[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-28, 08:33, said:

I think that the frequent charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and God only knows what other isms and phobias make calm rational conversation very difficult. The earlier piece about Derek Black illustrates my point. His thinking evolved through discussion. I have seen this happen many times. My own thinking evolves, or at least I hope that it does. But if the discussion begins with name calling, it usually evolves to more name calling, and then discussion ends, hopefully peacefully with both walking away.

I'll use myself as an example. I am no longer working for pay at any job. I am 77, soon to be 78 and so most people find this acceptable. I am concerned about the future of Medicare of course. A friend has been i n and out of hospitals with very serious problems since February. This costs money. A lot of money. My friend is neither broke nor wealthy, and Medicare/Insurance covers a lot (obviously I have not inquired about the details). The point is this. If someone expresses concern over how to finance the medical needs of our increasingly aging society, I do not label him (added: oops, make that him/her of course) an ageist. Realist might be closer to the truth. The columnist Paul Samuelson talks about this often. Maybe too often, I get the idea that his solution is we all die from boredom from reading his repeated description of the problem. But it is a problem. Raising questions of the "How are we going to do this?" sort does not make one an ageist here, and similar questions in other contexts does not automatically make one an ist or a phobe of some other sort.

How to apply this to Police/Race? I have said before that I think the starting point should be that everyone acknowledge that the young black male wishes to go out in the evening without being hassled or shot, the cop wants to do the job he is paid to do without being shot, and the community wants crime controlled. Too obvious to need stating? Not at all, I think. If everyone started from that position they might very well find sensible solutions to their shared problem. If they start by calling each other names, then it probably won't go well.

Ken, FWIW, I agree with most of what you say here - but I don't think you go quite far enough. While it is true that change is normally incremental and a single conversation will not change anyone's mind, I believe it is also true there are those who would refuse to change positions regardless of proofs, truths, or evidence. Some of those people are in positions of authority.

While we can have a civil discourse with those whom we disagree, we can only do so if the other side is equally civil. Name-calling does no good, but if there are legitimate reasons to point out that some assumed positions are racist in nature for the necessary reason that the position-holder is not aware of that racists nature and, in fact, consider themselves non-racist, then it should be done.

We all have biases, but unless we know the nature of our biases we cannot ameliorate the effects to produce a more neutral response to our negative ones.

[mikeh]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-28, 08:33, said:

I think that the frequent charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and God only knows what other isms and phobias make calm rational conversation very difficult. The earlier piece about Derek Black illustrates my point. His thinking evolved through discussion. I have seen this happen many times. My own thinking evolves, or at least I hope that it does. But if the discussion begins with name calling, it usually evolves to more name calling, and then discussion ends, hopefully peacefully with both walking away.

I'll use myself as an example. I am no longer working for pay at any job. I am 77, soon to be 78 and so most people find this acceptable. I am concerned about the future of Medicare of course. A friend has been i n and out of hospitals with very serious problems since February. This costs money. A lot of money. My friend is neither broke nor wealthy, and Medicare/Insurance covers a lot (obviously I have not inquired about the details). The point is this. If someone expresses concern over how to finance the medical needs of our increasingly aging society, I do not label him (added: oops, make that him/her of course) an ageist. Realist might be closer to the truth. The columnist Paul Samuelson talks about this often. Maybe too often, I get the idea that his solution is we all die from boredom from reading his repeated description of the problem. But it is a problem. Raising questions of the "How are we going to do this?" sort does not make one an ageist here, and similar questions in other contexts does not automatically make one an ist or a phobe of some other sort.

How to apply this to Police/Race? I have said before that I think the starting point should be that everyone acknowledge that the young black male wishes to go out in the evening without being hassled or shot, the cop wants to do the job he is paid to do without being shot, and the community wants crime controlled. Too obvious to need stating? Not at all, I think. If everyone started from that position they might very well find sensible solutions to their shared problem. If they start by calling each other names, then it probably won't go well.

Ken

In an ideal world, where people were both capable of and willing to exhibit rational thinking, your approach would probably be seen as obvious, to the point that nobody would see any need to suggest it: everybody would already be thinking and acting this way.

Maybe calling Kaitlyn out for being racist, maybe calling Trump out for being racist, makes no difference, but do you, for one moment, think that people as blissfully ignorant and sheltered as they are, will ever be persuaded by polite dialogue?

