|
Post by Merge on Nov 22, 2016 12:02:08 GMT
But there are demographics that it considered OK to treat this way. Whites...particularly men Obese people to name a couple. It just doesn't get the big response. I'm sorry, but I disagree about the white people/men being "treated that way." (And with Christians, which you mentioned later.) Those groups are simply not subject to widespread and/or institutionalized discrimination OR disdain. They're not. Not being allowed to discriminate against others in your place of business is not, in turn, discrimination against you. Having someone wish you Happy Holidays in Target is not discrimination or disdain, either. If you have other examples, I'd be happy to hear them. As a fairly fat, white lady myself, I really don't feel discriminated against in the sense that my friends of color sometimes do. I don't get followed around Nordstrom by the shoplifting prevention associate. I don't get pulled over in the fancy neighborhood where my kid's friend lives. I don't have to worry that my daughters will be wrestled to the ground and/or shot if they make bad choices and find themselves face to face with a police officer, or that their theoretical sentence will be toward the harsher end of the spectrum. My white husband doesn't have people call the cops to report a "suspicious person" in the neighborhood when he's out running, but it happens to POC here all the time.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 12:29:38 GMT
I'm not familiar with your username, so I don't really know your posting history, so forgive me if I'm way off base here. But:
I happily disagree with your belief that opinions are fair game to discriminate against.
That being said, I would never discriminate against your belief/you.
For me, politics is very far down on my give-a-crap list in terms of getting along with my friends. I also don't identify with either party. Perhaps that gives me the perspective of an outsider looking in, I don't know.
Honestly I didn't start this thread to play a game of semantics. I had a thought that I felt might help all of us be able to look past the politics and see each other for the humans that we are. I'm so tired of the enemy vs the enemy vs the enemy vs the enemy and on and on. I thought that we wanted to move more toward peace. Apparently I thought wrong.
I get the feeling that you are ok with people having opinions that are different then your opinion. You feel good about your opinion, but you are also willing to listen and learn from others opinions. You don't have to understand or agree with others to listen. There are some other people that feel their opinion is right and if they don't agree with your opinion they feel the need to challenge it. They seem to think you need to prove yourself to them. I'm more like how I feel you might be. I like listening and learning whether I agree or not. I rarely learn anything from people that constantly challenge. It's not a fun discussion and I tend to not want to bother with it. Good conversations should have give and take. Not constant challenge or demands. Yes yes yes Thank you!
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 12:34:16 GMT
Even though it's gone off on a tangent from the initial subject, this is turning into a good discussion.
|
|
eleezybeth
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,784
Jun 28, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
|
Post by eleezybeth on Nov 22, 2016 12:43:21 GMT
I find a piece of this discussion that is missing is appropriate communication skills as well. We don't listen well. We defend. We aren't really all that welcome to learning or growing - because we are defending. It takes a strong person to hear all of your disgusting thoughts and to think about them vs. just attacking back. It takes a lot to listen and to understand what the fear is or to figure out your stance. We have this gross assumption that all of our issues are simple black and white - like abortion for example you either KILL babies or you DON'T. Pretty inflammatory and not at all an accurate display of the options. We are made to feel that we must be all in. What if we don't? What if I can listen to what your bottom line actually is without attacking? Without the disdain? Without the belittling (btw- belittling seems like the best way to shut any conversation down). I totally agree that our beliefs should be evaluated and questions but I think any conversation actually starts with listening. Not everybody is willing to listen. What if we were really willing to listen?
