First, preamble. No need to click the spoiler unless you’re familiar with my recent trainwreck of a Pit thread, which was about what the historical outpour of social justice energy ought to focus on as first and second (etc.) priorities. If you haven’t read that thread, please don’t, because I royally screwed the pooch and it is not worth your time. But, if you did, and you quite reasonably concluded I was an ass, I’m hopeful that this bit below might change your mind at least enough to read this new thread on the same topic, and give me the benefit of the doubt.
Actual content to follow. 
Firstly, the reason that thread was posted in the Pit in the first place was because sometimes people have been mocked in the past, when posting controversial stuff, for NOT posting it in the Pit where people could tell them what they really thought. I wanted to avoid that. I also threw some snarky asides in there, because it has been said that snark is the coin of the realm in the Pit. (Miss you, Jodi.)
BUT, what it accomplished instead was, as was pointed out to me via PM, that A) it created an assumption that the OP considered the subjects of the thread worthy of contempt, which is NOT a good idea especially coming from my demographic about that topic and at this particular time; and B) the snark came aross as – no, not came across as; WAS provably – well poison. Both of those points are true. If the main point of the thread was supposed to be acknowledgement of reality and an invitation to reasonable discussion of different opinions, I have to acknowledge the reality that I really, really shit the bed. And I also need to apologize as an attempt at reconciliation.
So, I’m trying again in Great Debates, because I feel that the actual point – which, again, didn’t come across, because all of the initial assumptions about how things would come across were super-obviously wrong – is important. I also feel that everyone involved are genuinely good people, and that I can learn a lot from each of their experiences and knowledge, and that that’s what I was trying to do, but it got lost in the fact that I posted the thread in the “FUCK YOU” forum and also threw a bit of completely unnecessary “FUCK YOU” in there to make sure shit went south. It’s not you, it’s me, except the sincere version of that. I apologize.
Now, time to stop the tiresome meta stuff and get to the point. I’ve gotta start with an analogy, because it might be the only way to get across the point I epically failed to make. The comedian I mentioned in that other thread, Steve Hofstetter, has a joke that kind of illustrates it, though it differs in a way I’ll explain in a sec. (When I told him via PM that I dropped his name there – felt I owed it to him – I also mentioned I’d clarify that I was in no way implying he’d necessarily agree with me, so here is that.)
The joke’s about parenting, and you can watch it here (shameless plug for Steve; watch him!), but to summarize, he says that while he can in no way understand the full experience of what it’s like to fly a helicopter, if he looks up and sees one in a tree, he can point at it and say, “pilot fucked up.” The abstract point is that experience is necessary to understand certain aspects of things, but others can be understood by any thinking person who considers the physical evidence at hand.
Where that Pit thread went south is that it came across as if the implication was that statue-pullers (and football-player-yellers-at, and university name change advocates, et cetera) were the equivalent of that tree’d pilot. Wasn’t the intention, though again, have the most honest mea culpa I can provide for the fact that people concluded it was.
The point was supposed to be that, to extend the analogy, those people were, in my non-pilot opinion but as a guy who’s at least ridden in a helicopter, that the helo seemed to be flying at a 20-degree list and in my best assessment, everyone might be more comfortable if the pilot altered his flight style a little bit. I’m sure the pilot is a good person who has both the safety and comfort of his passengers in mind, and that’s why I’m even bringing it up.
But, if the pilot took the time to explain that per his knowledge that I lacked, he was flying at that 20-degree list FOR safety because of something to do with wind conditions, then I’d listen, because one ought to accept knowledge and experience from those who have it. But there’s also the possibility that, as that good person, he might say “oh, hell, I’ve spent so much time in helos that I don’t really care what angle I’m at, and if it helps y’all out, I can fly a bit more level.” That’s why reasonable people talk about things. Like on this board, in this forum. (Not the Pit. Point still received.)
In that other thread, a person who’s about the best source of knowledge on institutional racism that I’ve ever personally encountered opined that perhaps I ought to consider that the statues were doing more harm than the things I was advocating for focusing on, because symbols of evil hurt people in ways and to depths that I had not considered because I hadn’t been there. I was actually excited about that, because if there existed an argument that would convince me – and I really am listening, especially to him – that statues did more harm than some of the other stuff I thought was hurting more people and therefore worthy of more focus, then I would and will change my stance in a friggin’ heartbeat and will quite literally get togther a group to go yank the fucking things down. I’ll get arrested for it too; wouldn’t be the first time.
He reasonably concluded that I’d already indicated that I was an ass, and told me he couldn’t give me any peer-reviewed research on the subject and I could piss off with the request.
That stung, although in retrospect it makes sense why it happened, because I despise the idea that academic research evidence is the only evidence that matters. For example, I fully believe based on anecdotal evidence and basic reasoning that police have something practially equivalent to quotas for ticket-writing. The anecdotal evidence I have is from current and former cops, who tell me that not every department does have them, but they’re common enough, and where they exist they’re called something like “performance incentives.” And they aren’t documented because hmm, I wonder why. That’s good enough evidence for me, and that sort of thing was all that was being requested; obviously suicide reasoning is not the sort of thing you’re gonna get a clean number on. But whatever evidence DOES exist, it should be presented so reasonable people can be convinced that it should be acted upon.
Now, what I won’t mea culpa for is the idea that reality is real, and it is worth the time for intelligent and caring people to get together and try to figure out how we can best do what we can with what we have. Everyone doesn’t have to focus on MY priority one, or YOUR priority one, or anyone else’s. As yet another poster pointed out, there exist enough good people to attack more than one cause at once, and in so doing, do even more good. I don’t pretend I personally have thought of even a double-digit percentage of all the amazing things we could accomplish, because I don’t know the half (or fourth or tenth or thirtieth) of it due to my privileged position.
What I disagree with is the idea that there are enough people to attack EVERY cause, or that all causes are equally important. I also think that the saying that the first sentence of this paragraph is equivalent to saying that the less important causes are bad, is deliberately disingenuous. But, I understand why people didn’t get that based on my own bad behavior, and am not calling them disingenuous for it.
All I am saying, is give peace a chance. Oh, wait, wrong point, although that too. All I am saying is “come, let us reason together.” I sure as hell ain’t Jesus, but I am a rando who’s trying to do some good, and the combined force of a bunch of randos trying to do some good is providing hope for humanity’s future to a lot of people who could really really use it right now. I and we owe it to those people, who do not include me, to give it to them as effectively as we can. I can, for example, make a pretty good fact-and-reason based argument that yelling at football players for not yelling at other football players is a lot less effective thing to do than a thousand other things I could point to that are currently happening, and I can do that without implying that only ONE of those thousand things is worth doing.
Hell, yelling at football players is “worth doing” too, in that it advances the side of Good. But the side point, and one reason I even care about this, was that attacking certain lower-priority issues – even if accomplishing them is still a net boon to the world – gives dishonest people who ARE the enemy fodder to make us look silly to fence-sitters, and that DOES hurt us, even if it is objectively wrong. If moderates look at people spray-painting statues, and decide, even if wrongly, that that’s kinda dumb…and when they point out that “hey, tell me if I’m wrong, but it sure seems like spray painting statues is kinda dumb,” and they get their head kicked in for it…then we’re creating Trump voters. We don’t need to be doing that.
To sum up, if I’m wrong about any of this, I want to know, because I want to help. I get why it didn’t look that way in my last thread. Hopefully I’ve done better here, because the team is currently kicking copious ass and for the love of humanity let’s keep on doing it. As best we can. Thanks.
