(no subject)
Sep. 21st, 2019 06:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Quiet day. Got laundry done, which I was rather surprised by, considering the laundry room has been closed three days this week and two days last week. I had to do it around an Bangaldash woman and her two little boys playing in the playroom that they set up in the laundry room. It was set up to keep the kids out of the way of the people doing laundry -- but little kids like most humans don't tend to stay within the boundary lines when it goes against their own self-interest.
Also got some cleaning done. And Wales called to see if she could go to my church with me tomorrow. I agreed. Told her it was a fairly laid-back church. I sit in the back (mainly for my back and to make a quick escape, unfortunately the people with the small children want to do that too...for some of the same reasons). And the sermon topic was.."Why I Don't Talk About Trump", which in a way is sort of talking about Trump.... but it does give you a clue about how liberal and somewhat politicized my church is, doesn't it?
We may or may not check out the book festival afterwards. I'm on the fence -- the only authors I recognized, I'm not that crazy about : Joyce Carol Oats (who I find unreadable for some reason, she reminds me a lot of Margaret Atwood -- who is easier to read, which is saying something I suppose), Jessica Lange (she's done a photography book on Route 99), and Jonathan Safran Froer. Also NK Jemisen -- who I have a book series and another book by, but haven't gotten into yet. She's a new sci-fantasy writer with YA African-Asian dystopia bent.
2. All caught up on Country Music Documentary by Ken Burns -- which indicated that "Race music" = Rhythm and Blues (not country), Hillbilly = Country, then it was Folk = Country. It wasn't until 1960s that the Country Music Association got established and country was well country.
Rockabilly -- was an offshoot -- that led more into rock, with Elvis leading the way. Johnny Cash like Elvis started out Gospel, went to Rockabilly, but fell more solidly into country with his desire to tell stories through his music. Also he's the one who came up with the story for the Carl Perkins and Presley song "Blue Suede Shoes".
After watching it, I can not get Patsy Clines "Walking After Midnight" out of my head. That is an earworm song. It spends a lot of time on Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, Brenda Lee, and Johnny Cash. Also some time on the Carter family, Ray Charles (who is attributed for changing things -- and breaking through the race/color line, he recorded country songs and wrote them, seeing them as just music. He like Johnny Cash and Presley listened to everything out there), Loretta Lynn, Mel Tillis, Merle Haggard, and Roger Miller (you may know him as the Rooster in the Disney Cartoon Robin Hood).
It's fascinating. I like Ken Burns documentaries. I watch them off and on.
3. Should I Challenge Longtime Friends About Their Bigoted Views.
First, let’s take up the question of consequences — of whether voicing your objection will do any good. Your friends already know, you say, that you find their social views repugnant. Will a further protest now, especially in front of a larger group, whose members probably have a variety of opinions on these questions, affect either their views or their willingness to express them? People who circulate messages of this sort are apparently unashamed of their bigotry (which usually means they don’t consider it to be bigotry in the first place). Certainly, you’d have reason to denounce the email if you thought it would help them reconsider their views. Experience suggests that success on this front is rare, if rewarding.
But moral philosophers have often supported approaches that aren’t principally guided by a consideration of consequences, and one of them is called virtue ethics. Where “consequentialism” is concerned with the effects of an action, virtue ethics is concerned with what sort of person you are. (The approach is also called “aretaic,” from the Greek arete, meaning virtue or excellence.) Staying quiet when someone says something morally repugnant means not standing up for your deeply held convictions. That can feel like the action of a moral coward. It can also feel like letting down your side, the decent people who agree with you. Sometimes, that is, we stand up for our views even though it won’t make any difference to the person we’re arguing with, simply to express which side we are on, what kind of people we are. It’s a matter of your character.
What about your friends’ character? Here, I have to disagree with your husband’s apparent moral accounting: You don’t make up for an ethical lapse in one area by being decent about something else. (“I know I stole the old lady’s handbag, your honor, but first I gave her a hand across the street.”) Our vices and virtues aren’t entries in a single column that can be summed up in a single score, like the “social credit” rating China apparently plans to assign its citizens. Yet maybe what your husband is asking you to think about is a third question: Do you really want to damage your longstanding relationship with these people over this issue?