And we have to admit we have lines we can't listen to and what do we do with that?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 22, 2016 12:47:13 GMT
I am a liberal conservative by my very nature. There was no choice in that. I've been remarkably consistent throughout my life and have been told that many times. I have supported Democrats, Independents and Republicans based on what I believed they would actually do that would align best with my ideals. It's naive to believe you can criticize people's ideals and think that you aren't criticizing them as well. (I learned that the hard way!) We have to learn to separate the two. Our ideas are always open to criticism. Some valid. Some not. Just cuz it's hard to do something doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I have, like most people do, some pretty deeply held beliefs. Some of them are closely interwoven into my sense of self and help define who I am and how I interact with the world. When those deeply ingrained beliefs are criticized I am going to take it personally. They are part of me and I will become defensive and feel as though you are attacking me. How can it not? You are attacking the very foundation of the house that I have built to define my whole self. If someone wants me to defend my belief system, I sure am happy to do so. I'll even welcome your questions about why I believe the way I do. But I honestly don't think every single thing I believe has to be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized by others simply because they don't agree with me. As long as I am respectful, kind, generous of spirit, and all of that, I should be allowed to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a production.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 13:08:40 GMT
I find a piece of this discussion that is missing is appropriate communication skills as well. We don't listen well. We defend. We aren't really all that welcome to learning or growing - because we are defending. It takes a strong person to hear all of your disgusting thoughts and to think about them vs. just attacking back. It takes a lot to listen and to understand what the fear is or to figure out your stance. We have this gross assumption that all of our issues are simple black and white - like abortion for example you either KILL babies or you DON'T. Pretty inflammatory and not at all an accurate display of the options. We are made to feel that we must be all in. What if we don't? What if I can listen to what your bottom line actually is without attacking? Without the disdain? Without the belittling (btw- belittling seems like the best way to shut any conversation down). I totally agree that our beliefs should be evaluated and questions but I think any conversation actually starts with listening. Not everybody is willing to listen. What if we were really willing to listen? And we have to admit we have lines we can't listen to and what do we do with that? I absolutely agree, and this is part of the danger, if you will, of lumping everyone into a blanket category, and then treating that category with distain. I'm speaking directly about the political differences on this board, although of course it's happening IRL as well. There are many instances where the words liberal & conservative are used respectfully & appropriately. There are also many times they're used as an all-inclusive derogatory label, and that's what troubles me. But as I have also said, and need to keep in my mind, this is the first election I've ever really followed, and it was due to a specific person, not a specific party or platform. So I'm mostly looking at this from the outside, without bias one way or the other. Or maybe that just makes me naive.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 22, 2016 13:27:42 GMT
We have to learn to separate the two. Our ideas are always open to criticism. Some valid. Some not. Just cuz it's hard to do something doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I have, like most people do, some pretty deeply held beliefs. Some of them are closely interwoven into my sense of self and help define who I am and how I interact with the world. When those deeply ingrained beliefs are criticized I am going to take it personally. They are part of me and I will become defensive and feel as though you are attacking me. How can it not? You are attacking the very foundation of the house that I have built to define my whole self. If someone wants me to defend my belief system, I sure am happy to do so. I'll even welcome your questions about why I believe the way I do. But I honestly don't think every single thing I believe has to be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized by others simply because they don't agree with me. As long as I am respectful, kind, generous of spirit, and all of that, I should be allowed to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a production. I would gently suggest that the person who most needs to trot out those deeply held beliefs and scrutinize them is us. We need to do this to ourselves. When we don't some beliefs that no longer serve us can become so entrenched that we can not think rationally on the subject. Sometimes it takes someone else to question those beliefs for us to take a good hard look.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 22, 2016 13:38:10 GMT
We have completely lost the ability to have civil discourse. I agree that we don't listen well to others.
We tend to listen to respond.
I am a huge fan of Stephen Covey and am always telling my daughter to seek first to understand.
I find that I have to ask a lot of questions to really understand some things and that often makes people more defensive.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 22, 2016 13:48:08 GMT
I have, like most people do, some pretty deeply held beliefs. Some of them are closely interwoven into my sense of self and help define who I am and how I interact with the world. When those deeply ingrained beliefs are criticized I am going to take it personally. They are part of me and I will become defensive and feel as though you are attacking me. How can it not? You are attacking the very foundation of the house that I have built to define my whole self. If someone wants me to defend my belief system, I sure am happy to do so. I'll even welcome your questions about why I believe the way I do. But I honestly don't think every single thing I believe has to be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized by others simply because they don't agree with me. As long as I am respectful, kind, generous of spirit, and all of that, I should be allowed to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a production. I would gently suggest that the person who most needs to trot out those deeply held beliefs and scrutinize them is us. We need to do this to ourselves. When we don't some beliefs that no longer serve us can become so entrenched that we can not think rationally on the subject. Sometimes it takes someone else to question those beliefs for us to take a good hard look. But here is a problem with that... some of these beliefs are subjective and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they still serve us or not. What may be an essential exercise for you, may be something that I have already quietly reflected on and decided supports my world view. For the record, I am not talking about about the 'big isms' because I do find those abhorrent and do not fit into my world view of kindness, respect, fairness, etc. But I also recognize that the way to have these discussions if not by attacking the person, but having discussions that disprove the stereotypes.
