5 ms·

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. I

by lapcat 3y ago

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.

patrick451 3y ago
Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there. Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there? I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the great accomplishments of humanity is to rise above our animal instincts and become, at least temporarily, rational and enlightened. Sex is necessary for the propagation of the species, and when done right, it's consensual to all parties and also pleasurable, harming nobody. Can you say the same about racism and sexism?
  - intalentive 3y ago
    Not sure how you define sexism, but more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates and more social cohesion. In the long run those traits propagate themselves. The stereotypical cat lady, not so much. As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Don’t need to be EO Wilson or Richard Dawkins to see why.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Not sure how you define sexism How do you define sexism? I'm not sure how the "stereotypical cat lady" is even relevant. > more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates I don't think we need higher birth rates at this point, with over 8 billion humans on Earth already. > As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Romantic preferences are not racism. Would you say that failure to be bisexual is sexism? (Spoiler: it's not.) It's crucial to recognize, though, that romantic preferences are entirely subjective. If you consider your romantic preferences to be objectively superior humans and those who aren't to your preference objectively inferior humans who deserve a lower rank in society, that would be racism and/or sexism.
    - melagonster 3y ago
      Richard Dawkins said biologists don't offer any indication of ethics. we made by evolution and nature doesn't mean we should live as beast.
      - patrick451 3y ago
        With no god, why not? It doesn't matter one way or the other.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants I'm under the impression that homosexuality is largely accepted in the western world, and that largely, western society hasn't been destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Seeking of suppression of desire and sexual deviants, is that what you would tell to people who want to change their gender? Would you tell them it would be healthier for society if they didn't become transgender?
  - fioiu 3y ago
    [flagged]
grif-fin 3y ago
>I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Isn't it scary or least worrying that 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds? Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past and now people (majority of the other 60%) are calling them out and criticize them on those hence concluding not scary and perhaps good? I find it scary too.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past Some of them do, yes. However, "The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then." In the past, there was no such thing as being afraid of speaking your mind on social media. You were typically speaking your mind in private, among friends and family. This very conversation that we're having now would have never occurred in 1957, or even 1987.
  - grif-fin 3y ago
    I would argue having significant part of a society whether right or wrong in anyone's view having their thoughts not disclosed and represented to the rest of the society should be worrying for everyone in that society. The history of our nature has shown self-censorship usually erupts by the most radicals of that group which is an uglier problem to have I would think than allowing their right or wrong thoughts to be out in the light. >The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. This to me only highlights the extend to which we should be worried rather than exaggerating it.
h2odragon 3y ago
Example: "People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly. Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with their principles, but because it strikes at the status / tribe signal positions they've adopted.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  I missed the memo that I am not allowed to agree with that quote. When did this happen?
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    When people started saying it to oppose re-introducing systemic racism, such as Harvard being racist to Asian students.
  - h2odragon 3y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/colorblind-constitution/602221/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/colorblind... https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/5280788?login=false https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/52... I quoted MLK (as above) at someone in 2020 and was quite surprised when it uncorked a rant about how that must mean i was a racist and didn't care for the struggles of the oppressed and so on.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Crucially, MLK said "I have a dream" about "one day" in the future. But MLK wasn't dumb enough to think that people could just magically declare racism to be over now without doing anything to address the social inequities and inequalities caused by centuries of historical racism.
      - 3y ago
Georgelemental 3y ago
> I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Even if we grant that the rise in self-censorship is entirely due to "casual racism and sexism" (and I don't grant it), wouldn't that meant that 40% of people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no?
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  Not if they do that crap in the workplace.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I don't grant it Neither do I. > people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no? I don't know how much of a secret it is. This tends to be fairly obvious regardless of whether people say it openly, and depending on which circles you spend time in, you tend to hear it already in private anyway. Perhaps there are many people who were naive, ignorant, sheltered, and are shocked to learn about bigotry, but speaking only for myself, I'm not at all surprised by the continuing level of bigotry in society, and I knew it before the rise of social media.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Odd. None of my private conversations are racist or sexist. Turns out I grew up in the short period where all racism is bad. I'm thankful for that.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Turns out I grew up in the short period where all racism is bad. There was no such period. Like I said, it depends on which circles you spend time in (e.g. your family). Sounds like you were just sheltered from it.
      - 3y ago
mlinhares 3y ago
The fact that in almost 2024 people still don't understand social media is NOT your friends in a table where you can make shitty comments with no consequences still baffles me. People always have had to separate public and private life, the only differences now is that it seems like they don't understand what is public or private anymore. I frequently see people making public comments on social networks about their employers or customers that no one should be making, they get fired and then complain there's no "free speech" anymore. The stupidity is really something.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  This just seems like a very natural back and forth You complain on social media about your employer and how they mistreated you They fire you for making them look bad by describing how they treated you Your view of them as a bad employer is reinforced and you warn people not to work for them Their view of you as a bad employee is reinforced and they earn people not to hire you. In both cases people's views are reinforced by reality. Where's the bug?
vintermann 3y ago
Do you think people are equally racist and sexist today as then? Surely not, it would be terrible news if that was true. It was possible to get ostracized over racism and especially sexism in the 1960s, or even the 1890s, you just had to do worse things to do it generally. If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever. Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It's society pushing back against them. This is a very long war. Wars are ugly. If you think that racism and sexism will just go down quietly without a fight, well, that's not how it works. When they feel most threatened, that's when they'll make the most noise.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    > Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It is absolutely not. Ostracism is - at best - a means towards the end, of ending racism and sexism. One of many. It may work, or it may backfire. > This is a very long war. If you can't tell the difference between the means and the goal, it's not just a long war, it's a classic forever war.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      To put it more precisely, I could have said that ostracism is a sign of progress. In large part, ostracism is neither a "rational" means nor a goal: it's an emotional reaction to what the ostracizer views as unacceptable behavior. But it's still a sign that the tide is turning in society.

