Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Whose Definition of Feminism Is It Anyway? (With New Improved and Expanded Conversations!)

13468988

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Again, understand that feminism is not a singular movement. There are many feminist communities and they deal with the issues that they feel are most appropriate to their particular community. There is no such thing as "the goals of women as women" because 'womanhood' is not some singular thing that exists in a vacuum. The concerns and activities of a feminist collective in Brooklyn are going to be completely different from the concerns and activities of an online community of feminist film buffs.

    Understand feminism the way you understand, say, liberalism or anarchism. It would be ridiculous to say liberals should only be concerned with the goals of liberals as liberals. It's complete nonsense. Liberals over here are going to have different goals as well as different issues to deal with from liberals over there. Anarchists have a wide variety of approaches, understandings, tactics, and concerns. So do environmentalists. So do feminists.

    I'm really having trouble understanding what exactly you take issue with, probably because we're talking in abstract terms instead of specifics. So here's a specific example: are you familiar with Slutwalk? Women parade in stereotypically 'slutty' clothing in order to draw attention to slut-shaming and rape-apologism. We had one in NYC not too long ago, and some women of color came forward and said they felt alienated by this particular expression of feminism, because it's a lot easier for white college girls to reclaim the term 'slut' and parade around in skimpy clothing, than it is for women of color. It has a lot more baggage in minority communities. In this specific example, I think it's more helpful for the organizers of Slutwalk to engage in dialogue with the women of color, so that these different groups can work together without alienating one another, than it is for them to say "Fuck off" and cause a rift within the wider feminist community, and increase tensions and turn their backs on potential allies for no good reason.

    I think what is important is having the event. If it works for most women, but not for women I color, then women of color should have their own event instead of holding this one back.

    Maybe this will clarify my view: I see nothing at all wrong with having a group of white middle class women fighting for things that benefit white middle class women, even if they don't benefit women of color. And if the white middle class women can choose one event which benefits them a lot or a joint event which benefits all women a little, I think they should choose the former. I think it makes no sense to force yourself into a disadvantaged position just for the sake of helping a group that you are not part of and don't identify with, at the expense of greater progress towards your goals.

  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Feminist Initiative aims through democratical political means eliminate sexism, racism and heteronormativity and resist injustice and oppression based on gender, sexuality, notions of race / ethnicity, function, class, creed / religion, gender expression, gender identity and age.

    This is strange to me, because I generally don't identify myself as a feminist, but I think that all of these things ought to be priorities. Maybe I'm in some sort of feminist denial or something.

    One of the worries that I have with feminism is the rise of feminism in some academic fields. Like, take philosophy which is historically very hostile to the involvement of women. Feminist ethics is a sub field of ethics that deals with such subjects as emotion in ethical decision making, ethics of care, family and ethics and other traditionally "feminine" issues. Now, I think that all of this stuff is really important, but I worry that by labeling it "feminist" ethics that it places it out of the mainstream. It makes it that other ethics, not the main stuff. I think that a similar though sustains itself in other academic disciplines that have a "feminist" subtype. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the issues dealt with in these disciplines are bad or shitty. In fact, I think that they're largely important and deserve to be included. I worry that the language we're using allows for the process of othering these disciplines.

    Am I totally off my rocker here?

    You're making sense, the false dichotomy of emotion/intuition versus rational thought is a stupid stupid thing (BOTH EMOTION AND THOUGHT COME FROM THE SAME PLACE), but I think that it's important that a counter-narrative emerge espousing the importance of emotion in decision making before a synthesis movement comes along which seeks to combine the two. Something I've been working on most of this summer is how Clausewitzian methodology can be mapped on to feminism, it's really interesting.

    The desire to deprive some of our citizens of their rights—economic, civic or political—has the same basic motivation as actuates the Fascist mind when it seeks to dominate whole peoples and nations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Again, understand that feminism is not a singular movement. There are many feminist communities and they deal with the issues that they feel are most appropriate to their particular community. There is no such thing as "the goals of women as women" because 'womanhood' is not some singular thing that exists in a vacuum. The concerns and activities of a feminist collective in Brooklyn are going to be completely different from the concerns and activities of an online community of feminist film buffs.

    Understand feminism the way you understand, say, liberalism or anarchism. It would be ridiculous to say liberals should only be concerned with the goals of liberals as liberals. It's complete nonsense. Liberals over here are going to have different goals as well as different issues to deal with from liberals over there. Anarchists have a wide variety of approaches, understandings, tactics, and concerns. So do environmentalists. So do feminists.

    I'm really having trouble understanding what exactly you take issue with, probably because we're talking in abstract terms instead of specifics. So here's a specific example: are you familiar with Slutwalk? Women parade in stereotypically 'slutty' clothing in order to draw attention to slut-shaming and rape-apologism. We had one in NYC not too long ago, and some women of color came forward and said they felt alienated by this particular expression of feminism, because it's a lot easier for white college girls to reclaim the term 'slut' and parade around in skimpy clothing, than it is for women of color. It has a lot more baggage in minority communities. In this specific example, I think it's more helpful for the organizers of Slutwalk to engage in dialogue with the women of color, so that these different groups can work together without alienating one another, than it is for them to say "Fuck off" and cause a rift within the wider feminist community, and increase tensions and turn their backs on potential allies for no good reason.

    I think what is important is having the event. If it works for most women, but not for women I color, then women of color should have their own event instead of holding this one back.

    Maybe this will clarify my view: I see nothing at all wrong with having a group of white middle class women fighting for things that benefit white middle class women, even if they don't benefit women of color. And if the white middle class women can choose one event which benefits them a lot or a joint event which benefits all women a little, I think they should choose the former. I think it makes no sense to force yourself into a disadvantaged position just for the sake of helping a group that you are not part of and don't identify with, at the expense of greater progress towards your goals.

    So, in short, you have no sense of history.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Jeedan wrote: »
    This is essentially privilege in action. Privilege is the freedom to not give a fuck about the desires of the secondary class, unless they sweeten it up a bit and talk nicely to you.

    Isn't it also a somewhat entitled standpoint to feel that others should listen to you regardless of your demeanor or presentation?

    Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.

    The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.

    If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't like being criticized so I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.


    And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the stereotype of your worst member.
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Except he noted that he could be arrested for blocking strikes or removing her from the premises.

    He noted various ways he was warned he "might" have been arrested but would he? Assuming he was arrested would he have been prosecuted? Would he have been found guilty? I mean assuming that he'd done everything sensible (and discounting "attempting to subdue her" as sensible)

    I mean, there is a lot of "I was this close to getting arrested I swear" but I'm not sure how much stock to place in that.


    Jeedan wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Because

    A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
    B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)

    So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.

    Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
    Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.

    Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
    Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?

    Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violence as justified because she broke your favorite thing?

    1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.

    But how are these people to claim "ownership" of the name? They're not a hive mind.

    And why is it a good idea to change it anyway? In response to external pressure from men who find the word vaguely threatening? I think there are many who would disagree.

    3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).

    Someone breaks into your house? Fine whatever, run at them with a baseball bat. But that's not what a domestic violence situation is, when the police get there and both parties have a black eye and explaining needs to be done there's going to need to be a better explanation than "she broke my xbox".

