10 ms·

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you. In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the per

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you. In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

ethbr1 2y ago
Fair, but in our current times using someone's identity as a justification to act like an asshole to them is a sith's whisper. We all have our less enlightened moments. Better we not afford ourselves easy intellectual justifications for being our worst selves. As the quip goes: the greatest evils are perpetrated by those most assured of their own righteousness. Edit: Or in video form. Beginning summary: "brick suit guy" was apparently an extremely aggressive heckler of the media at Trump rallies. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSIv7alUZ8&t=95s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSIv7alUZ8&t=95s
- gedpeck 2y ago
  In normal times I would agree with you. At present in the U.S. I’d not agree with this sentiment. People who support electing a known racist, thief, con man, and felon are deserving of ridicule and ire. They don’t deserve respect in my opinion. When the politics of a nation shift so far in one direction we get into a situation where supporters of that shift don’t deserve respect. Stalinist Soviet Union is an extreme example of this.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    So what lengths do you think you're justified going to against individuals you disagree with? And how do you feel about them feeling the same about you? Mutual righteous hostility is why ethnic and religious wars simmer forever, because there's always a convenient justification for acting violently towards others (and them towards you).
    - gedpeck 2y ago
      … justified going to against individuals you disagree with? I don’t do anything at this time. But I understand why there are those who do have vitriol for supporters of a rapist who lusts after his own daughter. There are times when a nation’s society fractures as the social cohesion evaporates. We are beginning to be in such a time in the U.S. Well, it appears that way to me. Only time will tell.
      - itsoktocry 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gedpeck 2y ago
        The one who rapes and lusts after his daughter is the one who has issues. Well, him and the people who support him. Never thought I’d live to see Republicans, the so called party of family values, support such an asshole. You should get some ethics and apply them consistently.
        itsoktocry 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gedpeck 2y ago
        Sexual abuse. Not rape. The distinction is extremely important. Now that I know he is only a sexual abuser and not a rapist I support him. A sexual abuser who cheats charities, is a convicted felon, who accepts $30 billion dollar crypto coin bribes is worth supporting. But not a raping one. I retract my complaints against Trump. I will enjoy the next 4 years. I voted for Trump in 2016. I want the one who will do the most damage to the U.S. to be in power. I won’t suffer. I’m well off.
        davidw 2y ago
        Adjudicated rapist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-car...
mecsred 2y ago
Then you don't agree at all. Every single adult in the world has "done or advocated for things that cause harm". It's inescapable.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  Great harm then? I’m not morally obligated to to treat Putin with respect. Most people agree that there are people who are so reprehensible that they don’t deserve respect.
  - haswell 2y ago
    There are obvious bad/evil actors in the world. When people talk about engaging with other humans respectfully, they're generally not referring to the Putins of the world. And it's pretty rare to have so much clarity about a person to know they're in the "obviously reprehensible" bucket. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I often see people argue like this: 1. There are obviously bad actors in the world 2. Nobody would argue those bad actors should be given respect 3. So I won't respect people I come across who disagree with me The fallacy is in the jump from 2 to 3, and the assumption that the existence of bad actors means the person I'm interacting with right now is one of them. The vast majority of people aren't Putin, nor can they be judged so quickly/clearly. And setting aside whether or not someone like that deserves respect, there's also a clear difference between respecting someone for who they are vs. behaving in a respectful manner out of self-preservation. The latter may ultimately keep you alive.
    - gedpeck 2y ago
      Herein lies the crux of the matter in my view. The jump from 2 to 3. When Bob Dole ran for President I wholeheartedly agreed with the position about being respectful to those you disagree with. Politics was still normal in the U.S. at that time. But now we in the U.S. elected a known rapist. A felon and a con man. He can’t run a charity in New York due to his misdeeds. He lusts after his own daughter. We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people. Now obviously there are many people who disagree with the above. But this is how I see things and I act accordingly. The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs. We are well into the Paradox of Tolerance situation in the U.S.
hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
> But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. the current conflict in the middle east shows why this doesn't work in the long run. despite what a generation that grew up consuming Marvel films was led to believe, not every conflict is a clearly defined superhero-vs-supervillain, good-vs-evil affair. eventually, you will be the one who, according to some, is advocating for things that cause harm and is considered a horrible person.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  Most definitely. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn.
- beardedwizard 2y ago
  Very underrated comment. Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.
  - gopher_space 2y ago
    > Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law. Sure, but then you're handwaving away questions about why cultures align along similar axioms.
    - hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gedpeck 2y ago
        according to gedpeck, nearly everyone in Africa and Asia, and every single practicing Muslim, is a horrible person... I said no such thing.
        hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
Suppafly 2y ago
>In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. I feel like the parent comment is pretending to be deep and meaningful but is really just rehashing the 'both sides are the same' argument with a side of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion'. It's nice to say that we should judge everyone for who they are, but if who they are is a vocal member of a group that wants to hurt other people, that's all we need to know to judge them. Pretending otherwise is silly.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The difference is between judging an individual for what they themselves say vs what identities you associate with them (or even those they associate with themselves).
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >or even those they associate with themselves I see no problem judging someone for the identities that they choose to associate themselves with.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Over and above their works and words?
      - Suppafly 2y ago
        Their associations are their works and words. You can't just handwave that stuff away as being irrelevant because you like the parts of their works and words that don't touch on anything you deem to be an association.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        I know people of the political party I tend to disagree with who are saints and dedicate the majority of their time to others. I know people of the political party I tend to agree with who are insufferable selfish pricks and treat others terribly. Works and words aren't always associations.
CivBase 2y ago
What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions? When your creed is basically "I only hate bad people", you have given yourself permission to hate anyone and feel righteously justified about it. And you'll never feel the need to empathize because bad people always deserve whatever bad things happen to them. You don't need to love everyone unconditionally, but clearly more neuance is needed.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions? I know the answers to these questions…for me. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn. It has always been this way.
yibg 2y ago
My challenge is I can’t even tell if me and someone else are seeing the same facts. Take trump for example. Policies etc I may disagree on but I can see why someone else would support them. As a person, looking at everything he says and does I can only conclude that he’s a narcissist that only cares about himself. But then there are a lot of trump supporters that are convinced he cares about them and the country. What am I missing that we can come to such dramatically different conclusions?

