Now I feel that I can no longer support my favorite author of all time, one that I idolized to the point that most of my books are personally autographed. I have every book, multiple copies of some, and have attended every signing and lecture in the area, and there were plenty, as I live just outside of Greensboro NC.
It's not just that he holds such backward and ill-informed views...it's that he used his influence in an attempt to alter the view of others just before the discrimantory Amendment One vote in NC. Whatever happened to the compassion and understanding of Ender and Nafai and Jason Worthing?
The lack of factual information and the blatant paranoia exhibited in this article truly makes it seem as though it was written by someone else...but alas, it wasn't. I cried when I read it.
Now I feel that I can no longer support this author who believes that humans are not equal, and that people are out to get his children. But I don't know what to do with my collection...any suggestions?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You don't have to support him anymore, doesn't mean you have to go all iconoclast 451 on your book collection, considering they've already been bought, savvy?
Yes, his articles are terrible. Yes, his personal crusade against gays and gay marriage is pretty distressingly bad and deserves to be roundly mocked and picked apart, first ridiculous claim to the last. okay, that's his legacy now. great. but at the same time see if it is possible to do that whole 'separate the art from the artist' thing. I am pretty sure Ender's Game is as okay and interesting a read now as it was before OSC became known as that N.O.M. nut, yeah? Caravaggio punched people to death in bars or something because he was a psycho jerk, and this should have little relevance to the analysis and appreciation of his paintings as cultural treasures, etc etc. Same principle with books, usually, until you can see the screed infect the work.
Barring that, I dunno, library donations?
Posted by SnuggleSmacks (Member # 12832) on :
Maybe I'll just put them in storage for a bit. I certainly can't support him by paying actual money for any of his future work, and I could not currently re-read any of my collection without filtering everything through his hate-mongering. I don't particularly want to donate, although that was my first instinct, because I don't really want to garner more fans at the moment.
I think I just feel that my entire childhood, filled with these books, has been violated. I'm not even gay, but I have friends who are, and I can't even imagine how Card's "gay friends" feel about this article.
A friend suggested that I pack up the books with a strongly worded letter regarding my feelings of violation by one of my idols, and drop the whole package off on his doorstep.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I gave away my Robert Jordan collection because he used tobacco and wore a cowboy hat. I don't need that kind of influence in my life, dang it!
I fought it as long as I could. But now? I'm the newest Marlboro man. <cough>
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I felt similarly. When I understood Card's views I downgraded him from "personal hero" to "favorite author". I still love his books. I still disagree with his harmful views vehemently.
Keep the books, enjoy the writing. Keep the writer and his writing separate.
Be a little sad, and move on.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or if you really can't...send your books to me!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Or donations to me. I'll take the signed books off your hands. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: A friend suggested that I pack up the books with a strongly worded letter regarding my feelings of violation by one of my idols, and drop the whole package off on his doorstep.
Well, my personal recommendation is to man up and quit the melodrama over the whole 'he violated my entire childhood!' level stuff. No, snugglesmacks. Orson Scott Card did not violate your entire childhood. That's George Lucas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you should write some fanfiction in which Greedo shoots Bean first, thus ensuring that Ender must beat Jar-Jar to death in the shower. Anakin Skywalker can still accidentally fly a starfighter through a massive cloud of enemy ships to blow up the hivemind that controls all the bad guys, though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: A friend suggested that I pack up the books with a strongly worded letter regarding my feelings of violation by one of my idols, and drop the whole package off on his doorstep.
Well, my personal recommendation is to man up and quit the melodrama over the whole 'he violated my entire childhood!' level stuff. No, snugglesmacks. Orson Scott Card did not violate your entire childhood. That's George Lucas.
I hadn't paid close attention to the poster's name and at first thought you just called him "Snugglesmacks" as a bizarre affectionate nickname.
In fact, I'm kind of disappointed that this isn't the case.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I can sympathize with you Snuggle, I really can but I can still appreciate the art. So rarely do my personal views align with that of artists I enjoy. Johnny Cash made a song about sending African Americans back to Africa. Frank Sinatra once said of the song Strangers in the Night "it's about two queers." Edgar Allen Poe was an alcoholic gambler who married his cousin (it is only fair to note that Poe was adopted.)
Point is that art is not proof of morality, ethical behavior or even common sense in some cases. So sing along to Motorhead despite knowing that Lemmy wrote all of his most famous songs high on acid for seven years straight, and read Ender's Game once ever few years despite certain poor choices by its author.
Edit to add.
Henry Rollins on the other hand is a great person with whom I have yet to disagree with. He has always been sober, anti-big religion and pro gay rights no matter what his own punk rock fan base think of him. All this from a guy who got famous for instigating fights on stage at his own shows with people from the crowd and even wrote a song (Henry Rollins Band, Liar) about lying to get inside a sad persons life so he could destroy them from within. He is awesome.
[ May 15, 2012, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I sympathize as well. I had the same reaction awhile back. I ended up giving my books to my younger brother who is constantly re-reading the Ender/Bean saga but has honestly never been interested in any of Card's other works.
I haven't bought a new OSC book in a years though I have gotten to the point where I feel comfortable recommending Ender's Game again. I work in a bookstore and its a great book to have in my tool belt when confronted with reluctant readers or pre-teens and teens who are ready to make the jump to adult science fiction. Maybe I just feel like society has begun to reach the point where OSC's views on gay marriage just make him look like one of those pitiable old guys who complain about black people to anyone they can corner for two minutes.
As for the morality of artists and idols, it does make a difference to me if a person is still alive and actively campaigning for something I find morally wrong. It doesn't have the same impact for me when I find out that some old dead writer shared a despicable view that was common in their time. Just like I'm more forgiving of hateful people who have learned to keep their mouths shut. I have acquaintances who don't agree with gay marriage for religious reasons, but they aren't out on the street corner holding signs of hate and they aren't voting against making it legal. I don't approve of alcoholism, but I'm far more forgiving of the guy who gets drunk alone on his couch than of the guy climbs behind the wheel drunk.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
It sounds like giving up Orson Scott Card is going to leave a gaping artistic hole in your life. I suggest you fill it by deeply immersing yourself in the films of Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Yes, his personal crusade against gays and gay marriage is pretty distressingly bad and deserves to be roundly mocked and picked apart, first ridiculous claim to the last.
Did you link the right thing, Samprimary? It's a fairly limpid and tangential response to OSC's essay.
ETA: Wait, is the refutation in the comments? I don't usually read comments...
quote:Just like I'm more forgiving of hateful people who have learned to keep their mouths shut. I have acquaintances who don't agree with gay marriage for religious reasons, but they aren't out on the street corner holding signs of hate and they aren't voting against making it legal.
Possibly unfair extrapolation and exaggeration of the attitude above:
I mean, if only they'd stop voicing their opinions, then we could have some peace. Just shut up, already! Seriously!
I'm fine with them holding opinions-- I mean, an opinion never really hurt anyone-- as long as they don't try to act according to their dictates of their own conscience or try to use democratic processes to change things, or announce their beliefs to anyone else.
We need a don't ask, don't tell law for opponents of same sex marriage. :giggle: Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Did you link the right thing, Samprimary? It's a fairly limpid and tangential response to OSC's essay.
I'd like to preface your habits on this one. Have you seen or come up with anything so far that has fulfilled the nebulous scott r criteria for valid critique of his essay that you won't assert pretty automatically misunderstands him/his essay?
Per a specific angle: the article literally states "There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples." How defensible is this statement? How defensible is an essay that uses this as a major basis for an argument about what the fight for gay marriage is 'really about?'
The answer is: pretty much not at all. And this is central (not tangential) to critique of an essay which is using statements like that to lay out the argument that "There's no need to legalize gay marriage" and that, conclusively, none of this is "about making it possible for gay people to become couples." — it's about other, much more insidious things. A terrible agenda. Forced on our children. To bludgeon away traditional values with leftist deception.
it's not limpid at all; it would be if the article wasn't really exactly as terrible and nonsensical as I guess you will initially not want to see, based on prior experience with you and subjects like this.
quote:Possibly unfair extrapolation and exaggeration of the attitude above:
Well, yes, yes it is! We are all often more forgiving of hateful people who quit exclaiming their hateful attitudes. Having to deal with a hateful coworker is a great way to drive this phenomenon home.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I disagree with almost all of Card's political writing, but I still buy his books.
I imagine there are plenty of people on the right who don't care for Tim Robbin's political views who still watch Shawshank and Bull Durham.
Technically, it's not that I disagree with Card that bothers me. I disagree with lots of people. What bothers me is how weak and unpersuasive his political writing is.
Reading his political work is like watching a pro linebacker fail to dribble a basketball.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I refused to read fiction created by those who have views I think are terrible, I'd be left with almost nothing to read.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If I refused to read fiction created by those who have views I think are terrible, I'd be left with almost nothing to read.
— all traditionalist conservatives
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: It sounds like giving up Orson Scott Card is going to leave a gaping artistic hole in your life. I suggest you fill it by deeply immersing yourself in the films of Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Yes, his personal crusade against gays and gay marriage is pretty distressingly bad and deserves to be roundly mocked and picked apart, first ridiculous claim to the last.
Do you assert that the article you linked to "roundly mocks, and picks apart" the claims OSC made?
If not, my apologies. NOTE: I usually think that when an author lists some attributes and embeds a link within them, the author means to imply that the link is emblematic of the attributes listed.
If you did mean to apply those attributes to the article you linked to...um... you and I have different definitions of the phrase "roundly mocks" and "picks apart".
And that's probably just the beginning!
quote:I guess you will initially not want to see, based on prior experience with you and subjects like this.
Feel free to be persuasive.
quote: We are all often more forgiving of hateful people who quit exclaiming their hateful attitudes. Having to deal with a hateful coworker is a great way to drive this phenomenon home.
Thankfully, outside the realm of my experience. I like the people I work with, and have never had occasion to think anyone I work with is "hateful."
I think my criticism of Shanna's criteria is valid. Can you explain-- without analogies, this time-- why it isn't, especially from the standpoint of political discourse?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I still have my old OSC books, but have refused to give him one cent of my hard earned money since he became a dangerously misguided crackpot.
Luckily, he's made that decision easy for me by not writing anything I care about since Crystal City. I wanted Ender in Exile, but the kindle boondoggle means I'll be passing on that one, too.
Henceforth, any OSC purchases I make will be at library sales, secondhand stores, or remaindered hardbacks.
Just like I refuse pay for a movie ticket to see a movie Tom Cruise is involved with. I'll catch it on cable, netflix, or borrow a DVD.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I guess you will initially not want to see, based on prior experience with you and subjects like this.
Feel free to be persuasive.
Really:
quote:Per a specific angle: the article literally states "There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples." How defensible is this statement? How defensible is an essay that uses this as a major basis for an argument about what the fight for gay marriage is 'really about?'
I'm asking you pretty straightforwardly: do you think this is a good, solid article? Do you find its premises agreeable and defensible?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think there are deficiencies in the article OSC wrote.
I do not think that the refutation you linked addresses those holes with the sort of irrefutable panache you seemed to indicate in your estimation of it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Mr. Card is a brave man standing by his convictions inspite of the consequences to his professional reputation. It seems many readers are incapable of seperating the man from the work.
I myself have not let Mr. Card's odious views on the I/P conflict influence my view of his work. Granted, the last time I read a book of his was in 2002. I think it was one of the Shadow books. But I swear that I own a pristine unread copy of "Pastwatch" and I have NO intention of throwing it out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think there are deficiencies in the article OSC wrote.
Do you find the article to have deficiencies but otherwise be agreeable and defensible? Do you or do you not think that the article makes a valid argument. Why or why not?
quote:I do not think that the refutation you linked addresses those holes with the sort of irrefutable panache you seemed to indicate in your estimation of it.
Okay, so the article doesn't, to your satisfaction, address what deficiencies YOU see with the article. So I still need to know what YOU think is wrong with the article, versus what this link of convenience articulates (with or without 'irrefutable panache').
There's a point to these questions, but I have to wrest your individual position about the article out before I start trying to hunt down what individual refutations of the article you will accept as valid versus misplaced or mistranslating orson scott card, per usual.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What's a "link of convenience?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What's a "link of convenience?"
i stated: "Yes, his personal crusade against gays and gay marriage is pretty distressingly bad and deserves to be roundly mocked and picked apart, first ridiculous claim to the last."
His latest article contained a new ridiculous claim that deserves to be roundly mocked and picked apart. I can conveniently link to someone doing just that. And it does.
Now, as for the rest of my post?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I can conveniently link to someone doing just that. And it does.
Here's what you linked to:
quote: The context for this is Amendment 1 in NC, which is an attempt to amend the state constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman the only legally recognized domestic union in the state. It is up for vote May 8. Amendment 1 proposes to abolish the recognition of domestic civil unions other than traditionally defined heterosexual marriage, including heterosexual civil unions. A vote against preserves the status quo. Here is an analysis of the bill by the ACLU of NC. Same-sex marriage is currently illegal in NC (statute §51‑1.2), although individual counties and cities have policies that grant homosexual partners certain benefits. It will still be illegal in NC regardless of whether the amendment is approved or not. Heterosexual marriages (like mine and Orson's) will be unaffected either way. So the amendment isn't about what Orson claims it is about. Then he says, “there are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples.” Statute §51‑1.2. How bold of him to accuse other people of lying. However, Orson is a constructive example to understand why someone would support something like Amendment 1. He sees it as just another battle in some grand “war” between liberalism and traditionalism. This is a bizarre paranoid delusion, and as such it is tough to tackle as a legitimate point of view. It isn't even internally consistent. What are the motivations of the liberals supposed to be in this fantasy? To destroy America? To destroy religion? To turn kids gay? To prevent people from having kids? How do any of these things benefit anyone at all, much less them directly? How does opposing Amendment 1 help them accomplish these things? One practical aspect in play is that proponents are well aware that Statute §51‑1.2 will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. They are caught with their hand in the civil rights violation cookie jar, and they want to change the constitution before they get called out on it. Another practical aspect is that young people are much more liberally-minded than old people, and there is a serious age split on this vote, and so if this is a “war” then the traditionalists have already lost it. I don't know why he mentions “science” here. He's right in that humans reproduce sexually. He is wrong that monogamous heterosexual 1:1 marriage is consistent with the human reproductive imperative, strategy, or behavior – do I really need a citation for that? Would you like divorce rates, rates on adultery, rates on multiple sexual partners, historical or modern numbers? Orson may not like those observations, maybe he thinks it is not the way things should be, but it is how they are. Furthermore, homosexual behavior is not unique to humans. There are reasonable scientific arguments for its perpetuation, despite the fact that it should, in principle, be self-limiting (e.g., “gay uncle theory”). But I don't think any of that is relevant, because I don't think that the purpose of our laws is to try to codify our basic biological drives, nor our religions, and certainly not our imaginations.
You maintain that this roundly mocks and picks apart OSC's article, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, it is an example of someone mocking and picking apart his article. I ALREADY KNOW it does not do so to your satisfaction — that much is very clear, thank you. I'm waiting on prior questions identifying your individual position on the validity of the article before there's much point in addressing that individual satisfaction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm waiting on prior questions identifying your individual position on the validity of the article before there's much point in addressing that individual satisfaction.
Er...what?
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Here is an LDS person's thought-experiment on why SSM is a good idea for the LDS church to accept:
You can't honestly think Scott is going to put his real thoughts out there, can you? I rarely, if ever, see that happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm waiting on prior questions identifying your individual position on the validity of the article before there's much point in addressing that individual satisfaction.
Er...what?
Please explain your position on OSC's article.
quote:Per a specific angle: the article literally states "There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples." How defensible is this statement?
quote:Do you find the article to have deficiencies but otherwise be agreeable and defensible? Do you or do you not think that the article makes a valid argument. Why or why not?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Please explain your position on OSC's article.
Ahem:
quote:I think there are deficiencies in the article OSC wrote.
...and that's about all that's pertinent to the conversation from this individual's point of view.
I think I've seen better refutations of OSC's main points here on Hatrack than in the article you linked to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Please explain your position on OSC's article.
Ahem:
quote:I think there are deficiencies in the article OSC wrote.
...and that's about all that's pertinent to the conversation from this individual's point of view.
Then there's no real conversation, just you vacillating and hiding your position. To the extent that you are claiming no pertinence as to the question of whether or not you think the article even makes valid, defensible claims. Since you are unwilling to actually allow your position on the article to be expressed and examined, there's no point or relevance to you expressing however much your ~secret position~ agrees or disagrees with anything.
However, I know you well enough to read between the lines on this one. You should return to the conversation if you decide you want to offer what your position on the article in question is.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, I'm not a particular fan of OSC's position on gay marriage either, but I think you're harping on Scott unfairly here. In fairness, I don't know much about your history, so this is from a perspective unaware of whatever nuances underpin your interactions.
But anyway: You linked to a a takedown of OSC's article. Seems to me Scott's only comment was that he thought it did a lousy job doing what you asserted it did (taking apart OSC's position).
I don't see any obligation on his part to offer his own takedown of OSC's article. Seemed to me he was criticizing your article, not defending OSC's. There's an important distinction, though they can be easily confused.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not confusing the two; I'm just not going to debate the critique of the article without necessarily involving positions on the article itself. Part of that analysis of a critique is finding out where we differ in terms of our analysis of the source work that the critique is addressing. And, in regards to that, I'm not going to argue with a black box.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay. That's certainly your prerogative.
From an outside perspective it looked like you guys might've been talking past each other unintentionally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's a GOOD prerogative, too. I just have to isolate and identify and straightforwardly state what would be lacking in any 'dialogue' about something which ultimately one party does not want to offer to the table. Which is why I asked the questions I did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Vacillation? I've been pretty consistent on this topic for a while now. Maybe you mean something else, Samprimary.
In any case, my opinion on OSC's article is really not relevant to whether or not the article you linked meets the attributes you ascribed to it.
I'll give you an example-- instead of diretly addressing the discrepancy between numerous benefits given to couples who engage in a traditional marriage versus the benefits given to a same sex couple, the article you linked to merely notes:
quote:Then he says, “there are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples.” Statute §51‑1.2. How bold of him to accuse other people of lying.
Limpid.
Never mind its hand-waving of the issues of science (if ever there was a moment for the opposition to 'pick apart' OSC's argument, this should have been that moment). Instead, what the author of the article chose was...
quote:He is wrong that monogamous heterosexual 1:1 marriage is consistent with the human reproductive imperative, strategy, or behavior – do I really need a citation for that? Would you like divorce rates, rates on adultery, rates on multiple sexual partners, historical or modern numbers?
Yes! YES I WOULD! Indeed, if you're going to pick something apart, numbers and details are vital to the operation!
(I'm especially eager to evaluate the "historical" numbers-- and the methods for obtaining them!)
At best, what the author here provides isn't picking-- it's propaganda.
