4 ms·

It's just a fact that even people with repugnant beliefs about certain classes of people can still make complete sense in other domains.

by ribs 13y ago

Udo 13y ago
Nobody disputes that. The question is, I believe, if we should enable them and elevate them. Giving Card a platform and indulging him validates his entire personal concept, not just the good parts. It's not only a matter of giving credit, it's about choosing where your content comes from. This person is still alive and relevant and subject to social acceptance. And even with dead people, we are reluctant to cite them if they have a bad reputation - it's only that we make certain historical allowances based on the perceived historical distance to us. Especially in this day and age, it's easy to find alternative authors on pretty much any subject who convey the same ideas without the amoral baggage. Let's recognize them instead. Do you think this essay contains unique insights? No way. It's here because it's written by Orson Scott Card.
- nashashmi 13y ago
  You know if we practiced the same methodology a long time back, many prominent people may never have gained credence even if they came up with some amazing stuff simply because they were gay. Case in point: Alan Turing.
  - Udo 13y ago
    You could argue that "we" always practiced the methodology of penalizing people with beliefs that were perceived as abnormal. Case in point: Alan Turing. However, this is not the level I want this considered at. Instead, I invite you to look at what you're comparing here. There is OSC's philosophy of hatred on one side, and Alan Turing's sexuality on the other (which was never about harming anyone and hence could always be considered ethically neutral). You can't meaningfully argue that the two are similar. Yes, they share the trait of being socially unaccepted at the time, but that's also where the similarities end. I'm not proposing we shun people because their beliefs are unpopular. I'm talking about making a choice not to elevate people who are unethical.
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?
      - Udo 13y ago
        > What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)? First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?
        xmonkee 13y ago
        It seems like you're purposely misinterpreting his point. He's not saying what should be, he's saying what probably was. You might have been saying that homosexuality is unethical a hundred years ago with the same certainty with which you denounce Card. I'm sure nobody here actually thinks that being gay is unethical.
        Udo 13y ago
        While we're accusing people of purposeful misinterpretation, let me pass that right back at you. I wanted to hear the rationale for calling being gay unethical. I wasn't about to allege anything. But if someone asserts that there might be an ethics argument against homosexuality, I'd really like to hear it.
        xmonkee 13y ago
        Okay, I apologize about implying that you're being intentionally obtuse. About the ethics argument, you (or maybe someone else above) said that anti-homosexuality is a violent hateful position, and the homosexuality is just a sexual preference. I'm not disagreeing with you, but an opponent might claim that your arguments regarding both are extremely ad-hoc. You could just as easily claim that homosexuality is unnatural or that it's against god's will or that it goes against our national interests or any other bullshit. Why I didn't want to make these arguments is because I'm not interesting in debating this side. I don't think homosexuality is unethical, and hence carrying on this debate isn't pleasant to me. I'm just saying that thinking that both positions had the same ethical value in any time is presentism.

It's just a fact that even people with repugnant beliefs about certain classes of people can still make complete sense in other domains.

by ribs 13y ago

It's just a fact that even people with repugnant beliefs about certain classes of people can still make complete sense in other domains.

Udo 13y ago

Nobody disputes that. The question is, I believe, if we should enable them and elevate them. Giving Card a platform and indulging him validates his entire personal concept, not just the good parts. It's not only a matter of giving credit, it's about choosing where your content comes from. This person is still alive and relevant and subject to social acceptance. And even with dead people, we are reluctant to cite them if they have a bad reputation - it's only that we make certain historical allowances based on the perceived historical distance to us. Especially in this day and age, it's easy to find alternative authors on pretty much any subject who convey the same ideas without the amoral baggage. Let's recognize them instead. Do you think this essay contains unique insights? No way. It's here because it's written by Orson Scott Card.

nashashmi 13y ago
You know if we practiced the same methodology a long time back, many prominent people may never have gained credence even if they came up with some amazing stuff simply because they were gay. Case in point: Alan Turing.
- Udo 13y ago
  You could argue that "we" always practiced the methodology of penalizing people with beliefs that were perceived as abnormal. Case in point: Alan Turing. However, this is not the level I want this considered at. Instead, I invite you to look at what you're comparing here. There is OSC's philosophy of hatred on one side, and Alan Turing's sexuality on the other (which was never about harming anyone and hence could always be considered ethically neutral). You can't meaningfully argue that the two are similar. Yes, they share the trait of being socially unaccepted at the time, but that's also where the similarities end. I'm not proposing we shun people because their beliefs are unpopular. I'm talking about making a choice not to elevate people who are unethical.
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?
    - Udo 13y ago
      > What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)? First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?
      - xmonkee 13y ago
        It seems like you're purposely misinterpreting his point. He's not saying what should be, he's saying what probably was. You might have been saying that homosexuality is unethical a hundred years ago with the same certainty with which you denounce Card. I'm sure nobody here actually thinks that being gay is unethical.
        Udo 13y ago
        While we're accusing people of purposeful misinterpretation, let me pass that right back at you. I wanted to hear the rationale for calling being gay unethical. I wasn't about to allege anything. But if someone asserts that there might be an ethics argument against homosexuality, I'd really like to hear it.
        xmonkee 13y ago
        Okay, I apologize about implying that you're being intentionally obtuse. About the ethics argument, you (or maybe someone else above) said that anti-homosexuality is a violent hateful position, and the homosexuality is just a sexual preference. I'm not disagreeing with you, but an opponent might claim that your arguments regarding both are extremely ad-hoc. You could just as easily claim that homosexuality is unnatural or that it's against god's will or that it goes against our national interests or any other bullshit. Why I didn't want to make these arguments is because I'm not interesting in debating this side. I don't think homosexuality is unethical, and hence carrying on this debate isn't pleasant to me. I'm just saying that thinking that both positions had the same ethical value in any time is presentism.