Eutychus

12467

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    If you find anything substantive I suggest you take it to the Styx.
    There are three threads in the Styx and two down here because of the handling of the Transgender thread,

    Why not use the one called 'Transphobia'? in Styx. That would seem to be the best fit.
    the point was twofold: that a problem obviously exists and that if you do not see it in all that, you aren’t likely too if I add more to it.

    We are aware that a problem exists. The Transphobia thread is there to have a conversation with shipmates about how best to address it. Your point blank refusal to engage with that conversation means that your voice is missing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...but at least one feels the Ship has one's back...

    Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. The Ship doesn't "have your back" on any subject, from the most inconsequential to the most controversial. The Ship doesn't have a policy stance. The Ship does not advocate for or against any issue or belief. The Ship is not a 'safe space', not a refuge, and despite the best efforts of many posters and a certain demographic drift over time it is not a liberal echo chamber where dissenting views are banned.

    Unless they break one of the (very few) rules, The Ship is not going to silence those who disagree with you just so that you can feel better. To do so would be the very antithesis of Unrest.
    Lord. The way topics like homosexuality and race have been managed, the crew and the the bulk of the posters* have been supportive of the aforementioned groups when they are attacked. Idiots still post and attacks are still allowed, but one does not feel as if they are sailing into a hurricane.

    *Or do we not count anymore?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If you say you are deliberating, then it is not unreasonable for you to expect us to be patient. I have not read the Styx Transphobia thread past where I left it, but I do not remember anything stating that there was current deliberation.
    In addition to the references made above, the latest policy statement on that thread, which was posted well before your most recent posts on it, concludes thus:
    We'll be keeping an eye on how Transgender continues to fare in Purgatory, and reviewing whether other topics currently assigned Dead Horse status might not benefit from the same treatment.
    DH is not a cure-all and moving/not moving Trans threads is not the only issue.
    But thanks for playing.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    If you find anything substantive I suggest you take it to the Styx.
    There are three threads in the Styx and two down here because of the handling of the Transgender thread,

    Why not use the one called 'Transphobia'? in Styx. That would seem to be the best fit.
    the point was twofold: that a problem obviously exists and that if you do not see it in all that, you aren’t likely too if I add more to it.

    We are aware that a problem exists. The Transphobia thread is there to have a conversation with shipmates about how best to address it. Your point blank refusal to engage with that conversation means that your voice is missing.
    I was engaging. Not having a solution ≠ lack of engagement. I stopped because it was going nowhere.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    DH is not a cure-all and moving/not moving Trans threads is not the only issue.

    That's not the point. The point is that this was a further indication that deliberations were ongoing.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I've done the work, lilBuddha. Eutychus is active on page 29 of the Transgender thread, virtually inactive from August 2018 up to that point. Just have a look at those posts, quote the words which support DT's inference in the OP.

    Or DT can do it. Or another critic. Where does he condone transphobia on p29 of that thread?

    Here is everything Eutychus has posted on the Transgender thread from page 29 to 20.45 on Mon the 8th July 2019. *Posting as a shipmate, which is why I brought this to Hell not Styx, I was talking about Eutychus’ engagement with this thread.*
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Having your identity questioned is not only hurtful, but absurd.

    Your use of 'your' is also singularly unhelpful here because of its ambiguity.

    So far as I can tell, no individual here is having their personal identity called into question.

    That said, if transgender issues are to be discussed at all, that necessarily involves calling into question some of the parameters that make up that identity (and again, I see no evidence that these are entirely clear-cut, nor that all transgender people see them the same way).

    Putting a minimum distance between oneself and the issue under discussion is vital if any discussion is to be had at all, no matter what the subject, all the more so if it is a sensitive one for the individual concerned.

    @quetzalcoatl you and others here regularly call into question the identity of Christians in that you constantly challenge their core beliefs, which for Christians establish their identity. Do you think it's absurd to do so? Do you think the risk of that challenging being hurtful means the topic should be off-limits?
    I can't see why any trans person would join in this thread.

    And I can't see why anybody should presume to speak on behalf of an entire category of people as if they were a uniform whole. In fact the irony of presuming to do so in this area in particular strikes me as especially acute.

    There are spaces on the Ship for a support group: private boards, for instance. Purgatory isn't one of them.