    Also there's a weird patriarchal edge to this argument, if you don't respond with violent reprisals when a woman threatens the "fruits of your labor" then you are making yourself a "slave"? its really strange that you're using an argument stemming from retaining a proper balance of power and control.

    1. They can distance themselves from the fringe and say "they are over there doing whatever the fuck they are doing, and we're here actually arguing for women's rights. Ignore them, because we won't call you a misogynist for calling things lame, or even gay, because we're doing women's rights."

    You're basically asking them to sell each other out for you.

    I mean take a step back here, you are saying "hey, some feminists hurt my feelings by pointing out that using gay as a pejorative is wrong (it kinda is) I want you to distance themselves from them so I will start respecting you. I am a man, your goal should be gaining MY respect".

    This is essentially privilege in action. Privilege is the freedom to not give a fuck about the desires of the secondary class, unless they sweeten it up a bit and talk nicely to you.


    2. Being in a relationship is not an excuse to break someone's property. I absolutely believe that I have a right to not be hurt by rule breakers if I follow the rules, so if your exgf goes to destroy your property, why should you just let her do it? I don't see any difference between this and the burglar, if we put asside the practical difference of proving she started it (maybe there is a camera or witnesses).

    So just to check: We're arguing that you have a moral right to use violence against your spouse if you feel your property is at threat. This is where we are.


    2. Yes, that is exactly my position. Obviously it should be the minimum necessary, but if someone runs towards my tv to break it, I think I have the right to tackle them, no matter who they are. Why should I put the safety of someone else who means me ill ahead of my property?

    I think this is pretty much the point where I just throw my hands up here then. I cant think of a response in the face of arguing the value of your spouses safety vs property.
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Because of what I said above, when the issue is that the you are a small minority and as such society as a whole will not listen to you, saying "well we're for women. trans/queer/poc are on their own" hurts the cause. It divides and splinters off people who have pretty much similar concerns and the same issues who can't find anyone who will listen to them either.

    You say "muddying the cause" they'd say "showing solidarity".

    1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?

    2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Again, understand that feminism is not a singular movement. There are many feminist communities and they deal with the issues that they feel are most appropriate to their particular community. There is no such thing as "the goals of women as women" because 'womanhood' is not some singular thing that exists in a vacuum. The concerns and activities of a feminist collective in Brooklyn are going to be completely different from the concerns and activities of an online community of feminist film buffs.

    Understand feminism the way you understand, say, liberalism or anarchism. It would be ridiculous to say liberals should only be concerned with the goals of liberals as liberals. It's complete nonsense. Liberals over here are going to have different goals as well as different issues to deal with from liberals over there. Anarchists have a wide variety of approaches, understandings, tactics, and concerns. So do environmentalists. So do feminists.

    I'm really having trouble understanding what exactly you take issue with, probably because we're talking in abstract terms instead of specifics. So here's a specific example: are you familiar with Slutwalk? Women parade in stereotypically 'slutty' clothing in order to draw attention to slut-shaming and rape-apologism. We had one in NYC not too long ago, and some women of color came forward and said they felt alienated by this particular expression of feminism, because it's a lot easier for white college girls to reclaim the term 'slut' and parade around in skimpy clothing, than it is for women of color. It has a lot more baggage in minority communities. In this specific example, I think it's more helpful for the organizers of Slutwalk to engage in dialogue with the women of color, so that these different groups can work together without alienating one another, than it is for them to say "Fuck off" and cause a rift within the wider feminist community, and increase tensions and turn their backs on potential allies for no good reason.

    I think what is important is having the event. If it works for most women, but not for women I color, then women of color should have their own event instead of holding this one back.

    Maybe this will clarify my view: I see nothing at all wrong with having a group of white middle class women fighting for things that benefit white middle class women, even if they don't benefit women of color. And if the white middle class women can choose one event which benefits them a lot or a joint event which benefits all women a little, I think they should choose the former. I think it makes no sense to force yourself into a disadvantaged position just for the sake of helping a group that you are not part of and don't identify with, at the expense of greater progress towards your goals.

    So, in short, you have no sense of history.

    Hedgie, consider this your one and only warning. I am deeply tired of your one volume setting and if you can't find a way to engage people like someone with a shred of social skills then it will be my greatest pleasure to do that for you.

  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    Someone who actually knows how to defend him/herself wouldn't be looking for violent methods of defense first. IN FACT a big problem I have with martial arts/the kind of person who takes martial arts is the machismo aspect of it, where you immediately think about how to use it in a harmful or offensive way. A truly capable martial artist (or even a truly capable fighter) doesn't need to injure their enemies to pacify them.

    The desire to deprive some of our citizens of their rights—economic, civic or political—has the same basic motivation as actuates the Fascist mind when it seeks to dominate whole peoples and nations.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Feminist Initiative aims through democratical political means eliminate sexism, racism and heteronormativity and resist injustice and oppression based on gender, sexuality, notions of race / ethnicity, function, class, creed / religion, gender expression, gender identity and age.

    This is strange to me, because I generally don't identify myself as a feminist, but I think that all of these things ought to be priorities. Maybe I'm in some sort of feminist denial or something.

    One of the worries that I have with feminism is the rise of feminism in some academic fields. Like, take philosophy which is historically very hostile to the involvement of women. Feminist ethics is a sub field of ethics that deals with such subjects as emotion in ethical decision making, ethics of care, family and ethics and other traditionally "feminine" issues. Now, I think that all of this stuff is really important, but I worry that by labeling it "feminist" ethics that it places it out of the mainstream. It makes it that other ethics, not the main stuff. I think that a similar though sustains itself in other academic disciplines that have a "feminist" subtype. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the issues dealt with in these disciplines are bad or shitty. In fact, I think that they're largely important and deserve to be included. I worry that the language we're using allows for the process of othering these disciplines.

    Am I totally off my rocker here?

    You're making sense, the false dichotomy of emotion/intuition versus rational thought is a stupid stupid thing (BOTH EMOTION AND THOUGHT COME FROM THE SAME PLACE), but I think that it's important that a counter-narrative emerge espousing the importance of emotion in decision making before a synthesis movement comes along which seeks to combine the two. Something I've been working on most of this summer is how Clausewitzian methodology can be mapped on to feminism, it's really interesting.

    Ok, tangent, but this statement confuses the hell out of me. Scientifically, I know that both are functions of the brain, but one has a large amount of chemical-based state alteration to it that results in irrationality.

    Can you give me a brief explanation of this?

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Houn wrote: »
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Feminist Initiative aims through democratical political means eliminate sexism, racism and heteronormativity and resist injustice and oppression based on gender, sexuality, notions of race / ethnicity, function, class, creed / religion, gender expression, gender identity and age.

    This is strange to me, because I generally don't identify myself as a feminist, but I think that all of these things ought to be priorities. Maybe I'm in some sort of feminist denial or something.

    One of the worries that I have with feminism is the rise of feminism in some academic fields. Like, take philosophy which is historically very hostile to the involvement of women. Feminist ethics is a sub field of ethics that deals with such subjects as emotion in ethical decision making, ethics of care, family and ethics and other traditionally "feminine" issues. Now, I think that all of this stuff is really important, but I worry that by labeling it "feminist" ethics that it places it out of the mainstream. It makes it that other ethics, not the main stuff. I think that a similar though sustains itself in other academic disciplines that have a "feminist" subtype. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the issues dealt with in these disciplines are bad or shitty. In fact, I think that they're largely important and deserve to be included. I worry that the language we're using allows for the process of othering these disciplines.

