3 ms·

it's not in any way hypocrisy to treat people and actions that harm For one who decries false equivalence of equating some non-violent action to violence, I fi

it's not in any way hypocrisy to treat people and actions that harm For one who decries false equivalence of equating some non-violent action to violence, I find your application of "harm" here a real stretch, and a bit hypocritical besides! I'll also note, in brief, that I'm not advocating a zero-nuance policy of immediate exclusion for the slightest offense. That's not a supportable position, and certainly not the one I hold. I do, however, consider exclusion a perfectly reasonable approach for maintaining more pleasant, welcoming communities. And it's not the job of every such community to put up with people who would make it worse, or to attempt to correct such people. I wonder if you're the sort of person who would advocate that a non-political group make a political statement, then make everyone sign or make some sort of pledge in support of it and throw out those who don't. Such behavior called a perfectly reasonable approach for maintaining more pleasant, welcoming communities is every bit as hypocritical as and toxic as 80's frat boys doing the enforced-fun aggression, questioning your sexuality, then gay bashing you if your answer doesn't satisfy them. You talk elsewhere about being too abstract. The chief emotional dishonesty here in our blue tribe, is the degree to which hate and emotional aggression actually rule the tribal, othering behaviors. I've been racially harassed to the point where police had to get involved. The epiphany that I had sometime afterwards, was that there was a real joy, real glee to those "poor white trash" kids. In their minds, I'm quite sure, that they were making the world a better, more "real" and beautiful place, at least for the "real" people. Now I look over at others on the left, and I see essentially the same thing. Have you dehumanized others in your mind, in your heart of hearts?

JoshTriplett 9y ago
> For one who decries false equivalence of equating some non-violent action to violence, I find your application of "harm" here a real stretch, and a bit hypocritical besides! I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. > I wonder if you're the sort of person who would advocate that a non-political group make a political statement, then make everyone sign or make some sort of pledge in support of it and throw out those who don't. If you mean a political statement like the support of a political candidate or party: no, absolutely not. (And that's an area where I've definitely seen the kind of tribal behavior you mentioned, and I'm not a fan of it.) If you mean a statement like a code of conduct, attempting to create a welcoming community (which I don't consider political), then: still no, but I'd require people to abide by it whether they signed it or not. For the purposes of the community, I'd prefer that they're doing so because they believe in it, but I'd settle for them following it because they want to participate in the community more than they want to be hateful. > The chief emotional dishonesty here in our blue tribe "our" is broadly speaking incorrect here, though I certainly share its values with respect to tolerance. > is the degree to which hate and emotional aggression actually rule the tribal, othering behaviors I've certainly seen some of that. Not a fan. But given a limited amount of time and energy with which to change the world, I don't see that as very high on the list of priorities.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. Are you claiming that fear of ostracizing isn't in the same general category as the without-violence-but-convincing threat of violence? I don't see how you can honestly say they aren't both in the category of severe. (I've personally dealt with both.) There doesn't have to be any equivalence for my objection to stand. The factual, even physiological truth, is that both of these are highly emotionally severe and stressful. Any activism that cares about its moral compass needs to be very wary if it finds it's only accomplishing a doppelganger of its goals through such emotionally severe and threatening means. Something is just if it appeals to people's inner sense of justice. Accepting a facsimile of that because you can make people fearful enough to play along -- something is very wrong here! But given a limited amount of time and energy with which to change the world, I don't see that as very high on the list of priorities. The real trick is to be able to really change the world, instead of having it change you into one of the villains. Civilization has started to figure out that violent coercion only leads to destructive cycles. Our culture now needs to also start making the same realization about short-of-violent coercion.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    Nobody brought up 'convincing threats of violence' before now. But since you did, yes, I'd absolutely claim a difference. It's one thing to fear being excluded from a group, and quite another to fear for your safety, whether there's an actual threat or simply something that feels ominous. And even when exclusion or banning is on the table, there's a step between quietly removing someone from a community (leaving them to make a scene or not) and loudly warning people about the threat they pose; it takes a lot more direct concern for others' safety to warrant the latter. And if you read the article, there were multiple incremental steps taken, and not everyone involved was ejected, nor does it sound like anyone was named who didn't want to be. For that matter, exclusion is typically entirely reversible, given appropriate reasons to do so. More importantly, however, you're focusing on the effect on the excluded, and ignoring their effect on others. If you're asked to be quiet in a library, you're not being oppressed; even if you're talkative by nature, you can manage to shut up so others can ready and study. If you don't, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But that doesn't mean people in the library go around with that fear and threat as the ultimate reason, any more than people go around with 'I might go to jail' as the only thing stopping them from injuring someone. The same goes if you're participating in a community with a code of conduct that makes it welcoming and comfortable. Even if you're naturally toxic and obnoxious, hopefully you can manage to suppress that tendency in order to participate in the community. If not, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But people participating in the community don't have that at the forefront of their minds all the time. That's largely the point.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> For one who decries false equivalence of equating some non-violent action to violence, I find your application of "harm" here a real stretch, and a bit hypocritical besides! I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. > I wonder if you're the sort of person who would advocate that a non-political group make a political statement, then make everyone sign or make some sort of pledge in support of it and throw out those who don't. If you mean a political statement like the support of a political candidate or party: no, absolutely not. (And that's an area where I've definitely seen the kind of tribal behavior you mentioned, and I'm not a fan of it.) If you mean a statement like a code of conduct, attempting to create a welcoming community (which I don't consider political), then: still no, but I'd require people to abide by it whether they signed it or not. For the purposes of the community, I'd prefer that they're doing so because they believe in it, but I'd settle for them following it because they want to participate in the community more than they want to be hateful. > The chief emotional dishonesty here in our blue tribe "our" is broadly speaking incorrect here, though I certainly share its values with respect to tolerance. > is the degree to which hate and emotional aggression actually rule the tribal, othering behaviors I've certainly seen some of that. Not a fan. But given a limited amount of time and energy with which to change the world, I don't see that as very high on the list of priorities.

