A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[Relm Zephyrous]

@Shiney: About the concern with the reported posts. I don't know which posts or why they are reported. But just for the record incase it is of 'any' concern, I am not stressed in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

This is, I think, the thing I felt was missing from your previous posts; a context in which maintaining these distinctions is meaningful. I think this is not a bad reason for doing so, but I think this concern, while eventually important, is premature in the context of this issue.

Perhaps slightly, but dealing with it at the beginning makes it a trivial formality to deal with that gives very little added difficulty to the message, and dealing with it later makes it into a huge hurdle to cross.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

Right now the problem, which Snake and Prem and so forth have been trying to elucidate, is that we currently have what you are describing here, where different degrees of the general category of offense exist and there are structures that are nominally intended to address them appropriately, and that it isn't working. Their solution, of advocacy that these problems really are problems and really are horrible things that the current system is allowing to happen, is a preliminary step towards the ideal you've described.

Yes, but I would argue that the categorical system is not the cause of the problems. The culture of sexism is made up of many things, and that way of dealing with it isn't the root of the problem. The simple relation to the system that isn't working does not mean that it is also part of the problem. Which is another reason why it is important to bring this up. Because association with the previous system may lead people to think the mere laying out of categories may be a negative thing.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

The challenge, at this juncture, is one of getting things to a point where people, generally, agree that all of these things are horrible things that deserve the punishment the system claims they should have - the very thing which the earlier statistics show is not currently true to an acceptable degree, and without which, making distinctions in the interest of fairly punishing people who currently go without any punishment at all, is meaningless.

Well yes, the main problem at this point is in getting people to agree that these are terrible things. I am just suggesting that in the way we solve the big problem, we do not let another problem (or several) inadvertently start.

[Sinvael]

Perhaps slightly, but dealing with it at the beginning makes it a trivial formality to deal with that gives very little added difficulty to the message, and dealing with it later makes it into a huge hurdle to cross.

Well yes, the main problem at this point is in getting people to agree that these are terrible things. I am just suggesting that in the way we solve the big problem, we do not let another problem (or several) inadvertently start.

I'm going to have to baldly disagree with these statements. I do not think there is any part of changing such widely-held beliefs in such a drastic way that can be made a "trivial formality" I do not believe that in attempting such wide-scale social reform, that there is any room for the luxury of worrying over starting more problems. If the issue is truly worthy of the level of moral outrage expressed in this thread, then the issue is worth potentially causing more problems in addressing this one.

Society is not fixed. One cannot enumerate a finite list of problems with society that can and should be addressed, nor the manner in which they should be resolved. Nor are we the only actors within the society. It may not be pleasant to think about, but the people we are trying to convince of our position are also active actors in society, with their own, conflicting self-interest, and it is immensely difficult to sway a meaningful proportion away from their initial beliefs - and in succeeding, even marginally, in doing so, they remain active actors. They aren't going to passively accept our proposed methods for a solution just because they become willing to admit to the existence of a problem. We could dream up a billion different ways of 'solving' the problems we perceive, and by the time anyone was putting a solution into place, it might resemble none of them meaningfully.

The issue isn't that there isn't a time or a place for such discourse, but right now, right here, there is almost nothing to be gained by it, and furthermore, that there is something to be gained by advocacy, and by reinforcement and repetition of the idea that the entire present situation needs changing somehow. Any expectation of practical implementation of meaningful reform is likely too far off for speculation as to its shape to be productive, and as I have attempted to express, there is reason to believe that focusing on such details at this time may represent a barrier to effective advocacy.

edit: I feel like this post may come off a bit harsher than intended, so I want to clarify that the position I take here doesn't mean that I think this discussion in particular is useless, as it is not primarily intended as a message towards those who do not already believe that rape culture exists and should not continue to do so. However, I think that what value lies in this discussion lies in what the participants and observers take away in terms of the degree to which it is a problem and what may be effective or appropriate responses in dealing with it when and where we encounter it, on this board or otherwise.

