4 ms·

I know that people always complained about the younger generation. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to i

I know that people always complained about the younger generation. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. They do this while offering no opinion themselves. For example I got in trouble because I questioned the way corporations are implementing diversity initiatives. I am completely on board with the intent but I think it's not done in an effective manner but more like a PR stunt. It's possible that I am wrong but I don't think I deserve to be called a racist by people who are not offering any thought of their own on the issue. I think this has to do with the the way the US parties with the help of social media have managed to split the populace into two camps that live in separate realities where even listening to somebody who is on the "other" side is viewed as treason.

danaris 4y ago
> What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. I think the problem with statements like this is that there are some things they could refer to that are very, very obviously (at least from where I sit) actually ethically bad, but were considered by many to be acceptable things to say few generations ago. Things like sexist and racist jokes, comments about where women and "colored" people belong, blatant homophobia and transphobia—y'know, all the widely-normalized bigotry that was a part of the rich white male landscape in the postwar years, à la Mad Men, remained so to some extent at least through the late '90s, and continues to be aggressively defended by some to this day. It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry. This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- throwawayacc5 4y ago
  I think the problem with statements like this is that there are some things they could refer to that are very, very obviously (at least from where I sit) actually ethically bad, but were considered by many to be acceptable things to say few generations ago. Things like sexist and racist jokes, comments about where men and "White" people belong, blatant heterophobia and cisphobia—y'know, all the widely-normalized bigotry that is a part of the rich white they/them landscape in the postwar years, à la CURRENTYEAR, remained so to some extent at least from the early 2000s, and continues to be aggressively defended by the majority of the media, academia, etc. to this day. It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry. This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0]. Both sides can play this nonsense game. Not every perceived slight is bigotry or -ism. Stating the fact that men cannot get pregnant isn't transphobic. Stating the fact that Black people per capita are more likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of violence isn't racist. The immediate push back to even broaching these subjects, facts, and findings is what got us here. We're not even capable of discussing anything because any deviation from the party line is immediately perceived as the worst of the "opposition". If you state you're pro-free speech, you're a fascist neo-Nazi. If you're pro-trans children you're a pedo child groomer. Nuance and the capability to talk across the aisle has sadly disappeared, and everyone just gaslights and projects about the other side being sexist, racist, anti-White, Europhobic, Islamophopic, antisemitic, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
ruszki 4y ago
> What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. Because this is almost always true. For example, there was somebody here, who said the same thing, that they got in trouble because they asked whether transwomen can have periods. They knew the answer. They just tried to argue about something stupid, and they used this problematic wording for a specific reason: they wanted to have a pointless debate. They even knew that if they would asked the same thing with “period symptoms”, there wouldn’t be any debate. They didn’t want to have a conclusion. Btw, one of my close friends said the same thing about corporations. He has zero ground to say such thing, he can’t even argue for his statement. It’s just his feeling.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  "Because this is almost always true." I don't think so. You may think you are especially enlightened with your views and therefore people with a different view just deserve a rhetorical beating. A. You are probably not as right as you think you are B. People come from different backgrounds and life experiences may come to different conclusions C. Aggressive takedowns may make you feel good but achieve nothing in solving issues. They just produce pushback. A little bit of effort in understanding others can go pretty far.
  - slg 4y ago
    We could all keep going back and forth in the comments with "This is almost always true" and "I don't think so", but that isn't going to get us anywhere. If you don't think this is true, can you give one example of it not being true? When was this hypothetical period in which anyone could express their opinions without the threat of them being labeled "ethically bad"?
    - ruszki 4y ago
      There is a problem with your question. It’s definitely happened. I don’t know any example, because whenever I questioned such statements, it was always just to hide some racist, sexist, etc opinion. But still, I’m pretty sure, that there are cases. The problem is I can’t imagine that it’s more than 1% at this point. I questioned such statements too many times, and only a proper study can change my mind.
andrepd 4y ago
> For example I got in trouble Explain. You "got in trouble", what kind of trouble exactly? Did someone disagree with you? Because that's natural. And did someone call you "racist"? Well if you posted your opinion publicly and 10,000 people saw it, it's almost certain at least one will comment that. Doesn't mean it's the majority opinion at all.

