ASPartOfMe wrote:
Attempting to persuade is life, the problem comes with tactics. While the agenda is radically different the bullying then mocking the people they bullied for hurt feelings is no different from what part of the Trump phenomenon is about, no different at all. And it is completly hypocritical coming from people demanding safe spaces. And as Dox alluded to the last thing minorities should be doing is restricting free speech.
I'm not sure the phenomenon are exactly identical, typically you don't see the pile-on response unless someone has been acting antagonistically and provoked it. Quite often those who complain about receiving that response have no problem with initiating hostility and insisting 'everyone agrees' with their stance, but then complain when many people aggressively condemn their position.
Condemning intolerance isn't the same as restricting expression of intolerance. One is free to say whatever they'd like, and others are free to agree, disagree or express condemnation of those ideas. Unless someone is violently interfering with another's expression it's unreasonable to insist they're actually restricting others free speech.
ASPartOfMe wrote:
This is about more then hurt feelings, this stuff is having real world consequences. Some things are actually offensive and these things need to be minimized, safe spaces and trigger warnings are legitimate concepts in relation to trauma/PTSD. But the
Boy Who Cried Wolf effect is happening. If legitimate helpful terms are used too often they become meaningless and objects of scorn. America is all but paralyzed politically. There are a lot reasons for this, people bieng guilt tripped for the group they are born into and publicy shamed into conformity instead of reasonably persuaded is part of the explination.
I don't disagree that the notion of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' may be taken too far; there's a reason I don't post in The Haven. That said, someone who goes around jamming their metaphorical finger in everyone's eye doesn't get to insist that the people who are pissed about getting poked in the eye are overly sensitive. If one wishes to insist that all people in
x demographic group are savages they're in no position to complain when the savagery of their own rhetoric is pointed out, or when the savagery committed by demographic groups they identify with is pointed out. Ultimately the goal should always be to persuade and not to bludgeon into conformity - but sometimes the only way to persuade someone to stop swinging their stick and to drop it is to give them a few whacks with your own stick to convince them that swinging their stick more will only prove to be a losing strategy. If publicly shaming people who insist on trying to publicly shame causes that behaviour to be modified, that's good enough. Simply demonstrating that a demeaning ideological position that formerly controlled the dialogue no longer does is worthwhile - even if it leaves supporters of that position feeling scorned/rejected/shamed. Treating white supremacists or homophobes as pariahs doesn't make them go away, but it does force the framing of arguments with them to be different going forward - it puts them on the defensive and forces them to be in the position of trying to persuade people to agree, instead of being able to treat apathetic people who haven't considered the argument thoroughly as 'silent allies'.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
16 Jun 2016, 12:01 pm