    Am I totally off my rocker here?

    You're making sense, the false dichotomy of emotion/intuition versus rational thought is a stupid stupid thing (BOTH EMOTION AND THOUGHT COME FROM THE SAME PLACE), but I think that it's important that a counter-narrative emerge espousing the importance of emotion in decision making before a synthesis movement comes along which seeks to combine the two. Something I've been working on most of this summer is how Clausewitzian methodology can be mapped on to feminism, it's really interesting.

    Ok, tangent, but this statement confuses the hell out of me. Scientifically, I know that both are functions of the brain, but one has a large amount of chemical-based state alteration to it that results in irrationality.

    Can you give me a brief explanation of this?

    Although they come from different parts of the brain, any sort of decision making would necessarily use both. In the case of Clausewitz he chided Jomini for teaching a 100% rational method of warfare, because decision making involves both your emotional and academic/doctrinal intelligence. If you don't have the emotional capability for battle then it doesn't matter how many times you read Sun Tzu, you're going to freeze up. I didn't mean that they literally come from the same place, but rather that in practice any form of decision making involves both rational thought and intuition. I could talk about how Clausewitz got around positivist methodology/methods of teaching but I don't think that that's really for this thread: if you want I can link you to the posts I made about it

    Ethan Smith on
    The desire to deprive some of our citizens of their rights—economic, civic or political—has the same basic motivation as actuates the Fascist mind when it seeks to dominate whole peoples and nations.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman

    I know it's not really your area of law but would you mind going into some of the legal stuff as to when you are allowed to use violence to protect your property?

    Most of what I could find deals with either the castle doctrine or deadly force so it wouldn't really apply to this case.

    This really is not my area, an I actively avoided taking classes about things like this in law school (I took tons of tax classes and interesting policy classes for two most part). As I understand it, your ability to use violence to defend your property under the criminal law is generally limited to castle or stand your ground laws. Separately, under tort law, you are generally liable for harms that occur to people (even trespassers) on your property due to traps or hazards. You can generally sue someone who damages or takes your ability to ise your property, but there is an exception when they do so in an emergency, like damaging your dock when heading towards land to avoid a storm.

    This stuff is way outside of what I do, so someone else can probably describe it better.

    I personally believe in a moral right to defend your property which is much broader than the law allows.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Feminist Initiative aims through democratical political means eliminate sexism, racism and heteronormativity and resist injustice and oppression based on gender, sexuality, notions of race / ethnicity, function, class, creed / religion, gender expression, gender identity and age.

    This is strange to me, because I generally don't identify myself as a feminist, but I think that all of these things ought to be priorities. Maybe I'm in some sort of feminist denial or something.

    One of the worries that I have with feminism is the rise of feminism in some academic fields. Like, take philosophy which is historically very hostile to the involvement of women. Feminist ethics is a sub field of ethics that deals with such subjects as emotion in ethical decision making, ethics of care, family and ethics and other traditionally "feminine" issues. Now, I think that all of this stuff is really important, but I worry that by labeling it "feminist" ethics that it places it out of the mainstream. It makes it that other ethics, not the main stuff. I think that a similar though sustains itself in other academic disciplines that have a "feminist" subtype. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the issues dealt with in these disciplines are bad or shitty. In fact, I think that they're largely important and deserve to be included. I worry that the language we're using allows for the process of othering these disciplines.

    Am I totally off my rocker here?

    You're making sense, the false dichotomy of emotion/intuition versus rational thought is a stupid stupid thing (BOTH EMOTION AND THOUGHT COME FROM THE SAME PLACE), but I think that it's important that a counter-narrative emerge espousing the importance of emotion in decision making before a synthesis movement comes along which seeks to combine the two. Something I've been working on most of this summer is how Clausewitzian methodology can be mapped on to feminism, it's really interesting.

    Ok, tangent, but this statement confuses the hell out of me. Scientifically, I know that both are functions of the brain, but one has a large amount of chemical-based state alteration to it that results in irrationality.

    Can you give me a brief explanation of this?

    If you are separating "rational" from "emotional," I might even say that you have already made a mistake. There is no such thing as the "rational" in that case. At least nothing that looks like a human being. Emotion is part of our method of judgment, and it's a virtuous part some times. In fact, we even give reasons and jusifications for our emotions, and we accept them from others. We see it as justified if you're angry with someone because they physically attacked your friend. So there is reasoning and logic in emotional content. Separating them out isn't really possible because they are too deeply intertwined

    While I didn't originally intend to engage in a discussion about this particular topic (reason v emotion), I'm more than happy to discuss it. I was more concerned that I was being reasonable in my worry that using the label "feminist" makes it appear as though something is not part of the mainstream. I worry that it makes it easier to ignore things that ought to be considered important.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman

    I know it's not really your area of law but would you mind going into some of the legal stuff as to when you are allowed to use violence to protect your property?

    Most of what I could find deals with either the castle doctrine or deadly force so it wouldn't really apply to this case.

    This really is not my area, an I actively avoided taking classes about things like this in law school (I took tons of tax classes and interesting policy classes for two most part). As I understand it, your ability to use violence to defend your property under the criminal law is generally limited to castle or stand your ground laws. Separately, under tort law, you are generally liable for harms that occur to people (even trespassers) on your property due to traps or hazards. You can generally sue someone who damages or takes your ability to ise your property, but there is an exception when they do so in an emergency, like damaging your dock when heading towards land to avoid a storm.

    This stuff is way outside of what I do, so someone else can probably describe it better.

    I personally believe in a moral right to defend your property which is much broader than the law allows.

    Appreciated as always you polymath SOB.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman

    I know it's not really your area of law but would you mind going into some of the legal stuff as to when you are allowed to use violence to protect your property?

    Most of what I could find deals with either the castle doctrine or deadly force so it wouldn't really apply to this case.

    This really is not my area, an I actively avoided taking classes about things like this in law school (I took tons of tax classes and interesting policy classes for two most part). As I understand it, your ability to use violence to defend your property under the criminal law is generally limited to castle or stand your ground laws. Separately, under tort law, you are generally liable for harms that occur to people (even trespassers) on your property due to traps or hazards. You can generally sue someone who damages or takes your ability to ise your property, but there is an exception when they do so in an emergency, like damaging your dock when heading towards land to avoid a storm.

    This stuff is way outside of what I do, so someone else can probably describe it better.

    I personally believe in a moral right to defend your property which is much broader than the law allows.

    Appreciated as always you polymath SOB.

    ?

  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular

    1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?

    They're still a human being and so their right to not be harmed still presumably matters, beating your wife wouldn't be OK because you decided that you didn't love her anymore.

    I mean, why is you hypothetical friend/spouse even running at the TV to begin with? Thats the thing about domestic violence, its not a random street crime, it stems from a history. He did this so she did this but he held his tongue that time, but then he broke her thing and she thought it was on purpose but it was an accident so she broke his thing in revenge so he broke her face.

    Assigning blame isn't as simple as "she broke my stuff so violence was justified". And assigning blame is secondary to making sure no one gets hurt.