[Relm Zephyrous]

Originally Posted by Sinvael

I'm going to have to baldly disagree with these statements. I do not think there is any part of changing such widely-held beliefs in such a drastic way that can be made a "trivial formality" I do not believe that in attempting such wide-scale social reform, that there is any room for the luxury of worrying over starting more problems. If the issue is truly worthy of the level of moral outrage expressed in this thread, then the issue is worth potentially causing more problems in addressing this one.

While technically not a trivial point, it is akin to making sure you have the title of your book correctly in the editorial room, instead of trying to correct a typo once the book has been published and thousands of copies have been sent worldwide. And the problem with causing more problems with addressing this issue is that the additional issues will also lead to a lack of morality. This is kind of akin to starting a revolution against a corrupt government and saying "Oh we don't have the luxury of thinking about what we're going to do after the upheval, we're just gonna do it". As if this isn't a complete disaster in itself, one of the reasons for which being that after its all said and done suddenly you have 4 groups wanting to do 4 things, and there's suddenly the equivalent of bloody tribal wars all over.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

Society is not fixed. One cannot enumerate a finite list of problems with society that can and should be addressed, nor the manner in which they should be resolved. Nor are we the only actors within the society. It may not be pleasant to think about, but the people we are trying to convince of our position are also active actors in society, with their own, conflicting self-interest, and it is immensely difficult to sway a meaningful proportion away from their initial beliefs - and in succeeding, even marginally, in doing so, they remain active actors. They aren't going to passively accept our proposed methods for a solution just because they become willing to admit to the existence of a problem. We could dream up a billion different ways of 'solving' the problems we perceive, and by the time anyone was putting a solution into place, it might resemble none of them meaningfully.

Well, I guess there's no point in this now, is there? But really, just because society is changing does not mean that there is no way to measure the issues. And if the issue is that thinking up a solution will take enough time that it doesn't resemble any singular solution... and that the people being convinced will remain active actors... I don't see how that is relevant. Unless you're saying that actually talking about a solution and thinking it through takes too much time to be useful, which I would have to disagree with. One of the reasons for this being that we can simply push the issue into the consensus of the general public, as well as talk about how best to solve it with each other, both at the same time.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

The issue isn't that there isn't a time or a place for such discourse, but right now, right here, there is almost nothing to be gained by it, and furthermore, that there is something to be gained by advocacy, and by reinforcement and repetition of the idea that the entire present situation needs changing somehow. Any expectation of practical implementation of meaningful reform is likely too far off for speculation as to its shape to be productive, and as I have attempted to express, there is reason to believe that focusing on such details at this time may represent a barrier to effective advocacy.

The things that I have stated previously that need to be pointed out lest we come up with other issues, are things that we have gained from it, just as a single example. If we're talking about the maximal immediate beneficial return on time invested in squelching out sexism then no, this probably isn't the most meaningful way to spend this time. But it is meaningful. And even if it wasn't, when did it suddenly become taboo to talk about these subjects? "Oh, it isn't 100% productive to the cause, therefore stop talking about it!"

Originally Posted by Sinvael

edit: I feel like this post may come off a bit harsher than intended, so I want to clarify that the position I take here doesn't mean that I think this discussion in particular is useless, as it is not primarily intended as a message towards those who do not already believe that rape culture exists and should not continue to do so. However, I think that what value lies in this discussion lies in what the participants and observers take away in terms of the degree to which it is a problem and what may be effective or appropriate responses in dealing with it when and where we encounter it, on this board or otherwise.

I don't really disagree with where you are suggesting the value lies. But if your position is that this discussion isn't useless, and the topic isn't taboo, unless you are arguing that having a debate over the morality of different acts of sexism, and about how we look at the evidence and facts of sexism, is a barrier to actually getting the message out (which you admit isn't even the primary purpose of this conversation, and I would honestly like to see any feasible scenario where this discussion actually 'promotes' sexism) then I do not see why there is an issue with talking about these things.


