I've occasionally gotten the also-weird side version of this:
Being included into supposed groups that... I don't think are groups in any meaningful way, for starters, and which I don't think I'm "part of" if they are.
Like, "You're one of those XYZ, along with (one or more people I know only very slightly)"
David Rothfeder a motivation may be even worse. I suppose it relates to other issues I've seen -- if there's no nuance in a worldview, then disagreement means you're a villain.
I absolutely agree that people have a right to their opinions, even if they aren't common. However, we as a culture are losing our ability to disagree. People have to be correct in their views and if someone sees things differently then that must be an attack on your correct views. It goes on both sides, I've seen people berate and insult others because they don't believe in evolution.
David Rothfeder While insults aren't useful -- that is, insulting and berating people doesn't change minds, and doesn't help you understand someone's position -- there are positions that deserve no respect. I'd put creation science very high on that list.
And that's another thing we're not nearly as good at as I'd like -- the ability to attack a position without attacking a person. And instead, we identify ourselves with specific positions such that when those positions are attacked, we feel attacked.
And that's ridiculous -- we're people, not positions.
I think your demonstrating my point. Attacking an issue doesn't work no matter what the issue is. When you do the people tied to the other side react, become defensive, and bunker down on their views. It doesn't work.
But disagreeing is different. That is where you understand that the other side believes just as deeply as you do, no matter how wrong you think they are. When you realize this, it becomes way easier to have a discussion on the topic. Your still not likely to convince them to change their mind, but if you respect their ideas they're more likely to respect yours and cooperation and comprise can take place.
As far as some issues ideas being deserving of attack, I'd like to point out that more people on this planet believe the world is flat then believe the world is round. That's a lot of people not to respect.
David Rothfeder point of clarification: my point was that you can disrespect a position without disrespecting a person. I absolutely do not respect the position that the world is flat, no more than I do the belief that Thor causes lightning strikes.
That has nothing to do with my respect of people. That's rather my point that we've, as a society, are shitty at: separating people from the positions they hold. This leads to words such as "flip flopper", the silly notion that if you change your opinion, then you must be wrongheaded.
But beliefs are a part of a person's identity, so disrepecting a deeply held belief will transfer to feelings of disrepecting for the individual. My grandfather would be a good example. He was a racist (as much as that disgusts me). He said horrible things about black people on a fairly regular basis (or at least I've been told, he died when I was 8), but he had black friends and respected black coworkers. He was able to separate the race from the individual. However, if he insulted black people as a whole in front of one of his black friends, it would still be completely understandable that his friend would be completely offended. Maybe the insult wasn't directed to that one black person, but they could easily perceive it being directed to their family, neighbors and friends. Separation a person from a group or idea they associate doesn't work on the large scale, so we can't assume that others will be able to make that distinction.
(From a phone) David Rothfeder I want to pull this argument apart, as I think there's issue conflation.
On the one hand is beliefs we find to be morally repugnant. How we ought to act about these is a large issue, but in the least, I won't give such ideas any respect. As an example, last week I told a racist family member that continued interaction with me is contingent on not displaying his racism.
That is, I didn't call him a bad person. I called the position awful. Basically.
The second issue regards groups and identity: of course you grandfather's African American coworkers would be offended by over racism - it is about the steps from that to lynching!
Which is the other point: some positions are actively harmful. Our ideas lead to actions, and treating harmful or immoral ideas as acceptable normalizes them and the actions they lead to.
That's all pretty quick: again, I'm on a phone.
I won't be available for the rest of the evening. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I suggest we find another time and internet location to do so.
That's fine, though I think we are approaching the conclusion. I agree certain beliefs are terrible and can lead to harmful behaviors, but that doesn't change the reality of how they react. If you call someone a racist, they won't stop being racist. But if you a acknowledge this and address you have a chance to stop them from causing harm and perhaps over time it will lead to other changes.
Oh, David Rothfeder , I don't call racists racist. I don't call them anything; overts racism gets shunning. That's the thing: some positions are so damaging that merely being around them is harmful.
I did kinda fire my great aunt for that reason. She wasn't going to accept that I didn't want her to say racist things about my students. If I could help her change the behavior I would try to.
I've occasionally gotten the also-weird side version of this:
ReplyDeleteBeing included into supposed groups that... I don't think are groups in any meaningful way, for starters, and which I don't think I'm "part of" if they are.
Like, "You're one of those XYZ, along with (one or more people I know only very slightly)"
That is a weird version. What sort of groups? Any examples?
