I couldn’t agree more. And not just with bigotry–any moral failings anyone perceives I like to be told about. Of course, I often initiate the exchange. Golden Rule and all that.
I find a lot of fat people don’t know they’re fat, so I point it out. Same thing with ugly people. Bad teeth? I totally volunteer that an orthodontist is in order. Halitosis? You need a Tic Tac. Roots showing? Bitch, get your hair did. Grammatical error? I ALWAYS correct strangers. Misbehaving kid at Wal-Mart? I always recommend better parenting tactics. Poor people? I tell 'em work harder.
I have found that the world is full of people who need me to point out their bigotry and other failings. If they can’t take it; fuck 'em, they need to get over themselves.
I do agree that in many circumstances, circumlocutions and pussyfooting around accurate language is helpful. I’m from the south, where we know about the flycatching traits of honey v. vinegar.
But there are some important distinctions. A lot of the views expressed in Great Debates are :eek: enough that if an acquaintance said them, I’d be sure not to spend time around that acquaintance; if someone on Facebook said them, I’d unfriend them. I hang out here in part because I encounter views I don’t always encounter in my everyday life (lots more libertarians, e.g., and a lot more open racists). Which means I deal with views differently here.
Also, I have a division here between folks whom I think are amenable to reasonable discussion, and folks who aren’t. The folks who I think are reasonable, I’m willing to put a lot more efforts into diplomacy with. The folks who aren’t, I have less patience for. That may be apparent from how I’ve treated different posters in this thread ;). If I respond to the latter group, I have no faith at all that they’re open to having their minds changed, so I’m a lot less willing to circumlocute around central issues in order to protect their feelings. I’m a lot likelier to say what I think accurately.
And honestly, I think there’s some real value to that. IME, many folks respond to that with some initial NUH UH defensiveness. But some folks respond long-term by thinking about what was said, and slowly changing their minds. And even when they don’t, there’s the folks reading the thread who haven’t said their piece and don’t feel threatened by the word “bigoted.” Those people, when confronted with the stark parallels between, say, anti-miscegenation laws and anti-SSM laws, may be a lot more receptive to the pro-SSM case, realizing that it’s really not a genteel issue on which both sides have good points, but rather one of the shames of our time.
Nevertheless, you and Bone make some good points. There certainly are settings–most specifically when you think the person you’re debating is open to persuasion–when the use of the word “bigoted” and its variants is counterproductive.
If someone comes into IMHO and talks about how they never brush their teeth, you’d better damned believe I’ll tell them that bad breath is a nasty thing to inflict on other people. You start talking about your ugly flaws, you’ve opened that door. Your “I often initiate the exchange” bit is exactly the bit that makes your analogy fall apart.
I covered that in point (sentence) #3. Re-read it if you didn’t understand. I can’t be troubled to keep repeating myself. Not with you or with my students.
“Golden Rule and all that”? You mean that you do it to others because that’s how you’d like to be treated?
Okay, champ. That’s not how I’d like to be treated, but whatever floats your boat. It’s totally irrelevant to the flaw in your analogy, however.
FWIW, I get that you’re trying very hard to engage in satire, mocking me by pretending to imitate me. If it’s any consolation, satire is hard to pull off effectively, so you shouldn’t feel bad.
Your interpretation of my comments is interesting. My comment specifically quoted Andy, (I’m not doing the !'s) and his argument that he LIKES when his bigotry is pointed out. Yet when I agree and expand on it, it becomes satire. Why?
If the Golden Rule doesn’t apply in charges of bigotry, how can you defend making such a charge? Do you mean you want to charge bigotry, if you think you see it, but you don’t want others accusing you of bigotry?
Moreover, I never “pretended” to imitate you, I DID imitate you. If you found it off-putting and condescending when I directed you to re-read my post and compared you to my students (who are by definition my curricular inferiors), well …
If I put my beliefs in a forum called “great debates,” I fully expect people to point out what they sincerely believe are the flaws in the belief. That’s kind of the point. I don’t expect people to hold back out of fear of hurting my feelings, or out of fear that when they sincerely identify perceived flaws, I’ll get so defensive I won’t be able to hear them.
That’s entirely different from your attempted analogy, as I previously explained. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with the third sentence in your post.
You’re correct; the word I should have used is “attempted.” You’re making a shitty analogy by way of attempted satire. I know you’re trying hard, so points for effort, anyway.
Repeating what someone (you) posted is not parody or satire. It’s just repetition. You apparently didn’t like it and are ascribing some failed rhetorical device to my comments. I can assure you there was nothing so sophisticated at play. If you say, “Re-read it” and “my students”, and then I say, “Re-read it” and “my students”, there’s no analogy there; failed or otherwise. There is no analogy, no parody, no satire, not even a tu quoque. There are just your sentiments repeated back to you.
If you find those sentiments vicious (dare I say bigoted?) then consider the source.
Sigh. The problem isn’t that you used the words. The problem is that you used them ineffectively. If you’d like to understand more about how you used the words ineffectively, consider starting a new thread on the subject. I have no interest in further discussion of your failed parody here.
They were not vicious; they were not bigoted. They were, in the context you used them, inept.
As near as I can tell, you’re not particularly interested in discussing the OP any further, which is totally fine. You might find that you can interest others in your conversation about these other subjects.
You think being fat, or having bad teeth is an indefensible moral failing that most people want to correct in themselves? That’s very strange. Not sure what those have to do with making arguments on message boards, either.
But if I see what appears to be a bigoted argument on my favorite message board, I’ll probably point it out. It’s possible I’ll be wrong. Discussion – even about bigotry – is good.