Is this forum just a place to vent and laugh?

[Jamie in Chile]

You have led an incredibly fortunate life, to be able to say this and presumably mean it. Really, incredibly fortunate, and also very limiting, in terms of being able to understand the experiences of those not so fortunate.

I'm wondering whether or not this is an appropriate response to "words never kill people" or whether it's over the top. I'm not disagreeing with your point but I just wonder if this is or is not the kind of post that could limit debate and make others afraid to post.

Literally speaking your post is barely critical at all, and there is good points and wisdom in it. But it also just comes across as the kind of feisty post that could lead to unproductive, emotional argument or lead others with a different viewpoint to stay away. Of course, you could have made the same point here without using the word "limiting" or "incredibly" or assuming things about other people. I'm not saying don't make the point.

I'm not sure if I'm right here and even if I am it feels a bit hypercritical. I'm certain even if I am right I have done worse a thousand times. It doesn't feel appropriate to criticise you in a specific sense for such a tiny supposed imperfection, but I am just wondering in more of a general way if this could be an example of the kind of little thing that in a tiny way helps to create that liberal echo chamber which I suspect we have here.

Ultimately if you write such a post in a more cool way it is inviting to debate, if you write it in a feisty way then, given you will likely have the majority support, the effect will just be to maintain majority viewpoint and shut down debate.

 

[Mischief]

Nope, by my reasoning we should engage all. You're the one insisting that VV exclude (not engage) conservatives.

So which do you chose? A Safe space, or an open forum?

Are you equating conservatives with bigots?

Because I'm not. I don't think conservatives should be excluded. (I don't think they should be extended any special protections either, though, as some seem to be suggesting.)

I lean to excluding bigots though. I've spoken in the past with people who think it's a shame that Hitler didn't "do a better job", that people with a darker skin than their own are undoubtedly inferior, etc., and I see no benefit and a lot of damage in giving those people a platform.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

.

So which do you chose? A Safe space, or an open forum?

Could we do both at the same time depending on the thread or area of the forum? Thinking about the abortion debate for example, let's imagine the following 3 comments in an original thread (the opening post by the creator of the thread). (It would be three separate imaginary threads.)

1. "My 16 year-old sister is 4 weeks pregnant and desperately needs help to find an abortion! What should she do?!"
2. "What do you think can be done to improve access to abortion in the US?"
3. "Let's have a discussion about abortion. Who wants to put forward an opening argument?"

In case 1, conservative pro-lifers should be aware that this is a liberal forum, and abstain from posting on this thread for the good of the forum, while the moderator, if they have time, should police the thread and remove anything at all sensitive.

In case 3, all arguments should be open for a civil discussion, even those who think abortion is always bad from week 1. Here free speech should beat the fact that this is a majority liberal forum.

And then case 2 is more of a grey area about whether or not pro life opinions should be on the thread.

 

[PTree15]

I'm wondering whether or not this is an appropriate response to "words never kill people" or whether it's over the top. I'm not disagreeing with your point but I just wonder if this is or is not the kind of post that could limit debate and make others afraid to post.

Literally speaking your post is barely critical at all, and there is good points and wisdom in it. But it also just comes across as the kind of feisty post that could lead to unproductive, emotional argument or lead others with a different viewpoint to stay away. Of course, you could have made the same point here without using the word "limiting" or "incredibly" or assuming things about other people. I'm not saying don't make the point.

I'm not sure if I'm right here and even if I am it feels a bit hypercritical. I'm certain even if I am right I have done worse a thousand times. It doesn't feel appropriate to criticise you in a specific sense for such a tiny supposed imperfection, but I am just wondering in more of a general way if this could be an example of the kind of little thing that in a tiny way helps to create that liberal echo chamber which I suspect we have here.

Ultimately if you write such a post in a more cool way it is inviting to debate, if you write it in a feisty way then, given you will likely have the majority support, the effect will just be to maintain majority viewpoint and shut down debate.

I'm trying to understand why you fear a strongly worded opinion. Debate is about strong opinions, otherwise, there would seem to be little actual debate. I don't think "feisty" is the right word to describe Mischief's response to the "toxic words" post; "direct" is more accurate, IMHO. I think being direct and to-the-point minimizes the chances for confusion about someone's opinion.

 

[Mischief]

I'm wondering whether or not this is an appropriate response to "words never kill people" or whether it's over the top. I'm not disagreeing with your point but I just wonder if this is or is not the kind of post that could limit debate and make others afraid to post.