ReplyDeleteI'm all angry. Its been a weird day. But, hey, at least I learned a new pet peeve. That's something, right?
ReplyDeleteIt get's worse when you prove that you do not hold an opinion that somebody assumed you to have.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rothfeder a motivation may be even worse. I suppose it relates to other issues I've seen -- if there's no nuance in a worldview, then disagreement means you're a villain.
ReplyDeleteAlso, David Rothfeder , we shouldn't be having to prove what opinions we have. There's some weird cultural nonsense if that's the case for anyone.
ReplyDeleteOh right, i can uncircle people. That's a better internet.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that people have a right to their opinions, even if they aren't common. However, we as a culture are losing our ability to disagree. People have to be correct in their views and if someone sees things differently then that must be an attack on your correct views. It goes on both sides, I've seen people berate and insult others because they don't believe in evolution.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rothfeder While insults aren't useful -- that is, insulting and berating people doesn't change minds, and doesn't help you understand someone's position -- there are positions that deserve no respect. I'd put creation science very high on that list.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's another thing we're not nearly as good at as I'd like -- the ability to attack a position without attacking a person. And instead, we identify ourselves with specific positions such that when those positions are attacked, we feel attacked.
And that's ridiculous -- we're people, not positions.
I think your demonstrating my point. Attacking an issue doesn't work no matter what the issue is. When you do the people tied to the other side react, become defensive, and bunker down on their views. It doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteBut disagreeing is different. That is where you understand that the other side believes just as deeply as you do, no matter how wrong you think they are. When you realize this, it becomes way easier to have a discussion on the topic. Your still not likely to convince them to change their mind, but if you respect their ideas they're more likely to respect yours and cooperation and comprise can take place.
As far as some issues ideas being deserving of attack, I'd like to point out that more people on this planet believe the world is flat then believe the world is round. That's a lot of people not to respect.
David Rothfeder point of clarification: my point was that you can disrespect a position without disrespecting a person. I absolutely do not respect the position that the world is flat, no more than I do the belief that Thor causes lightning strikes.
ReplyDeleteThat has nothing to do with my respect of people. That's rather my point that we've, as a society, are shitty at: separating people from the positions they hold. This leads to words such as "flip flopper", the silly notion that if you change your opinion, then you must be wrongheaded.
But beliefs are a part of a person's identity, so disrepecting a deeply held belief will transfer to feelings of disrepecting for the individual. My grandfather would be a good example. He was a racist (as much as that disgusts me). He said horrible things about black people on a fairly regular basis (or at least I've been told, he died when I was 8), but he had black friends and respected black coworkers. He was able to separate the race from the individual. However, if he insulted black people as a whole in front of one of his black friends, it would still be completely understandable that his friend would be completely offended. Maybe the insult wasn't directed to that one black person, but they could easily perceive it being directed to their family, neighbors and friends. Separation a person from a group or idea they associate doesn't work on the large scale, so we can't assume that others will be able to make that distinction.
ReplyDelete(From a phone) David Rothfeder I want to pull this argument apart, as I think there's issue conflation.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand is beliefs we find to be morally repugnant. How we ought to act about these is a large issue, but in the least, I won't give such ideas any respect. As an example, last week I told a racist family member that continued interaction with me is contingent on not displaying his racism.
That is, I didn't call him a bad person. I called the position awful. Basically.
The second issue regards groups and identity: of course you grandfather's African American coworkers would be offended by over racism - it is about the steps from that to lynching!
Which is the other point: some positions are actively harmful. Our ideas lead to actions, and treating harmful or immoral ideas as acceptable normalizes them and the actions they lead to.
That's all pretty quick: again, I'm on a phone.
I won't be available for the rest of the evening. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I suggest we find another time and internet location to do so.
That's fine, though I think we are approaching the conclusion. I agree certain beliefs are terrible and can lead to harmful behaviors, but that doesn't change the reality of how they react. If you call someone a racist, they won't stop being racist. But if you a acknowledge this and address you have a chance to stop them from causing harm and perhaps over time it will lead to other changes.
ReplyDeleteOh, David Rothfeder , I don't call racists racist. I don't call them anything; overts racism gets shunning. That's the thing: some positions are so damaging that merely being around them is harmful.
ReplyDeleteI did kinda fire my great aunt for that reason. She wasn't going to accept that I didn't want her to say racist things about my students. If I could help her change the behavior I would try to.
ReplyDelete