shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 24, 2015 19:52:14 GMT -5
I don't think he's right and I find that point laughable, but faced with that argument I would offer a clear, concise, respectful and well reasoned response. Even if it might do nothing to change his opinion I would want my opinions treated in a similar way so it's only fair that I afford the same courtesy to others. I disagree with the idea that all opinions and beliefs need to be respected. I think it's more fair to say that all people should be respected. Their beliefs should be confronted and challenged; not ridiculed. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 24, 2015 20:19:57 GMT -5
I don't think he's right and I find that point laughable, but faced with that argument I would offer a clear, concise, respectful and well reasoned response. Even if it might do nothing to change his opinion I would want my opinions treated in a similar way so it's only fair that I afford the same courtesy to others. I disagree with the idea that all opinions and beliefs need to be respected. I'm of the opinion some actually deserve cruel and severe ridicule, and that those who hold those opinions should be shamed into never publicly sharing them. It's definitely not respect for the ideas, but the rights of a fellow human being. But really, even beyond that, why be cruel if you don't have to? Does shaming someone who you disagree with get your point across better than stating it politely? For me, I try never to be cruel, and let's be clear trying to shame someone into silence (even if you find their views absolutely abhorrent) is cruel. Now, I don't always achieve that goal as sometimes my emotions just get the better of me but I've never set out to intentionally be cruel. As for the second question I think the answer is a resounding know, ever since I was taught how to argue by my Grandfather the main tenet has always been "present the very best version of your argument" and shaming and belittling your opponent just can't be the best version of your argument because it appeals to our most base qualities where you should always be shooting to elevate understanding and appeal to logic and reason which are our best qualities. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 22:56:08 GMT -5
I disagree with the idea that all opinions and beliefs need to be respected. I think it's more fair to say that all people should be respected. Their beliefs should be confronted and challenged; not ridiculed. To me respect is earned. Someone who I do not consider to be a decent human being has not earned that. I disagree with the idea that all opinions and beliefs need to be respected. I'm of the opinion some actually deserve cruel and severe ridicule, and that those who hold those opinions should be shamed into never publicly sharing them. It's definitely not respect for the ideas, but the rights of a fellow human being. But really, even beyond that, why be cruel if you don't have to? Does shaming someone who you disagree with get your point across better than stating it politely? For me, I try never to be cruel, and let's be clear trying to shame someone into silence (even if you find their views absolutely abhorrent) is cruel. Now, I don't always achieve that goal as sometimes my emotions just get the better of me but I've never set out to intentionally be cruel. As for the second question I think the answer is a resounding know, ever since I was taught how to argue by my Grandfather the main tenet has always been "present the very best version of your argument" and shaming and belittling your opponent just can't be the best version of your argument because it appeals to our most base qualities where you should always be shooting to elevate understanding and appeal to logic and reason which are our best qualities. I understand it's not going to be a popular opinion. I think most people would not purposefully be cruel. Even cruel people. Often times they think their cruelty is helping, or tough love, or just "telling it like it is." But not me, I'm cruel to those people. I'm not going to convince them Obama isn't a Muslim, so I might as well shame them. Whenever I'm confronted with the kind of idiocy that crosses the line from an honest "I didn't read that/learn that in school" to a conscious pride in ignorance, it's time to shame them. You think the world is flat, you need to be pointed at and ridiculed. You think the devil made evolution happen to trick us into not believing in god so we can all go to hell, same. Now, if you got a fact or figure wrong because you had outdated data or were deceived, that's another story. I wouldn't react quite as harshly over that. But there is a reasonable suspension of disbelief that all people of moderate intelligence should have, that ends somewhere before "There is a massive international conspiracy to make it look like Obama was a citizen so he can be president and implement martial law and take all our guns and send us to Fema death camps!" My belief is most of those people don't truly believe that, but screaming the N-word isn't socially acceptable so they go with the birther story. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2015 7:44:36 GMT -5
I think it's more fair to say that all people should be respected. Their beliefs should be confronted and challenged; not ridiculed. To me respect is earned. Someone who I do not consider to be a decent human being has not earned that. Wow. Implying that someone is not a decent human being for holding views you don't respect is pretty much the most monstrously offensive thing anyone has yet said in this thread (let alone in this community), and yet I still respect you, even while I find that opinion horrifying. Please note that I've told you so, and I've told you why, but I've maintained a respectful tone and respect for the person to whom I'm addressing. That way, maybe (just maybe) you'll hear me out and consider revising your stance. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Sept 25, 2015 8:04:10 GMT -5
To me respect is earned. Someone who I do not consider to be a decent human being has not earned that. Wow. Implying that someone is not a decent human being for holding views you don't respect is pretty much the most monstrously offensive thing anyone has yet said in this thread (let alone in this community), and yet I still respect you, even while I find that opinion horrifying. My opinion is as soon as you take the low road (insulting, shaming, belittling), you've automatically elevated your opponent and lost the fight. They may have been wrong (at least in your opinion or even in the overwhelming view of society and unassailable facts) but by sinking to their level or below, you've given them the win and end up looking like a bully.
