posted
They are different things. Opposition requires action, for example. You can disagree with someone without opposing them. The scale of the subject doesn't matter.
I am not saying that I don't want to be your comrade; I am saying that we aren't comrades.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
Perhaps that is because Rush Limbaugh is also wrong.
I don't fully understand it myself, but I know of plenty of people who swung from the left to the right and credit Limbaugh as a significant factor in their transition.
For the most part, I agree with Kate: there is value in not being mealy-mouthed, and in establishing your position clearly and strongly, and in calling a spade a spade (or in calling evil what it is). If that means some people who stand on the other side of an issue take offense, and think you are being a jerk, then so be it.
I think, to borrow Scott's phrase, "blunt refutations" are less about preaching to the choir and more about establishing clear lines of (metaphorical) battle. Not everyone is fully invested in every issue, so this has a lot of value. It can help you identify potential allies and enemies, not just reinforce existing positions.
I suspect the leftists who were won over by Limbaugh (and their equivalents on any other issue) were not ideologues, but rather nominal leftists who hadn't thought about the issues in question very much or very critically. For such people, those blunt refutations don't so much change their opinion as expose them (strongly) to other opinions out there. I think that's the sort of thing they'd call a "wake-up call."
There's also just that minority of folks who appreciate blunt honesty, and don't mind when people are "rude."
On the other hand, I do think that Scott has a good point too. If you're interested in trying to change someone's mind (big if), most people are resistant to blunt refutations due to their own irrationalities/insecurities. Especially people who are heavily invested in an opposing ideology. Persuading such people is tricky, and best done carefully.
So I think that Scott gave a great example of that kind of attempt, in his example of reasoning with a violently anti-gay Christian. I don't know how successful his example approach might be, but I think it would be a hell of a lot more persuasive than what my response would be, i.e. decrying his view as evil and moving on.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As for 'strong', I guess it depends on what one's purpose is in arguing the point. A strong, and blunt refutation is, in my opinion, less than effective in winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. (For example: how many democrats are swayed to become Republican via the Rush Limbaugh radio show?)
Perhaps that is because Rush Limbaugh is also wrong.
Wrong or not, he is an effective communicator for the audience he targets.
On the other hand, his method of communication is damaging to persuasive dialog between his intended audience and the opposition to Limbaugh's ideology.
That is, as a propagandist and base motivator, Limbaugh is skilled. As a missionary for GOP ideals, not so much, IMO. (When the mission is to convince or persuade others who oppose your point of view to come around to your way of thinking.)
quote: there is value in not being mealy-mouthed, and in establishing your position clearly and strongly, and in calling a spade a spade (or in calling evil what it is). If that means some people who stand on the other side of an issue take offense, and think you are being a jerk, then so be it.
Agreed here; but in order to be an effective communication, it needs to start within the right framework. Calling those who believe these disgusting things (i.e., that it is okay to murder homosexuals) to repentance frames the dialog within a context that the audience already understands, and possibly accepts.
Framing it within western ideals of equality, brotherhood, etc-- that is, the ideals of rich, secular, politically powerful, morally suspect, white folk-- is not, I imagine, an effective way to communicate with the opposition.
quote:I also don't think that all the courtesy in the world is going to change the minds of some of these people. God (and you all) know that I have been presenting theological arguments for decades. If that worked this guy wouldn't exist.
Frankly, kmboots, your theological arguments have never been that persuasive to me.
The danger here is that you have started on the road to disallowing your opposition to be rational and to be persuaded.
It is certain that their opinions are evil. It is possible that they themselves are monsters. As a Christian, I feel that those are the people who need the light of truth the most. (Remember Paul)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And your theological arguments are not persuasive to me. Neither are those of the Leviticus tattoo guy. That isn't surprising as our theologies are not the same.
I can point out for the millionth time that Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality, the reasons why what Paul had to say on the subject don't mean what people think they mean, that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. You counter with, "Our prophet says X", and all my arguments are for nothing.
