But then, what do you do with a person who's life has been 95% shit, and admits that fact, but who still thanks God for the one good thing that has come their direction recently? Is there no room for a Christian who believes that, yes, "shit happens," but God sometimes interferes as well? Must we say that, because God does not ALWAYS interfere with the shit (or even often), therefore he never does?
I'm asking because this is me.
My life has had a much higher than normal level of shit (believe me, I don't discuss the bulk of it here or anywhere, for good reasons, who the hell would believe it?) and yet I still credit God for the good that does come my way. Am I an idiot, then? Or somehow unfaithful and abusive to my fellow shit survivors because I dare to speak of a God who cares at all?
The last is usually what I get. People who get angry with me because I'm not angry with God, and I should be, on their view. Because I'm letting down the human side if I don't hate him for what I've been through. And then they re-focus their anger at God on me, because I'm around, and I'm kickable.
And frankly, this is just one more layer of shit that happens to me, and it gets really old.
I'm going to go shut up now and stop inflicting myself on you, at least for a while. Because you don't need my crabbiness.
But then, what do you do with a person who's life has been 95% shit, and admits that fact, but who still thanks God for the one good thing that has come their direction recently? Is there no room for a Christian who believes that, yes, "shit happens," but God sometimes interferes as well? Must we say that, because God does not ALWAYS interfere with the shit (or even often), therefore he never does?
I'm asking because this is me.
My life has had a much higher than normal level of shit (believe me, I don't discuss the bulk of it here or anywhere, for good reasons, who the hell would believe it?) and yet I still credit God for the good that does come my way. Am I an idiot, then? Or somehow unfaithful and abusive to my fellow shit survivors because I dare to speak of a God who cares at all?
The last is usually what I get. People who get angry with me because I'm not angry with God, and I should be, on their view. Because I'm letting down the human side if I don't hate him for what I've been through. And then they re-focus their anger at God on me, because I'm around, and I'm kickable.
And frankly, this is just one more layer of shit that happens to me, and it gets really old.
I'm going to go shut up now and stop inflicting myself on you, at least for a while. Because you don't need my crabbiness.
But then, what do you do with a person who's life has been 95% shit, and admits that fact, but who still thanks God for the one good thing that has come their direction recently? Is there no room for a Christian who believes that, yes, "shit happens," but God sometimes interferes as well? Must we say that, because God does not ALWAYS interfere with the shit (or even often), therefore he never does?
I'm asking because this is me.
My life has had a much higher than normal level of shit (believe me, I don't discuss the bulk of it here or anywhere, for good reasons, who the hell would believe it?) and yet I still credit God for the good that does come my way. Am I an idiot, then? Or somehow unfaithful and abusive to my fellow shit survivors because I dare to speak of a God who cares at all?
The last is usually what I get. People who get angry with me because I'm not angry with God, and I should be, on their view. Because I'm letting down the human side if I don't hate him for what I've been through. And then they re-focus their anger at God on me, because I'm around, and I'm kickable.
And frankly, this is just one more layer of shit that happens to me, and it gets really old.
I'm going to go shut up now and stop inflicting myself on you, at least for a while. Because you don't need my crabbiness.
Honestly? I've learned that, in a certain Protestant sense, everyone has their own way of dealing with God. And - most all the time - it is exceedingly rude for me to use my own particular traumas to target someone else's coping strategies. As I learned in seminary, "Pain goes out, comfort goes in. Don't tell people how to cope."
The context for the conversation I referenced before was - shall we say - an environment where we were encouraged to push each other's buttons and that was one reason I got a little jumpier in that particular space.
Also I think this is what I mean when I say that I prefer to leave the door open to the numinous, I don't rule it out that God can do stuff, and if someone speaks to me in a general sense, I can be happy for them, I think earnestly, and keep my private doubts to myself. I just have prickles about it. And I'm not really angry at God for things, I just don't know that I'm persuaded that God micromanages reality on my behalf.
There's a fantastic book on suffering written by a Lutheran Seminarian who died back in the 1990s, of cystic fibrosis, called Naked Before God: The Return of Broken Disciple. That the author lived as long as he did (late 30s, I think) was what some might call a miracle worked out between God and modern medicine. And he described developing an image in CPE: that we're all carrying our own particular wagons across a blasted hellscape, just trying to get from one side to the other. And it's important that you know to mind your own wagon and not get too fussed about other people's. Maybe they'll show you something, maybe you can comment, but don't go around rearranging other people's stuff.* That's dangerously rude. We're all trying to get to the same place.
My post on this thread I think was because I felt like @ChastMastr was fishing for a certain kind of emotional sense. While wandering around in my own mental space, I tripped on that particular old barb. In truth, as I am older and wiser than I was 12 or so years ago, I'm a lot more circumspect when it comes to how other people handle stuff. And knowing where my buttons are, I can manage them more sensibly.
And on the margins, it's probably a good thing I'm a layperson and thus not burdened with professional responsibility for other people's spiritual welfare.
I don't call people idiots. And while I can have an attitude about certain theologies, I try to keep in mind that what I'm dealing with are spirits, not tangible people. There's no use taking your frustration at an ideology out on a flesh and blood person.
*I might privately add a qualifier that there might be people with professional training who can help people rearrange their luggage, but I'm not trained in that kind of work, even if I have strong opinions sometimes.
But then, what do you do with a person who's life has been 95% shit, and admits that fact, but who still thanks God for the one good thing that has come their direction recently? Is there no room for a Christian who believes that, yes, "shit happens," but God sometimes interferes as well? Must we say that, because God does not ALWAYS interfere with the shit (or even often), therefore he never does?
I'm asking because this is me.
My life has had a much higher than normal level of shit (believe me, I don't discuss the bulk of it here or anywhere, for good reasons, who the hell would believe it?) and yet I still credit God for the good that does come my way. Am I an idiot, then? Or somehow unfaithful and abusive to my fellow shit survivors because I dare to speak of a God who cares at all?
The last is usually what I get. People who get angry with me because I'm not angry with God, and I should be, on their view. Because I'm letting down the human side if I don't hate him for what I've been through. And then they re-focus their anger at God on me, because I'm around, and I'm kickable.
And frankly, this is just one more layer of shit that happens to me, and it gets really old.
I'm going to go shut up now and stop inflicting myself on you, at least for a while. Because you don't need my crabbiness.
Honestly? I've learned that, in a certain Protestant sense, everyone has their own way of dealing with God. And - most all the time - it is exceedingly rude for me to use my own particular traumas to target someone else's coping strategies. As I learned in seminary, "Pain goes out, comfort goes in. Don't tell people how to cope."
The context for the conversation I referenced before was - shall we say - an environment where we were encouraged to push each other's buttons and that was one reason I got a little jumpier in that particular space.
Also I think this is what I mean when I say that I prefer to leave the door open to the numinous, I don't rule it out that God can do stuff, and if someone speaks to me in a general sense, I can be happy for them, I think earnestly, and keep my private doubts to myself. I just have prickles about it. And I'm not really angry at God for things, I just don't know that I'm persuaded that God micromanages reality on my behalf.
There's a fantastic book on suffering written by a Lutheran Seminarian who died back in the 1990s, of cystic fibrosis, called Naked Before God: The Return of Broken Disciple. That the author lived as long as he did (late 30s, I think) was what some might call a miracle worked out between God and modern medicine. And he described developing an image in CPE: that we're all carrying our own particular wagons across a blasted hellscape, just trying to get from one side to the other. And it's important that you know to mind your own wagon and not get too fussed about other people's. Maybe they'll show you something, maybe you can comment, but don't go around rearranging other people's stuff.* That's dangerously rude. We're all trying to get to the same place.