    Pedantry, followed by equating the trials of being a Christian with the issue in question, followed by sarcasm.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I didn't notice you addressing any of my points.

    Sarcasm
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Within the bounds of Purgatory, such a statement is not usually considered sufficient grounds to dismiss an opinion outright, whatever the subject.

    A more rigourous standard for a claim would be to say "this is a hate group and here are the grounds for that allegation". "They push junk science" may be true, but it requires substantiation, in the form of at least one example that can be debated.

    Also, I don't think much of guilt by association. It's not fair to accuse someone of x-phobia simply because they cite something put out by an organisation accused or generally held to be x-phobic. It may decrease the weight of their argument, but it doesn't ipso facto make the person quoting it x-phobic.

    Ignores posting pattern being referred to, pedantry and tone policing.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Now, I realise telling other posters they are transphobic is unhelpful, outwith Hell, but I don't understand why web sites and research that have flaws in their methodology in these ways cannot be described as transphobic.

    That's fair enough. But I'm not convinced everybody has been as rigourous as you there in distinguishing sources from those quoting them. It's just like "attack the issue not the person", which is all the more pertinent when the topic is sensitive.

    There's a world of difference between saying "I admit to some doubts about diagnoses of gender dysphoria" and saying "your gender dysphoria is nothing more than a liberal plot".

    And there's a world of difference between saying "the research you cite is transphobic and here's why" and "you are a transphobe and a bigot".

    Use of the second person ("you", "your") really needs to be carefully considered before posting.

    Respecting these kinds of distinction is important. Doing so won't get rid of all the pain involved in discussing these issues, but it will take a lot of the heat out of the debate.

    Ignores posting pattern being referred to and pedantry.

    Eutychus wrote: »
    In my view it depends above all on whether its use is as a conclusion of a reasoned argument, or as a substitute for it.

    I have no issue with this statement.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    ChristinaMarie was one of the people I interacted with first on the Ship. I did so for some time, on unrelated subjects, before I knew she was transgender. So I go to know her as a person quite a while before knowing anything about her gender or sexual orientation.

    (The wonders of the Internet: getting to know people you never otherwise would).

    It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.

    We later swapped more than a few PMs about transgender issues, and notably the UK Evangelical Alliance's guidelines on trans people at the time, which she pointed me to. This had the immediate effect of me never wanting to be a member of an EA church ever again (a bit theoretical since I'm in the wrong country, but with knock-on effects on other, similar affiliations).

    Her contribution to me staying was that she helped me realise the Ship was a place where I could meet people of faith from really different backgrounds who were willing to interact intelligently, robustly, and not disparagingly with those with stories very different from their own. This attitude, which for me she exemplified, probably contributed to me going on to dip a toe into the DH debates on homosexuality, which in turn significantly moved my views on that forward.

    We have cleared up, near the beginning of this thread, my misunderstanding of Eutychus’ comment here which I had misunderstood to be an assertion that his previous position was not prejudiced – that was the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of my starting this thread.

    It does not change my opinion that Eutychus over identifying with others as similar to his former self leads him to cut them too much slack.

    *I will just note here how DH horse discussion has been perceived positively here, something I would agree with – and I think it might be a less controversial strategy if we just called it something else less negative*
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It so happens that in real life I have heard a lot more intersex people talk about intersex than I've heard trans people talk about gender dysphoria. As I understand it the argumentation and demands of many intersex people are very different to those of trans people and there is a lot of resentment at lumping the two together.

    Not least because the demand of many intersex people is to be recognised in a distinct category, (not M, F, but I) that is based precisely on the distinctive biological sexual characteristics they were born with, first and foremost their primary sexual characteristics (and in some cases exceptional chromosome makeup).

    I'm quite open to correction, but it seems to me that this is absolutely not the same thing as gender dysphoria, if not the complete opposite.

    I have no issue with this statement, as it happens I’d agree. @B62 do you get why I find this frustrating now ?

    (Yes I know this post is massive, yes I know it doesn’t include other people’s posts he’s replying to - because everyone can just read the thread.)
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    DH is not a cure-all and moving/not moving Trans threads is not the only issue.

