Perspective and social skills are as very much a part of human interaction as the right to express ourselves.
What do rights have to do with anything? I don't think I've appealed to muh free expression.
As much as I agree with you these feelings of not-caring are okay to voice, so do I agree that it's okay to shun them, because it makes for an overall a better society*
Oh... I can see what you mean. I don't agree, like, the sort of quasi-fanatism that orbits the whole sojuwa thing is to me more dispreferrable than the eventual decrease in the power of Us Progressives that happens when people don't care about The Causes of Us Progressives... but i can see your calculation, and the difference hinges on like... you value somethings more than me, which I guess fair enough. Still, I read a wise quote here, i don't remember by whom, that amounted to "stop setting impossible standards for Us Progressives, that only strengthens the forces to reaction". like, politics is about dragging the center, and a tribe where it's a sin to no be fervent about The Cause or to assert that people aren't like terrible for not being fervent about The Cause? I certainly don't want to be in it. too much radicalization turns movements into fanatical marginals, and makes it unpleasant to participate in them.
By allowing someone to voice said thoughts - defending them even; and then simultaneously fending them off from the reaction they get, you're doing the cause a disservice - you dilute positive voice and are accomplice to the silence.
I don't disagree... The Cause would probably be better served by a monotone voice of total uniformity where everyone's thoughts and feelings are subservient to it, but I'll keep allowing people to voice their thoughts as a matter of principle, with stark indifference vis a vis whether that helps The Cause of some minority or not, thank you very much. XD
___________________
You aren't normally given to excesses of rhetoric, so I don't know why you're doing it now. I think it's in really poor taste to (...) You brought up examples intended to rile people up. Don't act surprised because they got riled up.
fair enough, I don't know why I got so rhetorical either... maybe it was a bit white knighting on my part, and I felt real identified with Kath there, being ganged up on because she fails to care enough about what the ideology mandates she should. That kind of thing I dislike beyond a simple, rational conclusion of "not cool".
This is not a distinction in people's arguing styles. It's a distinction in how willing you are to listen.
Absolutely no, don't get all postmodern on me now. Maybe i'm wrong and there indeed isn't a distinction between shouting down and politely trying to explain to someone how this particular view of them is wrong, and if so please, I'm happy to be proved wrong. Maybe I'm wrong in that kath didn't get all ganged up on for failing to care about what the ideology mandates, and I'm happy to be proven wrong on that account, but I don't think it's very persuasive or helpful to go "well, that's just your opinion, man". If under an issue which i "like", like bombed palestinians, someone were to say something like "if you don't agree with me that palestinians are being massacred you're a cunt" or "if you don't agree with me that it's fine that palestinians are bombed you're an antisemite" that's as much a fanatical shout-down as it is when such recourses are called upon when like a protestant shouts "if you don't agree with me god hates fags you're an atheist and going to hell". fanatical, or quasi-fanatical, shout-downs are what they or not are regardless of whether i like the topic or not.
__
So could you please tell me again, KathAveara, why I should support your pet cause?
Isn't she who's being shouted down for not supporting this one? has she like... attacked someone for not supporting hers?
linguoboy wrote:KathAveara wrote:linguoboy wrote:So could you please tell me again, KathAveara, why I should support your pet cause?
I'm not telling you to.
KathAveara wrote:That is not what I meant there; my intended point was that racism is an issue for all white people, not just those being intentionally racist, and that sexism is an issue for all men, not just those being intentionally sexist.
Take as much time away from the discussion as you want. But when you return, I'll be interested in seeing how you reconcile these two statements.
I don't see why they're at odds... that something is an issue for all white people, which boils down to the same my problems are everyone's fault sojuwa logic but that's neither here nor there... that something is an issue for all white people... does it mean that you can go around shaming white people for feeling insufficiently self-conscious about their white privilege? for not experiencing sufficient concern enough about the plight of blacks?