|
|
pridemom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,843
Jul 12, 2014 21:58:10 GMT
|
Post by pridemom on Nov 22, 2016 13:55:09 GMT
I work in a State/Federal affiliated office. Political affiliation is included in our non-discrimination statement.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 22, 2016 13:58:06 GMT
I would gently suggest that the person who most needs to trot out those deeply held beliefs and scrutinize them is us. We need to do this to ourselves. When we don't some beliefs that no longer serve us can become so entrenched that we can not think rationally on the subject. Sometimes it takes someone else to question those beliefs for us to take a good hard look. But here is a problem with that... some of these beliefs are subjective and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they still serve us or not. What may be an essential exercise for you, may be something that I have already quietly reflected on and decided supports my world view. For the record, I am not talking about about the 'big isms' because I do find those abhorrent and do not fit into my world view of kindness, respect, fairness, etc. But I also recognize that the way to have these discussions if not by attacking the person, but having discussions that disprove the stereotypes. The thing is that the "big isms" are often expressed more insidiously than they used to be, and that people often deny that they play a part in their opinions. For example, it's been my experience that most people who believe that all Muslims from certain countries should be denied entry to our country, or that all undocumented Mexicans should be summarily deported back to their country of origin, or that black people who are shot by policemen in the course of being arrested for a crime are entirely at fault for their own death, would deny that racism or xenophobia play any part in those beliefs. It's difficult to have discussions that disprove something that the other party will not admit exists, and it seems that no matter how respectfully someone voices their concerns, many are offended or upset that they are being "preached to" or "bullied." I am not making sweeping generalizations about ALL here, but this is a trend that I've noticed and one that we can see right here on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:35:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 14:03:49 GMT
If someone wants me to defend my belief system, I sure am happy to do so. I'll even welcome your questions about why I believe the way I do. But I honestly don't think every single thing I believe has to be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized by others simply because they don't agree with me. As long as I am respectful, kind, generous of spirit, and all of that, I should be allowed to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a production. And that is where we disagree (i.e., discriminate against each other's ideas). You're trotting out my idea that all ideas should be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized. That's fine. I'm not going to say "you're attacking me!!!" You're questioning my deeply held belief. As is your right. As is my right to question all of yours w/o you feeling that you're being attacked.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 22, 2016 14:20:19 GMT
But here is a problem with that... some of these beliefs are subjective and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they still serve us or not. What may be an essential exercise for you, may be something that I have already quietly reflected on and decided supports my world view. For the record, I am not talking about about the 'big isms' because I do find those abhorrent and do not fit into my world view of kindness, respect, fairness, etc. But I also recognize that the way to have these discussions if not by attacking the person, but having discussions that disprove the stereotypes. The thing is that the "big isms" are often expressed more insidiously than they used to be, and that people often deny that they play a part in their opinions. For example, it's been my experience that most people who believe that all Muslims from certain countries should be denied entry to our country, or that all undocumented Mexicans should be summarily deported back to their country of origin, or that black people who are shot by policemen in the course of being arrested for a crime are entirely at fault for their own death, would deny that racism or xenophobia play any part in those beliefs. It's difficult to have discussions that disprove something that the other party will not admit exists, and it seems that no matter how respectfully someone voices their concerns, many are offended or upset that they are being "preached to" or "bullied." I am not making sweeping generalizations about ALL here, but this is a trend that I've noticed and one that we can see right here on this board. I want to respond to this, but am not sure that I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a way that doesn't sound preachy-it's hard (for me at least) to organize my opinions in writing and on my phone with teeny tiny letter and screen. But (for back ground) I live in an area that the under current of the 'isms' runs fairly deep. A dislike of other is not new. The code words, the dog whistle comments-along with plain talk is not a new phenomenon. I have strong feelings about this, and when confronted, have learned how to address it in ways that don't devolve into personal attacks because that doesn't at all help change opinions. I can't change everyone, but I believe that if I walk the walk, I can show that there is no need to fear other. I can, hopefully, make a difference by disagreeing while still being respectful. When I say not everything needs to be trotted out into the open air for criticism I am not at all saying that we should confine racism (etc.) but what I am saying is that human nature says the more we attack, the more people feel the need to defend. So would it not further the cause to approach the conversation differently? And. Yeah. Ugh. Again, for the record, I do annoy even myself sometimes with the relentless goofy two shoes thing. lol
