4 ms·

What you’re saying doesn’t track. To folks who mount these cultural hills, racism, classism, and sexism are adjacent to murder in severity. There is no reason t

by swa45 6y ago

What you’re saying doesn’t track. To folks who mount these cultural hills, racism, classism, and sexism are adjacent to murder in severity. There is no reason to be diplomatic with a person who has offered those ideas. Why would a diplomatic way of making that allegation be necessary? The correct answer is that it’s a shibboleth to organize, and rally, like-minded people.

munchbunny 6y ago
> To folks who mount these cultural hills, racism, classism, and sexism are adjacent to murder in severity. If you're going to assume everyone who thinks those things are real problems believes something pretty much nobody actually believes, more power to you I guess? Seems problematic. By which I mean "intellectually dishonest", maybe a bit of posturing for likeminded people, maybe a shibboleth to organize and rally like-minded people. > The correct answer is that it’s a shibboleth to organize, and rally, like-minded people. Well, you've clearly already made up your mind.
- swa45 6y ago
  I didn’t assume that nor say what you’re saying I did. You’re doing exactly what I just said to minimize what you’re interpreting as a personal attack. I said people who mount those cultural hills to fight upon them tend to calculate their values that way. Fighting on social media is known to be pointless by most people. It is not the steady state of human nature. To keep doing it, and to do it passionately, the cause must be deemed important enough to consider throwing more shit into a pile of shit worthwhile within a limited lifespan, and that value calculus usually results in the moral framework I point out. It wasn’t even my main point; it was to counter the notion that these arguments pay any respect to civility or diplomacy (I mean, look even here). Nobody worth listening to disagrees that those are extremely important issues within our societies. Some of us believe throwing bricks at each other in comments is counterproductive and don’t subscribe to partisan politics over real social issues. Calling someone’s views problematic, particularly when it’s a restating of their original point, is otherizing and is not a path to influencing people (roughly akin to “you’re on the wrong side” without explaining why). Put it this way: one is either waging these cultural arguments to influence the viewpoint they find disagreeable or to remove that viewpoint from the discussion. There is no third option. If the approach is “that idea is problematic,” implicitly that tack supports concluding that the goal is removal, which undermines tackling those real social issues by driving the alternative opinion to darker corners where nobody is left to influence them in the direction you’re hoping. Now look around in general and tell me I’m wrong.

by swa45 6y ago

munchbunny 6y ago

> To folks who mount these cultural hills, racism, classism, and sexism are adjacent to murder in severity. If you're going to assume everyone who thinks those things are real problems believes something pretty much nobody actually believes, more power to you I guess? Seems problematic. By which I mean "intellectually dishonest", maybe a bit of posturing for likeminded people, maybe a shibboleth to organize and rally like-minded people. > The correct answer is that it’s a shibboleth to organize, and rally, like-minded people. Well, you've clearly already made up your mind.

swa45 6y ago
I didn’t assume that nor say what you’re saying I did. You’re doing exactly what I just said to minimize what you’re interpreting as a personal attack. I said people who mount those cultural hills to fight upon them tend to calculate their values that way. Fighting on social media is known to be pointless by most people. It is not the steady state of human nature. To keep doing it, and to do it passionately, the cause must be deemed important enough to consider throwing more shit into a pile of shit worthwhile within a limited lifespan, and that value calculus usually results in the moral framework I point out. It wasn’t even my main point; it was to counter the notion that these arguments pay any respect to civility or diplomacy (I mean, look even here). Nobody worth listening to disagrees that those are extremely important issues within our societies. Some of us believe throwing bricks at each other in comments is counterproductive and don’t subscribe to partisan politics over real social issues. Calling someone’s views problematic, particularly when it’s a restating of their original point, is otherizing and is not a path to influencing people (roughly akin to “you’re on the wrong side” without explaining why). Put it this way: one is either waging these cultural arguments to influence the viewpoint they find disagreeable or to remove that viewpoint from the discussion. There is no third option. If the approach is “that idea is problematic,” implicitly that tack supports concluding that the goal is removal, which undermines tackling those real social issues by driving the alternative opinion to darker corners where nobody is left to influence them in the direction you’re hoping. Now look around in general and tell me I’m wrong.