I am not the one denying rationality to these people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed here; but in order to be an effective communication, it needs to start within the right framework. Calling those who believe these disgusting things (i.e., that it is okay to murder homosexuals) to repentance frames the dialog within a context that the audience already understands, and possibly accepts.
What if we would reallu rather this framework they're using be one that is discredited, so far as being a primary means of making public policy? Long-term struggle there, to be sure, but still.
In any event, I think much of what you're saying is right, Scott. So far as actually having a chance to persuade a given group, starting out with courtesy-with the trappings of courtesy, anyway, since it seems to me about as rude to tell someone they're going to Hell as they're betraying the ideals of Christ-is likely to be more effective.
All well and good, but I still think there's something else going on here. It's been mentioned in this context, in this thread even. If for example someone were to say, "I don't believe people should practice interracial marriage, because genetics bunk science so on and so forth..." I think it would be culturally acceptable to regard them openly with some derision. To treat them rudely. I'm not making a statement on whether that would be *right* or even effective, only social acceptance.
But if a hypothetical person of matching charisma and social status were to say, "I don't believe people should practice interracial marriage because God created human beings with different racial backgrounds, theology Bible so on and so forth," socially it would still be acceptable to *think* that was nonsense (as indeed it fails by its own religious lights), but it would be less acceptable or even wrong socially speaking to be rude to them about it-again aside from questions of effectiveness and higher moral rights and wrongs. Religious motivations get something of a pass for believing what we would otherwise think were wrong or even horrid things.
Which, don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly up in arms about. It helps keep the peace, and the sooner and wider humanity in general adopts that kind of attitude the better. Except there is one regrettable side effect: religious motivations for pursuing public policy. It's too often used as a shield, and the really insidious part is that it gets other people to defend itself too, without even having to ask.
The result is that secular racist gets toasted by society, but religious racist has a host of people not leaping to his defense, really, but hastening to make sure people aren't too mean.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your theological arguments are not persuasive to me.
:nod:
It's difficult to talk with you about the specifics of Christian religion because your acceptance of scripture is inconsistent.
That's been my impression, anyway.
Generally, if I'm talking with non-Mormons about an ideal, though, I don't use Mormon scripture to back up my point. The conversation you pointed at was one that, if I recall correctly, asked why Mormons believe what they believe about same sex attraction. So my answer was pertinent; but not meant to be persuasive.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you don't understand my acceptance of Scripture does not mean it is inconsistent. It is quite consistent to me. There is, of course, no reason for you to understand why. I think that your acceptance of Scripture (what I know of it) is goofy, but I am sure it makes sense to you.
I am not sure what conversation you think I am pointing at. I wasn't referencing any specific conversation or any specific person.
ETA: What is the theological approach to someone whose theological understanding is that Leviticus 18 is sacrosanct and crucial enough to be permanently marked on his body but Leviticus 19 is not? Frankly, I don't think he is all that motivated by theology.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not sure what conversation you think I am pointing at. I wasn't referencing any specific conversation or any specific person.
I got a completely different impression from this:
quote:I can point out for the millionth time that Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality, the reasons why what Paul had to say on the subject don't mean what people think they mean, that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. You counter with, "Our prophet says X", and all my arguments are for nothing.
quote:That you don't understand my acceptance of Scripture does not mean it is inconsistent. It is quite consistent to me. There is, of course, no reason for you to understand why. I think that your acceptance of Scripture (what I know of it) is goofy, but I am sure it makes sense to you.
Inconsistent is the wrong word-- I'm sorry.
I meant to go back and edit it, but got called away before I had the chance.
Perhaps a better way to express this is that it's difficult for me to determine what you accept as scripture and what you do not.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You" was meant to be general for "LDS person arguing against SSM" not you specifically. It was a careless usage. I'm sorry about that. It was meant as a general example of how theological arguments are not all that effective when the theology is sufficiently different.