    That's not the point. The point is that this was a further indication that deliberations were ongoing.
    Not what was said. What was said is that the crew would monitor the situation. Which is not the same thing. If the current solution keeps transpeople away, then we might never know this.
  • I'll stick my neck above the parapet too, and I was one of the people arguing on the Transgender thread in those posts. Eutychus started posting on the thread at page 28, here

    I found a some points made by Eutychus on that thread disingenuous at the time:

    Firstly, on page 28, this post here felt as if it was an attempt to shut down the conversation, and the comment:
    t(This is not helped by the fact that, despite your protestations, there is no broad consensus on many aspects of these issues that I can see).
    in context, replying to a post from me suggesting the issue was the negating of transgender. I interpreted as agreeing that transgender could be negated. I disagree that there's no broad consensus in the negation of transgender. There lacks a broad consensus on how to deal with certain issues around transgender, but not its existence.

    Secondly, here he says:
    "They push junk science" may be true, but it requires substantiation, in the form of at least one example that can be debated.
    which was purporting to be a challenge against something I'd written. But that "push junk science" came from the Wikipedia quote indicated clearly in a quote box on the previous post. That claim had been evidenced with footnotes on the linked Wikipedia page. I'd removed the footnote numbers for clarity. That's a piece of nitpicking point scoring that I didn't challenge because I was trying to keep the argument calm and not react to what felt like provocation. It felt at the time as having pointed to an article from a hate group as a concrete example of what I was arguing, that was being negated in the same way as transgender people are on the thread by some of the posters.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I was engaging. Not having a solution ≠ lack of engagement. I stopped because it was going nowhere.

    Your engagement was not in question. Your not taking part in the conversation is.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    When I left the Styx thread, there was no conversation.
    Me: I don't think the change in the rules is sufficient. Not sure what would be the right path.
    Crew: If you do not have an alternate plan, we heard you, now go away.
    Condensed and paraphrased, of course.
    How many more versions of the same call and response am I supposed to sit through?
  • I don't know. It's not about you coming up with a fully-formed plan of action. It's about you acknowledging that we are in community, and that any changes need to be discussed by the community, both before and after those changes take effect.

    We know there's a problem. We know you don't think our response so far has been good enough. What we don't know is what would satisfy you as you appear to be unable to articulate that. It might be that eventually we stumble across something that will please everyone, but it's far more likely that the changes will suit those who entered into the conversation.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Thanks to DT and CK for their comments. I'll work through them and post tomorrow. Meanwhile, a few preliminary thoughts.

    My initial response in reading the Eutychus posts is that he was posting well within current policy guidelines about what is acceptable in Purgatory, with a few individual flourishes thrown in (e.g Christine-Marie). And that is reinforced to my mind by the other recent H&A contributions in the Transphobia Styx file. The issue of whether current Purg policy guidelines remain suitable for discussion of sensitive issues involving personal identity is a live one and I think has been behind the re-entry of consideration of DH as possibly a more suitable forum.

    And that's why I feel singling out Eutychus has been unfair. It is interesting to read Ohher's observations in the NP Hell thread. "Why haven't you called me to Hell?". Why indeed.

    But I will have a look at your detailed comments and post further.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    And that's why I feel singling out Eutychus has been unfair. It is interesting to read Ohher's observations in the NP Hell thread. "Why haven't you called me to Hell?". Why indeed.
    If one is exceeding the speed limit and get an FPN, and the driver in the next lane doing the same speed didn't, it is still deserved.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I don't know. It's not about you coming up with a fully-formed plan of action. It's about you acknowledging that we are in community, and that any changes need to be discussed by the community, both before and after those changes take effect.
    And I was starting the discussion after the change was made. Or rather, mousethief sort of did, I just made the comment on the right? thread.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We know there's a problem. We know you don't think our response so far has been good enough. What we don't know is what would satisfy you as you appear to be unable to articulate that. It might be that eventually we stumble across something that will please everyone, but it's far more likely that the changes will suit those who entered into the conversation.
    The discourse from the change in the rules to when I left the thread didn't seem to be a conversation as much as a challenge to my post. Which, to an extent, I get.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    DT

    A couple of general observations on your post. Firstly, calling Eutychus to Hell for what he posted as a Shipmate was well within your rights. And the only justification needed is to be personally pissed off with his posts as a Shipmate. What I meant in suggesting that substantive findings should go to the Styx was if they indicated structural faults in current policies. But that was not at all clear and I apologise for that, to you and other thread contributors.

