The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: SimpleCycle on July 01, 2017, 02:21:02 PM
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
-
The Indian thread was called out immediately, and eventually shut down. The gay post is pretty damn blatant though. I have to say, this is one of the most "forward thinking" forums I've been on, and mods seem to do an excellent job of tamping down aggressive posts while letting discussion flourish. You reference 2 incidents a month apart, one of which already dealt with, the other not yet. In a forum this big, that's pretty good in my opinion. People are jerks, some show up here, mods deal with them. I don't see tolerance of anything like bigotry, and if two examples a month apart in a forum containing some 30,000 members and a million plus posts is all ya got, I think we have a good thing here.
Since tolerating bigotry is not a thing here, members speak up, and mods act judiciously I'm not sure what you're asking for here.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Attack the person pointing out the intellerant and improper behavior as "over PC" who "ruins the fun of us good ol boys" is a classic tactic used by bullies to create a safe space for their insentive remarks.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/tenor.gif)
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
I have not looked at the second thread you linked, but the first thread contained blatant homophobia. And that is coming form a guy that is conservative.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Attack the person pointing out the intellerant and improper behavior as "over PC" who "ruins the fun of us good ol boys" is a classic tactic used by bullies to create a safe space for their insentive remarks.
While i am not accusing you of racism or homophobic or insensitive remarks, I suggest you examine your own motives for posting this response. Some people are deeply hurt by remarks like these. I wonder who or what are you trying to defend? Free speach for haters? Rationalization of racism, bullying and similar behaviors is never a good look.
PS i dont find this site very insentitive as a rule, and i agree those examples were not the worst ever, but still it is good if we all try to be civil and on our best, non trollish behavior.
+1. It's not funny.
-
Yes, comments are moderated when necessary. Yes, it sometimes takes time for the moderators to get to them. Are you volunteering to become a moderator? We have very few moderators and they work for free, so it's extremely difficult for them to keep on top of things immediately.
-
There is a fine line between criticizing shitty aspects of a culture and lumping an entire group together. It's not always super obvious where the line stands. Mods here have traditionally been pretty hands-off, with the policy of letting idiots biggots out themselves.
-
There is a view that opinions (however insensitive, cruel or bigoted) should be left up to be debated and defeated through proper argument and exchange of words, as opposed to being censored.
I have no doubt the community will point out bad behaviour when it is required. In the first case you pointed it out, so there was no need for the world and his dog to pile on afterwards. In the case of the second the mods got around to it - bear in mind the mods have lives too, they can't read a thousand posts per day, all day everyday.
People are permitted/free to have a voice without being censored, provided laws are not being broken (no one in particular is being defamed in that post). You are in turn also free to shout them down, without also being censored.
-
There is a view that opinions (however insensitive, cruel or bigoted) should be left up to be debated and defeated through proper argument and exchange of words, as opposed to being censored.
I have no doubt the community will point out bad behaviour when it is required. In the first case you pointed it out, so there was no need for the world and his dog to pile on afterwards. In the case of the second the mods got around to it - bear in mind the mods have lives too, they can't read a thousand posts per day, all day everyday.
People are permitted/free to have a voice without being censored, provided laws are not being broken (no one in particular is being defamed in that post). You are in turn also free to shout them down, without also being censored.
+ 1
-
I agree with the OP. However, at some point, arguing with the "I don't mean to be racist/homophobic, but..." people won't go anywhere and it's probably best to just flag the moderators.
This isn't a censorship/freespeech issue either. The forum is part of MMM's house and it plays by his rules. I think the mods have generally done a good job at balancing the options of allowing debate and shutting threads down that violate the terms of the forum.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Attack the person pointing out the intellerant and improper behavior as "over PC" who "ruins the fun of us good ol boys" is a classic tactic used by bullies to create a safe space for their insentive remarks.
While i am not accusing you of racism or homophobic or insensitive remarks, I suggest you examine your own motives for posting this response. Some people are deeply hurt by remarks like these. I wonder who or what are you trying to defend? Free speach for haters? Rationalization of racism, bullying and similar behaviors is never a good look.
PS i dont find this site very insentitive as a rule, and i agree those examples were not the worst ever, but still it is good if we all try to be civil and on our best, non trollish behavior.
+1. It's not funny.
+2!
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
I don't want to comment on the actual discussion at this stage but just wanted to point out that that first post was up for 12 hours, from what I can see, before your response. And since those 12 hours were from 8 in the evening to 8 in the morning, presumably quite a few people were asleep. Don't want to excuse the homophobia at all but just wanted to mention that. And maybe it doesn't matter anyway, with people in different timezones and probably just as many night-owls here as anywhere else.
It is, of course, also true that even those who do notice these things very often don't call them out, either online or in real life.
-
Yes, comments are moderated when necessary. Yes, it sometimes takes time for the moderators to get to them. Are you volunteering to become a moderator? We have very few moderators and they work for free, so it's extremely difficult for them to keep on top of things immediately.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying we need more moderation and I think our mods do a great job. I'd like to see a shift toward more people stepping up to name racist and homophobic behavior when they see it, rather than reading past it and thinking "oh, I hope a mod takes care of that". There is generally a thought that the community will set norms and self-police. I personally am disappointed with the lack of response and support on these issues.
-
I have not looked at the second thread you linked, but the first thread contained blatant homophobia. And that is coming form a guy that is conservative.
I appreciate this and your support in the other thread.
-
There's usually no point debating with racists, homophobes, sexists (I've seen plenty of sexism on this board too.) At some point I flagged a conversation that seemed blatantly sexist to me, and the person got a warning, but didn't see their views as sexist at all and started to cry censorship. Whatever. I tried to point out why their comments were offensive, but they couldn't see or were unwilling to understand my POV and were far more upset about being censored, as though they were the victim of the situation. No acknowledgment or willingness to see another point of view.
Overall I find the mods reasonably willing to shut down offensive commenters or threads. In the thread linked to above, it seemed as though the OP has shut down the BMI conversation well enough. What else can you do other than call them out on it? Either in a comment or by flagging the mods? IRL I do not engage in debates with bigoted people, because in my experience they have chosen this viewpoint and do not want to change it. The conversation goes nowhere. All I can do is say "that's sexist / racist" and walk away from them before they start in with the usual anti-liberal rhetoric (see post above.)
There's a difference between tolerating bigoted behaviour and disengaging with it. If anyone has a better solution, I would love to hear. It would solve a lot of problems in the world today if people could have real, open minded, thoughtful and engaging conversations about these issues. But most people are not interested in engaging beyond the usual automatic responses to criticism (claiming censorship, using anti-liberal rhetoric, denying and deflecting, etc).
In the case of the BMI thread, what else can be said? I 100% agree with OPs comment there but I see the thread and think it's already been shut down and I have nothing to add.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
You are really easily offended. Must be hard living in that bubble.
I want this website to be welcoming as well. However, I don't really care if this website fits everyone's world view. I come here for investment and money saving advice, not as a way to stand on a podium and preach to others how I think the world should be.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
You are really easily offended. Must be hard living in that bubble.
Aaaaaaaand, case in point.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
You are really easily offended. Must be hard living in that bubble.
Aaaaaaaand, case in point.
Aaaaaaaaaaad, what was homophobic and racist about what I said?
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
That wasn't anti liberal. I wasn't condoning or supporting any action. Please do not pigeonhole me to into a category so that you can try to minimize me.
I was simply stating "don't get so easily offended."
Annnnnnddd in the next post after me someone got offended by me saying don't get easily offended. Ironic.
-
But most people are not interested in engaging beyond the usual automatic responses to criticism (claiming censorship, anti liberal rhetoric, denial, etc).
That is exactly what you did to me. lol.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
You are really easily offended. Must be hard living in that bubble.
I want this website to be welcoming as well. However, I don't really care if this website fits everyone's world view. I come here for investment and money saving advice, not as a way to stand on a podium and preach to others how I think the world should be.
What do you mean by "fits everyone's worldview"?
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
That wasn't anti liberal. I wasn't condoning or supporting any action.
You were accusing the OP of being over sensitive. Rhetoric or not, anti-liberal or not, you were trying to delegitimize his/her viewpoint.
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
That wasn't anti liberal. I wasn't condoning or supporting any action. Please do not pigeonhole me to into a category so that you can try to minimize me.
I was simply stating "don't get so easily offended."
Annnnnnddd in the next post after me someone got offended by me saying don't get easily offended. Ironic.
Saying the correct action is to not get offended by a remark is condoning that remark. When asked to choose between putting responsibility on the homophobe or racist or the one pointing it out, you chose the latter.
Also, as a gay person I am probably more attuned to homophobia than average, but me noticing it doesn't make it less homophobic.
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
That wasn't anti liberal. I wasn't condoning or supporting any action. Please do not pigeonhole me to into a category so that you can try to minimize me.
I was simply stating "don't get so easily offended."
Annnnnnddd in the next post after me someone got offended by me saying don't get easily offended. Ironic.
Saying the correct action is to not get offended by a remark is condoning that remark. When asked to choose between putting responsibility on the homophobe or racist or the one pointing it out, you chose the latter.
Not getting offended by something... does not mean you condone the action. It's a choice that everyone has. Please take a breath of fresh air.
I would never condone a racist or homophobic act.
Your second sentence makes no sense to me, because I did not read either thread. Also no responsibility was put on you.
I do not care what your race, gender, ethnicity, age, is. That is irrelevant.
Getting offended and trying to turn this place into some sort of utopia that fits your own "inset view here" is ridiculous.
-
If others have made my point, I don't respond. If someone obstinately sticks to a fallacy, despite others pointing it out, there is no point in continuing the thread - it just becomes adversarial.
-
Some people are more comfortable publicly calling out insensitive speech than others. I think it's perfectly fine to refer something to the mods to have it dealt with more officially if you aren't inclined to call it out yourself. However you can't just hope the mods notice it. There are only a handful of mods and hundreds (thousands?) of new posts daily. You need to click the "Report to moderator" button to bring something to their attention.
-
There are two extremes: One is blatant racism which should not be tolerated in any form. The other is over reading into a comment calling it racist when there is no racism whatsoever. The rest is in the middle where there is a line between ignorance and true racism. Some people say things not realizing they may be insensitive with absolutely no intension of insulting anyone. Some light education can help them realize their mistake.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
Probably not everyone read it. It was a blatantly homophobic comment, and completely uncalled for.
But it happened at 8:30 on a Friday night. I rarely come to the forums on the weekend. Today is an exception!
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
Do not feed the trolls. Best way to prevent that sort of thing is to ignore it and let the mods take care of things.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
Do not feed the trolls. Best way to prevent that sort of thing is to ignore it and let the mods take care of things.
But see my earlier post. Mods can't be expected to "take care of things" until they're alerted a problem exists. There are too many posts for the mods to read them all on their own. Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
Probably not everyone read it. It was a blatantly homophobic comment, and completely uncalled for.
But it happened at 8:30 on a Friday night. I rarely come to the forums on the weekend. Today is an exception!
This is fair, and on a holiday weekend.
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
Do not feed the trolls. Best way to prevent that sort of thing is to ignore it and let the mods take care of things.
But see my earlier post. Mods can't be expected to "take care of things" until they're alerted a problem exists. There are too many posts for the mods to read them all on their own. Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
FWIW I both reported it to the mods and responded.
-
The anonymity of the internet encourages people to say things they normally wouldn't say in public. Despite the hundreds of years of evidence of homophobia and racism in our country I'm still kind of shocked at the passion and fervor that some people still have in those views. The comment section of a website that covers local news in my city is essentially full of racists filling up every article with racist rants. I find that these kind of people don't have a good grasp of history and don't really know a lot of context or nuances around certain events.
-
I was referring to my post above, about the usual anti liberal rhetoric and how difficult it is to have actual conversations about racism, sexism and homophobia. Then you came in with some anti liberal rhetoric to illustrate my point.
That wasn't anti liberal. I wasn't condoning or supporting any action. Please do not pigeonhole me to into a category so that you can try to minimize me.
I was simply stating "don't get so easily offended."
Annnnnnddd in the next post after me someone got offended by me saying don't get easily offended. Ironic.
Saying the correct action is to not get offended by a remark is condoning that remark. When asked to choose between putting responsibility on the homophobe or racist or the one pointing it out, you chose the latter.
Not getting offended by something... does not mean you condone the action. It's a choice that everyone has. Please take a breath of fresh air.
I would never condone a racist or homophobic act.
Your second sentence makes no sense to me, because I did not read either thread. Also no responsibility was put on you.
I do not care what your race, gender, ethnicity, age, is. That is irrelevant.
Getting offended and trying to turn this place into some sort of utopia that fits your own "inset view here" is ridiculous.
Often times getting offended is not a choice. I'm not sure who you are but is it possible that you're not offended or affected by these words because you're privileged? When people make sexist comments about women it would be so easy for me to ignore them because I'm a man. But I try to put myself in other people's shoes to see how they would feel. With the understanding that I can never fully understand the other persons emotions because I don't have the same experiences as them. Because I'm a privileged white male. So even if I think "oh I wouldn't be offended by that if I was a woman " I give women the benefit of the doubt because I dot have the same life experiences as them. I don't put up with the same crap on an institutional level that they do.
Furthermore, stating that such homophobic or racist utterances are no big deal, normalizes the statements and therfore the racist or homophobic viewpoint.
-
Often times getting offended is not a choice. I'm not sure who you are but is it possible that you're not offended or affected by these words because you're privileged? When people make sexist comments about women it would be so easy for me to ignore them because I'm a man. But I try to put myself in other people's shoes to see how they would feel. With the understanding that I can never fully understand the other persons emotions because I don't have the same experiences as them. Because I'm a privileged white male. So even if I think "oh I wouldn't be offended by that if I was a woman " I give women the benefit of the doubt because I dot have the same life experiences as them. I don't put up with the same crap on an institutional level that they do.
Furthermore, stating that such homophobic or racist utterances are no big deal, normalizes the statements and therfore the racist or homophobic viewpoint.
In this regard, not sure if everyone/anyone is familiar with Panti's Noble Call. It's in a similar vein and well worth a look, I think. It's on youtube (about ten minutes long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0)
-
Often times getting offended is not a choice.
I disagree, and I do not manufacture people to get offended on behalf of.
-
Often times getting offended is not a choice.
I disagree, and I do not manufacture people to get offended on behalf of.
Can you clairify? I don't understand what you're saying.
-
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
FWIW I both reported it to the mods and responded.
I haven't read this thread (or the other thread) yet, but clicking on that link it looks to me like one of the mods edited it.
So what's the problem?
It apparently was over the line (I haven't even read the comment, I just see moderator red text), was reported, a moderator had some time to go through and clean up reports, they agreed it broke the forum rules, and they edited it.
That seems to me like how the system should work.
Can someone explain to me the issue?
-
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
FWIW I both reported it to the mods and responded.
I haven't read this thread (or the other thread) yet, but clicking on that link it looks to me like one of the mods edited it.
So what's the problem?
It apparently was over the line (I haven't even read the comment, I just see moderator red text), was reported, a moderator had some time to go through and clean up reports, they agreed it broke the forum rules, and they edited it.
That seems to me like how the system should work.
Can someone explain to me the issue?
Enlightened OP wants passive visitors to be more engaged in calling out ignorance so site is more welcoming to everyone despite their race or sexual orientation. OP thought he/she should champion the cause by making a thread on the issue to point out our communities shortfalls in not disavowing ignorant post fast enough.
-
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
FWIW I both reported it to the mods and responded.
I haven't read this thread (or the other thread) yet, but clicking on that link it looks to me like one of the mods edited it.
So what's the problem?
It apparently was over the line (I haven't even read the comment, I just see moderator red text), was reported, a moderator had some time to go through and clean up reports, they agreed it broke the forum rules, and they edited it.
That seems to me like how the system should work.
Can someone explain to me the issue?
I am not criticising the moderation, I think the moderators do a good job on this site.
I am disappointed that there seems to be plenty of tolerance of these attitudes among posters, as evidenced by people who have posted here that a) there is no problem with those threads and b) I am too easily offended. I was hoping there would be more consensus that posters should step up to set community norms that don't tolerate that behavior, but apparently I was wrong.
If the consensus is this is a function for moderation, I can abide by that.
-
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Click the "Report to moderator" button when warranted.
FWIW I both reported it to the mods and responded.
I haven't read this thread (or the other thread) yet, but clicking on that link it looks to me like one of the mods edited it.
So what's the problem?
It apparently was over the line (I haven't even read the comment, I just see moderator red text), was reported, a moderator had some time to go through and clean up reports, they agreed it broke the forum rules, and they edited it.
That seems to me like how the system should work.
Can someone explain to me the issue?
I am not criticising the moderation, I think the moderators do a good job on this site.
I am disappointed that there seems to be plenty of tolerance of these attitudes among posters, as evidenced by people who have posted here that a) there is no problem with those threads and b) I am too easily offended. I was hoping there would be more consensus that posters should step up to set community norms that don't tolerate that behavior, but apparently I was wrong.