My post on this thread I think was because I felt like @ChastMastr was fishing for a certain kind of emotional sense. While wandering around in my own mental space, I tripped on that particular old barb. In truth, as I am older and wiser than I was 12 or so years ago, I'm a lot more circumspect when it comes to how other people handle stuff. And knowing where my buttons are, I can manage them more sensibly.
And on the margins, it's probably a good thing I'm a layperson and thus not burdened with professional responsibility for other people's spiritual welfare.
I don't call people idiots. And while I can have an attitude about certain theologies, I try to keep in mind that what I'm dealing with are spirits, not tangible people. There's no use taking your frustration at an ideology out on a flesh and blood person.
*I might privately add a qualifier that there might be people with professional training who can help people rearrange their luggage, but I'm not trained in that kind of work, even if I have strong opinions sometimes.
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance. (Another example might be someone who generally believes in capitalism to some degree, but not in a libertarian way, or who believes in socialism to some degree, but not in an actual Marxist way, who often runs into people who take it to either extreme.) In some circles, one can be committed to what one believes, but still see that another side has a point, even if we don’t agree with the solution that other side might suggest—but if we dare to say “look at how they see it” or suggest trying to build bridges, one’s own side might look at us and point, emitting the unholy shriek Donald Sutherland did at the end of the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough. (I’m not a political conservative nowadays, but it’s like the far-right Republicans calling more moderate ones “RINOs,” “Republicans in name only,” and I’ve seen it on the left too.)
@Lamb Chopped I don't preclude the possibility of God acting miraculously - I specifically said that. However, for statements like "God will keep you safe" to be true, then it needs to work all the time - not only exceptionally, or it grants no confidence or reassurance at all. Perhaps I interpret statements like "God will keep you safe" differently to other people, I don't know.
@ChastMastr there're two situations where you get RINO type accusations. One is where one faction within a movement or party declares another long standing faction no longer kosher. The other is a reaction to entryism - where a group tries to legitimise themselves within a movement or party that did not historically include them.
My feeling is that with the RINO thing we've got the former going on; left wing objections to the centre-rightish "capitalism with a smilier face" e.g. Blair/Starmer Labour Party feel more like the latter. But then I would say that wouldn't I?
(In my case I’m on the liberal political side, the traditionalist/orthodox Christian side, the LGBTQ side, a very old-school philosophy side, but I find myself at odds with the way some things go at times in each of them. More on this later…)
...I would still say, however, that the theological/philosophical matters are still a very important part of reality.
I'd say that your philosophy and theology are essentialist, but that your politics (social politics, identity politics, gender politics, etc) appear to reflect a mixture of progressive and essentialist views. Amongst other things, this could lead you to identify with "sides" containing people who don't actually share much of your underlying ideology.
...
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance.
...
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough.
Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes.
Essentialist views are inherently progressive. Anti-essentialist views are inherently conservative or reactionary.
It's really only the effect of sides-taking that makes people think otherwise. That is people on the reactionary side use the label essentialism as a banner to rally behind, and vice versa.
(With the caveat that essentialism as a fundamental principle is compatible with and may require rejecting essentialism about less fundamental points.)
@Dafyd surely that's backwards? I would suggest that essentialism is essentially conservative, because there is no alternative, and any kind of autonomy or even interpretation is impossible.
If I assume that my interpretation is inherently right and no other interpretation is possible I am saying there is no gap between how I understand things and how things are. This makes the concept of "how things are independently of how I understand things" empty, which is effectively anti-essentialist.
If I admit a possible difference between my understanding or interpretation and how things are - the possibility that I may be wrong - than that's effectively an essentialist position.
Essentialism as a logical position is the opposite of essentialism as a rhetorical banner used to rally around.
Beliefs which posit that social identities such as race, ethnicity, nationality, or gender are essential characteristics have been central to many discriminatory or extremist ideologies. For instance, psychological essentialism is correlated with racial prejudice. Essentialist views about race have also been shown to diminish empathy when dealing with members of another racial group. In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities, leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.
As one of ex work colleagues put it, I have a penchant for minorities. My touchstone? “The majority is always wrong”.
Actually I don’t believe that entirely! The more I’ve experienced life, I realise the side I’m on is not the minority. It’s the oppressed. I don’t believe anybody deserves to be oppressed. And I’m not sure there’s a weakness on that side.
(In my case I’m on the liberal political side, the traditionalist/orthodox Christian side, the LGBTQ side, a very old-school philosophy side, but I find myself at odds with the way some things go at times in each of them. More on this later…)
...I would still say, however, that the theological/philosophical matters are still a very important part of reality.
I'd say that your philosophy and theology are essentialist, but that your politics (social politics, identity politics, gender politics, etc) appear to reflect a mixture of progressive and essentialist views. Amongst other things, this could lead you to identify with "sides" containing people who don't actually share much of your underlying ideology.
...
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance.
...
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough.
Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes.
Absolutely, on both counts. My reasoning for some of my politics which would be considered "liberal" these days stems very much from "old-fashioned" beliefs. For example, for years in the conservative bubble I was in, it was taken for granted that the right/Christian view of government was something close to libertarianism, at least economically--that taxation was intrinsically theft, etc., that sort of thing. (One of my roommates in college adored Thomas Sowell, etc.) But when I read older (centuries older) writings (say about the views of the most Christian/saintly rulers of the past), I found that the ones considered the best rulers were the ones who helped the poor, enriched the common people in various ways, etc. So some of my roots for believing in liberal politics stem specifically from much older, and definitely philosophically essentialist notions.
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance. (Another example might be someone who generally believes in capitalism to some degree, but not in a libertarian way, or who believes in socialism to some degree, but not in an actual Marxist way, who often runs into people who take it to either extreme.) In some circles, one can be committed to what one believes, but still see that another side has a point, even if we don’t agree with the solution that other side might suggest—but if we dare to say “look at how they see it” or suggest trying to build bridges, one’s own side might look at us and point, emitting the unholy shriek Donald Sutherland did at the end of the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough. (I’m not a political conservative nowadays, but it’s like the far-right Republicans calling more moderate ones “RINOs,” “Republicans in name only,” and I’ve seen it on the left too.)
I respect your claim to not having emotions, but I think the word belief always carries an emotional content. Belief is thought with a feeling of loyalty. So, I'm not gonna tell you what you're feeling, but as soon as the conversation goes into matters of loyalty, especially in political questions, I question whether anyone is truly devoid of feeling or emotion.
And there's no shame in being emotional. We all have investments to protect. And sometimes, oddly for me, it makes it easier to understand people when you can logically know where their emotional investments are.
For instance, my aunt, mom's twin, was very conservative. We didn't talk politics much, but I remember once briefly having it come up over the phone and she said "Yes, I know, but my beliefs are very important to me." She was very emotionally attached to the idea that gay marriage was objectively wrong and should not be sanctioned by the federal government. It was deeply bound up in her religious identity.
I didn't dig into that too much, and I didn't know how far she had. It's not the kind of conversation I usually go into without some kind of explicit consent given first (unlike here, haha.) And I held back my tongue from saying "well, my friends' marriage license is pretty personal to them as well, which I hope you could understand."
But there's a sense that, empathetically, this is a pain point and I'm willing - to a degree - to try to respect that. Of course, as my stifled retort implies, it does require a certain reciprocity that is often lacking in politics.