"Inconsistent" is fine from the outside. I can understand why it would look that way because I don't see Scripture as being a consistent thing itself. It is so varied in history, context, authorship, translation, intent. And I keep learning more about where each bit comes from and what it was intended to accomplish. So I don't treat it as something cut from one cloth and I can see why that would look inconsistent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why don't you define "acting like a jerk" to see if we are talking about the same thing. Lots of people would consider saying the "polite" statement you proposed about to be acting like a jerk.
Acting like a jerk:
Deliberately using objectively antagonistic language, not merely stating a disagreement or a personal opinion. Talking about people, instead of their views or actions. (For example, "I think your stated views on gays are evil." vs "You are evil." Not granting people the benefit of the doubt, or in other words, assuming a negative explanation instead of asking for clarification. Stating things as a certainty when they are clearly in dispute. (For example, "You are wrong." vs "I disagree.") Any kind of name calling. (For example, "If you really believe that you are naive.") Having a generally bad attitude.
I understand that part of what we seem to be disagreeing about is outrage. It is outrageous to suggest we herd the gays into an electrified fenced off area and air lift in food for them until they die. It is. But yet another reason to not deviate from courteous and calm yet resolute resistance is that statements like that are designed to raise a ruckus among believers and detractors. One of the best ways to defeat this kind of sensationalism meant to bring blood to a boil is to not let them decide one's emotional state, to not become so outraged that one acts as crazy as they sound.
posted
I think that, culturally, there are words and phrases and body language that could be so widely regarded as antagonistic-within that culture-that for the purposes of communicating between people, they may as well be considered 'objectively antagonistic'.
But...this isn't a case where I just disagree with a small portion of what you're saying, and seize on it for whatever reason-whether for fun or because I simply can't see how very much we supposedly agree, speculations on your part in the past have gone both ways. I don't say this to start a fight, but only to clarify: while it isn't an especially important aspect of your overall point, insofar as you believe something can be 'objectively angagonistic', I disagree.
It's not possible for something to be 'objectively' antagonistic with respect to things like manners and emotions. It's right there in your definition of the word: 'existing independently of thought...or as part of reality'. How can anything to do with courtesy or rudeness be considered to exist outside thought? If there were no thought or no observer, there couldn't possibly be any communication-antagonistic or otherwise!
The word simply doesn't fit as you're using it, and it actually ties into a pretty important part of diplomacy and communication: recognition that the world is different to all of its inhabitants, or at least appears so. Doubly or triply or mor so when it comes to other inhabitants of the world.
So if you actually mean 'there are some things that those of us raised in the same general culture ought to consider so unlikely to be anything but antagonistic, that we simply ought to treat them as though they were antagonistic in and of themselves, to us', well that's one thing. I agree that is probably very useful, has a very low chance of being harmful, and we should as humans do it. But I think where you're seeing disagreement or raised eyebrows, where you are, is because that's not *quite* what you said, which was to simply use a word in a way contrary to its definition.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about "reasonably objective antagonistic"? To delineate between common sense stuff like calling someone a jerk vs cultural stuff like Inuits expecting a moment of silent contemplation after they speak before you do.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tempted to say, "Reasonably objective..." and leave it at that, heh.
But no. While I think your larger point has a lot to say for it, the word 'objective' simply doesn't belong in a discussion of courtesy and rudeness, Stone_Wolf. Not only doesn't it belong, but it's not even needed. It lends artificial weight to a case that is already decent on its own. There isn't some Generation ____ American born Etiquette Guide out there somewhere, and even if there was, it wouldn't be objective-but objectivity isn't necessary for usefulness to human beings.
