posted
i am kind of distressed that my worldwide posting sum total is distracting me from talking about that orson scott card just wrote the perfect sleepy problematic grandpa article where he rambled on a bit about egg sandwiches before going on a grumble about that some people didn't want to talk or associate with him because he was happy that his state passed a stupid transphobic law and this just goes to show that the liberals are the true intolerant and hateful ones
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe if those los angeles types had done him the service of being sure to stand around and give obligatory and polite acknowledgement of his views — as he deserves — instead of freely electing to stop talking to him, he wouldn't have had to have gone on a ten minute caterwaul about how their behavior is representative of a Taliban-esque cult of intolerate hate
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My worldwide forum post count is only about 20k. More than half of those were made on UBB.classic, though, so I think that reflects some dedication
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For six months this absurd and pointless intrusion on the privacy of women becomes the law in one absurd and pointless North Carolina "city," until the state legislature passes a law that returns us to the status quo ante, along with language designed to keep other cities from passing laws to enforce conformity with the dogmas of the Established Church.
Charlotte is absurd and pointless! Not even quite a real city.
Also it's an Established Church that wants to protect transgender individuals from discrimination and harassment, not, you know, people in Charlotte who feel differently than the NC state government. (Also those people in Charlotte are obviously so much more Established than the state government...)
quote:But now a return to the simple, safe rules that protected women for generations have become Heresy, and the state that dares to defy the new dogma is worthy of a boycott by all of the Total Conformists. Suddenly the practices that were universal a year ago are a hideous crime, a rebirth of fascism, a virtual pogrom against the transgendered.
And I wondered: Is there a philosophy here? Unlike medieval Christianity, there's no effort at logic or consistency or even evidence. We have to take anthropogenic global warming on faith -- and then prosecute any scientist who insists on rejecting theories that are contradicted by all the evidence.
Oh good, he didn't forget to bring up AGW.
I'm sure glad the NC state law was based on evidence, unlike the nasty Charlotte law.
quote:Notice how short a timelag there was between Bruce Jenner's big publicity push and the demand that all "transgendered" people must be called by their new name and with pronouns appropriate for their new "gender." Notice that instantly anyone who expressed disapproval was the object of outspoken hatred.
Yes, literally Caitlyn Jenner was the beginning of all transgender related ideas for politeness and tolerance. The concept of transgender has definitely not been part of an extremely common initialism identifying several minority populations who generally get a lot of hate and discrimination and pretty much nobody ever had any publicly stated preferences for how to treat them. Not until Jenner, and then everything was different!
Ugh, too tired. But there's so much more.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll say this, almost with every essay now where he remarks on any social or political controversy, I feel less guilty about feeling some spiteful satisfaction at how much being scorned for his scorn bothers him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:as a general rule then we never act more sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of osc's positions as osc is often sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of people like liberals, gay activists, scientists who collectively publish things he disagrees are real, various politicians including Obama, feminists, etc
having then allowed him to set the standard for decorum in voicing one's opinion of another person or a set of people and their opinions, and what tones are on the table for having an opinion on them and wishing to voice it, he can then decide whether to leave the myriad questions his articles raise exactly as they are and proffer no public explanation, or he can respond in any way he chooses
i feel this is a better approach than in some direct or indirect way setting a standard that the onus is on others to beseech clarification politely on the subject of his anger and contempt for other people, groups, or ideas.
the subjects that he decides to be witheringly indignant and insulting about definitely don't hurt, either. it's one thing to be a churlish imperious bespawler on subjects of trivial personal taste (as I can personally attest, knowing that anyone who enjoyed Prometheus is wrong and dumb and probably smells like a week-old bag of farts) but instead he chooses to do so in ways compounding and furthering his cruelly fixative history of devoting his time, energy, and hate towards entire classes of marginalized people or anyone who would dare call him out for it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm telling you folks to stop directly calling Mr. Card any pejoratives. Please stop. I'd also appreciate people editing their posts. If they don't I'll go through and do it.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coach your pejoratives in the Plausible Deniability format osc used in his article about Obama mobilizing gangs of inner city blacks to oppress and kill people who disagree with his rule.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part where you are instructed to tell people 'don't call him names' about a man who calls them names, JanitorBlade. Hates America, leftist Taliban, hates families, loves our enemies, I could go on at length and have before, you know the things he's said as well or better than I do.
And I know you've got a job to do and that's fine. But here, now, all that is is the authority of the rules, and that's it. There's nothing of ethics or fair play involved here. The owner has given instructions (which in this case amount to 'regardless of how bigoted and hateful I am towards people, they cannot say the same it about me), and he owns the place so he gets to set the rules.
