Why do you think the rejection of a supremacist is inherently a supremacist act? I don’t feel superior to them, I feel deep all consuming sadness that society can produce a person like that. I feel angry that they’re here trying to spread their insanity. And I feel tired, so so tired. But I don’t feel superior to them. Justified for my anger? Sure. But that isn’t superiority.
You really like Daryl Davis, as do I: he’s done amazing work. But have you engaged with his writings, or what he feels about this issue? He doesn’t ascribe to your absolutism - he supports the broad work in combating rhetorical hatred just as I will absolutely support you in a bid to engage directly and de-radicalize those people. It’s important you realize that if the existence of a sympathetic ear could be undone by broad cultural opposition, Daryl Davis would never have been able to make a difference.
I can respect the ideals you claim, but I cannot respect their misapplication not least because the originator of your ideals doesn’t. I’ve made no claims of superiority, even refusing to feed into their obvious self-loathing and encouraging them on being more authentic in the expression of their ideas regardless of their content, but you have claimed I intrinsically have*.
I have to ask, are you projecting? Do you feel your ideology is superior to mine, here, now? Because if you do, that truly needs examination. And if you don’t, you should examine why you’re deflecting from face-value criticism of your actions with claims of their own inherent moral superiority.
I recognize you’re particularly bothered by me implying you feel morally superior. I’ll accept that you dont shame people to feel superior. I apologize for making that assumption. I was wrong.
Anyway, Yeah, I own his book and have listened to many of his appearances online. I don’t see how I’m misconstruing or poorly applying his message. I believe that engaging with someone on a ideological level is important and the best option, I don’t see shaming as an effective tool to do that. I’ll be very clear though, the individual this all sparked from seems to be a troll wasting both our time, not an individual open to any type of real conversation.
Yes I believe it is objectively more helpful and therfore more morally correct to do so. So sure, you could say I feel morally superior by not utilizing shaming language in most cases. That feeling isn’t the driver for my actions just a biproduct (blame being raised by social workers). You already stated you don’t want to change minds and you don’t want people like that on your side. So I don’t see us finding a middle ground, but the conversation has been a good distraction.
I’m gonna look like a dick for bringing it up but its pertinent. I volunteer monthly in youth outreach and in my experience shaming holds no benefit. In fact shame is like a horrible cancer in that setting that stops people from getting the help they need.These are at risk teens to general criminality not white supremacist organizations. But if I were in a different area they very well might be at risk of getting scooped up by some neo nazi group. I wouldn’t start discussions by shitting all over the only other people that have so far helped/listened to/brainwashed the kid. I’d discuss the reasoning and try to help them understand the pitfalls in extremist view points.
My stance is communication and empathy are the most important parts to ending hateful thought. This isnt just a thing I argue with about with people online. I wholeheartedly want us to heal and grow as a society, and I don’t see shaming/name calling being part of that. But, its absolutely possible I’m wrong. I’m wrong about shit all the time.
What I’m trying to do is use that characterization of inherent superiority, and the interaction with Lunitique, as a lens through which you can examine your own broad motivations. In that spirit, I’d like to just draw a big circle around a fundamental concept: When you look at the values and context of the ideologies being presented, we don’t disagree nor are we inherently in conflict.
What you’re saying, that when engaging with someone who you hope to bring around shaming is a counterprodutive tool, is fine. It’s a bit lies-to-children (for the sake of sparing us both a long and tediously boring discussion of what shame truly is in society) but I’ll happily say I totally agree, it is absolutely counterproductive to try and directly influence someone’s opinion to a position they do not already hold by engaging with them negatively (it works great to reinforce someone’s position, though!).
But that’s not what I’m doing. I’m not speaking to them. That’s where your projection of your own actions is undermining your understanding of my position. That comment I made, the one that broadcasts the values they actually hold, that’s not made with the intent of changing their opinion. It’s a completely different strategy, and it’s derived from the principal that underpins all societal norms. The reason we don’t shit in the street, the reason cultural attitudes change at all, is because of a broad change in perception that those norms aren’t acceptable. It’s a slow process, and it’s a bulk process.
My goal with a comment like that is not to single out a single person and make them “better”, it’s to demonstrate in clear terms that there are other viewpoints, that the person posting does not exist in a vacuum where they get to dictate the narrative, that opposition to their ideas exists and that if they want to espouse those ideas, they will have to hold them in the face of the justified negative criticism they deserve. I’m not shitting all over anyone’s ideas but Lunitiques, but in shitting on those ideas I’m removing their ability to dictate the context in which they interact. This is where you’re misapplying the lessons Davis’ teaches; he approaches those people individually, and he values that personal connection in changing their more-vile opinions. That is excellent, but you cannot simply take concepts that complex and apply them in a completely, fundamentally, inseparably different context. This is why he supports broad efforts to change societal opinions via outreach and awareness, not just engaging on a personal level. He chooses that method, but he does not denigrate other approaches as inherently bad.