    Secondly, although I don't agree your views re pedantry I think your sarcasm comments are reasonable. There was certainly some frustration on show.
    And not just by Eutychus and with Eutychus.

    And as a Host, I criticise myself for not commenting about the circular nature of the discussions. Going round in circles does produce frustration. I think I should have acted sooner. Although we normally allow threads to work themselves out, there is scope for us to close circular threads, or at least threaten to do so if they don't move on. That could have happened before my recent leave of absence.

    Most significantly, the fact that you would not have made the Hell call were it not for a fundamental misunderstanding about the Christine-Marie post (the last straw) is very helpful. That was what really puzzled me. I'd read his confession as saying that he was very grateful to a transgender Shipmate for opening his eyes to his previous transphobia. He did not defend that in any way.

    Which leaves the issue of whether that has led him to cut too much slack for transphobic comments in Purgatory. And this is where we disagree. Although he was not writing as a member of the crew, I think what he was doing was defending the current rights of all Shipmates to ask questions to post contrary opinions supported by links. Even at the cost of personal pain. It is our ethos of unrest, as currently moderated in accordance with Purgatory guidelines, which allows these things. Not some alleged flaw in Eutychus caused allegedly by some previous transphobia.

    And so I understand your frustration. And share it. But I am not frustrated nor pissed off with Eutychus. My frustration lies elsewhere.

    I think that corporately we still haven't got the balance right between our ethos of unrest and providing the right sort of discussion zone and the right sort of moderation for painful issues of personal identity.

    But that comment is definitely more suited to the Styx. Doc will have my guts for garters if I say any more along those lines here!
  • General FYI: I'm the one who asked Eutychus if he would please explain how he'd found Christina Marie helpful. He was kind enough to go into detail, which he might not have done otherwise. As I said there, it was good to know good things about Christina Marie, because I'd mostly experienced her periodic difficult behavior on the boards.

    AFAICS, Eutychus was gratefully complimenting someone who'd helped him understand both the Ship and what it's like to be transgender.

    I don't see that he did anything wrong. Quite the contrary: I think it's great that he took the risk of opening up.

    I hate the term "politically correct". I never use it, except to talk about its usage. It's what people say about someone else's concerns. My conjugation of the irregular verb:

    I am fighting oppression.
    You are being compassionate.
    They are being politically correct.

    From what I've seen, some people are trying to force Eutychus, NP, and others to Proclaim The Right And Accepted Truth; Express It In The Right And Accepted Terms; Accept Public Penitential Shriving With Birch Sticks, Followed By Public Flogging And Application Of Vinegar; And Never Ever Try To Explain How They Got From Where They Were To Where They Are Now--Because They Are Just Evil People Who Are Against Human Rights. (tm)

    I think that boils down forcing someone to be politically correct--rather than accepting that people start where they are, and being glad they've come so far.

    Don't push away allies. It hurts your cause--any cause.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Golden Key wrote: »
    From what I've seen, some people are trying to force Eutychus, NP, and others to Proclaim The Right And Accepted Truth; Express It In The Right And Accepted Terms; Accept Public Penitential Shriving With Birch Sticks, Followed By Public Flogging And Application Of Vinegar; And Never Ever Try To Explain How They Got From Where They Were To Where They Are Now--Because They Are Just Evil People Who Are Against Human Rights. (tm)

    Bang on. It's like the Spanish Inquisition sometimes, with the self-appointed Inquisitors latching on to any and all hints or appearances of unorthodox thought or deed and attacking it mercilessly. Even if said thought or deed was long in the past and the individual who had/did it has since repented, that individual will apparently be considered forever tainted and forever of lesser worth than those blessèd individuals who have been blameless from birth.

    It's as if they feel a need to constantly attack every last little thing that can even tangentially be considered Incorrect, regardless of such frivolities as context or intent, in order to prove to the world that they are Correct.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    From what I've seen, some people are trying to force Eutychus, NP, and others to Proclaim The Right And Accepted Truth; Express It In The Right And Accepted Terms; Accept Public Penitential Shriving With Birch Sticks, Followed By Public Flogging And Application Of Vinegar; And Never Ever Try To Explain How They Got From Where They Were To Where They Are Now--Because They Are Just Evil People Who Are Against Human Rights. (tm)

    Bang on. It's like the Spanish Inquisition sometimes, with the self-appointed Inquisitors latching on to any and all hints or appearances of unorthodox thought or deed and attacking it mercilessly. Even if said thought or deed was long in the past and the individual who had/did it has since repented, that individual will apparently be considered forever tainted and forever of lesser worth than those blessèd individuals who have been blameless from birth.