Dialogue requires interaction. Black apparently found himself in a situation in which he was surrounded by people who disagreed with him...and he listened to them.

Kaitlyn is surrounded by people who think just like her. The only area in her life where she meets with a different worldview is online, and she has demonstrated that she is unwilling to engage meaningfully with her critics. Trump and his inner circle are worse, because Trump, according to all that has been written about him, lacks not only insight but any curiosity about anything.

He apparently hates to read, and briefing sessions are to be no more than 15 minutes or he loses interest. He has refused to attend intelligence briefings....he has been to just 2 of the daily briefings offered since November 9th.

Meanwhile, he engages in long twitter rants, including the insane, literally, claim that he won the popular vote, if one only ignores the 'millions' of illegal votes for HRC.

Just how does the liberal segment, or the reality-based segment, of the populace of the US deal with people like Kaitlyn or Trump when they simply are not interested in your suggested approach, and have been able to isolate themselves from any meaningful contact with people who think differently than they do?

Calling a bigot a bigot may not change the bigot's mind, but playing nice with the bigot merely serves to normalize bigotry. The greatest risk for the American people, and for those of us who are not American but wish you the best, is for Trump's attitudes to become accepted as 'normal'. Playing nice, pretending to accept bigotry by engaging the bigots as being reasonable people, risks a permanent shift in what is considered reasonable. You need to keep independents aware that THIS IS NOT NORMAL, nor decent, nor humane, etc.

Diana's reference to Eco' Ur-fascism was invaluable. But Eco omitted, as far as I can see, explicit reference to how fascism, once it came to power in Italy, was able to convince millions of Italians, not initially supportive, to become at least willing collaborators. While Trump, hopefully, won't have the power, even with republican control of Congress, to implement his 'Movement' as a national priority, the same risks apply: when MSM begins to run soft pieces (as they already have...People, Forbes, for two), then 'middle America' will see him as just a little different, and maybe refreshingly different, from other Presidents....hatred becomes an acceptable approach to differences. Getting even becomes the appropriate response to imagined wrongs.

I'd love for your approach to have any chance of success, because I agree that calling a bigot a bigot won't change the bigot's views. But I give up on the bigots...the goal is to prevent bigotry from becoming an acceptable world view.

[jonottawa]

Ken, note how the self-proclaimed 'rational thinkers' whose intolerance for those with beliefs they disagree with is palpable (and is, in fact, the subject of this discussion) continue to misuse the words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' after being repeatedly corrected.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

It seems to me that what you are calling for is LESS BIGOTRY & their response is HELLZ NO!

I concur with Mike on this point:

 mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 11:12, said:

I'd love for your approach to have any chance of success, because I agree that calling a bigot a bigot won't change the bigot's views. But I give up on the bigots...the goal is to prevent bigotry from becoming an acceptable world view.

I too give up on the bigots (except I use the word as it is actually defined.) The first goal, if we are to solve the serious issues facing our societies, is to reject bigotry, censorship, political correctness and other attacks on free speech.

Here's a great (and concise) speech by Milo that perfectly encapsulates my view:

[hrothgar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 11:29, said:

Ken, note how the self-proclaimed 'rational thinkers' whose intolerance for those with beliefs they disagree with is palpable (and is, in fact, the subject of this discussion) continue to misuse the words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' after being repeatedly corrected.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

It seems to me that what you are calling for is LESS BIGOTRY & their response is HELLZ NO!

What you refer to as bigotry, I think of as grading

Quote

Grading: arrange in or allocate to grades; class or sort.

Identifying the D and F students and making sure that they don't end up in a position to do harm is a time honored tradition.
Sadly, we have hit the point where lots of the F students have found each other on the Internet and have managed to convince themselves that they're not stupid.

In case it isn't clear, this is me calling you stupid.

FWIW, I don't think that there is a snowball' chance in hell that Jon or Al will be able to convince the majority of the folks on this thread that they aren't idiots.
From what I can't tell, they only reason that they bother to post is that they get a visceral thrill from the fact that people label them as idiots.

