How much of the culture is your responsibility?

Joseph28 · #11 5th June 2012, 03:27 AM

bump

Gadarene · #12 5th June 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mling

On the other hand, people sometimes use over the top humor to process things that actually disturb them, and I've seen plenty of rape survivors who devote huge amounts of energy into consent education make rape-culture jokes.

I think "ironic," or joking comments like that have a place, but it's only appropriate if you can look at every single person who might hear, and you know what they actually believe on the topic. I love viciously offensive humor...but only in private.

Cuz here's the thing...just like people can choose what to ignore or pay attention to in the first type of irony, they can choose to ignore the irony if you're making the second kind of joke, too. If you tell an "ironic," racist joke, and the guy next to you is harboring overtly prejudiced feelings, they're probably not going to hear it as ironic.

It has its place, but ultimately I think this is one of the prices we pay for the freedom to indulge in black humour. Sometimes you just aren't going to be able to automatically distinguish the bad people from the good, and that's life.

It counts for some things, but certainly not for the question of how much harm an action does. And people are very quick to ignore that question. It actually says a lot about how that person views other people's experience in relation to their own, if they treat other people's suffering as a less important matter than their own reputation (even if the reputation would only suffer minorly).

I don't think it modifies the harm, I just feel like people have a tendency to throw it out with the bathwater. Certainly in discussion, people aren't going to engage if they feel like there isn't good faith on both sides and automatically presuming that a person is being misogynistic or racist when that isn't necessarily the case (for example) doesn't help matters.

Something I've never gotten with this whole affair is when a less privileged group wants members of a privileged group to not deny the validity of their experiences, and then they go around and do the exact same thing to the people they're engaging with. There's no reciprocity, which is somewhat laughable given how often the word "equality" is thrown about.

This is one of the things that's stopped me from identifying as a feminist. Trying to get some feminists to acknowledge that there are issues that seriously affect men is like pulling teeth (especially if feminism has had a hand in negative public perception of a particular issue).

And before anyone says "false equivalency" - I know that issues affecting an on the whole more privileged group will have a less serious impact overall than issues affecting a less privileged group. I'm not saying that they're on the same level of severity, but to have one side outright denying the issues of the other in places while demanding acknowledgement of theirs is hypocritical.

Ukrainia · #13 7th June 2012, 09:48 PM

Mling,

Interesting post. I think I can agree with most of it.

One can flip the script on it, however.

As easy as it is to hurt, the corollary is that some people are hurt too easily, or are too fearful of hurting others. Many people are victims, many get hurt or robbed, many are poor through no fault of their own. And I think generally some people are really good at seeing this, listening to the victims, and doing their own part to create a culture which limits this hurt that results from this. But I also think their can be an unintended consequence in being as incredibly vigilant as you are in seeing and relating to victims (don’t get me wrong, in general, it’s a really good trait).

I was reading The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion, a really interesting book that covers a lot of moral psychology, and the different moral foundations that liberals and conservatives have. He’s very fair minded in his treatment of different ideologies and his book is an attempt to unite, not divide. In criticism (he criticizes conservatives too), he does bring up one example where liberals often refuse to admit that two parent households are better for the child than single parent families, because of the fear that this will create new victims. Instead, what happened in this case over the last few decades, is that liberals ended up ignoring that the illegitimacy rate that was continually increasing along with all the negative economic and social affects that go along with that. They ignored a real social problem for fear of painting people or situations as deficient in some way. In this case, the good intention was in too much sensitivity towards those whose feelings might be hurt.

Speaking of race, oftentimes people won’t say that able bodied capable people on welfare should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and find a way, through work and education, to make better money. Why? Because welfare is, on a percentage basis, often going towards African Americans, it may be not be adequately considerate of them, their particular hardships and the historically based biases they’ve faced, to tell them they need to do better. That’s a valid concern, but only to a point. The other side of the coin, is that people respond to motivation and incentive, and they’re not going to get that if they’re only characterized as the victim.

In other words, yes, one should worry about hurting others but oftentimes love has to be tough and has to come with a firm condemnation of specific acts. A prostitute may feel hurt if her friend condemns her line of work, but that condemnation may also provide the motive necessary to change and become much more productive and happier with her life.

With so many things moderation is needed. The empathy and sensitivity that one should develop so that they don’t end up hurting others, has to be paired with the ability to speak the truth in love.

Ukrainia · #14 7th June 2012, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mling

There's a lot of little things like that. Like, people with noticeably non-European ancestry often get asked, "Where are you from?" or "How long have you been here?"

No individual asking that really means anything bad by it, but it's hard to feel like a citizen of a country if, day in, day out, 3/4 of the people you meet insist that you must be a foreigner.

I actually was in a sort of similar situation. I'm in sales, and I had to check ID. Although he had a Wisconsin I.D., I felt safe in assuming due to accent and how his name was spelled that he was from Poland. I also knew that the big international soccer tournament starting tommorow, was being held, in part, in Poland. So I asked if he was indeed, from there and he said yes. And although brief we had a good discussion about the tournament and how I was really excited to watch it.

