Cont: President Trump: Part 3

[BobTheCoward]

Do you ever interact with coworkers that you don't like? Or with people in the general public? Or hey, how about with children?

Let's talk through a scenario. Let's say you've got a coworker that is a self-centered jerk. That's how you assess them, and let's say you're 100% on the mark. How much forward progress do you make, if every time you're in a meeting with them you pipe up and say "Hey Steve, you're a self-centered jerk!"? Do you think maybe it's possible to deal with Steve, deal with him being a jerk, address his work performance and his responsibilities, and his ideas... and do all of that without calling him names?

Let's take an even more concrete example. You're not allowed to call other posters names and personally insult them on ISF. Why is that? Because if you're allowed to just call people names and insult them, no discussion is had. There's no progress, it's impossible to find any common ground. Everything devolves into an infantile flame war that is not productive. If you were allowed to call your fellow posters names and insult them, would that help win them to your point of view in any fashion at all? It might be cathartic for you in the short term, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Being forced to address the message rather than the messenger doesn't guarantee that you can reach any kind of accord... but addressing the messenger guarantees that you will NOT.

Why would you think that real life works differently? Why on earth would you think that calling people names, mocking and deriding and insulting them, would be in any fashion effective?

You mention the words productive and effective a lot. If you read my post again, you will see I do not. I have no opinion on its effectiveness. For the sake of debate, I will concede as much effectiveness you want.

My criticism is if it is ethical or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You mention the words productive and effective a lot. If you read my post again, you will see I do not. I have no opinion on its effectiveness. For the sake of debate, I will concede as much effectiveness you want.

My criticism is if it is ethical or not.

Do you consider it unethical to refrain from telling Steve that he's a jerk in business meetings?

Refraining from insulting people isn't unethical, and insulting people isn't ethical. There's no clean statement here, but I'm having a lot fo trouble coming up with a scenario where being purposefully insulting and derisive could be considered the ethical approach.

 

[3point14]

Do you consider it unethical to refrain from telling Steve that he's a jerk in business meetings?

If Steve is an unrestrained jerk in meetings, he needs his boss to tell him.

If Steve is an outright racist in business meetings, I'll tell him there and then and not quietly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If Steve is an unrestrained jerk in meetings, he needs his boss to tell him.

Very likely.

If Steve is an outright racist in business meetings, I'll tell him there and then and not quietly.

Sure, if he's an outright racist, your outburst might be excusable. But I bet you still end up talking to HR about it. And I bet they tell you that your approach was unacceptable, and that a different course of action is what's expected of you in that circumstance.

Now... what if Steve isn't an outright racist? What if you believe that "people like Steve" are "closet racists"? How do you feel about telling Steve off in a business meeting under those circumstances?

 

[Belz...]

If most people had made up their minds well ahead of time ("decades even"), then it should have been clear that Trump was going to win.

Again, that makes zero sense. First of all, people knowing who _they_ will vote for doesn't give them information about who someone else will vote for. And second, polling has problems of sampling one way or another, and there are actually undecided people. That might have been obvious if you had closely read my post.

And none of this changes the fact that your claim -- that the election hinged on this -- is unproven.

 

[3point14]

Very likely.


Sure, if he's an outright racist, your outburst might be excusable.

No. Not might be. Not required to be excused. I may have to explain myself, but I won't accept your language here. Not 'might be excusable', but 'absolutely required to be said so the racist does not gain courage from the lack of confrontation.

But I bet you still end up talking to HR about it.

Perhaps. It'd be a short meeting though, provided someone was taking good minutes.

Now... what if Steve isn't an outright racist? What if you believe that "people like Steve" are "closet racists"? How do you feel about telling Steve off in a business meeting under those circumstances?

There's a step missed here. how is my conclusion arrived at? If Steve's saying racist things elsewhere, I'll just pull him up on it there and then. If it's just my speculation and I've nothing solid then let's just leave Steve alone.



Unfortunately, your parallels start to fall down - when I am at work I am under very different constraints to when I'm talking in a political arena. You have picked a venue for your confrontation that very specifically limits confrontation. I don't think it's a fair analogy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Unfortunately, your parallels start to fall down - when I am at work I am under very different constraints to when I'm talking in a political arena. You have picked a venue for your confrontation that very specifically limits confrontation. I don't think it's a fair analogy.

Like not drawing your sword in a house of worship.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, that makes zero sense. First of all, people knowing who _they_ will vote for doesn't give them information about who someone else will vote for. And second, polling has problems of sampling one way or another, and there are actually undecided people. That might have been obvious if you had closely read my post.

And none of this changes the fact that your claim -- that the election hinged on this -- is unproven.

