TSR Giantlands

[Gradine]

Is there a version of Godwin's Law but one that invokes Mao/Stalin instead?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The phrase "Old white cis male" is tossed around as if every word in that phrase is equal. As if the "old" part were not clear bigotry based on when someone was born rather than the actual views and experiences of that individual who is in a vulnerable minority.

So if you think there are no degrees of bigotry, why do you accept casual ageism in these conversations?

Instead of addressing the issue directly you're employing another tried-and-true dirty trick--whataboutism.

-What about the fact that Sacrosanct once interacted with Pundit before realizing it was a pointless and awful thing to do. Gotcha!

-What about people using casually using "old" in a negative way? Or, hey, let's take it all the way--what about using "old" and "white" and also "cis?" Aha! Not so perfect after all!

This is a rhetorical strategy that seeks to claim that no one can criticize you or your positions, or ultimately anyone, because no one is perfect. It implies that you're the one who decides when something is worth calling out, and to what degree. Anything beyond that (to your mind) acceptable threshold isn't inherently incorrect or without value, but rather demands a counterattack, an auditing of that person.

Ultimately, when it isn't used entirely in bad faith, all this strategy really tries to do is dismantle strongly-held opinions by somehow dismantling the opinion-holder. It means there's only room in the discourse for someone saying, "well, I only kinda have a problem with this" and everyone always seeing everyone's side, since hey, even absolute bigots deserve to be heard, right?

This is not a good look. But sure, as they say, keep posting through it.

 

[Bolares]

Also... "unacceptable views" is pretty broad... and not bigotry. Bigotry is an unacceptable view sure, but comparing it to the unacceptable views you were mentioning is... I don't know wich word to use... questionable?

 

[Mistwell]

You are confusing bigotry and bias. Everyone has some degrees of bias within ourselves. However, most of us manage to make it through our lives without making a hobby/career out of attacking the minoritized and disenfranchized for online bigotry brownie points. Therein lies the distinction.

I am not confusing it at all.

YOU used the term "old" as a pejorative. It was bigotry. It's not just your "bias" it was you attacking a disenfranchised minority (and yes the elderly are a disenfranchised minority even if there are exceptions to that rule like every other minority has exceptions.)

Everyone has some levels of bigotry in them, and they often don't recognize it's there. But it's not just bias - not when you say it and it harms people.

Which is why I say it's a spectrum, and not a bright line like you are arguing it to be. I am not judging you as some huge bigot for having expressed ageism. Emphasis on "huge" there. I might call it out sometimes when I see it but I know in general you're a pretty good person around here. That doesn't mean you have never expressed bigoted views.

 

[Gradine]

I think it's authoritarian to say anyone who speaks to him must, by that association alone, agree with his views.

It's very much not, but for the very last time, that is not what anyone is saying. What we are saying is that by appearing on a bigoted platform to talk with bigots, he is offering them legitimacy. And bigotry is not and cannot become legitimated. That you keep ignoring this point to keep wailing on your strawman is why I'm not interested in continuing this conversation past this post.

And that we should therefore shun anyone who speaks to those whose views we find unacceptable. That is classic authoritarianism.

No it isn't. Under no sensible and agreed-upon definition of the word is it authoritarianism.

That is what leads to blacklisting anyone who ever attended a socialist or communist meeting once in their lives.

I've seen this a lot, and it holds some water until you realize that blacklisting bigots is a far more reasonable stance than the Red Scare was, and that bigots can become whitelisted again by just... renouncing their past bigotry. It happens all the time.

 

[Faolyn]

-IF- I were Queen of the Internet?

I would ban Bigotry. Flat out.

Aaand by doing so, you legitimize the fears of every single person who is convinced that minorities are out to get them and thus drive them to target anyone who they feel might be a minority. And vice versa--you give people who are in a minority group a sense that it's OK to go forth and attack a "majority" individual. You would cause the bigots to gather and disseminate their beliefs through other means, possibly even by creating a second internet. You would create martyrs to the cause and make the bigots stronger than ever.

Plus, people are now outright stating that the internet is a human right, not just a privilege; it's the freedom to communicate. Denying people a basic right like that, because they committed a thoughtcrime, does not make your side look good.

And what's your criteria? Where's the cutoff? There are real-world groups that in some places are discriminated against or outright oppressed and attacked, and in other places are the ones doing the discrimination and oppression. Would someone be allowed to point that out or condemn the group that's engaging in discrimination, or would they be banned because they are discriminated against elsewhere? If you have a person who in one hand fights for the rights of Black people but in the other hand condemns gay people (or vice versa), do you let them stay online or boot them off? My state still has a law on the books disallowing me from holding office because I'm an atheist. Would you ban my state or state government from the internet until it changes that law, or would you ignore it because it's not really enforceable, even though its mere existence is a slap in the face to every atheist?

