5 ms·

But there are two sides to everything and both should be given equal consideration. There are also extremes on both sides that should be recognized and rejected

But there are two sides to everything and both should be given equal consideration. There are also extremes on both sides that should be recognized and rejected as such. And the only way to sift out the two and make sure you're not accidentally skewing towards one extreme is to consistently try to understand other people's perspectives. This practice is both educational—it helps you see where you might be wrong after all—and crucial for anyone who wants to actually make a difference in the world. Rejecting the perspectives of 50% of the population out of hand is a great way to lose popular support and elections.

BeefWellington 2y ago
Ok, two sides to this equation: Lolinder has no right to continue existing. Lolinder has every right to continue existing. Explain why you feel you personally are required to entertain the idea of both of those options. This is effectively what you are arguing must be done in the context of this thread.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I said this: > There are also extremes on both sides that should be recognized and rejected as such. "No right to continue existing" is obviously an extreme that doesn't need to be entertained. But the existence of that extreme is used to argue that anything short of full endorsement of everything labeled a right is that extreme of denial of the right to exist, which is patently false. A less extreme formulation that regularly gets lumped in with "no right to continue to exist" is: Some people are born with various shades of physical differences that lead to different mental and emotional states. Those who are different from the majority deserve our love and support, but we should attempt to provide that support in a way that doesn't encourage people to self-diagnose with these very real diversities when they don't, in fact, have them. It's a tricky balance to maintain and one that we hope we can get right, but when it comes to sweeping cultural change it's better to move slowly and observe the outcomes carefully. In the meantime we should try as hard as possible to support those who we do identify as being truly divergent. I'm willing to bet that a substantial number of people reading the position described above will be unable to distinguish it from "no right to continue to exist", and therein lies the problem.
  - BeefWellington 2y ago
    Does a person self-diagnose as Black? Jewish? Indigenous? Being gay? Your attempt at nuanced discussion falls apart when the context is about whether people should be expected to stay somewhere by "blocking and moving on" comments suggesting they go cease existing. What you're failing to recognize (to a point that at least appears bad faith) is that it is the extremes here.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > What you're failing to recognize (to a point that at least appears bad faith) is that it is the extremes here. This is exactly what I'm warning against. Refusing to see that it's not that simple is why Trump's anti-trans smear campaign works so well. The best thing we can do for trans rights is acknowledge that we recognize it as a complicated issue that needs to be worked through carefully, but internet rhetoric invariably breaks it down into extremes. Given two extremes as the only options, we shouldn't be surprised when people pick the one we wouldn't prefer. My comments here will be labeled transphobic by a lot of people, to the point where if I weren't writing under a pseudonym I wouldn't write them at all. Never mind that I'm an ally—the fact that I'm the kind of ally that calls out a counterproductive theory of change for what it is makes me an enemy in the current environment, and that is why we're seeing a regression on the national level. Cassandras like me have been warning about this for years now, and it's high time we're heard rather than pushed out of the tent.
      - BeefWellington 2y ago
        I don't think you get to decide if you qualify as an ally, and that's maybe part of the problem here. There are a lot of well-meaning well-intentioned people who do great harm. The adage "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" exists as an observation of this.
        lolinder 2y ago
        Agreed. A lot of people call themselves allies while actively sabotaging relationships with the 60% of the population that they need to get on board with change to actually make a difference. We just got a very visceral illustration of the harm that that kind of ally with good intentions has caused. I've done more to advance LGBT acceptance by quietly listening to people in deep red states and then (after listening to them!) helping them to see the other perspective than 100 internet commenters raging about how everything comes down to extremes. You can label me whatever you like, but I'm going to keep up my approach, because it's obvious that the mainstream left's approach is a total failure.
- bephl 2y ago
  > right to continue existing Unless you're talking about state-sanctioned murder, this is just emotive rhetoric with no relevance to what people are actually disagreeing on.
- account42 2y ago
  If you take off your bias googles you might see that "right to continue existing" typically actually means "right to hove everyone else forced to support them". You can exist without - others being forbiden from expressing opinions that you find distateful - your personal wishes being financially supported by everyone else - being given a platform to target children with your views - whatever facet you define yourself with being represented in every media ever made Framing it as the "right to continue existing" in order to make "the other side" seem more extremist is exactly the kind of thing an extremist does.

