4 ms·

> However, I largely kept my mouth shut because I was afraid of the social repercussions. So, social norms? There are plenty of things we collectively don't sa

> However, I largely kept my mouth shut because I was afraid of the social repercussions. So, social norms? There are plenty of things we collectively don't say or do because of enforced social norms yet all of a sudden when those social norms start to include the perspectives of traditionally oppressed groups, certain people start acting like Western Society as we know it is collapsing by the hands of the censorship police.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
When social norms say that you're not allowed to share a dissenting view, we get to call that an "orthodoxy" and should be consider the extent to which it is damaging and repressive, rather than simply taking the merit of the orthodoxy for granted. Such consideration should be all the more important when we happen to agree with those norms. (You've been punished for questioning geocentrism? Should have respected those social norms, Galileo my friend.)
- apcragg 6y ago
  I mean if you want to conflate social norms with debates about knowledge and practice, sure great zinger you have there. Unfortunately, many people do not have the luxury of treating their race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc, as a matter of ideological debate. The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    If you think that the current cancel-culture zeitgeist (on the right and the left alike) doesn't shut down questions about knowledge and practice, you're blind or an ideologue. But I thank you for being so kind as to include Religion in the list of acceptable "identities". As you have framed the matter, I do NOT happen to have the luxury and privilege to blindly extend deference to our glorious champions of freedom™ and equality™ and accept their diktats without criticism or debate. This is because they are hypocrites and they are tyrants. The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats.
    - non-entity 6y ago
      > The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats. What the hell does this even mean. This sounds more like emotional ramblings than any relevant comments. "What does not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats" even mean?
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        I mean the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have now had two separate court cases for their right to not-pay for insurance coverage for things they find to be evil. They're nuns. They are sworn to a life of poverty and chastity. They didn't want to pay for birth control coverage. The Obama Health and Human Services administration could have let this go. It would have harmed no one. It would have deprived no one of birth control coverage. Instead, we we needed to have Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. But even when they won that one, it wasn't enough! Because the attorney general of New York and New Jersey couldn't let them go either! So we had to have Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania — which was just 7-2 at the Supreme Court. (Don't worry. Joe Biden's proposed policy changes to "restore the Obama-Biden policy" on these matters with an "accommodation" would have them back in court a third time.) This was a nine-year battle to vindicate religious rights. It may yet continue. You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. (You may yet think that their case is illegitimate and that they should be forced to pay for this coverage.) Look! You're an inclusivity problem now! Hooray, now you know what it's like!
        non-entity 6y ago
        > You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. You're damn right I was ignorant. Luckily you decided to respond and now I'm a little less so :-) I however, still think however, being unnessicarily melodramatic. This isnt some war against your religion. They aren't targeting your specific religion, quite the opposite in fact, they're giving them no special treatment. You may indeed, have a different argument, perhaps that the government should have less or no involvement in healthcare, or that the requirements for coverage should be less rigid.
  - monksy 6y ago
    > The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege. Are you discounting his statements due to his identity or presumed "privilege"?
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "So, social norms?" Why do people still use this line of argument? Universal social norms used to treat POC, genders, and other protected classes as second class citizens or worse for centuries. That should make it pretty clear why "social norms" can't be used as a justification or logical reason for anything. If anything, "social norms" is a stance from political conservatism; it's arguing that things should forever stay just as they are now.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

When social norms say that you're not allowed to share a dissenting view, we get to call that an "orthodoxy" and should be consider the extent to which it is damaging and repressive, rather than simply taking the merit of the orthodoxy for granted. Such consideration should be all the more important when we happen to agree with those norms. (You've been punished for questioning geocentrism? Should have respected those social norms, Galileo my friend.)

apcragg 6y ago
I mean if you want to conflate social norms with debates about knowledge and practice, sure great zinger you have there. Unfortunately, many people do not have the luxury of treating their race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc, as a matter of ideological debate. The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  If you think that the current cancel-culture zeitgeist (on the right and the left alike) doesn't shut down questions about knowledge and practice, you're blind or an ideologue. But I thank you for being so kind as to include Religion in the list of acceptable "identities". As you have framed the matter, I do NOT happen to have the luxury and privilege to blindly extend deference to our glorious champions of freedom™ and equality™ and accept their diktats without criticism or debate. This is because they are hypocrites and they are tyrants. The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats.
  - non-entity 6y ago
    > The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats. What the hell does this even mean. This sounds more like emotional ramblings than any relevant comments. "What does not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats" even mean?
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      I mean the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have now had two separate court cases for their right to not-pay for insurance coverage for things they find to be evil. They're nuns. They are sworn to a life of poverty and chastity. They didn't want to pay for birth control coverage. The Obama Health and Human Services administration could have let this go. It would have harmed no one. It would have deprived no one of birth control coverage. Instead, we we needed to have Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. But even when they won that one, it wasn't enough! Because the attorney general of New York and New Jersey couldn't let them go either! So we had to have Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania — which was just 7-2 at the Supreme Court. (Don't worry. Joe Biden's proposed policy changes to "restore the Obama-Biden policy" on these matters with an "accommodation" would have them back in court a third time.) This was a nine-year battle to vindicate religious rights. It may yet continue. You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. (You may yet think that their case is illegitimate and that they should be forced to pay for this coverage.) Look! You're an inclusivity problem now! Hooray, now you know what it's like!
      - non-entity 6y ago
        > You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. You're damn right I was ignorant. Luckily you decided to respond and now I'm a little less so :-) I however, still think however, being unnessicarily melodramatic. This isnt some war against your religion. They aren't targeting your specific religion, quite the opposite in fact, they're giving them no special treatment. You may indeed, have a different argument, perhaps that the government should have less or no involvement in healthcare, or that the requirements for coverage should be less rigid.
- monksy 6y ago
  > The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege. Are you discounting his statements due to his identity or presumed "privilege"?

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "So, social norms?" Why do people still use this line of argument? Universal social norms used to treat POC, genders, and other protected classes as second class citizens or worse for centuries. That should make it pretty clear why "social norms" can't be used as a justification or logical reason for anything. If anything, "social norms" is a stance from political conservatism; it's arguing that things should forever stay just as they are now.