3 ms·

> I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather

> I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception. * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended. I guess I'm old fashioned.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. To imply that taking offense (over "semantics" used by some people who express their views) is somehow equivalent to the unjust laws mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its own way, a mockery of what Martin Luther King Jr was fighting for. He defended free speech, even when it was offensive at the time. In our time, we speak up about our beliefs and some see them as offensive, but those freedoms should be defended all the same. Publicly shaming people based on false interpretations, and in many cases causing harm to them (as we've seen in the news recently in response to conservative viewpoints being expressed) is an obstruction of those liberties. If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. On the other hand, if you pretend that what they're saying is invalid because someone else chooses to be offended by it, you are no longer talking about objective reality. Without a basis in objective reality, public discourse becomes nothing short of a shouting match with rules that change with the wind. We've seen an explosion of that kind of behavior recently on social media. Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. Let's not paint someone as the devil because they disagree with us (or because we've given them a label based on other people with that viewpoint), but instead offer them a bit of respect and understand that their intentions may be just as honorable as our own, albeit colored by different circumstances and experience. I'm not going to respond again to this thread.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. Saying "the slogan you choose to support will be perceived as being associated with racism" is a statement of fact. You can argue that that association is wrong, and you are free to try and change that association, but in the meantime, you should acknowledge that fact. > It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. I agree. You seem to have missed my point. Claiming broad things about the past having been a certain way misses the nuance that for many people it wasn't actually that way. It's a privileged view on history. Having privilege isn't racist. Let's all be a little less defensive, shall we? > The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. I agree. So please stop taking umbrage when I correctly point out that certain slogans are associated with racism. I'm stating facts. > If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. We're having a discussion about semantics. "All lives matter " and "black lives matter" are political slogans. Which one you choose to associate with sends signals that are based on context. If you believe that it is more important to express that all lives matter than that black lives matter because a "race blind" statement is more powerful (or something, you haven't actually taken the time to explain the principles on which you're operating anywhere in this thread), you're free to express that view! You can do it! We have strong protections on your freedom to express ideas, even controversial ones. But because of that, others are also free to express their own ideas, such as criticism of yours, like that you are ignoring context. > Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. I don't want to listen to nazis. I don't have anything to gain from listening to nazis. It is physically uncomfortable for me to listen to nazis. It makes me anxious. It is ultimately a waste of my time to listen to them. I'm not saying that all views I disagree with are nazis, but the implication that free expression requires others to listen to you is a dangerous one. We can all draw the line somewhere on who we listen to. You have no right to my time or my audience, and it is not reasonable to substitute your right to speak with my right to ignore you. The opposite is also true, you're well within your rights to ignore me, and I support that for you. Broadly, I think it's ironic how much your responses are colored based on things I didn't say. You haven't actually taken the time to respond to my thoughts or words, nor does it seem that you even took the time to ponder on them. You instead ranted about only tangentially related topics. And that's your right! You can do that. I can't stop you, you're welcome to ignore me. But all those nice words about "debate" and "listening" to other viewpoints ring a little hollow when you don't actually engage with any critique.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people. Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!) Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. To imply that taking offense (over "semantics" used by some people who express their views) is somehow equivalent to the unjust laws mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its own way, a mockery of what Martin Luther King Jr was fighting for. He defended free speech, even when it was offensive at the time. In our time, we speak up about our beliefs and some see them as offensive, but those freedoms should be defended all the same. Publicly shaming people based on false interpretations, and in many cases causing harm to them (as we've seen in the news recently in response to conservative viewpoints being expressed) is an obstruction of those liberties. If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. On the other hand, if you pretend that what they're saying is invalid because someone else chooses to be offended by it, you are no longer talking about objective reality. Without a basis in objective reality, public discourse becomes nothing short of a shouting match with rules that change with the wind. We've seen an explosion of that kind of behavior recently on social media. Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. Let's not paint someone as the devil because they disagree with us (or because we've given them a label based on other people with that viewpoint), but instead offer them a bit of respect and understand that their intentions may be just as honorable as our own, albeit colored by different circumstances and experience. I'm not going to respond again to this thread.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. Saying "the slogan you choose to support will be perceived as being associated with racism" is a statement of fact. You can argue that that association is wrong, and you are free to try and change that association, but in the meantime, you should acknowledge that fact. > It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past. I agree. You seem to have missed my point. Claiming broad things about the past having been a certain way misses the nuance that for many people it wasn't actually that way. It's a privileged view on history. Having privilege isn't racist. Let's all be a little less defensive, shall we? > The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient. I agree. So please stop taking umbrage when I correctly point out that certain slogans are associated with racism. I'm stating facts. > If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. We're having a discussion about semantics. "All lives matter " and "black lives matter" are political slogans. Which one you choose to associate with sends signals that are based on context. If you believe that it is more important to express that all lives matter than that black lives matter because a "race blind" statement is more powerful (or something, you haven't actually taken the time to explain the principles on which you're operating anywhere in this thread), you're free to express that view! You can do it! We have strong protections on your freedom to express ideas, even controversial ones. But because of that, others are also free to express their own ideas, such as criticism of yours, like that you are ignoring context. > Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. I don't want to listen to nazis. I don't have anything to gain from listening to nazis. It is physically uncomfortable for me to listen to nazis. It makes me anxious. It is ultimately a waste of my time to listen to them. I'm not saying that all views I disagree with are nazis, but the implication that free expression requires others to listen to you is a dangerous one. We can all draw the line somewhere on who we listen to. You have no right to my time or my audience, and it is not reasonable to substitute your right to speak with my right to ignore you. The opposite is also true, you're well within your rights to ignore me, and I support that for you. Broadly, I think it's ironic how much your responses are colored based on things I didn't say. You haven't actually taken the time to respond to my thoughts or words, nor does it seem that you even took the time to ponder on them. You instead ranted about only tangentially related topics. And that's your right! You can do that. I can't stop you, you're welcome to ignore me. But all those nice words about "debate" and "listening" to other viewpoints ring a little hollow when you don't actually engage with any critique.