BeefWellington 2y ago

Ok, two sides to this equation: Lolinder has no right to continue existing. Lolinder has every right to continue existing. Explain why you feel you personally are required to entertain the idea of both of those options. This is effectively what you are arguing must be done in the context of this thread.

lolinder 2y ago
I said this: > There are also extremes on both sides that should be recognized and rejected as such. "No right to continue existing" is obviously an extreme that doesn't need to be entertained. But the existence of that extreme is used to argue that anything short of full endorsement of everything labeled a right is that extreme of denial of the right to exist, which is patently false. A less extreme formulation that regularly gets lumped in with "no right to continue to exist" is: Some people are born with various shades of physical differences that lead to different mental and emotional states. Those who are different from the majority deserve our love and support, but we should attempt to provide that support in a way that doesn't encourage people to self-diagnose with these very real diversities when they don't, in fact, have them. It's a tricky balance to maintain and one that we hope we can get right, but when it comes to sweeping cultural change it's better to move slowly and observe the outcomes carefully. In the meantime we should try as hard as possible to support those who we do identify as being truly divergent. I'm willing to bet that a substantial number of people reading the position described above will be unable to distinguish it from "no right to continue to exist", and therein lies the problem.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  Does a person self-diagnose as Black? Jewish? Indigenous? Being gay? Your attempt at nuanced discussion falls apart when the context is about whether people should be expected to stay somewhere by "blocking and moving on" comments suggesting they go cease existing. What you're failing to recognize (to a point that at least appears bad faith) is that it is the extremes here.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > What you're failing to recognize (to a point that at least appears bad faith) is that it is the extremes here. This is exactly what I'm warning against. Refusing to see that it's not that simple is why Trump's anti-trans smear campaign works so well. The best thing we can do for trans rights is acknowledge that we recognize it as a complicated issue that needs to be worked through carefully, but internet rhetoric invariably breaks it down into extremes. Given two extremes as the only options, we shouldn't be surprised when people pick the one we wouldn't prefer. My comments here will be labeled transphobic by a lot of people, to the point where if I weren't writing under a pseudonym I wouldn't write them at all. Never mind that I'm an ally—the fact that I'm the kind of ally that calls out a counterproductive theory of change for what it is makes me an enemy in the current environment, and that is why we're seeing a regression on the national level. Cassandras like me have been warning about this for years now, and it's high time we're heard rather than pushed out of the tent.
    - BeefWellington 2y ago
      I don't think you get to decide if you qualify as an ally, and that's maybe part of the problem here. There are a lot of well-meaning well-intentioned people who do great harm. The adage "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" exists as an observation of this.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Agreed. A lot of people call themselves allies while actively sabotaging relationships with the 60% of the population that they need to get on board with change to actually make a difference. We just got a very visceral illustration of the harm that that kind of ally with good intentions has caused. I've done more to advance LGBT acceptance by quietly listening to people in deep red states and then (after listening to them!) helping them to see the other perspective than 100 internet commenters raging about how everything comes down to extremes. You can label me whatever you like, but I'm going to keep up my approach, because it's obvious that the mainstream left's approach is a total failure.
bephl 2y ago
> right to continue existing Unless you're talking about state-sanctioned murder, this is just emotive rhetoric with no relevance to what people are actually disagreeing on.
account42 2y ago
If you take off your bias googles you might see that "right to continue existing" typically actually means "right to hove everyone else forced to support them". You can exist without - others being forbiden from expressing opinions that you find distateful - your personal wishes being financially supported by everyone else - being given a platform to target children with your views - whatever facet you define yourself with being represented in every media ever made Framing it as the "right to continue existing" in order to make "the other side" seem more extremist is exactly the kind of thing an extremist does.