminal law is a different matter, obviously, but in matters of civil law the state doesn't care whether you have the case judged by a rabbi or even Judge Judy, as long as you agree not to run crying to the state if it doesn't go your way. Rigged Death Trap posted:Theyre only an other to you due to the cultural disimmilarity. Now you can say 'they've internalized this and believe it themselves, we cannot ban it because it is their choice'. For me personally, whether or not people consent to something doesn't make it automatically acceptable, because that's assuming that everybody has the self-confidence/independence/security/rationality to be able to always make good decisions, which isn't true for like 99% of people alive today, maybe even 100%. But okay, not everyone shares that. Or you could make a pragmatic argument 'well it'd be hard to do and really all the ban does is force these women to stay indoors', which might be true? But lacking data on exactly how much that will actually happen means it's only guesswork. That and if something should be illegal, then the problem of 'we can't enforce it' should be better answered with 'why not/how can we overcome the obstacles to enforcement', not 'let's not bother then' (the keyphrase being whether it should be illegal, which leads into philosophy of law). What I don't think flies is saying that it's just something different, beyond judgement, you don't understand because of your euro-centric perspective or whatever. Thing is, you can use that same argument backwards (they don't recognize how dehumanizing it is because of the women's islam-centric perspective) and it presupposes that any judgement is automatically invalid if it is subjective, when there is in fact no such thing as an objective judgement, so all you're doing when saying that is invalidating every single opinion held ever, which gets you nowhere. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Now you can say 'they've internalized this and believe it themselves, we cannot ban it because it is their choice', which is an argument from practicality. For me personally, whether or not people consent to something doesn't make it automatically acceptable, because that's assuming that everybody has the self-confidence/independence/security/rationality to be able to always make good decisions, which isn't true for like 99% of people alive today, maybe even 100%. But okay, not everyone shares that. What I don't think flies is saying that it's just something different, beyond judgement, you dont' understand because of your euro-centric perspective or whatever. Thing is, you can use that same argument backwards (they don't recognize how dehumanizing it is because of the women's islam-centric perspective) and it presupposes that any judgement is automatically invalid if it is subjective, when there is in fact no such thing as an objective judgement, so all you're doing when saying that is invalidating every single opinion held ever, which gets you nowhere. For the record I 100% agree here. As said above my recommendation is community outreach and finding prayer leaders and Imams who are happy to follow the teachings of the Qu'ran (and hopefully discount some of the less reputable Hadith). I think the culture of misogyny perpetrated in the name of Islam should be addressed. I think reaching out to both Islamic feminists and progressive leaders (of any gender) will be the best method to help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm not talking about "arresting", but thank you for admitting that you wouldn't enforce the laws that you want. I want to know if you would be willing to use violence to enforce the law. I want to know the exact level of your physical, moral, and intellectual cowardice. Why do you talk to people like this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why do you talk to people like this? Why can't you just make your point without getting personal and insulting people? Well, first of all, because I'm interested in effective communication. I want people to actually feel something. So, for example, I've got you pissed off to the point where you're making these really prejudicial statements about how I'm inherently, essentially incapable of behaving in the way you find acceptable. Not exactly much of an achievement, since you're an extremely angry man and your heart will undoubtedly explode before you turn 45, but it's got you to drop some of the professorial act. Second of all, Liberal_L33t is a bigot and on the verge of violently snapping and treating him kindly would be validating his evil beliefs, and I figure that if I can get him to come after me when he goes on a murder-suicide spree, that will help save the lives of any darker-than-beige people in his immediate area. So that ethical calculus isn't exactly a quandary. Third of all, I talk like this because I have little to no respect for the people with whom I am talking. One thing that guarantees that I view you with contempt is whining about how everyone needs to be treated with respect, because it's the sign of someone who doesn't think before they open their lips.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, first of all, because I'm interested in effective communication. I want people to actually feel something. So, for example, I've got you pissed off to the point where you're making these really prejudicial statements about how I'm inherently, essentially incapable of behaving in the way you find acceptable. Not exactly much of an achievement, since you're an extremely angry man and your heart will undoubtedly explode before you turn 45, but it's got you to drop some of the professorial act. What? In no way do I think you're essentially incapable of not being mean to everybody you disagree with. It would probably take a lot less effort on your part to dial back the personal attacks. I'm annoyed that you do this, yes, because I'm genuinely trying to be constructive and not-insulting, and it's hard not to be annoyed when it's so obvious someone is trying to get a negative outburst out of you. But I reject your ascribing to me some prejudicial belief that you're somehow unable rather than unwilling to write posts that aren't designed to make people feel bad. That would be absurd. It's entirely your choice. You and I have very different ideas about what makes communication effective. quote:Second of all, Liberal_L33t is a bigot and on the verge of violently snapping and treating him kindly would be validating his evil beliefs, and I figure that if I can get him to come after me when he goes on a murder-suicide spree, that will help save the lives of any darker-than-beige people in his immediate area. So that ethical calculus isn't exactly a quandary. I know this is largely tongue-in-cheek, but do you really believe the bolded part? That you would be somehow complicit in the perceived evil if you weren't as unkind as possible to people who espouse it? quote:Third of all, I talk like this because I have little to no respect for the people with whom I am talking. One thing that guarantees that I view you with contempt is whining about how everyone needs to be treated with respect, because it's the sign of someone who doesn't think before they open their lips. OK, but this really does beg the question of why you talk to them in a much more significant way than the stock-standard "well if you don't like it why don't you leave the thread?" sort of nonsense. If it's really in order to change minds and thereby help to reduce the prevalence of beliefs you consider harmful in the world, I think you should probably reconsider the effectiveness of your methods. Belittling people as crudely as you do isn't going to help you realise that goal with anybody with enough wherewithal to actually do anything with the beliefs you want them not to have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:36
|
|