The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Alzrius]

It seems like the all corporations are evil meme is a new sort of anti-intellectualism.

It's right up there with the "big business is supposed to seek money! It's not wrong of them to do so! Greed is good!" appeal to anti-intellectualism meme.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It seems like the all corporations are evil meme is a new sort of anti-intellectualism.

 

[Alzrius]

This seems like a good time for another general reminder that however justified you may feel in attacking someone else, ending hatred means changing attitudes, minds, and hearts. Attacking people, regardless of how bad you might feel they are, only entrenches their position, prolonging the very bigotry you seek to end. Inevitably, pushback ensues.

Right now, there's a war going on to wipe people like me off the face of the Earth. I've had relatives message me, warning me not to go outdoors because a call was put out to murder people like me. The political party I belong to, which is supposed to have a platform championing peace and tolerance, especially toward marginalized people, has held at least one major rally in support of the people who want me dead.

Yet I don't wish that any of them would die alone and unloved, because that sentiment and others like it does nothing to diminish the hatred that they feel toward me and people like me. All it does it make it worse, regardless of whatever psychic satisfaction I might get out of saying something like that in the moment, or how good it might make me look to other people. The only thing that ends violence is tolerance, and while Popper's paradox certainly still applies when someone is actually trying to kill you, it's entirely possible to over-apply it when the issue is one of rhetoric, let alone banal chatter on social media.

If you see someone who's acting in a manner you think is bigoted, I encourage you to try and talk to them rather than humiliating them. They weren't born that way, and they don't have to be that way; punishment, however justified, is never perceived as justified by the person you're punishing, and won't change their mind. I see a lot of people saying that facts and reason don't change attitudes; that's certainly true if you're getting in someone's face and publicly saying "you're wrong, and you should feel bad" or some variation thereof. But conversation without confrontation does work; I know, because I've done it.

Now, that absolutely consists of a lot of "emotional labor," but anything worthwhile does. You don't have to do it alone; four people sitting around a table with one bigot isn't a table with five bigots; it's a table with four people putting the fifth through de-bigotization (is that even a word?). But even if you only do it for one person, that still changes the world for the better. The people we look up to, the people we admire, are people who didn't attack others, but who knew that tolerance, respect, and peace were two-ways streets, and up until the moment they're coming at you wish fists, rocks, knives, or bullets, there's still room for discourse...and that doing so might be what stops those from coming at you to begin with.

All too often, those realizations seem to be lost, and that's perhaps the most frightening thing of all.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Are you really objective about pizza if you sincerely believe that everything Pizza Hut has ever created so far is wonderful?

Honest question. I'm not sure if there's any way to know at that point. Certainly, some non-zero amount of people will love everything that comes out of The Hut, but there's also a non-zero amount of people who have turned off their critical faculties when it comes to evaluating Pizza Hut, even if those faculties work at 100% the rest of the time.

 

[payn]

It's right up there with the "big business is supposed to seek money! It's not wrong of them to do so! Greed is good!" appeal to anti-intellectualism meme.

Thats not even a thing, its a movie.

 

[Alzrius]

Thats not even a thing, its a movie.

I promise you, the sentiment is very much a thing, even if it uses different language (heck, I just saw it in another thread).

 

[CleverNickName]

"If you don't hate Pizza Hut, you actually love Pizza Hut" is a really strange perspective.

 

[Gradine]

Well, it seems like the goggles, they do nothing, so let's do this.

This seems like a good time for another general reminder that however justified you may feel in attacking someone else, ending hatred means changing attitudes, minds, and hearts. Attacking people, regardless of how bad you might feel they are, only entrenches their position, prolonging the very bigotry you seek to end. Inevitably, pushback ensues.

Right now, there's a war going on to wipe people like me off the face of the Earth. I've had relatives message me, warning me not to go outdoors because a call was put out to murder people like me. The political party I belong to, which is supposed to have a platform championing peace and tolerance, especially toward marginalized people, has held at least one major rally in support of the people who want me dead.

First off, I wish to apologize to you, directly. While I cannot agree with your conclusion (this being the root of our disagreement), I owe you every bit of respect in where you are coming and why you've arrived at it. That said...

Yet I don't wish that any of them would die alone and unloved, because that sentiment and others like it does nothing to diminish the hatred that they feel toward me and people like me. All it does it make it worse, regardless of whatever psychic satisfaction I might get out of saying something like that in the moment, or how good it might make me look to other people. The only thing that ends violence is tolerance, and while Popper's paradox certainly still applies when someone is actually trying to kill you, it's entirely possible to over-apply it when the issue is one of rhetoric, let alone banal chatter on social media.