Your stance is that communication and empathy are critical to ending hateful thought. I wholly agree. But while they may be among the most important tools we have, they are not the only tools we have.
I would like to point out something I think you’ve overlooked:
What I am doing right now is passionately and without any attempts at shaming you, presenting my own position and my own interpretation of your position. I want you to make up your own mind, and I am fully willing to accept a fundamental disagreement between us may be inevitable.
What you are doing, and have been doing (and which I fully credit is not intentional), is attempting to shame me for my approach to this situation. You hold that your position can be reasonably characterized as being morally superior, that you derive feelings of superiority from presenting your positions. These are all things which you have criticized, rightly or wrongly, in my approach. Your stated position contradicts the form your position appears to take, and truly my only goal here is to present that to you. To, through reasoned discourse and genuine sympathetic understanding, let you see that defending hatred on the basis of the form it’s criticism takes is counterproductive to the ideals you yourself hold.
We mostly agree. I’d reiterate that I do think avoiding shameful discourse is paramount to finding common ground which is the position we seem to be stuck on. I’d also say again that ,yes, I think avoiding shame based dialoge is the most morally correct thing in instances like this. But I feel that is an objective fact and not a motivation for me personally. Its been a good discussion and I appreciate the things you’ve said and how they’ve challenged my ideas. I likely wont change my approach much, but, you’ve made the best case I’ve heard so far on this. I’m sure we’ll be at odds again in another ask post, I look forward to future arguments haha.
most morally correct thing in instances like this. But I feel that is an objective fact
(I swear I’m not trying to get the last word in and I am glad you have given my ideas a chance! I just want to point out an ontological pet peeve: you can’t have an objective fact in a discussion about relative morality. If morality were objective, what would there be left to have conflict about?)
Its calm, morality is inherently subjective most of the time because it depends on each individuals value system. However, I believe some things are objectively morally wrong. You’re driving down the street and see a random pedestrian, you stop, get out and shoot that pedestrian in the head, killing them. That is objectively morally wrong.
IDK, overpopulation is one of the largest factors in every major problem facing the world today. Reducing that population removes pressure from the mechanisms of society that are failing, which could quite reasonably be considered a positive and perhaps even imperative contribution to the group as a whole.
(Obviously I don’t think that, it’s a hyperbolic example on all sides, but that’s the issue with trying to claim objectivity in morality: there are points within that justification for random death that from a certain perspective could be considered wholly valid)
Why do you think the rejection of a supremacist is inherently a supremacist act? I don’t feel superior to them, I feel deep all consuming sadness that society can produce a person like that. I feel angry that they’re here trying to spread their insanity. And I feel tired, so so tired. But I don’t feel superior to them. Justified for my anger? Sure. But that isn’t superiority.
You really like Daryl Davis, as do I: he’s done amazing work. But have you engaged with his writings, or what he feels about this issue? He doesn’t ascribe to your absolutism - he supports the broad work in combating rhetorical hatred just as I will absolutely support you in a bid to engage directly and de-radicalize those people. It’s important you realize that if the existence of a sympathetic ear could be undone by broad cultural opposition, Daryl Davis would never have been able to make a difference.
I can respect the ideals you claim, but I cannot respect their misapplication not least because the originator of your ideals doesn’t. I’ve made no claims of superiority, even refusing to feed into their obvious self-loathing and encouraging them on being more authentic in the expression of their ideas regardless of their content, but you have claimed I intrinsically have*.
I have to ask, are you projecting? Do you feel your ideology is superior to mine, here, now? Because if you do, that truly needs examination. And if you don’t, you should examine why you’re deflecting from face-value criticism of your actions with claims of their own inherent moral superiority.
edit: clarity
I recognize you’re particularly bothered by me implying you feel morally superior. I’ll accept that you dont shame people to feel superior. I apologize for making that assumption. I was wrong.
Anyway, Yeah, I own his book and have listened to many of his appearances online. I don’t see how I’m misconstruing or poorly applying his message. I believe that engaging with someone on a ideological level is important and the best option, I don’t see shaming as an effective tool to do that. I’ll be very clear though, the individual this all sparked from seems to be a troll wasting both our time, not an individual open to any type of real conversation.
Yes I believe it is objectively more helpful and therfore more morally correct to do so. So sure, you could say I feel morally superior by not utilizing shaming language in most cases. That feeling isn’t the driver for my actions just a biproduct (blame being raised by social workers). You already stated you don’t want to change minds and you don’t want people like that on your side. So I don’t see us finding a middle ground, but the conversation has been a good distraction.
I’m gonna look like a dick for bringing it up but its pertinent. I volunteer monthly in youth outreach and in my experience shaming holds no benefit. In fact shame is like a horrible cancer in that setting that stops people from getting the help they need.These are at risk teens to general criminality not white supremacist organizations. But if I were in a different area they very well might be at risk of getting scooped up by some neo nazi group. I wouldn’t start discussions by shitting all over the only other people that have so far helped/listened to/brainwashed the kid. I’d discuss the reasoning and try to help them understand the pitfalls in extremist view points.
