6 ms·

I'm not sure how you have a civil discussion about inhumane acts that are supported by an oppressive system. Sometimes the only appropriate reaction is outrage.

I'm not sure how you have a civil discussion about inhumane acts that are supported by an oppressive system. Sometimes the only appropriate reaction is outrage. Just as an example I wouldn't engage in a civil conversation about whether or not to interfere with a rape in progress. When you find people demanding a civil conversation about unacceptable behavior, it's a pretty good sign that the entire point is to tone police the outrage and therfore normalize the oppression. Why should anyone consider for even a second to a demand that you must politely ask someone to stop raping a child? It should be called for what it is: a delaying tactic. We actually need more, not less, outrage for some of the problems society tolerates or even encourages. So what you'd most likely find in a political forum that demands polite interaction are mostly folks who are not oppressed and for which there is zero urgency to change things. What you find elsewhere is often ugly and uncomfortable. The real problem is that no one has solved is an extremely difficult one: when is outrage appropriate? Sometimes it is. Too often outrage is thrown around about trivial issues or towards a specific person in a witch hunt sort of way. What we need is to eliminate that while still allowing for appropriate outrage. For sure the fix is not allowing the privileged and the oppressors to decide what is appropriate . I don't have any solution in mind. But I do hope I've brought some nuanced clarity to how difficult a challenge it is to moderate outrage without silencing appropriate outrage.

leotaku 6y ago
I heavily disagree. While outrage at e.g. societal problems might sometimes be appropriate, directing that outrage at forum posters that defend what you call "unnaceptable behaviour" is just a bad idea. If they actually believe in what they say, you have just further radicalized them. If they don't and just want to provoke, you've played into their hands. Also, consider if you're actually being honest with yourself. Are the people you are arguing against actually just defending "raping a child"? Giving in to outrage often leads to people ignoring vital parts of the conversation. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201401/beware-being-right https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent...)
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > If they actually believe in what they say, you have just further radicalized them. That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views. > If they don't and just want to provoke, you've played into their hands. I agree that's a risk. > Also, consider if you're actually being honest with yourself. Are the people you are arguing against actually just defending "raping a child"? Giving in to outrage often leads to people ignoring vital parts of the conversation. I agree we have to consider the topic and I did give an extreme example. Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped. I also already addressed this in my original comment: "Too often outrage is thrown around about trivial issues or towards a specific person in a witch hunt sort of way." > (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent...) That article has very little to do with the topic. The author is an expert in marriages and treating people for anger and relationship problems and he goes on to talk about exactly that situation: "Divorce and Being Right". A marriage is ideally a relationship of equals. It has very little to do with an entire group of people being oppressed by society. In most cases we stay in a marriage by choice. There is no easy way to leave society or to replace it with a better alternative.
  - leotaku 6y ago
    > That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views. I don't really think I am victim blaming here. It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. Example: I would never blame a woman who has visited an area with high crime rates for getting raped there. But I still might advise them to e.g. not visit the area at night. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. Same thing here. I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. > Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped. The key difference is that your example is an issue that allows for immediate action, while (I presume) the issues you are alluding to are of societal and systemic nature. In the analogy, having a civil discussion about the nature of the issue at hand would majorly detract from the victim being rescued. I do not see how this is the case for the actual issues at hand. > That article has very little to do with the topic. Agreed. I basically wanted to give context to my claim that giving in to outrage might lead to people filtering out valid arguments and context. > Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong in some respect. > Mental focus, the foundation of feelings of certainty, distorts reality by magnifying and amplifying one or two aspects of it while filtering out everything else. You might discover more detail about the one or two aspects you focus on, but what you discover will have no contextual meaning, because you have isolated those aspects from their dynamic interaction with the rest of the reality in which they exist. In other words, focus magnifies things out of proportion and blows them out of context. What I'm trying to get at is that I think it is very possible to discuss a situation that, in the eyes of at least one of the participants of the discussion, is worthy of outrage without actually displaying that outrage and staying civil. To again use rape as an example, I think it is entirely reasonable to consider the experiences, pain and outrage of rape victims and their supporters valid, while still wanting them to be involved in civil discussions about the issues of false accusations and due process. (If they are willing to do so, of course) Intuitively understand your concerns about groups of oppressed people possibly not feeling welcome in a completely outrage-free environment, but to me that seems totally unverifiable. Someone could argue for the complete reverse and that would probably be just as valid.

leotaku 6y ago

I heavily disagree. While outrage at e.g. societal problems might sometimes be appropriate, directing that outrage at forum posters that defend what you call "unnaceptable behaviour" is just a bad idea. If they actually believe in what they say, you have just further radicalized them. If they don't and just want to provoke, you've played into their hands. Also, consider if you're actually being honest with yourself. Are the people you are arguing against actually just defending "raping a child"? Giving in to outrage often leads to people ignoring vital parts of the conversation. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201401/beware-being-right https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent...)

tchaffee 6y ago
> If they actually believe in what they say, you have just further radicalized them. That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views. > If they don't and just want to provoke, you've played into their hands. I agree that's a risk. > Also, consider if you're actually being honest with yourself. Are the people you are arguing against actually just defending "raping a child"? Giving in to outrage often leads to people ignoring vital parts of the conversation. I agree we have to consider the topic and I did give an extreme example. Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped. I also already addressed this in my original comment: "Too often outrage is thrown around about trivial issues or towards a specific person in a witch hunt sort of way." > (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent...) That article has very little to do with the topic. The author is an expert in marriages and treating people for anger and relationship problems and he goes on to talk about exactly that situation: "Divorce and Being Right". A marriage is ideally a relationship of equals. It has very little to do with an entire group of people being oppressed by society. In most cases we stay in a marriage by choice. There is no easy way to leave society or to replace it with a better alternative.
- leotaku 6y ago
  > That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views. I don't really think I am victim blaming here. It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. Example: I would never blame a woman who has visited an area with high crime rates for getting raped there. But I still might advise them to e.g. not visit the area at night. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. Same thing here. I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. > Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped. The key difference is that your example is an issue that allows for immediate action, while (I presume) the issues you are alluding to are of societal and systemic nature. In the analogy, having a civil discussion about the nature of the issue at hand would majorly detract from the victim being rescued. I do not see how this is the case for the actual issues at hand. > That article has very little to do with the topic. Agreed. I basically wanted to give context to my claim that giving in to outrage might lead to people filtering out valid arguments and context. > Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong in some respect. > Mental focus, the foundation of feelings of certainty, distorts reality by magnifying and amplifying one or two aspects of it while filtering out everything else. You might discover more detail about the one or two aspects you focus on, but what you discover will have no contextual meaning, because you have isolated those aspects from their dynamic interaction with the rest of the reality in which they exist. In other words, focus magnifies things out of proportion and blows them out of context. What I'm trying to get at is that I think it is very possible to discuss a situation that, in the eyes of at least one of the participants of the discussion, is worthy of outrage without actually displaying that outrage and staying civil. To again use rape as an example, I think it is entirely reasonable to consider the experiences, pain and outrage of rape victims and their supporters valid, while still wanting them to be involved in civil discussions about the issues of false accusations and due process. (If they are willing to do so, of course) Intuitively understand your concerns about groups of oppressed people possibly not feeling welcome in a completely outrage-free environment, but to me that seems totally unverifiable. Someone could argue for the complete reverse and that would probably be just as valid.