    2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.

    This is really strange because if you want to "know the boundaries" of feminism the best place to start would be reading and investigating yourself. Theres a whole lot of material out there. Not going "I don't fully understand what this thing is so I'm against it".

  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Jeedan wrote: »

    Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.


    I never said they were the same thing. I said it's pretty severe entitlement. No one in the real world gets to be listened to and respected because they A: own a soap box and B: shout real loud. No one has that privilege, no one gets to be respected by virtue of having an opinion. Calling privilege here is part of the problem I've been talking about. What's the response when someone doesn't feel they need to listen to you simply because you have an opinion? Privilege. You're trying to take the responsibility off your shoulders and put it on someone else's. That's all it is.

    In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.

    The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.

    If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist, well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.

    And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the actions of your worst member.

    You don't get to call privilege because the majority disagrees with you.

    You still don't get what the term means. Its not an insult (and if it was it would be pretty weak) rather it is a list of stuff that members for group x get to do that members of group y do not. It doesn't make you a bad person that you have privilege.


    Well, I guess you could, but then the term would lose all its teeth. Yes, people have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with you. No, that is not a bad thing.

    No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
    No, you do not get to call foul when they disagree. If someone does not like your message, that is not their fault. They have no responsibility, social or otherwise, to agree with you.

    Being in a minority does not make you right. Calling everyone who disagrees with you privileged accomplishes nothing. The only possible response to that is, "Yes, we do not give a fuck. Your point is?"

    I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
    This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.

    If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.

    Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.

    Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"

    So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"

    Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"

    Jeedan on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Jeedan wrote: »

    1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?

    They're still a human being and so their right to not be harmed still presumably matters, beating your wife wouldn't be OK because you decided that you didn't love her anymore.

    I mean, why is you hypothetical friend/spouse even running at the TV to begin with? Thats the thing about domestic violence, its not a random street crime, it stems from a history. He did this so she did this but he held his tongue that time, but then he broke her thing and she thought it was on purpose but it was an accident so she broke his thing in revenge so he broke her face.

    Assigning blame isn't as simple as "she broke my stuff so violence was justified". And assigning blame is secondary to making sure no one gets hurt.

    2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.

    This is really strange because if you want to "know the boundaries" of feminism the best place to start would be reading and investigating yourself. Theres a whole lot of material out there. Not going "I don't fully understand what this thing is so I'm against it".

    1. Beating your wife is really really different then restraining her from breaking your things. In the case we are discussing, she is the aggressor.

    I have no idea why my wife or friend would charge at my tv to break it (this is unthinkable to me). But what matters is they are the one escalating the situation, and I am just defending my things. I think we may have to agree to disagree on ranking the safety of someone who wants to hurt you by ruining your things and your right to not have your things destroyed.

    2. I have read a lot, and the more I read, the more it seems like there are no boundaries. I can't be for it if I don't know what that fully means. I am against it as a movement because I know I disagree with parts. I wish it was more granular, so that I could say "yes I'm a feminist because I beleive in women's rights."
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »

    Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.


    I never said they were the same thing. I said it's pretty severe entitlement. No one in the real world gets to be listened to and respected because they A: own a soap box and B: shout real loud. No one has that privilege, no one gets to be respected by virtue of having an opinion. Calling privilege here is part of the problem I've been talking about. What's the response when someone doesn't feel they need to listen to you simply because you have an opinion? Privilege. You're trying to take the responsibility off your shoulders and put it on someone else's. That's all it is.

    In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.

    The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.

    If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist, well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.

    And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the actions of your worst member.

    You don't get to call privilege because the majority disagrees with you.

    You still don't get what the term means.


    Well, I guess you could, but then the term would lose all its teeth. Yes, people have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with you. No, that is not a bad thing.

    No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
    No, you do not get to call foul when they disagree. If someone does not like your message, that is not their fault. They have no responsibility, social or otherwise, to agree with you.

    Being in a minority does not make you right. Calling everyone who disagrees with you privileged accomplishes nothing. The only possible response to that is, "Yes, we do not give a fuck. Your point is?"

    I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
    This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.

    If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.

    Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.

    Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"

    So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"

    Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"

    As the minority group looking to convince the dominant group tha things should change, I think it absolutely is your responsibility to convince them, because if you don't, you lose. This is exactly what privlege means, IMO. How can feminism be so concerned with privilege but also ignore the power dynamics they decry when actually confronting people other privlege. Saying you have the moral high ground and so the dominant group needs to take responsibility for not oppressing people is a great way to accomplish nothing but feeling good about yourself. See my post earlier on masturbation and high fives. I know I have said this in many threads, but I really think it is true.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Feminist Initiative aims through democratical political means eliminate sexism, racism and heteronormativity and resist injustice and oppression based on gender, sexuality, notions of race / ethnicity, function, class, creed / religion, gender expression, gender identity and age.

    This is strange to me, because I generally don't identify myself as a feminist, but I think that all of these things ought to be priorities. Maybe I'm in some sort of feminist denial or something.

    One of the worries that I have with feminism is the rise of feminism in some academic fields. Like, take philosophy which is historically very hostile to the involvement of women. Feminist ethics is a sub field of ethics that deals with such subjects as emotion in ethical decision making, ethics of care, family and ethics and other traditionally "feminine" issues. Now, I think that all of this stuff is really important, but I worry that by labeling it "feminist" ethics that it places it out of the mainstream. It makes it that other ethics, not the main stuff. I think that a similar though sustains itself in other academic disciplines that have a "feminist" subtype. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the issues dealt with in these disciplines are bad or shitty. In fact, I think that they're largely important and deserve to be included. I worry that the language we're using allows for the process of othering these disciplines.

    Am I totally off my rocker here?

    You're making sense, the false dichotomy of emotion/intuition versus rational thought is a stupid stupid thing (BOTH EMOTION AND THOUGHT COME FROM THE SAME PLACE), but I think that it's important that a counter-narrative emerge espousing the importance of emotion in decision making before a synthesis movement comes along which seeks to combine the two. Something I've been working on most of this summer is how Clausewitzian methodology can be mapped on to feminism, it's really interesting.

    Ok, tangent, but this statement confuses the hell out of me. Scientifically, I know that both are functions of the brain, but one has a large amount of chemical-based state alteration to it that results in irrationality.

    Can you give me a brief explanation of this?

    Although they come from different parts of the brain, any sort of decision making would necessarily use both. In the case of Clausewitz he chided Jomini for teaching a 100% rational method of warfare, because decision making involves both your emotional and academic/doctrinal intelligence. If you don't have the emotional capability for battle then it doesn't matter how many times you read Sun Tzu, you're going to freeze up. I didn't mean that they literally come from the same place, but rather that in practice any form of decision making involves both rational thought and intuition. I could talk about how Clausewitz got around positivist methodology/methods of teaching but I don't think that that's really for this thread: if you want I can link you to the posts I made about it

    Yes please, shoot me a PM. It's an interesting topic, and not one I've encountered before.
    If you are separating "rational" from "emotional," I might even say that you have already made a mistake. There is no such thing as the "rational" in that case. At least nothing that looks like a human being. Emotion is part of our method of judgment, and it's a virtuous part some times. In fact, we even give reasons and jusifications for our emotions, and we accept them from others. We see it as justified if you're angry with someone because they physically attacked your friend. So there is reasoning and logic in emotional content. Separating them out isn't really possible because they are too deeply intertwined

    While I didn't originally intend to engage in a discussion about this particular topic (reason v emotion), I'm more than happy to discuss it. I was more concerned that I was being reasonable in my worry that using the label "feminist" makes it appear as though something is not part of the mainstream. I worry that it makes it easier to ignore things that ought to be considered important.

