5 ms·

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of bei

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people. For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
What I mean is 50, 60 years ago, a university was mostly white males, wearing suits, hats, mostly deferential. These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc. That's what I mean by more inclusive.
- ghoststories 9y ago
  "These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc." They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups. Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    You don't think universities are more open than in the 50's? There's a lot more dissent these days. I don't know about oppression on campuses.
    - ghoststories 9y ago
      I don't know what you mean by "open" or "oppression". How about this? http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus-no-jews-allowed/ http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...
gizmo 9y ago
You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemites. Or generally: to be inclusive of marginalized people you have to exclude the intolerant. If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.
- rendall 9y ago
  What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community. The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed. Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s). Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political discourse in its totality and compare that to the discourse from just 5 years ago. Voices in the far right and far left are louder than they have been for at least a generation. How is this compatible with claims about a narrowing Overton window? It's patently absurd. As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.
Synaesthesia 9y ago
People are free to feel how they like, like not liking gay marriage, but if they actually act on those beliefs, they're infringing on the rights and freedoms of others and that's not ok. I don't care if you're Christian or Muslim. You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.
- ghoststories 9y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "acting on those beliefs"? Let's say you have a debate and somebody questions the very idea that gay marriage is or should be a right? What do you mean by "not OK", what should be the consequences here? "You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass." I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context. If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.

Synaesthesia 9y ago

What I mean is 50, 60 years ago, a university was mostly white males, wearing suits, hats, mostly deferential. These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc. That's what I mean by more inclusive.

ghoststories 9y ago
"These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc." They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups. Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  You don't think universities are more open than in the 50's? There's a lot more dissent these days. I don't know about oppression on campuses.
  - ghoststories 9y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "open" or "oppression". How about this? http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus-no-jews-allowed/ http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...

gizmo 9y ago

You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemites. Or generally: to be inclusive of marginalized people you have to exclude the intolerant. If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.

rendall 9y ago
What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community. The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed. Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s). Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.
- gizmo 9y ago
  The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political discourse in its totality and compare that to the discourse from just 5 years ago. Voices in the far right and far left are louder than they have been for at least a generation. How is this compatible with claims about a narrowing Overton window? It's patently absurd. As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.

Synaesthesia 9y ago

People are free to feel how they like, like not liking gay marriage, but if they actually act on those beliefs, they're infringing on the rights and freedoms of others and that's not ok. I don't care if you're Christian or Muslim. You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.

ghoststories 9y ago
What exactly do you mean by "acting on those beliefs"? Let's say you have a debate and somebody questions the very idea that gay marriage is or should be a right? What do you mean by "not OK", what should be the consequences here? "You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass." I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context. If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.