6 ms·

> I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. See, I am starting to realize that you're not actually open,

by p4wnc6 10y ago

> I just aren't seeing anything that is bigoted. I'm very, very open to being persuaded otherwise. See, I am starting to realize that you're not actually open, or at least you're not as open as you think you are and you're not acknowledging the way you're going out of the way to ignore or write off blatantly bigoted behavior. Here's just one example [0] < https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_leak_megathread/d5n5e6r https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4u5ztv/dnc_email_... >. Since it seems like we have a disagreement even in kind, it might be best to just see what your thoughts are about that lone example. If we can't agree that it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted, then it's doubtful we can agree on anything else.

nl 10y ago
I didn't see that example, sorry. (I did Ctrl-F and found the swim team example first.) It's pretty bad stereotyping, I agree. But for the LGBT Finance Director to say that - why do you think it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted? The linked Reddit discussion has a pretty wide range of views, but even there I don't see anyone calling him bigoted. The closest is "It's an vicious joke. I don't care whether the joker is gay. He's a duplicitous prick.", and the author of that comment is getting quite a lot of push-back on it. They later qualified their comment to say: You missed my point which I approached a bit too indirectly, perhaps. I don't take offense to jokes. My point: the question of whether the joker is gay is irrelevant to the ethical status of making a joke about being gay It's relevant for PC bots, sure, but I'm not bound to their code. Edit: but, yeah, the guy is still a duplicitous prick I don't really understand this explanation, but it doesn't really sound like an accusation of bigotry. "Bigot" means "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". How do you get that from that particular comment? I'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a position we can both understand. I completely respect your anger over these emails - they are nasty and unprofessional, and I'm not endorsing that or the behaviour they represent in any way. But I'm not surprised they aren't "under 24/7 emphatic media coverage" - like someone said in that Reddit thread - it's like a bunch of office gossip.
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  Tolerance extends to the understanding of a culture and abstaining from deriding someone based solely on that culture. The joke, which reveals a deeper personal value judgement on behalf of the person telling it, speaks of a "good gay" as if to stereotype gay men by a particular behavior, denying the possibility that you can be a "good" gay man but have a different cultural outlook. That, to me, is unquestionably a form of intolerance. Making light of someone can be a form of intolerance, depending on what property it is by which you make light of them and whether or not it is based in a harmful generalization. Another way to say it is: you can't claim tolerance if you're happy to propagate harmful stereotypes or generalizations. Emphatically, it is crucial to dive into the language deeply. The urge to say "it's just a joke" is precisely the kind of let's-sweep-this-frat-house-bigotry-under-the-rug-and-go-back-to-thinking-everything's-nice rationalization that allows such bigotry to perpetuate. Re: your last line that it's like gossip: Except that this is our political process. It happens rarely (once per four years) and is a matter of passion, contention, and deep moral conviction. We have every right to expect it to be held to far higher standard than some bullshit gossip. Let me be clear that I do not believe it's merely gossip and I'm not offering any credibility to that stance. It's not mere gossip. It is harmful, derogatory language about gays, as well as at the very least an amazingly insensitive and offensive simplification of American religious beliefs (e.g., that some particular Christian people will see "a Jew" differently than "an atheist" and that could be worth a few polling points, and that all three belief groups are nothing whatsoever but sources of polling points, to be engineered and manipulated with audience plants, etc.) But even if it was "mere gossip" [it isn't] it would still be outrageously flagrant that the primary administrators of one half of our most important political process essentially view their jobs as a frat party. That's not some kind of let's-roll-our-eyes-but-boys-will-be-boys-and-move-on kind of thing, as you seem to think it is, but rather it is a let's-eject-everyone-from-this-Neanderthal-administration-and-hire-people-who-actually-give-a-damn issue. It's not boring nightly news to be eye-rolled and skipped for the sports section. It's our goddamn political process. It's frankly shocking to me that someone would suggest it's just boring gossip to be unconcerned with. I cannot reconcile that with any notion of caring about even the tiniest component of civic duty.
  - nl 10y ago

by p4wnc6 10y ago

nl 10y ago

I didn't see that example, sorry. (I did Ctrl-F and found the swim team example first.) It's pretty bad stereotyping, I agree. But for the LGBT Finance Director to say that - why do you think it is egregiously, lose-your-job-on-the-spot bigoted? The linked Reddit discussion has a pretty wide range of views, but even there I don't see anyone calling him bigoted. The closest is "It's an vicious joke. I don't care whether the joker is gay. He's a duplicitous prick.", and the author of that comment is getting quite a lot of push-back on it. They later qualified their comment to say: You missed my point which I approached a bit too indirectly, perhaps. I don't take offense to jokes. My point: the question of whether the joker is gay is irrelevant to the ethical status of making a joke about being gay It's relevant for PC bots, sure, but I'm not bound to their code. Edit: but, yeah, the guy is still a duplicitous prick I don't really understand this explanation, but it doesn't really sound like an accusation of bigotry. "Bigot" means "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". How do you get that from that particular comment? I'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a position we can both understand. I completely respect your anger over these emails - they are nasty and unprofessional, and I'm not endorsing that or the behaviour they represent in any way. But I'm not surprised they aren't "under 24/7 emphatic media coverage" - like someone said in that Reddit thread - it's like a bunch of office gossip.

p4wnc6 10y ago
Tolerance extends to the understanding of a culture and abstaining from deriding someone based solely on that culture. The joke, which reveals a deeper personal value judgement on behalf of the person telling it, speaks of a "good gay" as if to stereotype gay men by a particular behavior, denying the possibility that you can be a "good" gay man but have a different cultural outlook. That, to me, is unquestionably a form of intolerance. Making light of someone can be a form of intolerance, depending on what property it is by which you make light of them and whether or not it is based in a harmful generalization. Another way to say it is: you can't claim tolerance if you're happy to propagate harmful stereotypes or generalizations. Emphatically, it is crucial to dive into the language deeply. The urge to say "it's just a joke" is precisely the kind of let's-sweep-this-frat-house-bigotry-under-the-rug-and-go-back-to-thinking-everything's-nice rationalization that allows such bigotry to perpetuate. Re: your last line that it's like gossip: Except that this is our political process. It happens rarely (once per four years) and is a matter of passion, contention, and deep moral conviction. We have every right to expect it to be held to far higher standard than some bullshit gossip. Let me be clear that I do not believe it's merely gossip and I'm not offering any credibility to that stance. It's not mere gossip. It is harmful, derogatory language about gays, as well as at the very least an amazingly insensitive and offensive simplification of American religious beliefs (e.g., that some particular Christian people will see "a Jew" differently than "an atheist" and that could be worth a few polling points, and that all three belief groups are nothing whatsoever but sources of polling points, to be engineered and manipulated with audience plants, etc.) But even if it was "mere gossip" [it isn't] it would still be outrageously flagrant that the primary administrators of one half of our most important political process essentially view their jobs as a frat party. That's not some kind of let's-roll-our-eyes-but-boys-will-be-boys-and-move-on kind of thing, as you seem to think it is, but rather it is a let's-eject-everyone-from-this-Neanderthal-administration-and-hire-people-who-actually-give-a-damn issue. It's not boring nightly news to be eye-rolled and skipped for the sports section. It's our goddamn political process. It's frankly shocking to me that someone would suggest it's just boring gossip to be unconcerned with. I cannot reconcile that with any notion of caring about even the tiniest component of civic duty.
- nl 10y ago