    I will admit I have put zero thought into this topic prior to this moment, but my initial analysis is that emotion is always the enemy of objectivity; I misspoke when I said "rational" before, and erroneously used it in place of "logical"; my bad, yo. Call me a child of Star Trek, but when it comes time to make any decision that will affect other people, I try to emulate the good Mr. Spock and approach the problem from as cold and objective a viewpoint as possible, with the goal of balancing efficiency, effectiveness, and group consensus.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited July 2012

    Jeedan wrote: »

    1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?

    They're still a human being and so their right to not be harmed still presumably matters, beating your wife wouldn't be OK because you decided that you didn't love her anymore.

    I mean, why is you hypothetical friend/spouse even running at the TV to begin with? Thats the thing about domestic violence, its not a random street crime, it stems from a history. He did this so she did this but he held his tongue that time, but then he broke her thing and she thought it was on purpose but it was an accident so she broke his thing in revenge so he broke her face.

    Assigning blame isn't as simple as "she broke my stuff so violence was justified". And assigning blame is secondary to making sure no one gets hurt.

    2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.

    This is really strange because if you want to "know the boundaries" of feminism the best place to start would be reading and investigating yourself. Theres a whole lot of material out there. Not going "I don't fully understand what this thing is so I'm against it".

    1. Beating your wife is really really different then restraining her from breaking your things. In the case we are discussing, she is the aggressor.

    I have no idea why my wife or friend would charge at my tv to break it (this is unthinkable to me). But what matters is they are the one escalating the situation, and I am just defending my things. I think we may have to agree to disagree on ranking the safety of someone who wants to hurt you by ruining your things and your right to not have your things destroyed.

    2. I have read a lot, and the more I read, the more it seems like there are no boundaries. I can't be for it if I don't know what that fully means. I am against it as a movement because I know I disagree with parts. I wish it was more granular, so that I could say "yes I'm a feminist because I beleive in women's rights."

    Honestly I'm just gonna say if you don't want to call yourself a feminist don't and everyone's probably better off, its declaring yourself an "anti" feminist that seems more problematic to me.

    Jeedan wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »

    Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.


    I never said they were the same thing. I said it's pretty severe entitlement. No one in the real world gets to be listened to and respected because they A: own a soap box and B: shout real loud. No one has that privilege, no one gets to be respected by virtue of having an opinion. Calling privilege here is part of the problem I've been talking about. What's the response when someone doesn't feel they need to listen to you simply because you have an opinion? Privilege. You're trying to take the responsibility off your shoulders and put it on someone else's. That's all it is.

    In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.

    The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.

    If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist, well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.

    And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the actions of your worst member.

    You don't get to call privilege because the majority disagrees with you.

    You still don't get what the term means.


    Well, I guess you could, but then the term would lose all its teeth. Yes, people have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with you. No, that is not a bad thing.

    No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
    No, you do not get to call foul when they disagree. If someone does not like your message, that is not their fault. They have no responsibility, social or otherwise, to agree with you.

    Being in a minority does not make you right. Calling everyone who disagrees with you privileged accomplishes nothing. The only possible response to that is, "Yes, we do not give a fuck. Your point is?"

    I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
    This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.

    If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.

    Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.

    Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"

    So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"

    Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"

    As the minority group looking to convince the dominant group tha things should change, I think it absolutely is your responsibility to convince them, because if you don't, you lose.

    A moral responsibility or a pragmatic responsibility? Theres a big difference.

    I mean, if you were a slave, you would have a pragmatic responsibility to please your owner, lest he take it out on you and the other slaves.

    Jeedan on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman

    I know it's not really your area of law but would you mind going into some of the legal stuff as to when you are allowed to use violence to protect your property?

    Most of what I could find deals with either the castle doctrine or deadly force so it wouldn't really apply to this case.

    This really is not my area, an I actively avoided taking classes about things like this in law school (I took tons of tax classes and interesting policy classes for two most part). As I understand it, your ability to use violence to defend your property under the criminal law is generally limited to castle or stand your ground laws. Separately, under tort law, you are generally liable for harms that occur to people (even trespassers) on your property due to traps or hazards. You can generally sue someone who damages or takes your ability to ise your property, but there is an exception when they do so in an emergency, like damaging your dock when heading towards land to avoid a storm.

    This stuff is way outside of what I do, so someone else can probably describe it better.

    I personally believe in a moral right to defend your property which is much broader than the law allows.

    Appreciated as always you polymath SOB.

    ?

    Thanks for answering my question, you are smart.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2012
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »

    1. If she is really my loved one, why would she want to destroy my things? I put my wife ahead of myself, but it is because I love her, and she does the same for me because she loves me. If that broke down, then what is special about the relationship? If I invited a friend to my house and he runs at my tv with the express purpose of destroying it, should I let him because he is my friend? What kind of friend does that?

    They're still a human being and so their right to not be harmed still presumably matters, beating your wife wouldn't be OK because you decided that you didn't love her anymore.

    I mean, why is you hypothetical friend/spouse even running at the TV to begin with? Thats the thing about domestic violence, its not a random street crime, it stems from a history. He did this so she did this but he held his tongue that time, but then he broke her thing and she thought it was on purpose but it was an accident so she broke his thing in revenge so he broke her face.

    Assigning blame isn't as simple as "she broke my stuff so violence was justified". And assigning blame is secondary to making sure no one gets hurt.

    2. We just disagree on what the cause is, and I think this is the heart of why people like me can be pro women's rights and antifeminism. When I say I am in favor of women's rights, I understand what the boundaries are. I can't say I am in favor of feminism, as you are defining it, because I don't know the boundaries, and know I disagree with things like fighting ableist speech.

    This is really strange because if you want to "know the boundaries" of feminism the best place to start would be reading and investigating yourself. Theres a whole lot of material out there. Not going "I don't fully understand what this thing is so I'm against it".

    1. Beating your wife is really really different then restraining her from breaking your things. In the case we are discussing, she is the aggressor.

    I have no idea why my wife or friend would charge at my tv to break it (this is unthinkable to me). But what matters is they are the one escalating the situation, and I am just defending my things. I think we may have to agree to disagree on ranking the safety of someone who wants to hurt you by ruining your things and your right to not have your things destroyed.

    2. I have read a lot, and the more I read, the more it seems like there are no boundaries. I can't be for it if I don't know what that fully means. I am against it as a movement because I know I disagree with parts. I wish it was more granular, so that I could say "yes I'm a feminist because I beleive in women's rights."

    Honestly I'm just gonna say if you don't want to call yourself a feminist don't and everyone's probably better off, its declaring yourself an "anti" feminist that seems more problematic to me.

    Jeedan wrote: »
    Jeedan wrote: »

    Privilege and "entitlement" isn't the same thing. Its not a matter of who is playing nice, its a matter of minority/majority dynamics, those in the majority position get the privilege to dictate terms to the minority.