As an introvert, I know I've often been quiet in situations I could have made friends in, due to feared awkwardness on my part, and the fear that they might take offense. I would argue however, that this was a mistake on my part. If you're friendly, kind, and gracious, even social misteps are quickly forgiven. It's good to listen carefully, but when in doubt, be bold. Enemies may be a possibility (a slim one at that) that way, but friends are assured.

Gadarene · #15 8th June 2012, 07:33 AM

I've not read Haidt's book, but if a column I read yesterday is anything to go by, the whole conservative-liberal binary he's constructed is incredibly simplistic.

I mean, it usually is, but his seemed to go beyond the norm.

Ukrainia · #16 8th June 2012, 08:01 PM

If you're interested in moral psychology, I wouldn't dismiss the book so quickly. I don't agree with all the conclusions but I found it well researched, informative and actually made quite a few points I hadn't heard expressed before. It was also one of the better written books I've read in awhile in that it doesn't use jargon, just langauge that expresses complex concepts in a simple to understand way. I wouldn't be surprised if the review you read was an outlier. I don't have the energy to review the book myself right now, but I'm sure it's easy enough to find positive reviews as well.

Gadarene · #17 8th June 2012, 08:09 PM

Sorry, I should clarify, it wasn't a review of Jonathan Haidt, it was a piece by Jonathan Haidt.

Every point I've heard him make so far that claims to talk about a liberal point of view are simply not things that liberals I know adhere to.

Ukrainia · #18 8th June 2012, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Gadarene

Sorry, I should clarify, it wasn't a review of Jonathan Haidt, it was a piece by Jonathan Haidt.

Every point I've heard him make so far that claims to talk about a liberal point of view are simply not things that liberals I know adhere to.

How so?

Gadarene · #19 8th June 2012, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ukrainia

How so?

Speaking of race, oftentimes people won’t say that able bodied capable people on welfare should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and find a way, through work and education, to make better money. Why? Because welfare is, on a percentage basis, often going towards African Americans, it may be not be adequately considerate of them, their particular hardships and the historically based biases they’ve faced, to tell them they need to do better. That’s a valid concern, but only to a point. The other side of the coin, is that people respond to motivation and incentive, and they’re not going to get that if they’re only characterized as the victim.

This is a good example - or in Haidt's own words:

The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome – particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality – are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start - ignoring slackers is not a left/liberal thing in any way, in my experience. I have no problem with weeding out such people - the issue that arises is more often right-wing attempts to utterly decimate the system of support in the first place.

(To go with your point where you bring race into the mix, again, it's not a liberal thing to refrain from encouraging the able-bodied to work. People may refrain from pointing out the statistics on unemployment with regard to race, but too often these are used to make comments about race that don't necessarily follow).

I'm sure Haidt is a competent guy to some degree, but he seems far too uncritical on right-wing rhetoric (to the extent that he uses it to mischaracterise liberal opinion).

Ukrainia · #20 8th June 2012, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Gadarene

I have no problem with weeding out such people - the issue that arises is more often right-wing attempts to utterly decimate the system of support in the first place.

(To go with your point where you bring race into the mix, again, it's not a liberal thing to refrain from encouraging the able-bodied to work. People may refrain from pointing out the statistics on unemployment with regard to race, but too often these are used to make comments about race that don't necessarily follow).

I'm sure Haidt is a competent guy to some degree, but he seems far too uncritical on right-wing rhetoric (to the extent that he uses it to mischaracterise liberal opinion).

Since you're not American, maybe you're not familiar with this example. But I would cite, in support of Haidt's point about liberals concern with equality of outcome, affirmative action, of which liberals in this country are very supportive of. African American students are often accepted into colleges ahead of white, Asian and Jewish counterparts with much better resumes.

There are two sides to this story (just like in talking about welfare).

Liberals generally take the position that African Americans go to, on average, far worse school than do whites, live in much more disadvantaged neighborhoods, and from the very start are playing catchup with their counterparts of other races. Even if they don't meet the traditional standerds, affirmative action allows students of the most disadvantaged ethnicity to have a great education and possibly, after they're done, go back and improve their own disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Conservatives point out that treating African Americans as unable to compete with others on merit, won't prepare them for the real world where merit is all that matters and ingrains in their culture a victim mentality. They also point out that for every person who is given a spot due to affirmative action, one is taken away from someone with a better resume (more often than not, it's not taken away from white students, but Asian students who are academically the most successful ethnic group) and who is more deserving from an academic standpoint. Last, but perhaps most importantly, conservatives would argue that the poor educational standereds within many African American neighborhoods are just a symptom of the lack of cohesive families and communities that support one another.

This isn't Haidt's example. It's mine. But one of the points Haidt makes (based on experimental observation) is that conservatives are better able to understand liberal moral reasoning than vice versa. Like, for instance, you puport that conservatives are attempting "to utterly decimate the system of support in the first place." I'll assume, by the way you phrased it, you meant that conservatives are deliberately hurting people, rather than it just being an unintended consequence of policies in which they meant well. Haidt would say that's a falicy that liberals are more likely to fall in to (although obviously both fall into it) because they focus almost entirely on the care/harm foundation of morality, while conservatives value the care/harm foundation (although not as much as liberals) but they also value moral foundations like loyalty, authority and sanctity - often dismissed as nonsense by liberals.