If the consensus is this is a function for moderation, I can abide by that.
Ah, gotcha.
Yes, I agree with you.
We should all try to gently call out behaviors that are not in keeping with the type of community we'd like to cultivate.
In general, it'd be nice not to see a lot of threads devolve into calling each other out, but a gentle reminder ("That's uncalled for" type message) is a great idea.
If they're extremely blatant, mod reporting should be done as well.
I follow now; this thread is more a call to other members to step up our expectations of what others post. I agree, that would be nice. Hopefully a few people will read this, and act accordingly. That's about all we can do. :)
-
The anonymity of the internet encourages people to say things they normally wouldn't say in public. Despite the hundreds of years of evidence of homophobia and racism in our country I'm still kind of shocked at the passion and fervor that some people still have in those views. The comment section of a website that covers local news in my city is essentially full of racists filling up every article with racist rants. I find that these kind of people don't have a good grasp of history and don't really know a lot of context or nuances around certain events.
Those are trolls. People who get their kicks saying inflammatory things in order to elicit an emotional response from others. They then laugh at the hysteria. Worst thing you can do to them is ignore(and report, as others suggested). Do not respond, no matter what. Responding is what they want.
-
Fuck thought policing! I see absolutely nothing wrong with either of SimpleCycle's linked posts. Sure, if you try to be obtuse you can misconstrue them and find a way to be offended, but this is absolutely ridiculous! I am vehemently opposed to shutting down, censoring, or controlling the discourse of any conversations.
If you think they are legitimately racist or homophobic as you claim, (they're clearly not) the appropriate course of action is to explain why you think they are being illogical or factually incorrect in their assertions. Punishing anybody that doesn't share your views never convinces anybody that you're right but shows the affected people and all bystanders/lurkers that you're an ideological bully without real arguments. Seriously, it's been well documented that the postmodernist progressive approach to identity politics consistently drives opinion in the opposite direction because people hate being censored or otherwise controlled.
-
Turning every conversation into a lengthy debate on why stereotyping is both factually and morally indefensible sounds exhausting and pointless, actually. This shit is stupid asshole behavior.
+1
Fuck thought policing! I see absolutely nothing wrong with either of SimpleCycle's linked posts. Sure, if you try to be obtuse you can misconstrue them and find a way to be offended, but this is absolutely ridiculous! I am vehemently opposed to shutting down, censoring, or controlling the discourse of any conversations.
You apparently misunderstand the purpose of these forums. It is not to debate and discuss anything one wants, with anything goes.
It is to promote Mustachianism. It is to give a place to Mustachians, or potential Mustachians, to learn, get encouragement, track their progress, celebrate wins, etc.
A general life/philosophy forum, sure. I agree with you.
That's not what's going on here.
To our ends, someone being an asshole isn't helping our community, but hurting it.
Please, go share you opinion (the royal you, racist or misoganyst in this case), but go share it where it's appropriate. Start a blog. Find a forum for discussing those things.
But here, on the MMM forums? No, thanks, we're good.
-
Freshstash,
The point of the callout is typically to cue the offender to stop the behavior and reconsider it in light of the fact that people are letting them know they've (hopefully unintentionally) fucked up
Exactly how has somebody "fucked up" when they're discussing how much they've gotten out of talking to older people, only to have somebody who wants everyone to know how offended they are by the topic to wander through it?
How enriched was the topic by that calling out? What value did it bring, to anyone? The person that did the calling out gets to feel validated, having vanquished the darkness and corrected everyone's morals around them! What a shining star of a person!
Edit: Sorry, the person who did this in this case was actually older and offended somehow, I was making a strawman of young people being offended on behalf of others. We all decline with age, however, and that's just a sad fact of life for us all. Older "Fuddy duddys" is a thing though, whether or not an individual actually meets that stereotype. I'd bet Mustachians, DIY'ers and renaissance man types though would be the slowest to decline into that, but oh well.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/hanging-out-with-old-timers/
-
And to add, the problem here isn't an objective standard of whether something is offensive or not. Nobody here will agree, which is exactly the problem with trying to ensure nobody is ever offended. What's offensive to me may or may not actually matter 5 seconds after I am offended(ah my sweet wonderful lack of short term memory for some things). The same is not true for everyone, and I cannot even pretend to empathize with what some people choose to take offense at.
-
I've been disappointed by how threads or conversations IRL are stopped cold in their tracks by blunt accusations of homophobia/racism/sexism/ageism/etc. Sometimes that's appropriate when the speaker is being an ass on purpose. Other times it's a missed opportunity to have a discussion.
Maybe the speaker didn't realize how it sounded. Maybe they have solid reasons/evidence to back up their thought. Maybe they are looking for education. Maybe the listeners is attributing bad intentions when there aren't any.
For example, I thought the premise of the influence of gay people on fashion ideals was interesting. Yes, I understand there is a wide variety of what people find attractive. However, I could see that premise being covered in a dissertation of the influence of gay men on women's fashion and I'd like to know more about it, perhaps unconsciously. In my small, totally unscientific, non-fashion-centric world, I haven't heard anyone talk about how attractive anorexic models are. I've heard people say they can't relate to them or envision the clothes on themselves since their shape is so different. I've heard the models look unhealthy. So why is that the look designers use for their campaigns? Interesting question that could be a teachable moment, both for myself and for younger women who are looking at those models as the ideal.
There was another thread where people were sharing their experiences hanging out with older people. I thought it was a nice thread with people sharing good experiences, even if they were a little surprised by them, and might open others to the opportunity to connect with a different group of people. And someone chimed in to say it was ageism and they were more than a number. Yes, we all get that. No one was saying they only hang out with 73-year-olds, any other age is not acceptable. The ageism accusation put a damper on the conversation so instead of celebrating the relationships, it was hidden again. What good did "calling that out" do?
This exactly. Both threads where not blatantly offensive. They where just expressing an opinion that was open to be challenged. So the correct response is to investigate and refute their argument. Not "call out" that someone's opinion is not allowed and shut him down. These are not extreme opinions. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of the US holds similar views. Shutting down the discussion will not lead to understanding, but to resentment. If indeed as arebelspy said they will discuss it on a website where only people with the same opinion come society will split into subgroups which live in their own bubble of truth, distrusting outsiders in different bubbles. And as you see in politics today, that is really happening and is not desirable.
Demonizing people with different opinions, is not the enlightened way. It is more like calling for a mob to oust the outsiders.
-
For example, I thought the premise of the influence of gay people on fashion ideals was interesting. Yes, I understand there is a wide variety of what people find attractive. However, I could see that premise being covered in a dissertation of the influence of gay men on women's fashion and I'd like to know more about it, perhaps unconsciously. In my small, totally unscientific, non-fashion-centric world, I haven't heard anyone talk about how attractive anorexic models are. I've heard people say they can't relate to them or envision the clothes on themselves since their shape is so different. I've heard the models look unhealthy. So why is that the look designers use for their campaigns? Interesting question that could be a teachable moment, both for myself and for younger women who are looking at those models as the ideal.
Just very quickly on this: read the comment (the "serious joke") again. The word pre pubescent is important there, although lots of people might miss it. The comment, or at least my reading of it, conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and that's a big problem. There might indeed be a good discussion to be had on the influence of homosexual people on the fashion industry but that's not what that was about.
-
With regards to the first post made, the poster made a joke. A pretty common joke actually. They said immediately afterwards that they were joking. But they crossed a line nonetheless. Three people rebutted the post. A moderator strolling by edited it and the thread carried on.
So the forum seems to self-moderate. Perhaps this thread prompted those last two actions. I think someone would have rebutted it without this thread.
The comment, or at least my reading of it, conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and that's a big problem.
I think that is an unfair conclusion. The post is in response to women who said they struggled to stay below a certain weight and when they were under it, they looked "gauntly". That image is the one the beauty industry glamorizes. The poster (myself) is saying that mature, featured women are beautiful just the way they are. To describe how backwards they think the beauty industry is w.r.t. the typical (but not absolute) male's preference, they describe the industry's by using the most constrasting terms for "nubile woman". Pre-puberty and boy.
Comments can be accidentally or intentionally offensive on the internet. It is hard to discern which is what. I got reprimanded. There is now a whole thread about it. I smile at that. I am laughing at myself. And promise I'll be more careful.
-
Comments can be accidentally or intentionally offensive on the internet. It is hard to discern which is what. I got reprimanded. There is now a whole thread about it. I smile at that. I am laughing at myself. And promise I'll be more careful.
I think this is a really great attitude. Cheers.
My girlfriend used to catch me saying some stupid things that I hadn't realized were actually quite offensive to some demographics. I didn't even know. I may have said something defensive at the time, but later did realize that the things were wrong to say. I don't say those things anymore.
-
I live in a neighborhood in a fairly diverse community in the suburbs and some of my neighors are Indian immigrants. For the most part, they assimilate fairly well with the rest of the community. They come from a democratic country, so they participate in local government and the local school board. They are usually polite and friendly. I work with some of them quite closely at my two jobs and they are willing to listen and communicate in a non-confrontational manner.
They do tend to continue to dress in their native style from India, but that hardly matters. Fashion is a matter of personal choice. Sometimes, I also suspect that they defer to me a little too much due to cultural factors.
The biggest problem we have had with them as a community is their tendency to be really harsh toward Muslims. We have a small minority of Muslim business owners who are minding their own business and not bothering anybody, but sometimes the rhetoric from the Indian community can be a little scary. Nobody has taken any action, but there have been a few peaceful public rallies.
-
I've been disappointed by how threads or conversations IRL are stopped cold in their tracks by blunt accusations of homophobia/racism/sexism/ageism/etc. Sometimes that's appropriate when the speaker is being an ass on purpose. Other times it's a missed opportunity to have a discussion.
Maybe the speaker didn't realize how it sounded. Maybe they have solid reasons/evidence to back up their thought. Maybe they are looking for education. Maybe the listeners is attributing bad intentions when there aren't any.
For example, I thought the premise of the influence of gay people on fashion ideals was interesting. Yes, I understand there is a wide variety of what people find attractive. However, I could see that premise being covered in a dissertation of the influence of gay men on women's fashion and I'd like to know more about it, perhaps unconsciously. In my small, totally unscientific, non-fashion-centric world, I haven't heard anyone talk about how attractive anorexic models are. I've heard people say they can't relate to them or envision the clothes on themselves since their shape is so different. I've heard the models look unhealthy. So why is that the look designers use for their campaigns? Interesting question that could be a teachable moment, both for myself and for younger women who are looking at those models as the ideal.
There was another thread where people were sharing their experiences hanging out with older people. I thought it was a nice thread with people sharing good experiences, even if they were a little surprised by them, and might open others to the opportunity to connect with a different group of people. And someone chimed in to say it was ageism and they were more than a number. Yes, we all get that. No one was saying they only hang out with 73-year-olds, any other age is not acceptable. The ageism accusation put a damper on the conversation so instead of celebrating the relationships, it was hidden again. What good did "calling that out" do?
Oops--on the "Hanging Out With Older People" thread, I think you're talking about my comment. I can't find the thread to refresh my memory on exactly what the relevant posts were, but I know I didn't say anything that would put a damper on anybody's conversation
--at least I hope I didn't. May the discussions continue!
-
The point of the callout is typically to cue the offender to stop the behavior and reconsider it in light of the fact that people are letting them know they've (hopefully unintentionally) fucked up, so the original conversation can smoothly resume, and harmful shit doesn't just sit there unchallenged in the meantime. I agree that the defensiveness of people who get called out can lead to those conversations ending anyway. But I don't agree that we should sacrifice the ability to call out harmful shit on the altar of people being too defensive to take the criticism and keep the conversation going.
Gosh, it's almost as if people have feelings!
The purpose of the public "callout" is not to politely correct someone for ignorant or unenlightened behavior. The purpose of the public "callout" is to publicly shame someone deemed lesser than to help reinforce one's own smug sense of self-righteousness. If one doesn't want to actually arrest public discourse, and actually desires to educate someone who supposedly doesn't have as much of the puzzle of life put together as one thinks they do, perhaps before chucking that particular stone it would be a good idea to temper that frustration or anger with a little empathy first.
"What if I were the arsehole in this situation? How would I react to public shaming? Is public shaming genuinely effective for correcting trivial offenses of ignorance, or does it just make me feel better doing it and earn me public approval from my own tribe of imperfect arseholes? Do I want to help nurture educated independence in others and allow for their own perspective and understanding to help continue to add to the rich dialogue while still helping to clue them into something they may not have considered or understood, or do I want to take responsibility for how everyone thinks and tell them how to behave?"
Even when you are right, contemplate for a moment the possibility that you are wrong first. Ask how you would want to be treated yourself.
It hasn't been that long ago that even I carried this mentality of harsh public rebuke as being okay. "Treat others how I would like to be treated." I didn't mind it, and really don't mind public correction myself - but I am not everyone. Most people have much thinner skin than I do, and we're talking about ideas and concepts that help shape and define the very sense of self. People get defensive and protective about that, and honestly, if anyone can't understand and appreciate that fact and exercise a bit more kindness in your interactions because of it? Guess what, YOU ARE THE ARSEHOLE, not the target of your "callout". Finally coming to this realization helped me to understand how I had failed many times in the past to try and "help" people here and elsewhere with many things. I was the arsehole for my behavior, not them. If you want to correct someone who is "wrong", it's on you to help ensure you preserve their dignity in doing so, and to do so in a loving manner with a purpose of education instead of one driven by vengeance. You can only answer for your own choices and actions.
After all, what's the first rule of these forums? Don't be a jerk.
Frankly, deliberately publicly shaming someone with, "What is this _____ bullshit?" on an unintentional offense rooted in personal experience and understanding crosses that line far more than the comment that inspired it because they were words deliberately intended to be offensive to the reader.
I don't doubt the hearts desiring to help and uplift others, desiring justice and greater equality... but you don't get to do that by being as bad as or worse than those you're trying to enlighten. Two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind. There are ways to gently correct that preserves the dignity of the person in the wrong. There's also value in the ideas of being slow to anger and quick to forgiveness, as well as never assuming malice where ignorance can easily explain an offense, and recognizing that we should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it.
Are there trolls? Absolutely. Is it appropriate to publicly call out trolls if they're unchanging and abusive? Absolutely. Should we help others expand their horizons of understanding? Absolutely. Most people aren't trolls, they're just people with different experiences than you've had, and should be treated with the fundamental respect due all humans. Love your neighbor as yourself. Nobody is perfect and omniscient enough to have the unflappable moral high ground, and behaving like you do is a sure-fire indication that you don't. Helping to restore their glory does far more than tearing it down through public spectacle.
Yeshua had some valuable words on this subject. Matthew 7:3-5 and 18:15 (according to the NIV translation) reads, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." and "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."
It works because it relies on self-awareness and introspection first, and provides dignity to those you desire to help, both by going to them privately and by recognizing that you yourself may be just as guilty of the same offense in your own special way, and that you may have needed just as much help, patience and forgiveness to be better as they do. In doing so, the comment has not gone unchallenged, because the person who wrote it has come to a greater understanding and is unlikely to keep and repeat the old idea. That is what actually matters. Not knee-jerk reactions that make you and others feel better. Not red text. Changing minds is what matters most. This doesn't mean that public dialogue on the subject can't and shouldn't be appropriate, but it has its place and there is wisdom in knowing when it is appropriate.
I don't see much kindness in this thread, despite the motivation, because the steps being promoted to combat the problems are not ones rooted in love - but the very same hatred that inspires the cries for justice in the first place. You want this place to be better and kinder and more inclusive? It starts with your own actions and behavior in how you treat others, and not with publicly shaming or censoring those who speak out of ignorance.
-
My child is gender diverse, and I have started a foundation to help combat the bigotry that goes against the LGBT community. I have found that the best way to combat these cases of bigotry is to deem then not intentional and privately confront the person, not in a butthurt fashion, but in a way that you feel what they said may be deemed offensive to some, explain why and have a educational conversation about it. This will allow the "offender" to change if they are so inclined, or to proves, as some have said, they are an asshole. As IP said, public shaming someone will a majority of the time get people defensive, where as a private conversation, may actually advance education, teach someone something and have positive results.
-
The point of the callout is typically to cue the offender to stop the behavior and reconsider it in light of the fact that people are letting them know they've (hopefully unintentionally) fucked up, so the original conversation can smoothly resume, and harmful shit doesn't just sit there unchallenged in the meantime. I agree that the defensiveness of people who get called out can lead to those conversations ending anyway. But I don't agree that we should sacrifice the ability to call out harmful shit on the altar of people being too defensive to take the criticism and keep the conversation going.
Gosh, it's almost as if people have feelings!
The purpose of the public "callout" is not to politely correct someone for ignorant or unenlightened behavior. The purpose of the public "callout" is to publicly shame someone deemed lesser than to help reinforce one's own smug sense of self-righteousness. If one doesn't want to actually arrest public discourse, and actually desires to educate someone who supposedly doesn't have as much of the puzzle of life put together as one thinks they do, perhaps before chucking that particular stone it would be a good idea to temper that frustration or anger with a little empathy first.