And ah ha! That's where a lot of this excess comes out of. It's bad faith. If I truly know I can trust you to say, for instance, "I love you enough to vote against a candidate that will prohibit your sinful lifestyle," as convoluted as that may seem, it may be an easier conversation.
But in politics, trust isn't cheap, and so even little conversations can feel like skirmishes in what is - truthfully - a war by conversational means. And sometimes there's more honor in an honest toe-to-toe argument where
@ChastMastr Another thing...sheesh, this stuff gets complex but I feel like politics is one of my specialties...
People say "Extremist" and "Radical" like they're synonyms. "Extremist" implies the extremity, the outer limit of something. "Radical" implies the radish, the root of something. And these are opposite words, but they're really closely tied together in political groups.
I work with disabled adults. You might say my concern for people with disabilities is extreme. If I see something threatening people in my care, I'll take that personally. That's where one of my big roots is.
If you don't care as much, you might think I'm an extremist on that topic. You'll think I'm being unreasonably angry about, say, medicaid cuts, or tax policy, or the role of government. And I might think you're just inadequately concerned.
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I think we all walk around with our own personal circles of "reasonable." We are radically centered at one point, and we have a range of acceptable, and things outside that range look "extreme." It can be a useful exercise to reach out to others, and this does require a certain reciprocity, and per my previous post, the expectation of reciprocity can get very uncomfortable very quickly in some circles. When it gets asymmetrical, it can feel like bad faith. And bad faith is what fights are made of.
BTW, thanks for making me think all this stuff out. I think I've been mulling on it for years but haven't bothered to articulate it formally.
Beliefs which posit that social identities such as race, ethnicity, nationality, or gender are essential characteristics have been central to many discriminatory or extremist ideologies. For instance, psychological essentialism is correlated with racial prejudice. Essentialist views about race have also been shown to diminish empathy when dealing with members of another racial group. In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities, leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.
The kind of essentialism I am thinking of here is philosophical essentialism, as opposed to existentialism (which has had its own thread some months back--see below), i.e., that there is intrinsic meaning to at least some things, not human-invented but human-discovered. (Whether gender, or in certain cases ethnicity (like being Jewish, for instance) is one of those things (or not) would go into Epiphanies, and would be its own thread.)
For anyone who is interested in the other thread, here is a link:
(In my case I’m on the liberal political side, the traditionalist/orthodox Christian side, the LGBTQ side, a very old-school philosophy side, but I find myself at odds with the way some things go at times in each of them. More on this later…)
...I would still say, however, that the theological/philosophical matters are still a very important part of reality.
I'd say that your philosophy and theology are essentialist, but that your politics (social politics, identity politics, gender politics, etc) appear to reflect a mixture of progressive and essentialist views. Amongst other things, this could lead you to identify with "sides" containing people who don't actually share much of your underlying ideology.
...
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance.
...
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough.
Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes.
Absolutely, on both counts. My reasoning for some of my politics which would be considered "liberal" these days stems very much from "old-fashioned" beliefs. For example, for years in the conservative bubble I was in, it was taken for granted that the right/Christian view of government was something close to libertarianism, at least economically--that taxation was intrinsically theft, etc., that sort of thing. (One of my roommates in college adored Thomas Sowell, etc.) But when I read older (centuries older) writings (say about the views of the most Christian/saintly rulers of the past), I found that the ones considered the best rulers were the ones who helped the poor, enriched the common people in various ways, etc. So some of my roots for believing in liberal politics stem specifically from much older, and definitely philosophically essentialist notions.
Though I would add that, at least in politics, re "Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes," we definitely see people (politicians, etc.) in the public square doing this, not only on social media, but very loudly, attacking their opponents for not being "extreme" enough (like the "RINO" thing mentioned above).
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance. (Another example might be someone who generally believes in capitalism to some degree, but not in a libertarian way, or who believes in socialism to some degree, but not in an actual Marxist way, who often runs into people who take it to either extreme.) In some circles, one can be committed to what one believes, but still see that another side has a point, even if we don’t agree with the solution that other side might suggest—but if we dare to say “look at how they see it” or suggest trying to build bridges, one’s own side might look at us and point, emitting the unholy shriek Donald Sutherland did at the end of the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough. (I’m not a political conservative nowadays, but it’s like the far-right Republicans calling more moderate ones “RINOs,” “Republicans in name only,” and I’ve seen it on the left too.)
I respect your claim to not having emotions, but I think the word belief always carries an emotional content. Belief is thought with a feeling of loyalty. So, I'm not gonna tell you what you're feeling, but as soon as the conversation goes into matters of loyalty, especially in political questions, I question whether anyone is truly devoid of feeling or emotion.
And there's no shame in being emotional. We all have investments to protect. And sometimes, oddly for me, it makes it easier to understand people when you can logically know where their emotional investments are.
For instance, my aunt, mom's twin, was very conservative. We didn't talk politics much, but I remember once briefly having it come up over the phone and she said "Yes, I know, but my beliefs are very important to me." She was very emotionally attached to the idea that gay marriage was objectively wrong and should not be sanctioned by the federal government. It was deeply bound up in her religious identity.
I didn't dig into that too much, and I didn't know how far she had. It's not the kind of conversation I usually go into without some kind of explicit consent given first (unlike here, haha.) And I held back my tongue from saying "well, my friends' marriage license is pretty personal to them as well, which I hope you could understand."
But there's a sense that, empathetically, this is a pain point and I'm willing - to a degree - to try to respect that. Of course, as my stifled retort implies, it does require a certain reciprocity that is often lacking in politics.
And ah ha! That's where a lot of this excess comes out of. It's bad faith. If I truly know I can trust you to say, for instance, "I love you enough to vote against a candidate that will prohibit your sinful lifestyle," as convoluted as that may seem, it may be an easier conversation.
But in politics, trust isn't cheap, and so even little conversations can feel like skirmishes in what is - truthfully - a war by conversational means. And sometimes there's more honor in an honest toe-to-toe argument where
I didn't say I don't have emotions--just that when I talk about belief in general, I'm not talking about emotions. Beliefs can certainly inspire emotions, but not (I believe) always, or in any given person.
If I truly know I can trust you to say, for instance, "I love you enough to vote against a candidate that will prohibit your sinful lifestyle," as convoluted as that may seem, it may be an easier conversation.
Absolutely--one could hold a position regarding (say) free speech, as well, in which they would wholly disagree with what someone else says, but fight for their right to say it.
And sometimes there's more honor in an honest toe-to-toe argument where
Something broke off here... looking at the next post...
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I can see that. (This may or may not change anything other than how carefully one expresses those things, of course.)
BTW, thanks for making me think all this stuff out. I think I've been mulling on it for years but haven't bothered to articulate it formally.
Aw, thank you!
As a side note/reminder, I am talking about issues oneself believes in, but finds others on one's "own side" to take in ways, or to degrees, etc. that one considers unhealthy. A corollary might be those things on one's "own side," particularly in politics, that might be good to push back on or respond to rather than looking the other way. (For example, and this is not about a side I am on, I think that when it comes to the political far right in the US, if the more moderate voices had pushed back more over the years before now, things may not have gotten to this point. So too with whatever one's own side may be, looking at the future.)
I often think of an exchange a Baptist minister friend had with a prominent national Baptist figure here in the UK after a rally featuring a particular US prosperity gospel peddler.
Disturbed by what he'd heard, my friend asked the senior Baptist figure what he'd made of it.
'There's a theological term for this,' came the reply. 'Bollocks.'
Perhaps that would be a good synonym for BS?
In my view there's nothing wrong in using either term to address pious platitudes or self-evident whackadoodlery.
