5 ms·

I think we’re talking past each other? I’m not making a value judgment per se. It is simply a fact that many in the toxic social justice group you reference do

I think we’re talking past each other? I’m not making a value judgment per se. It is simply a fact that many in the toxic social justice group you reference do not believe that the work of dead white males is particularly interesting or important. Thus, they tend to self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon. This isn’t an assumption — it’s an observation about many of my friends who took DS (I couldn’t hack it myself!)

asdfman123 7y ago
> toxic social justice group What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice? > do not believe that the work of dead white males Does everyone in that group believe that specific thing as well? > self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon What percentage of those people outright reject the Western cannon as not worth learning? Do some of them think it's worthwhile to learn, but also want to get other perspectives as well so don't take quite so many of those classes? I'm not trying to nitpick or go line-by-line, but just asking you to question your judgments about people. I find people are overwhelmingly more nuanced and reasonable than is often assumed. It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs. I mean, even when you start generalizing about people, different neighborhoods in Houston contain very different people of different viewpoints and circumstances. And then there are rural areas, different socioeconomic spectrums, etc. etc. etc. Don't lump people together. And I'm not trying to hand wave all analysis of people as "too complex to understand," but just to realize that people might be quite a bit different than you think if you give them the benefit of the doubt.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice? Well, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvzBFESqZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvzBFESqZs >It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs It's about aggregate behavior and prevalent norms, not about any two random people being the same as each other. If those people's ideas where vectors, they'd be closer together and pointing towards a more similar direction, than from another group (say, Californians). That doesn't mean you wont find vectors of millions of individual persons in the South pointing even the total opposite way for this or that matter typically associated with the South.
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. That's why our country is so divided these days. Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Going back to the video, you might think all that focus on triggers and anxiety is indicative of a greater toxic culture (evidence of aggregate behavior as you say) -- but were you there for the whole thing? Did you try to understand what they were coming from, and why they take that approach? Did you try to first discover with an open mind what you have in common and what your values fundamentally disagree with? I'm sure in a moment of carelessness or stress you've probably done something stupid in traffic, but it would be unfair for someone to categorize you as a negligent or inept person without talking to you first. I am kind of harping on this because I used to be pretty judgmental, but since breaking out of that mindset I've become a kinder and frankly much smarter person. It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings. >Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex. That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc. MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did. One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people. >It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people. If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.

asdfman123 7y ago

> toxic social justice group What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice? > do not believe that the work of dead white males Does everyone in that group believe that specific thing as well? > self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon What percentage of those people outright reject the Western cannon as not worth learning? Do some of them think it's worthwhile to learn, but also want to get other perspectives as well so don't take quite so many of those classes? I'm not trying to nitpick or go line-by-line, but just asking you to question your judgments about people. I find people are overwhelmingly more nuanced and reasonable than is often assumed. It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs. I mean, even when you start generalizing about people, different neighborhoods in Houston contain very different people of different viewpoints and circumstances. And then there are rural areas, different socioeconomic spectrums, etc. etc. etc. Don't lump people together. And I'm not trying to hand wave all analysis of people as "too complex to understand," but just to realize that people might be quite a bit different than you think if you give them the benefit of the doubt.

coldtea 7y ago
>What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice? Well, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvzBFESqZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvzBFESqZs >It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs It's about aggregate behavior and prevalent norms, not about any two random people being the same as each other. If those people's ideas where vectors, they'd be closer together and pointing towards a more similar direction, than from another group (say, Californians). That doesn't mean you wont find vectors of millions of individual persons in the South pointing even the total opposite way for this or that matter typically associated with the South.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. That's why our country is so divided these days. Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Going back to the video, you might think all that focus on triggers and anxiety is indicative of a greater toxic culture (evidence of aggregate behavior as you say) -- but were you there for the whole thing? Did you try to understand what they were coming from, and why they take that approach? Did you try to first discover with an open mind what you have in common and what your values fundamentally disagree with? I'm sure in a moment of carelessness or stress you've probably done something stupid in traffic, but it would be unfair for someone to categorize you as a negligent or inept person without talking to you first. I am kind of harping on this because I used to be pretty judgmental, but since breaking out of that mindset I've become a kinder and frankly much smarter person. It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings. >Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste? Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex. That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc. MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did. One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people. >It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people. If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.