    It's as if they feel a need to constantly attack every last little thing that can even tangentially be considered Incorrect, regardless of such frivolities as context or intent, in order to prove to the world that they are Correct.

    YES.

    Golden Key and Marvin the Martian win the Internet.

    THANK YOU.
  • Bang on. It's like the Spanish Inquisition sometimes, with the self-appointed Inquisitors latching on to any and all hints or appearances of unorthodox thought or deed and attacking it mercilessly.

    And yet, here you are, on the Ship, posting about the thing that you aren't allowed to discuss on the Ship because of political correctness.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Curiosity Killed

    Real Life is getting the way of me completing my reply. Hopefully later today?
  • Bang on. It's like the Spanish Inquisition sometimes, with the self-appointed Inquisitors latching on to any and all hints or appearances of unorthodox thought or deed and attacking it mercilessly.

    And yet, here you are, on the Ship, posting about the thing that you aren't allowed to discuss on the Ship because of political correctness.

    "Attacking it mercilessly" is baffling. I think Marvin did several posts talking about a biological view, or penis = male. I don't think it was attacked at all, let alone mercilessly.
  • A) I did not accuse Eutychus of posting transphobic material on that thread

    B) Persecuted !?! Look at the fucking world right now, rising hate crime, the vast majority of the press promoting bigotry, fascists marching in our cities - talk about entitled, privileged bullshit
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Bang on. It's like the Spanish Inquisition sometimes, with the self-appointed Inquisitors latching on to any and all hints or appearances of unorthodox thought or deed and attacking it mercilessly.

    And yet, here you are, on the Ship, posting about the thing that you aren't allowed to discuss on the Ship because of political correctness.
    Funny that

  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »

    Am I the only person who may instinctively not gravitate towards certain people purely because I'm unsure how the interaction might go (or alternatively because I make negative assumptions about how it might go)?

    This question reminded me of theological college. It was a college that attracted a fair number of black, Asian and other foreign students, though still principally white proportionately.

    I don't know at what point we started noticing it, but during meal-times it became apparent that the black students all seemed to sit together, regardless of whose class they were in. And some white students said they felt unable to join a table where apparently all the black students had agreed to sit together! It would look as if they trying to make some point; or they would feel out of place. To which some of the black students replied: yeah, tell us about it!

    I'm not saying 'it', whatever it was, got sorted out. But it was interesting chatting it through together in class and informally. We all did our race awareness classes like good little ordinands, but it was salutary to almost all of us - who were open to receiving the lesson - how unconscious prejudice can be. And how difficult to really know the source of discomfort. Some of the black students, eg, were surprised to learn that some white people felt unsure of themselves and diffident, even in a principally white environment. Why would a white person in a 'white' world situation feel uncomfortable?!

    Some of the black students came from the same parts of the world and shared things common to each other's experience of life. What could be more natural than to sit with those people and do that? But equally, what was really going on when a white person would steer clear of a table of black students, saying: I felt a bit intimidated; I didn't know if I'd be welcome, or could join the conversation properly. Was the 'Black and Foreign Student' table accidentally acting as a refuge, implicitly putting up the 'no whites here, please' sign?

    In whose hands lay the right of initiative to say: 'let's sit together' or 'we shouldn't sit in groups like that?'

    Very complicated, strange and thought-provoking.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    A) I did not accuse Eutychus of posting transphobic material on that thread

    B) Persecuted !?! Look at the fucking world right now, rising hate crime, the vast majority of the press promoting bigotry, fascists marching in our cities - talk about entitled, privileged bullshit
    This. Motherfucking this
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    .
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Which leaves the issue of whether that has led him to cut too much slack for transphobic comments in Purgatory.
    It is difficult and takes time to completely remove the effects of prejudice. A former phobe is likely to give the benefit of the doubt to current phobes for two reasons. One is that they might still have some residual of that phobia and the other is misplaced sympathy.

