In Which Res Ipsa Abandons the Illusion of Control Over What People Post In a Thread f/k/a Thinking About ...

[Res Ipsa]

Hey, Honor, I have a question about something you said on Lem’s thread. You talked about others “enabling” certain behavior. I’m curious as to why you are holding other adults responsible for another adult’s posting behavior? If you’d care to discuss your thoughts on this, I’d be interested. I think the general subject of men’s reactions to women’s speech is on topic, while attacking a woman’s speech is not.

Honor's recent post didn't refer to others 'enabling' behavior, it assumed that the author of the OP was "enabled by whatever is going on."

Given your request that "attacking a woman's speech is not" on topic, honorentheos's assumptions about how a 'woman's speech' is "enabled by whatever is going on" would seem to be off-topic, especially since he has made multiple posts attacking women's speech, using that as a context in several of them. I am hoping that you simply read that wrong, and didn't assume that "enabled by whatever is going on" had any resemblance to "the general subject of men’s reactions to women’s speech," a phrase you noted in your post as being an acceptable topic, "while attacking a women's speech is not."

Lem, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I think Honor's posting since then confirms that I understood the gist of what he posted.

[Chap]

[Chap]

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Chap. I don't have anything earth shattering to say. When I get frustrated, most of the time it's some kind of control related issue. It helps to simply let go and reset my boundaries.

[honorentheos]

Hey, Honor, I have a question about something you said on Lem’s thread. You talked about others “enabling” certain behavior. I’m curious as to why you are holding other adults responsible for another adult’s posting behavior? If you’d care to discuss your thoughts on this, I’d be interested. I think the general subject of men’s reactions to women’s speech is on topic, while attacking a woman’s speech is not.

If we want to say that a woman who reacts negatively to sexism, intended or perceived, can't be criticized and any criticism is really evidence of sexism, then we remove personal responsibility for behavior. Making that argument is enabling that.

There is an idea floated around, and spoken to directly at the end of your post, that says that categorically there are individuals that cannot comment on other people's speech because of their identity. And in the bigger picture, abstracted sense that's reasonable.

But what makes it reasonable? In the abstract it can remain objectively considered and attempts made to reframe it to get different, more preferable outcomes. But you can't do that on a message board like this one as we've observed over multiple threads because it can't be abstracted and also engaged with personally in the same space.

So the reality in our community of individuals talking one to anther is the abstract is weaponized in individual-to-individual discussion. The outcome is poor reactions and behavior for reasons that seem clear the preferred option would be to realize the topic is triggering. But since we have burned the boats on this beach, it's what it is. Is Trump responsible for January 6 because he spoke in the abstract and certain outcomes occurred but he's an adult and the people who did the crap they did were also adults? If you're an R in the Senate, nope, they're on the side of saying even being aware of the non-abstracted potential outcomes of someone's response to speech of a certain enabling kind can't be pinned on the person engaging in it. I disagree. Lem seems to think that her reactions are justified by abstraction and any criticism is wrong because of the abstraction. I come at it from a different angle. I have stated a few times I don't believe we have free will. We all react according to deeply ingrained aspects of our backgrounds and nature. You can't change individuals, just culture. I argue that while it's difficult, the lack of free will does not preclude free won't where recognition of the causes for the reactions and accepting ownership of them even if they are not the result of libertarian free will is a form of reprogramming that influences future reactions in a way that can result in progress.

ETA: I add that the last sentence above is what I assume is the purpose of this thread. It's an attempt to objectively engage the subject matter in ways that can reprogram reactions, remove emotion from it, and allow for individual growth through the internalized outcomes of the examination.

So is it off-topic? I don't know. I only returned to this thread after your request because you addressed a post to me with what I assume included an expectation of a reply.

I don't disagree that the best outcome for the topic is disengagement and letting it lie. But it's easy to tell me to do so. It's not easy to tell Lem to do so? Why is that? I'd argue it's because the issue isn't appropriately engaged in a personal manner on a message board like this precisely because what Lem needs to achieve is an outcome blockaded by people trying to do the right thing in the abstract while she can't help but personalize it while using the abstract as a weapon or shield. It's a screwed up deal that causes confusion, pandering, and all the other crap pointed out.

[Res Ipsa]

Hey, Honor, I have a question about something you said on Lem’s thread. You talked about others “enabling” certain behavior. I’m curious as to why you are holding other adults responsible for another adult’s posting behavior? If you’d care to discuss your thoughts on this, I’d be interested. I think the general subject of men’s reactions to women’s speech is on topic, while attacking a woman’s speech is not.

If we want to say that a woman who reacts negatively to sexism, intended or perceived, can't be criticized and any criticism is really evidence of sexism, then we remove personal responsibility for behavior. Making that argument is enabling that.

There is an idea floated around, and spoken to directly at the end of your post, that says that categorically there are categories of individuals that cannot comment on other people's speech because of their identity. And in the bigger picture, abstracted sense that's reasonable.

But what makes it reasonable? In the abstract it can remain objectively considered and attempts made to reframe it to get different, more preferable outcomes. But you can't do that on a message board like this one as we've observed over multiple threads because it can't be abstracted and engaged with personally in the same space.

So the reality in our community of individuals talking one to anther is the abstract is weaponized in individual-to-individual discussion. The outcome is poor reactions and behavior for reasons that seem clear the preferred option would be to realize the topic is triggering. But since we have burned the boats on this beach, it's what it is. Is Trump responsible for January 6 because he spoke in the abstract and certain outcomes occurred but he's an adult and the people who did the Crap they did were also adults? If you're an R in the Senate, nope, they're on the side of saying even being aware of the non-abstracted potential outcomes of someone's response to speech of a certain enabling kind can't be pinned on the person engaging in it. I disagree. Lem seems to think that her reactions are justified by abstraction and any criticism is wrong because of the abstraction. I come at it from a different angle. I have stated a few times I don't believe we have free will. We all react according to deeply ingrained aspects of our backgrounds and nature. You can't change individuals, just culture. I argue that while it's difficult, the lack of free will does not preclude free won't where recognition of the causes for the reactions and accepting ownership of them even if they are not the result of libertarian free will is a form of reprogramming that influences future reactions in a way that can result in progress.