Also people should consider that occasionally, in some matters, they could be the one that's wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 8:05:12 GMT -5
Time to bake cookies for the Klavern closest to me!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2015 8:06:40 GMT -5
Also people should consider that occasionally, in some matters, they could be the one that's wrong. Gasp! But then actual discourse would happen  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 8:11:01 GMT -5
Repressive tolerance, people. Not that Marcuse is the end-all & be-all of political theory, but it's an interesting concept, whereby "this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested ... Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence."
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2015 8:13:04 GMT -5
Repressive tolerance, people. Not that Marcuse is the end-all & be-all of political theory, but it's an interesting concept, whereby "this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested ... Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence." That theory creates an artificial dichotomy in which you either fight what you oppose with full aggressiveness or completely allow it to move forward unchecked. No one is advocating the latter, here. I encourage folks to actively oppose policies they disagree with, but to do so respectfully so that the other side actually has a chance of listening (and, if not them, then the people quietly watching from the sidelines). When you just sling insults and snarkiness, you actually strengthen the other side's resolve and make them look better in contrast. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the rants in this thread have caused guests viewing the page to lean more conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 8:15:21 GMT -5
It depends, I suppose, on just how far gone you think the current system is &/or is likely to get. I'm obviously given to apocalyptic tendencies, which I attribute at least in part to living in a political cesspool here. (I apologize to all actual cesspools.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 25, 2015 8:37:30 GMT -5
It depends, I suppose, on just how far gone you think the current system is &/or is likely to get The reason the conservative agenda has been able to get as far as it has is that it has a PR machine that convinces otherwise sensible conservatives that their way of life is under attack. That rallies them up for extremist beliefs and actions. So, when you ACTUALLY go attacking them, you help the cause. It's this simple really -- model the behavior you want to see from the other side. If you want them to be respectful, sensible, and open to hearing you out, then you have to be willing to do the same and hope they'll notice. Because taking the other approach only further motivates them to continue believing what they already believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 8:42:49 GMT -5
You've never been to Alabama, I see. And possibly none of the other Deep South states, either.
This is the place where Klansmen bombed a church & killed four little girls. Where Freedom Riders were beaten half to death, including in downtown Montgomery, about 2 minutes from where I'm typing this. Where a man of the cloth was fatally beaten in Selma, which I drive through on every trip to & from Shreveport & Arkansas, & a housewife was killed while ferrying a marcher after a civil rights gathering. And on those trips to & from Shreveport & Arkansas every December, I drive by the exit sign for Philadelphia, Miss., where 3 civil rights workers were killed during Freedom Summer with the connivance of local law enforcement.
It's nice to fantasize about being polite to such people & respecting their opinions & thereby magically converting them to civility, but ... no. Just no.
And yes, all of that was 50-odd years ago. But to think it couldn't happen again in very nearly the blink of an eye is to practice self-delusion.
There's a reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center exists maybe a mile & a half from where I'm typing this, a stone's-throw from where my old newspaper stood when I started there before it moved to a new building. Those guys go after political troglodytes in print &, when necessary, in court. That's not very polite or respectful of them, I know.