Literally speaking your post is barely critical at all, and there is good points and wisdom in it. But it also just comes across as the kind of feisty post that could lead to unproductive, emotional argument or lead others with a different viewpoint to stay away. Of course, you could have made the same point here without using the word "limiting" or "incredibly" or assuming things about other people. I'm not saying don't make the point.

I'm not sure if I'm right here and even if I am it feels a bit hypercritical. I'm certain even if I am right I have done worse a thousand times. It doesn't feel appropriate to criticise you in a specific sense for such a tiny supposed imperfection, but I am just wondering in more of a general way if this could be an example of the kind of little thing that in a tiny way helps to create that liberal echo chamber which I suspect we have here.

Ultimately if you write such a post in a more cool way it is inviting to debate, if you write it in a feisty way then, given you will likely have the majority support, the effect will just be to maintain majority viewpoint and shut down debate.

My post was actually as gentle as I could make it. My original response to the "toxic words" post was more along these lines:

Ask the parent of a bullied child who has hung herself whether words can kill.

Ask the children of a black man who was dragged to death chained to a pickup truck by a bunch of white guys who were raised on the words "N****** are no good" whether words can kill.

Ask the survivors of the Nazi death camps whether words can create an environment where a whole nation stands by while Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the developmentally disabled are slaughtered by the millions.

Ask someone who was raised on a refrain of "You're no good" whether words can kill the parts of yourself that enable you to live a normally happy life. (You won't even have to ask a stranger this - there are people on VV who can answer this question for you.)

Finally, ask yourself how you can be so sensitive to innocuous words written in one response to you, yet so oblivious to the destructive power of much, much harsher words directed at others, words that they hear over and over from multiple sources during the course of a lifetime?

 

[Mischief]

At VV, it's less about censorship, and more about those with a minority opinion being made to feel unwelcome.

As a result, the forum is small and insular. Those who are the biggest offenders don't believe they are doing anything wrong, and things will never change here because they view themselves as "defenders of the faith".

Does it strike you that you are asking for a Safe Space for conservative viewpoints?!

 

[beancounter]

Does it strike you that you are asking for a Safe Space for conservative viewpoints?!

No. A safe space is a place where views can't be challenged. Felling unwelcome is different than just being challenged.

People usually feel unwelcome if the "opposition" uses vitriol, intentionally misrepresents what the person is trying to say (straw man), engages in ad hominem attacks, assumes the worst possible/ extreme interpretation of what the person said, has a knee jerk reaction to everything the person says, intentionally redirects the conversation to get the person off track, tries to provoke the person by pushing their buttons or soft spot, etc. The person then starts posting from emotion rather than reason, and things just go down the rabbit hole from there.

Then the person doing the provoking "innocently" states "I can't talk with him, he's so unreasonable"...

I've noticed that you keep on going back through the thread to find something you can nail me on....

 

[Mischief]

No. A safe space is a place where views can't be challenged. Felling unwelcome is different than just being challenged.

People usually feel unwelcome if the "opposition" uses vitriol, intentionally misrepresents what the person is trying to say (straw man), engages in ad hominem attacks, assumes the worst possible/ extreme interpretation of what the person said, has a knee jerk reaction to everything the person says, intentionally redirects the conversation to get the person off track, tries to provoke the person by pushing their buttons or soft spot, etc. The person then starts posting from emotion rather than reason, and things just go down the rabbit hole from there.

Then the person doing the provoking "innocently" states "I can't talk with him, he's so unreasonable"...

I've noticed that you keep on going back through the thread to find something you can nail me on....

?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry to burst your bubble, Beancounter, but I was scrolling back to see whether Jamie or Peter had made a particular comment, and came across that post of yours, and the combination of that post and your "Safe Space" post tickled my funny bone.

I do find it interesting that the people who are most sensitive about their own feelings are so often the ones to make fun of others for being "too sensitive" and/or to be oblivious to the feelings of others. It's something I've observed not only online but IRL, and not just with respect to politics.

 

[Mark Mywordz]

I am surprised that nobody has responded to my post which quotes Deeyah Khan. Is she too right wing to be taken seriously? I have no knowledge of her political interests. I insist on my right to freedom of speech. My country went to war in 1939 to defend freedoms like this and to save the Polish in the first instance from Nazi bullies. I will not accept or be bowed by censorship. Censorship is toxic and is the tool most often used by tyrants.

 

[Andy_T]

I am surprised that nobody has responded to my post which quotes Deeyah Khan.

As I can only speak for myself, because I had overseen it, as it was not that obvious from your other post.

Deeyah Khan, a Muslim woman of color: Deeyah Khan's 'White Right' Shows How to Fight Racism - The Atlantic

It is a great interview.
I agree that it is likely one of the most effective ways to combat racism, but also, that it takes a lot of time and work.