All of that's fine, it really is. But the irony is there, and frankly it seems unlikely you're unaware of it. You've even acknowledged it before, in exactly this context.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Coach your pejoratives in the Plausible Deniability format osc used in his article about Obama mobilizing gangs of inner city blacks to oppress and kill people who disagree with his rule.
Mr. Card is not required to maintain his forum's rules in columns he chooses to publish in order for them to apply here.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He sure isn't! Money can indeed buy someone a place where they can dictate 'do not treat me as I treat others.'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that it matters, but I'm *pretty* sure I've never called Card any names or "pejoratives" here, or done anything but disagree with his stated views using polite language.
That being said, I wouldn't want to cause trouble for you, so I'll leave the forum so all those wonderful folks who actually agree with his views about gays, transgendered folks, blacks, poor people, scientists, and liberals can feel free to post here without being threatened by the fact people might disagree with them. Have fun!
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Not that it matters, but I'm *pretty* sure I've never called Card any names or "pejoratives" here, or done anything but disagree with his stated views using polite language.
That being said, I wouldn't want to cause trouble for you, so I'll leave the forum so all those wonderful folks who actually agree with his views about gays, transgendered folks, blacks, poor people, scientists, and liberals can feel free to post here without being threatened by the fact people might disagree with them. Have fun!
I haven't called anybody out in particular. I'm seeing this problem happen again and I'm asking people to stop.
Members here are welcome to say these views Mr. Card espouses are all sorts of things, even evil. But you can't say Mr. Card is evil is a bigot is anything pejorative.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The part where you are instructed to tell people 'don't call him names' about a man who calls them names, JanitorBlade. Hates America, leftist Taliban, hates families, loves our enemies, I could go on at length and have before, you know the things he's said as well or better than I do.
And I know you've got a job to do and that's fine. But here, now, all that is is the authority of the rules, and that's it. There's nothing of ethics or fair play involved here. The owner has given instructions (which in this case amount to 'regardless of how bigoted and hateful I am towards people, they cannot say the same it about me), and he owns the place so he gets to set the rules.
All of that's fine, it really is. But the irony is there, and frankly it seems unlikely you're unaware of it. You've even acknowledged it before, in exactly this context.
I often do not like things Mr. Card writes. I've told him to his face that I think he is wrong about the threat SSM poses to society. It was terrifying to do so, he was very gracious during that conversation.
I do not like that he uncharitably ascribes the basest of motives to those who supported Charlotte NC's attempt to be more inclusive towards transgendered people. And called Charlotte a ""city"". I don't like that he so readily lumps people and positions into groups and lambasts them. It hurts when it's positions I espouse, because in my past I have found so much clarity and impressive thought in Mr. Card's writings. To see that disappear is miserable.
But I've committed to keeping this place devoid of malice and invective towards all individual members of the community. I find it baffling that even with this small community of posters I have to repeat again and again that no matter how viciously Mr. Card has spoken out against a person, place, or thing, that we are not permitted here to insult him or treat him poorly. It would be interesting indeed if his columns specifically called out members of this community and insulted them. But we are not there. We are in a world where Mr. Card publishes his unvarnished opinions about people and ideas both cherished and hated, and he offends people here as a result.
If you want to discuss why you absolutely hate many of Mr. Cards ideas and positions, that *can* be done here. I would hope it would be also balanced by what you agree with but I get that when people are hurt by something, they want to express that frustration. But you cannot come here and have total freedom to say as you wish, just as you could not in many forums with similar rules. One in particular is that you cannot attack a member of the community here. If you want to post somewhere else that you think Mr. Card is crazy, that is your prerogative. But it is not here.
It's not that complicated, and we are all smart enough to comprehend it. The day Mr. Card says "Rakeesh is a bigot" on his published columns, then I'll immediately start talking to the Cards about revising rules around here. But as they stand, Mr. Card has not come here and broken his own forum's rules, so we are all required to uphold them as well.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
blackblade is just the messenger and didn't set the rules and has actually resisted applying the rules for QUITE A WHILE and let us get away with border and full rulebreaking for a while
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should probably talk to him about shutting the forums down, especially since his hate-speak over the past 8 years or so has done most of the work of it already. Then you wouldn't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of defending his reprehensibly prejudiced views. I'm being serious -- that sucks for you. You're a good guy, and this is a shitty job.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with JT. There's no way these forums will serve his interests under the current conditions.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You should probably talk to him about shutting the forums down, especially since his hate-speak over the past 8 years or so has done most of the work of it already. Then you wouldn't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of defending his reprehensibly prejudiced views. I'm being serious -- that sucks for you. You're a good guy, and this is a shitty job.