As it happens, that organization's main undercover infiltrator of skinhead-type extremist sects is married to someone who used to work here (though unfortunately they're hurtling toward divorce). It's nice to think that he could just attend a meeting of some of those folks & convert them to sensibility (if I may dare suggest, at the risk of hurting people's feelings, that they're not very sensible) by radiating respect & warmth. Thinking such an approach would be rewarding (& wouldn't, in fact, get him beaten to a pulp if not killed), however, would require much more efficacious meds than I'm on.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Sept 25, 2015 9:09:58 GMT -5
You've never been to Alabama, I see. And possibly none of the other Deep South states, either. This is the place where Klansmen bombed a church & killed four little girls. Where Freedom Riders were beaten half to death, including in downtown Montgomery, about 2 minutes from where I'm typing this. Where a man of the cloth was fatally beaten in Selma, which I drive through on every trip to & from Shreveport & Arkansas, & a housewife was killed while ferrying a marcher after a civil rights gathering. And on those trips to & from Shreveport & Arkansas every December, I drive by the exit sign for Philadelphia, Miss., where 3 civil rights workers were killed during Freedom Summer with the connivance of local law enforcement. It's nice to fantasize about being polite to such people & respecting their opinions & thereby magically converting them to civility, but ... no. Just no. And yes, all of that was 50-odd years ago. But to think it couldn't happen again in very nearly the blink of an eye is to practice self-delusion. There's a reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center exists maybe a mile & a half from where I'm typing this, a stone's-throw from where my old newspaper stood when I started there before it moved to a new building. Those guys go after political troglodytes in print &, when necessary, in court. That's not very polite or respectful of them, I know. As it happens, that organization's main undercover infiltrator of skinhead-type extremist sects is married to someone who used to work here (though unfortunately they're hurtling toward divorce). It's nice to think that he could just attend a meeting of some of those folks & convert them to sensibility (if I may dare suggest that they're not very sensible) by radiating respect & warmth. Thinking such an approach would be rewarding (& wouldn't, in fact, get him beaten to a pulp if not killed), however, would require much more efficacious meds than I'm on. You're obviously right that violent extremists will never be swayed by polite discourse. That they beat, kill, and bomb those they don't think are "decent human beings" is unquestionably evil. That's what the Southern Poverty Law Center, police, courts, etc, all exist to fight against. But as far as "polite and respectful" goes, what I've heard from the Southern Poverty Law Center over past years has never gone to the other extreme of hate speech like the ones they stand against. They call out evil people and deeds for what they are, without sugar coating, but also not sinking to the level of those they oppose.
Polite and respectful doesn't work on everybody, but insulting and belittling doesn't work on anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 9:22:08 GMT -5
You've never been to Alabama, I see. And possibly none of the other Deep South states, either. This is the place where Klansmen bombed a church & killed four little girls. Where Freedom Riders were beaten half to death, including in downtown Montgomery, about 2 minutes from where I'm typing this. Where a man of the cloth was fatally beaten in Selma, which I drive through on every trip to & from Shreveport & Arkansas, & a housewife was killed while ferrying a marcher after a civil rights gathering. And on those trips to & from Shreveport & Arkansas every December, I drive by the exit sign for Philadelphia, Miss., where 3 civil rights workers were killed during Freedom Summer with the connivance of local law enforcement. It's nice to fantasize about being polite to such people & respecting their opinions & thereby magically converting them to civility, but ... no. Just no. And yes, all of that was 50-odd years ago. But to think it couldn't happen again in very nearly the blink of an eye is to practice self-delusion. There's a reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center exists maybe a mile & a half from where I'm typing this, a stone's-throw from where my old newspaper stood when I started there before it moved to a new building. Those guys go after political troglodytes in print &, when necessary, in court. That's not very polite or respectful of them, I know. As it happens, that organization's main undercover infiltrator of skinhead-type extremist sects is married to someone who used to work here (though unfortunately they're hurtling toward divorce). It's nice to think that he could just attend a meeting of some of those folks & convert them to sensibility (if I may dare suggest that they're not very sensible) by radiating respect & warmth. Thinking such an approach would be rewarding (& wouldn't, in fact, get him beaten to a pulp if not killed), however, would require much more efficacious meds than I'm on. You're obviously right that violent extremists will never be swayed by polite discourse. That they beat, kill, and bomb those they don't think are "decent human beings" is unquestionably evil. That's what the Southern Poverty Law Center, police, courts, etc, all exist to fight against. But as far as "polite and respectful" goes, what I've heard from the Southern Poverty Law Center over past years has never gone to the other extreme of hate speech like the ones they stand against. They call out evil people and deeds for what they are, without sugar coating, but also not sinking to the level of those they oppose.
Polite and respectful doesn't work on everybody, but insulting and belittling doesn't work on anybody.
Or on bananas, sir. Or on bananas. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Sept 25, 2015 9:45:24 GMT -5
You're obviously right that violent extremists will never be swayed by polite discourse. That they beat, kill, and bomb those they don't think are "decent human beings" is unquestionably evil. That's what the Southern Poverty Law Center, police, courts, etc, all exist to fight against. But as far as "polite and respectful" goes, what I've heard from the Southern Poverty Law Center over past years has never gone to the other extreme of hate speech like the ones they stand against. They call out evil people and deeds for what they are, without sugar coating, but also not sinking to the level of those they oppose.
Polite and respectful doesn't work on everybody, but insulting and belittling doesn't work on anybody.
Or on bananas, sir. Or on bananas. Sadly bananas are one of the evils that the SPLC hasn't spoken out against. <sigh> |
|