by lapcat 3y ago

patrick451 3y ago

Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there.

lapcat 3y ago
> Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there. Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there? I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the great accomplishments of humanity is to rise above our animal instincts and become, at least temporarily, rational and enlightened. Sex is necessary for the propagation of the species, and when done right, it's consensual to all parties and also pleasurable, harming nobody. Can you say the same about racism and sexism?
- intalentive 3y ago
  Not sure how you define sexism, but more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates and more social cohesion. In the long run those traits propagate themselves. The stereotypical cat lady, not so much. As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Don’t need to be EO Wilson or Richard Dawkins to see why.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Not sure how you define sexism How do you define sexism? I'm not sure how the "stereotypical cat lady" is even relevant. > more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates I don't think we need higher birth rates at this point, with over 8 billion humans on Earth already. > As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Romantic preferences are not racism. Would you say that failure to be bisexual is sexism? (Spoiler: it's not.) It's crucial to recognize, though, that romantic preferences are entirely subjective. If you consider your romantic preferences to be objectively superior humans and those who aren't to your preference objectively inferior humans who deserve a lower rank in society, that would be racism and/or sexism.
  - melagonster 3y ago
    Richard Dawkins said biologists don't offer any indication of ethics. we made by evolution and nature doesn't mean we should live as beast.
    - patrick451 3y ago
      With no god, why not? It doesn't matter one way or the other.
fragmede 3y ago
> it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants I'm under the impression that homosexuality is largely accepted in the western world, and that largely, western society hasn't been destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.
pauldenton 3y ago
Seeking of suppression of desire and sexual deviants, is that what you would tell to people who want to change their gender? Would you tell them it would be healthier for society if they didn't become transgender?
- fioiu 3y ago
  [flagged]

grif-fin 3y ago

>I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Isn't it scary or least worrying that 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds? Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past and now people (majority of the other 60%) are calling them out and criticize them on those hence concluding not scary and perhaps good? I find it scary too.