ethbr1 2y ago

Fair, but in our current times using someone's identity as a justification to act like an asshole to them is a sith's whisper. We all have our less enlightened moments. Better we not afford ourselves easy intellectual justifications for being our worst selves. As the quip goes: the greatest evils are perpetrated by those most assured of their own righteousness. Edit: Or in video form. Beginning summary: "brick suit guy" was apparently an extremely aggressive heckler of the media at Trump rallies. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSIv7alUZ8&t=95s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSIv7alUZ8&t=95s

gedpeck 2y ago
In normal times I would agree with you. At present in the U.S. I’d not agree with this sentiment. People who support electing a known racist, thief, con man, and felon are deserving of ridicule and ire. They don’t deserve respect in my opinion. When the politics of a nation shift so far in one direction we get into a situation where supporters of that shift don’t deserve respect. Stalinist Soviet Union is an extreme example of this.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  So what lengths do you think you're justified going to against individuals you disagree with? And how do you feel about them feeling the same about you? Mutual righteous hostility is why ethnic and religious wars simmer forever, because there's always a convenient justification for acting violently towards others (and them towards you).
  - gedpeck 2y ago
    … justified going to against individuals you disagree with? I don’t do anything at this time. But I understand why there are those who do have vitriol for supporters of a rapist who lusts after his own daughter. There are times when a nation’s society fractures as the social cohesion evaporates. We are beginning to be in such a time in the U.S. Well, it appears that way to me. Only time will tell.
    - itsoktocry 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gedpeck 2y ago
        The one who rapes and lusts after his daughter is the one who has issues. Well, him and the people who support him. Never thought I’d live to see Republicans, the so called party of family values, support such an asshole. You should get some ethics and apply them consistently.
        itsoktocry 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gedpeck 2y ago
        Sexual abuse. Not rape. The distinction is extremely important. Now that I know he is only a sexual abuser and not a rapist I support him. A sexual abuser who cheats charities, is a convicted felon, who accepts $30 billion dollar crypto coin bribes is worth supporting. But not a raping one. I retract my complaints against Trump. I will enjoy the next 4 years. I voted for Trump in 2016. I want the one who will do the most damage to the U.S. to be in power. I won’t suffer. I’m well off.
        davidw 2y ago
        Adjudicated rapist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-car...