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 22, 2016 14:31:29 GMT
If someone wants me to defend my belief system, I sure am happy to do so. I'll even welcome your questions about why I believe the way I do. But I honestly don't think every single thing I believe has to be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized by others simply because they don't agree with me. As long as I am respectful, kind, generous of spirit, and all of that, I should be allowed to have a difference of opinion without it turning into a production. And that is where we disagree (i.e., discriminate against each other's ideas). You're trotting out my idea that all ideas should be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized. That's fine. I'm not going to say "you're attacking me!!!" You're questioning my deeply held belief. As is your right. As is my right to question all of yours w/o you feeling that you're being attacked. Um...no? Or at least that was not the intent. In fact, maybe even the opposite. My pont was to suggest that perhaps not all beliefs need to be criticized. Maybe some of those deeply held beliefs can be left to the individual. Religion comes to mind-what I believe and what someone believes may be different. As long as I don't try to force you to believe my way (or try to legislate my way) why should I have to open it up for public consumption?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:35:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 15:36:27 GMT
And that is where we disagree (i.e., discriminate against each other's ideas). You're trotting out my idea that all ideas should be trotted out into the light of day to be scrutinized. That's fine. I'm not going to say "you're attacking me!!!" You're questioning my deeply held belief. As is your right. As is my right to question all of yours w/o you feeling that you're being attacked. Um...no? Or at least that was not the intent. In fact, maybe even the opposite. My pont was to suggest that perhaps not all beliefs need to be criticized. Maybe some of those deeply held beliefs can be left to the individual. Religion comes to mind-what I believe and what someone believes may be different. As long as I don't try to force you to believe my way (or try to legislate my way) why should I have to open it up for public consumption? Un yes? Because in saying not all beliefs need to be criticized, you're criticizing my belief that all beliefs should be open to being criticized. Yet I'm not saying "you're attacking me!"
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 15:44:57 GMT
But here is a problem with that... some of these beliefs are subjective and it is a matter of opinion as to whether they still serve us or not. What may be an essential exercise for you, may be something that I have already quietly reflected on and decided supports my world view. For the record, I am not talking about about the 'big isms' because I do find those abhorrent and do not fit into my world view of kindness, respect, fairness, etc. But I also recognize that the way to have these discussions if not by attacking the person, but having discussions that disprove the stereotypes. The thing is that the "big isms" are often expressed more insidiously than they used to be, and that people often deny that they play a part in their opinions. For example, it's been my experience that most people who believe that all Muslims from certain countries should be denied entry to our country, or that all undocumented Mexicans should be summarily deported back to their country of origin, or that black people who are shot by policemen in the course of being arrested for a crime are entirely at fault for their own death, would deny that racism or xenophobia play any part in those beliefs. It's difficult to have discussions that disprove something that the other party will not admit exists, and it seems that no matter how respectfully someone voices their concerns, many are offended or upset that they are being "preached to" or "bullied." I am not making sweeping generalizations about ALL here, but this is a trend that I've noticed and one that we can see right here on this board. Ditto this. It became a match of some thinking that their beliefs trumped everyone else's, that they had the moral high ground and were just sanctimonious as all get out. Those were worse than name calling.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 22, 2016 15:56:22 GMT
Um...no? Or at least that was not the intent. In fact, maybe even the opposite. My pont was to suggest that perhaps not all beliefs need to be criticized. Maybe some of those deeply held beliefs can be left to the individual. Religion comes to mind-what I believe and what someone believes may be different. As long as I don't try to force you to believe my way (or try to legislate my way) why should I have to open it up for public consumption? Un yes? Because in saying all beliefs don't need to be criticized, you're criticizing my belief that all beliefs should be open to being criticized. ^^^ I'm really confused by this... earlier in the thread, I thought someone said beliefs are individual, and that opinions are also individual. So because anxiousmom holds the belief that some of HER beliefs are personal, that means somehow that she's criticizing YOUR belief of the opposite??