I think you're missing BB's point. He's have to defend OSC's positions as moderator - in as much as he does so, he is choosing to do so. What he's talking about here is requiring a certain standard of behavior to be applied towards a poster, whether you agree or disagree with that poster.
For myself, when I was more active, I and others tried to make this a place where OSC's columns, etc. were far beneath the acceptable norms of behavior, not because we had to, but because we valued reasonable, respectful discourse and disagreement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder...does this mean we will never learn the end of Alvin's tale? Even if Card writes it...the soulful, connected writer who thought of Making & created such a true feeling world...well...I fear...
Ya kno.
Also...take it easy on BB...and by that I mean say "I think this view of OSC's is bigoted" vs name calling...it's not that hard to couch ones views within the TOS.
posted
BB did nothing wrong and is doing nothing wrong. he is just doing the job he's supposed to do.
i mean i would have zero qualms with having gotten a ban or two because we all ought to have been perfectly aware that The Rules, such as they are here, would mean that you aren't allowed technically to call OSC a homophobe or a bigot or a transphobe, because he takes these observations about his screeds as being substanceless and derogatory namecalling, and nothing more.
That he doesn't believe the way he conducts himself in articles has any impact on what sort of tone you're allowed to use against him should come as no surprise because of course he doesn'tPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like...on one hand you are saying the same thing as me...but at the same time I feel you are still messing with BB saying shit like "...you aren't allowed technically to call OSC a homophobe or a bigot or a transphobe..."
Like thumbing your nose at him...(singsong) *I still said it*
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, not this time. I more point that out as something that COULD HAVE BEEN outlawed, but we are actually or we have been actually allowed to go ahead with those criticisms. I don't have to be sneaky with criticisms we have been permitted to make!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
someone noted that it appears that the conservative base always needs OR is always fed something to help them believe that their values are constantly under threat by corrosive, bad things. having really super lost the gay marriage thing, this transgender bathroom thing becomes the next bleak and barren hill for people like osc to die on.
posted
I'm feeling pretty upset that trans people are being exposed to such a surge of hate. But I don't even know. Arguing with people doesn't seem to work, they just dig in.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amusing to me how much we're not hearing about how awful and dangerous gay marriage is nearly to the extent we were when it was banned. One might almost begin to wonder if the politicians at the head of such charges actually weren't very invested in protecting America against this critical danger if they give up the fight so quickly.
Look at pro-life movements. Say what you will about tactics and beliefs, there is conviction, and it's sustained through many years of Roe v Wade.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:someone noted that it appears that the conservative base always needs OR is always fed something to help them believe that their values are constantly under threat by corrosive, bad things. having really super lost the gay marriage thing,
The primary purpose of morality has been and probably always will be to dehumanize people that you want to do bad things to. One of the best ways to do this is to portray the people you want to hurt as somehow attacking you (or vulnerable people). And the thing about hate and about feeling like a victim while actually being the powerful one is that it feels really good.
You don't want to give up that rush and self-vindication. So, when society makes it unacceptable to bully gay people and people know enough about them that they laugh at your bizarre fear mongering stories about them, well, people are still really weirded out by trans people.
Emotionally driven prejudice is rarely about the specific target*. It's about the emotional needs of the one holding the prejudice. <Minority group X> is sexually perverse and destroying society is a real common one, with interchangeable groups - in some cases, I kid you not, it's actually the Jews, and generally means that the person who holds that belief has some serious sexual hang ups.
For a lot of people, it feels good to bully people, but the way we're wired, most people can't do that to people they see as fully human. But, hey, if somehow this weak minority group is actually super-powerful and bent on attacking you and everything that is decent (instead of struggling to get by in the face of your constant attacks, like it might otherwise seem), why you're not a bully, you're a hero. Bonus points if you push your own stuff onto them and them beat on them for it.
