3 ms·

... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? If you're goin

by jaspax 6y ago

... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? If you're going to argue a change, I think that you need to show that either (1) the total number of people considered "weirdos" has changed, or (2) weirdos are no longer treated as poorly. I find (2) very implausible (and notice that in the linked article, the people in question are responding to very mild forms of social disapproval), and I don't think that (1) really holds up, but I'm willing to hear an argument.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I find 2) to be a very real possibility - first off in the To Kill A Mockingbird not sure how mild his social ostracism, furthermore what would his punishment for being a weirdo have been if he hadn't hit on the convenient cover of being a drunk (and as I recall wasn't he descended from a rich family?) As far as 1) the example of Doc's two weird bits seem pretty benign. This is the argument that would well it seems pretty benign to us but perhaps there are things that are weird to us but that back then would have seemed benign. As a general thing anything I can think of that would be considered weird enough nowadays to get you kicked out of a Diner would have been considered weird enough decades back to get you kicked out, if not the police called on you. If your theory is that there were things considered benign in the past that would get you thrown out of a Diner today you should show what those are, the nearest I can think of is having the trophy head of an African Elephant with you, but I bet you wouldn't get thrown out of almost anywhere for that unless it was just too big to have in the place. Maybe try Bengal Tiger, wouldn't be bad. Dressed up as a member of the KKK would hopefully get you kicked out of a lot of places today, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't have got you kicked out in 1935. At any rate I'm not sure if it would have been considered benign actually, despite membership's popularity during that time.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> ... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? Using the same reasoning, one could say, "treatment of X group of weirdos hasn't gotten any better because society treats weirdos better; it's just that X has become somewhat more socially acceptable". For example, you could apply this reasoning to, say, furries. Probably more accepted now than 20 or 30 years ago, but still considered weird. If that's the model, then it's impossible for society to become more accepting of weirdos in general, because each time they become more accepting of some particular group, you just attribute the change to "social acceptability" of that group, rather than niceness to weirdos more generally. With the end game being, "sure, everyone is nice to everyone now, but it's not because we became nicer to weirdos, but because now everything is socially acceptable and nothing is considered weird." It's a useless way of measuring things because it makes progress literally impossible by definition.

by jaspax 6y ago

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I find 2) to be a very real possibility - first off in the To Kill A Mockingbird not sure how mild his social ostracism, furthermore what would his punishment for being a weirdo have been if he hadn't hit on the convenient cover of being a drunk (and as I recall wasn't he descended from a rich family?) As far as 1) the example of Doc's two weird bits seem pretty benign. This is the argument that would well it seems pretty benign to us but perhaps there are things that are weird to us but that back then would have seemed benign. As a general thing anything I can think of that would be considered weird enough nowadays to get you kicked out of a Diner would have been considered weird enough decades back to get you kicked out, if not the police called on you. If your theory is that there were things considered benign in the past that would get you thrown out of a Diner today you should show what those are, the nearest I can think of is having the trophy head of an African Elephant with you, but I bet you wouldn't get thrown out of almost anywhere for that unless it was just too big to have in the place. Maybe try Bengal Tiger, wouldn't be bad. Dressed up as a member of the KKK would hopefully get you kicked out of a lot of places today, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't have got you kicked out in 1935. At any rate I'm not sure if it would have been considered benign actually, despite membership's popularity during that time.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> ... yes? Of course I look at the subset of people who are today counted as weirdos. How else would one evaluate the social treatment of weirdos? Using the same reasoning, one could say, "treatment of X group of weirdos hasn't gotten any better because society treats weirdos better; it's just that X has become somewhat more socially acceptable". For example, you could apply this reasoning to, say, furries. Probably more accepted now than 20 or 30 years ago, but still considered weird. If that's the model, then it's impossible for society to become more accepting of weirdos in general, because each time they become more accepting of some particular group, you just attribute the change to "social acceptability" of that group, rather than niceness to weirdos more generally. With the end game being, "sure, everyone is nice to everyone now, but it's not because we became nicer to weirdos, but because now everything is socially acceptable and nothing is considered weird." It's a useless way of measuring things because it makes progress literally impossible by definition.