    I never said they were the same thing. I said it's pretty severe entitlement. No one in the real world gets to be listened to and respected because they A: own a soap box and B: shout real loud. No one has that privilege, no one gets to be respected by virtue of having an opinion. Calling privilege here is part of the problem I've been talking about. What's the response when someone doesn't feel they need to listen to you simply because you have an opinion? Privilege. You're trying to take the responsibility off your shoulders and put it on someone else's. That's all it is.

    In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.

    The people in the minority have to listen to the majority consensus. They don't have a choice because its the prevailing viewpoint, its everywhere. The people in the majority do not have to do that, they can ignore the minority if they so choose, they can dictate terms to the minority.

    If you want to stop hearing women call you nasty names like misogynist, well that's fairly easy, stop visiting the comments section of a feminist blog because that's pretty much the only place where the word holds any real weight. You can just go "welp I don't care about this issue anymore" and walk away. If a woman wants to stop being called names like slut, whore, dyke, cunt, frigid bitch whatever that's a lot more difficult. Thats what privilege is, the freedom to not give a fuck. Not everyone has that freedom.

    And the BEST part about majority/minority dynamics is that as a member of the minority, people will judge you by the actions of your worst member.

    You don't get to call privilege because the majority disagrees with you.

    You still don't get what the term means.


    Well, I guess you could, but then the term would lose all its teeth. Yes, people have the option of agreeing or disagreeing with you. No, that is not a bad thing.

    No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?
    No, you do not get to call foul when they disagree. If someone does not like your message, that is not their fault. They have no responsibility, social or otherwise, to agree with you.

    Being in a minority does not make you right. Calling everyone who disagrees with you privileged accomplishes nothing. The only possible response to that is, "Yes, we do not give a fuck. Your point is?"

    I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.
    This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.

    If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.

    Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.

    Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"

    So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"

    Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"

    As the minority group looking to convince the dominant group tha things should change, I think it absolutely is your responsibility to convince them, because if you don't, you lose.

    A moral responsibility or a pragmatic responsibility? Theres a big difference.

    I mean, if you were a slave, you would have a pragmatic responsibility to please your owner, lest he take it out on you and the other slaves.

    1. I am strongly against the attempts to create a nerfball world in which no one is ever wrong and we must respect and abode by everyone's sensitivities. I have seen feminists say that it is wrong for people to say "I just want a healthy baby" because it is hurtful to the disabled. I don't even know how to respond to that, but as long as ideas like that are part of feminism, what can I say but that I am antifeminism? Give me discrete groups so I can be antiablism without being against part of feminism, and I will drop the self description.

    Do you have a response on the "property destroyer as escalator" point?

    2. Pragmatic, but isn't that all that matters when you are a movement trying to win changes? The text following what you quoted is literally about the futility of winning the moral high ground but failing because you weren't peagmatic.

    spacekungfuman on
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Again, understand that feminism is not a singular movement. There are many feminist communities and they deal with the issues that they feel are most appropriate to their particular community. There is no such thing as "the goals of women as women" because 'womanhood' is not some singular thing that exists in a vacuum. The concerns and activities of a feminist collective in Brooklyn are going to be completely different from the concerns and activities of an online community of feminist film buffs.

    Understand feminism the way you understand, say, liberalism or anarchism. It would be ridiculous to say liberals should only be concerned with the goals of liberals as liberals. It's complete nonsense. Liberals over here are going to have different goals as well as different issues to deal with from liberals over there. Anarchists have a wide variety of approaches, understandings, tactics, and concerns. So do environmentalists. So do feminists.

    I'm really having trouble understanding what exactly you take issue with, probably because we're talking in abstract terms instead of specifics. So here's a specific example: are you familiar with Slutwalk? Women parade in stereotypically 'slutty' clothing in order to draw attention to slut-shaming and rape-apologism. We had one in NYC not too long ago, and some women of color came forward and said they felt alienated by this particular expression of feminism, because it's a lot easier for white college girls to reclaim the term 'slut' and parade around in skimpy clothing, than it is for women of color. It has a lot more baggage in minority communities. In this specific example, I think it's more helpful for the organizers of Slutwalk to engage in dialogue with the women of color, so that these different groups can work together without alienating one another, than it is for them to say "Fuck off" and cause a rift within the wider feminist community, and increase tensions and turn their backs on potential allies for no good reason.

    I think what is important is having the event. If it works for most women, but not for women I color, then women of color should have their own event instead of holding this one back.

    Maybe this will clarify my view: I see nothing at all wrong with having a group of white middle class women fighting for things that benefit white middle class women, even if they don't benefit women of color. And if the white middle class women can choose one event which benefits them a lot or a joint event which benefits all women a little, I think they should choose the former. I think it makes no sense to force yourself into a disadvantaged position just for the sake of helping a group that you are not part of and don't identify with, at the expense of greater progress towards your goals.

    Let's play some hypotheticals.

    There's only one hospital in a very small, rural city. For some reason, a terrorist put Viagra into the city's water supply, and the end result is that a lot of women got pregnant.

    All those women need, obviously, medical attention, but the hospital clearly can't cope with so much demand.

    20% of the women are white and the rest are black.

    In the "white middle class women" annual meeting, two solutions are proposed for this conundrum.

    1) An emergency tax is levied by the municipality, so that transportation towards other hospitals located in other cities can be afforded - to every pregnant woman. This is going to be expensive for everyone on the town, and, quite frankly, a hassle to the mothers and their kin.

    2) A "whites-first" policy. The white pregnant women get guaranteed treatment; tough luck for the black ones.

    Are you saying you don't see anything wrong with people choosing 2 instead of 1?

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Jeedan wrote: »

    In a sense, yes. I believe you have a responsibility as part of a privileged group to listen to people of different viewpoints and to not immediately turn off as soon as someone on "their side" says something you don't like. I do NOT believe that it is those peoples job to change your mind for you, they can't do that.

    I disagree entirely. I have 0 responsibility to listen or agree with anyone. I don't know why I need to repeat this, but it seems to be necessary: Being in a minority does not make you right.

    If you are talking to me about something I do not agree with, it is not my responsibility to agree with you. Not morally or otherwise. If you want me to agree with you, you need to convince me. I'm not going to magically change my mind out of nowhere.

    I really want to know where you're coming from with this. I don't understand how you feel being in a minority means people have to listen and agree with you.


    You still don't get what the term means. Its not an insult (and if it was it would be pretty weak) rather it is a list of stuff that members for group x get to do that members of group y do not. It doesn't make you a bad person that you have privilege.

    I do understand what it means. But you're using it to transfer responsibility to where it doesn't belong.

    No its not a bad thing, its great that they have that option, that's wonderful for them. It would be REALLY GREAT though if the minority had the option of telling the majority to fuck off too. Except they can't. Do you see?

    This is complicated when the minority wants things from the majority. A vegan has no way to make me stop wearing leather shoes. He is in a minority, he has no power to make me change what I'm doing. I, being in the leather-wearing majority, can happily tell him to fuck off.

    And I would be in the right to do so.
    Because there is no responsibility on my shoulders. There is no moral imperative that I must change to accommodate this person.