The use of either term doesn't obviate divine intervention or the reality of people's experiences.
A few weeks before Mrs Gamaliel died a well-meaning but misguided clergy-person offered me details of dietary cures for cancer promoted by a US evangelist snake-oil salesman. We had already painfully come to terms with my wife imminent demise and were preparing for it.
In the turmoil his emails and attempts at contact became the focus of my anger and I called 'bollocks' on him in no uncertain terms.
I make no apology for doing so.
I add though, that we have since been reconciled and are on good terms.
None of that contradicts the points @Lamb Chopped made.
To some extent, both are vulgar references to bovine biology. But if some people think that the scrotum is less repellent than the excrement, I suppose that may make the phrasing more palatable. To an American, British swearing often sounds a bit quaint [with notable exceptions] and thus less confrontational, which is not to dilute the meaning of such phrases in England. Admittedly, I've never been there.
The etiquette in such situations is tricky. That's another one where I think the privilege of judgment, if it belongs to any earthly party, belongs to the victim. The difficulty sometimes is assigning victimhood. The worst situation is, as Christopher Hitchens once observed of Palestine, when victims take victims.
To some extent, both are vulgar references to bovine biology. But if some people think that the scrotum is less repellent than the excrement, I suppose that may make the phrasing more palatable. To an American, British swearing often sounds a bit quaint [with notable exceptions] and thus less confrontational, which is not to dilute the meaning of such phrases in England. Admittedly, I've never been there.
The etiquette in such situations is tricky. That's another one where I think the privilege of judgment, if it belongs to any earthly party, belongs to the victim. The difficulty sometimes is assigning victimhood. The worst situation is, as Christopher Hitchens once observed of Palestine, when victims take victims.
The bollocks are not specifically bovine. They can be any male mammal.
Yes, 'the dog's bollocks' for instance can sometimes be heard as a synonym for 'the bee's knees.'
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
If you don't care as much, you might think I'm an extremist on that topic. You'll think I'm being unreasonably angry about, say, medicaid cuts, or tax policy, or the role of government. And I might think you're just inadequately concerned.
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I think we all walk around with our own personal circles of "reasonable." We are radically centered at one point, and we have a range of acceptable, and things outside that range look "extreme." It can be a useful exercise to reach out to others, and this does require a certain reciprocity, and per my previous post, the expectation of reciprocity can get very uncomfortable very quickly in some circles. When it gets asymmetrical, it can feel like bad faith. And bad faith is what fights are made of.
Thank you. That articulates something with which I have been struggling.
I have a relative who, fairly regularly, discovers something which horrifies her, and throws herself into some form of action. She gets angry at us when she thinks we are "inadequately concerned" and treating the issue as "an abstract matter of ideology."
An extreme example was the time that she discovered that, in the dairy industry, male calves do not live long, happy lives grazing in sunlit fields. It had not occurred to her that you don't get milk from bulls. She gave up drinking milk and thought that once she'd explained the whole "only female calves are raised to produce milk" thing to us, we'd give up drinking milk too. But we'd been drinking milk in the full knowledge of where it came from for decades.
We got many accusations of being horrible, horrible people hurled at us until the whole issue gradually faded away, to be replaced by another. Rinse, repeat.
try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
Yes, 'the dog's bollocks' for instance can sometimes be heard as a synonym for 'the bee's knees.'
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
The apocryphal origins being a mid-C20th Spoonerism, first noted in 1949. Definitely 'our' side.
'the dog's bollocks' for instance can sometimes be heard as a synonym for 'the bee's knees.'
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
The apocryphal origins being a mid-C20th Spoonerism, first noted in 1949. Definitely 'our' side.
"The apocryphal origins" of what? Gamma Gamaliel's post that you quote in its entirety has at least three sayings that you could be referring to. And you may have to explain the spoonerism as well. Also, what you mean by 'our' side in this context, since I don't think it's what is meant by 'our side' in the thread title.
...
I have a relative who, fairly regularly, discovers something which horrifies her, and throws herself into some form of action. She gets angry at us when she thinks we are "inadequately concerned" and treating the issue as "an abstract matter of ideology."
...She gave up drinking milk and thought that once she'd explained the whole "only female calves are raised to produce milk" thing to us, we'd give up drinking milk too. But we'd been drinking milk in the full knowledge of where it came from for decades.
We got many accusations of being horrible, horrible people hurled at us until the whole issue gradually faded away, to be replaced by another. Rinse, repeat.
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I think the idea of contrasting "what it is in their social situation" with "what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology" doesn't always apply.
I have relatives who are given to venting at us (and me) about a wide variety of topics in which they are emotionally invested, and which aren't always abstract. And I'm OK with that - I think it's a good thing that they (especially female "they") don't feel constrained about expressing themselves regarding societal issues that matter to them. The converse is also the case (although I try to listen more and speak less these days).
I think we all walk around with our own personal circles of "reasonable." We are radically centered at one point, and we have a range of acceptable, and things outside that range look "extreme."
I liked this conception.
It can be a useful exercise to reach out to others, and this does require a certain reciprocity, and per my previous post, the expectation of reciprocity can get very uncomfortable very quickly in some circles. When it gets asymmetrical, it can feel like bad faith. And bad faith is what fights are made of.
But I'm not sure about this. Some families engage in robust debate. (And I think can be better for it.)
And just to repeat what I said up top about this being about offline interaction. Online behaviour is subject to a different set of constraints. (Or unconstraints).
'the dog's bollocks' for instance can sometimes be heard as a synonym for 'the bee's knees.'
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
The apocryphal origins being a mid-C20th Spoonerism, first noted in 1949. Definitely 'our' side.
"The apocryphal origins" of what? Gamma Gamaliel's post that you quote in its entirety has at least three sayings that you could be referring to. And you may have to explain the spoonerism as well. Also, what you mean by 'our' side in this context, since I don't think it's what is meant by 'our side' in the thread title.
Of his usage of 'the dog's bollocks'?
Spoonerize Box Deluxe.
Our side, of the Pond. And prard of it! Quaint they are not. Clever they are. Working class genius. The finest, the dog's, being Aris' for arse.
@pease they live some distance away, so it's phone calls / private messages etc. There's occasionally a "I can't believe people can be so callous" post on Facebook, but it's never clear who those are aimed at.
There is nothing we would or could vent about in the same way - we get accusations that we are psychotic, callous, narcissists, evil, stupid, ignorant etc etc. It's water off a duck's back, really. If its a video call I do a lot of smiling and nodding. If it's a phone call, I often do a jigsaw while listening.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
I think it depends on how much emotional energy you have to give to her, as opposed to other people who are closer, and whether you think it would make a difference. Would she listen to you? Would engaging more meaningfully make her life better? Yours? Improve your relationship with her? And do you care about that, given finite time and energy? Sometimes smiling and nodding and keeping the peace is the way to go, and sometimes not.
Oh! Animal Rights! I think that's a really good case study for a lot of people. I have had many friends who are vegan by degree and some people who are very sensitive to that. And for me it's in the range of "I completely understand how you feel about that."
I think, realistically, if I was daily made aware of what goes on inside of slaughterhouses, I'd probably heavily cut back on my meat intake. A lot of that stuff is patently horrifying and if you're at all empathic for non-human lifeforms, I get the sense it's really hard to stomach.
Alternatively, you do the rationalization that these are animals bred for meat and that's what they're there for and this is how we can do it cost-effectively.
And of course, once you profit by a system, you're invested, and getting off that investment is really hard if you're in a world of scarcity.