I don't get it-- she isn't saying ANYTHING at ALL about YOUR beliefs here, just her own. Beliefs which she (or anyone else) is perfectly free to have, as long as they don't infringe on your beliefs, lead to her doing anything illegal (which of course would be prosecuted), or infringe on anyone else's civil liberties. Right??
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 22, 2016 15:58:05 GMT
The thing is that the "big isms" are often expressed more insidiously than they used to be, and that people often deny that they play a part in their opinions. For example, it's been my experience that most people who believe that all Muslims from certain countries should be denied entry to our country, or that all undocumented Mexicans should be summarily deported back to their country of origin, or that black people who are shot by policemen in the course of being arrested for a crime are entirely at fault for their own death, would deny that racism or xenophobia play any part in those beliefs. It's difficult to have discussions that disprove something that the other party will not admit exists, and it seems that no matter how respectfully someone voices their concerns, many are offended or upset that they are being "preached to" or "bullied." I am not making sweeping generalizations about ALL here, but this is a trend that I've noticed and one that we can see right here on this board. I want to respond to this, but am not sure that I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a way that doesn't sound preachy-it's hard (for me at least) to organize my opinions in writing and on my phone with teeny tiny letter and screen. But (for back ground) I live in an area that the under current of the 'isms' runs fairly deep. A dislike of other is not new. The code words, the dog whistle comments-along with plain talk is not a new phenomenon. I have strong feelings about this, and when confronted, have learned how to address it in ways that don't devolve into personal attacks because that doesn't at all help change opinions. I can't change everyone, but I believe that if I walk the walk, I can show that there is no need to fear other. I can, hopefully, make a difference by disagreeing while still being respectful. When I say not everything needs to be trotted out into the open air for criticism I am not at all saying that we should confine racism (etc.) but what I am saying is that human nature says the more we attack, the more people feel the need to defend. So would it not further the cause to approach the conversation differently? And. Yeah. Ugh. Again, for the record, I do annoy even myself sometimes with the relentless goofy two shoes thing. lol We may not be able to change people, but I do think it's important that we speak loudly that these 'isms' are not acceptable anyway. For the sake of the next generation, which is watching and listening. Silence is complicity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:35:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 16:01:11 GMT
Un yes? Because in saying all beliefs don't need to be criticized, you're criticizing my belief that all beliefs should be open to being criticized. ^^^ I'm really confused by this... earlier in the thread, I thought someone said beliefs are individual, and that opinions are also individual. So because anxiousmom holds the belief that some of HER beliefs are personal, that means somehow that she's criticizing YOUR belief of the opposite??
I don't get it-- she isn't saying ANYTHING at ALL about YOUR beliefs here, just her own. Beliefs which she (or anyone else) is perfectly free to have, as long as they don't infringe on your beliefs, lead to her doing anything illegal (which of course would be prosecuted), or infringe on anyone else's civil liberties. Right??