    In the end, the only way anyone gets to dictate terms is by popular agreement. Majority consensus. And when it comes right down to it, it is not the majority's job to convince themselves that so-and-so is right and everything should change. It is so-and-so's job to convince the majority.

    In essence, trying to transfer responsibility with privilege is nonsense. Primarily because the idea that other people are responsible to convince themselves to come around to your way of thinking without you supplying reasonable cause is nonsense.

    I already talked about this exact issue earlier in the thread, I used the same wording for the example you did even.

    So you're undermining your own argument? On the one hand you state that I have, as a privileged person, a moral responsibility to listen to these people. On the other hand, you're telling me that, "I still don't care," is a valid argument. Because how else can you dismiss something you disagree with?

    Which is it? Do I need to stop wearing my leather shoes because a vegan doesn't like it? Or can I just tell him to fuck off? Is it my responsibility to convince myself that wearing leather is wrong?

    Frankiedarling on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lolken wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what the goals or hopes and dreams of the members are as individuals or group affiliations other than "woman.". All that should matter IMO is the goals of women as women, since that is the one point of common ground. If you are a black woman, join a black rights group to address your concerns about those issues. If you are concerned about issues specific to black women, join a black women's Group. A women's movement should just be about problems faced by Women IMO. How are women benefitted as women by muddying the focus into other issues which only impact some women, and only in other capacities?

    Unless what they have to contribute is a clear net positive to the cause of women's rights, no, we don't have room for you if you won't help us on our terms seems like a fine response.

    I see nothing hypocritical here. The concern is power and oppression of women, so saying we are focusing on women's issues seems fine to me.

    Again, understand that feminism is not a singular movement. There are many feminist communities and they deal with the issues that they feel are most appropriate to their particular community. There is no such thing as "the goals of women as women" because 'womanhood' is not some singular thing that exists in a vacuum. The concerns and activities of a feminist collective in Brooklyn are going to be completely different from the concerns and activities of an online community of feminist film buffs.

    Understand feminism the way you understand, say, liberalism or anarchism. It would be ridiculous to say liberals should only be concerned with the goals of liberals as liberals. It's complete nonsense. Liberals over here are going to have different goals as well as different issues to deal with from liberals over there. Anarchists have a wide variety of approaches, understandings, tactics, and concerns. So do environmentalists. So do feminists.

    I'm really having trouble understanding what exactly you take issue with, probably because we're talking in abstract terms instead of specifics. So here's a specific example: are you familiar with Slutwalk? Women parade in stereotypically 'slutty' clothing in order to draw attention to slut-shaming and rape-apologism. We had one in NYC not too long ago, and some women of color came forward and said they felt alienated by this particular expression of feminism, because it's a lot easier for white college girls to reclaim the term 'slut' and parade around in skimpy clothing, than it is for women of color. It has a lot more baggage in minority communities. In this specific example, I think it's more helpful for the organizers of Slutwalk to engage in dialogue with the women of color, so that these different groups can work together without alienating one another, than it is for them to say "Fuck off" and cause a rift within the wider feminist community, and increase tensions and turn their backs on potential allies for no good reason.

    I think what is important is having the event. If it works for most women, but not for women I color, then women of color should have their own event instead of holding this one back.

    Maybe this will clarify my view: I see nothing at all wrong with having a group of white middle class women fighting for things that benefit white middle class women, even if they don't benefit women of color. And if the white middle class women can choose one event which benefits them a lot or a joint event which benefits all women a little, I think they should choose the former. I think it makes no sense to force yourself into a disadvantaged position just for the sake of helping a group that you are not part of and don't identify with, at the expense of greater progress towards your goals.

    Let's play some hypotheticals.

    There's only one hospital in a very small, rural city. For some reason, a terrorist put Viagra into the city's water supply, and the end result is that a lot of women got pregnant.

    All those women need, obviously, medical attention, but the hospital clearly can't cope with so much demand.

    20% of the women are white and the rest are black.

    In the "white middle class women" annual meeting, two solutions are proposed for this conundrum.

    1) An emergency tax is levied by the municipality, so that transportation towards other hospitals located in other cities can be afforded - to every pregnant woman. This is going to be expensive for everyone on the town, and, quite frankly, a hassle to the mothers and their kin.

    2) A "whites-first" policy. The white pregnant women get guaranteed treatment; tough luck for the black ones.

    Are you saying you don't see anything wrong with people choosing 2 instead of 1?

    I am assuming this is in a world where discrimination based on race is not illegal. In that case, I would say society is wrong for agreeing to the second solution, but I would not say the white middle class women's group is wrong for pushing for it. They have a problem to deal with. An as a group, they ate suggesting the best solution for their group members. I don't see why they should risk their lives or the lives of thee children (having to use hospitals that are further away can mean you won't make it to the hospital in time) for the benefit of another group.

    Of course, your example is totally unrealistic. If the choice is creating a state of the art neonatal icu in the hospital near the white middle class women, or makin minor improvements to all the ICUs, is it really so awful for the white middle class women to push for number 1?

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Anyway, I think the simplest definition is the best:

    Feminism is the belief in and pursuit of equality between the sexes.

    And that is how it is pursued and defined by the vast majority of its proponents.

    Which is so self-evidently a just and healthy idea that I have no idea how a person could ever morally fight against it.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    Well, I mean, there is a difference between a majority beating up a minority and taking their shit. And a majority ignoring a minorities moral code and doing whatever the hell they want that has no direct consequences for said minority.

    And the examples have been all over the board. To the point where I don't even remember what they were originally trying to illustrate with them.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    Well, I mean, there is a difference between a majority beating up a minority and taking their shit. And a majority ignoring a minorities moral code and doing whatever the hell they want that has no direct consequences for said minority.

    And the examples have been all over the board. To the point where I don't even remember what they were originally trying to illustrate with them.

    Some people here quite clearly state that being in the majority means you are right.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    Well, I mean, there is a difference between a majority beating up a minority and taking their shit. And a majority ignoring a minorities moral code and doing whatever the hell they want that has no direct consequences for said minority.

    And the examples have been all over the board. To the point where I don't even remember what they were originally trying to illustrate with them.

    Some people here quite clearly state that being in the majority means you are right.

    I thought they were just arguing that just because you are in the minority you weren't automatically right?

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    Well, I mean, there is a difference between a majority beating up a minority and taking their shit. And a majority ignoring a minorities moral code and doing whatever the hell they want that has no direct consequences for said minority.

    And the examples have been all over the board. To the point where I don't even remember what they were originally trying to illustrate with them.

    Some people here quite clearly state that being in the majority means you are right.

    I thought they were just arguing that just because you are in the minority you weren't automatically right?

    It seemed to me to be both at the same time, with the idea that 'minorities are always right' being a strawman anyway. Jeedan was clearly saying that the majority has a responsibility to not ignore minorities, not that they get to dictate everything.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    How do you debate with people who believe that selfishness and the tyranny of the majority are how things should be?

    These arguments have been attacked and demolished thousands of times before, throughout human history. But you don't care, and believe it is the job of others to convince you to act morally.

    It's just so sad.

    Well, I mean, there is a difference between a majority beating up a minority and taking their shit. And a majority ignoring a minorities moral code and doing whatever the hell they want that has no direct consequences for said minority.