This question brings together the issues of consequences and of character. You may feel that you can’t, morally speaking, be friends with someone who is mistaken about such an important ethical matter. When you recognize that someone is morally misguided, it can be a natural response to break off the relationship. And, though doing so may not change the person’s mind, it does impose a penalty.
Here’s a final consideration for you, though. We live in a society full of clashing views about matters like immigration and racial justice. Cutting off everyone with whom we have serious disagreements about these things undermines our capacity to have political conversations with one another as friends and fellow citizens. People are a complex mixture of good and evil, virtue and vice. (Not you and me, of course, but everyone else.) So you might want to consider hanging in there with these people while continuing to insist, when occasions like this come up, that you will make reasoned objections to what they say. Think about responding to your friends not by airing your abhorrence but by carefully explaining why their views are wrong.
I've had mixed results with this -- although, it should be mentioned that I did it with mere acquaintances or people I don't know very well. Co-workers. People I've met online. That sort of thing. Not longtime, close friends. Partly because, unlike my parents, I don't really have any that have these views. And if they did have these views they wouldn't necessarily share them with me, because I'm fairly outspoken regarding my own.
I remember changing a women on a meetup group discussion board's mind about the legality of same-sex marriage way back in the early 00s ( before it was legalized, obviously). She was against it because she thought it impaired the rights of religious organizations -- a common argument. I was able to turn it around, by proving that it doesn't interfere with any religious rights. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not force churches to perform the marriages. It's not a religious issue. And making it one -- could hurt religious organizations far more in the long run, you do not want to make things like marriage purely governed by religion. If you do, you run into the problem of which religion do we go by? It's better to keep religion and state separate for all concerned. Basically I addressed the religion argument, not the same-sex argument, and kept my emotions out of it.
I've also discussed the immigration issue with folks at work, with mixed results. The problem is post - 9/11, a lot of people equate immigration with terrorism. It's not logical. They just do. I've had more than one discussion regarding it...and considering the people are all immigrants, many of whom are first or second generation, it's even more insane.
Their argument? They aren't against immigration, just illegal immigration -- living under the assumption that their families immigrated legally (eh, no, most likely not, some did, some didn't...it wasn't really clear at various points in time). Also under the assumption that it is easy to do, and there aren't extenuating circumstances -- such as you are fleeing for your life and don't have time to go through legal channels.
At times the discussion feels a wee bit too much like I'm Meathead or Gloria trying to smack sense into Edith and Archie Bunker and getting nowhere.
So, I gave up after a while. You can't change Archie Bunker's mind. Or you can't change the mind of someone who is invested in their views, and feels that to change them would mean admitting a) they are wrong, and worse b) morally wrong. I've been known to crack one-liners at times, mostly out of a sense of despair for the human race as a whole. But this, obviously, does not go over well and gets me nowhere.
Example?
Co-worker (who has long since retired -- this was in 2010) (Looking at resume that I printed off of a consultant with a Middle Easteran sounding name): You might want to do a terrorist check on that guy.
ME: Watch it, your prejudice is showing.
He got red in the face and walked away. I probably could have handled that better.
As I posted on FB...
The trick is not to react to it with anger or rage or condemnation. Because it is sort of like hate + hate =hate. Rage+ Rage = rage. But hate + love = love. Rage + Calm water = peace. Or another way of looking at it? Fire + Fire= fire. Fire + Water = no more fire. On FB -- it is difficult to have these kinds of conversations -- and it is equally difficult on Twitter -- neither are set up for deep or meaningful discussion. So it can quickly derail into a kerfuffle. The trick is to...not embarrass, humiliate, demonize, or condemn the other person with your words. And find common ground and move from there. You can't do it -- if you feel strongly about the topic -- or too strongly. Also, the ethicist is right in a way -- I don't think people are good or evil, I think people often will do good or evil things out of self-interest, and at the time they are doing these things good/evil/etc really isn't something they are thinking about.