"What if I were the arsehole in this situation? How would I react to public shaming? Is public shaming genuinely effective for correcting trivial offenses of ignorance, or does it just make me feel better doing it and earn me public approval from my own tribe of imperfect arseholes? Do I want to help nurture educated independence in others and allow for their own perspective and understanding to help continue to add to the rich dialogue while still helping to clue them into something they may not have considered or understood, or do I want to take responsibility for how everyone thinks and tell them how to behave?"
Even when you are right, contemplate for a moment the possibility that you are wrong first. Ask how you would want to be treated yourself.
It hasn't been that long ago that even I carried this mentality of harsh public rebuke as being okay. "Treat others how I would like to be treated." I didn't mind it, and really don't mind public correction myself - but I am not everyone. Most people have much thinner skin than I do, and we're talking about ideas and concepts that help shape and define the very sense of self. People get defensive and protective about that, and honestly, if anyone can't understand and appreciate that fact and exercise a bit more kindness in your interactions because of it? Guess what, YOU ARE THE ARSEHOLE, not the target of your "callout". Finally coming to this realization helped me to understand how I had failed many times in the past to try and "help" people here and elsewhere with many things. I was the arsehole for my behavior, not them. If you want to correct someone who is "wrong", it's on you to help ensure you preserve their dignity in doing so, and to do so in a loving manner with a purpose of education instead of one driven by vengeance. You can only answer for your own choices and actions.
After all, what's the first rule of these forums? Don't be a jerk.
Frankly, deliberately publicly shaming someone with, "What is this _____ bullshit?" on an unintentional offense rooted in personal experience and understanding crosses that line far more than the comment that inspired it because they were words deliberately intended to be offensive to the reader.
I don't doubt the hearts desiring to help and uplift others, desiring justice and greater equality... but you don't get to do that by being as bad as or worse than those you're trying to enlighten. Two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind. There are ways to gently correct that preserves the dignity of the person in the wrong. There's also value in the ideas of being slow to anger and quick to forgiveness, as well as never assuming malice where ignorance can easily explain an offense, and recognizing that we should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it.
Are there trolls? Absolutely. Is it appropriate to publicly call out trolls if they're unchanging and abusive? Absolutely. Should we help others expand their horizons of understanding? Absolutely. Most people aren't trolls, they're just people with different experiences than you've had, and should be treated with the fundamental respect due all humans. Love your neighbor as yourself. Nobody is perfect and omniscient enough to have the unflappable moral high ground, and behaving like you do is a sure-fire indication that you don't. Helping to restore their glory does far more than tearing it down through public spectacle.
Yeshua had some valuable words on this subject. Matthew 7:3-5 and 18:15 (according to the NIV translation) reads, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." and "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."
It works because it relies on self-awareness and introspection first, and provides dignity to those you desire to help, both by going to them privately and by recognizing that you yourself may be just as guilty of the same offense in your own special way, and that you may have needed just as much help, patience and forgiveness to be better as they do. In doing so, the comment has not gone unchallenged, because the person who wrote it has come to a greater understanding and is unlikely to keep and repeat the old idea. That is what actually matters. Not knee-jerk reactions that make you and others feel better. Not red text. Changing minds is what matters most. This doesn't mean that public dialogue on the subject can't and shouldn't be appropriate, but it has its place and there is wisdom in knowing when it is appropriate.
I don't see much kindness in this thread, despite the motivation, because the steps being promoted to combat the problems are not ones rooted in love - but the very same hatred that inspires the cries for justice in the first place. You want this place to be better and kinder and more inclusive? It starts with your own actions and behavior in how you treat others, and not with publicly shaming or censoring those who speak out of ignorance.
I.P. I have to disagree. Part of the reason for the public call out is to make it clear to others, who have been hurt by the comment that the rest of us do not agree with it. Otherwise, you have people who have seen that behavior is acceptable to this group, and leave because of it. I, myself, left a money forum specifically because of very sexist person was allowed to be a moderator are therefore would not be called out on his sexism. That was not a culture I was willing to be part of, so I left. If you do something, you risk being called out on that action because in public because your first action was in public.
I've seen people take the correction and change, in public and it never shut down anything. The idea that you might have to be almost as uncomfortable as those you made uncomfortable with your comment, is not a bad thing.
-
I think it's clear when someone calls something out for preen cred, or when they're trying to make it clear that sort of talk isn't cool.
-
I.P. I have to disagree.
If mob rule is inappropriate one way, why is it appropriate the other? The end result is the same - someone gets alienated, hearts are hardened, and nobody learns anything. If you want to alienate people and harden feelings and behaviors, go for it. If you want to change minds, then perhaps the best course of actions is one of kindness and education one on one and/or expressing empathy for those you feel compassion for privately, instead of wasting precious resources getting publicly offended and picking fights for other people on their behalf.
This is the line between judgment and justice.
I think it's clear when someone calls something out for preen cred, or when they're trying to make it clear that sort of talk isn't cool.
I would disagree, and even go so far as to make the comment that some of the moderating lately is actually making more mountains out of molehills. There appears to be personal bias blinding one to successfully differentiating that very line by allowing abusive language to stand from the people who are supposedly "in the right" doing the behavioral callouts. Abusive language is abusive language, whether made out of ignorance or made in defense. Public callouts of accidental offense can be just as destructive to a community than the offense itself.
How quickly we forget.
-
I think there's a balance to be had, and to be fair a balance I did not strike in my call out in the homophobic thread. In general in real life I am a fan of "call in culture", where issues are addressed in private and with empathy. It is easier to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you're already pretty sure the intent was not malicious.
But on the internet, the intent sometimes is malicious, or it can be very hard to infer intent. In addition, there often is not a personal relationship. So I think the balance shifts towards addressing things publicly, albeit with empathy.
That said, I don't think it's fair to say someone reacting in anger to a discriminatory remark is acting out of hatred. They may be acting out of anger, or resignation, but I don't think making a discriminatory remark and reacting to that remark in anger are morally equivalent like I. P. asserts.
-
That said, I don't think it's fair to say someone reacting in anger to a discriminatory remark is acting out of hatred. They may be acting out of anger, or resignation, but I don't think making a discriminatory remark and reacting to that remark in anger are morally equivalent like I. P. asserts.
And I would like to respond by stating that I did not make such an assertion of blanket equivalence. There is such a thing as righteous anger, and it too has its place and appropriate expression, but very little anger in life is righteous even when one feels that anger while being in the right. It's far too easy to lose that moral high ground in expressing that anger and slip into even accidental hatred, because anger by its nature with us messy and imperfect humans tends to bring out the worst in ourselves and others. As such, it is an emotion best applied very sparingly, and to the sin itself, not the sinner.
It brings joy to my heart to hear that you are a fan of the "call in culture", let me encourage you to not abandon that empathy even in your dealings online. The very reasons you cite regarding the difficulty to infer intent with words online along with the lack of personal relationship should be the very reason to try and approach one-on-one first over public response... not a reason to avoid it.
-
[long post]
Great post, +100.
-
I think it's clear when someone calls something out for preen cred, or when they're trying to make it clear that sort of talk isn't cool.
I would disagree, and even go so far as to make the comment that some of the moderating lately is actually making more mountains out of molehills. There appears to be personal bias blinding one to successfully differentiating that very line by allowing abusive language to stand from the people who are supposedly "in the right" doing the behavioral callouts. Abusive language is abusive language, whether made out of ignorance or made in defense. Public callouts of accidental offense can be just as destructive to a community than the offense itself.
If the call out language is abusive, it should be itself called out and/or reported as well.
As I said earlier:
We should all try to gently call out behaviors that are not in keeping with the type of community we'd like to cultivate.
In general, it'd be nice not to see a lot of threads devolve into calling each other out, but a gentle reminder ("That's uncalled for" type message) is a great idea.
IDK why you assume that callout has to be abusive or rude. But if it is, it's being done in the wrong manner, and spirit.
-
I totally agree with I.P. Daley. He said it better than I ever could.
I'll add something else. The current political environment has driven much of the LGBTQ community into a George Bush "you're either with us or against us" type hysteria. And often the result are people from smug, white liberal enclaves with very precisely defined ideas of what is "right" going bonkers online. They call out others on forums with a "when did you stop molesting your children" self-righteousness and clothing themselves with an ego masturbatory suffering martyr complex not seen since the persecution of Christianity.
Recently on another forum a poster off handedly used the word "fag". A smug "arsehole" from Humboldt county California called her out, accusing her of enabling homophobia, etc. He even went as far as demanding she or the mods remove her post. The punchline? The "evil" poster using the verboten word was herself a lesbian. And no lipstick lesbian, but a full on out of the closet half head shaven piercing wearing, I go to NYC to celebrate Stonewall "I don't give a fuck what other people think" lesbian. And she lives in a part of the country where homophobia - sometimes violent homophobia - isn't mere hysteria. Attempts by her and I to mollify the arshole were to no avail and he left the forum in a huff, basically calling us all Nazis on the way out.
The LGBTQ is a minority in this country. Not everyone has a direct relation to it. But many, if not most people, at least on an intellectual level, sympathize with them. Even if they don't hew to exacting moral platitudes defined by Sociologist majors in San Francisco, Portland, NYC etc. And again, if you think that this is a problem that only effects LGBTQ vs. everyone else, check the headline "If You Hate the New Pride Flag, You're the Problem" from The Advocate (concerning the recent brown and black stripes addition to the gay pride flag to represent race) to see where this is going.
The fight for social justice is an important part of America. It doesn't serve it to balkanize movements, inside and out, into competing cliques. Cliques with ideological purity tests which paint them into a corner so they one day look around to see "us" is vanishingly small and "them" is overwhelming large and utterly unsympathetic.
Edit: "clique" not "click" Thanks Khanjar.
-
...
I.P. I have to disagree. Part of the reason for the public call out is to make it clear to others, who have been hurt by the comment that the rest of us do not agree with it. Otherwise, you have people who have seen that behavior is acceptable to this group, and leave because of it. I, myself, left a money forum specifically because of very sexist person was allowed to be a moderator are therefore would not be called out on his sexism. That was not a culture I was willing to be part of, so I left. If you do something, you risk being called out on that action because in public because your first action was in public.
I've seen people take the correction and change, in public and it never shut down anything. The idea that you might have to be almost as uncomfortable as those you made uncomfortable with your comment, is not a bad thing.
I.P.,
I've been thinking about this myself a lot recently and I really like what you said in your post about addressing it in private instead of in public. But I'm curious how you would address the problem with that method identified by Gin. I would like to be sympathetic to people who mistakenly make offensive comments, but I am also worried about reassuring those potentially hurt by those comments that they are not alone.
-
Thanks for this thread, SimpleCycle.
I'm curious what everyone agreeing with I.P. thinks of the ageism comment that was brought up in this thread. The language of that post was very mild, "this seems ageist to me and honestly hurts my feelings" type stuff. No rudeness or swearing.
The fact that lizzzi's comment and Simple's were both cited in this thread as examples of terrible callouts stopping discussion and hurting people leads me to believe that the issue is still that people don't want their behavior questioned, not reactivity to which tone is used. If you looked at every time someone has argued and derailed a topic after another poster used some permutation of "hey man not cool" on this board, I think you would find that the only common point was a lot of people who were uncomfortable with taking criticism.
+1
-
I haven't read the entire thread. But as an older person myself, and just as an internet user in general, I cannot see how any post could ever "hurt my feelings" as long as it wasn't personally directed at me. People say all kinds of stupid and uniformed stuff all the time on the internet and if you're going to decide to get your feelings hurt about it, well that's kind of your own problem. There seems to be an expectation that criticism/stereotype of protected classes (not even sure age is considered a "protected class") is just so much worse, and so much more hurtful *per se* than any other kind of blanket criticism. But this is actually kind of arbitrary and strange, in my book. Actually, if I were to find statements made by people I've never met and don't know hurtful, I would be more hurt if someone said something snide about "those who are stupid enough to let neighbors use their pools while they are away," than about old people since the former is more personally directed at me.
There's also a misconception, I think, that remarks can be hurtful and upsetting in themselves whereas it is always a choice whether or not to allow oneself to get upset over something. In fact, part of growing up is learning that we have power over our emotional responses and learning not to upset ourselves.
Another point: It's like the Internet gives us an eavesdropping superpower. We can listen in to a gazillion conversations that before the Internet we just couldn't hear. Is it really reasonable to get upset if any conversation has a remark that can possibilty be deemed sexist, racist or phomophobic? Are we going to thought police the world?
This said, if someone feels that someone is attacking a group of people or is showing a dangerous ignorance in some way, then yes, there should be push back about that -- a rebuttal and a discussion. If the comment really seems to be intentionally offensive, then the mods should take care of the situation, deleting or editing the post as necessary and adding a warning. But again, I do not see the "personal feelings" of a forum member should enter into the equation unless there were personally attached and ideally not even then.
-
Socially acceptable behaviour is defined by a group culture. The group itself defines it. When we are young, our parents define it for us. When we pick our nose in public were told that's not OK.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out to someone that their behaviour is not acceptable in a certain setting. The purpose of this post was to ask - is this type of talk tolerable on here, or not? It's up to us as a community to decide. Personally I would rather have this place be welcoming and friendly to all. If at means the occasional comment of "hey, it's not cool to say that here" then I am fine with that. As long as the commenter is not abusive, I don't see why it's a problem to call someone out on ignorant or insensitive remarks. It's how we define a community - by setting reasonable boundaries.
We disagree on what those boundaries are, on the surface - but even a "don't be so sensitive" commenter in this thread admitted they wanted the place to be friendly and welcoming. How can anyone account for both - creating a welcoming environment, while allowing offensive comments? What is the harm in defining a boundary to prevent the latter?
-
I'm curious what everyone agreeing with I.P. thinks of the ageism comment that was brought up in this thread. The language of that post was very mild, "this seems ageist to me and honestly hurts my feelings" type stuff. No rudeness or swearing.
The fact that lizzzi's comment and Simple's were both cited in this thread as examples of terrible callouts stopping discussion and hurting people leads me to believe that the issue is still that people don't want their behavior questioned, not reactivity to which tone is used. If you looked at every time someone has argued and derailed a topic after another poster used some permutation of "hey man not cool" on this board, I think you would find that the only common point was a lot of people who were uncomfortable with taking criticism.
Jeez Louise, I never thought my comment on the "Friends with Older People" thread would be taken so seriously, or generate discussion on this thread. I did not mean to sound as "heavy" as some people seem to be taking it. I didn't mean to make a "terrible callout" and certainly apologize if it was taken that way. Let's see if I can summarize my philosophy--I am not a hugely deep thinker--but something like this: Live and let live. Include everybody. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Love each other.
-
I haven't read the entire thread. But as an older person myself, and just as an internet user in general, I cannot see how any post could ever "hurt my feelings" as long as it wasn't personally directed at me. People say all kinds of stupid and uniformed stuff all the time on the internet and if you're going to decide to get your feelings hurt about it, well that's kind of your own problem. There seems to be an expectation that criticism/stereotype of protected classes (not even sure age is considered a "protected class") is just so much worse, and so much more hurtful *per se* than any other kind of blanket criticism. But this is actually kind of arbitrary and strange, in my book. Actually, if I were to find statements made by people I've never met and don't know hurtful, I would be more hurt if someone said something snide about "those who are stupid enough to let neighbors use their pools while they are away," than about old people since the former is more personally directed at me.
There's also a misconception, I think, that remarks can be hurtful and upsetting in themselves whereas it is always a choice whether or not to allow oneself to get upset over something. In fact, part of growing up is learning that we have power over our emotional responses and learning not to upset ourselves.
Another point: It's like the Internet gives us an eavesdropping superpower. We can listen in to a gazillion conversations that before the Internet we just couldn't hear. Is it really reasonable to get upset if any conversation has a remark that can possibilty be deemed sexist, racist or phomophobic? Are we going to thought police the world?
This said, if someone feels that someone is attacking a group of people or is showing a dangerous ignorance in some way, then yes, there should be push back about that -- a rebuttal and a discussion. If the comment really seems to be intentionally offensive, then the mods should take care of the situation, deleting or editing the post as necessary and adding a warning. But again, I do not see the "personal feelings" of a forum member should enter into the equation unless there were personally attached and ideally not even then.
Another part of becoming an adult is learning that what we say and do affects other people. Maybe I'm fortunate enough to live in a very diverse and accepting city, but I don't feel it's a very high bar to request that people not say racist, sexist or homophobic things in a public place.
-
I'm curious what everyone agreeing with I.P. thinks of the ageism comment that was brought up in this thread. The language of that post was very mild, "this seems ageist to me and honestly hurts my feelings" type stuff. No rudeness or swearing.
The fact that lizzzi's comment and Simple's were both cited in this thread as examples of terrible callouts stopping discussion and hurting people leads me to believe that the issue is still that people don't want their behavior questioned, not reactivity to which tone is used. If you looked at every time someone has argued and derailed a topic after another poster used some permutation of "hey man not cool" on this board, I think you would find that the only common point was a lot of people who were uncomfortable with taking criticism.