(BTW: a defense of 'He hit me first!' isn't much of a defense at all.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, man. I dig Scott to pieces, even when he's being a mook, but like JT said-talking past people is sort of a hobby for the dude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is that what JT meant?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You should return to the conversation if you decide you want to offer what your position on the article in question is.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Hi Snuggle, I just read the article you linked to, and I agree completely with you about the 'blatant paranoia'. It's scary, to be honest. I understand you cried when you read it, it made me feel very uncomfortable too.
The only thing I can say is, that it's sad OSC is suffering like that. I have seen it happen before, people being great at some point in their lives and later sort of breaking down instead of growing. Very sad.
For me it is not a reason to throw away his books. I remember how he used to be, some 10 years ago. That guy must still be there, I guess today his brains are playing tricks on him.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
quote: For me it is not a reason to throw away his books. I remember how he used to be, some 10 years ago. That guy must still be there, I guess today his brains are playing tricks on him.
This isn't a recent development. His archives for the last 10 years are available. His style of argument seems somewhat diminished to me in recent years, but I think that's a result of following the talk radio/fox news model of preaching to the choir rather than attempting to persuade.
That said, with the exception of Empire, his books and short stories are all very good, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to anyone.*
*I sometimes advise people not to look at his website.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I have a very close friend who refuses to read Ender's Game because of what she knows about his social and political commentary. Two of our other friends and I are always trying to convince her to put that knowledge aside, because we know she'd love the book, but we can't break through that wall.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I give them Ender's Game and .. well, I USED to tell them just to read it quick, and not tell them anything about OSC. This hasn't been a tool available to me for a while, because his political and anti-gay rep has pretty much strung out far enough to make his infamous articles common knowledge among anyone I could have otherwise gotten to clean-slate read the thing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which, to me, is a perfectly justified response. If I'd been exposed to his dangerously misguided propaganda before his fiction, I wouldn't have used Ender's Game to wipe my ***, no matter how highly it was recommended. Luckily, I was reading the stuff before he went crazy, so I was able to have nearly two decades of enjoyment prior to him becoming a 'pundit'.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
JT: You're going too far in insulting Mr. Card. If you want to talk about how much you disagree with his opinions fine. Speaking disparagingly of him as a person is not alright.
This thread has been teasing the line a bit, but I'm not comfortable with the tenor. Stick to ideas please.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You are free to edit out the part you think crosses the line. In my opinion, what I've written is orders of magnitude less offensive than what he's said about me in the last few years, so I will not be editing it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Robert A Heilein's views on sex got in the way of his later works being great...and then just got in the way of them being readable.
I haven't read any current Card in awhile (my quiet time is next to zip with the two small children, not for any other reason). Has Card's bigotry started to leak into his writing?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Depends on who you ask and how sensitive you are to it.
I don't think so, though.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
JT: That may be, but outside the TOS is outside the TOS. I am not privy to the things Mr. Card has said to you personally. I can only call it as I see it.
I would rather you edit your own post so the post can adhere to your intent as much as reasonably possible. If I just remove chunks it scuffs up the whole thing. Removing an entire post is easy, but editing one, where I might even have to add words is not a very enjoyable task. If you insist, I will, but I'd very much prefer you edit your own posts when I ask.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: Maybe I'll just put them in storage for a bit. I certainly can't support him by paying actual money for any of his future work, and I could not currently re-read any of my collection without filtering everything through his hate-mongering. I don't particularly want to donate, although that was my first instinct, because I don't really want to garner more fans at the moment.
I think I just feel that my entire childhood, filled with these books, has been violated. I'm not even gay, but I have friends who are, and I can't even imagine how Card's "gay friends" feel about this article.
A friend suggested that I pack up the books with a strongly worded letter regarding my feelings of violation by one of my idols, and drop the whole package off on his doorstep.
I'll take them off your hands, I'll pay for shipping to Canada.
Personally considering hack writers who I've had to personally converse and socialize with who through their own actions make me despise them greatly, I have to give Mr Card great credit in the degree that he maintains his artist-reader professionalism, he doesn't for example to to these forums and insults his fans like say Stuart Slade, or John Ringo.
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
From the comments in the OSC article in the OP:
quote:"I have a lot of gay friends" is the new " I have a lot of black friends".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I have gay friends. I want them to have the same rights as me. For my part, it was getting to know gay people that made me give two craps about gay rights. Nobody is born a saint, but I think it's worse if you actually *have* gay friends, and you still think like this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: [qb]
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
That is frankly surprising to me. I saw all the same messages in SiF that were in EiE. Even more, given that the book devotes considerable attention to the incest taboo, and argues passionately in favor of nuclear family building taking precedence over worries of incestuous love and inbreeding.
All the uncomfortable references to incest didn't strike you in any way? Or did you see that as being distinct from the social contract speechifying in EiE? Just curious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I have gay friends. I want them to have the same rights as me.
I have gay friends, and I tell them they're just playing dress-up when they marry. I make sure to mention them in my articles to make sure everyone understands that I am the tolerant one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Nobody is born a saint, but I think it's worse if you actually *have* gay friends, and you still think like this.
I remember when McCain was running for office the first time and he said spouted some standard anti-abortion rhetoric. One of the reporters asked him how he would feel if his daughter got an abortion, and he hemmed and hawed and said something to the effect that personal questions were unfair.
I knew he wasn't the guy for me right then, regardless of anything else-- because if you take a stand on some value, it should apply regardless of who is affected (alternatively, change your value to match your current understanding of morality).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think that's what we can safely call a foolish consistency.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think that's what we can safely call a foolish consistency.
Aw. I even allowed for a change in value!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The only thing I can say is, that it's sad OSC is suffering like that. I have seen it happen before, people being great at some point in their lives and later sort of breaking down instead of growing. Very sad.
For me it is not a reason to throw away his books. I remember how he used to be, some 10 years ago. That guy must still be there, I guess today his brains are playing tricks on him.
For me, this is way worse that what is in JT's post. The implication that OSC is crazy is much more offensive to open dialog than outright insult because it attempts to undermine the reliability of the target in a way that cannot be defended against (nor can it be verified).
There's no indication that OSC is anything but sane. His ideas may be wrong, but to insinuate that he's delusional because he's expressing an unpopular opinion is to deny the ability for communication.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's no indication that OSC is anything but sane.
No indication to you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: JT: That may be, but outside the TOS is outside the TOS. I am not privy to the things Mr. Card has said to you personally. I can only call it as I see it.
I think that's a pretty biased reading of the TOS. I can't remember anyone being edited or asked to edit over saying 'before [poster X] went crazy'. So, if you want it gone, you are within both your rights and authority to remove it. I believe it is true, and perfectly fair given the things that OSC himself has said on this website, so I will not.
----------
I apologize for putting you in a difficult spot, JB. I have nothing but respect for you, fighting what is ultimately a losing battle here. But I'm not going to pretend I'm ok with the stuff OSC has written, or give him courtesies he has not extended me. I fully understand that you have to enforce the TOS, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I assume we're not using crazy in the 'let's pseudodiagnose formal mental illness' sense. Well, I hope. If we are doing that rather than using crazy in the "the stuff he is espousing is more than a little bit openly delusional" sense please let me know ahead of time so I can eat popcorn, say stuff like "IN BEFORE GRAVEYARD" and laugh my butt off over Sa'eed showing his Birds of a Feather solidarity with OSC' sticking to his guns or whatever.
Otherwise, I suppose we can continue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Robert A Heilein's views on sex got in the way of his later works being great...and then just got in the way of them being readable.
Huh. His later books were some of my favorites. I started with TEFL and "Stranger" is a classic.
Scott, I read Ginette's post as less "he's going crazy" as "declining with age". Sort of like what I think the Rev. Wright is experiencing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Nobody is born a saint, but I think it's worse if you actually *have* gay friends, and you still think like this.
I remember when McCain was running for office the first time and he said spouted some standard anti-abortion rhetoric. One of the reporters asked him how he would feel if his daughter got an abortion, and he hemmed and hawed and said something to the effect that personal questions were unfair.
I knew he wasn't the guy for me right then, regardless of anything else-- because if you take a stand on some value, it should apply regardless of who is affected (alternatively, change your value to match your current understanding of morality).
I've wasted quite a bit of thought on John McCain, and I think he is far more liberal in his personal life than he would like people to believe. Both his wife and daughter have assisted pro gay right campaigns. The same daughter is openly pro-choice while being proudly republican. Suffice to say the people who he loves and is influenced by either do not share his ideals or he blatantly lies for his political career.
Either way I do not find him amusing and every election I hope for a proper replacement to run against him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We've got a number of seniors on here-- would it be acceptable to declare that their opinions are a figment of their age? Shall we patronize and belittle them on the basis of their age (rather than on the merit or value of their ideas), when we find that they disagree with what we think?
JB has pretty much already called this one-- back to ideas.
Let me note that OSC published Hypocrites of Homosexuality back in 1990 (before he published Xenocide and Children of the Mind, and shortly after he started publishing his Alvin Maker series, by the way). So the idea that these attitudes are endemic to his age is pretty preposterous.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: We've got a number of seniors on here-- would it be acceptable to declare that their opinions are a figment of their age? Shall we patronize and belittle them on the basis of their age (rather than on the merit or value of their ideas), when we find that they disagree with what we think?
It would be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a little while. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying that I agree with Ginette - just giving a softer reading. And I think that you are confusing cause and effect. I don't think that any one should be thought loopier because they are old, but if they do get loopy, age could be a reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not saying that I agree with Ginette - just giving a softer reading.
Wood is softer than aluminum, but it still can hit a baseball pretty far.
quote:And I think that you are confusing cause and effect. I don't think that any one should be thought loopier because they are old, but if they do get loopy, age could be a reason.
Of course, I debate the effectiveness of even questioning whether someone is crazy (or loopy) in this particular medium. It's a pointless question given the information we have access to.
Deal with ideas, not the person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That the ideas are loopy is a given for most of us.
ETA: The OP was expressing grief for the person. Quite possibly a person he only imagined.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Given that the ideas OSC's espousing keep winning in popular elections means... what in relation to this discussion on mental health?
That he may be wrong is possible; that his ideas may be harmful is also possible. But given that a number of elections have been held nationwide in which his ideas about marriage have been supported by a majority of voters indicates that at least in some states, he's got a LOT company.
Of course, majority rule does not indicate the health of an idea. Certainly, laws and practices have been upheld by the populace which were atrocious.
But crazy? How are we defining that word in terms of the evaluation of ideas?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That he may be wrong is possible
... possible?
"There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples"
This is not 'possibly' wrong, it is wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If only the article you linked had examined how it was wrong. I mean, jeez! It's wikipediable!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't personally find OSC crazy, never having met the man, I don't find him much at all.
I find his ideas and thought process about marriage and gays to be crazy.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:From the original article_: There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples. They can visit each other in the hospital. They can benefit from each other's insurance.
No, legalizing gay marriage is not about making it possible for gay people to become couples.
The argument is based on this statement being true. It is not. You could also add statements about laws regarding custody and property rights. If these freedoms were (in fact) protected, he might have a valid moral argument (from a certain perspective).
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: I certainly can't support him by paying actual money for any of his future work, and I could not currently re-read any of my collection without filtering everything through his hate-mongering. I don't particularly want to donate, although that was my first instinct, because I don't really want to garner more fans at the moment.
That's the point I reached a few years ago when I found out OSC had been actively campaigning for Prop 8. I've still got my huge paperback, hardback, and audiobook collection because I can't bear to throw them away, but I don't read any of it anymore. It's not out of petulance or principles or anything. I just can't help seeing everything he wrote through the lens of his hatred, I can't enjoy reading it anymore. I never posted about it here until now because I felt there would be little point. I'm sure OSC doesn't need my approval or care about me being disappointed in him (or in the person I thought he was).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Misha, that is just about my position as well, although I reached it a few years earlier than you did. I remember being so eager for the next OSC book to come out. Recently, I was reshelving books and was torn about whether to put the OSC books back on the shelves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If only the article you linked had examined how it was wrong. I mean, jeez! It's wikipediable!
This is how you say "yes, I agree, it is absolutely wrong" in your own inimitable style, I suppose.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
When people are ruled by emotions, they can become completely unreasonable. If one of my loved ones starts yelling at me, I say: 'I don't have to listen to this' and I walk away. I don't really see why we can't do that when an author writes an article, obviously not with a clear mind. Of course I don't know the cause of it, but I agree with Snuggles calling it 'paranoia', it does have all those wild guesses in it about some 'plot' and it does not contain any evidence. I happen to care for OSC, so I hope he'll come to his senses and look at what he wrote from this perspective. That's all I wanted to say. I don't know if he is 'crazy' (whatever that may be) or not, my brains are also playing tricks on me sometimes, I just don't think I should write articles in such a state of mind.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If only the article you linked had examined how it was wrong. I mean, jeez! It's wikipediable!
This is how you say "yes, I agree, it is absolutely wrong" in your own inimitable style, I suppose.
Seems like it's how you say exactly what he said, namely that it's wrong but the article you linked didn't do a very good job of proving that it's wrong. Which I agree with.
I'm not one to give OSC a pass for his really weird and creepy stance toward gays, but I don't see what Scott has done to deserve this pointless needling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: Not to dog pile here, but considering your own style is every bit as inimitable as Scott's, why are you throwing stones over details?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: JT: That may be, but outside the TOS is outside the TOS. I am not privy to the things Mr. Card has said to you personally. I can only call it as I see it.
I think that's a pretty biased reading of the TOS. I can't remember anyone being edited or asked to edit over saying 'before [poster X] went crazy'. So, if you want it gone, you are within both your rights and authority to remove it. I believe it is true, and perfectly fair given the things that OSC himself has said on this website, so I will not.
----------
I apologize for putting you in a difficult spot, JB. I have nothing but respect for you, fighting what is ultimately a losing battle here. But I'm not going to pretend I'm ok with the stuff OSC has written, or give him courtesies he has not extended me. I fully understand that you have to enforce the TOS, though.
There's nothing biased about it. You're saying he has insulted you, but I certainly don't know anything about it other than you're saying he has. You're welcome to provide me with links. As it is, I can only moderate what is being said while I am moderator. If Mr. Card breaks his own TOS, that's a bridge I'll cross if we get to it.
At the very least one can accept that lately Mr. Card is a non-presence here. He isn't saying anything to anybody here or speaking about anybody here. We can extend him that courtesy I should think. His ideas are written with the obvious intent to be read, and discussed. You can think his ideas will lead to the destruction of humanity. I only have to step in if you leave that territory. If you wish to discuss Mr. Card's mental state, you won't be doing it here. There is a huge internet out there in which you can do it. Not here though.
I appreciate your allowing me to edit your posts as you yourself stand by what you are saying, but I'll most likely have to just remove the post, rather than have it read as some sort of "acceptable" iteration. I don't want to rewrite people's posts so they become in essence partially mine.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have given up on reading OSC's books. Not only has the quality gone down, but I really cannot support such... hate. I think people need to start evolving past this whole gay is bad thing because it seems almost pathological, the energy that goes towards this issue.
But, yes, that article was completely illogical. As if there are not people on the right who have religions who don't support gay marriage? Left winged people don't marry and have kids? And in Utah two men who were married in MA got into an accident and the family barred the man's husband from seeing him. He didn't even get to say good bye to him. I don't know how OSC can think that gays have all of those rights and benefits of marriage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The reason why I stopped reading OSC's books is something I would LIKE to say had nothing to do with his political views and pretty nutty social commentary, but it's pretty impossible to be sure at all that those are completely divorced from trying to interpret his work cleanly. Not to mention, the breaking-point work for me was Empire, which probably compounded my issues of potential bias alongside being a painfully bizarre pretense at "neutrally" working a red-state vs. blue-state conflict into a story which ostensibly does not favor either ideology, perspective-wise, but really attacks the dangers of extremism (spoiler alert: nope)
either way, ehhhhhhhh, that was that, I was done.
quote:Left winged people don't marry and have kids?
To be fair, it is really hard to find a mate when all you can do is fly in circles.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He keeps making characters preach at people. I don't even like it when people I agree with do t hat. It gets in the way of the flow of the story.
Also, LOL!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The best solution is to just identify when an author has, at least in your perspective, switched from nonpreachy to preachy. Plenty do. Then it's just a matter of not reading books that annoy you. Simple!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True. I stopped reading Pathfinder because it annoyed me and it only had once instance of Marriage and Babies.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
Outside of Empire, which was unspeakably awful, I haven't seen any degradation in Card's novels. I didn't read the second Empire novel, so I don't know if it got better.
His world watch columns are completely detached from reality, and I wouldn't vote for him if he ran for office, but his novels continue to be excellent. I enjoyed Lost Gate, Pathfinder and Shadows in Flight this last year.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can I assume that you gave the Homecoming series a pass?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scott, do you actually believe there are no other laws which discriminate against homosexuals and you're just having fun with banter? Or are you suggesting Card's statement is right?
---------
I would be surprised if Card has said anything to JT personally that was insulting. But I think you and I know, JB, that Card has cast a pretty wide net over the past ten years or so making statements about a variety of topics on politics, sexuality, religion, and other social issues, of which at least a few were insulting. I think JT probably has some intersection there. I certainly do, and so do you for that matter. All three of us are at best poor misguided idiots helping America go down to defeat and destruction as a society, and at worst we're people who actually hate 'traditional values' in and of themselves.
Like JT, I've got a lot of respect for you and the maze you have to navigate, but is there really much point in behaving as though Card hasn't said these sorts of things?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
JB/BB, For what it's worth, and I admit freely my opinion on the matter is weightless, JT has made his wishes clear. If you feel his post violated the TOS (I'm not sure I fully understand why you feel that way, as saying "before he went crazy" is not really name calling) then you should delete the post and just move on.
Just my dos centavos.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: I'm not worried about people saying a belief is reprehensible. I've stood by and let people call my beliefs delusional on many occasions. But the TOS do not allow for individuals to disparage each other on these boards. Mr. Card has indeed sounded off on many diverging topics, with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You can discuss how wrong he is all you want. You cannot discuss how crazy, stupid, or wicked you think he is. Even if Mr. Card calls a belief you hold one of those things in his column. The TOS does not extend to his column, it only governs here.
[ May 16, 2012, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Tim_Ferno (Member # 12628) on :
I had a hard time reading the whole article (it's not even long).
It was right about here: "It's about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools."
What?
I don't recall ever being taught traditional values in school, but then I went to one of those small (about 70 kids per grade level) public ones, so that might explain it.
I graduated about 8 years ago, so the memories aren't exactly fresh... are the schools around Mr. Card really that different?
We covered common baby care and what have you in health class, but that was more focused around how not-to-kill the poor thing. Heck, they didn't even bother pairing us in classic male-female roles when we had to do the cliche "take care of electric doll" thing. We got to pick our own partners.
I'm just so ... confused. If he's afraid that schools are going to STOP teaching "traditional values" (what does that even mean?) well, i think that battle has already been lost.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:but I really cannot support such... hate
Ok, the word "hate" has been used a couple of times now. He doesn't "hate" anybody. He disapproves of their lifestyle.
Hate is something completely different, and altogether much more destructive and sinister.
In more than 20 years of knowing him personally, I have yet to see him express or exhibit hate towards anyone.