    And the examples have been all over the board. To the point where I don't even remember what they were originally trying to illustrate with them.

    Some people here quite clearly state that being in the majority means you are right.

    I thought they were just arguing that just because you are in the minority you weren't automatically right?

    It seemed to me to be both at the same time, with the idea that 'minorities are always right' being a strawman anyway. Jeedan was clearly saying that the majority has a responsibility to not ignore minorities, not that they get to dictate everything.

    Frankie and I are both arguing there is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to pay attention to or respect the wishes of a minority. It is on them to advocate for themselves and convince the majority that they are right.

  • AvrahamAvraham white men holding kittens dot tumblr dot comRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Frankie and I are both arguing there is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to pay attention to or respect the wishes of a minority. It is on them to advocate for themselves and convince the majority that they are right.

    This is the Scrooge point of view.
    "I wish to be left alone...It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly."
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    If it's the responsibility of the minority to advocate for themselves, then it is the responsibility of the majority to respond in good faith. Especially when the discussion is about people's health and well being.

    Avraham on
    tumblr_mw0i6gT4l61qgwizbo1_250.png :bz :bz
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    Avraham wrote: »
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    I'm gonna stop you right there. No. Just no. You state that like its a fact. It's not. It's your personal moral philosophy.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Avraham wrote: »
    Frankie and I are both arguing there is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to pay attention to or respect the wishes of a minority. It is on them to advocate for themselves and convince the majority that they are right.

    This is the Scrooge point of view.
    "I wish to be left alone...It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly."
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    If it's the responsibility of the minority to advocate for themselves, then it is the responsibility of the majority to respond in good faith. Especially when the discussion is about people's health and well being.

    I feel my other example is a little more on point than Scrooge. What do I do if a vagen tells me that I shouldn't wear leather? "Sure! I'm going to go throw away my closet of dress shoes right now!" The onus is on him to provide me with convincing and reasonable argument, and even then, I have zero responsibility to agree with him. At no point in our exchange am I obligated, morally or otherwise, to agree or listen to him. I have the right to simply walk away, and thank the gods for that. Call it privilege if you like, but that doesn't change where the responsibility in the situation rests.

    That's my whole point in a nutshell. Society would be ridiculous if we had to instantly scrape and concede to every demand anyone ever gave us.

    Frankiedarling on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    I'm gonna stop you right there. No. Just no. You state that like its a fact. It's not. It's your personal moral philosophy.

    Do you believe that all morality is subjective? Many people believe that morality has an objective, not subjective, basis.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    I'm gonna stop you right there. No. Just no. You state that like its a fact. It's not. It's your personal moral philosophy.

    Do you believe that all morality is subjective? Many people believe that morality has an objective, not subjective, basis.

    Morality tends to be based on the majority opinion, really. Which is why what elicits moral outrage varies from place to place. What gets me shut in prison with a heaping spoon of condemnation on my head in the States is day-to-day life in another country. The culture shock of living in Europe and moving to the US is.. well.. shocking. For me, at least.

    Objective morality would also seem to imply an arbitrator of morality. Who would that be?

    EDIT: Some things tend to be universal, or at least close to it. For example, humans established fairly early on that life is nice, and you shouldn't end someone else's existence without good cause.

    Frankiedarling on
  • AvrahamAvraham white men holding kittens dot tumblr dot comRegistered User regular
    If a vegan says you shouldn't eat burgers, that has nothing to do with them personally, it's all about you and a third party (the cow).
    Feminists advocate for things that directly impact their lives and safety - access to health care, protection for victims of abuse, and so on.

    As for refusal to act - I have the right to refuse to give money to the homeless man at the stoplight, but generally, we have a collective responsibility to work at making society more just. I would characterize the continuing existence of such poverty and inequality as a collective moral failure, rather than moral failures by individual members of the majority.

    tumblr_mw0i6gT4l61qgwizbo1_250.png :bz :bz
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Avraham wrote: »
    If a vegan says you shouldn't eat burgers, that has nothing to do with them personally, it's all about you and a third party (the cow).
    Feminists advocate for things that directly impact their lives and safety - access to health care, protection for victims of abuse, and so on.

    As for refusal to act - I have the right to refuse to give money to the homeless man at the stoplight, but generally, we have a collective responsibility to work at making society more just. I would characterize the continuing existence of such poverty and inequality as a collective moral failure, rather than moral failures by individual members of the majority.

    The principle is exactly the same. Bringing a person into it changes literally nothing. We're still at the same point. The only thing that changes is the severity of the request, the dynamics are identical. You still don't get to dictate terms on the sheer value of you having an opinion.

    Frankiedarling on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    I'm gonna stop you right there. No. Just no. You state that like its a fact. It's not. It's your personal moral philosophy.

    Do you believe that all morality is subjective? Many people believe that morality has an objective, not subjective, basis.

    Morality tends to be based on the majority opinion, really. Which is why what elicits moral outrage varies from place to place. What gets me shut in prison with a heaping spoon of condemnation on my head in the States is day-to-day life in another country. The culture shock of living in Europe and moving to the US is.. well.. shocking. For me, at least.

    Objective morality would also seem to imply an arbitrator of morality. Who would that be?

    EDIT: Some things tend to be universal, or at least close to it. For example, humans established fairly early on that life is nice, and you shouldn't end someone else's existence without good cause.

    This is ceding far to much to religious apologia and theological views of the world. The bold part especially.

    Suffice to say that it may or may not be true (I say it isn't) but it will require far more argument than the simple observation that what people perceive to be moral imperatives are not universal..

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Avraham wrote: »
    Refusing to act isn't morally neutral, it's still a choice which carries responsibility.

    I'm gonna stop you right there. No. Just no. You state that like its a fact. It's not. It's your personal moral philosophy.

    Do you believe that all morality is subjective? Many people believe that morality has an objective, not subjective, basis.

    Morality tends to be based on the majority opinion, really. Which is why what elicits moral outrage varies from place to place. What gets me shut in prison with a heaping spoon of condemnation on my head in the States is day-to-day life in another country. The culture shock of living in Europe and moving to the US is.. well.. shocking. For me, at least.

    Objective morality would also seem to imply an arbitrator of morality. Who would that be?

    EDIT: Some things tend to be universal, or at least close to it. For example, humans established fairly early on that life is nice, and you shouldn't end someone else's existence without good cause.

    This is ceding far to much to religious apologia and theological views of the world. The bold part especially.

    Suffice to say that it may or may not be true (I say it isn't) but it will require far more argument than the simple observation that what people perceive to be moral imperatives are not universal..

    I'm not sure I was ceding anything. I was pointing out how it's primarily a religious idea. Until we get the rules written down for us by Someone, we kinda have to go with what we've got, no?

    Frankiedarling on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    But it sn't, and starting off with that assumption is poisoning the well.

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • AvrahamAvraham white men holding kittens dot tumblr dot comRegistered User regular
    It's not dictating terms. Advocacy is a demand/request to negotiate an egalitarian relationship, rather than a relationship where one group is privileged and another is disenfranchised.
    The disenfranchised generally don't get to dictate anything, because they don't have social and political clout.

    tumblr_mw0i6gT4l61qgwizbo1_250.png :bz :bz
13468988
This discussion has been closed.