Jeez Louise, I never thought my comment on the "Friends with Older People" thread would be taken so seriously, or generate discussion on this thread. I did not mean to sound as "heavy" as some people seem to be taking it. I didn't mean to make a "terrible callout" and certainly apologize if it was taken that way. Let's see if I can summarize my philosophy--I am not a hugely deep thinker--but something like this: Live and let live. Include everybody. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Love each other.
For what it's worth, I thought your comment was totally fine, lizzzi. I was alluding to the conversation I had earlier in this thread about how your comment was apparently pointless and added nothing to the discussion. I disagree and found/find your perspective interesting.
I am confused but unsurprised that the argument against Simple's point continues to be, summarized:
- Anyone who feels a remark they see was harmful and points this out, at any level of emphasis, is weak and oversensitive at best and self-congratulatory and vicious at worst, unless they meet some kind of mysterious stress test of "legitimacy" (this has no definition except "doesn't make me defensive to see")
- Anyone who made said remark, however, is a human being with feelings. Their reacting emotionally rather than logically to criticism is expected and natural
- We are on a forum where swearing is encouraged and tough love in the direction of bettering yourself is the norm, but making hurtful mistakes with regard to groups who get shit on a lot is somehow exempt from this and probably thought policing. Therefore "That clown car is bullshit, sell it" is acceptable and "That unintentional implication that gay men are pedophiles is bullshit, don't say that" is not
- There are people who don't see the cognitive dissonance here.
Holding people who see potential harm in a statement to a higher standard of emotional toughness and mistake-free articulation of their point than the party being criticized is a weird double standard and frankly illogical. So is separating criticism for what you say and how you say it from criticism about every other aspect of your life.
I mean, I get it. I have the empathy of a brick and formulated most of the points I'm making in here by running my face into a wall a lot till I stepped back and examined my own reactions to criticism. I can probably relate a lot more to the people arguing with me than with the people who have called me out over the years. But I was being an idiot.
Stop, stop, stop. No, you're not an idiot--and please don't run your face into the wall.
-
: D Well, that's the truth. Have a nice day, fresh stash!
-
I'm curious what everyone agreeing with I.P. thinks of the ageism comment that was brought up in this thread. The language of that post was very mild, "this seems ageist to me and honestly hurts my feelings" type stuff. No rudeness or swearing.
The fact that lizzzi's comment and Simple's were both cited in this thread as examples of terrible callouts stopping discussion and hurting people leads me to believe that the issue is still that people don't want their behavior questioned, not reactivity to which tone is used. If you looked at every time someone has argued and derailed a topic after another poster used some permutation of "hey man not cool" on this board, I think you would find that the only common point was a lot of people who were uncomfortable with taking criticism.
Jeez Louise, I never thought my comment on the "Friends with Older People" thread would be taken so seriously, or generate discussion on this thread. I did not mean to sound as "heavy" as some people seem to be taking it. I didn't mean to make a "terrible callout" and certainly apologize if it was taken that way. Let's see if I can summarize my philosophy--I am not a hugely deep thinker--but something like this: Live and let live. Include everybody. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Love each other.
For what it's worth, I thought your comment was totally fine, lizzzi. I was alluding to the conversation I had earlier in this thread about how your comment was apparently pointless and added nothing to the discussion. I disagree and found/find your perspective interesting.
I am confused but unsurprised that the argument against Simple's point continues to be, summarized:
- Anyone who feels a remark they see was harmful and points this out, at any level of emphasis, is weak and oversensitive at best and self-congratulatory and vicious at worst, unless they meet some kind of mysterious stress test of "legitimacy" (this has no definition except "doesn't make me defensive to see")
- Anyone who made said remark, however, is a human being with feelings. Their reacting emotionally rather than logically to criticism is expected and natural
- We are on a forum where swearing is encouraged and tough love in the direction of bettering yourself is the norm, but making hurtful mistakes with regard to groups who get shit on a lot is somehow exempt from this and probably thought policing. Therefore "That clown car is bullshit, sell it" is acceptable and "That unintentional implication that gay men are pedophiles is bullshit, don't say that" is not
- There are people who don't see the cognitive dissonance here.
Holding people who see potential harm in a statement to a higher standard of emotional toughness and mistake-free articulation of their point than the party being criticized is a weird double standard and frankly illogical. So is separating criticism for what you say and how you say it from criticism about every other aspect of your life.
I mean, I get it. I have the empathy of a brick and formulated most of the points I'm making in here by running my face into a wall a lot till I stepped back and examined my own reactions to criticism. I can probably relate a lot more to the people arguing with me than with the people who have called me out over the years. But I was being an idiot.
I really like this post. Thanks, freshstash
-
Socially acceptable behaviour is defined by a group culture. The group itself defines it. When we are young, our parents define it for us. When we pick our nose in public were told that's not OK.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out to someone that their behaviour is not acceptable in a certain setting. The purpose of this post was to ask - is this type of talk tolerable on here, or not? It's up to us as a community to decide. Personally I would rather have this place be welcoming and friendly to all. If at means the occasional comment of "hey, it's not cool to say that here" then I am fine with that. As long as the commenter is not abusive, I don't see why it's a problem to call someone out on ignorant or insensitive remarks. It's how we define a community - by setting reasonable boundaries.
We disagree on what those boundaries are, on the surface - but even a "don't be so sensitive" commenter in this thread admitted they wanted the place to be friendly and welcoming. How can anyone account for both - creating a welcoming environment, while allowing offensive comments? What is the harm in defining a boundary to prevent the latter?
I think there is a balance to be had and I think we already have it. I already think this forum is friendly and welcoming ... enough. I think it is a mistake to be overly concerned with making a space completely free of whatever is deemed racist, agist, homophobic, etc. by any individual poster. If there is an there is an egregious violation of norms, I'm sure that the moderators can handle it as they have in the past. I say this as someone who was a long-time member of a(n academic) forum where concern for creating a perfectly tolerant on-line community paradoxically devolved into general nastiness. This nastiness was particularly reserved for any new posters who began to be held to much higher standards in this regard than the oldsters (the ones often engaged in the education hazing). This forum used to be great, but it is dying now. I'm not sure that the strangely intolerant concern for inclusion was the sole factor here, but I'm sure it contributed.
I have also had the experience of being the co-author of a "Covenant of Right Relations," a document laying out the optimal way of being together and treating each other in my Unitarian church. I had some misgivings when I heard that this document was going to be drafted. It just seemed really controlling to me. That is why I got involved. If we were going to have a document like this I wanted it to be as genuinely tolerant and un-controlling as possible. Even with this effort, I can say that this document has created more conflict than it has resolved.
Yes, it is important to have boundaries. But the best boundaries are flexible, even a little porous, not rigid. Or to use a cliché my husband is fond of: "Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good."
-
It never ceases to amaze me how discourse has changed in the age of the internet. I am old enough that I remember having discussions in groups before online forums and social media. Not seeing someone’s face and observing their body language really makes such a huge difference. Also, it astonishes me the things that people will say “out loud” to essentially anyone that will listen. THis has really been such an abrupt cultural change, and we are still, as a species, learning to navigate it.
I bet 85% of the comments people say regarding sexual orientation, race or gender they would not say in person to a real live human being. Honestly, can you even picture the guy who said that gay people are responsible for the negative aspects of fashion culture saying it to someone’s face? And especially to a bunch of strangers they have never met? It really emphasizes the extreme cowardace when you think about it that way, because you know that they would never do that for fear of negative judgement, yet they have the NERVE to get upset that people tend to get upset when you say things that might offend them. And most of you would probably back up the person being offended.
I have never once in my life seen a conversation where someone stereotypes an Indian culture based on their experiences, and an Indian person overhears, and then other people tell the Indian to stop being offended. It just doesn’t work that way. Mostly because you actually see the party being injured. You empathize with them because they are there in front of you.
I am not perfect at this by any stretch, but I try not to say anything on the internet that I would never say in person or in public. It takes a lot of effort, and yes, I do censor myself sometimes because, whether you like it or not, when you are in a forum, you are joining a community, and the community has the right to expel you for things it finds anti-social or offensive.
-
I really want to +1 a few points in this thread, but my ipad and fat finger are fighting with each other about that.
But FreshStash's last (longer) post spoke well to my take.
I will add that I don't enjoy any aggression on the forum -people being "punched" for personal financial decisions, snarkiness and sarcasm as responses, condescension over what people named their babies, racism, presenting one's subjective take as objective truth, etc. I get that some people think they're just funny, or that they're the smartest, but egh.
Where I sense someone may be a great person, but is breaking rule #1, I try a few things:
1. Share my different experience, using the principles of nonviolent communication. "Oh, I've had a completely different experience! Mine has been..." Or, "Well, I'm a woman and I actually can't stand shopping..." Or, "There are actually more than two camps re: vaccinations. I'd love to see the third one acknowledged in these discussions, too."
2. A friendly PM. I've had some truly wonderful experiences in this. When I sense someone is probably an awesome person, while saying some stuff that makes me cringe, I sometimes say, "Hey there..." and it's well received, and often a lovely little friendship is started.
3. Where these go nowhere, or someone is being a jerk without seeming to give a crap that she's being a jerk, I hit the "report" button. As mentioned a few times in the thread, this draws a volunteer mod's attention to it. I found this ineffective the first two times I used it, but in the past year much more effective.
-
I haven't read the entire thread. But as an older person myself, and just as an internet user in general, I cannot see how any post could ever "hurt my feelings" as long as it wasn't personally directed at me. People say all kinds of stupid and uniformed stuff all the time on the internet and if you're going to decide to get your feelings hurt about it, well that's kind of your own problem. There seems to be an expectation that criticism/stereotype of protected classes (not even sure age is considered a "protected class") is just so much worse, and so much more hurtful *per se* than any other kind of blanket criticism. But this is actually kind of arbitrary and strange, in my book. Actually, if I were to find statements made by people I've never met and don't know hurtful, I would be more hurt if someone said something snide about "those who are stupid enough to let neighbors use their pools while they are away," than about old people since the former is more personally directed at me.
There's also a misconception, I think, that remarks can be hurtful and upsetting in themselves whereas it is always a choice whether or not to allow oneself to get upset over something. In fact, part of growing up is learning that we have power over our emotional responses and learning not to upset ourselves.
Another point: It's like the Internet gives us an eavesdropping superpower. We can listen in to a gazillion conversations that before the Internet we just couldn't hear. Is it really reasonable to get upset if any conversation has a remark that can possibilty be deemed sexist, racist or phomophobic? Are we going to thought police the world?
This said, if someone feels that someone is attacking a group of people or is showing a dangerous ignorance in some way, then yes, there should be push back about that -- a rebuttal and a discussion. If the comment really seems to be intentionally offensive, then the mods should take care of the situation, deleting or editing the post as necessary and adding a warning. But again, I do not see the "personal feelings" of a forum member should enter into the equation unless there were personally attached and ideally not even then.
Another part of becoming an adult is learning that what we say and do affects other people. Maybe I'm fortunate enough to live in a very diverse and accepting city, but I don't feel it's a very high bar to request that people not say racist, sexist or homophobic things in a public place.
I think its refreshing to bring the attitudes into the open, a closet homophobe is still a homophobe. If I'm a racist in real life, but not online, am I a better person for hiding it?
If you want the attitudes to shift, I suggest even the racists, homophobes and sexists need to be heard and understood. Once you understand their positions, maybe then they'll change. Or we can keep them in their own forums separate from us and let them reinforce their beliefs among themselves.
The evolution of the pride festivals is amazing. In the early days there was backlash, now most places are accepting and some are embracing it (not everywhere, the world is diverse in its treatment). Getting it out in the open, talking, teaching and learning has been difficult, I think its been worth it. I grew up in an intolerant environment, I was a kid and I hope you don't judge, I wouldn't have changed except for the teachings of others.
-
I haven't read the entire thread. But as an older person myself, and just as an internet user in general, I cannot see how any post could ever "hurt my feelings" as long as it wasn't personally directed at me. People say all kinds of stupid and uniformed stuff all the time on the internet and if you're going to decide to get your feelings hurt about it, well that's kind of your own problem. There seems to be an expectation that criticism/stereotype of protected classes (not even sure age is considered a "protected class") is just so much worse, and so much more hurtful *per se* than any other kind of blanket criticism. But this is actually kind of arbitrary and strange, in my book. Actually, if I were to find statements made by people I've never met and don't know hurtful, I would be more hurt if someone said something snide about "those who are stupid enough to let neighbors use their pools while they are away," than about old people since the former is more personally directed at me.
There's also a misconception, I think, that remarks can be hurtful and upsetting in themselves whereas it is always a choice whether or not to allow oneself to get upset over something. In fact, part of growing up is learning that we have power over our emotional responses and learning not to upset ourselves.
Another point: It's like the Internet gives us an eavesdropping superpower. We can listen in to a gazillion conversations that before the Internet we just couldn't hear. Is it really reasonable to get upset if any conversation has a remark that can possibilty be deemed sexist, racist or phomophobic? Are we going to thought police the world?
This said, if someone feels that someone is attacking a group of people or is showing a dangerous ignorance in some way, then yes, there should be push back about that -- a rebuttal and a discussion. If the comment really seems to be intentionally offensive, then the mods should take care of the situation, deleting or editing the post as necessary and adding a warning. But again, I do not see the "personal feelings" of a forum member should enter into the equation unless there were personally attached and ideally not even then.
Another part of becoming an adult is learning that what we say and do affects other people. Maybe I'm fortunate enough to live in a very diverse and accepting city, but I don't feel it's a very high bar to request that people not say racist, sexist or homophobic things in a public place.
I think its refreshing to bring the attitudes into the open, a closet homophobe is still a homophobe. If I'm a racist in real life, but not online, am I a better person for hiding it?
If you want the attitudes to shift, I suggest even the racists, homophobes and sexists need to be heard and understood. Once you understand their positions, maybe then they'll change. Or we can keep them in their own forums separate from us and let them reinforce their beliefs among themselves.
The evolution of the pride festivals is amazing. In the early days there was backlash, now most places are accepting and some are embracing it (not everywhere, the world is diverse in its treatment). Getting it out in the open, talking, teaching and learning has been difficult, I think its been worth it. I grew up in an intolerant environment, I was a kid and I hope you don't judge, I wouldn't have changed except for the teachings of others.
ROFL, no. The reason they are changing is because society (aka the rest of us) are standing up and saying your behavior is not acceptable and therefore they are not acting on the behavior because they don't want the backlash. Accepting them does not work.
-
I haven't read the entire thread. But as an older person myself, and just as an internet user in general, I cannot see how any post could ever "hurt my feelings" as long as it wasn't personally directed at me. People say all kinds of stupid and uniformed stuff all the time on the internet and if you're going to decide to get your feelings hurt about it, well that's kind of your own problem. There seems to be an expectation that criticism/stereotype of protected classes (not even sure age is considered a "protected class") is just so much worse, and so much more hurtful *per se* than any other kind of blanket criticism. But this is actually kind of arbitrary and strange, in my book. Actually, if I were to find statements made by people I've never met and don't know hurtful, I would be more hurt if someone said something snide about "those who are stupid enough to let neighbors use their pools while they are away," than about old people since the former is more personally directed at me.
There's also a misconception, I think, that remarks can be hurtful and upsetting in themselves whereas it is always a choice whether or not to allow oneself to get upset over something. In fact, part of growing up is learning that we have power over our emotional responses and learning not to upset ourselves.
Another point: It's like the Internet gives us an eavesdropping superpower. We can listen in to a gazillion conversations that before the Internet we just couldn't hear. Is it really reasonable to get upset if any conversation has a remark that can possibilty be deemed sexist, racist or phomophobic? Are we going to thought police the world?
This said, if someone feels that someone is attacking a group of people or is showing a dangerous ignorance in some way, then yes, there should be push back about that -- a rebuttal and a discussion. If the comment really seems to be intentionally offensive, then the mods should take care of the situation, deleting or editing the post as necessary and adding a warning. But again, I do not see the "personal feelings" of a forum member should enter into the equation unless there were personally attached and ideally not even then.
Another part of becoming an adult is learning that what we say and do affects other people. Maybe I'm fortunate enough to live in a very diverse and accepting city, but I don't feel it's a very high bar to request that people not say racist, sexist or homophobic things in a public place.
I think its refreshing to bring the attitudes into the open, a closet homophobe is still a homophobe. If I'm a racist in real life, but not online, am I a better person for hiding it?
If you want the attitudes to shift, I suggest even the racists, homophobes and sexists need to be heard and understood. Once you understand their positions, maybe then they'll change. Or we can keep them in their own forums separate from us and let them reinforce their beliefs among themselves.
The evolution of the pride festivals is amazing. In the early days there was backlash, now most places are accepting and some are embracing it (not everywhere, the world is diverse in its treatment). Getting it out in the open, talking, teaching and learning has been difficult, I think its been worth it. I grew up in an intolerant environment, I was a kid and I hope you don't judge, I wouldn't have changed except for the teachings of others.