I don't think it hinged on this. I think this was a factor, and I think that if democrats double down on this is unlikely to help.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it hinged on this. I think this was a factor, and I think that if democrats double down on this is unlikely to help.

A significant factor, as evidenced by how often you bring it up. So are you going to support that claim anytime soon?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Very likely.


Sure, if he's an outright racist, your outburst might be excusable. But I bet you still end up talking to HR about it. And I bet they tell you that your approach was unacceptable, and that a different course of action is what's expected of you in that circumstance.

Now... what if Steve isn't an outright racist? What if you believe that "people like Steve" are "closet racists"? How do you feel about telling Steve off in a business meeting under those circumstances?

What is the standard for outright racism? Clearly calling racists on their racism is out, as is going to HR or the boss because that is a total failure in this metaphor.

Do you judge people hanging out with racist friends?

"This is my buddy steve, he is a white nationist skin head but has a really nice home brewed beer"

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Not might be. Not required to be excused. I may have to explain myself, but I won't accept your language here. Not 'might be excusable', but 'absolutely required to be said so the racist does not gain courage from the lack of confrontation.

Do you hold the same position with respect to other beliefs that you find abhorrent? Do you feel obligated to speak out against a religious zealot? Would you be open to someone of a religious sort speaking so openly to you as an atheist, because to them your belief is so clearly abhorrent that they feel obligated to call you out on it?

At the end of the day, you're taking a stand where you believe that the words of another person are sufficient excuse for you to insult them and feel justified in doing so. You appear to feel that their freedom of speech is not as important as your belief. I agree with your position that racists are abhorrent... but I do not personally feel that my feelings about their beliefs justify unacceptable behavior on my part. I don't get to apply different rules just because I really don't like what they believe.

Perhaps. It'd be a short meeting though, provided someone was taking good minutes.

You might be surprised.

There's a step missed here. how is my conclusion arrived at? If Steve's saying racist things elsewhere, I'll just pull him up on it there and then. If it's just my speculation and I've nothing solid then let's just leave Steve alone.

Unfortunately, your parallels start to fall down - when I am at work I am under very different constraints to when I'm talking in a political arena. You have picked a venue for your confrontation that very specifically limits confrontation. I don't think it's a fair analogy.

I think it's a fair step in that direction, because it's pretty much the cornerstone of the positions being put forth here. "Those people" are so horrible that we think it should be okay to treat them like crap and insult them and mock them and deride them... even though it's not being done on the basis of actual actions performed by specific individuals. It's being done on the presumption of "people like X" and smeared about with a remarkably broad brush. But because "we people" find the beliefs of <some of> "those people" to be oh-so-bad, "we people" feel that we're justified in verbally attacking and insulting <all of> "those people" with impunity... and won't even countenance the thought that maybe we're not as justified as we think we are, let alone that such an approach might be viewed as offensive to the portion of "those people" that aren't part of the <some of> "those people" group.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A significant factor, as evidenced by how often you bring it up. So are you going to support that claim anytime soon?

There is no support for it one way or another. I've provided reasoning and rationale for my opinion on this. I've repeatedly presented it as my opinion. You can't support a claim that it was an insignificant factor either.

I bring it up partly because people keep responding to me and challenging me on it, and I admittedly have a tough time letting things like this go. But also because I do believe this is an important element of the current environment, and I really, really, really, really, want democrats to avoid doubling-down on this kind of behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

At the end of the day, you're taking a stand where you believe that the words of another person are sufficient excuse for you to insult them and feel justified in doing so.

Why don't I have any freedom of speech? Why are they so bothered by my words? They are just words after all so why do they feel that is a sufficient excuse for their actions?

 

[Belz...]

There is no support for it one way or another. I've provided reasoning and rationale for my opinion on this. I've repeatedly presented it as my opinion.

Then it can be dismissed just as it is claimed. You have no idea whether it was a significant factor in the election, and yet you keep posting as if you do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A good analogy is like when you see one coworker sexually harassing another coworker, you mind your own business and never mention it again. That is what polite civilised people do.

 

[3point14]

Do you hold the same position with respect to other beliefs that you find abhorrent? Do you feel obligated to speak out against a religious zealot? Would you be open to someone of a religious sort speaking so openly to you as an atheist, because to them your belief is so clearly abhorrent that they feel obligated to call you out on it?

At the end of the day, you're taking a stand where you believe that the words of another person are sufficient excuse for you to insult them

Erm, I'm not sure where you get the idea I'd insult them. What makes you think my words would be an insult?

and feel justified in doing so. You appear to feel that their freedom of speech is not as important as your belief.