[jonottawa]

Repeating myself:

"“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”"

So many people deliberately abuse the word 'bigotry' or 'bigot' nowadays. Much like they abuse the word 'racist' which has come to mean 'white person I disagree with.' Such behavior is shameful. It's simply substituting bullying for rational discourse. And good on Ken for pointing it out.

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-28, 11:45, said:

FWIW, I don't think that there is a snowball' chance in hell that Jon or Al will be able to convince the majority of the folks on this thread that they aren't idiots.
From what I can't tell, they only reason that they bother to post is that they get a visceral thrill from the fact that people label them as idiots.

Repeating myself:

It is not my goal to convince anybody on this thread of anything. It is merely to put forth rational arguments & post clever images & videos. I learned long ago that you can't win an argument, no matter how decisively you won the argument.

[mikeh]

People like jonottawa have a superficial skill with words, but it is superficial. Thus he quotes a 'dictionary' definition of bigotry and suggests that those of us who call out racism are bigoted because we do not tolerate the views of the racists.

Tolerance is an interesting concept. While I have never seen a discussion along the lines of what I am about to write, it is something about which I have thought for some time, especially since, in my writings, I tend to take very clear and often intolerant attitudes.

In my view, it is generally a bad idea to be intolerant about ideas, with some notable exceptions. It is useful to bear in mind that in the English language dictionary definitions rarely capture the full range of nuance....the larger the dictionary the more likely it is to come close.

So in my view, when speaking of attitudes towards people or beliefs, there are two types of intolerance.

The racist has attitudes based on external characteristics of others. The religious (or atheist) bigot has attitudes based on beliefs held by others.

Thus some members of ISIS will murder adherents of different sects of Islam, as Protestants used to do to Catholics, and vice versa (and of course internecine religious strife has a truly ancient history).

I categorize these attitudes as primary bigotry.

While at times my writings may appear to shade over into primary bigotry, I like to see myself as usually exhibiting what I would call either secondary or reactionary bigotry or intolerance.

There are, imo, some things that are so beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that primary intolerance is appropriate. Hence I am intolerant of pedophiles acting out on their desires. However, I would not, I hope, be intolerant of a pedophile who sought help for and successfully refrained from ever acting out on his or her desires. Indeed, rationally surely the best way to minimize the acting out of pedophilia is to encourage those unfortunates who have that proclivity to seek help...to do whatever it takes to avoid inflicting harm on children?

But I digress. With those few exceptions, most primary intolerance ought to be intolerable.

So secondary or reactionary intolerance is defined as intolerance of primary intolerance and while the latter is usually objectionable, the former is not only ok, but in fact desirable.

Which ties in with my earlier post cautioning against normalization of Trump and those who support him for bigoted reasons.

As an atheist, for example, I do not care one whit whether others have religious beliefs or not. A number of my friends are religious. So long as the religion in question does't require or permit the infliction of harm on others, then it matters not to be whether someone has a particular delusion about an imaginary all-powerful (and always undefined and unexplained) entity.

But many religions preach intolerance of others. This is inevitable because organized religion is a self-propagating meme, and no religion will survive without persuading others to believe, and the more believers there are, the more benefits there are to membership, whether that be power and wealth for the leaders or a sense of community and righteousness for the flock.

That's when I become intolerant.

The Kaitlyns of the world, by propagating their racially prejudiced view of the world, do little direct harm, but the more prevalent that attitude, the more acceptable it becomes to have and to carry into effect racial prejudice. As one example, clearly Kaitlyn thinks it is commonsense to refuse to hire a black person, because of her belief that if that person didn't work out, he or she would likely falsely claim discrimination on being fired. In any society where that was the prevailing view, blacks would be discriminated against.

So while Kaitlyn may be telling the truth as she see is, when she says this wouldn't affect any decision she made as an employer, nevertheless her beliefs are likely to cause harm to a group of people classed by nothing more than the colour of their skin.

That is primary bigotry.

Refusal to help a same-sex couple celebrate their wedding (or to allow them to be wedded) is primary intolerance or bigotry. Refusing to tolerate that attitude is secondary intolerance.

Intolerance of that...a refusal to accept that as normal....is secondary bigotry or intolerance and I hope I cling to that attitude as long as I live and breathe.

At the risk of mangling the quote, Wilde apparently said that he could resist anything but temptation. I like to think that I can tolerate (almost) anything but intolerance.