Her belief contradicts my own. Just as mine contradicts hers. Just as conservative beliefs contradict liberal beliefs. We should all be open to having our beliefs criticized w/o feeling we're being "attacked". I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying criticizing beliefs is not equal to criticizing a person's inherent race, gender, etc. Discrimination is about what we say do based on inherent attributes, not chosen beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 18:02:41 GMT
The thing is that the "big isms" are often expressed more insidiously than they used to be, and that people often deny that they play a part in their opinions. For example, it's been my experience that most people who believe that all Muslims from certain countries should be denied entry to our country, or that all undocumented Mexicans should be summarily deported back to their country of origin, or that black people who are shot by policemen in the course of being arrested for a crime are entirely at fault for their own death, would deny that racism or xenophobia play any part in those beliefs. It's difficult to have discussions that disprove something that the other party will not admit exists, and it seems that no matter how respectfully someone voices their concerns, many are offended or upset that they are being "preached to" or "bullied." I am not making sweeping generalizations about ALL here, but this is a trend that I've noticed and one that we can see right here on this board. I want to respond to this, but am not sure that I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a way that doesn't sound preachy-it's hard (for me at least) to organize my opinions in writing and on my phone with teeny tiny letter and screen. But (for back ground) I live in an area that the under current of the 'isms' runs fairly deep. A dislike of other is not new. The code words, the dog whistle comments-along with plain talk is not a new phenomenon. I have strong feelings about this, and when confronted, have learned how to address it in ways that don't devolve into personal attacks because that doesn't at all help change opinions. I can't change everyone, but I believe that if I walk the walk, I can show that there is no need to fear other. I can, hopefully, make a difference by disagreeing while still being respectful. When I say not everything needs to be trotted out into the open air for criticism I am not at all saying that we should confine racism (etc.) but what I am saying is that human nature says the more we attack, the more people feel the need to defend. So would it not further the cause to approach the conversation differently?And. Yeah. Ugh. Again, for the record, I do annoy even myself sometimes with the relentless goofy two shoes thing. lol I agree with you and this is how I tend to converse. When people are attacked or challenged they tend to shut down and not listen. I know it's a matter of different styles of communicating, but if people can't see that then they aren't being successful in getting their message across. My dd's boyfriend is transgender. We had a very nice thread a while ago that I was happy to answer questions in so I could help people understand. Some others just wanted to attack people that didn't understand. To me that is not the way to help people see.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 22, 2016 18:09:09 GMT
Here's my issue...one shared by many. Why are someone's beliefs better or more right than mine? If we all believed in the same things the world would be so boring? Scrutinize someone's beliefs, fine, belittle them , not fine. There will never be a time when everyone agrees or believes in the same thing. The trick here is to understand that and find a way to discuss not belittle those diffrences. I don't agree with the belittling but can get behind the discussion, I might not agree but can listen and then respond with my point or belief. This is no way an attack against you or your thoughts just an opioin from one. Is there nothing that you think is so deeply and morally wrong that you can say. This is the line I draw. If you believe XYZ then you have crossed that line and I can not find any common ground with you? There are things that are morally reprehensible to me. Pedophilia comes to mind. Could you listen to someone defend a pedophile and not make a moral judgement about them? Not belittle their beliefs? There are many more issues that fall in the big grey area, where we should all be more respectful of each others beliefs, than there are area's that are morally reprehensible. But it is worth remembering that those things that we hold close and cling on to tightly might be the things that we most need to take out and have a good hard look at. "I think you're a pedophile. You've said some things that make me suspicious of you. Someone who likes you is a pedophile. Therefore, you are a horrible person unworthy of anything but disgust." That's what this past two weeks has been for a great many of us. Pedophilia may not have been added to the litany, but at this point, it may as well have been as it wouldn't make it one whit of a difference worse. As horrible a crime as pedophilia is, pedophiles are people. I don't know what dire life that pedophile may have had as a victimized child, nor what other mental challenges that person may be dealing with. They need help and they need to be physically restrained against hurting others, but they never cease being people with an extremely difficult problem. You are endangering all who have fought for the right to have a same sex marriage if you now go down the road that sexual preference is a belief system. Pedophiles make a choice to prefer children, but LGBTQA don't make a choice who they love? Then LGBTQA can also choose to believe that they love someone else more "appropriate" as well.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 22, 2016 18:20:20 GMT
I find that I have to ask a lot of questions to really understand some things and that often makes people more defensive. Not addressing this to you specifically, ktdoesntscrap. People of both parties have left this board within the past two weeks. The people who are more conservative have had reasons assigned to them that include being too thin-skinned and intolerant of others' views. Those who are more liberal have not had these same negative assessments made.