Except Pleasantville. I'm pretty sure he hated that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't even know what that means. Traditional values. It's just that whole article and all of his other articles on the subject are just ... hysterical screeds. Let gays get married and gays will just be able to get married and enjoy all the rights straight people have when they marry. Like visitation rights. The country won't fall apart. I live in MA. People are not marrying horses here. I'm marrying music in August, but other than that, things are the same. Two people on my job married opposite sex partners, so people are still doing that here. Schools are probably too busy tormenting kids with boring tests and horrible recorders to either teach or not teach traditional values. I really think his fears are unfounded and not based on reality.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Except Pleasantville. I'm pretty sure he hated that.
It's an ugly truth, but some things need to be hated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fair enough, JB. The ToS does indeed apply here though not to his columns.
But-not that it makes a difference to that point-Card has more than once gone quite a bit further than simply calling a belief delusional. That is, when you drill down through it, quite a common belief people hold about the beliefs of others. No, he has more than once suggested not just that a given belief is delusional, dangerous, stupid, and vile, but gone on to specifically apply terms like that to the people who believe them.
You're absolutely right, the ToS applies here and not to his political columns, which he writes with what is frankly a pretty mobile standard of courtesy and honesty towards the people he disagrees with. But given that he not uncommonly makes widespread specific attacks (that is, people who believe such and such are thus and so), people will feel attacked. And since this site has his name on it, it's unsurprising they will respond here as though they were replying to him, in which case the attacks on him in this thread given the context have frankly been quite mild.
None of that refutes your point about where the ToS applies and where it doesn't, I again admit.
Anyway, this thread has made me realize that it's been at least...I would estimate four years since I've read anything by Card that wasn't a column or a review. I hadn't noticed that before-prior to that, some of his work was a regular recurring theme for me. Once a year I'd read one of the Ender books (this was before all the Bean stuff), or Pastwatch, or some of his short stories, or Lost Boys, so on and so forth. At least two of the works just mentioned I would still rate as very powerful and moving, rating among a (very large, imprecise) list of my personal favorites for power and meaning.
I don't think I ever made a conscious decision, "I will stop reading Card because I strongly dislike his politics!" Instead it was more that I simply stopped enjoying the things he has published lately, and was at that time, that it was easier for his stuff to stay up on the shelf. That and recurring exposure through his columns to those views, but more than that the way in which he expresses them.
It wasn't an ethical concern or a desire to not support his work that stopped me-there are libraries or piracy if that were the case. It was for me a combination of not liking his new work, and having I think an antagonism towards reading old things of his after not long since reading his thoughts on politics and culture. My hand would simply keep moving along the shelf when I wasn't reading something new. I still rewatch Ninth Gate, for example, because it's one of my favorites, even though Polanski has done bad in ways that are in a totally separate ballpark from Card.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't think he hates homosexuals, Odouls. But he has said more than a few things about, say, liberals that a reasonable reading would start to wonder if there was hatred.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: It's an ugly truth, but some things need to be hated.
Agreed. However, I found Pleasantville far more palatable than it's "sucked into television" plot counterpart, "Stay Tuned" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105466/ Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Fair enough, JB. The ToS does indeed apply here though not to his columns.
Thus far I've been loathe to get into this conversation because, frankly, I don't think my shower has enough hot water. I still love reading OSC, and I hold no ill will towards him for his articles or views. Even the ones where I vehemently disagree with him, and there are a lot of those.
Nevertheless, Rakeesh, I'm curious about one thing, and had to ask. I see two different kinds of insulting speech, or whatever you want to call it, here.
One is broad invective against a category of ideological opposition, embedded in an article designed for public consumption. Individuals reading the article have to decide for themselves what categories they belong to (though it may be pretty easy to do so.) For example: "Republicans are misogynistic," or "Democrats are power-hungry statists."
The other kind of insulting speech would be specifically insulting an individual in a setting designed for conversation. No self-selected categories, just straight-up "You are an idiot." or "Fred is insane."
I'm curious if you agree that there is a distinction. And if so, if you think the distinction actually matters, or makes a difference in terms of which might be more indefensible.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't think he hates homosexuals, Odouls. But he has said more than a few things about, say, liberals that a reasonable reading would start to wonder if there was hatred.
I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do think there is a difference, but that it's one of degree rather than kind. Example: "American Catholics are disloyal scum." Sean Catholicdude becomes understandably angry with me for saying that, even though at the time I said it I had no idea Sean was Catholic, or maybe even American in many possible contexts. Nevertheless, I apologize and try to explain (a fraught conversation, this!) that I didn't mean him, and that I apologize for saying something hurtful.
The other half of the example: "Sean Catholic is a disloyal scumbag!" I can't really weasel out of that one at all, as far as not having intended to be insulting to Sean. Pretty much my only hope is a complete, sincere apology accepting responsibility.
But...what is the real difference between these two? I have, in reality, said the same thing about Sean in both cases-almost word for word. In the former example, I might get a pass on intent-to-insult from lazy ignorance (not bothering to look into whether American Catholics are, in fact, disloyal scum) that won't exist for the second example. But I've still said the same thing, and I don't think it's up to me to decide how much Sean gets to be upset when I call him disloyal scum by name or association. It's kind of up to him.
Of course, if I were to say that about a group as varied as American Catholics, I would also perhaps claim many of them as my friends, and affirm I don't mean any kind of personal attacks, so on and so forth. It's just, that would all be BS.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Sure, I think that's a fair reading too. Speaking for myself I reached the shocked disappointment stage some years ago, but opinions vary. But do you think a reasonable person, whether or not they were targeted by his rhetoric, could start to wonder if he hated them?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Sure, I think that's a fair reading too. Speaking for myself I reached the shocked disappointment stage some years ago, but opinions vary. But do you think a reasonable person, whether or not they were targeted by his rhetoric, could start to wonder if he hated them?
Each reader can, and will reach their own conclusions about the motives of an author. For me personally, I think that an unbiased person would likely find it a stretch to get to the "hatred" evaluation of his commentary.
However, people who are involved in, support, or have personal stake in the actions, ideologies, or organizations of which he openly disapproves might find it an easier gap to bridge.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do think there is a difference, but that it's one of degree rather than kind. Example: "American Catholics are disloyal scum." Sean Catholicdude becomes understandably angry with me for saying that, even though at the time I said it I had no idea Sean was Catholic, or maybe even American in many possible contexts. Nevertheless, I apologize and try to explain (a fraught conversation, this!) that I didn't mean him, and that I apologize for saying something hurtful.
The other half of the example: "Sean Catholic is a disloyal scumbag!" I can't really weasel out of that one at all, as far as not having intended to be insulting to Sean. Pretty much my only hope is a complete, sincere apology accepting responsibility.
But...what is the real difference between these two? I have, in reality, said the same thing about Sean in both cases-almost word for word. In the former example, I might get a pass on intent-to-insult from lazy ignorance (not bothering to look into whether American Catholics are, in fact, disloyal scum) that won't exist for the second example. But I've still said the same thing, and I don't think it's up to me to decide how much Sean gets to be upset when I call him disloyal scum by name or association. It's kind of up to him.
Of course, if I were to say that about a group as varied as American Catholics, I would also perhaps claim many of them as my friends, and affirm I don't mean any kind of personal attacks, so on and so forth. It's just, that would all be BS.
To a great extent, I think I agree, Rakeesh.
A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Doesn't this tread closely to stereotype territory?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think that in broad terms "generalization" and "stereotype" are synonymous, yeah.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: [qb]
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
That is frankly surprising to me. I saw all the same messages in SiF that were in EiE. Even more, given that the book devotes considerable attention to the incest taboo, and argues passionately in favor of nuclear family building taking precedence over worries of incestuous love and inbreeding.
All the uncomfortable references to incest didn't strike you in any way? Or did you see that as being distinct from the social contract speechifying in EiE? Just curious.
I'm used to it I guess from manga? It seemed like a reasonable position for their situation, they are a new species and at some point they'll need to procreate with each other.
I'm not one to judge.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I think that in broad terms "generalization" and "stereotype" are synonymous, yeah.
In THIS context, I agree completely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: [qb]
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
That is frankly surprising to me. I saw all the same messages in SiF that were in EiE. Even more, given that the book devotes considerable attention to the incest taboo, and argues passionately in favor of nuclear family building taking precedence over worries of incestuous love and inbreeding.
All the uncomfortable references to incest didn't strike you in any way? Or did you see that as being distinct from the social contract speechifying in EiE? Just curious.
I'm used to it I guess from manga? It seemed like a reasonable position for their situation, they are a new species and at some point they'll need to procreate with each other.
I'm not one to judge.
Ugh? Really?! No wonder I could not finish SiF. Ew. It drove me up a dang tree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To a great extent, I think I agree, Rakeesh.
A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Do I object? Well, that's a different discussion, ain't it? Generalization is usually a risky proposition about large groups when it comes to people-stuff, becoming a bit more reliable the more unified and active that large group is. 'Priests don't respect the secular rule of law' would be a bit of a hazardous claim to make, whereas to say high-ranking members of the RCC don't respect the secular rule of law would have some problems, but be less problematic.
Anyway, for this discussion though it wasn't so much about objecting or not when someone generalizes, but objecting to the notion that, to continue with the examples I used before, 'American Catholics are disloyal scum' isn't actually a personal attack on Sean Catholic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not to mention, the breaking-point work for me was Empire...
Same here. Up to Empire, I'd read every novel he'd ever written and a majority of the short fiction. Since then, I have managed to finish one additional book and have skimmed another two.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Same here. Up to Empire, I'd read every novel he'd ever written and a majority of the short fiction. Since then, I have managed to finish one additional book and have skimmed another two.
"Gentlemen, you intrigue me. I believe I'm going to have to give [Empire] a try!" -Professor Harold Hill The Music Man Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dude, you are absolutely its intended audience. If you seriously haven't read it and aren't just joking, you absolutely need to. No kidding.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I seriously haven't read it, AND I was just joking.
BUT now I am definitely intrigued: What makes me absolutely its intended audience?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You skew more politically conservative than Rakeesh & Tom. If your posts here are an indication, at any rate.
The main hero of Empire is politically conservative, and the apparent biggest villain is politically leftist.
By the point of Hidden Empire, the sequel, the alternate timeline has diverged far enough from our political landscape that these distinctions aren't as relevant, and it's more like a typical OSC book.
Of course, in all of OSC's books, people with philosophies OSC disapproves of tend to be villains, and philosophies he supports tend to be heroes. This is also not terribly unique to OSC as a writer. People just seem to notice it more when it's defined down the lines of political ideologies.
Anyway, I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys. Despite the way it gets characterized, Empire isn't quite that book, but it's close enough that it enrages most leftists, and they assume it will consequently be amazing to conservatives.
Personally, I liked Empire just fine, but it's not his strongest book. The sequel is better, but is also one of the most tragic books of OSC's that I've ever read. At least by my moral philosophy, it ends on a ridiculously depressing note. I cried. Actually I cried before the end, and by the end I was just sort of numb and shell-shocked.
But even so, neither of the Empire books quite compare to the greats like Pastwatch or Speaker for the Dead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, that's not true, Dan, that in all of Card's books, the villains were of opposing political views. It has been lately (but to be fair, I haven't read a book of his in about four years, so I should say 'was'), but throughout the 80s and early 90s, I would've said his best stories were those which you would be hard pressed to label even the worst characters as straight-up 'villains', and sometimes the 'best' characters did truly awful, hateful things.
It seemed to me (though of course I'm biased) that it was trending away from that by the time the Shadow series rolled around. More than a few characters got 'preachy' in earlier works, but something seemed to change. Perhaps it was that the lecturing was more overt, or perhaps it was because-for me this was a big part-that the lecturing had some very clear parallels to contemporary political issues-it began to feel distinctly like the reader was being lectured, rather than characters within the story.
Furthermore, villains grew gradually more totally bankrupt, while the heroes seemed to grow both more preachy and more contemporary. It stopped being the case in the best sci-fi where the stories and people can help inform us about what our lives mean, but rather began to smell distinctly of efforts to directly inform us about our lives. I still remember the feelings of irritation and regret I had reading, I forget which of the Shadow books exactly it was now, but the one in which a certain geneticist holds forth on what it means to procreate. His thoughts were, in many cases, things I thought had a lot of truth to them, but layered throughout it was that notion that the only 'real' members of the human community, the most worthwhile contributors, fit the 'traditional' nuclear family role-and that other examples of humanity as expressed in family and sexuality were shoddy, paltry imitations to be rejected or pitied.
The lecturing was bad enough. It felt out of place and stupid for a character that would surely have known that there are many ways to be real members of a community, to have a great impact, etc. But when that lecture in that story came alongside knowledge that it was Card's views being expressed-his actual, real-world thoughts on contemporary families and sexuality-then I think I just gave up the ghost on giving his current stuff a shot.
Anyway, I would've said that the hallmark of Card's best work was in finding the humanity-even when it was awful-in pretty much every single character that was examined at any length. He was able to evoke pity and even respect alongside horror and revulsion for a character who in many ways was defined by his knowing rape of a child, for example.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, that's not true, Dan, that in all of Card's books, the villains were of opposing political views.
I agree! I assume you're disagreeing what I said here:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Of course, in all of OSC's books, people with philosophies OSC disapproves of tend to be villains, and philosophies he supports tend to be heroes. This is also not terribly unique to OSC as a writer. People just seem to notice it more when it's defined down the lines of political ideologies.
But note, I said philosophical, not political. I guess in the last sentence I said political, but I was specifically referring to Empire there. Sorry if that was confusing!
An example of an older book of his that exemplifies what I'm broadly speaking of here is the collection of stories that make up the Worthing Saga. I love that book to pieces! But I find several of the core philosophical tenets within it to be totally horrible.
This is common. As I said, most authors can't help but include bits of their philosophy in their work, even if it's unintentional.
Empire was unique in Card's work in that it was very explicit about this, and moreover, it was political rather than broadly philosophical.
I hope this clarification makes more sense.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I would've said that the hallmark of Card's best work was in finding the humanity-even when it was awful-in pretty much every single character that was examined at any length. He was able to evoke pity and even respect alongside horror and revulsion for a character who in many ways was defined by his knowing rape of a child, for example.
I agree that this is one of Card's strengths. Present tense, for me, as I actually think it still is.
But then, Card is still hands down one of my all-time favorite writers. There are writers who I think have written better stories, but not many. And Card is unique in that I have enjoyed every single work of his I have ever read, without exception. Considering how prolific he is and how many of his books I've read, that's a really amazing feat.
PS: I'm drawing a blank as to the character you're referring to in the last sentence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dan, he's referring to Hart's Hope.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Scott, do you actually believe there are no other laws which discriminate against homosexuals and you're just having fun with banter? Or are you suggesting Card's statement is right?
Does scott r not even comment on stuff this basic? Is this really the norm?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Dan, he's referring to Hart's Hope.
Aha! One of the few I have not read, but always wanted to. Heard about it a lot on here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can never decide whether that book is beautifully horrible or horribly beautiful. Either way, you should certainly read it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't think he hates homosexuals, Odouls. But he has said more than a few things about, say, liberals that a reasonable reading would start to wonder if there was hatred.
I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Yes, we'll we all know that shocked incredulous disappointment is the place that calling people "leftaliban" and making multiple pointed references to fascism comes from.
I'd buy this, maybe, if the fact didn't remain that OSC has mounted a consistent campaign of lies and incendiary language against *whatever* it is that bothers him so much. Im shocked and incredulous at the behavior of many politicians and groups and I'm not tempted to use such name-calling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys.
Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Remember though, Malech's wife knows that he will *never* cheat, and *never* get drunk. We don't know why, but still.
It was very true to life: I went to a very liberal university where ROTC guys came to school in uniform, and of course my profs called them "soldier boy" and we all sneered. Cause that's *what you do* at liberal universities. And OSC is tapped into that. He knows the deal, even if you don't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No idea it was that bad, good thing I've never read it. I couldn't handle the level of disappointment I would likely acquire.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Empire wasn't up my alley, but I got Hidden Empire as a gift.
It was liberal in a way that kmboots would appreciate, I think. Assuming I know anything about her. Which is dangerous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now I am curious? What about it do you think I would appreciate?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Scott, do you actually believe there are no other laws which discriminate against homosexuals and you're just having fun with banter? Or are you suggesting Card's statement is right?
Does scott r not even comment on stuff this basic? Is this really the norm?
Scott R doesn't generally post after about 3pm.
Rakeesh, you need to read what I said again. There are laws that discriminate against same sex couples (assuming that non-inclusion is synonymous with discriminate).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It was very true to life: I went to a very liberal university where ROTC guys came to school in uniform, and of course my profs called them "soldier boy" and we all sneered. Cause that's *what you do* at liberal universities. And OSC is tapped into that. He knows the deal, even if you don't.
I remember when that book came out, and a bunch of my Princeton grad school friends read that free chapter with the seminar (which was supposed to take place at Princeton). My buddy Colin sent me an email that said something like, "To be accurate, there need to be fewer 'soldier boy' comments and more ones like 'Your anecdote about that gutshot Iraqi reminds me of my own dissertation, in which I discuss ancient Polynesian navigational methods in the context of...'"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That does sound more realistic. I'm not saying college students aren't self-involved (they are), but this stuff just wasn't what happens in real life. People are uncomfortable around soldiers because soldiers deal in a world so alien and so scary to most people, that they don't even want to think about it. If anything, their biggest complaint in my experience is being ignored.
And if people scoff at soldiers, it's out of nervousness, not malice, most of the time. I know some soldiers, as most of us do, and In my limited experience, the reason people sometimes have trouble speaking to them is because they're unsure of what, if anything, they can possibly say. There's some fear in that, but it's the fear of the unknown, not the fear of an enemy. Reading that, I felt like Card didnt even know any soldiers. I don't know any who would so aggressively shame others in that way. The soldiers I know are proud of what they do and who they are, and they don't seem to *need* to shame others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
EMPIRE SPOILERS DO NOT READ, IT IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAIR AND I AM JUST BEING MEAN OR WHATEVER:
~~
a manly conservative hero barely fails to stop a liberal insurrectionist group from coldly assassinating the conservative president of the united states because they don't like who voters chose in an open democracy and such. so the manly conservative hero goes to save new york city. new york city needs to be saved from liberals who are openly revolting and assaulting the city as insurrectionists! they are using mechs and fancy other things which are gunning down anyone in uniform without pause. it turns out the liberals trying to take over the united states with assassination and armed revolt are being backed heavily by a liberal financier who strongly resembles George Soros! Manly conservative hero saves a bunch of new york city cops from the liberals which are gunning them down on sight, whose mechs are, again, firing on anyone in uniform. eventually the manly conservative hero gets coldly assassinated, shot in the head by his secretary who was secretly working for the liberals. so everyone else who has been fighting the liberals from the beginning go "this is an important lesson about setting aside our differences and replacing them with differences that happen to be against liberals" and then unite against liberals to the liberal lair and capture the liberal leader, stopping the campaign of the liberal army trying to kill and replace the U.S. government in an open insurrection saving the US from liberals. the moral of the story is obviously that it is totally not about partisanship. the book is definitely not trying to take sides! do not assume that at all. that would be wrong.