 

[Mischief]

I am surprised that nobody has responded to my post which quotes Deeyah Khan. Is she too right wing to be taken seriously? I have no knowledge of her political interests.

What makes you think Khan is right wing?

I didn't address the article earlier because I don't think it's particularly pertinent to the discussion we're having. Let me explain my reasons for thinking that:

1. Any story I've heard where someone has "converted" a bigot has been face-to-face, over a period of time.

2. Any story I've heard where someone has "converted" a bigot has not has not only been done face-to -face, but also by either a member of one of the groups despised by the bigot, or by a former member of his own group (i.e., a former Nazi converting a Nazi).

3. Even in such cases, the "conversions" are most often limited. (I.e., a black person has managed to become "friends" with a klan member or Nazi, and the klan member or Nazi says, yeah, this black individual is "one of the good ones."

I'd be curious if you can find any instances of "conversion" where #1 and #2 don't apply. I 've never encountered any.

If you think you can convert bigots, more power to you. I encourage you to go out and do so.

But I think it's presuming a lot to expect everyone on this board to welcome bigots because you think you have the ability to convert them. You have all the opportunity you wish to practice your conversion skills elsewhere, IRL or on any of the many, many white supremacist sites that are easily found on the internet.

 

[Mischief]

 

[beancounter]

Often the problem isn't the speaker, but the perceptions and resulting reaction of the listener.

I'm sure we've all heard "No one can make you feel bad except yourself". I think that's true.

Years ago on VB I said "handicapped" instead of "physically disadvantaged"when making an analogy about an unrelated subject. Two women just went absolutely bat **** crazy and started calling me all sorts of names, accusing me of being a bigot, telling me that I'm pure evil, comparing me to Hitler, etc.

They where clearly attempting to shame me into silence, which is political correctness in it's purest form - censorship masquerading as self righteousness. The whole decency narrative is just a smoke screen. A verbal wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[Mischief]

Often the problem isn't the speaker, but the perceptions and resulting reaction of the listener.

I'm sure we've all heard "No one can make you feel bad except yourself". I think that's true.

Years ago on VB I said "handicapped" instead of "physically disadvantaged"when making an analogy about an unrelated subject. Two women just went absolutely bat **** crazy and started calling me all sorts of names, accusing me of being a bigot, telling me that I'm pure evil, comparing me to Hitler, etc.

They where clearly attempting to shame me into silence, which is political correctness in it's purest form - censorship masquerading as self righteousness. The whole decency narrative is just a smoke screen. A verbal wolf in sheeps clothing.

^Fine example of outraged hyperbole.

Why is your interest in using a certain word so superior to the feelings of those who have had the word used as an insult against them?

ETA: My own personal anecdote:

Years ago, I was in a meeting during which we were discussing options on how to proceed with a project that would require federal funding. I commented that if the organization did X, that would be a"black mark" against with respect to the b governmental agency in question. I used the phrase "black mark" several more times in the ensuing discussion. Then a black man in the group say d, "Can we please stop using the phrase "black mark?"

My initial reaction was to say, "But that phrase has nothing to do with race!" And then I checked myself because I realized that I had zero experience of being the only black person in a group of whites, and I apologized and we moved on.

Do you know why I did? Because it was no ****ing hardship to me to simply say "that's a mark against us", instead of using the adjective "black."

 

[silva]

^Fine example of outraged hyperbole.

Why is your interest in using a certain word so superior to the feelings of those who have had the word used as an insult against them?

ETA: My own personal anecdote:

Years ago, I was in a meeting during which we were discussing options on how to proceed with a project that would require federal funding. I commented that if the organization did X, that would be a"black mark" against with respect to the b governmental agency in question. I used the phrase "black mark" several more times in the ensuing discussion. Then a black man in the group say d, "Can we please stop using the phrase "black mark?"

My initial reaction was to say, "But that phrase has nothing to do with race!" And then I checked myself because I realized that I had zero experience of being the only black person in a group of whites, and I apologized and we moved on.

Do you know why I did? Because it was no ****ing hardship to me to simply say "that's a mark against us", instead of using the adjective "black."

That's exactly what I expect from people! I made a terrible gaff that took forever for me to realize what I said! It involved making an off the cuff remark that was phrased just like everyone else, but had a very racial history of use! Everyone stared at me, one person said she could not believe I said that- I just looked confused and said "what? ? Thankfully another women later came to me and explained it because she realized it truly went over my head! I was quite surprised and very shocked!.
Now, that episode had the potential to be very very bad if I was people who were quick to post judgement on me

We ALL need to step back and allow people to explain themselves and correct themselves, and then forgive them, and expect it not to happen again.

