Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6697114" data-attributes="member: 4937">I am going to try to follow Umbran's inspiring example of tact and understanding.Here is a video of a man who agrees with me on this issue probably 99% of the time.  We may quibble over a few tiny points, but based on his video essay, I think we are on the same page, and even where I disagree I do understand where he is coming from.   Fair warning, he uses strong language to make his point forcefully.  [MEDIA=youtube]eGgj9S8XO7k[/MEDIA]Now, I don't believe as I do because this guy convinced me.  And I didn't get his permission to believe what I believe.   And he didn't ask my permission to come to his conclusions.  That would be I think we would agree, pretty ridiculous.   In fact, if he needed to ask my permission to believe what he believes, I think we'd agree that there was a serious problem here.   But that's not the situation that prevails.  Happily, we are allowed to come to our own conclusions.So this is touched on in a lot of ways in the video, but one of the problems with asking a group for permission is that it's not at all clear who we would ask.  A lot of people were asking 'the1janitor' for his permission, but as he pointed out, he's no more entitled to wear dreadlocks as an 'authentic' dreadlock wearer than the people asking his permission.  The very fact that he is seen as somehow an 'authentic' voice merely because of his skin color, and the mere fact that the majority society sees the minority group as having a uniform opinion is itself evidence of a destructive and condescending racism, as if an entire race of individuals was somehow stamped out of a single mold and so tribal in its essence that a few selected spokespersons could speak for the whole group.  This is 19th century stuff.So who gets to decide who the authentic spokesperson is for a racial group?  Do minority racial groups hold elections and nominate cultural spokespersons who represent them?  Why does no one ever think this about white people - especially well, other white people?  And even if they did hold such elections (which I would note would be inherently racist institutions), why would anyone in that racial group feel he was necessarily being represented as if his primary identity was always the color of his skin as if everyone of the same color was just one uniform tribe with a uniform set of opinions?  Aren't people allowed to disagree?  Or do they need to get permission for that?The biggest problem I have with your essay is that it violates one of the wisest rules for living anyone ever said to me, and that is (edited for EnWorld), "Don't 'complain' about something, unless you are going to do something about it."  Specifically, it's easy to be negative about things (and I should know), but if you are going to be negative and critical and call people - specific individuals like Bruce Cordell, Kevin Costner, Monte Cook, and Katy Perry and not just hypothetical persons - as well as entire groups of people "gormless" and purveyors of hate speech, you have to be able to offer up a reasonable remedy for people if they wish to repent of this sin they are doing.  Because you are really being unfair to people if you accuse them of being moral reprobates (the Hebrew word here would be 'Raca'), especially if you are going to say that their intentions don't matter and that they can be in this state of degeneracy even if they don't mean to be, if you don't offer them some way to become reconciled with the universe and straighten their lives up.And you don't offer any coherent plan for that.  Your essay continually contradicts itself by offering up a conclusion, and then negating the value and the worth of that conclusion later.  So ultimately you are left with no standard that people can abide by to know what ethical behavior ought to be.  The only rule you ultimately offer is that you have to get permission.. from someone... not clearly specified. Because this whole plan to ask permission before you act and think is going to run up against several hard problems.  First, you are giving up your own agency in this.  Making your own judgment would be "hate speech" if it disagreed with one or more offended persons.  Second, you are going to be beholden to the person who is most outraged and to be frank most hateful.  And third, you are inevitably going to have contrasting opinions.  I mean sure, it's a great thing - and a wise thing - to go and ask advice of people who might have a different perspective and honestly listen to them and consider what they have to say, but that is a very different thing than asking permission.  When you seek advice, you are having a dialogue and things get communicated, and you can make your own informed decision.  But when you seek permission, you are just getting dictated to.  And who are you going to choose to be the rightful dictator?  Who really has the lawful authority here?  Who is legitimate? Who in other words is 'authentic'?Who are you to decide that their voice and their opinion is more legitimate than someone else's, so that not only do you concede to be dictated to by them, but that everyone else must also be dictated to?  More to the point, who are they to decide?  It comes down to this; we need to be treating people like we want to be treated.  We need to treat them with respect.  We need to try to not act like dicks.  And when we can't agree on what is respectful, because something always offends everyone, we have to just stay tolerant and keep on trying to treat people like we would want to be treated.  When people disagree with particular strictures or theories of 'political correctness', often as not it is because they feel those theories advocate for treating people in disrespectful ways and not because they feel that they are just trying to be kind and respectful.</blockquote>

Verification