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Nov 22, 2016 18:24:31 GMT
It's far from semantics. It is absolutely crucial to civil society that we learn to criticize each other's beliefs w/o criticizing the individual holding the belief. Yes, some beliefs are closely held. That doesn't mean they should get special dispensation from scrutiny. If anything, they should be scrutinized the more deeply. It's having stupid beliefs that allowed us to think it's ok for one person to own the body/family of another person. That was a deeply held belief justified in a thousand different ways by the people who held it. We went to war over it. We're still fighting some of the underlying beliefs that supported it. So, it is an important discussion. But in doing that, aren't you assuming that somebody who wears the 'conservative' label believes in / agrees with ALL aspects of conservatism? (or vice versa). Because that's not true, which is the biggest problem with a dominant 2 party system. I've always labeled myself as conservative. But I DON'T agree with all conservative/Republican views. I'm more economically conservative / socially liberal in some ways. I don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned and I support same sex marriage. But if I said I was conservative and you automatically judge me for that, we're just going in a big circle. How do we progress to something less black/white? (general question that I think a lot about - I'm not expecting anybody to have that answer handy )
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Nov 22, 2016 18:28:17 GMT
It's far from semantics. It is absolutely crucial to civil society that we learn to criticize each other's beliefs w/o criticizing the individual holding the belief. Yes, some beliefs are closely held. That doesn't mean they should get special dispensation from scrutiny. If anything, they should be scrutinized the more deeply. It's having stupid beliefs that allowed us to think it's ok for one person to own the body/family of another person. That was a deeply held belief justified in a thousand different ways by the people who held it. We went to war over it. We're still fighting some of the underlying beliefs that supported it. So, it is an important discussion. But in doing that, aren't you assuming that somebody who wears the 'conservative' label believes in / agrees with ALL aspects of conservatism? (or vice versa). Because that's not true, which is the biggest problem with a dominant 2 party system. I've always labeled myself as conservative. But I DON'T agree with all conservative/Republican views. I'm more economically conservative / socially liberal in some ways. I don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned and I support same sex marriage. But if I said I was conservative and you automatically judge me for that, we're just going in a big circle. How do we progress to something less black/white? (general question that I think a lot about - I'm not expecting anybody to have that answer handy ) This is where a third party would be handy. 😉
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 22, 2016 18:37:37 GMT
Um...no? Or at least that was not the intent. In fact, maybe even the opposite. My pont was to suggest that perhaps not all beliefs need to be criticized. Maybe some of those deeply held beliefs can be left to the individual. Religion comes to mind-what I believe and what someone believes may be different. As long as I don't try to force you to believe my way (or try to legislate my way) why should I have to open it up for public consumption? Un yes? Because in saying not all beliefs need to be criticized, you're criticizing my belief that all beliefs should be open to being criticized. Yet I'm not saying "you're attacking me!" That's what college is for. Colleges have become places where only certain beliefs are acceptable. Your "truth" that all beliefs are open to criticism isn't playing out very well for a great many people of this country today on college campuses in the very arena set aside for ideas to be challenged. General you may think that it's OK to refuse certain speakers because they are too something or other, but then you are guilty of not listening and not having your own ideas challenged. This selective challenging and acceptance has become an "ism" unto itself. Selectivism. The result - young adults crying on campuses across the country so distraught they can't even attend class.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 19:03:59 GMT
I find that I have to ask a lot of questions to really understand some things and that often makes people more defensive. Not addressing this to you specifically, ktdoesntscrap . People of both parties have left this board within the past two weeks. The people who are more conservative have had reasons assigned to them that include being too thin-skinned and intolerant of others' views. Those who are more liberal have not had these same negative assessments made. Make no mistake, it has been going both ways throughout the election.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 22, 2016 22:11:07 GMT