~~~
like I said the book and its ostensibly explained levels of impartiality were just so The End for me :/
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kmboots:
At several points the female protagonist makes a couple sacrifices for the less fortunate that reminded me of things you've said about the Christian faith. I don't know that you'd appreciate the entire book, but a significant part of it deals with thing I seem to recall being high on your list of priorities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting. Thanks for explaining, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I swear there were a couple lines in there that were extracts of your posts... Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That does sound more realistic. I'm not saying college students aren't self-involved (they are), but this stuff just wasn't what happens in real life.
And the weirdest thing was, these were supposed to be grad students.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really, that was the kind of thing that, I think, made Empire more than a book I just disagree with, and actually made it pretty bad.
That is: it's the kind of book where its very, *very* clear that everybody is saying and doing things that are necessary for the author to be making his point, his very, very emphatic and insistent point.
I can relatively easily dismiss the vanity in Card's typical character building scenes: the ones where the protagonist jumps to highly specific conclusions about complex situations with minimal evidence and then reveals it to someone else through dialogue, and we find out that the other person reaches an equally specific conclusion. That is, Card likes to write characters who are incapable of making volitional mistakes: they never believe anything for the wrong reasons, and so they are never at fault for being wrong, even if they are ever wrong.
I can forgive that, because it's just vanity- just Card pumping up his characters and dazzling his readers with his own brilliance. But it's when you get these kinds of scenes, where people are really just doing things to make the author's point, not their own, that I get really sidetracked. Which is weird, because there are 50 better ways to convey Malech as a character than to present him with a room full of empty-headed people. Couldn't he have an actual, realistic interaction with a real anti-war type who doesn't just act like a complete fool? Doesn't that make him seem even *smarter*?
But no, the characterization suffers so that the decore can be mocked.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
quote: EMPIRE SPOILERS DO NOT READ, IT IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAIR AND I AM JUST BEING MEAN OR WHATEVER:
~~
a manly conservative hero barely fails to stop a liberal insurrectionist group from coldly assassinating the conservative president of the united states because they don't like who voters chose in an open democracy and such. so the manly conservative hero goes to save new york city. new york city needs to be saved from liberals who are openly revolting and assaulting the city as insurrectionists! they are using mechs and fancy other things which are gunning down anyone in uniform without pause. it turns out the liberals trying to take over the united states with assassination and armed revolt are being backed heavily by a liberal financier who strongly resembles George Soros! Manly conservative hero saves a bunch of new york city cops from the liberals which are gunning them down on sight, whose mechs are, again, firing on anyone in uniform. eventually the manly conservative hero gets coldly assassinated, shot in the head by his secretary who was secretly working for the liberals. so everyone else who has been fighting the liberals from the beginning go "this is an important lesson about setting aside our differences and replacing them with differences that happen to be against liberals" and then unite against liberals to the liberal lair and capture the liberal leader, stopping the campaign of the liberal army trying to kill and replace the U.S. government in an open insurrection saving the US from liberals. the moral of the story is obviously that it is totally not about partisanship. the book is definitely not trying to take sides! do not assume that at all. that would be wrong.
Well, why didn't you guys SAY so??
I'm totally in for THAT. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys.
Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
Some of them are only a little delusional. Posted by SnuggleSmacks (Member # 12832) on :
So, I've stepped away from this issue for a few days, and my feelings haven't changed. I think I'll pack up everything from Card and put it in my attic for a while. Some of the things I have are irreplaceable, or difficult to find, and half of it is personally autographed to me, so I hate to give it all up and regret it later.
Being in NC, near Greensboro, I have access to the Rhino Times, which often contains attitudes from Card which I don't agree with. What hit me hardest about this particular article was not only the stance that Card takes, but the completely ridiculous and patently false statements he makes to support his position. I'm used to Card's writing being lucid and sharp, even when I disagree with him.
The absolutely verifiable facts are these: In this state, many of the counties, as well as many large private employers, have been offering benefits for "domestic partners" for many years. I worked for such a company for 12 years. This included same- and opposite-sex partners and their dependents. This means if you were a man, and you moved your girlfriend and her child in with you, you'd be able to provide health insurance for all of you.
The day after the Amendment 1 vote, the County Commissioner in Mecklenburg County (about an hour away) sent a memo throughout the county board asking when he would receive the new benefits information excluding same-sex partner benefits, "to be in compliance" with the new amendment. He apparently didn't realize that straight couples would be equally effected.
The level of ignorance surrounding this Amendment was palpable. I use the word "ignorance" advisedly...exit polls proved that most people had no idea what they were voting for, and no idea what impact it would have on domestic partnerships of straight couples. Some people thought they were voting in favor of gay marriage. Most were unaware that gay marriage was already illegal through separate legislature, and that if the amendment failed, absolutely nothing would change. This amendment truly passed through sheer ignorance.
Fact: the rights of minorities should never be up for popular vote. There is a historical name for it: "Tyranny of the Majority."
Fact: I'm an Independent, with definite leanings toward the left, so I'm not sure if I truly qualify as a "liberal" but I had my tubes tied many years ago, Mr. Card. I don't want your children.
Fact: The population of the Earth is approaching 7 billion people. At the current US standard of living, the Earth's resources can only support 2 billion. Luckily for us (sarcasm) the majority of our population lives well below the poverty line. If we continue to enforce the idea of "traditional" marriage for the sake of procreation, our children won't have much of a planet left.
Fact: "Traditional" marriage was an exchange of property: herds, land, chattel (women) etc. and was largely polygamous. I don't see anyone campaigning for a return to those traditions.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, I do agree with you SnuggleSnacks. I'm not sure if OSC's version of reality is... a healthy happy place. It would be worse if gays were forced into the closet into loveless marriages, unable to just be themselves and be honest. It's not healthy for folks to marry without love to have tons of children they might not even want "for the good of society." But, the world is changing. More people are waking up and realizing that being gay isn't evil, it's a variation. Like left handedness. He doesn't get that right in UT 2 men who were married in MA got into an accident and could one of the men visit his partner? No. His right to see his husband before he died was taken from him and it's just not right. Marriage as an institution is evolving, so is the way we view gay people. These folks must catch up.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I don't agree with George Takai on his political stances (I'm not even touching the SSM stuff with a 10 foot pole), but I still think he's one of the funniest people on my Facebook newsfeed.
I don't think Mr. Card is hateful in that article I think he is adamant. He doesn't sugar coat things and he isn't politically correct. He offends on a regular basis. He's Graff. He's a Speaker. You don't have to agree with him, but he does what he thinks is right saying things the way he sees it.
To not agree with homosexuality does not make one homophobic. Not liking Obama doesn't make you racist. Teasing someone doesn't make you a bully (even if it isn't nice). He didn't say that that all homosexuals needed to be locked away because their disease is catching.
He stated that he didn't see the need for SSM because the main reasons same-sex couples want marriage have been addressed. If you disagree with that conclusion, fine. Don't read more hate into his words than he meant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Speakers are supposed to tell the true stories of the lives of their subjects. Card routinely, when he discusses them, tells lies about homosexuals and liberals.
They're faking adult relationships, they want to ban teaching 'traditional relationships' or whatever his phrase was, they want to destroy the institution of marriage, there aren't laws discriminating against them...we could go on.
I don't know if he is actually hateful towards homosexuals, though it would explain a lot. I've got less uncertainty about his thoughts on liberals, but I still wouldn't say for sure he hated them. But when Card talks about liberals and homosexuals? No. He's not a Speaker. I don't know if you've read many of his columns on those subjects, but at this point he is eithe willfully ignorant or lying-unless you believe he's right when he says those sorts of things above.
You're welcome to, but Card deserves to be called on it. If he's going to say liberals and homosexuals want to wipe people will thankfully call him a damn liar for it.
quote:The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children's education. That's what those signs on the lawns are about.
This is not what a Speaker would say. It is, in fact, a lie. I don't know why he tells that lie, but it's not somehow unfair to say so.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I just hope Dan Simmons isn't going to go the same way now. Maybe he got all the preaching out of his system with his latest novel Flashback (His "Empire") and goes back to telling stories again.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him opinionated and no more so than you. I am always so surprised at the people calling others close-minded when many times they are just as close-minded as the people they are accusing. Can't you see that you are not looking at something from a different perspective?
He speaks the truth as HE sees it. That doesn't make anyone a liar, though you may disagree. His opinion is more popular than many want admit and that really makes people angry and upset. That still doesn't make him a hate-filled fear monger. It makes him an opinionated man with an audience. I think the last statement is what pisses people off, too.
Addendum: I work in the public school system. I've seen the nature and content of material that was to be taught change over the past 10 years. It is sliding more liberal. Whether or not you believe that is a good thing or not can be debated, but Mr. Card is not wrong in his assertion. He just likes to swing the fact like a big bat that makes a big mark when it finds contact with something.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family.
I would say the first sentence here is false, but the second is true. Card need not be a liar to say the things he says. He may only be factually mistaken about the motives of gay rights types.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
He doesn't blame homosexuals. He blames the extreme left. There are instances when that is the same, but many times it is not.
How is the fisrt statement not true? Are opinions that a person agrees with fact and all others opinions? He even addresses that the left does not have evidence to support their assertions. He's trying to show that his opinion is more valid than another OPINION. Again, you can argue whether or not you agree with that, but it dosn't suddenly make one side fact and the other opinion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The way the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is drawn in a lot of internet discussion isn't very illuminating. The way the words are actually defined, like in a dictionary, a fact is just an opinion (belief) that happens to actually be true. The things Rakeesh listed, that Card says about gays and gay-rights activists, are false. Therefore it's a fact that they're false.
Sometimes (on the internet) the word "fact" is used to mean something that's not just true, but that every reasonable person who's seen the evidence can agree is true. When students bring this definition into my classroom, it makes me sad. But even by this definition, it's a "fact" that there are laws that discriminate against gays.
ETA: and it's also a "fact" that gay rights advocates don't want to undermine the traditional family.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, why am I closed minded for feeling frustrated over him putting out inaccurate information about gays, the left, the sort of rights gays have and the whole nine yards? The problem is his "opinions" make it difficult for a group of people. Gay folks are being tormented, disowned by their parents, beat up, driven to suicide and he's not really helping with this. He's just adding to the hate, and who needs more of that? He really should educate himself on this issue before writing these articles. You can't even blame people for being mad about them. If you are all nasty, rude and offensive about a group of people, well, folks will respond to that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Loving the sinner and hating the sin interestingly enough includes loving those who hate you and your 'sins'.
Whether that hate is real or perceived is beside the point.
I experienced an interesting phenomenon while I was a missionary in Taiwan. A person would initially laugh or scorn me for the message I was sharing, but the attitude, especially the humility behind the message would give them pause, and they might listen. Upon being converted they would rejoice, and eagerly throw themselves into their new religion. Now here's the interesting part. Some people would eagerly go forth and share the message as I had tried to share it, others would go out and laugh at their friends and family who still shared their old beliefs. They'd look for opportunities to bring it up and mock those who still held to the old beliefs. Seriously, people who had been worshiping at those temples and praying to those same idols not two weeks ago, talking about the idiocy of idol worship.
I call that phenomenon persecuted persecutors. From the phrase "How fast the persecuted become the persecutors". We can kid ourselves into thinking our persecuting is OK because really the victims are the people we are aligned with. The other side are a bunch of stupid bullies who don't need to be taken seriously much less loved. In doing that, we become the very thing we are fighting against, intolerance.
We gnash our teeth when our opponents bully us. We scream when they go to the ballot box. We mock when they engage us in conversation or speak their minds. We don't tolerate them anywhere, we certainly don't want to understand them or love them. We are intolerant.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I... I am not really sure if these folks who are tormenting a minority based on a few mistranslated scriptures can say they are being persecuted anymore than folks who were OK with segregation were being persecuted. I'm sorry, but there are bigger issues out there than two consenting adults getting married and having the same benefits straight people get to have. I think these folks should really take care of the holes in their own fences rather than rail about gay marriage. Why not try to push for HEALTHY marriages if they are so concerned with the state of marriage in this country? Why not do something else? It seems illogical to me. Many churches have their problems but rather than fix them, they want to focus on fixing the larger society when they could be focusing on how to help THEIR communities and their flock. It makes no sense. Homosexuality is a NON ISSUE.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him opinionated and no more so than you. I am always so surprised at the people calling others close-minded when many times they are just as close-minded as the people they are accusing. Can't you see that you are not looking at something from a different perspective?
No. It's not just a matter of the actions of 'the left' and homosexuals being an attack in fact if not intent. That's not the way things are because while anyone is perfectly entitled to believe that (though personally I think it's silly), Card goes quite a lot further in much of his rhetoric on the subject: the left hates traditional values, traditional families, and people who defend them. This is an accusation he's leveled more than once, and so when he calls it an attack he's not just referring to the sort of attack that occurs when well-meaning people who disagree take action to attempt to effect a change.
As for opinionated...well, yes. I have no problem with him being opinionated, or anyone. If you look back, you'll find nothing I said or even suggested otherwise. I'm not sure why you felt that was a gotcha, aretee.
Now as for being closed-minded...well, we're likely not going to agree on this, but I'll say it anyway: being 'closed-minded' towards being closed-minded isn't some sort of "Ahhh-ha!" paradox. It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either. Card is absolutely entitled, as is anyone, to believe what he believes and I've no problem with it. He and the rest of NOM can, if it pleases them, cram their children's heads full of this anti-left, anti-homosexual nonsense to their heart's content and while I'll disagree, I won't disagree like this.
But when he takes to the public forum and attempts to make sure his religious values are kept crammed into our laws, then yeah, I've got a beef. And it's not one anyone is going to scare me off of having by pointing out the 'contradiction' in being intolerant of intolerance. I'm thoroughly tolerant of intolerance, but try and sneak it into law, and that's a problem.
quote:He speaks the truth as HE sees it. That doesn't make anyone a liar, though you may disagree. His opinion is more popular than many want admit and that really makes people angry and upset. That still doesn't make him a hate-filled fear monger. It makes him an opinionated man with an audience. I think the last statement is what pisses people off, too.
You don't actually know this anymore than I do, aretee. That he speaks the truth as HE sees it. I suspect he does, but there is more than one way to be a liar, and not specifically intending to tell a lie doesn't preclude one from being a liar.
Now...heh. As for being angry he's got an audience, well. It's a bit funny you'd mention that. I think a big part of the reason Card's rhetoric towards 'the left' and homosexuals has steadily grown in vitriol and hostility over the past ten years is that he is aware of what pollsters know: opposition to SSM and intolerance of homosexuals in general has been, for the past decade, steadily eroding.
In terms of social issues, the pace of this public opinion change has been meteoric. You, and I, and Card, and the rest of NOM are perfectly aware, even if they don't wish to admit it, that in another decade much less a generation, this sort of amendment will be impossible. It won't even be possible to be a member of NOM as it currently exists and be respected, even among conservatives. It will simply be a toxic position politically speaking, with not enough people to make it viable. For someone who believes, as Card believes, that 'the left' and homosexuals hate and are attacking traditional values, do you imagine it's possible that doesn't make him angry?
quote:Addendum: I work in the public school system. I've seen the nature and content of material that was to be taught change over the past 10 years. It is sliding more liberal. Whether or not you believe that is a good thing or not can be debated, but Mr. Card is not wrong in his assertion. He just likes to swing the fact like a big bat that makes a big mark when it finds contact with something.
Note: as a human beings in a Western, post-industrial society, our culture and our politics will inexorably over time swing more to the liberal. He can whine about it all he likes-and goodness knows, he does, but it doesn't make it especially, hatefully noteworthy.
quote:How is the fisrt statement not true? Are opinions that a person agrees with fact and all others opinions? He even addresses that the left does not have evidence to support their assertions. He's trying to show that his opinion is more valid than another OPINION. Again, you can argue whether or not you agree with that, but it dosn't suddenly make one side fact and the other opinion.
It's not true because Card assigns motives. If he were to point out that liberals and homosexuals, though with honorable and virtuous intentions, were trying to enact political changes that would harm 'the family' (whatever the hell that means, and among social conservatives it's certainly a conveniently shifting term), I would think he was being silly and foolish, but I wouldn't for a second question whether he was being hateful. I also wouldn't start to wonder if he was just a liar.
But aside from that, Card can have the opinion that homosexuality and SSM would be somehow detrimental to traditional, hetero marriage (which as everyone knows has been the way things always were!) if he likes, but the evidence in support of that opinion are poor. You simply cannot arrive at that conclusion without some serious problems. Questions of what the 'traditional' family actually has been, for example. Questions of, if it is actually under threat, what really threatens it. Questions of whether two homosexuals marrying in the eyes of the law and living together in peaceful love somehow hurts their neighbors, the traditional white Christian Mr. and Mrs. Jones with 2.3 kids and a puppy and a picket fence.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Some conservatives support gay marriage. And churches... In fact, they have children who somehow choose to be born to folks whose have been traditionally anti-gay. Somehow these parents decide NOT to abandon their gay child but to love and support them instead.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The other issue with Card's articles is that it is spreading misinformation by passing off unsubstantiated opinion as fact. It's propaganda, the kind that used to be banned under FCC radio regulations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The way the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is drawn in a lot of internet discussion isn't very illuminating. The way the words are actually defined, like in a dictionary, a fact is just an opinion (belief) that happens to actually be true. The things Rakeesh listed, that Card says about gays and gay-rights activists, are false. Therefore it's a fact that they're false.
Sometimes (on the internet) the word "fact" is used to mean something that's not just true, but that every reasonable person who's seen the evidence can agree is true. When students bring this definition into my classroom, it makes me sad. But even by this definition, it's a "fact" that there are laws that discriminate against gays.
ETA: and it's also a "fact" that gay rights advocates don't want to undermine the traditional family.
I agree with everything in your post pre-edit.
But this one seems pretty false to me.
Certainly, I think it's a fact that many gay rights advocates don't want to do that. But I think it's just as much a fact that a few of them really do. Did you mean that the majority don't want to, or have you just never encountered such people?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The other issue with Card's articles is that it is spreading misinformation by passing off unsubstantiated opinion as fact. It's propaganda, the kind that used to be banned under FCC radio regulations.
Ah, the good old days, when we could ban people for saying stuff we didn't like. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I believe in Canada there is still a seldom used law against intentional public misinformation. But I think it has been historically difficult to prove.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Certainly, I think it's a fact that many gay rights advocates don't want to do that. But I think it's just as much a fact that a few of them really do. Did you mean that the majority don't want to, or have you just never encountered such people?
That's just an association fallacy: "some gay rights activists are bears" (no joke intended), has no effect on the veracity of the statement: "gay rights activists are bears." Because the implicit aim of the latter statement is to establish a positive rather than casual correlation, where one may or may not exist.
That is, some of them being of a certain disposition or opinion does not *necessarily* correlate that opinion with the movement being examined. Instead, you should examine the avowed aims of the movement, and see whether those do or do not, to your satisfaction, jell with the actions of that movement.