Some folks might feel judged by the observation "Hey! You're protecting personal investments that are skewing your worldview!" but...who isn't? Check the tags on your clothes and say a prayer for whoever stitched together your underwear. We're all mired in an economic system of exploitation. I think it's good to be honest about that.
And some people pick particular areas to have particular empathy, for whatever reason. It might be an attempt to expiate their generalized shame at being rich. It might be because they're emotionally struck. It might be they had close contact with a cow and realized that cows are sensitive animals with brains and feelings and maybe it's not nice to make them live in corrals for our convenience.
That's all perfectly human and perfectly understandable. And most of my friends who are vegan have the sense not to get in my face about this stuff, and I don't get in their face about being precious, because I think in my heart of hearts that they're right. Cruelty for convenience is cruelty. Maybe if I were more honest I'd become vegetarian. But I have only so many battles I can fight at once.
There is one very succinct lesson in politics I got from a mentor politics professor that, perhaps vaguely delivered and unclearly remembered, sticks to me well and makes me feel very fluent in some of these discourses.
Yes! Politics is personal. It is going to hurt. Learn how to take things personally in a mature fashion.
Admittedly, sometimes it's hard to figure out how to do that.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
I think it depends on how much emotional energy you have to give to her, as opposed to other people who are closer, and whether you think it would make a difference. Would she listen to you? Would engaging more meaningfully make her life better? Yours? Improve your relationship with her? And do you care about that, given finite time and energy? Sometimes smiling and nodding and keeping the peace is the way to go, and sometimes not.
I have, as I've gotten older (for context, early 40s, haha) begun to notice that I have limited emotional resources and have had to make those little calculations of what that professor would call "Voice, Loyalty, or Leave" decisions. Sometimes it's "Leave." No shame in it if that's what's best for the relationship, or our respective mental states.
I would think by human nature any approach to one's own side would be unbalanced since on balance of probabilities (or a non-legal term equivalent) you have chosen it to be your side.
I guess I'm reacting to a perceived judgement that I (and others?) are somehow bad because we're not engaging as you'd like us to. I may have entirely misunderstood, and if so, I would welcome being corrected!
Oh heck no! It's more that most posts on the thread are about how other groups, not one's own, were doing that, unless I misunderstood, and people were talking about their own side with regard to Northern Ireland or Hamas or the IDF.
I'll bite the bullet early and give some examples from my own life (which I was going to do after a few more people did so, but if it's only me and @Gamma Gamaliel then I suppose I will need to do so to get things started) if no one else does. People have been seeing my positions on various things a lot lately and I don't want to make the thread all about me...
Yes, 'the dog's bollocks' for instance can sometimes be heard as a synonym for 'the bee's knees.'
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
The apocryphal origins being a mid-C20th Spoonerism, first noted in 1949. Definitely 'our' side.
Just want to mention, since a lot of stuff seems to be increasingly about sides other than one's own, I'm thinking of people on one's own side who take it to an extreme or in ways one considers unhealthy or without proper balance. Like, "I believe in X, and so do my friends, but some of them take it to an extreme or in an unbalanced way," etc. rather than those nasty extremists on the "other" side.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
I think it depends on how much emotional energy you have to give to her, as opposed to other people who are closer, and whether you think it would make a difference. Would she listen to you? Would engaging more meaningfully make her life better? Yours? Improve your relationship with her? And do you care about that, given finite time and energy? Sometimes smiling and nodding and keeping the peace is the way to go, and sometimes not.
I have, as I've gotten older (for context, early 40s, haha) begun to notice that I have limited emotional resources and have had to make those little calculations of what that professor would call "Voice, Loyalty, or Leave" decisions. Sometimes it's "Leave." No shame in it if that's what's best for the relationship, or our respective mental states.
Do you mean you're in your early 40s or you were born in the early 40s? Or that at some point in your past, when you reached your early 40s, you began to notice it?
I tend to cringe with embarrassment when I hear someone arguing a point that I agree with, but using a stupid argument to support it. "Free speech", for example, gets waved around a lot by people who seem to think that it means that you should be able to say anything you like, but nobody should be able to respond to you.
I have, as I've gotten older (for context, early 40s, haha) begun to notice that I have limited emotional resources and have had to make those little calculations of what that professor would call "Voice, Loyalty, or Leave" decisions. Sometimes it's "Leave." No shame in it if that's what's best for the relationship, or our respective mental states.
Do you mean you're in your early 40s or you were born in the early 40s? Or that at some point in your past, when you reached your early 40s, you began to notice it?
Also, what is Voice, Loyalty, or Leave?
In years I'm in my early 40s, born in the early 1980s. And it has been over the past few years that I've noticed that emotional effort costs something and I can't just throw myself into arguments like I used to. There's a calculation that goes on.
"Voice, loyalty, or leave" refers to the options you are given if you're in an organization and object to an instruction, and have some measure of power with which to object.
Voice means expressing your objection to the order, starting a conflict. Loyalty means following the order and ignoring your objection. Leave means resigning from your position in protest of the order.
I think in smaller social interactions, especially social media, there's a similar calculation when someone says something objectionable. You can express your disagreement. You can continue interacting while ignoring the disagreement. Or you can leave. There are different inflections than in a professional setting, of course, but the way Professor Dawson phrased that made for a tidy little mnemonic device.
He had a knack for handy little quips. I think he must've spent his career collecting them.
I tend to cringe with embarrassment when I hear someone arguing a point that I agree with, but using a stupid argument to support it. "Free speech", for example, gets waved around a lot by people who seem to think that it means that you should be able to say anything you like, but nobody should be able to respond to you.
I have, as I've gotten older (for context, early 40s, haha) begun to notice that I have limited emotional resources and have had to make those little calculations of what that professor would call "Voice, Loyalty, or Leave" decisions. Sometimes it's "Leave." No shame in it if that's what's best for the relationship, or our respective mental states.
Do you mean you're in your early 40s or you were born in the early 40s? Or that at some point in your past, when you reached your early 40s, you began to notice it?
Also, what is Voice, Loyalty, or Leave?
In years I'm in my early 40s, born in the early 1980s. And it has been over the past few years that I've noticed that emotional effort costs something and I can't just throw myself into arguments like I used to. There's a calculation that goes on.
"Voice, loyalty, or leave" refers to the options you are given if you're in an organization and object to an instruction, and have some measure of power with which to object.
Voice means expressing your objection to the order, starting a conflict. Loyalty means following the order and ignoring your objection. Leave means resigning from your position in protest of the order.
I think in smaller social interactions, especially social media, there's a similar calculation when someone says something objectionable. You can express your disagreement. You can continue interacting while ignoring the disagreement. Or you can leave. There are different inflections than in a professional setting, of course, but the way Professor Dawson phrased that made for a tidy little mnemonic device.
He had a knack for handy little quips. I think he must've spent his career collecting them.
Originally posted by Chastmastr: I'm thinking of people on one's own side who take it to an extreme or in ways one considers unhealthy or without proper balance.
Theoretically we are on the same side, generally, as our relative. For example, we pay slightly more to buy locally produced milk. A nearby farm shop has a glass wall on the milking shed, and we are happy to pay premium prices for their ice-cream (also, it's delicious!)
We buy our meat from a butcher and often know which farm it has come from, and we generally know where our eggs come from, though if we run out of eggs or milk we buy supermarket milk / eggs without a second thought.
So we do have an ethical position on milk and meat, and have had for decades. It's just that if our ethical position isn't exactly our relative's ethical position it's wrong in her eyes.