[jonottawa]

Mike's argument seems to be:

I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY sure that I'm right so it's okay that I'm a bigot.

What bigot in history ever DIDN'T think that was true of herself?

The capacity for self-delusion of some people is truly astounding.

It reminds me of the old "Grumpy Old Man" skits on Saturday Night Live (back when SNL was funny on occasion.)

In my day, we didn't have these fancy 'dictionaries' with their 'words' and 'meanings' that we all agreed on, ...

It also reminds me of the commenters in this story. They're just as great in number & just as sure that they're right as Mike's crowd is. And just as wrong.

[nige1]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 12:32, said:

It reminds me of the old "Grumpy Old Man" skits on Saturday Night Live (backM when SNL was funny on occasion.) In my day, we didn't have these fancy 'dictionaries' with their 'words' and 'meanings' that we all agreed on, ...

Mikeh and Hrothgar follow a literary tradition whenever they throw off dictionary shackles

Lewis Carrol, in Through the Looking Glass said:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.""
The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2016-November-26, 11:42, said:

Well, you had better gloat elsewhere, because well before three years have gone by, all forum members will have you on ignore. Doing it myself now.

It's our right to ignore arguments we don't like but by so-doing we can lose learning opportunities.

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 12:27, said:

There are, imo, some things that are so beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that primary intolerance is appropriate. Hence I am intolerant of pedophiles acting out on their desires. However, I would not, I hope, be intolerant of a pedophile who sought help for and successfully refrained from ever acting out on his or her desires. Indeed, rationally surely the best way to minimize the acting out of pedophilia is to encourage those unfortunates who have that proclivity to seek help...to do whatever it takes to avoid inflicting harm on children?

Stay tuned.

Here's a good NSFW video on group polarization, social comparison theory & ethnomasochism. It explains the psychological underpinning of the Groupthink that pervades the regressive left these days.

NSFW (strong profanity by comic performing a routine)

[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2016-November-28, 13:32, said:

Mikeh and Hrothgar follow a literary tradition whenever they throw off dictionary shackles

There is a whole subset of people who believe that dictionary definitions are all they need to understand the world and others who raise ideas. It's always amusing, in a sad way, to encounter such people. Iirc, you use dictionary definitions to define, and limit, atheists as well. Oh well. I pity you.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 13:46, said:

There is a whole subset of people who believe that dictionary definitions are all they need to understand the world and others who raise ideas. It's always amusing, in a sad way, to encounter such people. Iirc, you use dictionary definitions to define, and limit, atheists as well. Oh well. I pity you.

MikeH uses common words but with unfamiliar meanings. In my experience, a common vocabulary helps rational communication.

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 12:27, said:

As an atheist, for example, I do not care one whit whether others have religious beliefs or not. A number of my friends are religious. So long as the religion in question does't require or permit the infliction of harm on others, then it matters not to be whether someone has a particular delusion about an imaginary all-powerful (and always undefined and unexplained) entity.

But many religions preach intolerance of others. This is inevitable because organized religion is a self-propagating meme, and no religion will survive without persuading others to believe, and the more believers there are, the more benefits there are to membership, whether that be power and wealth for the leaders or a sense of community and righteousness for the flock.

It is absurd to pretend that all religions are equal on that score. So why do you? And why do you condemn Trump for rejecting that pretense?

Do you agree with this jpg or not? If not, how do you disagree? What's your position on Islamic migration to Western Countries? Should it be unlimited? Do you favor open borders for anyone who can cross into Europe? Do you want your descendants to live under Sharia law?

Sharia Law is alive and well in the UK



Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

[mike777]

I found this interesting comment:

"the Democrats have valid arguments, consistent with their political philosophy, that will sell just as well in the center of the country as they will on the coasts. They just have to sell them, rather than assuming that those beliefs cannot be sold in the center of the country, and hiding behind broad generalizations in the hopes that midwesterners will be too stupid to figure out what they are really up to. A sample of two, a sample of three, a sample of four does not prove that this is not true."

----------------------


As for the immigration question posed, I am in favor of Muslims, Jews and Hindus immigrating to Canada, I try to be open about Pamela Anderson moving to America and taking jobs but if Canada does not want her..