But, in terms of your possible objections to the statement: "gay rights activists don't want to... x" I think you have to take the statement entirely in context. "It is not the immediate aim or the ultimate goal of most gay rights activists, nor of the gay rights movement as a whole, to undermine the traditional family." I find that statement to be relatively concordant with the evidence. It is not, generally, of interest or particular advantage to gay rights activists to attack traditional family structures, beyond the repression of homosexuality as a common problem in traditionalist cultures and households.
The rebel iconoclast culture of previous generations of gays, especially in the 90's, has changed in recent years. Many gay people, including gay activists, seek to present themselves and live as relatively traditional, non-reactionary types, with nuclear families and ordinary lifestyles. This is just based on my own anecdotal experience, but I think gay culture in America is changing now that there are gay people starting families who grew up in communities that accepted them at early ages. If you don't have to be a rebel to be openly gay, and you don't have to fight off repression and self-hatred, then you're as likely to live a traditional life as anyone else. 9-5 jobs, and stay-at-home parenting arrangements come as naturally to gays as to straights. Just as political conservatism and economic liberalism do, if you are raised in an environment where being gay doesn't dictate every other aspect of your life for you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I agree with all of what you said there Orincoro.
The only objection I was raising came from the statement taken on its own, without applying the subtext you've pointed out.
Your rephrase of Destineer's statement seems to me like something he'd agree with, and I agree it's pretty much a fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The only way one could say SSM advocates are intentionally attempting to undermine 'the traditional family' (which as it's used in the US by social conservatives has more to do with 1950s television and films than any real examination of the history of American family structures) is if you also believe that they don't want to undermine it but rather expand it to embrace romantic committed love between same-sex couples.
But it only takes a few minutes of actually interacting with serious SSM supporters to discover that they're fine with 'traditional families'. What they're not fine with is that being the only legal and cultural game in town-with the usually unspoken but in this case quite explicitly spoken claim that the only way to be 'family' must be either straight marriage or in the ballpark of straight marriage (common law, that sort of thing).
Anyone is entitled to believe that if they like, and they can believe it with all the fervor in their hearts, but there are some beliefs that are simply untrue or unsupported by evidence. While I believe the belief that SSM is bad for families falls in the untrue category, it cannot be argued rationally or honestly that it fits the unsupported category...
Unless we start allowing religious faith to begin informing the discussion. That is the only foundation for the oft-claimed idea that SSM is bad and harmful to society. It's past time we compelled the debate to accept that, instead of all of this hazy BS about how dangerous SSM is and how much liberals hate families, because the fact is if it is and they do, it can't be proven. It can only be believed.
Which, to bring things back around, is fine, aretee. It really is. But say so. If Card (and you?) believe SSM is bad for reasons of religious faith, if that is the real basis for opposition-and it is-then do your faith the honor of flying under your true flag. And if you're going to put forward non-religious reasons to oppose it, be prepared to have those reasons challenged. And if they fail to measure up, then if the opposition to SSM is honest they'll be discarded.
Of course that's not what happens. Always there is the fundamental religious angle that for some reason is supposed to not be challenged after the secular reasons are thwarted. Because we're not quite the sort of country anymore where on this issue opponents can say, "Because God says so," and that'll do it. Thank goodness.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I always saw Card's hedging about that latter issue to be a sign of something like weakness. He has said in the past, for example, that he wouldn't support creating laws against homosexual behaviors, but doesn't support repealing those laws. That's a bloodless, cowardly position in my estimation, based more on the convenience of having such laws on the books, than on any real principle. If your principles dictate that you not support such laws, then I think your principles should probably dictate support for their repeal.
But this fence sitting; this defensive posture of a preferred, exclusive status for Christian values that have little to do with even the conservative conception of how government is supposed to work, is the worst of all worlds for me. And the really horrible part of it is that in itself- very much of the Christian conservative agenda is *diametrically* opposed to the accepted, oft-cited values of modern American conservatism. But the GOP still wants it both ways, and ultimately, the same people who want evolution out of their schools and gays shunned and ostracized also want lower taxes, hawkish foreign policy, a strong military, and fear government regulation. Most of these people, all said and done, are accepting of the deeply inconsistent nature of their respective views. "I want it the way I want it," is something you are prone to hear from anyone, and to see in the actions of anyone who pays little mind to the big picture.
In a sense, it's not terribly different from those liberals who want the material advantages of a consumer-driven economy, *and* heavy regulation of trade to support local job creation, and higher taxes to support higher government spending. You have to fix in your mind that your avowed goals, as a member of a changing society, demand concomitant sacrifices that you may not actually be prepared to make, nor would you make voluntarily. Now, I'm not one to point a finger and say: "you use these products, therefore you are philosophically bankrupt," just as I wouldn't say: "you take government money, and are against government spending, therefore you are a hypocrite." That doesn't make you inconsistent, but it *would* make you inconsistent if your avowed aims resulted in the loss of something you wanted, and you cried foul at that result. And that is exactly what this issue represents to me: religious conservatives cry foul at the results of their own political philosophies, and their natural ends.
It reminds me of a Czech film about the onset of communist reforms in Soviet Czechoslovakia mid-century: Three Seasons in Hell. An idealistic young poet waxes utopian about the benefits of communism and universal brotherhood, and soon he finds himself and his artist collective on the wrong end of a serious beating by the Cheka, because their homes are being taken away from them. The kind of heartache that people are capable of causing themselves, even for believing too deeply and too blindly in anything, can be profound.
[ May 20, 2012, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: That he speaks the truth as HE sees it. I suspect he does, but there is more than one way to be a liar, and not specifically intending to tell a lie doesn't preclude one from being a liar.
I disagree. I believe that the intention to mislead is exactly what makes the distinction between telling a lie or not. Whether it be a lie of commission or omission doesn't matter, but the intention is what matters.
Misleading without intention is called being wrong, not a liar.
[ May 21, 2012, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We can kid ourselves into thinking our persecuting is OK because really the victims are the people we are aligned with. The other side are a bunch of stupid bullies who don't need to be taken seriously much less loved. In doing that, we become the very thing we are fighting against, intolerant.
Well said!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... being 'closed-minded' towards being closed-minded isn't some sort of "Ahhh-ha!" paradox. It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either ...
+1
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is a difference between being intolerant of the concept of intolerance and feeling you have license to be a rude jerk to those you feel are intolerant.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either.
+1
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either.
+1
-1
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a difference between being intolerant of the concept of intolerance and feeling you have license to be a rude jerk to those you feel are intolerant.
You're not listening. The issue isn't that I think opponents of SSM are intolerant (though they are, it's really not a question of opinion as the word is used), my problem with them lies almost entirely when they won't be straightforward with their reasons for opposition to SSM. When they try to prevent SSM from being recognized, they're not simply being intolerant, they're trying to inject their religious beliefs directly into our system of laws-in some cases right into our bloody constitutions. I don't care if they don't feel like that's what they're doing, because it simply is-there aren't any reliable secular justifications for doing so. If you dispute that, by all means share some.
I don't think, for example, that we need to send in SWAT teams followed by CPS to rescue, say, children in a congregation that preaches against marrying outside one's race or religion. As much as I personally disagree vehemently with the one and substantially with the other, that's their business. But when they try and enact laws that make it illegal to do so, even if it's only for their own faith, then things change.
Then, speaking for myself, I'm hostile to the idea, which some mistake for rudeness. We've got a system in our country hinging, among other things, on the idea that there must be something besides the religious belief of however many of its citizens before we'll start legislating. My tone and attitude changes radically if I were trying to for example change someone's mind about it being a sin to be homosexual, versus trying to relegate homosexuals to second class secular citizenship. Someone wants to excommunicate a homosexual? Well, I'll probably think it's horrid, and I'll probably be angry, but in the end, I won't feel (very) violated. But keep that crap out of our laws. I don't care how many religious conservatives there are, the laws don't belong to them, and when they behave so, they're abusing their citizenship, and I'll continue to say so. It's a practice that merits hostility...at the very least after the sixteenth or seventieth time we've asked for non-religious justifications and been met with junk science, painted over religion, or silence.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pretty much. You can have your religion all day long, but your religion needs to STAY out of POLITICS.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, not even that, for me. Religion informing one's politics? Fine with me. Not just for practical reasons-it can hardly be stopped-but because I simply see no problem with it.
But that can't be the only step. I simply will not respect that position, as it applies to lawmaking. The obvious example being murder, barred by all religions everywhere. But the reason it's in the lawbooks ain't because there's a picture of murder somewhere on a stone tablet with a slash through it. One must find the secular reason a religious restriction is on the books, else it runs contrary to our principles. Find a reason why a sin is bad in secular terms, and go nuts! But nobody should be allowed to skip that step.
Unless they're willing to let other people skip that step, which of course nobody is.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While all that is great (really, not sarcastic, I've voiced nearly that exact opinion in the past here) it is unrelated to how you treat people who hold contrary positions to your own.
I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.
My point, which you didn't address (and possibly BBs) is that when we treat people who think differently, even dangerously, without the regard that all humans deserve, then in trying to kill monsters we have become monsters our selves.
Two wrongs do not equal a right, no matter how much math you try and throw at the equation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Douglas Adams used to write about this phenomenon. That the referencing of religion over secular ethical bases of belief is so engrained in our social DNA, that we regard, or will accept the depiction of, any challenge to a religiously held belief as an offense approaching rudeness and intolerance.
This is of course where you get christians saying that they are "oppressed" in America, and *believing* it, because the rules for dealing with christians are supposed to be different. We find ourselves, often without realizing it, treating a religion based belief with the kind of kid gloves we would not wear, were we having an actual argument with someone dealing with us on equal terms. But because religious arguments do not deal on equal terms, a person espousing a religiously inspired belief needs not vigorously or soundly defend this belief, only offer the appearance of doing so. At the same time, this person can frustrate and tacitly offend others by refusing to deal honestly, and on equal terms. So people do get aggressive, and of course, they are called intolerant, when really they *are* intolerant, but usually only of the way they are being treated.
OSC offers the offense of not dealing honestly with others in his "essays," on this subject. And I don't just refer to out-and-out lying on his part, though that does happen. But the approach- the assumption, and implication, that any challenge to his thinking is based on the lowest of all motives, is deeply insulting, and is meant to be. Just because he's wrong, doesn't mean he's stupid. He knows how to get the upper hand, and he is not above this type of manipulation to get it. If you make out the opposition to be unreasonable and unapproachable and downright evil, then you will reap these kinds of reactions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Part of the difficulty of debating a mix of religion and secular topics is that religion by definition involves believing something beyond proof. I can understand how it could be frustrating when faith is used as a catch all for any logic deficiency in a conversation. But I have also had many fulfilling and honest discussions with people of faith where they did not use their beliefs as a crutch or a club, and I try very hard to give someone's views the benefit of the doubt until proven to be sinister or manipulative. I don't always succeed, but I do try.
When it comes to OSC, some his stated views about the obvious motivation of his opposition do baffle me. I can see why someone would find them to be manipulative, considering we all know how intelligent a man he is, so I do not cry foul, but I still hold a hope in my heart that my childhood personal hero would not knowingly stoop to such tactics and that he is instead being pulled off kilter by the sheer weight of his individual convictions.
Either way it still makes me sad.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I wouldn't share my personal views on his motivations on this forum. Not things I have a right to say anywhere, but nevertheless, I have them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not trying to be difficult or to start another melee, but I thought that that was exactly what you did two posts ago.
And of course you have them, everyone who has an opinion on the matter has them including myself.
I guess I just don't understand the post above this one, would you please clarify?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I still hold a hope in my heart that my childhood personal hero would not knowingly stoop to such tactics and that he is instead being pulled off kilter by the sheer weight of his individual convictions.
Clearly, it is not only religious people who take things on faith.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The sad thing boots is that it isn't faith, it only hope, quite a bit lower on the scale really.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While all that is great (really, not sarcastic, I've voiced nearly that exact opinion in the past here) it is unrelated to how you treat people who hold contrary positions to your own.
It's not unrelated-because it's not simply a matter of 'someone with a contrary position'. Whatever your personal opinion is on the subject, Stone_Wolf, I don't actually mind being disagreed with at all. Why I am disagreed with, and why I disagree with a given 'them', is very pertinent to the tone of conversation. Also the matter on which we disagree.
In any case, Stone_Wolf, when it comes to how we treat people we disagree with, do you really think you're the person who ought to be lecturing me on courteous interpersonal communication? Note: this is not an attempt to assign blame. It's only pointing out that you've been very open with your personal antagonism and dislike, so, y'know...bear that in mind. I'm sure there are lots of people who can lecture me if I'm being unkind or rude to someone who don't have an openly stated flagrant bias.
quote:I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.
There isn't actually a way to say that 'politely'.
quote:My point, which you didn't address (and possibly BBs) is that when we treat people who think differently, even dangerously, without the regard that all humans deserve, then in trying to kill monsters we have become monsters our selves.
Two wrongs do not equal a right, no matter how much math you try and throw at the equation.
Except that I did address it by pointing out how it wasn't entirely relevant. And 'monsters'? Really?
As for two wrongs not making a right...well that's a very nice bit of pithy wisdom, and it is indeed very useful as a guideline, but as reality is somewhat more complicated than a simple one plus one arithmetic problem. It's not normally right to punch someone in the face. If they punch you in the face, though, and you punch back in an attempt to defend yourself, then suddenly a wrong done in response to a wrong can be considered right.
Likewise here: it's not normally right to point out someone has arrived at a belief in a lazy and dishonest fashion, or that their behavior raises questions about whether or not they hate a given group.
...except when that is actually what's happening. Anybody can, at any time, describe a series of ideas that lead to opposition of SSM on anything but religious grounds. In fact many have tried. If this were the first stage of this discussion, then sure, I wouldn't be as confrontational about the matter.
But it's not. In fact it's been going on for decades. We're now at the umpteenth stage of opponents of SSM blocking or attempting to block equal citizenship for consenting adult homosexuals, and at every stage we ask what is supposed to be the old American question, "Can you give us a reason besides 'it's in the Bible'?" and at every stage, failure. The only way anyone can arrive at the notion that homosexuality ought to be relegated to second class status in terms of sexual relationships between adults is if they start out thinking it's a second class relationship between adults.
Which is fine, for anyone who thinks so! I think it's wrong, but fine. But they have to say so. There isn't any sort of moral or etiquette requirement to greet repeated evasions or deceptions with the usual amount of courtesy or scrutiny.
But even if there was, Stone_Wolf, you're in a poor position to lecture me about it. I'm not insisting you stop, or attempting to mock you for it, or even saying if you don't stop, we'll go around and around the merry go round again. I'm just pointing out what you're doing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
First off, thank you for speaking to me so civilly, I truly appreciate it.
quote:
quote:I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.
There isn't actually a way to say that 'politely'.
This I feel is the crux of our disagreement. I believe there really is a way to let someone know that you feel their actions or beliefs are wrong or personally detestable or even dangerous, without saying "I think YOU ARE wrong or personally detestable or dangerous. And I did it poorly with you, when I said "I really don't like you." I should have said, "I really don't like when your posts are...etc" or "I really do not like when you speak to people this particular way..." It wasn't just wrong of me per this point, it was just plain inaccurate. At time the things you say make me very angry, and it can be very frustrating to try and discussing things with you for me, but as a human being I wish you no ill will or any harm. I feel a big part of showing respect while disagreeing (which no doubt I did poorly during our fist fight) is giving people the benefit of the doubt about their motivations or insist that they are saying things that were not said in the current conversation. This could easily turn into me lecturing you, so I'm going to stop there, hopefully before any lecturing has occurred.
quote:Except that I did address it by pointing out how it wasn't entirely relevant.
People who disagree are at one end of the scale, people who are actively trying to oppress others are at the other. But it's the same scale, and the same point. Intolerance of their beliefs/actions does not entitle us to be intolerant of them as human beings.
quote:And 'monsters'? Really?
That's a quote from the film 8mm...though they might have pulled it from something else. The point is: Be careful when trying to stamp out intolerance that one does not become intolerant themselves.
quote: I'm sure there are lots of people who can lecture me if I'm being unkind or rude to someone who don't have an openly stated flagrant bias.
While I don't feel I have a flagrant bias, your main point is fair enough. I'm not trying to antagonize you, and given our history, I will keep in mind that that particular criticism should really come from someone else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I guess I just don't understand the post above this one, would you please clarify?
No.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How much consideration and respect must we afford this guy?
quote: “I had a way … I figured a way out — a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers — but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” he said.
“Build a great big, large fence — 50- or a 100-miles long — and put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out, feed them. And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”
How sweet and polite must we be to people who want to round up our friends behind an electrified fence?* If you insist that we must be polite and considerate of those who merely want to keep them second-class citizens, how far does that go?
This is the kind of person influencing votes in NC.
This is the kind of person who is fighting on Mr. Card's side of this battle.
*Beyond the sheer horrific evil of this, does he really think that little gay babies come from gays and lesbians mating? Talk about your unclear on the concept(ion).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You can say that his ideas are monstrous and lack all human compassion and that you will do everything in your power to oppose them...politely.
Or you could yell and scream at him about how much of a monster he is and deserves to be tortured to death by having rats sown into his stomach so they eat their way out.
And everything in between. He isn't listening to you anyway. Saying the first thing means -you- get to keep your cool and humanity intact.
ETA: Also being polite increases your chances of getting through and changing his mind...likely not a large increase, but a very small chance is greater then none whatsoever.
[ May 22, 2012, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
That "fence-in-the-lesbians-and-gays-and-electrify-their-cage" pastor may not be listening to impolite messages coming his way, but nonetheless I hope he is affected by public backlash at the moment. I suppose that's why his church website removed his contact email. I bet hundreds of (or more?) people have hurled angry emails at him, including me. I hope the sheer weight of a national furor toward him has some effect.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just, if these folks aren't being polite as they call peopel children playing dress up because they want to be honest about their sexuality rather than lie, then... it's so HARD to be polite to them. Now, I'm not calling anyone names, or at least trying not to. Possibly failing, but I don't know if these folks CAN change their minds. They are just so fixated on gays . So entrenched in the belief that they are right and gays are bad for society. How can you change that? Does it take having a gay son or daughter to realize that you are hurting them?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Sadly, even having a gay son or daughter does not always work, as I know from personal experience.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think for true systemic change to occur what is necessary is the old generation to die off, and the next generation who was raised in a different commonly accepted world view to "take the reigns".
For those who have changed personal views on major issues like that that I've seen it took bumping their (my) nose into the people who are truly affected by their theoretical views, and having to adjust accordingly.
Other people's anger rarely changes hearts, although if enough people are pissed off, it sure works to keep 'em quiet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seeing otherwise good people in everyday life being angry at a given thing can be a very effective technique to get people to reconsider, actually.
This notion that anger doesn't change minds is simply flawed. Over a single conversation, yes, of course, very little will change one's mind. You're also continually confusing in this context anger with outrage, and in any event when someone is being victimized the appropriate response IS to be angry about it. What matters is what is done with that.