In any event, this...well, I wouldn't say it's a need, I don't know that one way or another though it is staring to seem that way...this need to know whether someone has been offensive isn't really necessary, because it's redundant. Even for the things that you might call 'objectively' antagonistic (still sort of buzzes on my teeth, that word use here!), anyone still has to decide if they're actually offended. My sister can call me a jerk if she likes, and I'll know she's either screwing with me or else she's pretty angry about something, in which case I ought to try and get to the bottom of that. Nowhere is there a rubric where I input her and my information, the exact wording, a recording of the conversation, and have it scored 'antagonistic' or 'non antagonistic'-it's up to me. And in cases where nuance might be missed or cultural backgrounds might work at cross purposes, the decision is still mine: whether to believe they meant to offend, or try to find out.
Which are all things you and others have mentioned, and I'm fine with...but it not objective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about "commonly accepted antagonistic..."?
I'm just trying to say, "stuff you know will piss most anyone off" in an intelligent way.
ETA: About what you said about your sister...while what said can work as a general guideline of jerkiness, it is intended more as a jerkiness guideline for having a discussion with someone you vehemently disagree with, and while that -can- sometimes be close friends and family, it's more aimed at relative strangers.
posted
Stone Wolf, as an example of the non-objective nature of courtesy and antagonism, while one person might think that calling someone "comrade" is friendly and polite another might find that to be intrusive and rude. I use this example not to show you up but as something close enough to make the point of how a single action is read quite subjectively.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course courtesy and antagonism are subjective...as an outcome. And while a few of my points on the benefits of courtesy have been about the outcome, more have been about -effort-, not outcome. And someone who is actively trying to be polite, even if the other person is offended, knows they tried, and observers will likely know was well.
Just because people -can- take anything as offense does not mean we should not try to be courteous.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what 'as an outcome' could possibly mean. If the process by which an outcome is arrived at is subjective, that outcome cannot be objective. It's as simple as that.
'Commonly accepted', on the other hand, is not only almost exactly as wieldy or unwieldy a term, it has the benefit of using all of the words in the phrase accurately.
Anyway, how will observers (and...why does it matter? It's remarks like this that bring about responses questioning motives for courtesy, dude) 'know' who was attempting sincerely to be polite and who was just being a schmuck? Barring commonly accepted antagonistic remarks, body language, etc. This idea that people can just 'tell' isn't borne out either on its own merits, or by looking at people-at least not to the extent you're applying it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it's objective, I'm saying that if one person is genuinely attempting to be polite, it still might fail utterly, as -the outcome is subjective- as it effects the other person in the discussion. It doesn't mean that the person trying to be polite's efforts are not valid, worthwhile or still beneficial.
Let's face it, being offended is an opinion, and it can be based on nothing at all. "I didn't like the way he was breathing." can be as real (not necessarily valid) reason to be offended as being called a hateful name. If we were to judge the worthiness of being polite solely on the outcome of how people react to it, then we should likely abandon the concept.
But of course I am suggesting that we -do not- judge the value of courtesy solely upon the reaction of the recipient. For the myriad of reasons I've been outlining for the last couple pages.
If both parties followed the "Don't be a jerk" parameters , then if something -did- come up which might cause offense, the benefit of the doubt would be in place, and then both parties could simply check in.
"Did you happen to know that I find being called someone's comrade who I don't feel has earned the position is offensive because it is disrespectful to those who have?"
As to observers, if one is polite -solely for their benefit- then questioning motives seems in order, but I am merely pointing out that courtesy has a side benefit of making you look good to people listening to the discussion. And I feel it is a basic human motivation to want to look good in the eyes of others. But it goes beyond that, if we are waging a battle for people's hearts and minds over moral issues, like gay rights. It helps our cause to be kind and calm, yet resolute. It helps to show people who might change their views or are sitting on the fence that our opposition are the ones calling for violence, the ones being hateful or malevolent while we remain respectful yet firm.
As to "Commonly accepted" or whichever version we have talked about, the specific wording is of little import. The idea is simple: don't say stuff that you have good reason to think would piss the other guy off.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I...you did say it was objective. Like, three times minimum in the face of pointed responses as to how that word didn't fit the way you were using it.
