itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

i think what he means is that in certain circles ppl have become much more conscious abt doing an internal check to see whether something is racist/sexist/whatever and may be modifying their speech accordingly. i struggle to come up w/situations where we lose something via this exercise; it may occasionally lead to awkward expression of thoughts but hey it's essentially training so these things happen.

I dunno, Crut! That conversation was where the thread got rly intersting to me again, but I think that kind of judgment is really not for the public to make and not on the lol-internet.

no crut i do too, it's cool

but i am nostalgic for a more tolerant, open, and humane liberalism - one that understood that not all people are at the same place and time in their heads, and that was more concerned with forging compassionate consensus than with outing and castigating people with the wrong ideas. or at least equally concerned with both.

lol

and cntdrzr if you think modern liberalism is intolerant then uh i'd love to know what you think of actually intolerant political philosophies

so i don't understand how having less tolerance for statements that enact or celebrate (straight/white/male) privilege is any loss whatsoever tbrfh

i would say there is an issue where ppl are NOT in fact self-analyzing their own prejudices/assumptions/thought processes, but in fact are just keeping them quiet, where as in the past ppl used to trumpet such ignorance, & you could say that something has been 'lost' in this transition (or at least, things have def *changed*) but that wasnt really what was being discussed in this thread

If anything, I wd advocate for practicing mental discipline, I guess. Not that you CAN'T think things, but that there's a time and place, and it's not, for instance, while you're standing in front of someone talking to them. B/c as much as you owe THEM a fair conversation or interaction that isn't colored by your secksy thoughts, you also owe yourself an interaction that tries to see them for their ideas & contributions and not their slammin' ass.

Just for instance?

deej i think we're saying some of the same thing--ppl check what they SAY, not what they THINK

i.e., racist white pplz are more likely to keep racisty thoughts to themselves, which is in many ways a positive in that keeping your offensive ignorance to yourself is better than constantly contributing to a negative atmosphere, although not as much of a positive as if they analyzed racisty feelings & learned why those feelings were rong & dangerous. and in some ways 'something is lost' in that ppl are being extremely dishonest

i would say there is an issue where ppl are NOT in fact self-analyzing their own prejudices/assumptions/thought processes

i think this is very true but def doesn't require them to say racist, etc. stuff, obviously. a lot of people who are pointing out racism and sexism all the time have this problem imo

oh absolutely

deej i think we're saying some of the same thing--ppl check what they SAY, not what they THINK

right, and they do that because offending someone warrants stoning and apologizing means you are 100% wrong

fight the real enemy imo; have the dialogue and forgive someone when they say sorry as opposed to second-guessing them and you'll be a happier person (and so will the person you're talking to)

the subtext i get is it's hard for white men to express themselves honestly anymore

― harbl, Friday, December 4, 2009 11:19 AM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it's hard out here for a cracker

― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Friday, December 4, 2009 11:20 AM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark

but yr only gonna find that subtext if yr looking for it. i've said no such thing. i don't see why "white men" would suffer the burden of this relative rigidity more than anyone else. my primary objection is to certainty, rigidity and orthodoxies, and my position is more philosophical than personal. i'm endorsing (and in a way mourning the passing of) a tolerance that sought to built bridges between people/ideas/cultures as a solution to ignorance & intolerance. at the same time, i'm not denying the corollary power & validity of righteous intolerance.

it bums me out that so many people would be so quick to mock and scold me for voicing these ideas. i've tried to treat the subject and everyone involved in this discussion with respect (again, apologies to HI DERE), and i'd like to think that was a two-way street.

a tolerance that sought to built bridges between people/ideas/cultures as a solution to ignorance & intolerance.

yeah when did this exist again?

I think he's saying...the '60s?

Well to be accurate more like the late 60s-early 70s, but who's counting.

(woah - I am working a 12 and 1/2 hour day today and this is the first time I've looked at this thread since yesterday and I just needed to say GOD DAMN! It just keeps going and going.)

that world still exists in elementary schools around the country btw

did any of you see the ass on that one tho? I mean seriously...

imo it's bullshit to say that existed in the 60s

i would say there is an issue where ppl are NOT in fact self-analyzing their own prejudices/assumptions/thought processes, but in fact are just keeping them quiet, where as in the past ppl used to trumpet such ignorance, & you could say that something has been 'lost' in this transition (or at least, things have def *changed*) but that wasnt really what was being discussed in this thread

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 11:27 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

baseline cultural message now is more like "don't say anything that even vaguely suggests you are thinking any of the 1,000 taboo items on this comprehensive list, ever, under any circumstance." and i think it kills honest discourse. i think people hide their feelings and prejudices, lie about them, and don't "examine them".

