I'll tell you what engages me: attacking people for asking questions. ...
Agreed. Attacking people for asking questions is a tactic designed to shut them up. Asking the same questions over and over (and over) can be problematic, but asking questions is in itself basically a Good Thing.
Lilbuddha, can you not give it a rest? ... lately I feel like you've become the self-appointed conscience of these boards--and a perfectionist one at that. We are none of us absolutely correct in everything we say and think and do, much less post. But by going after NOprophet and Eutychus and who ever else so incredibly persistently and at such incredible length, you give the impression of a person whom nothing can ever satisfy. And frankly, raise sympathy for the people you are ... persecuting??? ...
Yes, that is increasingly my impression, too. It's starting to look more than a little obsessive, and not in the sense that a Greater Good is being pursued here.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I really think the Greater Good is best pursued by modifying our discussion structure for handling issues, often very painful issues, of personal identity. I think our ethos of unrest has served us very well in general but I'm not sure it serves personal identity issues so well.
Trying to preserve posting freedoms for all Shipmates while at the same time recognising there are limits to that is not a very easy trick to pull off. Particularly since there is disagreement about what those limits should be.
On the "just asking questions" thing: depends on the questions and the intent in asking them. Another forum I frequent refers to the repeated questioning in a provocative manner as JAQing off. I think the connotation of selfish indulgence without the desire to be concerned with the feelings of others is bang on the money.
On the "just asking questions" thing: depends on the questions and the intent in asking them. Another forum I frequent refers to the repeated questioning in a provocative manner as JAQing off. I think the connotation of selfish indulgence without the desire to be concerned with the feelings of others is bang on the money.
Yes, and I think this explains a lot of the apparent lack of patience with the "just asking questions" thing.
But intent is notoriously hard to discern online. It seems to me to be far too easy to dismiss all uncomfortable questions as JAQing off.
That sounds like a great recipe for groupthink.
It reminds me of dismissing all uncomfortable questions in church settings by saying the person is "unsubmissive" or "has a rebellious spirit".
Which is why NP's questions were taken seriously and addressed, initially. When it just goes around in circles it starts to look like JAQing. Like the creationist who keeps on asking "but where does the new information come from" when you've been through genetic mutation a hundred times.
No, but when the sources of any queries are tracked back and found to be from sites promoting creationism or anti-transgender, it may be time to challenge the questioner.
<snip> but really, your continued refusal to accept the experiences on the thread and much of the research you are presented with has a stench of transphobia. <snip>
after listing how the same questions had been repeated seven times.
But even then, you cannot be sure of that creationist's intent.
So your argument here is that NPNP isn't transphobic, they're just a clueless moron?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Everyone has blind spots. NPNP has a decent record of posting as a Shipmate on a lot of topics. He's not a notorious derailer or provocateur. Whatever you make of his posts on the Transgender thread, it would be quite wrong to assume the faults you find there represent all there is to say about him.
Yes, that's why the Hell thread only addresses that issue.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
He's not a clueless moron. Surely there's some middle ground between that and a transphobe?
Do you remember E G Marshall's character in the classic movie 12 Angry Men? Sometimes it takes time for the penny to drop. Sometimes quite a lot of time.
But the penny never has a chance to drop at all if the response to questions is to parse them for diseased inner thinking. To be sure you've come across yet another "one of them".
Hell is great for expressing pissed offness. And I think it can help to get the pissed off message out there. Folks don't always realise the impact of their words. But I think we need to remember this.
"You don't make me angry. I make me angry".
Anger is something we choose to express when we run out of patience and self control.
When you get to my age, you've got to be feeling pretty fit to express anger. It's knackering. The adrenaline surge is followed by the adrenaline deficit.
He's not a clueless moron. Surely there's some middle ground between that and a transphobe?
I do not think NP is a clueless moron. I think the simple answer is that he wants support of the position he belives in. That is completely normal and we all do that at one time or another.
Asking the question is not inherently transphobic.
Posting a dodgy link the first time is not inherently transphobic.
Posting them many times, after the problem with their sources are continually brought up? At that point, does it matter if he is transphobic? The result is the same.
