5 ms·

The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not". This article says "I am, but it's okay, get used to it". There's a huge difference between telling

by ikeboy 11y ago

The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not". This article says "I am, but it's okay, get used to it". There's a huge difference between telling someone that their beliefs are wrong to telling them that they are bad and should feel guilty, especially if the doctrine says that everyone is bad and should feel guilty all the time.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not". No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a shouting match. The reply is "What is your standard for 'being a jerk', and is that standard a reasonable one?" > There's a huge difference between telling someone that their beliefs are wrong to telling them that they are bad and should feel guilty, especially if the doctrine says that everyone is bad and should feel guilty all the time. That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the rest of us.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a shouting match. I don't mean literally, the words you say must be "I'm not a jerk." I mean the defense must consist of a denial that the behavior was jerkish. If that's achieved by laying out standards for jerkishness, that's fine. The OP read to me as not even achieving that. It wasn't "we aren't jerks, because what we did wasn't jerky", it was "we're going to be jerks, tough on you, shut up". >That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the rest of us. I'm not discussing victimhood culture. I'm discussing a specific defense to a specific complaint, which I think lacks value. The specific complaint was not trying to make people feel bad, it was to make themselves feel good. The response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel bad.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > The response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel bad. Let's start here: The point of Christianity is to make you holy, not to make you happy. When you teach something like I Corinthians 13, if it's going to help anyone's life instead of being merely an academic exercise, you wind up saying "Yes, you really are supposed to love like this. Do you?" If that makes someone feel bad, well, that's not actually the point. The point is that they recognize that they don't love in the way that they should, and therefore see the need to change. And if you're going to say that changing your life in that way isn't the job of a university, well, this is a Christian university, and they think it is exactly their job. And if you're a student there, then presumably that's what you wanted, too. You (ikeboy) seem to want this Christian university to be a secular one. That is not a reasonable expectation. Now, I recognize that there are lots of ways that "making them recognize that they don't love in the way that they should" can be manipulative and even abusive, but it is not inherently so. And the fact that people feel bad (guilty) along the way isn't a flaw, if in fact they are guilty in terms of the biblical standard. To repeat, the point of Christianity is to make you holy, not to make you happy.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Saying something is Christian does not imply it is fine. The proper response to "I'm a jerk because I'm Christian" is "fine, be Christian, but you'll face the consequences of being a jerk, one of which is public shaming for being a jerk". There was a valid point made that the student chose to go to a Christian college. But note that the logic that that implies is precisely the logic behind trigger warnings: that people can choose what to associate with. Clearly, the student did not anticipate the content of the sermon, despite knowing it was a Christian university. So in that case, a warning for that lecture would have let the student know whether to go, and, depending on how important it was to them, possibly drop out. Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive.
      - JungleGymSam 11y ago
        > Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive. facepalm
        ikeboy 11y ago
        That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree? It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association. If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive? As I noted above, the argument that the student chose a Christian college and therefore should know about it falls flat, because the student did not know about it. And if knowing was a good thing, then so would a trigger warning on the talk; it's literally accomplishing the task of making sure people know.
        JungleGymSam 11y ago
        How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive? The mere thought that this is what you expect says, "I'm not a rational person." How does anyone respond to that? There's nothing to be said to you. You've made no indication (from the many comments I've read) that you're prepared to have your mind changed or that you're open to other points of view. You have come to an irrational conclusion and that's it. You're finished. Everyone else (that doesn't agree) is a "jerk" and can take a hike.

by ikeboy 11y ago

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not". No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a shouting match. The reply is "What is your standard for 'being a jerk', and is that standard a reasonable one?" > There's a huge difference between telling someone that their beliefs are wrong to telling them that they are bad and should feel guilty, especially if the doctrine says that everyone is bad and should feel guilty all the time. That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the rest of us.

ikeboy 11y ago
No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a shouting match. I don't mean literally, the words you say must be "I'm not a jerk." I mean the defense must consist of a denial that the behavior was jerkish. If that's achieved by laying out standards for jerkishness, that's fine. The OP read to me as not even achieving that. It wasn't "we aren't jerks, because what we did wasn't jerky", it was "we're going to be jerks, tough on you, shut up". >That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the rest of us. I'm not discussing victimhood culture. I'm discussing a specific defense to a specific complaint, which I think lacks value. The specific complaint was not trying to make people feel bad, it was to make themselves feel good. The response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel bad.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > The response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel bad. Let's start here: The point of Christianity is to make you holy, not to make you happy. When you teach something like I Corinthians 13, if it's going to help anyone's life instead of being merely an academic exercise, you wind up saying "Yes, you really are supposed to love like this. Do you?" If that makes someone feel bad, well, that's not actually the point. The point is that they recognize that they don't love in the way that they should, and therefore see the need to change. And if you're going to say that changing your life in that way isn't the job of a university, well, this is a Christian university, and they think it is exactly their job. And if you're a student there, then presumably that's what you wanted, too. You (ikeboy) seem to want this Christian university to be a secular one. That is not a reasonable expectation. Now, I recognize that there are lots of ways that "making them recognize that they don't love in the way that they should" can be manipulative and even abusive, but it is not inherently so. And the fact that people feel bad (guilty) along the way isn't a flaw, if in fact they are guilty in terms of the biblical standard. To repeat, the point of Christianity is to make you holy, not to make you happy.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Saying something is Christian does not imply it is fine. The proper response to "I'm a jerk because I'm Christian" is "fine, be Christian, but you'll face the consequences of being a jerk, one of which is public shaming for being a jerk". There was a valid point made that the student chose to go to a Christian college. But note that the logic that that implies is precisely the logic behind trigger warnings: that people can choose what to associate with. Clearly, the student did not anticipate the content of the sermon, despite knowing it was a Christian university. So in that case, a warning for that lecture would have let the student know whether to go, and, depending on how important it was to them, possibly drop out. Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive.
    - JungleGymSam 11y ago
      > Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive. facepalm
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree? It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association. If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive? As I noted above, the argument that the student chose a Christian college and therefore should know about it falls flat, because the student did not know about it. And if knowing was a good thing, then so would a trigger warning on the talk; it's literally accomplishing the task of making sure people know.
        JungleGymSam 11y ago
        How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive? The mere thought that this is what you expect says, "I'm not a rational person." How does anyone respond to that? There's nothing to be said to you. You've made no indication (from the many comments I've read) that you're prepared to have your mind changed or that you're open to other points of view. You have come to an irrational conclusion and that's it. You're finished. Everyone else (that doesn't agree) is a "jerk" and can take a hike.