I don't know if this same arguement has been made about all straights being homophobic, but you do realize that there are many who say that all non-POCs are racist. No matter how you change your attitude. No matter what you say. You are racist/homophobic. Period. You are the product of a racist system. You will never be able to fully understand your privilege. This might sound crazy and extreme, but this is actually now standard understanding of our society in academia and other socially liberal milieux. I belong to a very liberal group and it's now ex-leader, who is certainly not a racist by any traditional definition of the term and who is Hispanic to boot, is being publically called a "White Supremacist" because basically he wasn't as PC as it was absolutely possible to be. Just hope we don't start getting like this here.
I'm sorry but it's hard for me not to read the thread in this context. Sometimes you just need to put the chisel down.
Also, I dislike the term "homophobe." It has a certain "if you aren't with us, your against us" vibe. It suggests that if anyone has a personal repugnance re: homosexuality, then they are anti-gay. I personally know someone who refuses to watch any gay scenes in movies and yet would absolutely risk their own career to make sure a gay person in his department wasn't discriminated against -- because it is the right thing to do. I know -- I saw it happen.
The kind of social policing I see going on in some forums (not really here fortunately) doesn't allow for this kind of complexity. It doesn't allow humans to be humans. It shuts down dialogue or at least limits its scope.
-
Damn freshstash, are you a cultural studies professor or something? What a fine post. Thanks.
-
Since the discussion has moved onto the national scale, I'd like to point out more of the problem is simple dishonesty rather than hurt feelings. First we have the people who simply deny making bigoted remarks, shifting to "it was a joke," "you're being PC," or reframing the comment altogether in a way that totally dismisses their actual intent. The post OP pointed out with regards to the gay fashion designers is a prime example. Poster remarks gay designers are attracted to prebubescent boys and that is the reason skinny women are on the pages, yet defends himself by pointing out he was saying real men like real women. There's a point where people know they are making bigoted statements and feel immune enough to shame and dismiss any criticism. I feel there is a small wedge in American discussion that is allowing more and more of this. It didn't start with Trump, but he is a prime example of how it works and how its rewarded.
-
I'm curious what everyone agreeing with I.P. thinks of the ageism comment that was brought up in this thread. The language of that post was very mild, "this seems ageist to me and honestly hurts my feelings" type stuff. No rudeness or swearing.
It's an improvement on "I'm going to report you to the mods, and make a whole new thread to publicly shame you", sure. It was pretty polite, but I did think the "If I found that a friend was nice to my face but [said the sort of things you did in your post], I would drop them." vibe was a bit of a downer when the whole thread was positive up to that point on the benefits of hanging out with older people. Not a terrible call-out, and he had every right to say that if he felt it, it just seemed a bit of a shame.
-
This is not on you, Melisande, but I think the greatest tragedy of this ongoing national conversation is the way terms referring to discrimination have been allowed to be defined as personal insults by those who oppose change. "We are all products of a discriminatory system and thus need to consciously examine our assumptions if we don't want to UNconsciously perpetuate those ingrained, discriminatory values" is a perfectly sensible and true statement. It's not out there or radical. It's on the same order as "if you hate cooking and you want to learn to cook, you need to consciously examine the internal barriers between you and cooking." Did you grow up in a household that ate out of cans? Might have something to do with it. Institutionalized discrimination just involves a bigger household and unquestioned assumptions that hurt more people.
Unfortunately, we've successfully gotten "discrimination" recognized as a bad thing without that actually translating to knowledge of what systematic inequality entails. So if you say "hey, that remark was racist/sexist/etc," what people hear is "you are a racist," and then from there they progress to, "but racism is bad. I'm not a bad person!" Hence the digging in of heels. "I can't believe that person tried to call me evil when I just said my personal thoughts about the Mexican waiters I've had!" When, no, I don't necessarily think that the people I've personally called out for racist remarks before are intentionally cruel, evil people. I think they said some racist shit. That's certainly been the case for me when I've said racist shit by accident.
Exactly! I see this all the time. Some says something racist. Someone else says “That is racist!”. Then the original person complains about being called a racist. They immediately jump to personalizing the whole thing as part of their identity.
-
Genuinely interested in this - it sounds like you're arguing that it's more harmful to have that kind of critical feedback than not? If I were one of the people who'd been talking about how I cared about my older friends in that thread, I'd be a bit bummed, sure, but also try to keep it in mind to be a better friend to them in the future. In your opinion, was the positive vibe valuable enough to preserve the condescension without questioning it? Would a hypocritical silence have served better by not displaying the problem but keeping the vibe?
It's a delicate balancing act, isn't it. Personally, I like to err on the side of assuming people meant no harm, and not taking myself too seriously. Perhaps that particular post could have reached a compromise by removing the last sentence - the point would still have been made, but with less antagonism. Still, it's not for me to deconstruct other people's posts.
-
...everything I said in previous posts still applies: reacting as if having your behavior questioned is an assault against your identity as a good person places an unfair and illogical burden of means testing on the person or group that you hurt, and may actually end up making things harder for them.
Let me unpack this a bit. Is that like saying people who "get called out" shouldn't feel insulted? Being called a homophobe or a racist is insulting, even if it's just inferred or insinuated. Isn't that like saying people from (insert demographic) shouldn't be insulted by some random comment in the first place?
I'm definitely against the board turning into some ideological "safe space" based on peoples' hurt feelings. In nowhere is it written that other people are responsible for your feelings. They can facilitate feelings, yes - and it's commendable when they facilitate good ones. Sometimes they facilitate bad ones to tell necessary truths or because they're jerks (often both). But ultimately YOUR feelings are YOUR responsibility. If your feelings of self worth are tied to what random cock sucking shit stains* say on the internet, maybe your problems are a little deeper than social justice issues.
*Foul language is offensive to a lot of people and I'm not actually fond of it in public discourse. Yet the mods tolerate, and in some threads, even encourage it. That will be MY litmus test for when the forums have gone down the tubes: when the perpetually offended ban that.
-
Genuinely interested in this - it sounds like you're arguing that it's more harmful to have that kind of critical feedback than not? If I were one of the people who'd been talking about how I cared about my older friends in that thread, I'd be a bit bummed, sure, but also try to keep it in mind to be a better friend to them in the future. In your opinion, was the positive vibe valuable enough to preserve the condescension without questioning it? Would a hypocritical silence have served better by not displaying the problem but keeping the vibe?
It's a delicate balancing act, isn't it. Personally, I like to err on the side of assuming people meant no harm, and not taking myself too seriously. Perhaps that particular post could have reached a compromise by removing the last sentence - the point would still have been made, but with less antagonism. Still, it's not for me to deconstruct other people's posts.
Huh, and yet you assumed I started a thread to publicly shame people, despite my explicitly stated purpose of starting a discussion about the broader issue.
-
I don't call people out on things that may be viewed as offensive, as I feel that it's not my place beyond hitting the "report to moderator" button. I won't pull over a drunk driver and yell at him for being a derp, but I'll call the cops on one.
*Foul language is offensive to a lot of people and I'm not actually fond of it in public discourse. Yet the mods tolerate, and in some threads, even encourage it. That will be MY litmus test for when the forums have gone down the tubes: when the perpetually offended ban that.
MMM himself is very clearly on Team Swearing Is Fun And Effective, so that would feel 100% against the fucking ethos of the blog to implement.
-
...everything I said in previous posts still applies: reacting as if having your behavior questioned is an assault against your identity as a good person places an unfair and illogical burden of means testing on the person or group that you hurt, and may actually end up making things harder for them.
Let me unpack this a bit. Is that like saying people who "get called out" shouldn't feel insulted? Being called a homophobe or a racist is insulting, even if it's just inferred or insinuated. Isn't that like saying people from (insert demographic) shouldn't be insulted by some random comment in the first place?
I'm definitely against the board turning into some ideological "safe space" based on peoples' hurt feelings. In nowhere is it written that other people are responsible for your feelings. They can facilitate feelings, yes - and it's commendable when they facilitate good ones. Sometimes they facilitate bad ones to tell necessary truths or because they're jerks (often both). But ultimately YOUR feelings are YOUR responsibility. If your feelings of self worth are tied to what random cock sucking shit stains* say on the internet, maybe your problems are a little deeper than social justice issues.
*Foul language is offensive to a lot of people and I'm not actually fond of it in public discourse. Yet the mods tolerate, and in some threads, even encourage it. That will be MY litmus test for when the forums have gone down the tubes: when the perpetually offended ban that.
But saying that someone has said something that is homophobic or racist does not equal calling that person a homophobe or racist. That's the point (I think).
-
I wasn't offended in the "our new Indian overlords" thread in spite of being of Indian descent and even posted there a few times to refute the claims of the OP. I don't know if contributing to that thread means I'm implicitly tolerating their racism or not, I just felt I had pertinent information to share that may impact their views.
I'm more interested in how so many people are offended by random internet strangers.
There are a lot of posters on this forum that I read with more weight than others (like MDM, Sol, etc.) in that I've gained knowledge or followed up on some data or a new way of looking at a topic based on their previous posts so I generally try to digest their posts more thoroughly. If they said something racist or sexist etc. I would probably be surprised, but not offended.
Why? Because people need to have some status with me before they can actually impact me emotionally. Not to insult everyone here :), but people on this forum just don't hold that personal status with me, and so can't offend me regardless of what they post.
-
...everything I said in previous posts still applies: reacting as if having your behavior questioned is an assault against your identity as a good person places an unfair and illogical burden of means testing on the person or group that you hurt, and may actually end up making things harder for them.
Let me unpack this a bit. Is that like saying people who "get called out" shouldn't feel insulted? Being called a homophobe or a racist is insulting, even if it's just inferred or insinuated. Isn't that like saying people from (insert demographic) shouldn't be insulted by some random comment in the first place?
I'm definitely against the board turning into some ideological "safe space" based on peoples' hurt feelings. In nowhere is it written that other people are responsible for your feelings. They can facilitate feelings, yes - and it's commendable when they facilitate good ones. Sometimes they facilitate bad ones to tell necessary truths or because they're jerks (often both). But ultimately YOUR feelings are YOUR responsibility. If your feelings of self worth are tied to what random cock sucking shit stains* say on the internet, maybe your problems are a little deeper than social justice issues.
*Foul language is offensive to a lot of people and I'm not actually fond of it in public discourse. Yet the mods tolerate, and in some threads, even encourage it. That will be MY litmus test for when the forums have gone down the tubes: when the perpetually offended ban that.
But saying that someone has said something that is homophobic or racist does not equal calling that person a homophobe or racist. That's the point (I think).
THIS.
I don't consider myself racist, or homophobic. But given that our society has institutionalized certain racist and homophobic assumptions that tend to creep into our thinking, I am sure as hell capable of having the occasional racist or homophobic thought. And as uncomfortable as I might initially feel at having it pointed out that something I've just said is racist/homophobic, I sure as hell want to be told about it. Because I have friends of other races and other sexual orientations/gender identities, and I don't want to hurt them.
For me to turn it around to myself, and focus on the fact that I might be momentarily a bit embarrassed -- or worse, escalating the situation by immediately crying that I'm being called racist, when what the person is calling out is something I've SAID that's racist -- seems like a misplaced defense mechanism. To say the least.
-
Moonwaves is correct.
Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.
Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.
You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.
I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.
-
(Seemingly off topic, promise it's on point) I admit I'm a fan of Buzzfeed, I think their real news stories have potential sometimes, but who doesn't love finding out what kind of potato chip they are. They also post a lot of dumb celebrity news, which I will find myself absentmindedly scrolling through occasionally, when I've been concentrating too hard at work and just want a break. They just posted an article about Andrew Garfield and a dumb thing he said in an interview regarding gay men, and my reaction was "dude, really?" On the bottom of the article, you can vote if you thought he was "way outta line." And of course, the comment section is always a delight. But there was one comment that stood out to me, and I think it's majorly applicable to our discussion here:
"As a straight woman, I can only say I thought it was stupid. If there are gay people out there saying this is offensive, I'm going to go with them. This is their life and their experience. I know I hate when I see comments that say "People love to be offended" from people who have never and will never experience what the offensive thing is. How would you know? If you're not gay, disabled, black, a woman or whatever the offended party is, all you'll ever be is the person in the shower replaying an arguement in your head coming up with comebacks you couldn't think of in the heat of the moment."
If you're straight and don't find a particular comment about gay people offensive, cool, but you're not the affected party. And yeah, there are times where two people in that affected party can disagree - one might find something offensive that the other does not. It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell either of them that their feelings aren't valid.
I think we're also very much a victim blaming society, because nobody likes the person who disrupts the facade of peace and tranquility or the status quo. Person A says something offensive, Person B says "hey, I'm offended by that" and we respond with telling B to stop because they're the one being disruptive.
-
There are two extremes: One is blatant racism which should not be tolerated in any form. The other is over reading into a comment calling it racist when there is no racism whatsoever. The rest is in the middle where there is a line between ignorance and true racism. Some people say things not realizing they may be insensitive with absolutely no intension of insulting anyone. Some light education can help them realize their mistake.
You are describing the difference between racism and prejudice, I think.
-
Thank you SimpleCycle for bringing up this thread and wow what a great discussion. I'm glad you came out as a a gay person, I'm a gay man myself. The more of us that come out of the closet the easier it will be for others to empathize with gay people. The more of us that are open about being gay the less difficult it will be for the rest to watch two gay men kiss each other in a movie. There's clearly been pushback against calling out homophobia, the picture of Michael Jackson eating popcorn, while another likes to use the phrase cocksucker - the homophobic gestures aren't going away. I'm not sure they should totally go away, but I do wish that people weren't allowed to make these remarks anonymously. Posters that make these remarks should not be allowed to hide like cowards. I basically don't like the anonymity of the Internet.
Regarding calling out prejudice, a few months back, someone on here posted that he agreed with Trump's assessment that he'd want to hire a Jew to be his accountant. This blatant stereotyping, I tried to explain to the poster, seems positive on a facile level, but if one examines this remark in the context of the darker history of dehumanizing of Jewish people in cartoonishly broad strokes, it's unacceptable. I admit I might not have been very nice to the poster, because I said to him, how did he like being stereotyped when he was part of the moron/nerd group in high school. I realize that I might have done the same kind of thing he did, but I wanted him to know what it could feel like if someone took his comment personally and felt hurt by it.
I really like FreshStash's point that if one is going to be in a forum where one can gladly receive critical feedback for financial mistakes, then how can one then complain about receiving criticism for making heedless/insensitive/stereotypical remarks about traditionally marginalized groups of people.
-
because I said to him, how did he like being stereotyped when he was part of the moron/nerd group in high school.
For me, it was a realization similar to this statement years ago that really sunk in how terrible some have it in our society. I remember what it felt like back in school to be bullied, made fun of or demeaned over something out of my control or just over a simple mistake. The feeling when a group of people does this to you is one of a kind and is f'n awful. Thankfully, that stopped as I got a little older. For some, that feeling has not & may never go away in their lifetime due to prejudices, racism, classism, etc. And that is truly, truly sad. We humans can be a rough lot.
-
because I said to him, how did he like being stereotyped when he was part of the moron/nerd group in high school.
For me, it was a realization similar to this statement years ago that really sunk in how terrible some have it in our society. I remember what it felt like back in school to be bullied, made fun of or demeaned over something out of my control or just over a simple mistake. The feeling when a group of people does this to you is one of a kind and is f'n awful. Thankfully, that stopped as I got a little older. For some, that feeling has not & may never go away in their lifetime due to prejudices, racism, classism, etc. And that is truly, truly sad. We humans can be a rough lot.
Yeah I really agree that everyone feels like an outsider at some point in his/her life and I think we can all relate to each other on this level.
-
(Seemingly off topic, promise it's on point) I admit I'm a fan of Buzzfeed, I think their real news stories have potential sometimes, but who doesn't love finding out what kind of potato chip they are. They also post a lot of dumb celebrity news, which I will find myself absentmindedly scrolling through occasionally, when I've been concentrating too hard at work and just want a break. They just posted an article about Andrew Garfield and a dumb thing he said in an interview regarding gay men, and my reaction was "dude, really?" On the bottom of the article, you can vote if you thought he was "way outta line." And of course, the comment section is always a delight. But there was one comment that stood out to me, and I think it's majorly applicable to our discussion here:
"As a straight woman, I can only say I thought it was stupid. If there are gay people out there saying this is offensive, I'm going to go with them. This is their life and their experience. I know I hate when I see comments that say "People love to be offended" from people who have never and will never experience what the offensive thing is. How would you know? If you're not gay, disabled, black, a woman or whatever the offended party is, all you'll ever be is the person in the shower replaying an arguement in your head coming up with comebacks you couldn't think of in the heat of the moment."
If you're straight and don't find a particular comment about gay people offensive, cool, but you're not the affected party. And yeah, there are times where two people in that affected party can disagree - one might find something offensive that the other does not. It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell either of them that their feelings aren't valid.