No, not at all. I'm not inhibiting their freedom of speech in any way. they're entirely free to reveal themselves to be a racist bigot. In fact, I encourage it. How else am I going to know someone's a racist and not worth my time if we don't allow them to espouse their racist views.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. They can say what they like, I just reserve the right to analyse, explain and ridicule them for what they say.

I agree with your position that racists are abhorrent... but I do not personally feel that my feelings about their beliefs justify unacceptable behavior on my part. I don't get to apply different rules just because I really don't like what they believe.


You might be surprised.

No. No I wouldn't be. Bear in mind I'm not in the same country you are. I am absolutely certain of my ground here.

I think it's a fair step in that direction, because it's pretty much the cornerstone of the positions being put forth here. "Those people" are so horrible that we think it should be okay to treat them like crap and insult them and mock them and deride them... even though it's not being done on the basis of actual actions performed by specific individuals. It's being done on the presumption of "people like X" and smeared about with a remarkably broad brush.

Hang on, where are we now? In the political arena or are we at my work where someone has just said something racist

But because "we people" find the beliefs of <some of> "those people" to be oh-so-bad, "we people" feel that we're justified in verbally attacking and insulting <all of> "those people" with impunity... and won't even countenance the thought that maybe we're not as justified as we think we are, let alone that such an approach might be viewed as offensive to the portion of "those people" that aren't part of the <some of> "those people" group.

As I've said before, I believe that 'those people' are irredeemable and to allow them latitude just because you want their votes is pretty abhorrent.

Ignore them, educate their kids, get on with life. don't pander to them.

 

[Steve]

Do you ever interact with coworkers that you don't like? Or with people in the general public? Or hey, how about with children?

Let's talk through a scenario. Let's say you've got a coworker that is a self-centered jerk. That's how you assess them, and let's say you're 100% on the mark. How much forward progress do you make, if every time you're in a meeting with them you pipe up and say "Hey Steve, you're a self-centered jerk!"? Do you think maybe it's possible to deal with Steve, deal with him being a jerk, address his work performance and his responsibilities, and his ideas... and do all of that without calling him names?

Let's take an even more concrete example. You're not allowed to call other posters names and personally insult them on ISF. Why is that? Because if you're allowed to just call people names and insult them, no discussion is had. There's no progress, it's impossible to find any common ground. Everything devolves into an infantile flame war that is not productive. If you were allowed to call your fellow posters names and insult them, would that help win them to your point of view in any fashion at all? It might be cathartic for you in the short term, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Being forced to address the message rather than the messenger doesn't guarantee that you can reach any kind of accord... but addressing the messenger guarantees that you will NOT.

Why would you think that real life works differently? Why on earth would you think that calling people names, mocking and deriding and insulting them, would be in any fashion effective?

Do you consider it unethical to refrain from telling Steve that he's a jerk in business meetings?

Refraining from insulting people isn't unethical, and insulting people isn't ethical. There's no clean statement here, but I'm having a lot fo trouble coming up with a scenario where being purposefully insulting and derisive could be considered the ethical approach.

Very likely.


Sure, if he's an outright racist, your outburst might be excusable. But I bet you still end up talking to HR about it. And I bet they tell you that your approach was unacceptable, and that a different course of action is what's expected of you in that circumstance.

Now... what if Steve isn't an outright racist? What if you believe that "people like Steve" are "closet racists"? How do you feel about telling Steve off in a business meeting under those circumstances?

No. Not might be. Not required to be excused. I may have to explain myself, but I won't accept your language here. Not 'might be excusable', but 'absolutely required to be said so the racist does not gain courage from the lack of confrontation.





Perhaps. It'd be a short meeting though, provided someone was taking good minutes.






There's a step missed here. how is my conclusion arrived at? If Steve's saying racist things elsewhere, I'll just pull him up on it there and then. If it's just my speculation and I've nothing solid then let's just leave Steve alone.



Unfortunately, your parallels start to fall down - when I am at work I am under very different constraints to when I'm talking in a political arena. You have picked a venue for your confrontation that very specifically limits confrontation. I don't think it's a fair analogy.

What did I do to deserve all this?

 

[Belz...]

What did I do to deserve all this?

Well, stop being such a racist jerk at business meetings, man.

 

[3point14]

What did I do to deserve all this?

Sorry Steve

 

[ponderingturtle]

The real hinge of Emilies argument is about white fragility. Being called a racist is a huge insult way more than playing to racial stereotypes and basing your whole world view on those stereotypes could ever justify.

So you can't call someone a racist merely for all the racist acts they commit. Because the insult in now warranted merely by the nature of their actions.