Of course, I have full reason to believe that merely talking about the morality complexities behind all the issues involving sexism has been highly offensive in some fashion to people as evidenced by the highly emotionally charged responses and implications of thinking that I am morally bankrupt for merely thinking deeply about the morality of these issues. Otherwise shiney wouldn't have gotten any reports. I really am curious why this is offensive to people.

[Nique]

Of course, I have full reason to believe that merely talking about the morality complexities behind all the issues involving sexism has been highly offensive in some fashion to people as evidenced by the highly emotionally charged responses and implications of thinking that I am morally bankrupt for merely thinking deeply about the morality of these issues. Otherwise shiney wouldn't have gotten any reports. I really am curious why this is offensive to people.

Is this really the angle that you're taking now? That the reason people are disagreeing with you is because they're being oversensitive?

No one thinks that you are morally bankrupt. What is offensive is willful obtuseness and strawman building in your continued claims that people are accusing you of things they aren't actually accusing you of.

EDIT: Excuse me. Implicating you in things they aren't actually implicating you in.

[Marelo]

Because it's like maintaining rankings of your friends. It may be true that you care "more" about Shayna than Derek, and "more" about Derek than Laura, but it's not exactly a healthy topic of discussion for those relationships. You care about them all and that's all that matters. They are all your friends.

(I apologize for the disconcerting juxtaposition of friendship and sexual assault. The comparison is about the mechanics of the conversation, not the substance.)

A victim of rape isn't going to be served well by a discussion on the relative importance of their suffering as listed in a table of sexual crimes. They are all important and should all be talked about as important and part of the same issue: Consent and actions/attitudes which disregard it. Enumerating their relative severity invites discussion of them separately and dismissal of the valid traumatic experiences of people who are victims of the "lesser" crimes.

That's why people are offended and upset about ranking such things. It makes them feel like you don't care as much about some crimes as about others, whether that is the case or not.

[Relm Zephyrous]

The tone of certain posts strongly suggests 'morally bankrupt'. Everything I have said that was implicative that you are calling 'strawmen' I have cited and explained why the wording makes it explicitly seem like such in previous posts.

Also, I never said that people are disagreeing with me because they are being oversensitive. I am saying that people are getting rilled up for the mere issue being talked about. Considering certain posts are getting flagged in this thread, there is direct proof that there are some people that are getting upset by something in the thread.

Unless by 'willful obtuseness' you mean 'not 100% agreeing with you', then I've made my points clearly and intellectually.


(Note that I didn't actually address anybody specifically, so if you are taking that as a personal shot at you-don't.)

Edit: @Marelo: That is a concern, but it is ultimately a misunderstanding. Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, there should no longer be a problem. This is done for example via my argument that just because one thing is more terrible than the other, does not mean the lesser thing isn't also terrible.


(And also there are very few if any reasons to openly discuss the 'hierarchy of friends' because with friendship there is rarely a need for that subject to come up, whereas with this there are good reasons to think about it.)

[Nique]

I never said that people are disagreeing with me because they are being oversensitive. I am saying that people are getting rilled up for the mere issue being talked about.

...

They're not and if they were I'm pretty 100% sure that would mean roughly the same thing as being over sensitive.

[shiney]

So, 24 hour moratorium on this topic while things cool down. There is much good yet to be had I am sure but it seems, as stated before, that some don't appear quite as interested in resolution as in promotion.

This thread will reopen at 10PM CST tomorrow.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by shiney

So, 24 hour moratorium on this topic while things cool down. There is much good yet to be had I am sure but it seems, as stated before, that some don't appear quite as interested in resolution as in promotion.

This thread will reopen at 10PM CST tomorrow.

I feel like I'm creating a new 8bit thread considering this is an hour delayed.

Opened, let's keep it civil, shall we?

[shiney]

We'll pretend I meant mountain time.

e: *hastily changes server clock*