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

[Chap]

[Jersey Girl]

Over the course of multiple threads I've found myself thinking, "If Lem didn't act like an asshole towards people it would probably make the conversation go better." But then, what do I know. I'm a guy and apparently being an asshole towards an individual due to pent up anger and frustration is not questionable because guys have been pricks towards women forever. So to speak about individual behavior is off limits.

I think that's an insurmountable problem in these threads.

Show me where Lem began acting like an asshole towards people when she discussed the use of sexist remarks. Show us your evidence.

[Jersey Girl]

(Save me from myself Chap)

[honorentheos]

Over the course of multiple threads I've found myself thinking, "If Lem didn't act like an asshole towards people it would probably make the conversation go better." But then, what do I know. I'm a guy and apparently being an asshole towards an individual due to pent up anger and frustration is not questionable because guys have been pricks towards women forever. So to speak about individual behavior is off limits.

I think that's an insurmountable problem in these threads.

Show me where Lem began acting like an asshole towards people when she discussed the use of sexist remarks. Show us your evidence.

The posts immediately before the one you quoted are the ones that ultimately motivated me to say something.

[Lem]

(Save me from myself Chap)

I'll help you out....

[Jersey Girl]

Show me where Lem began acting like an asshole towards people when she discussed the use of sexist remarks. Show us your evidence.

The posts immediately before the one you quoted are the ones that ultimately motivated me to say something.

Let me look at those, honor. I won't comment until I see exactly what you are referring to.

[Jersey Girl]

honor I can't find precisely the type of post you are talking about. Could you link and quote a glaring example?

[Res Ipsa]

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?

Just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned, there is now no topic in this thread. I wasn't trying to start a meta conversation about message boards.

I don't understand your first sentence. I wasn't trying to do anything in particular with Lem, other than consciously thinking about not speaking for her or over her, as those are common criticisms women express about male speech. Otherwise, I simply assumed that, like every other participant in the conversation, she is an adult who is perfectly capable of speaking on her own behalf and defending herself in a conversation. Consistent with the argument I had been making before I started the thread, I tried to treat all participants with kindness and to keep myself focussed on problem solving as opposed to making the conversation about the characteristics of individuals.

I may have not read the relevant threads, but I just don't remember anything about your distinction between free will and free won't. But when you explain your rationale for your posts to Lem, this is what I hear: I'm justified in intentionally inflicting harm on a fellow human because doing so might improve the culture. To me, that's taking culture in the wrong direction. That kind of thinking justifies any degree of harm to any number of fellow humans simply by invoking "the greater good" as an excuse.

And I'm really bothered by your description of people who didn't call out Lem as "enablers." That's a misguided concept used in connection with people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs. It has nothing to do with an adult's speech on a message board. I am not responsible for Lem's speech, Doc's speech or your speech. I can't remember off the top of my head whether you were LDS or not, but boundary issues are a significant problem in Mormon culture. And they persist among former Mormons because leaving the church doesn't come with a free personality transplant.

So, I don't get it. It sounds to me like a very thin veneer of rationalization to justify a desire to control the behavior of another adult human or to lash out and hurt a fellow human that one is angry at.

Convince me otherwise.

[Chap]

[Res Ipsa]

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

Thanks, Doc, both for the post and for spending the time to think it through. My general point is, when you have a defined goal, select an approach that gives you the best shot at achieving the goal. My goal is a little different: reduction of harm caused by sexist speech. But your goal is the process that I would choose to get to mine. Either way, we have tons of choices about how to approach getting to the goal, but what I personally observe in discussions about sexism and racism are approaches that make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the goal.

Ibram X. Kendi wrote about this problem in How to be an Anti-Racist. Basically, the obstacle is thinking of racism as something only racists do. If that's how I think about racism, then it's easy for me to think like this: "Racism is something only racists do. Racists are bad people who hate people of a different race. I'm a good person who doesn't hate people of other races. Therefore, I am not a racist."

If that's how I think about racism, then when a black person says to me "hey, what you said is racist," what I hear is "You're a racist." I hear the other person saying that I'm a bad person. I naturally get defensive because I'm a good person. And so the whole conversation becomes an exercise in me defending myself as a good person, rather than the effect of whatever it was that I said.

This creates two problems: first, it shifts the discussion away from the harmful effects of racist speech and turns it into a debate over whether the white person is a good person or a bad person. Second, it ignores the fact that black people are significantly harmed by the structure of society, which doesn't require anyone to be a bad person to perpetuate the problem over time.

So, I'm saying choose a different way to think about the problem. Think about reducing the harm instead of arguing about whether someone is a bad racist person. If I think about that, when a black person says "that's racist," what I hear is "that thing you said is harmful to black folks." I don't need to defend myself because I don't want to hurt black people. If I don't feel defensive, then I can use the reasoning part of my brain to think about ways to reduce the harm.

I'm not suggesting that black folks change anything about the way they talk about racism. I'm saying, even if someone calls me a racist, I can choose how to understand that. If I understand the meaning as "you're hurting me," I can engage the problem-solving part of my brain to figure out ways to reduce or avoid the harm.

So, if what I want is to reduce the harm from racism, then the pragmatic thing to do is to persuade other white folks to recognize that they have a choice in how they think about racism, and encourage them to change the issue of racism from "You're accusing me of being a racist" to "How can I stop hurting you."

TL/DR -- If you want your best shot at persuading someone to make any kind of change, avoid triggering their defense mechanisms by depersonalizing the issue.

So, if you want to promote a debate with long-form discussion, wouldn't you want to approach any issue with a strategy to invite participation as opposed to discouraging it? Do you think belittling Moksha's posting style and sense of humor advanced your goal of a long-form discussion and debate?