stcredzero 9y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. Are you claiming that fear of ostracizing isn't in the same general category as the without-violence-but-convincing threat of violence? I don't see how you can honestly say they aren't both in the category of severe. (I've personally dealt with both.) There doesn't have to be any equivalence for my objection to stand. The factual, even physiological truth, is that both of these are highly emotionally severe and stressful. Any activism that cares about its moral compass needs to be very wary if it finds it's only accomplishing a doppelganger of its goals through such emotionally severe and threatening means. Something is just if it appeals to people's inner sense of justice. Accepting a facsimile of that because you can make people fearful enough to play along -- something is very wrong here! But given a limited amount of time and energy with which to change the world, I don't see that as very high on the list of priorities. The real trick is to be able to really change the world, instead of having it change you into one of the villains. Civilization has started to figure out that violent coercion only leads to destructive cycles. Our culture now needs to also start making the same realization about short-of-violent coercion.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  Nobody brought up 'convincing threats of violence' before now. But since you did, yes, I'd absolutely claim a difference. It's one thing to fear being excluded from a group, and quite another to fear for your safety, whether there's an actual threat or simply something that feels ominous. And even when exclusion or banning is on the table, there's a step between quietly removing someone from a community (leaving them to make a scene or not) and loudly warning people about the threat they pose; it takes a lot more direct concern for others' safety to warrant the latter. And if you read the article, there were multiple incremental steps taken, and not everyone involved was ejected, nor does it sound like anyone was named who didn't want to be. For that matter, exclusion is typically entirely reversible, given appropriate reasons to do so. More importantly, however, you're focusing on the effect on the excluded, and ignoring their effect on others. If you're asked to be quiet in a library, you're not being oppressed; even if you're talkative by nature, you can manage to shut up so others can ready and study. If you don't, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But that doesn't mean people in the library go around with that fear and threat as the ultimate reason, any more than people go around with 'I might go to jail' as the only thing stopping them from injuring someone. The same goes if you're participating in a community with a code of conduct that makes it welcoming and comfortable. Even if you're naturally toxic and obnoxious, hopefully you can manage to suppress that tendency in order to participate in the community. If not, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But people participating in the community don't have that at the forefront of their minds all the time. That's largely the point.