Do you remember E G Marshall's character in the classic movie 12 Angry Men? Sometimes it takes time for the penny to drop. Sometimes quite a lot of time.
The thread in Purg is nearly two thousand posts, how long is long enough?
And most of the cast of 12 Angry Men were still fucking racist, even if they got argued into not collectively murdering a black kid.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
How long is long enough? You have my sympathy! I think everyone gets to a certain point where we think we are wasting our time.
But our impatience doesn't prove that the person who is pissing us off is inherently diseased, as opposed to obstinate, or wrong headed. It just means the conversation has been unsatisfactory.
There are a whole lot of different conclusions we can draw at that point.
1. The other party is stupid.
2. The other party has a mental block.
3. Maybe my argument isn't as wonderful as I think it is?
4. Maybe my approach is too assertive?
5. Maybe I have a mental block?
6. The other party is an incorrigible bigot and it's a waste of my time to try any more.
And probably quite a few others.
Sometimes people just need to take a break for reflection. When we've said things publicly, and been attacked for them, it's all to easy to get into a defensive mindset. Losing face is important in combative discussions. Pause for reflection can help.
One of the reasons why I regret not suspending the discussion for repetitiveness is that circularity nearly always illustrates useless polarisation.
The thread in Purg is nearly two thousand posts, how long is long enough?
As you've been advised by Admin Emeritus Ruth (though not, IIRC, in her Official Capacity) to let this issue drop, you haven't. So apparently it's not gone on long enough to suit you. May one ask what (if anything) would make it possible for you to do so at this juncture? What outcome(s) would allow, if not for resolution, at least a kind of "agree-to-disagree" stance?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
And most of the cast of 12 Angry Men were still fucking racist, even if they got argued into not collectively murdering a black kid.
Why should that matter? 12 imperfect men of various ages and various walks of life reach a sound conclusion as a result of the power of a good argument. And 11 change their mind.
I suppose you can argue that the script is flawed in that the jury is all white all male. Certainly some of the characters were demonstrably racist. And given the antiquity of the story I wouldn't be in the least surprised if there were racial overtones scattered throughout the script.
My point was simply that it may take a long time for people to change their minds but they can be helped by good arguments.
Where does "inherently diseased" come from? I haven't seen anyone make such a comment.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Isn't transphobia an inherently diseased mental outlook? I suppose I could have just used the word prejudiced. It amounts to the same thing, at least in my tiny mind.
There's no real significance in the choice of the phrase.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Ohher
Your comment reminded me of a discussion logjam I got into with IngoB about the absolute indissolubility of marriage. So I posted "let's agree to disagree" and he replied "Absolutely not!". Nobody had ever done that to me before. Sometimes polarisation even takes folks to that point.
Isn't transphobia an inherently diseased mental outlook? I suppose I could have just used the word prejudiced. It amounts to the same thing, at least in my tiny mind.
There's no real significance in the choice of the phrase.
Transphobia is not a diseased outlook. Phobias of this nature are like racism. There is no need to look at either within the pathology of disease. Or sin for that matter. Neither outlook is helpful. Prejudice is an extension of our inborn tribalism. The farther terminology gets from the root, the easier it is to dismiss or pretend mitigation.
It is prejudice, plain and simple.
This doesn’t mean we should not try to understand why an individual has come to be prejudiced, nor that we should eschew any sympathy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
lilBuddha
That's the kind of logic chopping IngoB would have been proud of. Since phobias are curable doesn't that make the disease metaphor at least reasonable?
But heck, I really don't mind what you call it. Prejudice, closed mindedness, muddled thinking, inborn tribalism whatever. Edit my post in your mind if you like.
So let me put it this way. I do not believe any of us needs to be stuck with phobias about those who are different simply because our inborn tribalism may produce instinctive aversions and aggressions directed at 'the other'.
I think we can rise above such instinctive aversions and aggressions. But that is going to take insight, maybe illuminated by education, maybe whatever sense of morals we may aspire to.
And in terms of dialogue, no matter how discouraging so far, don't give up. Press the pause button and reflect, particularly if you are really cheesed off. Unsatisfactory conversations are pretty common after all.