[jonottawa]

Now, unlike Mike, I am not uniformly intolerant of intolerance. If people from foreign cultures want to do things that I find bizarre or unsettling in THEIR countries, that's THEIR business. I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. But nations have EVERY right to exclude people who are completely incompatible with their culture & customs. That's the whole POINT of nations in the first place! We used to fight WARS over this stuff but we've been brainwashed & shamed into surrendering without a fight.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

[hrothgar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 15:04, said:

It is absurd to pretend that all religions are equal on that score. So why do you? And why do you condemn Trump for rejecting that pretense?

Do you agree with this jpg or not? If not, how do you disagree? What's your position on Islamic migration to Western Countries? Should it be unlimited? Do you favor open borders for anyone who can cross into Europe? Do you want your descendants to live under Sharia law?

Sharia Law is alive and well in the UK



Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

So, what phase is Indonesia in? Or, for the matter Turkey .

Please enlighten us...

FWIW, Turkey has been dominated by Muslims since roughly 1077
Indonesia has been a Muslim country sine the mid 1500s

Neither has any tradition of Sharia law.
Both have many times the population of any country that does apply Sharia law.

[mikeh]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 11:29, said:

Ken, note how the self-proclaimed 'rational thinkers' whose intolerance for those with beliefs they disagree with is palpable (and is, in fact, the subject of this discussion) continue to misuse the words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' after being repeatedly corrected.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I don't know whether you and nige are simply stupid or deceitful. If this is the only definition you have of the term 'bigotry' then I suggest you access, and try to read, a better source. On the other hand, if you already know that bigotry also includes an attitude of intolerance to others based on such things as skin colour or religion, then you aren't (merely) stupid, but are in fact dishonest. Of course, being stupid doesn't rule out being dishonest, and vice versa. You may well be both.

[barmar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 15:44, said:

Now, unlike Mike, I am not uniformly intolerant of intolerance. If people from foreign cultures want to do things that I find bizarre or unsettling in THEIR countries, that's THEIR business. I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. But nations have EVERY right to exclude people who are completely incompatible with their culture & customs. That's the whole POINT of nations in the first place! We used to fight WARS over this stuff but we've been brainwashed & shamed into surrendering without a fight.

Are you really holding up wars fought over cultural differences as an ideal to aspire to? That modern life is somehow diminished because we try to negotiate rather than fight?

Not everyone agrees with cultural relativism. Some things are just wrong for everyone, and a culture that declares it right is at worst evil, at best living in the past. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been created by a multinational group. Cultures that continue to violate these rights are rightfully considered backwards. We shouldn't just tolerate them. Is it really OK if they commit attrocities, as long as they only do it within their countries?

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-27, 09:56, said:

I understand, and of course listening to criticism is an essential part of the job. I kept it to how I would react in a specific situation. And even here, it depends. If a big show was made of Pence nobly attending this provocative theater event, demonstrating that he, Pence, is a great and magnanimous figure, then fine, boo him. He would be the one who politicized his appearance. Of course it is probably not possible (unfortunately) for Pence to just go out for an evening of entertainment without it being An Event. But as far as I am concerned, if he wants to go to the corner bar and have a beer, let him. Skip the cheers, skip the boos. Not that anyone would ever vote for me anyway, but I would never ever absolutely never take a job as President or Vice President or any such thing. If I go out for an evening and nobody knows who I am, that is a very good thing.

Let's not forget that it was not just any musical theatre outing. "Hamilton" is a show that celebrates the diversity of our country, while the Trump/Pence campaign was very much in contrast to this. So a plea for racial tolerance was very much in context.

[jonottawa]

 barmar, on 2016-November-28, 16:44, said:

Are you really holding up wars fought over cultural differences as an ideal to aspire to? That modern life is somehow diminished because we try to negotiate rather than fight?

Not everyone agrees with cultural relativism. Some things are just wrong for everyone, and a culture that declares it right is at worst evil, at best living in the past. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been created by a multinational group. Cultures that continue to violate these rights are rightfully considered backwards. We shouldn't just tolerate them. Is it really OK if they commit attrocities, as long as they only do it within their countries?

It sounds like you're accusing me of being too tolerant (cultural relativism) and not tolerant enough (advocating war over cultural differences) at the same time. Please pick one and I'll try to answer you.