So, simultaneously, I'd say she is "on our side" but takes it to extremes, whereas she'd say, I think, that we are on different sides.
@pease they live some distance away, so it's phone calls / private messages etc. There's occasionally a "I can't believe people can be so callous" post on Facebook, but it's never clear who those are aimed at.
There is nothing we would or could vent about in the same way - we get accusations that we are psychotic, callous, narcissists, evil, stupid, ignorant etc etc. It's water off a duck's back, really. If its a video call I do a lot of smiling and nodding. If it's a phone call, I often do a jigsaw while listening.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
Ah - thanks. If there's no in-person discourse involved, I think that changes the dynamic a bit.
I'm pretty much with Ruth here - I think it depends. Human interaction is often asymmetric. Trying to make it more symmetric can be hard work. I'd be disinclined to try reciprocating unless I had at least a bit of confidence that was what she was looking for.
If you have the energy, you could try responding in different ways (ie trial and error, which can make for an interesting project). But if I thought changing the dynamic would help, a simpler option would be just to ask, fairly directly, what sort of response the other person is looking for.
Originally posted by Chastmastr: I'm thinking of people on one's own side who take it to an extreme or in ways one considers unhealthy or without proper balance.
...
So, simultaneously, I'd say she is "on our side" but takes it to extremes, whereas she'd say, I think, that we are on different sides.
Or it could be that she does perceive you as being on the same side to at least some extent, but that you're being insufficiently extreme about it. In which case, it isn't so much about the side, but what people think being on a side should entail. eg activism v balance.
...
Though I would add that, at least in politics, re "Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes," we definitely see people (politicians, etc.) in the public square doing this, not only on social media, but very loudly, attacking their opponents for not being "extreme" enough (like the "RINO" thing mentioned above).
Politicians have long employed rhetorical accusations of insufficient commitment to a cause. With social media, everyone else can join in, without necessarily understanding the rhetorical aspect.
Originally posted by Chastmastr: I'm thinking of people on one's own side who take it to an extreme or in ways one considers unhealthy or without proper balance.
Theoretically we are on the same side, generally, as our relative. For example, we pay slightly more to buy locally produced milk. A nearby farm shop has a glass wall on the milking shed, and we are happy to pay premium prices for their ice-cream (also, it's delicious!)
We buy our meat from a butcher and often know which farm it has come from, and we generally know where our eggs come from, though if we run out of eggs or milk we buy supermarket milk / eggs without a second thought.
So we do have an ethical position on milk and meat, and have had for decades. It's just that if our ethical position isn't exactly our relative's ethical position it's wrong in her eyes.
So, simultaneously, I'd say she is "on our side" but takes it to extremes, whereas she'd say, I think, that we are on different sides.
I'm reminded of a Star Trek meme often used to show that, in which they're asked if they're friends, and the more moderate character says yes but the less moderate character says no. (In the case I've seen most often, it's with "liberals" and "progressives.")
Comments
I'm asking because this is me.
My life has had a much higher than normal level of shit (believe me, I don't discuss the bulk of it here or anywhere, for good reasons, who the hell would believe it?) and yet I still credit God for the good that does come my way. Am I an idiot, then? Or somehow unfaithful and abusive to my fellow shit survivors because I dare to speak of a God who cares at all?
The last is usually what I get. People who get angry with me because I'm not angry with God, and I should be, on their view. Because I'm letting down the human side if I don't hate him for what I've been through. And then they re-focus their anger at God on me, because I'm around, and I'm kickable.
And frankly, this is just one more layer of shit that happens to me, and it gets really old.
I'm going to go shut up now and stop inflicting myself on you, at least for a while. Because you don't need my crabbiness.
*hugs to you also*
Honestly? I've learned that, in a certain Protestant sense, everyone has their own way of dealing with God. And - most all the time - it is exceedingly rude for me to use my own particular traumas to target someone else's coping strategies. As I learned in seminary, "Pain goes out, comfort goes in. Don't tell people how to cope."
The context for the conversation I referenced before was - shall we say - an environment where we were encouraged to push each other's buttons and that was one reason I got a little jumpier in that particular space.
Also I think this is what I mean when I say that I prefer to leave the door open to the numinous, I don't rule it out that God can do stuff, and if someone speaks to me in a general sense, I can be happy for them, I think earnestly, and keep my private doubts to myself. I just have prickles about it. And I'm not really angry at God for things, I just don't know that I'm persuaded that God micromanages reality on my behalf.
There's a fantastic book on suffering written by a Lutheran Seminarian who died back in the 1990s, of cystic fibrosis, called Naked Before God: The Return of Broken Disciple. That the author lived as long as he did (late 30s, I think) was what some might call a miracle worked out between God and modern medicine. And he described developing an image in CPE: that we're all carrying our own particular wagons across a blasted hellscape, just trying to get from one side to the other. And it's important that you know to mind your own wagon and not get too fussed about other people's. Maybe they'll show you something, maybe you can comment, but don't go around rearranging other people's stuff.* That's dangerously rude. We're all trying to get to the same place.
My post on this thread I think was because I felt like @ChastMastr was fishing for a certain kind of emotional sense. While wandering around in my own mental space, I tripped on that particular old barb. In truth, as I am older and wiser than I was 12 or so years ago, I'm a lot more circumspect when it comes to how other people handle stuff. And knowing where my buttons are, I can manage them more sensibly.
And on the margins, it's probably a good thing I'm a layperson and thus not burdened with professional responsibility for other people's spiritual welfare.
I don't call people idiots. And while I can have an attitude about certain theologies, I try to keep in mind that what I'm dealing with are spirits, not tangible people. There's no use taking your frustration at an ideology out on a flesh and blood person.
*I might privately add a qualifier that there might be people with professional training who can help people rearrange their luggage, but I'm not trained in that kind of work, even if I have strong opinions sometimes.
Oh, I’m not thinking about an emotional thing. I’m thinking about “sides” that we might consider ourselves to be on in which we see people on the same “side” either taking something we believe in to an unhealthy extreme, or in ways which leave out stuff—maybe even stuff from an opposing “side” that would be worth keeping in mind. I’ve listed some of mine, for instance. (Another example might be someone who generally believes in capitalism to some degree, but not in a libertarian way, or who believes in socialism to some degree, but not in an actual Marxist way, who often runs into people who take it to either extreme.) In some circles, one can be committed to what one believes, but still see that another side has a point, even if we don’t agree with the solution that other side might suggest—but if we dare to say “look at how they see it” or suggest trying to build bridges, one’s own side might look at us and point, emitting the unholy shriek Donald Sutherland did at the end of the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
https://youtu.be/GEStsLJZhzo?si=8mKbYJJCWeC7Qzst
Am I just an anomaly here in this matter? I seem to have run into a lot of people, and see a lot of stuff online in general, for whom the only gripe they’d have for our mutual “side” is that they’re not extreme enough. (I’m not a political conservative nowadays, but it’s like the far-right Republicans calling more moderate ones “RINOs,” “Republicans in name only,” and I’ve seen it on the left too.)
@ChastMastr there're two situations where you get RINO type accusations. One is where one faction within a movement or party declares another long standing faction no longer kosher. The other is a reaction to entryism - where a group tries to legitimise themselves within a movement or party that did not historically include them.
My feeling is that with the RINO thing we've got the former going on; left wing objections to the centre-rightish "capitalism with a smilier face" e.g. Blair/Starmer Labour Party feel more like the latter. But then I would say that wouldn't I?
It's really only the effect of sides-taking that makes people think otherwise. That is people on the reactionary side use the label essentialism as a banner to rally behind, and vice versa.