I think we're also very much a victim blaming society, because nobody likes the person who disrupts the facade of peace and tranquility or the status quo. Person A says something offensive, Person B says "hey, I'm offended by that" and we respond with telling B to stop because they're the one being disruptive.
+1. If a member of a marginalized group says that something is offensive, listen and reflect. The comment may have been unintentional, but the impact was still there.
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
Well, I think you'd adjust depending on who you are talking to. In the US, use Asian (which means Chinese, Japanese etc) or the actual country, in your country, use what is non-offensive there, aka oriental or again, use the actual country. And many areas of the US do use Black instead of African American and it is not seen as offensive (though in some areas it is seen as lower class) so you can use that or "of African descent".
Though honestly, I am not sure why you would be upset, being told that another culture has different phrasings of things and different phrases that are polite vs rude, and you inadvertently used one of them, what is the big deal. A huh, well that is the phrasing used in my country and some googling and done. Were people flipping out or something?
-
I imagine it was a failure to read tone on my part, but it felt pretty harsh. Not the gentle PM that others have suggested upthread. I think I also felt embarrassed, that I'd made a mistake in front of everybody. I recall trying to explain the UK/US difference on the thread (partly in genuine pre-Googling confusion) and whoever it was basically said it didn't matter and I should still never ever say it ever.
-
Sucks if someone came on hard, shelivesthedream :( I think yours is a great example of why we'd want to start gentle in a response, consider the speaker's culture too, etc.
I agree with Gin1984 that we'd listen to self-description and regional norms and use those (in that order), but sometimes those aren't available... Or the person next to you (like the shop in your example) uses a given word... Or you're a person in the UK talking online with people from all over the world, with a high proportion from the US. Then what?
In Canada, it can get tricky to know which word to use for the people who were first here. It has changed so much, even in my relatively short lifetime. When I was a kid, the word we [including the high ratio of first peoples in the city I grew up in] used was Indian. Our community also had a lot of people from India*, though, so then a bunch of us wondered how to navigate this. We generally said East Indian for people from India, but a friend pointed out she was from South India. The word for first peoples shifted to native, then First Nations...More recently I've noted a shift to Indigenous. I just keep aiming to go with the flow, while listening carefully for self-identification.
I like to be sensitive to such things, but am often unsure what words to use and not use.
*The many I knew did not match the description presented on the thread referenced.
-
I imagine it was a failure to read tone on my part, but it felt pretty harsh. Not the gentle PM that others have suggested upthread. I think I also felt embarrassed, that I'd made a mistake in front of everybody. I recall trying to explain the UK/US difference on the thread (partly in genuine pre-Googling confusion) and whoever it was basically said it didn't matter and I should still never ever say it ever.
Don't be embarrassed and don't apologise. This thread is a great example of how small people can be, looking to be offended at an innocuous phrase and looking to control your language to what they consider acceptable in their little group at this point in time.
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
Well, I think you'd adjust depending on who you are talking to. In the US, use Asian (which means Chinese, Japanese etc) or the actual country, in your country, use what is non-offensive there, aka oriental or again, use the actual country. And many areas of the US do use Black instead of African American and it is not seen as offensive (though in some areas it is seen as lower class) so you can use that or "of African descent".
Though honestly, I am not sure why you would be upset, being told that another culture has different phrasings of things and different phrases that are polite vs rude, and you inadvertently used one of them, what is the big deal. A huh, well that is the phrasing used in my country and some googling and done. Were people flipping out or something?
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
Well, I think you'd adjust depending on who you are talking to. In the US, use Asian (which means Chinese, Japanese etc) or the actual country, in your country, use what is non-offensive there, aka oriental or again, use the actual country. And many areas of the US do use Black instead of African American and it is not seen as offensive (though in some areas it is seen as lower class) so you can use that or "of African descent".
Though honestly, I am not sure why you would be upset, being told that another culture has different phrasings of things and different phrases that are polite vs rude, and you inadvertently used one of them, what is the big deal. A huh, well that is the phrasing used in my country and some googling and done. Were people flipping out or something?
I think they were upset about being called racist. Not about being told about difference phrasing.
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
Well, I think you'd adjust depending on who you are talking to. In the US, use Asian (which means Chinese, Japanese etc) or the actual country, in your country, use what is non-offensive there, aka oriental or again, use the actual country. And many areas of the US do use Black instead of African American and it is not seen as offensive (though in some areas it is seen as lower class) so you can use that or "of African descent".
Though honestly, I am not sure why you would be upset, being told that another culture has different phrasings of things and different phrases that are polite vs rude, and you inadvertently used one of them, what is the big deal. A huh, well that is the phrasing used in my country and some googling and done. Were people flipping out or something?
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.
But... What about all the black people who aren't from Africa? Like West Indians? And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"? We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?
I don't want to make a massive hoo ha about this, but it's just always struck me as unpleasant. I heard Stephen K Amos (black British comedian) do a good joke the other day: "People always ask me if I wouldn't like to go on a nice Caribbean holiday. You know, go back to Jamaica. And I say yeah, sounds great! The endless sun, the didgeridoos, all the pickled herring you can eat... What? I don't know what it's like! I've never been there! I'm from Balham!" (Further joke is that his parents are Nigerian.)
-
I’ve been “called out” for being racist on this site. I was asking if anyone knew about a good Japanese recipe blog, or one for the general geographical area/culinary tradition in which Japan resides. I asked for an “oriental” food blog.
Yeah, I was kind of hurt. Apparently I should have said “Asian” but to me “Asian” means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi… and I’m pretty sure that’s common to all British people. The food store run by Chinese people that I used to live near was literally called on its sign “Oriental Food Store”. But, having been prompted to do a bit of Googling, apparently “oriental” is an offensive thing to say in America (exoticising the Orient, ‘othering’ the people from there…). But not in Britain. To me it’s a factual descriptor, and one that doesn’t have a good substitute available.
So… what do I do with this information? I still don’t know. I don’t want to be a racist. I don’t want to offend people. But what I said is not remotely offensive in my country. “Asian” is not what I mean. I mean “oriental”.
On the other hand, “African-American” seriously gives me the heebie-jeebies. I think it’s an incredibly offensive way to describe someone, implying that they’re not a “real” American, even if their family have lived there for centuries. How do I deal with it being a common term on the (largely American) internet?
Well, I think you'd adjust depending on who you are talking to. In the US, use Asian (which means Chinese, Japanese etc) or the actual country, in your country, use what is non-offensive there, aka oriental or again, use the actual country. And many areas of the US do use Black instead of African American and it is not seen as offensive (though in some areas it is seen as lower class) so you can use that or "of African descent".
Though honestly, I am not sure why you would be upset, being told that another culture has different phrasings of things and different phrases that are polite vs rude, and you inadvertently used one of them, what is the big deal. A huh, well that is the phrasing used in my country and some googling and done. Were people flipping out or something?
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.
But... What about all the black people who aren't from Africa? Like West Indians? And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"? We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?
I don't want to make a massive hoo ha about this, but it's just always struck me as unpleasant. I heard Stephen K Amos (black British comedian) do a good joke the other day: "People always ask me if I wouldn't like to go on a nice Caribbean holiday. You know, go back to Jamaica. And I say yeah, sounds great! The endless sun, the didgeridoos, all the pickled herring you can eat... What? I don't know what it's like! I've never been there! I'm from Balham!" (Further joke is that his parents are Nigerian.)
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
-
But... What about all the black people who aren't from Africa? Like West Indians? And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"? We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?
I don't want to make a massive hoo ha about this, but it's just always struck me as unpleasant. I heard Stephen K Amos (black British comedian) do a good joke the other day: "People always ask me if I wouldn't like to go on a nice Caribbean holiday. You know, go back to Jamaica. And I say yeah, sounds great! The endless sun, the didgeridoos, all the pickled herring you can eat... What? I don't know what it's like! I've never been there! I'm from Balham!" (Further joke is that his parents are Nigerian.)
I agree with this, I am Australian and not "white" so always get asked where I am from, then get things added in my case "Aboriginal / Japanese Australian" though I have friends who get "Vietnamese Australian" or "Indian Australian" when I try to point out that my ancestor who immigrated most recently would be a great grandfather from the UK and I am of British descent more than anything else 50% so if anything I should be "British Australian" they look at me like I am crazy. . It seems minorities have to be something else but white people get to be just white.
Though I think the people from the West Indies (well the really dark ones) would have originally come from Africa, as a lot of Indigenous people would have been killed either by disease or being killed by colonisers
-
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
It annoys me a lot as well Marty998, and I will call people out on it. A person from work asked me over drinks one night and they tried to cover it by saying they were just interested in Australia's diversity so I basically made them ask everyone else who was at the bar with us, as well as other work colleagues over the next few weeks especially when we had new starters.
-
But we're all from Africa originally, right? :)
Reminds me of the time I was accused of being Korean by an actual Korean man. He kept asking me where I was from and I was like "London?" and he kept saying "No, where are you *from*?" It eventually transpired he thought I was Korean too - whether he meant had maybe one Korean parent or was born and brought up in Korea I never figured out. (To give you an idea of what I look like, I am so so white. And so so English. Like, Anglo-Saxon meets Norman conquest white. But for some reason lots of people think I'm foreign - but usually French!) Gave me a small insight into the weird situation of second generation plus immigrants.
-
But we're all from Africa originally, right? :)
Maybe not (http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution-under-fire-20140821-106o5e.html) haha but yes and I will sometimes answer with Africa when people ask me where my ancestors were from.
-
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.
.....
And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"?
A slight correction, the US Census Bureau defines white as people descended from Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans This is a bit too exclusive of a definition but I'll get to that later.
To answer your question, I think the reason why we do this is because all black people have some lineage to Africa whereas the map for "white" people spans five continents. I think this is all bloody aside though and I prefer if we dropped the adjective/modifier in front of nationalities.
We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?
Pretty much when people stop caring. It is all abitrary. The various statistic departments of countries adapt these terms to fit with what culture has subsumed into various categories. Cameras used to not be considered white for instance but that by and large has vanished. Native Americans used to be considered white but now only a minority are. Slavs and Greeks, like Cameras, used to not be considered white but eventually were.
Some people can't discern someone Idaho from someone from Bangkok. I presume eventually, and by this I mean a few generations, Asians will be considered white. Some already are. I think we are a coin flip away from all people being considered white too. Take former president Omaha. Had he chosen to call himself white only the most bone headed people would have objected; his mother was white so he had equal claim to say he was white as black (ignoring that this is all arbitrary for a second). And if this sounds crazy, I will remind you that Caucasians from India or black skinned people from Iran or North Africa are already considered white.
-
"Cameras?" What are they?
Also, Algerians are white?
-
I really like FreshStash's point that if one is going to be in a forum where one can gladly receive critical feedback for financial mistakes, then how can one then complain about receiving criticism for making heedless/insensitive/stereotypical remarks about traditionally marginalized groups of people.
An important point for the sake of clarity should be made here. There is a very distinct difference between public advice given when it is explicitly solicited versus when it is not solicited. People ask for financial advice correction, they are not explicitly asking for psycho-social criticisms of their worldview.
There's a useful quote from Harvey Mackay that should be internalized:
"There is a time to provide advice and offer an opinion, and there is a time not to. Don't be too quick to offer unsolicited advice. It certainly will not endear you to people."
Stop and think about this for a moment. When was the last time someone offered unsolicited advice to you in real life regarding parenting/your job/politics/[fill in the blank]? How did you feel about that person and their advice?
Heck, think about how some of you reacted to my own advice and opinion on taking these things privately instead of publicly as a first step in this very thread. My message was near identical to Joon's beautifully suggested path of interaction, but I was the one who got pushback and criticism for it. Why? Because I deliberately offered critical, unsolicited public advice challenging the foregone conclusion in a thread claiming that responding to social slights and offenses with minorities should always be done through critical, unsolicited public advice. A few of you even doubled down on your position and started to use words that could be easily misread as threat English by others in response to justify your actions.
People love offering unsolicited advice on the internet, they act like it's the norm. They treat the medium like interaction on it is somehow magically different from face-to-face communications. People are quick to judge and condemn absolute strangers. For all this stuff, we forget basic manners and feelings, even those who have been wronged. The defense is always, "Well, the internet is somehow different, so the response should be in line with the medium."
The internet may be "different", but you are talking to someone who is just as human and fallible as you are. Treat them poorly and they'll never fail to fulfill your worst expectations, but treat them with dignity and they'll often pleasantly surprise you. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
All the more reason to not take offense so quickly, to not assume malice by default, to choose your battles wisely, and to take any true offenses to people first in private and do so calmly and with dignity. Teachers are held to far higher standards, like it or not. If you choose to take that path in correcting others - especially when it is unsolicited, that means that you have to be the bigger person and do so in a way that doesn't diminish those you desire to educate. Otherwise, you risk fanning the flames of hostility and only further hurt those you most desire to help with your actions.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Agreed
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Gross; and here we go again with the narrative that marginalized people should just sit down, shut up and not make waves about their experiences. Ugh. Low effort comment.
Without making too many assumptions... Is there a possibility that you fail to see what the person is talking about.... because... you're not... in one of those marginalized groups? Possibly? Maybe?
-
Left community - deleted attempt at humor
-
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
It annoys me a lot as well Marty998, and I will call people out on it. A person from work asked me over drinks one night and they tried to cover it by saying they were just interested in Australia's diversity so I basically made them ask everyone else who was at the bar with us, as well as other work colleagues over the next few weeks especially when we had new starters.
I (rather perversely, I'm sure) really enjoyed that story, nnls. Thank you.
-
I really like FreshStash's point that if one is going to be in a forum where one can gladly receive critical feedback for financial mistakes, then how can one then complain about receiving criticism for making heedless/insensitive/stereotypical remarks about traditionally marginalized groups of people.
An important point for the sake of clarity should be made here. There is a very distinct difference between public advice given when it is explicitly solicited versus when it is not solicited. People ask for financial advice correction, they are not explicitly asking for psycho-social criticisms of their worldview.
There's a useful quote from Harvey Mackay that should be internalized:
"There is a time to provide advice and offer an opinion, and there is a time not to. Don't be too quick to offer unsolicited advice. It certainly will not endear you to people."
Stop and think about this for a moment. When was the last time someone offered unsolicited advice to you in real life regarding parenting/your job/politics/[fill in the blank]? How did you feel about that person and their advice?
Heck, think about how some of you reacted to my own advice and opinion on taking these things privately instead of publicly as a first step in this very thread. My message was near identical to Joon's beautifully suggested path of interaction, but I was the one who got pushback and criticism for it. Why? Because I deliberately offered critical, unsolicited public advice challenging the foregone conclusion in a thread claiming that responding to social slights and offenses with minorities should always be done through critical, unsolicited public advice. A few of you even doubled down on your position and started to use words that could be easily misread as threat English by others in response to justify your actions.
People love offering unsolicited advice on the internet, they act like it's the norm. They treat the medium like interaction on it is somehow magically different from face-to-face communications. People are quick to judge and condemn absolute strangers. For all this stuff, we forget basic manners and feelings, even those who have been wronged. The defense is always, "Well, the internet is somehow different, so the response should be in line with the medium."
The internet may be "different", but you are talking to someone who is just as human and fallible as you are. Treat them poorly and they'll never fail to fulfill your worst expectations, but treat them with dignity and they'll often pleasantly surprise you. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
All the more reason to not take offense so quickly, to not assume malice by default, to choose your battles wisely, and to take any true offenses to people first in private and do so calmly and with dignity. Teachers are held to far higher standards, like it or not. If you choose to take that path in correcting others - especially when it is unsolicited, that means that you have to be the bigger person and do so in a way that doesn't diminish those you desire to educate. Otherwise, you risk fanning the flames of hostility and only further hurt those you most desire to help with your actions.
I would like to point out two things.
1. Not everyone reacted that way to your post. I didn't, for one. I think that's point the that some people in this thread were trying to make. Reacting defensively like that is a choice.
2. You never answered my question about the potential problem with simply going private first. Some people want to show solidarity with the people potentially being hurt by offensive comments and addressing the comments in private doesn't do that. After thinking about it over the past few days I've come to the conclusion that the optimal solution is actually to address it in public but in a compassionate way. Assume that it's unintentional and make sure that your not unintentionally implying that the person is racist/homophobic/etc. rather than the comment, but still address it in public so that anyone hurt by those comments still see's that it's being addressed. Do you see any problems with this approach?
-
I want to start a discussion of what seems to me like an emerging issue of tolerating racism and homophobia on this site. I personally would like to make it clear that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated in this community by users of this forum, and that we should be shutting this behavior down as members of the community rather than counting on mods to take care of it.
For example, this homophobic comment has been posted for almost 24 hours with the only response coming from me.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what's-your-bmi/msg1608883/#msg1608883
Another example is this thread, which went on for three days until a mod eventually shut it down:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-new-indian-overlords/
I personally value this community and want it to be welcoming for all members. Threads and comments like these make our community less welcoming and reflect poorly on all of us for tolerating them.