I can well imagine the situation beancounter was in though! There were very ****** off folks on that forum who would never let anything go!

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I'm trying to understand why you fear a strongly worded opinion. .

I wouldn't say I "fear a strongly worded opinion", I just worry that it might put others off posting or help to create an echo chamber when that strongly worded opinion is used by someone who is in the majority viewpoint.

I think Mischief's post 105 is a valuable one even though we've discussed these points before.

I think it's worth stopping to think when we write what will be effective. If it's justified to be harsh to someone that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Anyway, I don't feel that strongly about this. I could be wrong. It's more something I'm musing on than something I'm convinced about.

The anecdotes are interesting. I do sympathize with white males that are criticized on social media: that get into a firestorm of criticism for making one slightly anti-PC comment and being accused say of being sexist because they said only one thing that may or may not be slightly sexist. And I worry about this happening to me because I occasionally have a big mouth and it could possibly happen.

But I also would like some of the people who tend to focus on this to answer this question. What bothers you more and why? a) people being criticized and wrongly accused of being a bigot or b) actual bigotry ruining people's lives?

 

[beancounter]

^Fine example of outraged hyperbole.

Why is your interest in using a certain word so superior to the feelings of those who have had the word used as an insult against them?

It's not hyperbole. No exaggeration. It actually occurred the way I described it. There was no outrage, just a moment of clarity as to how full of BS the PC movement is.

Those women gave no indication that they had the word used against them as in insult. Nor did they mention anything about someone they personally know being hurt by the word.

Further, in the context the word was used, I think it was pretty obvious to any reasonable person, that the intent was not to insult or belittle anyone.

They were just looking for an excuse to prove their Liberal cred.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Beancounter, fair point there are some people out there in the liberal circle who aren't always fair and good, but that is true of any group.

Here's a question for you.

What annoys/angers you more and why?

a) overly zealous PC liberals
b) people having their lives destroyed by bigotry

PS I have a feeling this thread is on its final lap - but you never know - I could be wrong!

 

[Mischief]

Even if it's on its final lap, Jamie, you did start a successful thread.

 

[Katrina]

It's not hyperbole. No exaggeration. It actually occurred the way I described it. There was no outrage, just a moment of clarity as to how full of BS the PC movement is.

Those women gave no indication that they had the word used against them as in insult. Nor did they mention anything about someone they personally know being hurt by the word.

Further, in the context the word was used, I think it was pretty obvious to any reasonable person, that the intent was not to insult or belittle anyone.

I agree that "physically disadvantaged" is a fairly new term, and it's not realistic to expect everyone to know about it. I can see why people may not like the term "handicapped," but I also think those women overreacted by comparing you to Hitler. There are ways to correct people without being rude about it. I think that people should try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

For example, I was out to dinner with some friends and someone commented that it should be "all lives matter" instead of "Black lives matter." There was an awkward silence, and then I told him that his comment is considered to be insulting, or politically uncorrect, by most people. He was surprised. "Oh. It is?" Everyone else at the table agreed with me. And then we went on to talk about something else. No drama, no fighting. Since that day, he never made that comment again.

They were just looking for an excuse to prove their Liberal cred.

They may have been. Or maybe they had been hurt by the word and didn't think to mention it. Not everyone is good at arguing, or communicating in general.

Why is your interest in using a certain word so superior to the feelings of those who have had the word used as an insult against them?

I think he's saying that he doesn't appreciate being yelled at just because he accidentally used an un-PC term. Tolerance goes both ways... we need to understand that not everyone has bad intentions. Those women could have simply explained to him, "you know, I find that term offensive. We prefer to use the term x." And then maybe a useful discussion could have taken place, rather than a bunch of insults.

But I also would like some of the people who tend to focus on this to answer this question. What bothers you more and why? a) people being criticized and wrongly accused of being a bigot or b) actual bigotry ruining people's lives?

Why should one issue be more important than the other?

As a Caucasian woman, I have experienced sexism, but not racism. I also know what it's like to have false rumours about me going around, and having to deal with the resulting hostility. I can sympathize with people who are wrongly accused of bigotry or whatever else. False accusations can ruin lives. So can sexism or racism. Racism is something that I don't (and can't) completely understand, but I am against it.

Also keep in mind that when someone is falsely accused of being a bigot, it takes away attention from the people who genuinely ARE bigots. The actual perpetrators should be the ones to pay the price.