(With the caveat that essentialism as a fundamental principle is compatible with and may require rejecting essentialism about less fundamental points.)
If I admit a possible difference between my understanding or interpretation and how things are - the possibility that I may be wrong - than that's effectively an essentialist position.
Essentialism as a logical position is the opposite of essentialism as a rhetorical banner used to rally around.
Actually I don’t believe that entirely! The more I’ve experienced life, I realise the side I’m on is not the minority. It’s the oppressed. I don’t believe anybody deserves to be oppressed. And I’m not sure there’s a weakness on that side.
Absolutely, on both counts. My reasoning for some of my politics which would be considered "liberal" these days stems very much from "old-fashioned" beliefs. For example, for years in the conservative bubble I was in, it was taken for granted that the right/Christian view of government was something close to libertarianism, at least economically--that taxation was intrinsically theft, etc., that sort of thing. (One of my roommates in college adored Thomas Sowell, etc.) But when I read older (centuries older) writings (say about the views of the most Christian/saintly rulers of the past), I found that the ones considered the best rulers were the ones who helped the poor, enriched the common people in various ways, etc. So some of my roots for believing in liberal politics stem specifically from much older, and definitely philosophically essentialist notions.
I respect your claim to not having emotions, but I think the word belief always carries an emotional content. Belief is thought with a feeling of loyalty. So, I'm not gonna tell you what you're feeling, but as soon as the conversation goes into matters of loyalty, especially in political questions, I question whether anyone is truly devoid of feeling or emotion.
And there's no shame in being emotional. We all have investments to protect. And sometimes, oddly for me, it makes it easier to understand people when you can logically know where their emotional investments are.
For instance, my aunt, mom's twin, was very conservative. We didn't talk politics much, but I remember once briefly having it come up over the phone and she said "Yes, I know, but my beliefs are very important to me." She was very emotionally attached to the idea that gay marriage was objectively wrong and should not be sanctioned by the federal government. It was deeply bound up in her religious identity.
I didn't dig into that too much, and I didn't know how far she had. It's not the kind of conversation I usually go into without some kind of explicit consent given first (unlike here, haha.) And I held back my tongue from saying "well, my friends' marriage license is pretty personal to them as well, which I hope you could understand."
But there's a sense that, empathetically, this is a pain point and I'm willing - to a degree - to try to respect that. Of course, as my stifled retort implies, it does require a certain reciprocity that is often lacking in politics.
And ah ha! That's where a lot of this excess comes out of. It's bad faith. If I truly know I can trust you to say, for instance, "I love you enough to vote against a candidate that will prohibit your sinful lifestyle," as convoluted as that may seem, it may be an easier conversation.
But in politics, trust isn't cheap, and so even little conversations can feel like skirmishes in what is - truthfully - a war by conversational means. And sometimes there's more honor in an honest toe-to-toe argument where
People say "Extremist" and "Radical" like they're synonyms. "Extremist" implies the extremity, the outer limit of something. "Radical" implies the radish, the root of something. And these are opposite words, but they're really closely tied together in political groups.
I work with disabled adults. You might say my concern for people with disabilities is extreme. If I see something threatening people in my care, I'll take that personally. That's where one of my big roots is.
If you don't care as much, you might think I'm an extremist on that topic. You'll think I'm being unreasonably angry about, say, medicaid cuts, or tax policy, or the role of government. And I might think you're just inadequately concerned.
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I think we all walk around with our own personal circles of "reasonable." We are radically centered at one point, and we have a range of acceptable, and things outside that range look "extreme." It can be a useful exercise to reach out to others, and this does require a certain reciprocity, and per my previous post, the expectation of reciprocity can get very uncomfortable very quickly in some circles. When it gets asymmetrical, it can feel like bad faith. And bad faith is what fights are made of.
BTW, thanks for making me think all this stuff out. I think I've been mulling on it for years but haven't bothered to articulate it formally.
The kind of essentialism I am thinking of here is philosophical essentialism, as opposed to existentialism (which has had its own thread some months back--see below), i.e., that there is intrinsic meaning to at least some things, not human-invented but human-discovered. (Whether gender, or in certain cases ethnicity (like being Jewish, for instance) is one of those things (or not) would go into Epiphanies, and would be its own thread.)
For anyone who is interested in the other thread, here is a link:
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/5893/existentialism-vs-essentialism/p1
Though I would add that, at least in politics, re "Another factor could be the extent to which your understanding and experience of "sides" is informed by social media - particularly the extent to which expressed attitudes tend to be driven towards extremes," we definitely see people (politicians, etc.) in the public square doing this, not only on social media, but very loudly, attacking their opponents for not being "extreme" enough (like the "RINO" thing mentioned above).
I didn't say I don't have emotions--just that when I talk about belief in general, I'm not talking about emotions. Beliefs can certainly inspire emotions, but not (I believe) always, or in any given person.
Absolutely--one could hold a position regarding (say) free speech, as well, in which they would wholly disagree with what someone else says, but fight for their right to say it.
Something broke off here... looking at the next post...
I can see that. (This may or may not change anything other than how carefully one expresses those things, of course.)
Aw, thank you!
As a side note/reminder, I am talking about issues oneself believes in, but finds others on one's "own side" to take in ways, or to degrees, etc. that one considers unhealthy. A corollary might be those things on one's "own side," particularly in politics, that might be good to push back on or respond to rather than looking the other way. (For example, and this is not about a side I am on, I think that when it comes to the political far right in the US, if the more moderate voices had pushed back more over the years before now, things may not have gotten to this point. So too with whatever one's own side may be, looking at the future.)
I often think of an exchange a Baptist minister friend had with a prominent national Baptist figure here in the UK after a rally featuring a particular US prosperity gospel peddler.
Disturbed by what he'd heard, my friend asked the senior Baptist figure what he'd made of it.
'There's a theological term for this,' came the reply. 'Bollocks.'
Perhaps that would be a good synonym for BS?
In my view there's nothing wrong in using either term to address pious platitudes or self-evident whackadoodlery.
The use of either term doesn't obviate divine intervention or the reality of people's experiences.
A few weeks before Mrs Gamaliel died a well-meaning but misguided clergy-person offered me details of dietary cures for cancer promoted by a US evangelist snake-oil salesman. We had already painfully come to terms with my wife imminent demise and were preparing for it.
In the turmoil his emails and attempts at contact became the focus of my anger and I called 'bollocks' on him in no uncertain terms.
I make no apology for doing so.
I add though, that we have since been reconciled and are on good terms.
None of that contradicts the points @Lamb Chopped made.
The etiquette in such situations is tricky. That's another one where I think the privilege of judgment, if it belongs to any earthly party, belongs to the victim. The difficulty sometimes is assigning victimhood. The worst situation is, as Christopher Hitchens once observed of Palestine, when victims take victims.
Wait, they are? I thought it could be about anyone's bollocks, and never thought about them being bovine at all...
The bollocks are not specifically bovine. They can be any male mammal.
I can understand how British expletives can sound quaint.
I take that as a compliment. If these things were good enough for Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I - 'My lord, we had quite forgot the fart' - then who am I to quibble?
A lot of British slang and expletives are of comparatively recent vintage though.
If you don't care as much, you might think I'm an extremist on that topic. You'll think I'm being unreasonably angry about, say, medicaid cuts, or tax policy, or the role of government. And I might think you're just inadequately concerned.