Since phobias are curable doesn't that make the disease metaphor at least reasonable?
But heck, I really don't mind what you call it. Prejudice, closed mindedness, muddled thinking, inborn tribalism whatever. Edit my post in your mind if you like.
I don't like anything that makes it easier for people to blame something else. Even the truth about tribalism can be used this way. Fine for discussions amongst those who recognise the problem, but not so much for those who would excuse the behaviour.
So let me put it this way. I do not believe any of us needs to be stuck with phobias about those who are different simply because our inborn tribalism may produce instinctive aversions and aggressions directed at 'the other'.
I think we can rise above such instinctive aversions and aggressions. But that is going to take insight, maybe illuminated by education, maybe whatever sense of morals we may aspire to.
We can rise above our instincts, or redirect them by redefining who we consider us. But also by learning about others, the failure of which is the subject of this thread.
And in terms of dialogue, no matter how discouraging so far, don't give up. Press the pause button and reflect, particularly if you are really cheesed off. Unsatisfactory conversations are pretty common after all.
It is more difficult to hit the pause button when one is personally affected or one can relate via similar circumstance. Especially in modern times, the idea seems similar to "Go Slow" as referenced by this song (video) (lyrics)
It is always those disadvantaged that are expected to be patient and understanding. This is never anything but fucked up.
I remember Bingo. Pitiless, Rigid, Implacable, Clever, and Knowledgeable.
There's a lot of doubt about his being either clever or knowledgeable.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
lilBuddha
As I said earlier, giving up on someone is always an option, once you judge they are incorrigibly bigoted. If after reflection and venting, that's where you're at, so be it. I'm not counselling perfection.
It may be something about me. I think I'm quite strongly influenced by an observation by a 19th Century missionary reflecting on a nonconformist schism. Something along these lines.
"I would rather remain in fellowship with someone, no matter how flawed I perceive them to be, for the sake of the spark of light I see within them, than separate from them and by so doing, also do something to put out that spark".
I feel that way about a number of, to me, deeply flawed ex Shipmates. I don't miss their BS. But in a strange way I do miss them. I find it hard to give up on people. Even when I've been on the receiving end of their hurtful BS.
But I respect other people's limits.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Perhaps worth adding. I certainly don't count Grayface in that category. And I definitely miss Grayface. We communicated a lot in the early days and I always found the exchanges very beneficial. I'm sorry she left .
Which is why I'm concentrating my thoughts on structural improvements to reduce the risk of similar departures. It's not as easy a fix as you might think.
I miss IngoB, but he didn't endear himself to people by using the Ship as a debating chamber to slug out things he wanted to resolve in a no holds barred debating style. I also didn't read a lot of threads when he was involved because that relentless in depth posting on a topic that I was only slightly interested in was not always that engaging.
(I got fed up with him insisting that laws were changed to liberalise society and then look at what happened, we had this terrible society. We did manage to demonstrate to him that actually, laws are redrafted in response to changes in society, and he did, grudgingly, agree eventually. But that was hard work - and ken was arguing for the same thesis and against IngoB)
Going back to @Barnabas62's point, I think that there are problems with language here. The current use of the word transphobia, according to Wikipedia,
encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. <snip>
Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism and sexism
And I guess that's the problem, because there is no other word to describe a negative attitude to or discrimination against transgender, but the word can also describe
fear, aversion, hatred, violence also Wikipedia
So trying to describe a negative attitude towards transgender using the word transphobia does not necessarily mean an assumption of disease, just a persistent negative attitude.
But our impatience doesn't prove that the person who is pissing us off is inherently diseased, as opposed to obstinate, or wrong headed. It just means the conversation has been unsatisfactory.
There are a whole lot of different conclusions we can draw at that point.
1. The other party is stupid.
2. The other party has a mental block.
3. Maybe my argument isn't as wonderful as I think it is?
4. Maybe my approach is too assertive?
5. Maybe I have a mental block?
6. The other party is an incorrigible bigot and it's a waste of my time to try any more.
And probably quite a few others.