i accept that it's probably a consequence of a much greater good, but it's still interesting to think about from other perspectives. imo.

btw contenderizer one problem with what youre saying is--removing race from the occasion--that its the responsibility of the person who is offended to forgive and educate the person who offended them, and not, instead, the responsibility of the person who did the offending to apologize and educate their dam selves

baseline cultural message now is more like "don't say anything that even vaguely suggests you are thinking any of the 1,000 taboo items on this comprehensive list, ever, under any circumstance." and i think it kills honest discourse. i think people hide their feelings and prejudices, lie about them, and don't "examine them".

we live in different cultures i think????

but yr only gonna find that subtext if yr looking for it. i've said no such thing. i don't see why "white men" would suffer the burden of this relative rigidity more than anyone else.

i assumed this because you didn't say specifically what kinds of statements are not allowed that you wish were allowed (yes of course i would add people other than white men). if you mean people can't say what's their favorite food without feeling ashamed then yes, it would apply to everyone.

xp yeah that really feels like it applies to the nations small enclaves of privileged "liberal" white ppl only

c, to be honest with you, i think the nostalgic element of your argument is getting in the way of your argument -- besides not really understanding when this golden age of "tolerating intolerance" actually existed, it's reading like a reactionary yearning for the "good old days" even if that's not your intent.

btw contenderizer one problem with what youre saying is--removing race from the occasion--that its the responsibility of the person who is offended to forgive and educate the person who offended them, and not, instead, the responsibility of the person who did the offending to apologize and educate their dam selves

― max, Friday, December 4, 2009 2:39 PM (4 minutes ago)

v otm

this thread is kind of mindblowing, kudos to the calm discoursive participants

of course a utopian state of tolerant openness never really existed. but it WAS a big part of baseline liberal philosophy in america - evolving in the late 60s and becoming widespread (orthodox) in the 70s. and receding in the 80s/90s.

or at least that's how it seemed to me... (comment about how it existed and still exists in "elementary schools" is perhaps more otm than i want to admit.)

tbh i think you gotta separate that rhetoric from how people were actually acting.

it's reading like a reactionary yearning for the "good old days" even if that's not your intent.

I think that people are reading this into contenderizer's argument and that's not really where he's coming from. He's trying to say that it's holding us back from being a more vibrant, open, progressive, accepting culture that has yet to exist. I think.

xps

Like we were making headway towards something and then backslid. Not a place where white men ruled, but a place where you could express your love of flogging - if that's your thing - and people wouldn't look down on you for it.

The flogging-acceptable place never existed, I'm pretty sure.

a place where you could express your love for slavery--if that's your thing--and people wouldn't look down on you for it

slavery lol XP!!!!

: )

The flogging-acceptable place never existed, I'm pretty sure.

I've heard there is a place on 5th & Spring where people do this

But no, really. A place where someone could go to a person of their preferred gender and be like "Hey, whips and chains" and that person could be free to be all like "Yes, I'm consensual" or "No, sorry, that's not my thing."

craigslist.org

gay bar

btw contenderizer one problem with what youre saying is--removing race from the occasion--that its the responsibility of the person who is offended to forgive and educate the person who offended them, and not, instead, the responsibility of the person who did the offending to apologize and educate their dam selves

― max, Friday, December 4, 2009 2:39 PM (4 minutes ago)

i think that it IS the responsibility of offended people to forgive, educate and understand - to the extent possible, depending on the nature of the offense. and sure, i think it's the responsibility of those who offend to apologize, learn and understand. basically, everyone is obliged to give one another the benefit of the doubt and to treat one another with a measure of compassionate open-mindedness.

understand that this argument only makes sense when the point of offense/contention is relatively minor. not saying that we should always smile and try to understand those who abuse and oppress us.

no i really disagree with that

giving people the benefit of the doubt is important but not everyone's opinions are equivalent

not everyone's opinions are important either

definitely not

also:

agree that what i'm saying DOES seem to square with the "political correctness has gone TOO FAR!!!" arguments you hear on fox, and with the sort of things that poor sad white mans supposedly say now that they don't entirely run the whole game. in idealizing a bygone moment that never really existed, i'm giving in to the fundamental conservative impulse. so i'll take all punches on that score.

but i'd like to think that kingkonggodzilla's right, and that what i'm doing is looking forward for a way out of the deadlocked, polarized, endlessly outraged culture war that we seem to have locked ourselves into.

contenderizer you keep discussing this on a level of abstraction that doesn't exist so it's all kind of shrug

You can't promote tolerance in those who are intolerant by being dismissive and intolerant yourself.

i feel a lot less outrage when i don't spend all my time educating people on how they should treat me but ymmv!