This is where I have to object, because it's a very horrible and unfair mis-interpretation of what I posted. To be clear, I don't and would never wish that on anyone. That it can be, and often is, a consequence of embracing bigotry is a tragedy. But it also works. Tolerance does not end violence; the global events you are referencing are an example of what happens when violent rhetoric is tolerated for too long, on either side. No, ending violence means making violence too personally costly to embark upon.

As an aside, as a person indirectly attacked by Junior as a trans woman, and directly personally attacked by one of his closest colleagues, I also have to push back at the characterization of "banal chatter on social media." My community has had to bury several people in the past week due to that "banal chatter on social media". One of their parents was harassed and threatened off Twitter X for daring to speak up about it. Rhetoric is not separate from or less than violence. Rhetoric is violence.

If you see someone who's acting in a manner you think is bigoted, I encourage you to try and talk to them rather than humiliating them. They weren't born that way, and they don't have to be that way; punishment, however justified, is never perceived as justified by the person you're punishing, and won't change their mind. I see a lot of people saying that facts and reason don't change attitudes; that's certainly true if you're getting in someone's face and publicly saying "you're wrong, and you should feel bad" or some variation thereof. But conversation without confrontation does work; I know, because I've done it.

Now, that absolutely consists of a lot of "emotional labor," but anything worthwhile does. You don't have to do it alone; four people sitting around a table with one bigot isn't a table with five bigots; it's a table with four people putting the fifth through de-bigotization (is that even a word?). But even if you only do it for one person, that still changes the world for the better. The people we look up to, the people we admire, are people who didn't attack others, but who knew that tolerance, respect, and peace were two-ways streets, and up until the moment they're coming at you wish fists, rocks, knives, or bullets, there's still room for discourse...and that doing so might be what stops those from coming at you to begin with.

I'll also agree that this is powerful, necessary work, but it's not the only way to achieve, and it's certainly not possible on a broader social level. I'll also add that:

four people sitting around a table with one bigot isn't a table with five bigots; it's a table with four people putting the fifth through de-bigotization (is that even a word?).

...this is only true if that's what the four people are actually doing. Far, far more often it's a case of the four folks being perfectly comfortable with the fifth, because their bigotry doesn't personally impact them. In that instance, yes, that's a table of five bigots.

I'm happy to continue this conversation in private messages, or back in the relevant thread (neither the + thread or this thread are it; but I also think it's bad form to directly reply to someone's post in a different thread). In either case, this'll be the last I mention it in here. Please return to your regularly scheduled pineapple pizza koolaid.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, it seems like the goggles, they do nothing, so let's do this.

First off, I wish to apologize to you, directly. While I cannot agree with your conclusion (this being the root of our disagreement), I owe you every bit of respect in where you are coming and why you've arrived at it. That said...

This is where I have to object, because it's a very horrible and unfair mis-interpretation of what I posted. To be clear, I don't and would never wish that on anyone. That it can be, and often is, a consequence of embracing bigotry is a tragedy. But it also works. Tolerance does not end violence; the global events you are referencing are an example of what happens when violent rhetoric is tolerated for too long, on either side. No, ending violence means making violence too personally costly to embark upon.

As an aside, as a person indirectly attacked by Junior as a trans woman, and directly personally attacked by one of his closest colleagues, I also have to push back at the characterization of "banal chatter on social media." My community has had to bury several people in the past week due to that "banal chatter on social media". One of their parents was harassed and threatened off Twitter X for daring to speak up about it. Rhetoric is not separate from or less than violence. Rhetoric is violence.

I'll also agree that this is powerful, necessary work, but it's not the only way to achieve, and it's certainly not possible on a broader social level. I'll also add that:

...this is only true if that's what the four people are actually doing. Far, far more often it's a case of the four folks being perfectly comfortable with the fifth, because their bigotry doesn't personally impact them. In that instance, yes, that's a table of five bigots.

I'm happy to continue this conversation in private messages, or back in the relevant thread (neither the + thread or this thread are it; but I also think it's bad form to directly reply to someone's post in a different thread). In either case, this'll be the last I mention it in here. Please return to your regularly scheduled pineapple pizza koolaid.

I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been, so instead of a point-by-point response, let me just say that I appreciate your thoughtful and honest reply, and that while I disagree with a lot of what you've said, I very much respect that you said it. I think this is a great example of the type of discourse that we should have more of. Thank you for this.

 

[trappedslider]

Mindless consumerism will always win