Sometimes people just need to take a break for reflection. When we've said things publicly, and been attacked for them, it's all to easy to get into a defensive mindset. Losing face is important in combative discussions. Pause for reflection can help.
One of the reasons why I regret not suspending the discussion for repetitiveness is that circularity nearly always illustrates useless polarisation.
At the point I called NOprophet to Hell, there was a circularity to the argument, but the argument was dying down. What triggered the Hell call was two things happening simultaneously: firstly, NOprophet posted something that was seen (not just by me) as repetition, and met by a few responses of that this had already been discussed. Secondly, quantpole had just joined the thread and challenged the responses saying that this had already been discussed. And I couldn't, under Ship rules, make the argument showing how many times this had been raised by NOprophet without taking it to Hell, because if I'd done that in Purgatory I'd have been warned that I was being personal.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Very much yes to all of that. I'm considering a course of action.
I miss Grayface too - I joined the Ship because of Grayface. Not that she'll remember. My first post on the Ship was a pm to her answering the question she'd posed in Eccles. And we did have a fair bit of pm conversation too, back a decade ago.
because there is no other word to describe a negative attitude to or discrimination against
I disagree. I think the word "prejudice" does the job perfectly. It does not, um, prejudge sentiment. Whereas there have been clear attempts recently by some to try and make "prejudice" equal "hatred", and thus reframe the debate in far more emotive language by stealth, casting all those who disagree in the role of "haters". There's no room for dialogue there.
I value the Ship as a place to overcome prejudices on all sides, get people talking across the boundaries.
And I guess that's the problem, because there is no other word to describe a negative attitude to or discrimination against transgender,
referring to transphobia
A negative attitude does not necessarily indicate prejudice, certainly not in my mind. I come from an education background and have spent a lot of time in real life countering negative attitudes to race and homosexuality - referred to as racism and homophobia, respectively.
You only have to look at "my" Hell thread to see the attempts to read into the word "transphobia" something way beyond "negative attitude". And "discrimination" is a completely different thing to attitude. Discrimination can be objectively demonstrated; attitudes cannot. Discrimination does not connote to phobia or hatred, whoever the victim is.
I also dislike the term "homophobia" for the same reason.
One of the problems in discussing these issues (in general, not just on the Ship) is the way language has been manipulated in favour of extreme and emotive terms (and to my mind, thought patterns have been manipulated by redefining the language available to discuss those issues). Sometimes those terms are appropriate, but sometimes they're not.
And I guess that's the problem, because there is no other word to describe a negative attitude to or discrimination against transgender,
referring to transphobia
A negative attitude does not necessarily indicate prejudice, certainly not in my mind. I come from an education background and have spent a lot of time in real life countering negative attitudes to race and homosexuality - referred to as racism and homophobia, respectively.
What?! a negative attitude towards a whole group of people would, by definition, be prejudice.
And "discrimination" is a completely different thing to attitude. Discrimination can be objectively demonstrated; attitudes cannot. Discrimination does not connote to phobia or hatred, whoever the victim is.
Rubbish. Attitudes contribute to discrimination, they are not distinct things. Attitudes can hide one's prejudiced behaviour from oneself.
I also dislike the term "homophobia" for the same reason.
One of the problems in discussing these issues (in general, not just on the Ship) is the way language has been manipulated in favour of extreme and emotive terms (and to my mind, thought patterns have been manipulated by redefining the language available to discuss those issues). Sometimes those terms are appropriate, but sometimes they're not.
Again rubbish. Ignorance of the language causes misunderstandings. Find a better term if you can, but the ones demonstrated thus far are more for hiding behind than addressing the problem.
Comments
Pretty damn close.
Yes, that is increasingly my impression, too. It's starting to look more than a little obsessive, and not in the sense that a Greater Good is being pursued here.
Trying to preserve posting freedoms for all Shipmates while at the same time recognising there are limits to that is not a very easy trick to pull off. Particularly since there is disagreement about what those limits should be.
Yes, and I think this explains a lot of the apparent lack of patience with the "just asking questions" thing.
That sounds like a great recipe for groupthink.
It reminds me of dismissing all uncomfortable questions in church settings by saying the person is "unsubmissive" or "has a rebellious spirit".