In this case, it is peaceful, heated words and a repeated blunt insistence that a given set of beliefs must account for itself, rather than having the things necessary to believe it go unchallenged. A little anger to raise the bread is useful.
Of course, what would be most useful is if we as a society would stop hemming and hawing about how people who wish to oppress others are having their feelings hurt, and rather insisted if they don't want their feelings hurt, they need to illustrate how they're not actually oppressing anyone. And all of this would've been neatly avoided-I don't just mean this conversation, but the turmoil of the entire debate-if there wasn't an unspoken but nonetheless very real attitude in this country that the religious position is the default correct one in social issues-that religious dogma is where we should turn when we look at 'family values'.
But, if opponents won't step up and give us a reason besides 'God says so', then yeah, I'll settle for keeping them quiet, at least in matters of public policy. I don't barge into their churches on Sunday and demand they make their sermons more secular, either.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But, if opponents won't step up and give us a reason besides 'God says so', then yeah, I'll settle for keeping them quiet, at least in matters of public policy. I don't barge into their churches on Sunday and demand they make their sermons more secular, either.
Are you saying government is to a secularist as Church is to a believer? Or that the two are replacable by each other?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:How sweet and polite must we be to people who want to round up our friends behind an electrified fence?* If you insist that we must be polite and considerate of those who merely want to keep them second-class citizens, how far does that go?
A little bit ago, I stopped posting on a forum that was significantly more liberal than Hatrack. I also greatly reduced my posting time here. No longer feeling attacked by those who disagreed with me I was free to make up my mind without worrying about the verbal consequences. The result was I came to significantly more liberal positions on several different issues. That never happened when I felt I, or those things I believed, were being ridiculed, attacked, sneered at or found in contempt by the people I was talking to or just reading. Not that I’m having a deluge of posts now, but since I’ve been reading Hatrack a lot more, I once again see my positions lock-up or even go in the other direction. I have found that, for me at least, when I feel I or my beliefs are under attack I will not change them.
The point being it’s not about if you should grant some absurd extremist the courtesy of polite conversation, it’s that for many of us: when you’re rude, insulting, contemptuous, smug or just plain condescending it’s going to have the exact opposite effect of what I presume you want to have. Unless you just want to feel awesome about yourself for being so much more correct that others in which case I guess whatever makes you feel better.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe that tendency to "lock-up" when faced with truth is something you should examine in yourself.
I am not saying that it is an uncommon response, but it isn't a useful or reasonable one and it is part of the equation that you can control now you aware of it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, I'm very flawed, but that's not relevant to the point I'm making.
Ohh, and "when faced with truth" is an example of something I find incredibly smug.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You said that you changed your opinion. I assumed that was because you found the new opinion to be true. I am not sure what is smug about that. I am not saying that every difference of opinion is true.
What you wrote may not have been relevant to the point you were making. I was making a point of my own.
I don't expect that God Himself is going to change the opinion of people like the pastor I referenced above. I do think that there is value in being quite clear that some opinions are not just "different" but unacceptable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My interpretation of what Hobbes said isn't "locking up when faced with truth" but "defensive when faced with antagonism, and therefore not open minded".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. I understand that. His lack of open-mindedness in certain situations is something he can change.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why should he? I mean it, why should it be on the person who is having scorn heaped on them to get over being crapped on instead of the person doing the crapping?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Part of the difficulty of debating a mix of religion and secular topics is that religion by definition involves believing something beyond proof.
This is very very wrong under any reasonable standard, at least if argued fairly against anyone with a strong philosophical and theological background.
e: My friend's blog, I would like to make a dare for you to argue your case in the comments sections of say the latest post; let me know how it goes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why should he? I mean it, why should it be on the person who is having scorn heaped on them to get over being crapped on instead of the person doing the crapping?
Because he is the one who, at least by his own statement, was holding defensively to wrong positions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blayne: I'm not clear on what you are saying isn't a reasonable standard.
Boots: So, if you are "right" you can treat people like crap with immunity?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where did I say that, exactly? How is telling people that they are wrong (when they are wrong) treating them like crap?
Though it does seem like it is perfectly acceptable in some circles to treat gay people like crap.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blayne: I'm not clear on what you are saying isn't a reasonable standard.
You're mentally side stepping the need to enter into substantiated or logical discussion by automatically assuming a lack of reasoned thought from those who would discuss topic from a religious perspective.
You are taking it as a "given" that there isn't "proof" and this is very weak statement that I do not believe nessasarily or automatically holds.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: You didn't say that exactly, but it is implied, plus you asked how polite etc do we have to be to that preacher. Pointing out when someone is wrong isn't crapping on someone. If done politely. Treating people like crap while pointing out their are wrong is crapping on someone.
Blayne: I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying. I was most assuredly -not- saying that I assume a lack of reasoned thought from religious people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is it worse than herding them into areas surrounded by electric fences till they die off?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Worse? No. Silly question.
How about is it just as rude as suggesting that gays be herded and wrangled? Not -as- rude. Are you aspiring to be as rude as crazy people boots?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. Just saying that you have odd priorities.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And I'm just saying that just because you are right about something and the other person is wrong doesn't mean you now have permission to be a jerk to them.
Of course you -can- be a jerk to them, but then that means you are acting like a jerk doesn't it? Their bad behavior doesn't make you less responsible for your bad behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you equate letting them know that their opinions are unacceptable with being a jerk?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And I'm just saying that just because you are right about something and the other person is wrong doesn't mean you now have permission to be a jerk to them.
This doesn't mean anything. I have permission to be a jerk to someone practically anytime I want. It can be about as trivial or as monumental an issue as I want; for instance, I can be a jerk to someone because they think transformers II was a great movie, or I can be a jerk to someone because they're a neo-nazi who holds absolutely abhorrent views.
This is only a question as to whether or not such behavior should be considered illegitimate on some level, whether strategic or moral. The moral argument is often very subjective.
If we're talking strategic: its been very helpful and productive to ostracize bigoted homophobes. Sorry, bigoted homophobes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: Either we are miscommunicating horribly or you are deliberately missing my point. I'll assume the former. Absolutely not, telling someone that their opinion is something you thing is wrong is not rude, it how the message is delivered that I'm talking about. Often times when someone believes something that is, let's say, evil, like all gays should be rounded up in a giant cage, people respond to that kind of evil belief with anger, with harsh words, with name calling and threats.
Those actions that one takes in response, the bad ones, are still bad. Just because the other guy's views are wrong, it doesn't release the people in the right are right when they mock, belittle, etc them. It is still wrong. It isn't wrong to let them know they are wrong, and to let them know their evil views will not be accepted as evil acts. See what I mean boots?
Samp: You make a good point, but ostracization can still be done politely.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Regarding Marriage: Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain. —Confucius,
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ostracization can be done politely? Come now, you can't mean that. Imagine for a moment that you were suddenly the target of ostracism from a group you enjoyed being part of.
Wouldn't 'rude' be a part of your feelings about it in damn near every such scenario? There isn't a way to politely ostracize someone. There *are* however many ways to doll it up so it doesn't quite sting so much, as much a salve to those ostracizing as the one ostracized. But the facts of what happens will be unchanged.
The world in general, and many Americans in the world, would benefit a very great deal from taking less care about when and for how long they can consider themselves 'offended'.,
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I do mean that. I can politely say "Your stance on gay marriage offends me, and I will not have a personal relationship with you while you are oppressing our fabulously dressed brothers and plad clad sisters. Good day Sir."
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I do mean that. I can politely say "Your stance on gay marriage offends me, and I will not have a personal relationship with you while you are oppressing our fabulously dressed brothers and plad clad sisters. Good day Sir."
"Can you ever really have a 'civil' war? 'Say, pardon me...' *gunshot* '...I'm awfully sorry. Awfully sorry.'" -George Carlin
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I do mean that. I can politely say "Your stance on gay marriage offends me, and I will not have a personal relationship with you while you are oppressing our fabulously dressed brothers and plad clad sisters. Good day Sir."
And if they personally don't take it as polite and are instead offended?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's on them, -you know- you were courteous and polite.
Some people are going to be offended no matter what you do, and it isn't about never offending people, that's impossible, but not letting other people's wrongheadedness lead to your own.
For instance, everyone is being very pleasant with Aris in the other thread despite his name calling, and non-adherence to facts, and I think the whole conversation is clearly benefiting from it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's on them, -you know- you were courteous and polite.
Which, of course, presents two possibilities: that you were not courteous, but did not know you were not; and you were genuinely courteous, but they did not know you were.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Cultural differences withstanding, I would say that most people know when they are being polite and when they are being rude, even if they would not care to admit it to others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're speaking as though rudeness and courtesy are tangible, objective things. They're not. Even within cultures that widely agree on a range of rudeness and courtesy, there's a lot of variance.
For example, within one person may call another selfish and greedy, but only meaning that as a trait applied to all humans. Yet to the second, this is unquestionably rude. Which, if any, is lying or deceiving themselves about the rudeness here if it exists?
Another person may say to a fourth that they're damned to hellfire if they don't change their ways, intending it as an earnest plea (well, sort of) to change one's ways before it's too late. The fourth person regards it as a rude threat.
A fifth may ask his close friend, the sixth, if his sister is seeing anyone. He doesn't mean it rudely, respecting and admiring the sister quite a lot and wanting to make her happy. The sixth considers this question so rude he might break the friendship, meanwhile the sister thinks it's rude of the fifth to be asking third parties at all, as well as being angry at her brother for rude overprotectiveness.
Rudeness and courtesy aren't objective, they're inherently subjective. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, but barring a scenario in which one person deliberately thinks to themselves, "I shall be rude!" it's never as cut and dried as you're making it out. Instead, it appears as though rudeness and courtesy are something you're using to determine how you'll respond rather than as an evenly marked grid you look to in a given situation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure, end results very, as people take things different ways, but it sure is easy to spot someone who is trying very hard to be polite vs someone who isn't. And that effort can go a long way.
Kindness of thought lubricates difficult conversations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So when you said most people know when they're being rude or not, you meant they know when they're being rude if they're being *extremely* rude-or polite? Seems to be a shift there.
Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think concepts such as rudeness and courtesy don't shift depending on context-namely, who is the instigator, how did they instigate if so, what is the past relationship, so on and so forth.
Things would be easier if people just knew, especially while they were doing it, when they were being polite or rude, but it's just not that simple. It's highly likely that anyone who *would* describe themselves as 'rude' to themselves, because under your idea they most likely know it, they will mean something quite different when they say rude than you do.
Kindness of thought may lubricate much (though it can also be quite detrimental quite easily too...depending on the context), but it really seems that what this outlook you're describing is lubricated by is wishing and it-would-be-good-ifs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How is trying to be polite, even to people you disagree with, wishing and it-would-be-good-ifs? Let alone quite easily detrimental?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Sure, end results very, as people take things different ways, but it sure is easy to spot someone who is trying very hard to be polite vs someone who isn't. And that effort can go a long way.
Kindness of thought lubricates difficult conversations.
You seem to confuse passive-aggressiveness for politeness. People who "try very hard" to be polite are typically failing at it, as these efforts ring false. .
Perhaps you should consider that: in being polite, it seems imperative to me that we not "show our work," because when we display the great efforts we make to be polite, we are actually showing our aggression and anger, and pretending not to. Politeness, real politeness, comes from a genuine concern for the feelings of other people. Not a need to be seen by others as proper and respectful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not the trying to be polite that is based on wishing, and trying to be polite will rarely be detrimental.
What I was saying was that this notion that people usually just know when they're being polite and rude, even if it goes unsaid, that's what's based on wishful thinking. It would be nice if it were true, except people have fundamental, major djfferences of opinion about whether a given thing is rude or not already-so the claim that people just know it is really only unsubstantiated mind-reading, based on your own personal interpretations of those two concepts which are highly subjective as it is.
As for kindness of thought, that can easily be detrimental if the person you're encountering doesn't have it. It's not unlike the golden rule: usually pretty damn solid among people who believe it, though not always, but when dealing with someone who doesn't it often needs modification.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You seem to confuse passive-aggressiveness for politeness. People who "try very hard" to be polite are typically failing at it, as these efforts ring false.
I disagree, and even if there are some who conceal a dagger tongue behind a thin veneer of politeness, they would not be who I'm talking about.
quote: Perhaps you should consider that: in being polite, it seems imperative to me that we not "show our work," because when we display the great efforts we make to be polite, we are actually showing our aggression and anger, and pretending not to.
I again don't agree with your conclusion, but you do make a good point about "not showing your work" and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.
quote:Politeness, real politeness, comes from a genuine concern for the feelings of other people. Not a need to be seen by others as proper and respectful.
Why is it mutually exclusive?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...people have fundamental, major differences of opinion about whether a given thing is rude or not already-so the claim that people just know it is really only unsubstantiated mind-reading...
I was saying that the person who is trying to be polite knows they are trying to be polite. Sure everybody fools themselves now and again into believing their motivations are better then they are in reality, and that is something to watch out for. You are right that miscommunication can cause for offense when none was meant, which is why it is even more important to -try- and be polite.
quote:As for kindness of thought, that can easily be detrimental if the person you're encountering doesn't have it.
Detrimental to whom? Sure, if you are nice when the other guy is mean, you are likely to take more crap that they will, but I do not understand your point, what is deteriorated by giving people the benefit of the doubt?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's not mutually exclusive in the sense that one can take genuine care for other people's feelings *and* want to be seen as proper and respectful. It just isn't the same thing. If your motivation is primarily to be seen by others as proper, then you are concerned with yourself, and not others. Or rather, your efforts go towards controlling your interactions rather than working to the mutual benefit of both parties in an interaction. It's the difference between defensiveness and genuine caring. On the other hand, if you are motivated to help and please others, your politeness will not be that based in manipulation, eg: "saying something in the nicest way possible," when really the goal is the same, to control or change another person for your own benefit. Instead, your politeness will be based in respect for the other person, and not merely attention to what is required to manage that person and that interaction.
You've known people who don't care for others, but are "polite." we call it coldness, or sycophancy, or any number of negative descriptors. Falseness, and fakeness are this: manners which are intended to manipulate and impress, and not to genuinely comfort and welcome others.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure they aren't the same thing, and it would be great if everyone was motivated by both, but remember, we are talking about being polite to people who's ideals one strongly disagree with, who's morality one find abhorrent. If one can manage to genuinely care about the feelings of someone like that, it is a great thing. If all one can manage is being respectful and proper for the sake of the community, then it's still better in my opinion then open animosity.
The word that stands out to me is "better", as in, when you compare two things, one is preferable. Being polite is better for the one being polite, and better for the one who receives the courtesy. It is better.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Just don't fool yourself into thinking that good manners are ennobling. It's often quite the opposite.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not all rude people are honest either.
Honesty, hostility and courtesy are all separate issues.
I'm am simply making a case for a kinder, gentler form of discussion as it has obvious and clear benefits, for all concerned.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just don't fool yourself into thinking that good manners are ennobling. It's often quite the opposite.
Good manners by definition are ennobling. But like any other virtue it must be properly understood and applied. It's little surprise to me that most people don't actually know how to properly censure, chide, or criticize. It's never actually taught in a formal setting, we just see people doing it, and try to pick up the lesson. It doesn't work that way, and usually we learn all the key phrases for poor censuring and try to excuse our inability that way. "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but..."
"(Just about all uses of the word hypocrite)"
"I can't reason with you, your head is too far up your own butt"
"I'm just calling it how I see it/I don't hide my opinions that's dishonest."
I don't pretend to be even a proficient criticizer, but I'm definitely better at it than a lot of folks who seem to think they have a PHD in it by the age of 25 and they need learn no more.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
'Politeness, real politeness, comes from a genuine concern for the feelings of other people. Not a need to be seen by others as proper and respectful.' - Orincoro
I like this, but I think there is more to it. Even if we have this genuine concern for the feelings of other people, we can still use the wrong language. That's because we fall in the trap of thinking, if we want to be persuasive, we have to use persuasive terms as the clearest way to make our point, forgetting it is the message itself that should be convincing, not the language we wrap the message in. We use words like 'always' and 'never' and 'the truth is' , 'it is not right' etc. I have been practicing getting my own use of language better by writing just half a page with an opinion on something. Then I put it away and after a few hours, or the next day, I take it back and I start to replace all those extremes I used with more open, respectful terms, not to express doubt (my message should stay clear), but to show my opinion with respect for others. I can assure you, this exercise has been an eye opener for me, it is quite a lot I have to correct still, after practicing this for some time. It not only leads to a text that is much more friendly to read, but this way I also discover my own wishful thinking and mistakes: there where I tried to convince myself with convincing language but not with truth.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just don't fool yourself into thinking that good manners are ennobling. It's often quite the opposite.
Good manners by definition are ennobling. But like any other virtue it must be properly understood and applied. It's little surprise to me that most people don't actually know how to properly censure, chide, or criticize. It's never actually taught in a formal setting, we just see people doing it, and try to pick up the lesson. It doesn't work that way, and usually we learn all the key phrases for poor censuring and try to excuse our inability that way. "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but..."
I don't buy the premise. Courtesy in the sense of formality is not synonymous with respect. Good manners, and I'll use the term very broadly, encompasses following the terms of formality laid out by society, which rules change and are refined or abandoned as time passes. A good deal of what I think you could call "good manners," is not much to do with actually ennobling actions or values. Often good manners lead us to do and say things that are not in keeping with our best intentions, nor do they show genuine respect for others. Of course, good manners *can be* ennobling, but I hardly think good manners ennoble us as a matter of course. They are learned, and linked with noble action, but are in themselves only prescribed forms that can change and do become outdated or even harmful.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
'It's little surprise to me that most people don't actually know how to properly censure, chide, or criticize. It's never actually taught in a formal setting.' - Blackblade
Suggestion:
'In those countries where methods of proper censuring, chiding or criticizing are not taught in a formal setting, people might have problems expressing themselves to others in a respectful way.'
There is a difference between good manners and being careful with the settings we use in spoken and written language. Good manners are for example culture-dependent: What is polite in one country might be offensive in another. Carefully chosing one's setting though, out from the right view (the context of our opinion, the limits of this context), the right motivation (being friendly, respecting others), has not so much to do with good manners as with being open and honest.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This is the best idea ever and I will always use it forever more, and anyone who doesn't use it is a total jerk and obviously has not a single decent human bone in their body. Forever and ever, amen. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is also this to consider: admitting you are wrong is hard. How much harder is it if you have to admit you are wrong to someone who has been rude to you, someone who has arbitrarily assigned you negative motivations, someone who has treated you with contempt, as an enemy? Much harder. If you are kind and gentle in your approach not only are you more likely to have a receptive audience but one who has less of a vested interest in sticking by their guns.
Hatrack, I don't mean to preach at you, this not is stuff I know and you don't so I am schooling you in it. And I apologize if it has felt that way. I as much as anyone have struggled to keep my animosity in check.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just don't fool yourself into thinking that good manners are ennobling. It's often quite the opposite.
Good manners by definition are ennobling. But like any other virtue it must be properly understood and applied. It's little surprise to me that most people don't actually know how to properly censure, chide, or criticize. It's never actually taught in a formal setting, we just see people doing it, and try to pick up the lesson. It doesn't work that way, and usually we learn all the key phrases for poor censuring and try to excuse our inability that way. "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but..."