    And what personal pain is there in revealing a past sin one has conquered on a site full of people who are all about conquering sin?

  • Perhaps they're suffering the cognitive dissonance of being allies who share 95% of your beliefs and worldview, and yet are attacked as if they are the ones committing hate crimes, promoting bigotry, and marching under a fascist flag.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »

    Am I the only person who may instinctively not gravitate towards certain people purely because I'm unsure how the interaction might go (or alternatively because I make negative assumptions about how it might go)?

    This question reminded me of theological college. It was a college that attracted a fair number of black, Asian and other foreign students, though still principally white proportionately.

    I don't know at what point we started noticing it, but during meal-times it became apparent that the black students all seemed to sit together, regardless of whose class they were in. And some white students said they felt unable to join a table where apparently all the black students had agreed to sit together! It would look as if they trying to make some point; or they would feel out of place. To which some of the black students replied: yeah, tell us about it!

    I'm not saying 'it', whatever it was, got sorted out. But it was interesting chatting it through together in class and informally. We all did our race awareness classes like good little ordinands, but it was salutary to almost all of us - who were open to receiving the lesson - how unconscious prejudice can be. And how difficult to really know the source of discomfort. Some of the black students, eg, were surprised to learn that some white people felt unsure of themselves and diffident, even in a principally white environment. Why would a white person in a 'white' world situation feel uncomfortable?!

    Some of the black students came from the same parts of the world and shared things common to each other's experience of life. What could be more natural than to sit with those people and do that? But equally, what was really going on when a white person would steer clear of a table of black students, saying: I felt a bit intimidated; I didn't know if I'd be welcome, or could join the conversation properly. Was the 'Black and Foreign Student' table accidentally acting as a refuge, implicitly putting up the 'no whites here, please' sign?

    In whose hands lay the right of initiative to say: 'let's sit together' or 'we shouldn't sit in groups like that?'

    Very complicated, strange and thought-provoking.
    But it is not complicated. People will naturally seek others who share their experience, especially in a foreign land. And that is without adding the othering. The solution is simple. The school or a student group should simply address it head on. That is not completely easy, granted, but it is not complicated.

  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »

    Am I the only person who may instinctively not gravitate towards certain people purely because I'm unsure how the interaction might go (or alternatively because I make negative assumptions about how it might go)?

    This question reminded me of theological college. It was a college that attracted a fair number of black, Asian and other foreign students, though still principally white proportionately.

    Very complicated, strange and thought-provoking.

    We are going off topic here, but I think in this kind of case it may have been worth doing a bit of historical digging into what happened when the first few non-white students showed up, and how and where they sat and how and what they felt.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Perhaps they're suffering the cognitive dissonance of being allies who share 95% of your beliefs and worldview, and yet are attacked as if they are the ones committing hate crimes, promoting bigotry, and marching under a fascist flag.

    So I can sympathise with that to a certain extent. I can also see why the reaction of the oppressed group might be; "So what? What do you want? A fucking cookie?"

    The only person that we know of so far who has left the ship over the thread/series of threads is a trans-person.
  • I'm pretty certain they don't want a cookie. Neither do they want to subjected to some form of purity test administered by random people on the internet. I'm supposing there might be some middle ground here on which we can all stand without tearing each other apart.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Perhaps they're suffering the cognitive dissonance of being allies who share 95% of your beliefs and worldview, and yet are attacked as if they are the ones committing hate crimes, promoting bigotry, and marching under a fascist flag.

    So I can sympathise with that to a certain extent. I can also see why the reaction of the oppressed group might be; "So what? What do you want? A fucking cookie?"

    The only person that we know of so far who has left the ship over the thread/series of threads is a trans-person.
    Well, there could be trans-people here who feel so comfortable with the threads that they just do not comment. :confused:
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Well, there could be trans-people here who feel so comfortable with the threads that they just do not comment. :confused:

    They could be so uncomfortable with your advocacy that they just do not comment.

    That's the problem with ghost crowds. Anyone can use them to support their own position. I'd much rather we stuck to comments which are actually on the thread, than comments which are not.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is not complicated. People will naturally seek others who share their experience, especially in a foreign land. And that is without adding the othering. The solution is simple. The school or a student group should simply address it head on. That is not completely easy, granted, but it is not complicated.