lapcat 3y ago
> Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past Some of them do, yes. However, "The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then." In the past, there was no such thing as being afraid of speaking your mind on social media. You were typically speaking your mind in private, among friends and family. This very conversation that we're having now would have never occurred in 1957, or even 1987.
- grif-fin 3y ago
  I would argue having significant part of a society whether right or wrong in anyone's view having their thoughts not disclosed and represented to the rest of the society should be worrying for everyone in that society. The history of our nature has shown self-censorship usually erupts by the most radicals of that group which is an uglier problem to have I would think than allowing their right or wrong thoughts to be out in the light. >The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. This to me only highlights the extend to which we should be worried rather than exaggerating it.

h2odragon 3y ago

Example: "People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly. Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with their principles, but because it strikes at the status / tribe signal positions they've adopted.

warkdarrior 3y ago
I missed the memo that I am not allowed to agree with that quote. When did this happen?
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  When people started saying it to oppose re-introducing systemic racism, such as Harvard being racist to Asian students.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/colorblind-constitution/602221/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/colorblind... https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/5280788?login=false https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/52... I quoted MLK (as above) at someone in 2020 and was quite surprised when it uncorked a rant about how that must mean i was a racist and didn't care for the struggles of the oppressed and so on.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Crucially, MLK said "I have a dream" about "one day" in the future. But MLK wasn't dumb enough to think that people could just magically declare racism to be over now without doing anything to address the social inequities and inequalities caused by centuries of historical racism.
    - 3y ago

Georgelemental 3y ago

> I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Even if we grant that the rise in self-censorship is entirely due to "casual racism and sexism" (and I don't grant it), wouldn't that meant that 40% of people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no?

SantalBlush 3y ago
Not if they do that crap in the workplace.
lapcat 3y ago
> I don't grant it Neither do I. > people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no? I don't know how much of a secret it is. This tends to be fairly obvious regardless of whether people say it openly, and depending on which circles you spend time in, you tend to hear it already in private anyway. Perhaps there are many people who were naive, ignorant, sheltered, and are shocked to learn about bigotry, but speaking only for myself, I'm not at all surprised by the continuing level of bigotry in society, and I knew it before the rise of social media.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Odd. None of my private conversations are racist or sexist. Turns out I grew up in the short period where all racism is bad. I'm thankful for that.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Turns out I grew up in the short period where all racism is bad. There was no such period. Like I said, it depends on which circles you spend time in (e.g. your family). Sounds like you were just sheltered from it.
    - 3y ago

mlinhares 3y ago

The fact that in almost 2024 people still don't understand social media is NOT your friends in a table where you can make shitty comments with no consequences still baffles me. People always have had to separate public and private life, the only differences now is that it seems like they don't understand what is public or private anymore. I frequently see people making public comments on social networks about their employers or customers that no one should be making, they get fired and then complain there's no "free speech" anymore. The stupidity is really something.

pauldenton 3y ago
This just seems like a very natural back and forth You complain on social media about your employer and how they mistreated you They fire you for making them look bad by describing how they treated you Your view of them as a bad employer is reinforced and you warn people not to work for them Their view of you as a bad employee is reinforced and they earn people not to hire you. In both cases people's views are reinforced by reality. Where's the bug?

vintermann 3y ago

Do you think people are equally racist and sexist today as then? Surely not, it would be terrible news if that was true. It was possible to get ostracized over racism and especially sexism in the 1960s, or even the 1890s, you just had to do worse things to do it generally. If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever.

lapcat 3y ago
> If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever. Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It's society pushing back against them. This is a very long war. Wars are ugly. If you think that racism and sexism will just go down quietly without a fight, well, that's not how it works. When they feel most threatened, that's when they'll make the most noise.
- vintermann 3y ago
  > Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It is absolutely not. Ostracism is - at best - a means towards the end, of ending racism and sexism. One of many. It may work, or it may backfire. > This is a very long war. If you can't tell the difference between the means and the goal, it's not just a long war, it's a classic forever war.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    To put it more precisely, I could have said that ostracism is a sign of progress. In large part, ostracism is neither a "rational" means nor a goal: it's an emotional reaction to what the ostracizer views as unacceptable behavior. But it's still a sign that the tide is turning in society.