My stance is communication and empathy are the most important parts to ending hateful thought. This isnt just a thing I argue with about with people online. I wholeheartedly want us to heal and grow as a society, and I don’t see shaming/name calling being part of that. But, its absolutely possible I’m wrong. I’m wrong about shit all the time.
What I’m trying to do is use that characterization of inherent superiority, and the interaction with Lunitique, as a lens through which you can examine your own broad motivations. In that spirit, I’d like to just draw a big circle around a fundamental concept: When you look at the values and context of the ideologies being presented, we don’t disagree nor are we inherently in conflict.
What you’re saying, that when engaging with someone who you hope to bring around shaming is a counterprodutive tool, is fine. It’s a bit lies-to-children (for the sake of sparing us both a long and tediously boring discussion of what shame truly is in society) but I’ll happily say I totally agree, it is absolutely counterproductive to try and directly influence someone’s opinion to a position they do not already hold by engaging with them negatively (it works great to reinforce someone’s position, though!).
But that’s not what I’m doing. I’m not speaking to them. That’s where your projection of your own actions is undermining your understanding of my position. That comment I made, the one that broadcasts the values they actually hold, that’s not made with the intent of changing their opinion. It’s a completely different strategy, and it’s derived from the principal that underpins all societal norms. The reason we don’t shit in the street, the reason cultural attitudes change at all, is because of a broad change in perception that those norms aren’t acceptable. It’s a slow process, and it’s a bulk process.
My goal with a comment like that is not to single out a single person and make them “better”, it’s to demonstrate in clear terms that there are other viewpoints, that the person posting does not exist in a vacuum where they get to dictate the narrative, that opposition to their ideas exists and that if they want to espouse those ideas, they will have to hold them in the face of the justified negative criticism they deserve. I’m not shitting all over anyone’s ideas but Lunitiques, but in shitting on those ideas I’m removing their ability to dictate the context in which they interact. This is where you’re misapplying the lessons Davis’ teaches; he approaches those people individually, and he values that personal connection in changing their more-vile opinions. That is excellent, but you cannot simply take concepts that complex and apply them in a completely, fundamentally, inseparably different context. This is why he supports broad efforts to change societal opinions via outreach and awareness, not just engaging on a personal level. He chooses that method, but he does not denigrate other approaches as inherently bad.
Your stance is that communication and empathy are critical to ending hateful thought. I wholly agree. But while they may be among the most important tools we have, they are not the only tools we have.
I would like to point out something I think you’ve overlooked:
What I am doing right now is passionately and without any attempts at shaming you, presenting my own position and my own interpretation of your position. I want you to make up your own mind, and I am fully willing to accept a fundamental disagreement between us may be inevitable.
What you are doing, and have been doing (and which I fully credit is not intentional), is attempting to shame me for my approach to this situation. You hold that your position can be reasonably characterized as being morally superior, that you derive feelings of superiority from presenting your positions. These are all things which you have criticized, rightly or wrongly, in my approach. Your stated position contradicts the form your position appears to take, and truly my only goal here is to present that to you. To, through reasoned discourse and genuine sympathetic understanding, let you see that defending hatred on the basis of the form it’s criticism takes is counterproductive to the ideals you yourself hold.
edit: bad at typing
We mostly agree. I’d reiterate that I do think avoiding shameful discourse is paramount to finding common ground which is the position we seem to be stuck on. I’d also say again that ,yes, I think avoiding shame based dialoge is the most morally correct thing in instances like this. But I feel that is an objective fact and not a motivation for me personally. Its been a good discussion and I appreciate the things you’ve said and how they’ve challenged my ideas. I likely wont change my approach much, but, you’ve made the best case I’ve heard so far on this. I’m sure we’ll be at odds again in another ask post, I look forward to future arguments haha.
(I swear I’m not trying to get the last word in and I am glad you have given my ideas a chance! I just want to point out an ontological pet peeve: you can’t have an objective fact in a discussion about relative morality. If morality were objective, what would there be left to have conflict about?)
Its calm, morality is inherently subjective most of the time because it depends on each individuals value system. However, I believe some things are objectively morally wrong. You’re driving down the street and see a random pedestrian, you stop, get out and shoot that pedestrian in the head, killing them. That is objectively morally wrong.
IDK, overpopulation is one of the largest factors in every major problem facing the world today. Reducing that population removes pressure from the mechanisms of society that are failing, which could quite reasonably be considered a positive and perhaps even imperative contribution to the group as a whole.
(Obviously I don’t think that, it’s a hyperbolic example on all sides, but that’s the issue with trying to claim objectivity in morality: there are points within that justification for random death that from a certain perspective could be considered wholly valid)
Yeah, this one would run in circles. Good on ya though. Go argue with other posts I’ve made.