    I'm with Mencken on this when he said “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

    What is the 'it' that is so uncomplicated, to which you would apply your 'simple' solution? As I said in my post I would find it hard to define what 'it' is! Maybe 'it' is clear to you, what is going on in such a situation, but we who lived through it, including the Black and Asian students, thought otherwise.

    When the mixture of Black, Asian, British and foreign students sat together to eat was 'it' merely camaraderie? When some white students felt uncomfortable and unwelcome about joining their tables was 'it' just prejudice and bigotry?

    My suggestion is that the self-selection seating arrangements going on at meal times reflected a multiplicity of things going on. Not just one simple, uncomplicated 'it' that can be 'simply' addressed.

    We dealt with it head on and it was not 'simple', and it was very complicated. Thankfully, because we lived together and had time to get to know each other, there was a helpful presumption of good will on both sides, which meant that 'it' wasn't a problem, whatever 'it' was.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    General FYI: I'm the one who asked Eutychus if he would please explain how he'd found Christina Marie helpful. He was kind enough to go into detail, which he might not have done otherwise. As I said there, it was good to know good things about Christina Marie, because I'd mostly experienced her periodic difficult behavior on the boards.

    AFAICS, Eutychus was gratefully complimenting someone who'd helped him understand both the Ship and what it's like to be transgender.

    I don't see that he did anything wrong. Quite the contrary: I think it's great that he took the risk of opening up.

    I hate the term "politically correct". I never use it, except to talk about its usage. It's what people say about someone else's concerns. My conjugation of the irregular verb:

    I am fighting oppression.
    You are being compassionate.
    They are being politically correct.

    From what I've seen, some people are trying to force Eutychus, NP, and others to Proclaim The Right And Accepted Truth; Express It In The Right And Accepted Terms; Accept Public Penitential Shriving With Birch Sticks, Followed By Public Flogging And Application Of Vinegar; And Never Ever Try To Explain How They Got From Where They Were To Where They Are Now--Because They Are Just Evil People Who Are Against Human Rights. (tm)
    I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. What people are sying is that NP won't let go bullshit "research" because it suits the narrative he has already decided upon. This makes him misguided, not evil. And evil is exactly what no one has called him.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I think that boils down forcing someone to be politically correct--rather than accepting that people start where they are, and being glad they've come so far.

    Don't push away allies. It hurts your cause--any cause.
    If someone showed up to a meeting on racism against black people with fried chicken, watermelon and golliwogs for the kiddies; they should not be beaten and expelled, but someone should take them aside for a little talk.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Anselmina wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is not complicated. People will naturally seek others who share their experience, especially in a foreign land. And that is without adding the othering. The solution is simple. The school or a student group should simply address it head on. That is not completely easy, granted, but it is not complicated.

    I'm with Mencken on this when he said “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

    What is the 'it' that is so uncomplicated, to which you would apply your 'simple' solution? As I said in my post I would find it hard to define what 'it' is! Maybe 'it' is clear to you, what is going on in such a situation, but we who lived through it, including the Black and Asian students, thought otherwise.

    When the mixture of Black, Asian, British and foreign students sat together to eat was 'it' merely camaraderie? When some white students felt uncomfortable and unwelcome about joining their tables was 'it' just prejudice and bigotry?

    My suggestion is that the self-selection seating arrangements going on at meal times reflected a multiplicity of things going on. Not just one simple, uncomplicated 'it' that can be 'simply' addressed.

    We dealt with it head on and it was not 'simple', and it was very complicated. Thankfully, because we lived together and had time to get to know each other, there was a helpful presumption of good will on both sides, which meant that 'it' wasn't a problem, whatever 'it' was.
    The simple is asking the question: Why are we sitting segregated? In my experience it boils done to being othered. I am genuinely interested to hear the complication of your situation.