mecsred 2y ago

Then you don't agree at all. Every single adult in the world has "done or advocated for things that cause harm". It's inescapable.

gedpeck 2y ago
Great harm then? I’m not morally obligated to to treat Putin with respect. Most people agree that there are people who are so reprehensible that they don’t deserve respect.
- haswell 2y ago
  There are obvious bad/evil actors in the world. When people talk about engaging with other humans respectfully, they're generally not referring to the Putins of the world. And it's pretty rare to have so much clarity about a person to know they're in the "obviously reprehensible" bucket. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I often see people argue like this: 1. There are obviously bad actors in the world 2. Nobody would argue those bad actors should be given respect 3. So I won't respect people I come across who disagree with me The fallacy is in the jump from 2 to 3, and the assumption that the existence of bad actors means the person I'm interacting with right now is one of them. The vast majority of people aren't Putin, nor can they be judged so quickly/clearly. And setting aside whether or not someone like that deserves respect, there's also a clear difference between respecting someone for who they are vs. behaving in a respectful manner out of self-preservation. The latter may ultimately keep you alive.
  - gedpeck 2y ago
    Herein lies the crux of the matter in my view. The jump from 2 to 3. When Bob Dole ran for President I wholeheartedly agreed with the position about being respectful to those you disagree with. Politics was still normal in the U.S. at that time. But now we in the U.S. elected a known rapist. A felon and a con man. He can’t run a charity in New York due to his misdeeds. He lusts after his own daughter. We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people. Now obviously there are many people who disagree with the above. But this is how I see things and I act accordingly. The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs. We are well into the Paradox of Tolerance situation in the U.S.

hnthrowaway6543 2y ago

> But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. the current conflict in the middle east shows why this doesn't work in the long run. despite what a generation that grew up consuming Marvel films was led to believe, not every conflict is a clearly defined superhero-vs-supervillain, good-vs-evil affair. eventually, you will be the one who, according to some, is advocating for things that cause harm and is considered a horrible person.

gedpeck 2y ago
Most definitely. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn.
beardedwizard 2y ago
Very underrated comment. Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.
- gopher_space 2y ago
  > Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law. Sure, but then you're handwaving away questions about why cultures align along similar axioms.
  - hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gedpeck 2y ago
      according to gedpeck, nearly everyone in Africa and Asia, and every single practicing Muslim, is a horrible person... I said no such thing.
      - hnthrowaway6543 2y ago

Suppafly 2y ago

>In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree. I feel like the parent comment is pretending to be deep and meaningful but is really just rehashing the 'both sides are the same' argument with a side of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion'. It's nice to say that we should judge everyone for who they are, but if who they are is a vocal member of a group that wants to hurt other people, that's all we need to know to judge them. Pretending otherwise is silly.

ethbr1 2y ago
The difference is between judging an individual for what they themselves say vs what identities you associate with them (or even those they associate with themselves).
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >or even those they associate with themselves I see no problem judging someone for the identities that they choose to associate themselves with.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Over and above their works and words?
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      Their associations are their works and words. You can't just handwave that stuff away as being irrelevant because you like the parts of their works and words that don't touch on anything you deem to be an association.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        I know people of the political party I tend to disagree with who are saints and dedicate the majority of their time to others. I know people of the political party I tend to agree with who are insufferable selfish pricks and treat others terribly. Works and words aren't always associations.

CivBase 2y ago

What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions? When your creed is basically "I only hate bad people", you have given yourself permission to hate anyone and feel righteously justified about it. And you'll never feel the need to empathize because bad people always deserve whatever bad things happen to them. You don't need to love everyone unconditionally, but clearly more neuance is needed.

gedpeck 2y ago
What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions? I know the answers to these questions…for me. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn. It has always been this way.

yibg 2y ago

My challenge is I can’t even tell if me and someone else are seeing the same facts. Take trump for example. Policies etc I may disagree on but I can see why someone else would support them. As a person, looking at everything he says and does I can only conclude that he’s a narcissist that only cares about himself. But then there are a lot of trump supporters that are convinced he cares about them and the country. What am I missing that we can come to such dramatically different conclusions?