Is there nothing that you think is so deeply and morally wrong that you can say. This is the line I draw. If you believe XYZ then you have crossed that line and I can not find any common ground with you? There are things that are morally reprehensible to me. Pedophilia comes to mind. Could you listen to someone defend a pedophile and not make a moral judgement about them? Not belittle their beliefs? There are many more issues that fall in the big grey area, where we should all be more respectful of each others beliefs, than there are area's that are morally reprehensible. But it is worth remembering that those things that we hold close and cling on to tightly might be the things that we most need to take out and have a good hard look at. "I think you're a pedophile. You've said some things that make me suspicious of you. Someone who likes you is a pedophile. Therefore, you are a horrible person unworthy of anything but disgust." That's what this past two weeks has been for a great many of us. Pedophilia may not have been added to the litany, but at this point, it may as well have been as it wouldn't make it one whit of a difference worse. As horrible a crime as pedophilia is, pedophiles are people. I don't know what dire life that pedophile may have had as a victimized child, nor what other mental challenges that person may be dealing with. They need help and they need to be physically restrained against hurting others, but they never cease being people with an extremely difficult problem. You are endangering all who have fought for the right to have a same sex marriage if you now go down the road that sexual preference is a belief system. Pedophiles make a choice to prefer children, but LGBTQA don't make a choice who they love? Then LGBTQA can also choose to believe that they love someone else more "appropriate" as well. I will not engage in a discussion about the difference between Pedophilia and Homosexuality. If you seriously don't understand the difference, I suggest you sit down and have a long long talk with your God.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 22, 2016 22:13:04 GMT
I find that I have to ask a lot of questions to really understand some things and that often makes people more defensive. Not addressing this to you specifically, ktdoesntscrap . People of both parties have left this board within the past two weeks. The people who are more conservative have had reasons assigned to them that include being too thin-skinned and intolerant of others' views. Those who are more liberal have not had these same negative assessments made. Yes, they have had them made for the last 8 years, you just don't see it. It happens on both sides. People who support a woman's right to choose are baby killers. People who support Trump are racist. I could come up with a ton of examples.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 22, 2016 22:42:52 GMT
^^^ I'm really confused by this... earlier in the thread, I thought someone said beliefs are individual, and that opinions are also individual. So because anxiousmom holds the belief that some of HER beliefs are personal, that means somehow that she's criticizing YOUR belief of the opposite??
I don't get it-- she isn't saying ANYTHING at ALL about YOUR beliefs here, just her own. Beliefs which she (or anyone else) is perfectly free to have, as long as they don't infringe on your beliefs, lead to her doing anything illegal (which of course would be prosecuted), or infringe on anyone else's civil liberties. Right??
Her belief contradicts my own. Just as mine contradicts hers. Just as conservative beliefs contradict liberal beliefs. We should all be open to having our beliefs criticized w/o feeling we're being "attacked". I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying criticizing beliefs is not equal to criticizing a person's inherent race, gender, etc. Discrimination is about what we say do based on inherent attributes, not chosen beliefs. I get the feeling that you are trying to lead me to some great a-ha moment wherein I ultimately agree that you are right and I am ignorantly wrong. Except that I never criticized your belief system. I am not afraid of my holding my opinions up to the full light of day, I simply don't agree that all that I hold dear requires the scrutiny of others.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:35:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 2:51:53 GMT
I get the feeling that you are trying to lead me to some great a-ha moment wherein I ultimately agree that you are right and I am ignorantly wrong. Except that I never criticized your belief system. I am not afraid of my holding my opinions up to the full light of day, I simply don't agree that all that I hold dear requires the scrutiny of others. A-ha moment? Nope. Just relaying my opinions as others are relaying theirs. You not agreeing is a criticism of my belief system. Just as me not agreeing w/you that... not "all that [you] hold dear requires..scrutiny" is a criticism of your belief system. Yet we're not attacking each other. Just our beliefs.
|
|