Which is why NP's questions were taken seriously and addressed, initially. When it just goes around in circles it starts to look like JAQing. Like the creationist who keeps on asking "but where does the new information come from" when you've been through genetic mutation a hundred times.
If you look, my opening post on this thread said:
after listing how the same questions had been repeated seven times.
So your argument here is that NPNP isn't transphobic, they're just a clueless moron?
Do you remember E G Marshall's character in the classic movie 12 Angry Men? Sometimes it takes time for the penny to drop. Sometimes quite a lot of time.
But the penny never has a chance to drop at all if the response to questions is to parse them for diseased inner thinking. To be sure you've come across yet another "one of them".
Hell is great for expressing pissed offness. And I think it can help to get the pissed off message out there. Folks don't always realise the impact of their words. But I think we need to remember this.
"You don't make me angry. I make me angry".
Anger is something we choose to express when we run out of patience and self control.
When you get to my age, you've got to be feeling pretty fit to express anger. It's knackering. The adrenaline surge is followed by the adrenaline deficit.
is brilliant. Off to the Quotes files with you (provided I can figure out how).
Asking the question is not inherently transphobic.
Posting a dodgy link the first time is not inherently transphobic.
Posting them many times, after the problem with their sources are continually brought up? At that point, does it matter if he is transphobic? The result is the same.
The thread in Purg is nearly two thousand posts, how long is long enough?
But our impatience doesn't prove that the person who is pissing us off is inherently diseased, as opposed to obstinate, or wrong headed. It just means the conversation has been unsatisfactory.
There are a whole lot of different conclusions we can draw at that point.
1. The other party is stupid.
2. The other party has a mental block.
3. Maybe my argument isn't as wonderful as I think it is?
4. Maybe my approach is too assertive?
5. Maybe I have a mental block?
6. The other party is an incorrigible bigot and it's a waste of my time to try any more.
And probably quite a few others.
Sometimes people just need to take a break for reflection. When we've said things publicly, and been attacked for them, it's all to easy to get into a defensive mindset. Losing face is important in combative discussions. Pause for reflection can help.
One of the reasons why I regret not suspending the discussion for repetitiveness is that circularity nearly always illustrates useless polarisation.
As you've been advised by Admin Emeritus Ruth (though not, IIRC, in her Official Capacity) to let this issue drop, you haven't. So apparently it's not gone on long enough to suit you. May one ask what (if anything) would make it possible for you to do so at this juncture? What outcome(s) would allow, if not for resolution, at least a kind of "agree-to-disagree" stance?
Why should that matter? 12 imperfect men of various ages and various walks of life reach a sound conclusion as a result of the power of a good argument. And 11 change their mind.
I suppose you can argue that the script is flawed in that the jury is all white all male. Certainly some of the characters were demonstrably racist. And given the antiquity of the story I wouldn't be in the least surprised if there were racial overtones scattered throughout the script.
My point was simply that it may take a long time for people to change their minds but they can be helped by good arguments.
There's no real significance in the choice of the phrase.
Your comment reminded me of a discussion logjam I got into with IngoB about the absolute indissolubility of marriage. So I posted "let's agree to disagree" and he replied "Absolutely not!". Nobody had ever done that to me before. Sometimes polarisation even takes folks to that point.
It is prejudice, plain and simple.
This doesn’t mean we should not try to understand why an individual has come to be prejudiced, nor that we should eschew any sympathy.
In my defence, it did come right after my post, but still a check to the old ego.
That's the kind of logic chopping IngoB would have been proud of. Since phobias are curable doesn't that make the disease metaphor at least reasonable?
But heck, I really don't mind what you call it. Prejudice, closed mindedness, muddled thinking, inborn tribalism whatever. Edit my post in your mind if you like.
So let me put it this way. I do not believe any of us needs to be stuck with phobias about those who are different simply because our inborn tribalism may produce instinctive aversions and aggressions directed at 'the other'.
I think we can rise above such instinctive aversions and aggressions. But that is going to take insight, maybe illuminated by education, maybe whatever sense of morals we may aspire to.