OK, but I’m missing the part where I took the position that there are categories of people who cannot comment on the speech of some other category of people. If I gave that impression, I certainly didn’t mean to. It wouldn’t be the first time I expressed an idea poorly. Which part of my blathering gave you that impression?

[honorentheos]

OK, but I’m missing the part where I took the position that there are categories of people who cannot comment on the speech of some other category of people. If I gave that impression, I certainly didn’t mean to. It wouldn’t be the first time I expressed an idea poorly. Which part of my blathering gave you that impression?

I think that you are engaging the subject respectfully in the abstract, and also attempting to engage Lem one-on-one in a different manner to defuse.

To be on topic to your current retitled thread, how does one maintain a thread's topic and also allow for novel, unexpected input that one as a person doesn't recognize as on-topic but that may be simply a matter of their own biases? Like Shades never understanding Lugwignm's posting or apparently Moksha's humor for some people, is there always going to be potential for interactions with a diverse range of posters with varied backgrounds to stray from what the OP believes is the topic? I'd argue it is inevitable the topic will go in unanticipated directions. That's not a failure of maintaining control but of understanding the framework on which the board operates.

In this case, I think you have to grapple with the realities of trying to abstractly examine a fraught topic which elicits charged emotional responses that also include arguing some parties can't have their individual reactions criticized because of the nature of the problem. That's an assumption built in that may actually need to be questioned. The answer may not be simple and require complicated, nuanced thought. But then, is a message board like this one ever demonstrated it's a good vehicle for that kind of topic or response?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m still not quite sure what you’re trying to say in your OP and first response to SS, RI. <- In context to the recent kefuffle. Perhaps a reset is in order? Help an asshole out here.

- Doc

Sure. As one asshole to another, when it comes to sexist speech, what’s your goal?

Well. Sitting back and watching the discussion unfold a bit, I’ll take a stab at this and I’ll be direct and to the point. I err on the side of free speech with a healthy dose of egalitarianism. <- So, that’s the goal.

This means, obviously, punching back when someone takes a swing at you. The problem with this kind of thing is proportionality and how it’s individually interpreted by the reader, both the recipient of the comment and the audience. No matter how one goes with a discussion, if the thoughts and ideas expressed are overly moderated either directly or through social pressure it has a chilling effect on discussion. Conversely, if there’s virtually no moderation the same effect takes place as the screaming intensifies. In effect, echo chambers seem to be inevitable as people find affirming places to exist, and if they choose to venture outside of their echo chamber, it’s basically Twitter or the comments section of a media company where people just post at each other.

Back to the goal, then, with regard to sexist speech. I think if we give too much power to others to moderate our speech, however that’s done, it runs the risk of becoming one purity test after another with real-world consequences levied by fanatics. But do we want to maintain the status quo where our minds are judged by our bodies, and we have to put up with assholes in power who abuse their privileges? No to both situations. The GOAL then, is to make your best argument to the recipient and to the audience, and let them decide for themselves how they want to move forward, and, as honor has mentioned, the culture will change even if individuals don’t.

So. To summarize. The goal with regard to sexist speech is to do what we’ve done here, have a debate, a long-form discussion, and let people choose how they want to act. Culture shouldn’t be bent to the will of an individual, but rather it should emerge as a sort of group consciousness hopefully born out of expertly expressed opinions that persuades the reader or listener.

- Doc

[Lem]

Sure. As one asshole to another, when it comes to sexist speech, what’s your goal?

Well. Sitting back and watching the discussion unfold a bit, I’ll take a stab at this and I’ll be direct and to the point. I err on the side of free speech with a healthy dose of egalitarianism. <- So, that’s the goal.

This means, obviously, punching back when someone takes a swing at you. The problem with this kind of thing is proportionality and how it’s individually interpreted by the reader, both the recipient of the comment and the audience. No matter how one goes with a discussion, if the thoughts and ideas expressed are overly moderated either directly or through social pressure it has a chilling effect on discussion. Conversely, if there’s virtually no moderation the same effect takes place as the screaming intensifies. In effect, echo chambers seem to be inevitable as people find affirming places to exist, and if they choose to venture outside of their echo chamber, it’s basically Twitter or the comments section of a media company where people just post at each other.

Back to the goal, then, with regard to sexist speech. I think if we give too much power to others to moderate our speech, however that’s done, it runs the risk of becoming one purity test after another with real-world consequences levied by fanatics. But do we want to maintain the status quo where our minds are judged by our bodies, and we have to put up with assholes in power who abuse their privileges? No to both situations. The GOAL then, is to make your best argument to the recipient and to the audience, and let them decide for themselves how they want to move forward, and, as honor has mentioned, the culture will change even if individuals don’t.

So. To summarize. The goal with regard to sexist speech is to do what we’ve done here, have a debate, a long-form discussion, and let people choose how they want to act. Culture shouldn’t be bent to the will of an individual, but rather it should emerge as a sort of group consciousness hopefully born out of expertly expressed opinions that persuades the reader or listener.

- Doc

Well said, Doc Cam.

"The goal with regard to sexist speech is to do what we’ve done here, have a debate, a long-form discussion, and let people choose how they want to act."

One can't ask for more from a group of friends.

[Jersey Girl]