danaris 4y ago

> What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. I think the problem with statements like this is that there are some things they could refer to that are very, very obviously (at least from where I sit) actually ethically bad, but were considered by many to be acceptable things to say few generations ago. Things like sexist and racist jokes, comments about where women and "colored" people belong, blatant homophobia and transphobia—y'know, all the widely-normalized bigotry that was a part of the rich white male landscape in the postwar years, à la Mad Men, remained so to some extent at least through the late '90s, and continues to be aggressively defended by some to this day. It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry. This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

throwawayacc5 4y ago
I think the problem with statements like this is that there are some things they could refer to that are very, very obviously (at least from where I sit) actually ethically bad, but were considered by many to be acceptable things to say few generations ago. Things like sexist and racist jokes, comments about where men and "White" people belong, blatant heterophobia and cisphobia—y'know, all the widely-normalized bigotry that is a part of the rich white they/them landscape in the postwar years, à la CURRENTYEAR, remained so to some extent at least from the early 2000s, and continues to be aggressively defended by the majority of the media, academia, etc. to this day. It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry. This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0]. Both sides can play this nonsense game. Not every perceived slight is bigotry or -ism. Stating the fact that men cannot get pregnant isn't transphobic. Stating the fact that Black people per capita are more likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of violence isn't racist. The immediate push back to even broaching these subjects, facts, and findings is what got us here. We're not even capable of discussing anything because any deviation from the party line is immediately perceived as the worst of the "opposition". If you state you're pro-free speech, you're a fascist neo-Nazi. If you're pro-trans children you're a pedo child groomer. Nuance and the capability to talk across the aisle has sadly disappeared, and everyone just gaslights and projects about the other side being sexist, racist, anti-White, Europhobic, Islamophopic, antisemitic, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

ruszki 4y ago

> What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad. Because this is almost always true. For example, there was somebody here, who said the same thing, that they got in trouble because they asked whether transwomen can have periods. They knew the answer. They just tried to argue about something stupid, and they used this problematic wording for a specific reason: they wanted to have a pointless debate. They even knew that if they would asked the same thing with “period symptoms”, there wouldn’t be any debate. They didn’t want to have a conclusion. Btw, one of my close friends said the same thing about corporations. He has zero ground to say such thing, he can’t even argue for his statement. It’s just his feeling.

rqtwteye 4y ago
"Because this is almost always true." I don't think so. You may think you are especially enlightened with your views and therefore people with a different view just deserve a rhetorical beating. A. You are probably not as right as you think you are B. People come from different backgrounds and life experiences may come to different conclusions C. Aggressive takedowns may make you feel good but achieve nothing in solving issues. They just produce pushback. A little bit of effort in understanding others can go pretty far.
- slg 4y ago
  We could all keep going back and forth in the comments with "This is almost always true" and "I don't think so", but that isn't going to get us anywhere. If you don't think this is true, can you give one example of it not being true? When was this hypothetical period in which anyone could express their opinions without the threat of them being labeled "ethically bad"?
  - ruszki 4y ago
    There is a problem with your question. It’s definitely happened. I don’t know any example, because whenever I questioned such statements, it was always just to hide some racist, sexist, etc opinion. But still, I’m pretty sure, that there are cases. The problem is I can’t imagine that it’s more than 1% at this point. I questioned such statements too many times, and only a proper study can change my mind.

andrepd 4y ago

> For example I got in trouble Explain. You "got in trouble", what kind of trouble exactly? Did someone disagree with you? Because that's natural. And did someone call you "racist"? Well if you posted your opinion publicly and 10,000 people saw it, it's almost certain at least one will comment that. Doesn't mean it's the majority opinion at all.