If you're dropping that qualifier from things, that's fine, but it's a bit strange to read you now saying, "I'm not saying it's objective."
quote:As to observers, if one is polite -solely for their benefit- then questioning motives seems in order, but I am merely pointing out that courtesy has a side benefit of making you look good to people listening to the discussion. And I feel it is a basic human motivation to want to look good in the eyes of others. But it goes beyond that, if we are waging a battle for people's hearts and minds over moral issues, like gay rights. It helps our cause to be kind and calm, yet resolute. It helps to show people who might change their views or are sitting on the fence that our opposition are the ones calling for violence, the ones being hateful or malevolent while we remain respectful yet firm.
This comes back around again to the way to wage a political 'hearts and minds' campaign, and I believe that just like any other such effort, the best results are never achieved by overwhelming adherence to a single theme.
There are benefits to letting people around us know that certain kinds of anti-homosexual policy prejudice are just as wrong, reprehensible, and even absurd as if they were advocating racial discrimination. Be 'polite' (which in this thread lately seems to center around a nigh-obsessive concern with how one feels about one's own courtesy, and how it is viewed by others) for those who are *genuinely* on the fence. People who don't like to see Mr Electric Fences for Jesus lambasted as a hateful jackass, on the other hand, are perhaps not actually on the fence, but rather embarrassed to be on the side they're on.
But that's speculation, and I wouldn't apply it to an individual just on that basis. Still, though, there is as much to be said for being politically aggressive and confrontational with respect to some ideas as there is for being non-offensive where possible. Sometimes, being nice is too slow. Sometimes explanations have to be dragged out of people and groups, and if they wriggle around, they have to be called on it.
Now the strangest thing about this conversation, Stone_Wolf, (for me at least) is that I'm almost certain from direct personal experience that your real opinions, or at least practices, on this subject are quite a bit more closely aligned with mine than with this ideal level of courtesy you're espousing-and I do think it's a good ideal. It's just..,odd.
posted
I'm not married to the word objective, and have been willing to change it from the beginning. I don't know why you would find it strange, as I haven't been a stickler on that word. Roll with the punches and all.
I won't deny that the more direct approach can be effective...but also carries heavier disadvantages. And I feel that the polite tract can have nearly all the same advantages, but without the same level of damage.
As to my own personal practices, you are right that I haven't always adhered to them as strictly as I am suggesting currently. These are ideals, and often times I find myself falling short of them. The main reason I have asked you to not speak to me in the past was I did not like who I was when I was arguing with you. But that is not a good solution to that problem. I am glad we are able to discussing things in a civil manor, and appreciate your insight into the topics we discuss.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you are calling the "polite tract" doesn't seem so much polite as either artificial or hedging. If what you are really suggesting is that people not lose their temper, that is good advice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not losing one's temper is part of it, but no, I'm not suggesting an artificial response, as one can note that they are upset or what is being said is outrageous...it's just how one communicates that I'm specifically talking about.
Being courteous is more about self control then artifice.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say most definitely, but that isn't all of what that phrase means. (not that you were saying it was, of course).
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not how self control other than losing one's temper figures into this. Wouldn't losing one's self control end up being the same thing as losing one's temper in this situation? Either way, says only what one means to say which may or may not be "polite".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what you use it for. If you are using self control to say things that you don't mean or to keep from saying what you do mean, then it is artificial.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, but I am not calling for people to not say what they mean, I'm suggesting that they say what they mean courteously.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I don't know what you mean by that. "Courteously" can mean different things - some of which are appropriate and some aren't. And some of it is just fake frosting. The, "no offense, but" prefix, for example, does not make what comes next "courteous".
I am not sure you have thought this all the way through. Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel I have made my feelings on the matter abundantly clear, and am afraid that we have reached the point where further discussion seems pointless. For what it is worth I feel I have indeed thought this through all the way. Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