I don't buy the premise. Courtesy in the sense of formality is not synonymous with respect. Good manners, and I'll use the term very broadly, encompasses following the terms of formality laid out by society, which rules change and are refined or abandoned as time passes. A good deal of what I think you could call "good manners," is not much to do with actually ennobling actions or values. Often good manners lead us to do and say things that are not in keeping with our best intentions, nor do they show genuine respect for others. Of course, good manners *can be* ennobling, but I hardly think good manners ennoble us as a matter of course. They are learned, and linked with noble action, but are in themselves only prescribed forms that can change and do become outdated or even harmful.
I'm not limiting "good-manners" to any societal nuance or sensibility. I'm only talking about good-manners insofar as "Learning to communicate with your audience, and recognize what one needs to say so as to effectively convey an appropriate idea." Part of that is in how one presents themselves, but most of it, as far as a forum goes, is how one speaks. It's almost the sole criteria we can go on.
That is also why there is so much of a fixation on specific words, because we don't have things like facial expressions, tones of voice, or shared history to round out the meaning. It then behooves us to learn to write with perfect honesty, but also to reconsider that what we want to say, and would say if we were actually face to face, and say something else more suited to this medium.
Though perhaps all the cultural differences may make that impossible to a degree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is also this to consider: admitting you are wrong is hard. How much harder is it if you have to admit you are wrong to someone who has been rude to you, someone who has arbitrarily assigned you negative motivations, someone who has treated you with contempt, as an enemy? Much harder. If you are kind and gentle in your approach not only are you more likely to have a receptive audience but one who has less of a vested interest in sticking by their guns.
Hatrack, I don't mean to preach at you, this not is stuff I know and you don't so I am schooling you in it. And I apologize if it has felt that way. I as much as anyone have struggled to keep my animosity in check.
I, on the other hand, do not think it is useful to spare the feelings of people (aged uncles and grandparents possibly excepted) of people who work to deny families to people. They should not be given excuses and allowed to feel "okay" about doing such damage to the lives of other people because of their warped ideas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I, on the other hand, do not think it is useful to spare the feelings of people (aged uncles and grandparents possibly excepted) of people who work to deny families to people.
To mention, it's not like we're talking about someone who just holds a view and we're accosting him in his own dining room over how much we hate his views. We're talking about an active and incendiary columnist who is engaged in a bitter campaign full of insults and derogatory labeling of entire groups and who holds a chairman position in one of the largest and most comically horrendous activist groups working against gays.
Activism (especially of card's baldly impolite variety) does not come with a vaunted no-tagbacks tower where you can harrumph at the "leftaliban" and only deserve politeness in return.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So only people who are right deserve politeness?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, that's not my point at all. It's about how what a person "deserves" versus what they are doing in the first place; the easiest way to deserve politeness in regards to your views is to be polite about your views, among other things.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is your point that only people who are polite and do no harm deserve politeness then?
Or to just cut to the chase, what is your point? I seem to be missing it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll put it this way. If I start a column in which I argue my own insistence of a specific public policy — strenuously and constantly barbed with insults and vitriol, frequently condemning viewpoints that run counter to my own as ridiculous and calling their proprietors as 'insane' and whatnot — and am one of the heads of an equally confrontational front group that has all but engaged in hate speech and divisive manipulations, do I "deserve" politeness? Or do I have no specific claim to deserving politeness?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yes. Because the need to be polite is unaffected by who one is addressing. I am polite because being rude harms others as well as myself. Morally I cannot conceive of a situation where being rude or cruel is necessary. Can you? And I don't mean "tactically". I mean morally it's the right thing to do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because the need to be polite is unaffected by who one is addressing.
you sound like you are coaching this in the idea that Polite and Rude exist more or less in a binary, where if you are not being polite, you are being rude. I can think of thousands of situations in which someone is not at all deserving of politeness, and where not offering them politeness is not automatically doing the morally wrong thing.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Morally I cannot conceive of a situation where being rude or cruel is necessary. Can you?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes. Because the need to be polite is unaffected by who one is addressing. I am polite because being rude harms others as well as myself. Morally I cannot conceive of a situation where being rude or cruel is necessary. Can you? And I don't mean "tactically". I mean morally it's the right thing to do.
BlackBlade, was it polite for black people to sit in restaurants where they were specifically not wanted and refuse to leave? Is it polite for protesters to inconvenience people by intruding on public spaces? Did a lot of those old testament prophets preface their exhortations with, "If you don't mind" and "I don't want to hurt your feelings but..."?
Speaking truth to power sometimes requires offending people.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: It isn't about not offending people, as people can get offended by -anything-, it is about not being overtly rude. Because it makes you less.
Want to murk up an issue? Act like a jerk to someone who is morally wrong. Want to make it unclear who is the hot head, who is the crazy, who is doing damage to our society? Easy, stoop to the lowest level you can, throw the most crap you can find, make sure that the other side knows you hate not only their views, but them as persons for having them. Done, easy, now no one can possibly occupy high ground as there is none left to stand on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Again, this comes back to a fundamental disagreement. That is to say, with certain people and beliefs, speaking truthfully even without any intent to cut or hurt personally, it will simply be rude. There isn't any way around it. Someone can find me a 'polite' way to tell someone their beliefs about public policy are destructive, unnecessary, wicked, and that those beliefs are rooted in willful ignorance borne of dislike, fear, and perhaps even some degree of hatred for a given minority group.
Now there very well may be a way of saying such a thing politely-for the sake of argument, assume that is a true review of that particular belief on public policy-but if so, I can't imagine it. And I'll bet any such rhetoric you can create will certainly not be seen as polite by the listener...in which case we're back to courtesy being important just so the speaker can know he was courteous. That seems like a kissing cousin to self-righteousness to me.
I'm not saying 'be courteous, even if they don't deserve it' (and really, some people just don't, there is no inborn 'right' to be treated with dignity and respect that is totally inviolate), isn't a good rule. Because it is. Communication will be more clear, more fights will be avoided, etc. But y'all are going a bit further than that, with ideas such as 'rudeness makes you less'. I disagree. I think that there are times when rudeness isn't just understandable but actually appropriate.
Now, as to what I meant about detrimental ideas, I was referring specifically to the idea that we should assume kindness of thought as a general rule. This is a good idea, but *only* when the person you're dealing with is either neutral or also thinks kindly of your thoughts. In other cases, it has a solid chance of being harmful.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If people are offended by a factual disagreement of their beliefs, then they are offended. This is not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about effort to be polite, I'm talking about the attempt to avoid objectively negative ways of speaking. There are multiple benefits.
And I still don't understand what harm comes from giving the benefit of the doubt. Yes, if the other guy isn't, then they will be acting like a jerk, but in not doing the same, how is it "harmful"? Either their jerkiness is harmful to you or not, you returning fire does not mitigate their damage, it's just -more damage-.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes. Because the need to be polite is unaffected by who one is addressing. I am polite because being rude harms others as well as myself. Morally I cannot conceive of a situation where being rude or cruel is necessary. Can you? And I don't mean "tactically". I mean morally it's the right thing to do.
BlackBlade, was it polite for black people to sit in restaurants where they were specifically not wanted and refuse to leave? Is it polite for protesters to inconvenience people by intruding on public spaces? Did a lot of those old testament prophets preface their exhortations with, "If you don't mind" and "I don't want to hurt your feelings but..."?
Speaking truth to power sometimes requires offending people.
Offense is not something I think can be avoided. As Jesus said the world will hate us for his sake. I accept that when one is standing against evil they will be called much worse than rude. But that is their problem not mine. Civil disobedience is an excellent place to discuss this issue. I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Bus boycotts are fine with me. Blocking bridges and stopping traffic are not. I'll have to think about it some more but I hate posting on my iTouch.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:now no one can possibly occupy high ground as there is none left to stand on.
I beg your pardon; this piece of road I'm standing on is quite elevated, thank you very much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Speaking truth to power sometimes requires offending people.
Depends on the "power." Mostly, I think people who use this phrase actually align closely with the Limbaugh/Beck style of communication.
All I'm saying is: know your audience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it depends on the truth. Limbaugh and Beck do not speak truth. But they sure as heck know their audience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tell me. What could possibly be a "polite" response to this guy?
quote: Not only did Engle fully support the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but he whipped up bizarre fears of evil gays lurking in schools in Uganda. He also praised the backers of a bill that seeks to kill gays and imprison those who support them. Engle happily gave a huge platform to violent, anti-gay activists with his organization's TheCall rally in Uganda.
This is the danger of exporting radical American Evangelicalism and homophobia to other countries. Lou Engle has turned an already volatile situation into an untenable one where blood will most likely be spilled in the name of his extremism -- blood that will rest firmly on his hands.
quote: “They should be put to death. That’s what happened in Israel. That’s why homosexuality wouldn’t have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. — ‘Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ — I’m saying the government should. They won’t but they should.
Why can't these people just move to Iran and leave the rest of us alone? Seriously, what is WRONG with these people? How is being gay worth killing someone over it...?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots:
Here is my polite response to your examples:
"Dear Sirs,
Your views on homosexuality and homosexuals are evil. I, and others who feel the same as I do, will do anything in our power to stop your message of hate from being spread. Further if you attempt to harm our fabulous brothers or plaid clad sisters we will stop you by any means necessary, including physical restraint, legal prosecution to the full extent of the law and even lethal force. Your persecution of the free and innocent people who are only seeking happiness and equal rights is unethical, unjustifiable, and downright unAmerican. I beg you to rethink your positions and consider that homosexuality harms you in no way what so ever. And if you can not share this conclusion, then I ask you to embrace the founding idea of our country, freedom. Freedom from religious, racial and sexual orientation persecution."
I'm sure what I said above would offend some. But I made effort to not impinge the opinion holder, only the opinion they choose to broadcast. I let them know I oppose them, but I never call them names. I only talk about their stated views and actions. It isn't about what -they deserve- it is about keeping my personal dignity intact, the dignity of the message I'm championing and not following them down the slippery slope of hatred.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What could possibly be a "polite" response to this guy?
Regarding the pastors who are advocating violent action against homosexuals:
Since they are supposedly Christian, I'd start by establishing a baseline of what the New Testament teaches regarding homosexuality. Then I'd transition to the idea that killing someone is robbing them of their ability to repent and come to Jesus Christ. I would point out that Paul, who was one of the worst enemies of the Church, and who was complicit in the death of Steven, was shown mercy by Christ himself, allowed to repent, and became an incredible missionary force. I'd emphasize the universality of Christ's sacrifice for all men, and demonstrate scripturally that their extreme position is actually condemned by God, and that they have no doctrinal leg to stand on.
From there, I'd discuss the fact that true religion is fostered by an open society-- that when people are allowed to dialog and speak openly about their beliefs, without fear of violent or social reprisal, their adherence to the religion they choose is strengthened. Sure, there's the specter of apostasy or atheism; but true Christian discipleship is only possible when there is the choice to behave otherwise.
Once you kind of muscle through the gag reflex of what they're proposing, and realign your point of view to make counter arguments within a context that is compatible to the audience, it is indeed possible to make a polite and passionate argument against them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that either of those qualifies as "polite" but neither are they as strong as I would like them to be.
Scott, what do you mean by "social reprisal"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that either of those qualifies as "polite" but neither are they as strong as I would like them to be.
Scott, what do you mean by "social reprisal"?
Not permitting a minority group the ability to have businesses and conduct trade; not permitting a minority group to invest in the government of a society; not permitting a minority group the same rights of personal transport or freedom of movement; not permitting a minority group to advocate for changes to laws governing the society in which they live; government sponsored boycott of businesses owned by a minority group...
That sort of thing. Government-sponsored intimidation through economic or other means.
What is your definition of polite, kmboots, within the context of this discussion?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: What was rude in mine or Scott's message?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't think that either of those qualifies as "polite" but neither are they as strong as I would like them to be.
What is your definition of polite, kmboots, within the context of this discussion?
As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
On the other hand it makes GREAT press among the people who already believe it. Much wagging of heads and tongues, and so forth. That's something, I guess.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Polite, for me, is different in different contexts but has at its heart the desire and intention of making other people comfortable. I don't want people holding these vicious ideas to be comfortable about it.
Scott, thanks for your clarification of social reprisal. I do think that the government should refrain from such reprisals. I do think that non-government reprisals can be appropriate, though.
I also don't think that all the courtesy in the world is going to change the minds of some of these people. God (and you all) know that I have been presenting theological arguments for decades. If that worked this guy wouldn't exist.
The people cheering for that child vomiting out his hateful song are no more likely to change than the KKK grand wizard is likely to change. But I do want them to become increasingly isolated islands of hate (like the KKK) rather than permeating and influencing society as they do know. I want the "mild" people - the "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks, the apologetic anti-gay folks to realize whose side they are picking in the battle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There are those of us who are trying to avoid battle. And I don't think you can stop the spread of hate, with more hate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A strategy of appeasement then, Stone Wolf?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There are those of us who are trying to avoid battle.
Duly noted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A strategy of appeasement then, Stone Wolf?
Oh for goodness sake are those the only choices?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Considering I said I would use lethal force to protect gays I don't think appeasement is an appropriate word. Just because I'm willing to kill doesn't mean I'm actively trying to degenerate discussion into violence. And just because I'm trying to avoid battle doesn't mean I'm not standing up for gay rights.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, What do you suggest? We are still denying people the right to have families. People who form public opinion are talking about rounding gays up inside fences till they die off or just having the government kill them outright. They are teaching hate to their children. How does one not fight against that unless they think it is okay or not important?
Edit: StoneWolf, how does one use lethal force "politely"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I want the "mild" people - the "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks, the apologetic anti-gay folks to realize whose side they are picking in the battle.
Really? This tact seems...inadvisable, if you're going to try to persuade these folks to your position.
quote:God (and you all) know that I have been presenting theological arguments for decades. If that worked this guy wouldn't exist.
This is a very dangerous thought, in general. The degree of danger is dependent on what your solution to their opposition is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I want the "mild" people - the "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks, the apologetic anti-gay folks to realize whose side they are picking in the battle.
Really? This tact seems...inadvisable, if you're going to try to persuade these folks to your position.
quote:God (and you all) know that I have been presenting theological arguments for decades. If that worked this guy wouldn't exist.
This is a very dangerous thought, in general. The degree of danger is dependent on what your solution to their opposition is.
What is dangerous about that? By "doesn't exist" I don't mean kill him or anything. I mean that the theological wrongness of tattooing a verse from Leviticus would be immediately apparent to anyone for whom a theological argument would be effective. It doesn't need a solution.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Edit: StoneWolf, how does one use lethal force "politely"?
Stone Wolf, you get that George Carlin was a comedian, right? That it wasn't actually polite but an example of how ridiculous the idea of shooting someone politely is? Right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When the police say "Sir, you will be shot if you don't put down the gun." is it polite in form? I say yes.
Of course I got that it was joke.
quote:How does one not fight against that unless they think it is okay or not important?
So, are you saying that because I am an advocate for politeness that I am not fighting against bigotry? And if so, does that mean that Mahatma Gandhi (not comparing myself to him) wasn't fighting against the English?
What you are not seeming to understand is that one can oppose these evils without adopting their ardent ways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, non-violence is not the same thing as politeness. I am not advocating violence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just battle?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am sorry. I should have been more clear. I was using "battle" in a metaphoric sense. I did not mean actual physical battle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: When restraint and courtesy are added to strength, the latter becomes irresistible.
Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
Ditto.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How is saying "no" with courtesy the same as "yes"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, a dressed up "no" is still a "no". Decorating opposition with "pleases" and "sirs" doesn't make it polite and more than denying people rights while being sort of apologetic about it makes them polite.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
Perhaps that is because Rush Limbaugh is also wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The "no" I was referring to was the opposition's suggestion that we reinforced gay's second class citizenship. And you are 100% right, that a polite no is still a no.
It doesn't matter who one are talking to, no matter what bad thing they have said or done, acting like a jerk to them still makes one a jerk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We don't seem to be getting anywhere trying to define polite. Why don't you define "acting like a jerk" to see if we are talking about the same thing. Lots of people would consider saying the "polite" statement you proposed about to be acting like a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If people are offended by a factual disagreement of their beliefs, then they are offended. This is not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about effort to be polite, I'm talking about the attempt to avoid objectively negative ways of speaking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"No" is negative. "You are wrong" is negative and impolite. One can be negative and not polite without being a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Decorating opposition with "pleases" and "sirs" doesn't make it polite...
Are you saying that anytime there is a disagreement it is impolite?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree the phrase "You are wrong." is impolite.
But the phrase "I think your views are wrong." is polite.
A big part of being polite in a disagreement is talking about the person's views, and the not person holding them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I also disagree with your statement that one can be impolite and not be a jerk (with the exception of friendly commodore joking style jerkery).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Disagreement is not opposition, so no. I am not saying that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I also disagree with your statement that one can be impolite and not be a jerk (with the exception of friendly commodore joking style jerkery).
You are wrong. And yet, I am not a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What is the delineation between disagreement and opposition?
I should have said, "One can not be impolite and not act like a jerk."
I don't think you -are- a jerk boots, but acting like one? Maybe. *shrug* Not that I mind in this particular case, as we are comrades and such.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not your comrade, Stone Wolf. Sir. There. That was polite.
Disagreement: You think tea is tasty? I think it is insipid.
Opposition: You want to make everyone drink tea? I will campaign against that.
Edit: BTW, telling me that I am acting like a jerk, is acting like a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Awwww, polite, sure, but sad.
So, disagreement can be polite, unless it is on a large scale?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't a case of scale. It is a case of opposing something rather than disagreeing with something.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Edit: BTW, telling me that I am acting like a jerk, is acting like a jerk.
I say "saying "you are wrong" is acting like a jerk in my opinion."
You say, "You are wrong."
I say, "You aren't a jerk, but acting like one? Maybe, but I don't mind cause we are comrades."
You say, "We aren't comrades."
So, if something I said offended you, I apologize. Seriously, because despite what you said, I say we are comrades.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But you just said that opposing something is disagreeing with it on a large scale, or did I misunderstand you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You haven't offended me. I am trying to be clear.
"Comrade" indicates a much closer relationship than I believe we have. We are only sort-of acquaintances. We have not formed an intimate bond by struggling together in adversity which is what "comrade" means to me. Something deeper than even friendship. Do you really think we have achieved that level of mutual dependence and intimacy? Or that we are members of the Communist Party?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. You misunderstand me. I did not say that. You said "large scale" and I disagreed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, for one we are both Hatrackers, but also we are both fighting for gay rights, but hey, you don't want to be my comrade, that's okay.
I still don't understand what you are saying is the difference between disagreement and opposition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They are different things. Opposition requires action, for example. You can disagree with someone without opposing them. The scale of the subject doesn't matter.
I am not saying that I don't want to be your comrade; I am saying that we aren't comrades.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay, so if someone acts upon the moral disagreement then it is impolite, vs just stating it?