You can't ban bigots. You can mock them, you can point out how stupid and hypocritical they are, you can make them look as small and worthless as they actually are. But you can't ban them. Banning things never works.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Everyone has some levels of bigotry in them, and they often don't recognize it's there. But it's not just bias - not when you say it and it harms people.

Which is why I say it's a spectrum, and not a bright line like you are arguing it to be. I am not judging you as some huge bigot for having expressed ageism. Emphasis on "huge" there. I might call it out sometimes when I see it but I know in general you're a pretty good person around here. That doesn't mean you have never expressed bigoted views.

Hold on. Step back from the melee for a second.

What is your goal here?

It's been pointed out by multiple people that your use of the term "authoritarian" is wrong, and no acknowledgement of that. Now you're playing fast and loose with the term bigotry, just begging for a flood of responses pointing out how you've misunderstood what that word is, and what it means in context.

But really, what's the end-game here? That the rest of us nod and say, "You know, that Pundit says awful stuff, but he ain't half bad somewhere on the inside (based on something about how he's just pretending or whatever)" and we all agree to just hear all the worst bigots of the world out? Maybe they have some good ideas, right? Hell, maybe they have some great recipes!

Who cares that bigots are people. This does not need to be acknowledged. It's not dehumanizing someone to tell them they suck, or to shout them down, or to deplatform, or anything else in the realm of what we're discussing.

 

[Gradine]

I am not confusing it at all.

YOU used the term "old" as a pejorative. It was bigotry. It's not just your "bias" it was you attacking a disenfranchised minority (and yes the elderly are a disenfranchised minority even if there are exceptions to that rule like every other minority has exceptions.)

If what you say is true, then you are correct. I have consciously tried not to use "old" as a pejorative, and if I have let that slip through, that would be acting upon my bias, which would be bigoted.

However, the term "old cishet white men", which is a term I used in one of these posts here, is not the same thing as using old (or any of those other terms) as a pejorative. I was clearly calling out the privilege afforded to folks who possess those capabilities. In fact, I was specifically calling out the people defending Ward and others with "oh, he's just old, you can't listen to them" which is both insulting and a pejorative.

Again, we all have biases, some conscious, some unconscious. Some (I would argue a lot) of us do the work to fight against those internal biases. Other embrace those biases and allow them to drive their words and actions; those that do are bigots.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Folks have been trying this for centuries, and still bigotry is strong in the world. Sure, there are examples of this working with individuals. But, by your own description, this does not scale due to the amount of work involved.

There is a point where you can no longer afford to engage in bespoke, artisanal, small-batch conversion of bigots. You are, in essence, chastising people for failing to choose an inefficient, error-prone path that will not get the job done on the scale necessary at this time.

Not to belabor the obvious, or to step into this ... conversation ... but -

We can all, mostly, agree that while bigotry still exists in this world, overall, and in the aggregate, it is less than it was centuries ago.

Which most likely means that the means that we have gotten to the point that we have- tolerance, discussion, understanding, education, forgiveness- are, in fact, the methods that appear to work.

Which makes me think that discarding them because they are inconvenient not "due to the amount of work involved" seems shortsighted. Mostly because it discounts both the lessons learned in how we've gotten to this point, and seems dismissive of the notion that it is hard work.

But that's me.

*For those that care, transparency is important to me, so to be transparent, I was raised in a rural farming religious family and spent time in the military right after. So when I got out, I considered myself a conservative. However, being an analytical logical thinker, when I was presented with new objective information to analyze, I realized I held some incorrect assumptions and beliefs, and around 2007ish went from conservative to independent, and by 2015 was pretty far into supporting progressive ideals. Fairness and equality are important, and over the past decade, it's clear which "side' supports that and which are fighting against it.

I appreciate what you shared; I would only say that this is emblematic of the more important point. People contain multitudes. It's not all good. And we are not the finished product at the beginning. There is many a person the LGBTQA+ community (which is far from monolithic) that has had to wrestle with these issues in their own life; the bigoted family member that came around (or didn't), the ideological enemy who eventually softened, the acquaintance who could not accept that their religion did not excuse their inhumanity.

None of this is easy. It's all hard, and it's all personal, and it can be painful. And worst- most of the time, it doesn't even work.* I shared that earlier post with Danny Alcatraz because it brings up these uncomfortable issues, of that certain need for forgiveness, and why the immediate rush we get from condemnation doesn't necessarily add to the value for society.


*Karma, as they say, is justice without the satisfaction.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
It is pretty clear this is not going anywhere useful to anyone.

Thread closed.