  • There's actually a book about this. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Beverly Daniel Tatum.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    There's actually a book about this. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Beverly Daniel Tatum.
    I've been the other for most of my life. I know why black kids sit together. I know why immigrants/visitors coalesce. That bit is not complicated. Getting people to break those patterns is not complicated either, IME. It can be difficult, though.
    However, my experience might well be different to Ansilmena's, which I why I am curious to hear it.
  • All we need to do is create a society in which black kids' and white kids' experiences growing up are the same, as regards the range of incomes, job experiences, persecutions, police brutality, etc. they and their parents experience. Then after a generation or two, the black kids won't self-segregate in the cafeteria. Definitely difficult.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Well, yes. but I was talking about solving the cafeteria issue within its current context.
  • Is it a "problem" that needs "solving"?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    It is a symptom of the larger problem, but one that contributes to it, so it is a good thing to address.
  • Wow talk about blaming the victim.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    Wow talk about blaming the victim.
    Um, no. What I am talking about is contributing to cross-cultural understanding, which can help people address the problems caused by the larger society. Communication helps both sides become one side and can facilitate change.

    ETA: Question for you mt. Why on earth would the conclusion you jump to is that I am blaming the victims? Especially since the victims we are talking about are black and my track record on SOF certainly doesn't lend itself to that conclusion.
  • Because you say their actions contribute to the problem. That's blaming the victim in a nutshell.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Because you say their actions contribute to the problem. That's blaming the victim in a nutshell.
    No, but whatever

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Just to say that CK and I have agreed to drop our bit of dialogue. I'm going to concentrate my efforts on Host Board to see how we can modify effectively our discussion structures for the handling of issues of personal identity. Echoing something said on the No Prophet Hell thread, I think that is the greater good now. But thanks to all who tried to illuminate my puzzlement here. I really have heard what you said.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The simple is asking the question: Why are we sitting segregated? In my experience it boils done to being othered. I am genuinely interested to hear the complication of your situation.

    It appears I've failed already to communicate the complications of the situation!

    The 'it', for us, was not merely why are we sitting segregated. The 'it' was 'is this segregation'; and/or if so, on whose initiative or choosing, if anybody's; and/or did it really matter; and/or did we want or need to 'solve' what might actually not be a problem anyway; and/or if we did, how could we go about it; and/or what was generating the phenomenon to begin with (was it prejudice, exclusion, hatred, fear, hostility, camaraderie, all of/none of the above - in which case did something need to be addressed) as that would obviously be the driver behind whether or not 'solving' the 'problem' was appropriate.

    I'll grant you, asking the the first question is very simple. Answering it usefully and then doing something about it is not. Eg, to use your pattern, the 'simple' is asking the question: why are so many people starving to death. In my experience this boils down to unfair allocation of the earth's resources. But I feel I would be insulting anyone involved in the issue of feeding the world's starving millions, by then stating that I'm genuinely interested to hear the complication of their situation, as if they would have a hard job proving that such complications could possibly exist.

    Anyway, bear in mind, my initial post was in response to Eutychus's query had anyone ever felt as he did etc, and this was my example to say 'Yes, indeed. Many people have felt that way.'



  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Anselmina wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The simple is asking the question: Why are we sitting segregated? In my experience it boils done to being othered. I am genuinely interested to hear the complication of your situation.

    It appears I've failed already to communicate the complications of the situation!

    The 'it', for us, was not merely why are we sitting segregated. The 'it' was 'is this segregation'; and/or if so, on whose initiative or choosing, if anybody's; and/or did it really matter; and/or did we want or need to 'solve' what might actually not be a problem anyway; and/or if we did, how could we go about it; and/or what was generating the phenomenon to begin with (was it prejudice, exclusion, hatred, fear, hostility, camaraderie, all of/none of the above - in which case did something need to be addressed) as that would obviously be the driver behind whether or not 'solving' the 'problem' was appropriate.

    I'll grant you, asking the the first question is very simple. Answering it usefully and then doing something about it is not. Eg, to use your pattern, the 'simple' is asking the question: why are so many people starving to death. In my experience this boils down to unfair allocation of the earth's resources. But I feel I would be insulting anyone involved in the issue of feeding the world's starving millions, by then stating that I'm genuinely interested to hear the complication of their situation, as if they would have a hard job proving that such complications could possibly exist.
    Fair enough. The solution is more complex than I presented. Though, to be fair, I was never suggesting that racism and xenophobia would be solved in that cafeteria, just that the road to working on it was communication. Though, again, I was looking at that in too simplistic a manner.
    Honestly, and apologetically, I was not giving you proper credit for viewing the situation as thoroughly as you have.
This discussion has been closed.