Sure, we can not be comrades.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
Perhaps that is because Rush Limbaugh is also wrong.
I don't fully understand it myself, but I know of plenty of people who swung from the left to the right and credit Limbaugh as a significant factor in their transition.
For the most part, I agree with Kate: there is value in not being mealy-mouthed, and in establishing your position clearly and strongly, and in calling a spade a spade (or in calling evil what it is). If that means some people who stand on the other side of an issue take offense, and think you are being a jerk, then so be it.
I think, to borrow Scott's phrase, "blunt refutations" are less about preaching to the choir and more about establishing clear lines of (metaphorical) battle. Not everyone is fully invested in every issue, so this has a lot of value. It can help you identify potential allies and enemies, not just reinforce existing positions.
I suspect the leftists who were won over by Limbaugh (and their equivalents on any other issue) were not ideologues, but rather nominal leftists who hadn't thought about the issues in question very much or very critically. For such people, those blunt refutations don't so much change their opinion as expose them (strongly) to other opinions out there. I think that's the sort of thing they'd call a "wake-up call."
There's also just that minority of folks who appreciate blunt honesty, and don't mind when people are "rude."
On the other hand, I do think that Scott has a good point too. If you're interested in trying to change someone's mind (big if), most people are resistant to blunt refutations due to their own irrationalities/insecurities. Especially people who are heavily invested in an opposing ideology. Persuading such people is tricky, and best done carefully.
So I think that Scott gave a great example of that kind of attempt, in his example of reasoning with a violently anti-gay Christian. I don't know how successful his example approach might be, but I think it would be a hell of a lot more persuasive than what my response would be, i.e. decrying his view as evil and moving on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
Perhaps that is because Rush Limbaugh is also wrong.
Wrong or not, he is an effective communicator for the audience he targets.
On the other hand, his method of communication is damaging to persuasive dialog between his intended audience and the opposition to Limbaugh's ideology.
That is, as a propagandist and base motivator, Limbaugh is skilled. As a missionary for GOP ideals, not so much, IMO. (When the mission is to convince or persuade others who oppose your point of view to come around to your way of thinking.)
quote: there is value in not being mealy-mouthed, and in establishing your position clearly and strongly, and in calling a spade a spade (or in calling evil what it is). If that means some people who stand on the other side of an issue take offense, and think you are being a jerk, then so be it.
Agreed here; but in order to be an effective communication, it needs to start within the right framework. Calling those who believe these disgusting things (i.e., that it is okay to murder homosexuals) to repentance frames the dialog within a context that the audience already understands, and possibly accepts.
Framing it within western ideals of equality, brotherhood, etc-- that is, the ideals of rich, secular, politically powerful, morally suspect, white folk-- is not, I imagine, an effective way to communicate with the opposition.
quote:I also don't think that all the courtesy in the world is going to change the minds of some of these people. God (and you all) know that I have been presenting theological arguments for decades. If that worked this guy wouldn't exist.
Frankly, kmboots, your theological arguments have never been that persuasive to me.
The danger here is that you have started on the road to disallowing your opposition to be rational and to be persuaded.
It is certain that their opinions are evil. It is possible that they themselves are monsters. As a Christian, I feel that those are the people who need the light of truth the most. (Remember Paul)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And your theological arguments are not persuasive to me. Neither are those of the Leviticus tattoo guy. That isn't surprising as our theologies are not the same.
I can point out for the millionth time that Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality, the reasons why what Paul had to say on the subject don't mean what people think they mean, that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. You counter with, "Our prophet says X", and all my arguments are for nothing.
I am not the one denying rationality to these people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Agreed here; but in order to be an effective communication, it needs to start within the right framework. Calling those who believe these disgusting things (i.e., that it is okay to murder homosexuals) to repentance frames the dialog within a context that the audience already understands, and possibly accepts.
What if we would reallu rather this framework they're using be one that is discredited, so far as being a primary means of making public policy? Long-term struggle there, to be sure, but still.
In any event, I think much of what you're saying is right, Scott. So far as actually having a chance to persuade a given group, starting out with courtesy-with the trappings of courtesy, anyway, since it seems to me about as rude to tell someone they're going to Hell as they're betraying the ideals of Christ-is likely to be more effective.
All well and good, but I still think there's something else going on here. It's been mentioned in this context, in this thread even. If for example someone were to say, "I don't believe people should practice interracial marriage, because genetics bunk science so on and so forth..." I think it would be culturally acceptable to regard them openly with some derision. To treat them rudely. I'm not making a statement on whether that would be *right* or even effective, only social acceptance.
But if a hypothetical person of matching charisma and social status were to say, "I don't believe people should practice interracial marriage because God created human beings with different racial backgrounds, theology Bible so on and so forth," socially it would still be acceptable to *think* that was nonsense (as indeed it fails by its own religious lights), but it would be less acceptable or even wrong socially speaking to be rude to them about it-again aside from questions of effectiveness and higher moral rights and wrongs. Religious motivations get something of a pass for believing what we would otherwise think were wrong or even horrid things.
Which, don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly up in arms about. It helps keep the peace, and the sooner and wider humanity in general adopts that kind of attitude the better. Except there is one regrettable side effect: religious motivations for pursuing public policy. It's too often used as a shield, and the really insidious part is that it gets other people to defend itself too, without even having to ask.
The result is that secular racist gets toasted by society, but religious racist has a host of people not leaping to his defense, really, but hastening to make sure people aren't too mean.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And your theological arguments are not persuasive to me.
:nod:
It's difficult to talk with you about the specifics of Christian religion because your acceptance of scripture is inconsistent.
That's been my impression, anyway.
Generally, if I'm talking with non-Mormons about an ideal, though, I don't use Mormon scripture to back up my point. The conversation you pointed at was one that, if I recall correctly, asked why Mormons believe what they believe about same sex attraction. So my answer was pertinent; but not meant to be persuasive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That you don't understand my acceptance of Scripture does not mean it is inconsistent. It is quite consistent to me. There is, of course, no reason for you to understand why. I think that your acceptance of Scripture (what I know of it) is goofy, but I am sure it makes sense to you.
I am not sure what conversation you think I am pointing at. I wasn't referencing any specific conversation or any specific person.
ETA: What is the theological approach to someone whose theological understanding is that Leviticus 18 is sacrosanct and crucial enough to be permanently marked on his body but Leviticus 19 is not? Frankly, I don't think he is all that motivated by theology.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am not sure what conversation you think I am pointing at. I wasn't referencing any specific conversation or any specific person.
I got a completely different impression from this:
quote:I can point out for the millionth time that Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality, the reasons why what Paul had to say on the subject don't mean what people think they mean, that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. You counter with, "Our prophet says X", and all my arguments are for nothing.
quote:That you don't understand my acceptance of Scripture does not mean it is inconsistent. It is quite consistent to me. There is, of course, no reason for you to understand why. I think that your acceptance of Scripture (what I know of it) is goofy, but I am sure it makes sense to you.
Inconsistent is the wrong word-- I'm sorry.
I meant to go back and edit it, but got called away before I had the chance.
Perhaps a better way to express this is that it's difficult for me to determine what you accept as scripture and what you do not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"You" was meant to be general for "LDS person arguing against SSM" not you specifically. It was a careless usage. I'm sorry about that. It was meant as a general example of how theological arguments are not all that effective when the theology is sufficiently different.
"Inconsistent" is fine from the outside. I can understand why it would look that way because I don't see Scripture as being a consistent thing itself. It is so varied in history, context, authorship, translation, intent. And I keep learning more about where each bit comes from and what it was intended to accomplish. So I don't treat it as something cut from one cloth and I can see why that would look inconsistent.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why don't you define "acting like a jerk" to see if we are talking about the same thing. Lots of people would consider saying the "polite" statement you proposed about to be acting like a jerk.
Acting like a jerk:
Deliberately using objectively antagonistic language, not merely stating a disagreement or a personal opinion. Talking about people, instead of their views or actions. (For example, "I think your stated views on gays are evil." vs "You are evil." Not granting people the benefit of the doubt, or in other words, assuming a negative explanation instead of asking for clarification. Stating things as a certainty when they are clearly in dispute. (For example, "You are wrong." vs "I disagree.") Any kind of name calling. (For example, "If you really believe that you are naive.") Having a generally bad attitude.
I understand that part of what we seem to be disagreeing about is outrage. It is outrageous to suggest we herd the gays into an electrified fenced off area and air lift in food for them until they die. It is. But yet another reason to not deviate from courteous and calm yet resolute resistance is that statements like that are designed to raise a ruckus among believers and detractors. One of the best ways to defeat this kind of sensationalism meant to bring blood to a boil is to not let them decide one's emotional state, to not become so outraged that one acts as crazy as they sound.
[ June 01, 2012, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Objectively antagonistic...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I tweaked to that as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Objective(ly): of or pertaining to something that can be known...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
It's not that they didn't know what either of those words meant, dude.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Considering how cryptic their posts where, I thought it would be good to clarify.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that, culturally, there are words and phrases and body language that could be so widely regarded as antagonistic-within that culture-that for the purposes of communicating between people, they may as well be considered 'objectively antagonistic'.
But...this isn't a case where I just disagree with a small portion of what you're saying, and seize on it for whatever reason-whether for fun or because I simply can't see how very much we supposedly agree, speculations on your part in the past have gone both ways. I don't say this to start a fight, but only to clarify: while it isn't an especially important aspect of your overall point, insofar as you believe something can be 'objectively angagonistic', I disagree.
It's not possible for something to be 'objectively' antagonistic with respect to things like manners and emotions. It's right there in your definition of the word: 'existing independently of thought...or as part of reality'. How can anything to do with courtesy or rudeness be considered to exist outside thought? If there were no thought or no observer, there couldn't possibly be any communication-antagonistic or otherwise!
The word simply doesn't fit as you're using it, and it actually ties into a pretty important part of diplomacy and communication: recognition that the world is different to all of its inhabitants, or at least appears so. Doubly or triply or mor so when it comes to other inhabitants of the world.
So if you actually mean 'there are some things that those of us raised in the same general culture ought to consider so unlikely to be anything but antagonistic, that we simply ought to treat them as though they were antagonistic in and of themselves, to us', well that's one thing. I agree that is probably very useful, has a very low chance of being harmful, and we should as humans do it. But I think where you're seeing disagreement or raised eyebrows, where you are, is because that's not *quite* what you said, which was to simply use a word in a way contrary to its definition.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about "reasonably objective antagonistic"? To delineate between common sense stuff like calling someone a jerk vs cultural stuff like Inuits expecting a moment of silent contemplation after they speak before you do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm tempted to say, "Reasonably objective..." and leave it at that, heh.
But no. While I think your larger point has a lot to say for it, the word 'objective' simply doesn't belong in a discussion of courtesy and rudeness, Stone_Wolf. Not only doesn't it belong, but it's not even needed. It lends artificial weight to a case that is already decent on its own. There isn't some Generation ____ American born Etiquette Guide out there somewhere, and even if there was, it wouldn't be objective-but objectivity isn't necessary for usefulness to human beings.
In any event, this...well, I wouldn't say it's a need, I don't know that one way or another though it is staring to seem that way...this need to know whether someone has been offensive isn't really necessary, because it's redundant. Even for the things that you might call 'objectively' antagonistic (still sort of buzzes on my teeth, that word use here!), anyone still has to decide if they're actually offended. My sister can call me a jerk if she likes, and I'll know she's either screwing with me or else she's pretty angry about something, in which case I ought to try and get to the bottom of that. Nowhere is there a rubric where I input her and my information, the exact wording, a recording of the conversation, and have it scored 'antagonistic' or 'non antagonistic'-it's up to me. And in cases where nuance might be missed or cultural backgrounds might work at cross purposes, the decision is still mine: whether to believe they meant to offend, or try to find out.
Which are all things you and others have mentioned, and I'm fine with...but it not objective.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about "commonly accepted antagonistic..."?
I'm just trying to say, "stuff you know will piss most anyone off" in an intelligent way.
ETA: About what you said about your sister...while what said can work as a general guideline of jerkiness, it is intended more as a jerkiness guideline for having a discussion with someone you vehemently disagree with, and while that -can- sometimes be close friends and family, it's more aimed at relative strangers.
[ June 02, 2012, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, as an example of the non-objective nature of courtesy and antagonism, while one person might think that calling someone "comrade" is friendly and polite another might find that to be intrusive and rude. I use this example not to show you up but as something close enough to make the point of how a single action is read quite subjectively.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Of course courtesy and antagonism are subjective...as an outcome. And while a few of my points on the benefits of courtesy have been about the outcome, more have been about -effort-, not outcome. And someone who is actively trying to be polite, even if the other person is offended, knows they tried, and observers will likely know was well.
Just because people -can- take anything as offense does not mean we should not try to be courteous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure what 'as an outcome' could possibly mean. If the process by which an outcome is arrived at is subjective, that outcome cannot be objective. It's as simple as that.
'Commonly accepted', on the other hand, is not only almost exactly as wieldy or unwieldy a term, it has the benefit of using all of the words in the phrase accurately.
Anyway, how will observers (and...why does it matter? It's remarks like this that bring about responses questioning motives for courtesy, dude) 'know' who was attempting sincerely to be polite and who was just being a schmuck? Barring commonly accepted antagonistic remarks, body language, etc. This idea that people can just 'tell' isn't borne out either on its own merits, or by looking at people-at least not to the extent you're applying it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not saying it's objective, I'm saying that if one person is genuinely attempting to be polite, it still might fail utterly, as -the outcome is subjective- as it effects the other person in the discussion. It doesn't mean that the person trying to be polite's efforts are not valid, worthwhile or still beneficial.
Let's face it, being offended is an opinion, and it can be based on nothing at all. "I didn't like the way he was breathing." can be as real (not necessarily valid) reason to be offended as being called a hateful name. If we were to judge the worthiness of being polite solely on the outcome of how people react to it, then we should likely abandon the concept.
But of course I am suggesting that we -do not- judge the value of courtesy solely upon the reaction of the recipient. For the myriad of reasons I've been outlining for the last couple pages.
If both parties followed the "Don't be a jerk" parameters , then if something -did- come up which might cause offense, the benefit of the doubt would be in place, and then both parties could simply check in.
"Did you happen to know that I find being called someone's comrade who I don't feel has earned the position is offensive because it is disrespectful to those who have?"
As to observers, if one is polite -solely for their benefit- then questioning motives seems in order, but I am merely pointing out that courtesy has a side benefit of making you look good to people listening to the discussion. And I feel it is a basic human motivation to want to look good in the eyes of others. But it goes beyond that, if we are waging a battle for people's hearts and minds over moral issues, like gay rights. It helps our cause to be kind and calm, yet resolute. It helps to show people who might change their views or are sitting on the fence that our opposition are the ones calling for violence, the ones being hateful or malevolent while we remain respectful yet firm.
As to "Commonly accepted" or whichever version we have talked about, the specific wording is of little import. The idea is simple: don't say stuff that you have good reason to think would piss the other guy off.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I...you did say it was objective. Like, three times minimum in the face of pointed responses as to how that word didn't fit the way you were using it.
If you're dropping that qualifier from things, that's fine, but it's a bit strange to read you now saying, "I'm not saying it's objective."
quote:As to observers, if one is polite -solely for their benefit- then questioning motives seems in order, but I am merely pointing out that courtesy has a side benefit of making you look good to people listening to the discussion. And I feel it is a basic human motivation to want to look good in the eyes of others. But it goes beyond that, if we are waging a battle for people's hearts and minds over moral issues, like gay rights. It helps our cause to be kind and calm, yet resolute. It helps to show people who might change their views or are sitting on the fence that our opposition are the ones calling for violence, the ones being hateful or malevolent while we remain respectful yet firm.
This comes back around again to the way to wage a political 'hearts and minds' campaign, and I believe that just like any other such effort, the best results are never achieved by overwhelming adherence to a single theme.
There are benefits to letting people around us know that certain kinds of anti-homosexual policy prejudice are just as wrong, reprehensible, and even absurd as if they were advocating racial discrimination. Be 'polite' (which in this thread lately seems to center around a nigh-obsessive concern with how one feels about one's own courtesy, and how it is viewed by others) for those who are *genuinely* on the fence. People who don't like to see Mr Electric Fences for Jesus lambasted as a hateful jackass, on the other hand, are perhaps not actually on the fence, but rather embarrassed to be on the side they're on.
But that's speculation, and I wouldn't apply it to an individual just on that basis. Still, though, there is as much to be said for being politically aggressive and confrontational with respect to some ideas as there is for being non-offensive where possible. Sometimes, being nice is too slow. Sometimes explanations have to be dragged out of people and groups, and if they wriggle around, they have to be called on it.
Now the strangest thing about this conversation, Stone_Wolf, (for me at least) is that I'm almost certain from direct personal experience that your real opinions, or at least practices, on this subject are quite a bit more closely aligned with mine than with this ideal level of courtesy you're espousing-and I do think it's a good ideal. It's just..,odd.
[ June 02, 2012, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not married to the word objective, and have been willing to change it from the beginning. I don't know why you would find it strange, as I haven't been a stickler on that word. Roll with the punches and all.
I won't deny that the more direct approach can be effective...but also carries heavier disadvantages. And I feel that the polite tract can have nearly all the same advantages, but without the same level of damage.
As to my own personal practices, you are right that I haven't always adhered to them as strictly as I am suggesting currently. These are ideals, and often times I find myself falling short of them. The main reason I have asked you to not speak to me in the past was I did not like who I was when I was arguing with you. But that is not a good solution to that problem. I am glad we are able to discussing things in a civil manor, and appreciate your insight into the topics we discuss.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What you are calling the "polite tract" doesn't seem so much polite as either artificial or hedging. If what you are really suggesting is that people not lose their temper, that is good advice.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not losing one's temper is part of it, but no, I'm not suggesting an artificial response, as one can note that they are upset or what is being said is outrageous...it's just how one communicates that I'm specifically talking about.
Being courteous is more about self control then artifice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Isn't not losing your temper a facet of self control?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'd say most definitely, but that isn't all of what that phrase means. (not that you were saying it was, of course).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not how self control other than losing one's temper figures into this. Wouldn't losing one's self control end up being the same thing as losing one's temper in this situation? Either way, says only what one means to say which may or may not be "polite".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Isn't not losing your temper a facet of self control?
Yes. But I was saying is that it isn't artificial to use self control.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It depends on what you use it for. If you are using self control to say things that you don't mean or to keep from saying what you do mean, then it is artificial.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Of course, but I am not calling for people to not say what they mean, I'm suggesting that they say what they mean courteously.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, I don't know what you mean by that. "Courteously" can mean different things - some of which are appropriate and some aren't. And some of it is just fake frosting. The, "no offense, but" prefix, for example, does not make what comes next "courteous".
I am not sure you have thought this all the way through. Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I feel I have made my feelings on the matter abundantly clear, and am afraid that we have reached the point where further discussion seems pointless. For what it is worth I feel I have indeed thought this through all the way. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would you say that my last paragraph was polite or not?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Polite. And mine?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not in the least. I'm sure you thought it was though. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)