So when you say people are "extreme," well, look at where they are socially and instead of writing them off, try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
I think we all walk around with our own personal circles of "reasonable." We are radically centered at one point, and we have a range of acceptable, and things outside that range look "extreme." It can be a useful exercise to reach out to others, and this does require a certain reciprocity, and per my previous post, the expectation of reciprocity can get very uncomfortable very quickly in some circles. When it gets asymmetrical, it can feel like bad faith. And bad faith is what fights are made of.
Thank you. That articulates something with which I have been struggling.
I have a relative who, fairly regularly, discovers something which horrifies her, and throws herself into some form of action. She gets angry at us when she thinks we are "inadequately concerned" and treating the issue as "an abstract matter of ideology."
An extreme example was the time that she discovered that, in the dairy industry, male calves do not live long, happy lives grazing in sunlit fields. It had not occurred to her that you don't get milk from bulls. She gave up drinking milk and thought that once she'd explained the whole "only female calves are raised to produce milk" thing to us, we'd give up drinking milk too. But we'd been drinking milk in the full knowledge of where it came from for decades.
We got many accusations of being horrible, horrible people hurled at us until the whole issue gradually faded away, to be replaced by another. Rinse, repeat.
try to understand what it is in their social situation that makes them feel threatened by what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology.
Excellent advice, thank you.
The apocryphal origins being a mid-C20th Spoonerism, first noted in 1949. Definitely 'our' side.
I think the idea of contrasting "what it is in their social situation" with "what is, to you, an abstract matter of ideology" doesn't always apply.
I have relatives who are given to venting at us (and me) about a wide variety of topics in which they are emotionally invested, and which aren't always abstract. And I'm OK with that - I think it's a good thing that they (especially female "they") don't feel constrained about expressing themselves regarding societal issues that matter to them. The converse is also the case (although I try to listen more and speak less these days).
I liked this conception.
But I'm not sure about this. Some families engage in robust debate. (And I think can be better for it.)
And just to repeat what I said up top about this being about offline interaction. Online behaviour is subject to a different set of constraints. (Or unconstraints).
Of his usage of 'the dog's bollocks'?
Spoonerize Box Deluxe.
Our side, of the Pond. And prard of it! Quaint they are not. Clever they are. Working class genius. The finest, the dog's, being Aris' for arse.
There is nothing we would or could vent about in the same way - we get accusations that we are psychotic, callous, narcissists, evil, stupid, ignorant etc etc. It's water off a duck's back, really. If its a video call I do a lot of smiling and nodding. If it's a phone call, I often do a jigsaw while listening.
Bullfrog's remarks made me feel that perhaps I should try to engage more meaningfully, that by "switching off" I am not treating her well.
I think it depends on how much emotional energy you have to give to her, as opposed to other people who are closer, and whether you think it would make a difference. Would she listen to you? Would engaging more meaningfully make her life better? Yours? Improve your relationship with her? And do you care about that, given finite time and energy? Sometimes smiling and nodding and keeping the peace is the way to go, and sometimes not.
I think, realistically, if I was daily made aware of what goes on inside of slaughterhouses, I'd probably heavily cut back on my meat intake. A lot of that stuff is patently horrifying and if you're at all empathic for non-human lifeforms, I get the sense it's really hard to stomach.
Alternatively, you do the rationalization that these are animals bred for meat and that's what they're there for and this is how we can do it cost-effectively.
And of course, once you profit by a system, you're invested, and getting off that investment is really hard if you're in a world of scarcity.
Some folks might feel judged by the observation "Hey! You're protecting personal investments that are skewing your worldview!" but...who isn't? Check the tags on your clothes and say a prayer for whoever stitched together your underwear. We're all mired in an economic system of exploitation. I think it's good to be honest about that.
And some people pick particular areas to have particular empathy, for whatever reason. It might be an attempt to expiate their generalized shame at being rich. It might be because they're emotionally struck. It might be they had close contact with a cow and realized that cows are sensitive animals with brains and feelings and maybe it's not nice to make them live in corrals for our convenience.
That's all perfectly human and perfectly understandable. And most of my friends who are vegan have the sense not to get in my face about this stuff, and I don't get in their face about being precious, because I think in my heart of hearts that they're right. Cruelty for convenience is cruelty. Maybe if I were more honest I'd become vegetarian. But I have only so many battles I can fight at once.
There is one very succinct lesson in politics I got from a mentor politics professor that, perhaps vaguely delivered and unclearly remembered, sticks to me well and makes me feel very fluent in some of these discourses.
I have, as I've gotten older (for context, early 40s, haha) begun to notice that I have limited emotional resources and have had to make those little calculations of what that professor would call "Voice, Loyalty, or Leave" decisions. Sometimes it's "Leave." No shame in it if that's what's best for the relationship, or our respective mental states.
Thanks for clarifying 😊
The bog's dollocks??
Totally unrelated side question...
Do you mean you're in your early 40s or you were born in the early 40s? Or that at some point in your past, when you reached your early 40s, you began to notice it?
Also, what is Voice, Loyalty, or Leave?
In years I'm in my early 40s, born in the early 1980s. And it has been over the past few years that I've noticed that emotional effort costs something and I can't just throw myself into arguments like I used to. There's a calculation that goes on.
"Voice, loyalty, or leave" refers to the options you are given if you're in an organization and object to an instruction, and have some measure of power with which to object.
Voice means expressing your objection to the order, starting a conflict.
Loyalty means following the order and ignoring your objection.
Leave means resigning from your position in protest of the order.
I think in smaller social interactions, especially social media, there's a similar calculation when someone says something objectionable. You can express your disagreement. You can continue interacting while ignoring the disagreement. Or you can leave. There are different inflections than in a professional setting, of course, but the way Professor Dawson phrased that made for a tidy little mnemonic device.
He had a knack for handy little quips. I think he must've spent his career collecting them.
Yes! This is the sort of thing I mean.
Ah, I see! I'm inexplicably 57 now, myself.
I'm thinking of people on one's own side who take it to an extreme or in ways one considers unhealthy or without proper balance.
Theoretically we are on the same side, generally, as our relative. For example, we pay slightly more to buy locally produced milk. A nearby farm shop has a glass wall on the milking shed, and we are happy to pay premium prices for their ice-cream (also, it's delicious!)
We buy our meat from a butcher and often know which farm it has come from, and we generally know where our eggs come from, though if we run out of eggs or milk we buy supermarket milk / eggs without a second thought.
So we do have an ethical position on milk and meat, and have had for decades. It's just that if our ethical position isn't exactly our relative's ethical position it's wrong in her eyes.
So, simultaneously, I'd say she is "on our side" but takes it to extremes, whereas she'd say, I think, that we are on different sides.
I'm pretty much with Ruth here - I think it depends. Human interaction is often asymmetric. Trying to make it more symmetric can be hard work. I'd be disinclined to try reciprocating unless I had at least a bit of confidence that was what she was looking for.
If you have the energy, you could try responding in different ways (ie trial and error, which can make for an interesting project). But if I thought changing the dynamic would help, a simpler option would be just to ask, fairly directly, what sort of response the other person is looking for.
Or it could be that she does perceive you as being on the same side to at least some extent, but that you're being insufficiently extreme about it. In which case, it isn't so much about the side, but what people think being on a side should entail. eg activism v balance.
Politicians have long employed rhetorical accusations of insufficient commitment to a cause. With social media, everyone else can join in, without necessarily understanding the rhetorical aspect.
I'm reminded of a Star Trek meme often used to show that, in which they're asked if they're friends, and the more moderate character says yes but the less moderate character says no. (In the case I've seen most often, it's with "liberals" and "progressives.")
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-two-friends