4 ms·

> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy

by croon 9y ago

> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis. That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in "both sides". > There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”. Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other. You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't. "Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively, but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.

assblaster 9y ago
The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia. I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be considered hate speech by the tribalists.
- ModernMech 9y ago
  When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.
  - assblaster 9y ago
    In what way does "White" play into this discussion? Islam, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, is clear in its denouncement of homosexuals as people. Islam doesn't even separate the act from the person, the person must be killed as prescribed in the Quran.
    - ModernMech 9y ago
      White evangelicals are a voting bloc in the US with outsize influence on the Republican agenda.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. It's analogous to a scare piece about Chinese investors buying up American companies or Muslims converting a church into a mosque. Nothing in the article describes is outright objectionable, other than them.
    - croon 9y ago
      > It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. > On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated: >I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.[1] You use the word "closeted" for having to keep mum about your (not you specifically) belief that people (based on their sexuality) should be allowed less rights than you. I frankly find that remarkably bold. Sure, Chic-fil-A stopped funding most of those organizations after the "incident", and I'm sure people like their food, but I also don't think an editorial about it is out of order. If that is indeed "conservative Christianity", then as a Christian: I'll just say that it's some times old testament, when it fits, and very rarely if ever, new testament. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...
exelius 9y ago
It’s less “meeting in the middle” and more “agreeing not to bring any of that stuff up in public because we both have better things to do than have the same tired argument again”. At a certain point you have to put ideals aside and meet other people as human beings. Sure, you disagree on things, but if you want progress you’ve gotta start looking for the things that make us alike. If you want to understand the differences, there’s a time and a place for that, but it’s not in the day-to-day. Go to a seminar or read a book for that. I do think the real prejudice — incapable of seeing other races / religions / sexualities as equals — is getting pushed to the fringes. Basically, if you’re truly prejudiced, the above “gentleman’s agreement” is broken. When that happens, you’re no longer seen as a gentleman but as a savage. See also the public reaction to the neo nazis in Charlottesville (confirmation bias attribution errors notwithstanding)

by croon 9y ago

assblaster 9y ago

The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia. I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be considered hate speech by the tribalists.

ModernMech 9y ago
When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.
- assblaster 9y ago
  In what way does "White" play into this discussion? Islam, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, is clear in its denouncement of homosexuals as people. Islam doesn't even separate the act from the person, the person must be killed as prescribed in the Quran.
  - ModernMech 9y ago
    White evangelicals are a voting bloc in the US with outsize influence on the Republican agenda.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. It's analogous to a scare piece about Chinese investors buying up American companies or Muslims converting a church into a mosque. Nothing in the article describes is outright objectionable, other than them.
  - croon 9y ago
    > It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. > On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated: >I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.[1] You use the word "closeted" for having to keep mum about your (not you specifically) belief that people (based on their sexuality) should be allowed less rights than you. I frankly find that remarkably bold. Sure, Chic-fil-A stopped funding most of those organizations after the "incident", and I'm sure people like their food, but I also don't think an editorial about it is out of order. If that is indeed "conservative Christianity", then as a Christian: I'll just say that it's some times old testament, when it fits, and very rarely if ever, new testament. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...

exelius 9y ago

It’s less “meeting in the middle” and more “agreeing not to bring any of that stuff up in public because we both have better things to do than have the same tired argument again”. At a certain point you have to put ideals aside and meet other people as human beings. Sure, you disagree on things, but if you want progress you’ve gotta start looking for the things that make us alike. If you want to understand the differences, there’s a time and a place for that, but it’s not in the day-to-day. Go to a seminar or read a book for that. I do think the real prejudice — incapable of seeing other races / religions / sexualities as equals — is getting pushed to the fringes. Basically, if you’re truly prejudiced, the above “gentleman’s agreement” is broken. When that happens, you’re no longer seen as a gentleman but as a savage. See also the public reaction to the neo nazis in Charlottesville (confirmation bias attribution errors notwithstanding)