And in terms of dialogue, no matter how discouraging so far, don't give up. Press the pause button and reflect, particularly if you are really cheesed off. Unsatisfactory conversations are pretty common after all.
I don't like anything that makes it easier for people to blame something else. Even the truth about tribalism can be used this way. Fine for discussions amongst those who recognise the problem, but not so much for those who would excuse the behaviour.
We can rise above our instincts, or redirect them by redefining who we consider us. But also by learning about others, the failure of which is the subject of this thread.
It is more difficult to hit the pause button when one is personally affected or one can relate via similar circumstance. Especially in modern times, the idea seems similar to "Go Slow" as referenced by this song (video) (lyrics)
It is always those disadvantaged that are expected to be patient and understanding. This is never anything but fucked up.
Hear.
There's a lot of doubt about his being either clever or knowledgeable.
As I said earlier, giving up on someone is always an option, once you judge they are incorrigibly bigoted. If after reflection and venting, that's where you're at, so be it. I'm not counselling perfection.
It may be something about me. I think I'm quite strongly influenced by an observation by a 19th Century missionary reflecting on a nonconformist schism. Something along these lines.
"I would rather remain in fellowship with someone, no matter how flawed I perceive them to be, for the sake of the spark of light I see within them, than separate from them and by so doing, also do something to put out that spark".
I feel that way about a number of, to me, deeply flawed ex Shipmates. I don't miss their BS. But in a strange way I do miss them. I find it hard to give up on people. Even when I've been on the receiving end of their hurtful BS.
But I respect other people's limits.
Which is why I'm concentrating my thoughts on structural improvements to reduce the risk of similar departures. It's not as easy a fix as you might think.
(I got fed up with him insisting that laws were changed to liberalise society and then look at what happened, we had this terrible society. We did manage to demonstrate to him that actually, laws are redrafted in response to changes in society, and he did, grudgingly, agree eventually. But that was hard work - and ken was arguing for the same thesis and against IngoB)
Going back to @Barnabas62's point, I think that there are problems with language here. The current use of the word transphobia, according to Wikipedia, And I guess that's the problem, because there is no other word to describe a negative attitude to or discrimination against transgender, but the word can also describe So trying to describe a negative attitude towards transgender using the word transphobia does not necessarily mean an assumption of disease, just a persistent negative attitude.
At the point I called NOprophet to Hell, there was a circularity to the argument, but the argument was dying down. What triggered the Hell call was two things happening simultaneously: firstly, NOprophet posted something that was seen (not just by me) as repetition, and met by a few responses of that this had already been discussed. Secondly, quantpole had just joined the thread and challenged the responses saying that this had already been discussed. And I couldn't, under Ship rules, make the argument showing how many times this had been raised by NOprophet without taking it to Hell, because if I'd done that in Purgatory I'd have been warned that I was being personal.
I miss Grayface too - I joined the Ship because of Grayface. Not that she'll remember. My first post on the Ship was a pm to her answering the question she'd posed in Eccles. And we did have a fair bit of pm conversation too, back a decade ago.
I disagree. I think the word "prejudice" does the job perfectly. It does not, um, prejudge sentiment. Whereas there have been clear attempts recently by some to try and make "prejudice" equal "hatred", and thus reframe the debate in far more emotive language by stealth, casting all those who disagree in the role of "haters". There's no room for dialogue there.
I value the Ship as a place to overcome prejudices on all sides, get people talking across the boundaries.
A negative attitude does not necessarily indicate prejudice, certainly not in my mind. I come from an education background and have spent a lot of time in real life countering negative attitudes to race and homosexuality - referred to as racism and homophobia, respectively.
I also dislike the term "homophobia" for the same reason.
One of the problems in discussing these issues (in general, not just on the Ship) is the way language has been manipulated in favour of extreme and emotive terms (and to my mind, thought patterns have been manipulated by redefining the language available to discuss those issues). Sometimes those terms are appropriate, but sometimes they're not.
Again rubbish. Ignorance of the language causes misunderstandings. Find a better term if you can, but the ones demonstrated thus far are more for hiding behind than addressing the problem.