In response to the OP, I think it's fair to urge all community members to do something if they see comments they find offensive or inappropriate (at their discretion whether it's sending a PM, a gentle or aggressive comment in the thread, or just reporting to the moderators). This discussion has been had elsewhere and we all have a hand in making this the kind of community we would like it to be.
TBH, I don't remember the Indian Overlords thread and I didn't actually understand what kayvent was trying to joke/say/imply in the BMI thread. Lots of reasons why someone might not speak up, not all uncaring or malicious.
-
I don't really understand this "eye for an eye" or "two wrongs don't make a right" argument in defence of letting ignorant or offensive comments go unchallenged. It's not like the person doing the calling out is mindlessly offending the original commenter's sexuality, race, or gender as a rebuttal. As I said above, it's about setting boundaries about what behaviour is appropriate in a public, multicultural, international setting. I am surprised at the backlash against people asking for some basic civility and fair treatment.
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Agreed
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Gross; and here we go again with the narrative that marginalized people should just sit down, shut up and not make waves about their experiences. Ugh. Low effort comment.
Without making too many assumptions... Is there a possibility that you fail to see what the person is talking about.... because... you're not... in one of those marginalized groups? Possibly? Maybe?
Well said. I was about to post something much less eloquent in reply.
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
What I mean to say is that even if it isn't offensive to you, why does it offend your sensibilities to not use something that others find offensive? Is it damaging you not to say something others consider racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever, even if you don't? The easy solution seems to be "well, I don't think it's offensive, but others clearly do, so I'll stay away from that sort of language" even if you DON'T understand why they find it offensive (likely because of not being in the marginalized group, as privatevoid points out).
-
Without making too many assumptions... Is there a possibility that you fail to see what the person is talking about.... because... you're not... in one of those marginalized groups? Possibly? Maybe?
Or: they see it, but don't deem it important enough.
-
"Cameras?" What are they?
Also, Algerians are white?
Q: What are Cameras?:
A: People from the Iberian Penisula (or descended).
Q: Algerians are white?:
A: It is all BS but yeah. From my understanding, since Algeria is north African country, they are considered white by various government agencies. Classifying them as white is arguably the better mapping since they don't face the systemic oppression that face native born Americans with the same complexion.
-
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
It annoys me a lot as well Marty998, and I will call people out on it. A person from work asked me over drinks one night and they tried to cover it by saying they were just interested in Australia's diversity so I basically made them ask everyone else who was at the bar with us, as well as other work colleagues over the next few weeks especially when we had new starters.
I (rather perversely, I'm sure) really enjoyed that story, nnls. Thank you.
No worries, I am glad you enjoyed it
-
I fail to see what your are talking about in either of the posts you mentioned. I guess in this day and age of safe spaces and over reaching PC, everything seems racist or homophobic to some people.
Agreed
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Gross; and here we go again with the narrative that marginalized people should just sit down, shut up and not make waves about their experiences. Ugh. Low effort comment.
Without making too many assumptions... Is there a possibility that you fail to see what the person is talking about.... because... you're not... in one of those marginalized groups? Possibly? Maybe?
Well said. I was about to post something much less eloquent in reply.
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
What I mean to say is that even if it isn't offensive to you, why does it offend your sensibilities to not use something that others find offensive? Is it damaging you not to say something others consider racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever, even if you don't? The easy solution seems to be "well, I don't think it's offensive, but others clearly do, so I'll stay away from that sort of language" even if you DON'T understand why they find it offensive (likely because of not being in the marginalized group, as privatevoid points out).
By that same line of reasoning I should probably not admit to being an atheist when around other people in my day to day life as I'm in the American south and many people here find being an atheist highly offensive based on their deeply held religious convictions.
Someone else's offensive is not my problem if they misconstrue or read something in to what i say that I didn't intend. Also there is a lot of calling someone out for being racist by people not part of the "offended" group speaking for others rather than themselves. I have little respect for being offended by words, I have even less for being offended on behalf of someone else by words. It comes off as more of a way to say look at how good I am, not only do I speak the way I'm supposed to but I also try to pressure others to do the same.
As I.P. Daley mentioned, if changing someone's mind or behavior was the first and foremost concern then reaching out through private message and having a reasoned conversation trying to convince them or at least come to an understanding would be far more effective. However I feel many would rather flaunt what good little boys and girls they are rather than actually make a real difference.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
- Stephen Fry
-
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
I understand what you're saying. However, why are some topics protected by this code and others not?
In fact, MMM has several articles in which he purposely tries to agitate and be offensive (like Clown Car habit). He didn't have to say clown car, he could have been much more polite. Telling people they can live on half their income offends plenty of folks too.
Now, the above is kind of the point of this site, so maybe that's why it's OK to be offensive on those issues.
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?
Now, this isn't my house, so I'm fine with cherry picking the topics for which we can be offensive (whatever that means), I just don't think there is any logic behind it.
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.
-
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
It annoys me a lot as well Marty998, and I will call people out on it. A person from work asked me over drinks one night and they tried to cover it by saying they were just interested in Australia's diversity so I basically made them ask everyone else who was at the bar with us, as well as other work colleagues over the next few weeks especially when we had new starters.
I (rather perversely, I'm sure) really enjoyed that story, nnls. Thank you.
No worries, I am glad you enjoyed it
I agree this is annoying, but I have fun with it now. I'm 3rd generation Canadian and my lineage is from India. People invariably ask me where I'm from. So I say "Canada". Then they ask what's my background. Then I say "Canadian". Then they get flustered and I enjoy it.
-
I think one of the places we can draw a line is where it's untrue. So if we say "men are...", "women think...", "gay people love...", "Muslims push..." we're already inaccurate, and that inaccuracy is naturally irritating. It puts people in boxes, perpetuates myths, places an unnecessary barrier between humans getting to know each other, increases the chance of unfounded reactions to a perfectly innocent person, etc. So, I think stereotyping is a great place to draw a line.
I don't think it's really about not triggering angst in anyone. As dividendman noted, this site intends to trigger angst on certain subjects. And, plenty of (albeit not by any means all) atheists are angsty about some people being religious, but we don't ask people not to self-identify as Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist, etc.
Sure, some people get angsty about stuff, but I think here we're talking about reducing oppression and the myths (stereotypes, etc) that lead to oppression.
re: Speaking up for others. I'm not offended or angsty when people do that. From my experience, I recognize that as helpful and necessary, where a group or individual has been marginalized to the point of voicelessness. But, I maintain that we can do this kindly and effectively vs aggressively (until aggression proves necessary).
-
I can't tell you how many times I get innocently asked "where are you from?" I have been living in Australia for 28 years. If I had blond hair and blue eyes, no one would think to ask such a question.
It grates on me more than it should, but I feel strongly about it.
There is so much crap out there about immigrants allegedly not integrating and being against "our way of life". When one immigrant does integrate, and sees themselves as nothing but a local, he still has to explain that "where you're from" is a ridiculous question to ask.
It annoys me a lot as well Marty998, and I will call people out on it. A person from work asked me over drinks one night and they tried to cover it by saying they were just interested in Australia's diversity so I basically made them ask everyone else who was at the bar with us, as well as other work colleagues over the next few weeks especially when we had new starters.
I (rather perversely, I'm sure) really enjoyed that story, nnls. Thank you.
No worries, I am glad you enjoyed it
I agree this is annoying, but I have fun with it now. I'm 3rd generation Canadian and my lineage is from India. People invariably ask me where I'm from. So I say "Canada". Then they ask what's my background. Then I say "Canadian". Then they get flustered and I enjoy it.
I have a similar move for this situation.
My mother is white and my father is from the middle East, and his genes won out in a land slide. Combined with an atypical for America name, I get a lot of "where are you from" questions, so I answer using my mom's side of the family to see how far they want to go:
Typical example:
Them: So, where are you from?
Me: I grew up in Houston
Them: no, like where is your family from?
Me: they still mostly love in Houston, some in Austin.
Them: no, like where did they come from?
Me: Oh, Tennessee. I think New York before that.
Them:...I mean... Like where are they ORIGINALLY from?
Me: OOOHHHH... mostly Germany and Scotland.
Them:......
:D
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
-
I agree this is annoying, but I have fun with it now. I'm 3rd generation Canadian and my lineage is from India. People invariably ask me where I'm from. So I say "Canada". Then they ask what's my background. Then I say "Canadian". Then they get flustered and I enjoy it.
I have a similar move for this situation.
My mother is white and my father is from the middle East, and his genes won out in a land slide. Combined with an atypical for America name, I get a lot of "where are you from" questions, so I answer using my mom's side of the family to see how far they want to go:
Typical example:
Them: So, where are you from?
Me: I grew up in Houston
Them: no, like where is your family from?
Me: they still mostly love in Houston, some in Austin.
Them: no, like where did they come from?
Me: Oh, Tennessee. I think New York before that.
Them:...I mean... Like where are they ORIGINALLY from?
Me: OOOHHHH... mostly Germany and Scotland.
Them:......
:D
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Haha, I love it. I guess if someone asks where I'm ORIGINALLY from I'll start to answer "Same as you, Africa".
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
-
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
I understand what you're saying. However, why are some topics protected by this code and others not?
In fact, MMM has several articles in which he purposely tries to agitate and be offensive (like Clown Car habit). He didn't have to say clown car, he could have been much more polite. Telling people they can live on half their income offends plenty of folks too.
Now, the above is kind of the point of this site, so maybe that's why it's OK to be offensive on those issues.
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?
Now, this isn't my house, so I'm fine with cherry picking the topics for which we can be offensive (whatever that means), I just don't think there is any logic behind it.
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.
I like that you're bringing the discussion here, because I think your questions are valid and should be discussed.
Regarding MMM and his blog posts, as well as the similar messages of "facepunches," "clown car," etc., - I view this as a bully mentality that raises the poster above "others," and those who agree with them become more dedicated to the idea, because they have more to lose if they disagree. It's an effective method to get an idea across, though usually not peacefully. MMM could have easily started a blog that said "here are the scientific and mathematical reasons why spending less is better." And his viewership would have been drastically less. With this tactic, not only is an idea being shared, but it's creating a hierarchy between two or more groups of people. The meanness behind these posts isn't just to get a point across, but they're essentially an invitation to join an exclusive club. "You drive a clown car and need to get rid of it" and "You deserve a facepunch for that spending" isn't just saying "Your financial choices are ineffective," but also "change your ways and we'll accept you." To be honest, it's why I haven't read an MMM blog post in a long time and tend to avoid the forum posts where the poster is either asking for facepunches or commentators pile on with the sentiment.
The difference here too is between choice and non choice. You can choose to buy an expensive car, or choose to bike to work. You choose to buy a six figure house or fix up a smaller property. You don't choose the color of your skin, or your sexuality, or where you were born, etc. So it's more acceptable to be "ridiculed" for the choices you make, but it's not fair at all for something you have no control over. (Like I implied above, I don't particularly care for the ridicule for anything, I just think that's why it's deemed more acceptable than others.)
Regarding abortion rights and other similar topics - obviously this is much more tricky. I think it goes back to intent behind the beliefs - "abortion is murder" vs. "women's choice." I'm very much on one side of this particular argument, and while I'm not sure I would label the other side's argument as "offensive," I think it's a term that's used extremely broadly, almost to the point where it loses its value. Assuming the other side is saying "I believe X because Y," even if I don't agree with it, I wouldn't find that offensive. Of course, if the argument is "you're an idiot for believing that," yeah, that's offensive and unnecessary. Mature debating isn't offensive, but with sensitive topics, especially on an anonymous forum, these have a tendency to fall from maturity.
The last point that you and prognastat regarding religion and atheism (another sensitive topic) - as an atheist/agnostic, I've been fortunate enough to never personally encounter someone who was offended by my mere existence (religious friends and acquaintances have been tolerant of *most* religions, including the nonreligious). So the question is, "if someone is offended by my mere existence, should I do anything to change that?" And to that, my answer is no. I think a lot of the time, offensiveness goes hand in hand with a lack of tolerance.
I'm struggling with wording my opinion on the last one, because I don't think the rules are the same across the board. For example, saying "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" aren't offensive statements - they're religious beliefs that should be tolerated and respected. But a statement like "I believe all black/gay/women are..." probably is offensive.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
I would say there is a difference in what you are doing. I would imagine when I responded Houston, you would have used that to push the conversation forward and I wouldn't give it a second thought. It's when someone continues to press that it becomes a problem in my opinion and experience.
If you wanted to play it safe, you could switch it up to "where did you grow up?" or "did you grow up around here?" instead. In my experience that is a genuine inquiry to learn more about who I am and start a conversation vs "where are you from?" seems to usually be designed to determine why I have brown skin and a funny sounding name.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
-
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
I understand what you're saying. However, why are some topics protected by this code and others not?
In fact, MMM has several articles in which he purposely tries to agitate and be offensive (like Clown Car habit). He didn't have to say clown car, he could have been much more polite. Telling people they can live on half their income offends plenty of folks too.
Now, the above is kind of the point of this site, so maybe that's why it's OK to be offensive on those issues.
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?
Now, this isn't my house, so I'm fine with cherry picking the topics for which we can be offensive (whatever that means), I just don't think there is any logic behind it.
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.
I like that you're bringing the discussion here, because I think your questions are valid and should be discussed.
Regarding MMM and his blog posts, as well as the similar messages of "facepunches," "clown car," etc., - I view this as a bully mentality that raises the poster above "others," and those who agree with them become more dedicated to the idea, because they have more to lose if they disagree. It's an effective method to get an idea across, though usually not peacefully. MMM could have easily started a blog that said "here are the scientific and mathematical reasons why spending less is better." And his viewership would have been drastically less. With this tactic, not only is an idea being shared, but it's creating a hierarchy between two or more groups of people. The meanness behind these posts isn't just to get a point across, but they're essentially an invitation to join an exclusive club. "You drive a clown car and need to get rid of it" and "You deserve a facepunch for that spending" isn't just saying "Your financial choices are ineffective," but also "change your ways and we'll accept you." To be honest, it's why I haven't read an MMM blog post in a long time and tend to avoid the forum posts where the poster is either asking for facepunches or commentators pile on with the sentiment.
The difference here too is between choice and non choice. You can choose to buy an expensive car, or choose to bike to work. You choose to buy a six figure house or fix up a smaller property. You don't choose the color of your skin, or your sexuality, or where you were born, etc. So it's more acceptable to be "ridiculed" for the choices you make, but it's not fair at all for something you have no control over. (Like I implied above, I don't particularly care for the ridicule for anything, I just think that's why it's deemed more acceptable than others.)
Regarding abortion rights and other similar topics - obviously this is much more tricky. I think it goes back to intent behind the beliefs - "abortion is murder" vs. "women's choice." I'm very much on one side of this particular argument, and while I'm not sure I would label the other side's argument as "offensive," I think it's a term that's used extremely broadly, almost to the point where it loses its value. Assuming the other side is saying "I believe X because Y," even if I don't agree with it, I wouldn't find that offensive. Of course, if the argument is "you're an idiot for believing that," yeah, that's offensive and unnecessary. Mature debating isn't offensive, but with sensitive topics, especially on an anonymous forum, these have a tendency to fall from maturity.
The last point that you and prognastat regarding religion and atheism (another sensitive topic) - as an atheist/agnostic, I've been fortunate enough to never personally encounter someone who was offended by my mere existence (religious friends and acquaintances have been tolerant of *most* religions, including the nonreligious). So the question is, "if someone is offended by my mere existence, should I do anything to change that?" And to that, my answer is no. I think a lot of the time, offensiveness goes hand in hand with a lack of tolerance.
I'm struggling with wording my opinion on the last one, because I don't think the rules are the same across the board. For example, saying "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" aren't offensive statements - they're religious beliefs that should be tolerated and respected. But a statement like "I believe all black/gay/women are..." probably is offensive.
Before I moved to the American south I never actually experienced any prejudice for being an atheist. Since I was younger then it may just have been an age thing, but I suspect it is mostly a religiosity thing. I would not restrict their freedom to say these things though as I would rather they speak them and allow me the opportunity to argue their opinions than silence them and have them hold them in private without me knowing.
However, I feel people's beliefs and opinions should be tolerated, but none have any innate right to be respected. As I believe free speech is integral to a free and open society I will tolerate almost any speech so long as it isn't a call to violence, and not in some roundabout way where someone somewhere might construe something as a call to violence, or defamation that maliciously results in damages either to a person or business.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
I would say there is a difference in what you are doing. I would imagine when I responded Houston, you would have used that to push the conversation forward and I wouldn't give it a second thought. It's when someone continues to press that it becomes a problem in my opinion and experience.