* Although, sometimes the two go hand in hand, like how gay conservatives are often the most vocal anti-gay people out there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ha! i find it worth noting that the theory certainly fits with how someone like me on ~the Leftaliban~ side of things would rail on OSC, even if i think there is a tremendous moral difference overall created by that what people rail on OSC for pertains to his being a person who is dedicated to the furtherance of marginalization of entire classes of vulnerable people.
in what is possibly the least surprising thing ever, i think it is a-ok to express that i think these people are scum and that they need to be denigrated very vocally and actively to either change their minds, or if that's not possible, challenge their positions vigorously and call them out for their shit so that their base bigotries will have less transmissibility to future generations and will not hold the legislative weight that people like OSC want to use to pass legislation targeting people like gays or transgender individuals.
i know where his convictions come from, more or less, and how it should be unsurprising that a holder of deep and stolid mythological mormon gender essentialist beliefs would immediately and categorically reject transgender as being an actual thing, and that someone who has literally argued that such gender essentialist necessities mean that gay marriage being legal means the end of civilization would of course think that bills protecting transgender individuals are dangerous hokum, potentially endangering the poor womens!
it is still disappointing, though. like, even if i obviously wasn't going to respect his beliefs, i at least would have been open to the possibility that i could appreciate that he's wise enough to not immediately jump on the newest fundamentally doomed, terrible, short-lived conservative bandwagon of bigoted moral outrage. and yet, he couldn't wait longer than a few grandpa thoughts on egg sandwiches before grabbing that banner and marching on and being so full of salt about how people don't have to nod politely at a bigot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The primary purpose of morality has been and probably always will be to dehumanize people that you want to do bad things to.
I think I can see what you're getting at, but I think the human expression of morality largely arises out of empathy, and empathy can be at odds with other elements of survival instinct - so I would say that the primary purpose of morality is group survival advantage, and the boundaries of moral systems are often driven by competition (real or perceived) between the in-group and the out-group.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like we may be agreeing, but I'm not sure that we aren't saying the exact opposite of each other.
I'm saying that morality's primary purpose (or maybe, most common purpose is a better way of saying that) is to counteract empathy for people who you want to hurt (often because they have something you want or you perceive them as wanting something you have).
In most people, empathy is a naturally occurring instinct that makes it difficult to do harm to people that you feel empathy for. When you find yourself wanting to hurt someone, the conflict often leads to developing morals for why they deserve to be hurt, and ultimately, why they aren't fully human.
posted
We probably mostly agree except probably on what we would tend to mean if we say "morality" or "morals". I'm including general moral rules like "be kind to others" in that, but I understand that you are referring more to codes that would be enforced by authority or community.
Another possible point of disagreement: I think maybe often the purpose of the code is to protect the herd. The flip side of this is sometimes, but not always, to "not-protect" those who won't conform. For example, before the 20th century I think it was far more dangerous to violate norms of sexuality and marriage than it is today, thanks to medicine and prophylactic measures that came into existence recently. While communities certainly took the opportunity to condemn and punish violations, I think the purpose for the rules was at least partly to benefit the group, not simply to provide a target for aggression.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's amusing to me how much we're not hearing about how awful and dangerous gay marriage is nearly to the extent we were when it was banned. One might almost begin to wonder if the politicians at the head of such charges actually weren't very invested in protecting America against this critical danger if they give up the fight so quickly.
Look at pro-life movements. Say what you will about tactics and beliefs, there is conviction, and it's sustained through many years of Roe v Wade.
Or, you know, it's surprisingly hard to show how allowing gay marriage has ruined lives, aside from the odd example of people who don't like making money enough to sell their services to anyone who asks. Back when it was first approved, there was a lot of hand-wringing about what to tell elementary schoolers, until people figured out that most five year olds don't ask the awkward follow up questions when told they call fall in love with anyone they want.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i would say morals more at its core have effectively developed with the purpose of groups of people coming up with rules that keep them strong amongst themselves. this comes with or without the having-to-protect-themselves-from-the-outgroup thing, I would think.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! He put scare quotes around the word "city"? There is no insult that can bring the man further down than he has brought himself.
Pack it up boys, this thing is over.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree, though, it's kind of an odd choice to put the quotes around "city" in that context, given that he's talking about Charlotte.
One would hardly call Detroit a Michigan "city", Baltimore a Maryland "city", or Boston a Massachusetts "city"... though all have a lower population than Charlotte. There are only 15 cities in the country with more people than Charlotte.
posted
One mighty almost wonder if in a tantrum and a fit, he was flailing about for any sort of insult, no matter how absurd.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine him doing air quotes with his fingers and dramatically rolling his eyes while sneering the word.
I get that people are really weird about using scare quotes in uninformed rants. I'm just aghast that a professional writer did it. Like, a generally regarded as talented one. With best sellers and awards and such. Seriously?
If only he'd added "so called" before it...
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
