3 ms·

>Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. So do non racists, non misogynists and non bigots. Since I can only consum

>Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. So do non racists, non misogynists and non bigots. Since I can only consume so much content I may as well spend my finite money to people I don't dislike. The impact on me of reading one versus the other is pretty minimal.

javajosh 5y ago
It now dawns on me that you feel empowered to apply a purity test because of the apparently inexhaustible supply of candidates. Rationally, there are problems with this. First, talented people are rarer than you think. Moreover, the very nature of their talent is the kind of thing that tends to fail purity tests. Second, if your purity test is strict, then no-one can pass it. Are you a bigot? What about your hair-dresser, they are a known bigot, and yet you still go there? You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? If you weaken your purity test, to accomodate messy, practical reality, then what does that say about your motivation? Ethically, there's a big problem with this. People are valuable in-and-of themselves. Discarding people so easily is to devalue human life, and all the complexity that entails. If you yourself ever failed your own purity test, now or in the past, then why haven't you discarded yourself? If you haven't done that, then how committed are you to your brand of purity? Ethnographically, there's a problem with this. Most of the people in the world are deeply bigoted. Tribalism runs deep in our DNA. African tribes still hate each other, Asians famously dislike each other (and being mistaken for the hated group), and so on. Most of humanity, those groups you're trying to be more inclusive of, are excluded by your test. It is ironic in the extreme that humanism has become so intolerant of humanity.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  That's basically saying "we shouldn't push society to change or improve because change means people are excluded." Which is a dead end approach to society. Culture and society shifts with time and it has since long before humans evolved. Change is messy but the alternative is perpetual status quo. Some people get excluded but right now people are excluded as well. >You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? You are now applying this retroactively which is not the discussion at hand. Please don't put together straw man arguments. edit: You're arguing absolutes when change is a gradual imperfect uneven messy process. It has always been and will always be. There are no absolutes because humanity is not a hive mind.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    My only absolute is that you shouldn't dehumanize people. No matter what. You don't have to like them, or patronize them or their business, or interact with them, and you have every right to argue and criticize. But to eliminate them from your mind entirely, to devalue them and their contributions to society, to extend that existential violence to others that don't do the same, that makes society objectively worse. We lose a lot of art. Dehumanization leads inexorably to violence. Harvey Weinstein produced Pulp Fiction. He's also a sexual predator. What's your call? Can you still like Pulp Fiction, now?

javajosh 5y ago

It now dawns on me that you feel empowered to apply a purity test because of the apparently inexhaustible supply of candidates. Rationally, there are problems with this. First, talented people are rarer than you think. Moreover, the very nature of their talent is the kind of thing that tends to fail purity tests. Second, if your purity test is strict, then no-one can pass it. Are you a bigot? What about your hair-dresser, they are a known bigot, and yet you still go there? You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? If you weaken your purity test, to accomodate messy, practical reality, then what does that say about your motivation? Ethically, there's a big problem with this. People are valuable in-and-of themselves. Discarding people so easily is to devalue human life, and all the complexity that entails. If you yourself ever failed your own purity test, now or in the past, then why haven't you discarded yourself? If you haven't done that, then how committed are you to your brand of purity? Ethnographically, there's a problem with this. Most of the people in the world are deeply bigoted. Tribalism runs deep in our DNA. African tribes still hate each other, Asians famously dislike each other (and being mistaken for the hated group), and so on. Most of humanity, those groups you're trying to be more inclusive of, are excluded by your test. It is ironic in the extreme that humanism has become so intolerant of humanity.

marcinzm 5y ago
That's basically saying "we shouldn't push society to change or improve because change means people are excluded." Which is a dead end approach to society. Culture and society shifts with time and it has since long before humans evolved. Change is messy but the alternative is perpetual status quo. Some people get excluded but right now people are excluded as well. >You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? You are now applying this retroactively which is not the discussion at hand. Please don't put together straw man arguments. edit: You're arguing absolutes when change is a gradual imperfect uneven messy process. It has always been and will always be. There are no absolutes because humanity is not a hive mind.
- javajosh 5y ago
  My only absolute is that you shouldn't dehumanize people. No matter what. You don't have to like them, or patronize them or their business, or interact with them, and you have every right to argue and criticize. But to eliminate them from your mind entirely, to devalue them and their contributions to society, to extend that existential violence to others that don't do the same, that makes society objectively worse. We lose a lot of art. Dehumanization leads inexorably to violence. Harvey Weinstein produced Pulp Fiction. He's also a sexual predator. What's your call? Can you still like Pulp Fiction, now?