If you wanted to play it safe, you could switch it up to "where did you grow up?" or "did you grow up around here?" instead. In my experience that is a genuine inquiry to learn more about who I am and start a conversation vs "where are you from?" seems to usually be designed to determine why I have brown skin and a funny sounding name.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Thanks for your thoughts. I actually ran into this in an awkward way this weekend. I met a woman who was introduced to me as currently living in Hawaii (but visiting my state), and I sort of naturally said, oh did you grow up there, and she gave me a funny look and said "no, I'm from here (my state)." So then I did ask her what town/high school, and the conversation went on normally after that, and we ended up getting along really well and chatting. Later, I wondered if she might have (initially) thought I asked her if she was from/grew up in Hawaii because she was Asian, and I really hoped she didn't think I was meaning to imply anything. It just seemed like a question to keep conversation moving. Yikes. The perils of conversation. This is why I prefer to hide at home.
-
When it comes to this issue I like this quote by my favorite philosopher.
"In any foreseeable future there are going to be thousands and thousands of people who detest and abominate Negroes, communists, Russians, Chinese, Jews, Catholics, beatniks, homosexuals, and "dope-fiends." These hatreds are not going to be healed, but only inflamed, by insulting those who feel them, and the abusive labels with which we plaster them—squares, fascists, rightists, know-nothings—may well become the proud badges and symbols around which they will rally and consolidate themselves. Nor will it do to confront the opposition in public with polite and nonviolent sit-ins and demonstrations, while boosting our collective ego by insulting them in private. If we want justice for minorities and cooled wars with our natural enemies, whether human or non-human, we must first come to terms with the minority and the enemy in ourselves and in our own hearts, for the rascal is there as much as anywhere in the "external" world—especially when you realize that the world outside your skin is as much yourself as the world inside. For want of this awareness, no one can be more belligerent than a pacifist on the rampage, or more militantly nationalistic than an anti-imperialist."
Alan Watts
-
When it comes to this issue I like this quote by my favorite philosopher.
"In any foreseeable future there are going to be thousands and thousands of people who detest and abominate Negroes, communists, Russians, Chinese, Jews, Catholics, beatniks, homosexuals, and "dope-fiends." These hatreds are not going to be healed, but only inflamed, by insulting those who feel them, and the abusive labels with which we plaster them—squares, fascists, rightists, know-nothings—may well become the proud badges and symbols around which they will rally and consolidate themselves. Nor will it do to confront the opposition in public with polite and nonviolent sit-ins and demonstrations, while boosting our collective ego by insulting them in private. If we want justice for minorities and cooled wars with our natural enemies, whether human or non-human, we must first come to terms with the minority and the enemy in ourselves and in our own hearts, for the rascal is there as much as anywhere in the "external" world—especially when you realize that the world outside your skin is as much yourself as the world inside. For want of this awareness, no one can be more belligerent than a pacifist on the rampage, or more militantly nationalistic than an anti-imperialist."
Alan Watts
What wisdom!
I am tempted to quote this in the thread dedicated to not paying one's morgage off. Certain active forum members have labeled me and i feel the need for community support to not react and derail the thread.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
-
What wisdom!
I am tempted to quote this in the thread dedicated to not paying one's morgage off. Certain active forum members have labeled me and i feel the need for community support to not react and derail the thread.
The quote is about looking within yourself, not convincing others or gaining support. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you cling so tightly to your ideas and that thread, and then let it go.
-
Moonwaves is correct.
Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.
Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.
You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.
I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.
I apologize, I was unclear in a way that has lead to you getting cause and effect wrong here. I'm not (theoretically) calling things out when they result in major institutionalized discrimination. I would call something out when I see it reinforcing major institutionalized discrimination that already exists, and am using "measurable harm" as a way to think about "kicking someone when they're down." Hope that at least clarifies my point.
I get what you are coming from, but I don't agree with this. The Supreme Court overturned just this summer an unconstitutional attempt to deprive the Washington Redskins of their free speech rights, because "Redskins" was deemed racist.
If you want to bring in second-order effects, the anti-racist movement directly resulted in unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But it's those specific instances of unconstitutional restriction that should be fought: call-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects.
I remember on one forum a poster made a fuss because we offended him with some off-hand discussion of Macedonia when talking about NATO plans. He was Greek and objected to the identification of the nation of Macedonia as Macedonia. That's a big dispute in that region. We can't really change the common name of the nation, though, so we just ignored it. That he was offended by it doesn't really affect us all that much.
I guess we could just not talk about NATO, but given that it was an international relations board, that'd defeat the point.
Obviously this forum has an entirely different purpose so different norms will prevail. The goal is to provide a discussions for Mustachian fans.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:
Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?
Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:
Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?
Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:
Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?
Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.
I'm a bipedal carbon based life form from the planet terra.
-
Moonwaves is correct.
Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.
Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.
You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.
I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.
I apologize, I was unclear in a way that has lead to you getting cause and effect wrong here. I'm not (theoretically) calling things out when they result in major institutionalized discrimination. I would call something out when I see it reinforcing major institutionalized discrimination that already exists, and am using "measurable harm" as a way to think about "kicking someone when they're down." Hope that at least clarifies my point.
I get what you are coming from, but I don't agree with this. The Supreme Court overturned just this summer an unconstitutional attempt to deprive the Washington Redskins of their free speech rights, because "Redskins" was deemed racist.
If you want to bring in second-order effects, the anti-racist movement directly resulted in unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But it's those specific instances of unconstitutional restriction that should be fought: call-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects.
I remember on one forum a poster made a fuss because we offended him with some off-hand discussion of Macedonia when talking about NATO plans. He was Greek and objected to the identification of the nation of Macedonia as Macedonia. That's a big dispute in that region. We can't really change the common name of the nation, though, so we just ignored it. That he was offended by it doesn't really affect us all that much.
I guess we could just not talk about NATO, but given that it was an international relations board, that'd defeat the point.
Obviously this forum has an entirely different purpose so different norms will prevail. The goal is to provide a discussions for Mustachian fans.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. "Calll-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects" - aren't the merits we're discussing as follows:
- an atmosphere where criticism that the majority sees as trivial isn't quashed, leading to the potential for growth for individual posters (when they don't get defensive) and an overall diminished incidence of hurting others carelessly
- decreasing the likelihood of adding to the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts sort of discrimination that many marginalized groups have to face, or at least providing support for those who are dealing with that
Those are both direct merits, not tangential ones.
I suspect my disagreement is with your "Death-by-a-thousand-papercuts" comment, though I don't entirely understand what you mean on that. To be more specific, you said you would criticize the gay joke because it might lead to criticism of gay parenting on the Mini Mustache board. My personal thought: address the criticism of the gay parenting on the Mini Mustache board. Lines should be drawn at the places you're actually wanting to defend.
I suspect you might have a problem with the gay joke on its own merits, which, you know, is fine.
Specifically, this:
"Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board
There could very well be a connection to this, but you can prevent the "measurable harm" by addressing the second, and not the first.
EDIT:
I would also expand definitions of harm, but I'm sure you would agree that people who are offended and suffering some version of harm. Corralling people into effort-posting all the time is kind of harmful, too, though. People who like abrasive atmospheres are also harmed by rules of decorum...but that's why there shouldn't be universal rules of decorum and we have independent cultures. They can find their own space.
-
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.
I'm a bipedal carbon based life form from the planet terra.
Ugly bag of mostly water.
-
Some people are always going to react defensively to having it pointed out they've done something problematic, and they're always going to come up with all sorts of knee-jerk justifications and defense mechanisms to push away their embarrassment and foist it onto the other person. This is why we have the phenomenon of drivers who almost cut you off or drive into your lane, and then flip you off when you honk to warn them.
It doesn't mean they're right. Just that they're resistant to having it pointed out that they've done something wrong.
-
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?
Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!
One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.
I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:
Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?
Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Thanks shelivesthedream and psychstache for the alternate wording suggestions! I will definitely try to shift my phrasing, assuming I can avoid the nervous blurt.
-
If it's any comfort, rockstache, I love being asked that question (in person). It has led to all sorts of cool things -finding a cousin several times removed; finding out via strangers what my heritage is; fun conversations about borders, politics, immigration, the difference in experiences based on how many generations here; etc.
I would be very confused if asked at first meeting (which has happened, but also resulted in the abovementioned cool things), and often seek clarification: Where did I live right before here? Where was I born? Where were my parents born? What is the geneology we know of? Different people mean different things by their question.
My own policy is to not to ask any question I think a given individual probably gets every day: "Wow, what's the story behind your name?" "Are you from [guesses country by accent, always incorrectly]?" But if I find myself accidentally staring at a person too long over too many meetings, I attempt to halt my unintended jerkness by asking, "Can I ask what your heritage is?" People have so far been great about it.
An aside to the larger conversation: I refuse to identify as white. White is a colour; my skin is not that colour. As information about heritage or culture, "white" is again meaningless, as though there are some distinct cultures then a giant blob of a generic one. So I put "other" on everything that asks.
-
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?
I understand what you're saying. However, why are some topics protected by this code and others not?
In fact, MMM has several articles in which he purposely tries to agitate and be offensive (like Clown Car habit). He didn't have to say clown car, he could have been much more polite. Telling people they can live on half their income offends plenty of folks too.
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:
1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).
There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?
See above definition. You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.
Now, this isn't my house, so I'm fine with cherry picking the topics for which we can be offensive (whatever that means), I just don't think there is any logic behind it.
There is, and hopefully you understand it a bit better now? :)
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.
But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.
In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.
Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk. Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.
Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.
*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.
-
I have to respectfully disagree with you arebelspy on almost every single thing you just said.
....
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:
1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.
Who decides that? Especially since, as an internet forum, we are different people from different parts of the world with potentially different groups of people around us who are "historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities".
In many places around the world, there is circular or bi-directional opposition. This complicates your simplification. In my homeland of Canada, we've kinda oppressed the French people in Acadia and Quebec for around three hundred years. And continue to do that. Quebec, in turn, has used this as leverage to bash and debase the Maritimes and the Western provinces. This back-and-forth kindling of animosity makes some people very aggressive and some people extremely violent. So can non-Francophonie people living in Canada sans Quebec not criticize Quebecers and French people living in Quebec not criticize the scourge of Canada? (But I guess Francophones outside of Quebec can criticize Canada and English people in Quebec can criticize Quebec? Could I lie about where I live to get away with this?)
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.
One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).
There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?
See above definition. You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.
Jews are a very historically oppressed group. They've presently oppressed. Someone who holds to conservative Judaism is by consequence pro-life. How would you discern between someone disagreeing with the pro-life stance or someone using it as a guise to be anti-Jew? People will often veil their bigotry behind another issue. Take as a toy example those Fox News anchors who constantly ask "where are the fathers?" Do you think they really care about the integrity of inner-city family households or do you think they are coding it to be hide latent racism?
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.
But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.
Here I dissent strongly.
First, people don't choose the religion they belong too. We could get into theology or sociology but that is another matter. People generally stay in the religion they are born into; if people had a free action in their choice of religion, someone born to two Jewish parents in Idaho would have the same likelihood of converting to Christianity as someone born to two Astrozorianist Communists in Punjab living in a rural village. (If you think people choose their religion, tell me this: assuming you're not already one, could you choose to be an ultra-orthodox Jew and believe their doctrine sincerely? No, pardoning a seismic shift in your life outside of your control, you can't decide to abandon your basis and worldview and adopt a new one.)
Second, your example is the worst one you could pick. Historically and presently [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/christianity-most-persecuted-religion_b_2402644.html]Christians are the most prosecuted religion group of people in the world[/link]. (Depending on one's estimate for the world's gay population, Christians could be more prosecuted than homosexuals.) I think when you say "this group is prosecuted so we can't criticize them" you get into rat holes on how much they are prosecuted, how to order things (i.e. kyriarchy and who can criticize who), and disagreements on who is the privileged group and who is the oppressed group. (The batshit crazy MRAs believe men are the oppressed group, feminists believe women are. Who decides which one is right? Do we need to call a ceasefire and never comment about pervasive issues in the male populace or female populace?)
Or third, would you ban someone who vocally supported the BDS movement on these forums? That is deeply anti-Semitic and continues two millenniums of Western jew-hatred.
In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.
Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk. Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.
Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.
*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.
How does one define `being a jerk`? Take the always controversial infanticide debate. (By this I mean post-term abortion.) If a supporter of infanticide mentioned they support it and have done it, and a detractor says "you are a baby killer", is that name calling or a wholly factual statement of fact? What if the parties disagree on the facts of the matter and what is considered a factually statement by one party is considered a slur by the other?
What if two worlds views are so diametrically opposed that one mentioning the other disgusts/offends the other party?
-
Wow Glenn Beck has nothing on you.
[link removed]
[MOD NOTE: Whatever that was about ... make it clear to whom you are responding and respond appropriately]
-
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.
Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?
-
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.
Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?
I give an example lower. I'd define the set larger and include religion/spiritual beliefs.
-
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:
1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).
There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.
I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.
See above definition. You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.
What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.
But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.
In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.
Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk. Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.
Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.
*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.
Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.
I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?
Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.
You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?
Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.
In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.
In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.
-
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:
1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.
2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.
One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).
There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.
I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.
See above definition. You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.
What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.
But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.
In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.
Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk. Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.
Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.
*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.
Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.
I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?
Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.
You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?
Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.
In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.
In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.
I strongly disagree with this statement. You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there.
I will say this however. It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay. Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay. Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender. The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans.
I do not see this happening with atheists.
-
I strongly disagree with this statement. You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there.
I will say this however. It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay. Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay. Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender. The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans.
I do not see this happening with atheists.
You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.
-
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!
-
I strongly disagree with this statement. You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there.
I will say this however. It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay. Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay. Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender. The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans.
I do not see this happening with atheists.
You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.
Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees). In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people. So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context. I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.
All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for. The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently. I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.
-
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment. I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark. But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.
-
Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees). In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people. So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context. I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.
All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for. The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently. I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.
At no point have I said that atheist objectively have it worse. I am making the point that your view of who is and isn't oppressed is very subjective and not something to use to restrict free speech.
-
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment. I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark. But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.
In my opinion free speech is not only about the government. The legal aspect is not the only thing I care about. I prefer to foster a community that is also pro free speech as much as possible. Most censorship doesn't originate in the government, most of it originates from the populace even if it does attempt to use the government the enforce their will.
-
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.
.....
And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"?
A slight correction, the US Census Bureau defines white as people descended from Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans This is a bit too exclusive of a definition but I'll get to that later.
To answer your question, I think the reason why we do this is because all black people have some lineage to Africa whereas the map for "white" people spans five continents. I think this is all bloody aside though and I prefer if we dropped the adjective/modifier in front of nationalities.
We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?
Pretty much when people stop caring. It is all abitrary. The various statistic departments of countries adapt these terms to fit with what culture has subsumed into various categories. Cameras used to not be considered white for instance but that by and large has vanished. Native Americans used to be considered white but now only a minority are. Slavs and Greeks, like Cameras, used to not be considered white but eventually were.
Some people can't discern someone Idaho from someone from Bangkok. I presume eventually, and by this I mean a few generations, Asians will be considered white. Some already are. I think we are a coin flip away from all people being considered white too. Take former president Omaha. Had he chosen to call himself white only the most bone headed people would have objected; his mother was white so he had equal claim to say he was white as black (ignoring that this is all arbitrary for a second). And if this sounds crazy, I will remind you that Caucasians from India or black skinned people from Iran or North Africa are already considered white.
Kayvent, are you familiar with the phrase the "social construction of race"? I went to a race exhibit at the Smithsonian American History Museum a few years back and it was fascinating and made a similar point to what you are making. But they didn't argue it was arbitrary, per se, but arrived at through hundreds of years of evolving social understanding of race.
Take people from the Middle East and North Africa. There is a proposal to add a Middle Eastern/North African race to the census form for the 2020 Census, because "white" doesn't reflect the social reality of being of Middle Eastern and North African descent in the U.S. these days. Which is at once arbitrary and deeply meaningful.
-
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.
That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
-
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.
That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Exactly, people were "offended" on their behalf... but not really on their behalf.
-
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!
It makes sense. As others have eluded to, you basically can't have a voice unless you are part of a marginalized group, so we have to compete to see who is the most marginalized and therefore has the loudest voice.
-
...
Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.
There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.
-
...
Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.
There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.
My point exactly.
-
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.
That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops (https://www.thenation.com/article/on-the-shameful-and-skewed-redskins-poll/).
-
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.
That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops (https://www.thenation.com/article/on-the-shameful-and-skewed-redskins-poll/).
The criticism of the methodology is valid, and their rebuttal seems pretty valid as well. The WaPo publishing the results even goes into how it's a little embarrassing for them because they had pretty negative Redskins coverage before they saw the results of their own poll. I trust the WaPo editorial team a little more than the lady for whom this is the life cause.
-
[MOD NOTE:
We tolerate neither racism nor homophobia on this site. Nor sexism, misogyny or any other kinds of bigotry.
However.
We don't read every post. You can't just sit back, look at a rude, bigoted post and say, "Let's see how long it takes them notice." You want something fixed? Flag it for moderation. These are volunteer positions, basically, and we aren't always on duty, especially over the summer holidays. We do what we can.
Just because we don't take care of a problem instantly, however, doesn't mean we don't care at all.
Thanks,
Toque
Also, this thread is getting out of hand ---- Thread locked.]