You can't do this on FB or Twitter though. You can do it on DW for the most part, and on LJ, again for the most part. But FB? People will either ignore you or insult you. It's not a productive forum for discussion.
Also got some cleaning done. And Wales called to see if she could go to my church with me tomorrow. I agreed. Told her it was a fairly laid-back church. I sit in the back (mainly for my back and to make a quick escape, unfortunately the people with the small children want to do that too...for some of the same reasons). And the sermon topic was.."Why I Don't Talk About Trump", which in a way is sort of talking about Trump.... but it does give you a clue about how liberal and somewhat politicized my church is, doesn't it?
We may or may not check out the book festival afterwards. I'm on the fence -- the only authors I recognized, I'm not that crazy about : Joyce Carol Oats (who I find unreadable for some reason, she reminds me a lot of Margaret Atwood -- who is easier to read, which is saying something I suppose), Jessica Lange (she's done a photography book on Route 99), and Jonathan Safran Froer. Also NK Jemisen -- who I have a book series and another book by, but haven't gotten into yet. She's a new sci-fantasy writer with YA African-Asian dystopia bent.
2. All caught up on Country Music Documentary by Ken Burns -- which indicated that "Race music" = Rhythm and Blues (not country), Hillbilly = Country, then it was Folk = Country. It wasn't until 1960s that the Country Music Association got established and country was well country.
Rockabilly -- was an offshoot -- that led more into rock, with Elvis leading the way. Johnny Cash like Elvis started out Gospel, went to Rockabilly, but fell more solidly into country with his desire to tell stories through his music. Also he's the one who came up with the story for the Carl Perkins and Presley song "Blue Suede Shoes".
After watching it, I can not get Patsy Clines "Walking After Midnight" out of my head. That is an earworm song. It spends a lot of time on Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, Brenda Lee, and Johnny Cash. Also some time on the Carter family, Ray Charles (who is attributed for changing things -- and breaking through the race/color line, he recorded country songs and wrote them, seeing them as just music. He like Johnny Cash and Presley listened to everything out there), Loretta Lynn, Mel Tillis, Merle Haggard, and Roger Miller (you may know him as the Rooster in the Disney Cartoon Robin Hood).
It's fascinating. I like Ken Burns documentaries. I watch them off and on.
3. Should I Challenge Longtime Friends About Their Bigoted Views.
First, let’s take up the question of consequences — of whether voicing your objection will do any good. Your friends already know, you say, that you find their social views repugnant. Will a further protest now, especially in front of a larger group, whose members probably have a variety of opinions on these questions, affect either their views or their willingness to express them? People who circulate messages of this sort are apparently unashamed of their bigotry (which usually means they don’t consider it to be bigotry in the first place). Certainly, you’d have reason to denounce the email if you thought it would help them reconsider their views. Experience suggests that success on this front is rare, if rewarding.
But moral philosophers have often supported approaches that aren’t principally guided by a consideration of consequences, and one of them is called virtue ethics. Where “consequentialism” is concerned with the effects of an action, virtue ethics is concerned with what sort of person you are. (The approach is also called “aretaic,” from the Greek arete, meaning virtue or excellence.) Staying quiet when someone says something morally repugnant means not standing up for your deeply held convictions. That can feel like the action of a moral coward. It can also feel like letting down your side, the decent people who agree with you. Sometimes, that is, we stand up for our views even though it won’t make any difference to the person we’re arguing with, simply to express which side we are on, what kind of people we are. It’s a matter of your character.
What about your friends’ character? Here, I have to disagree with your husband’s apparent moral accounting: You don’t make up for an ethical lapse in one area by being decent about something else. (“I know I stole the old lady’s handbag, your honor, but first I gave her a hand across the street.”) Our vices and virtues aren’t entries in a single column that can be summed up in a single score, like the “social credit” rating China apparently plans to assign its citizens. Yet maybe what your husband is asking you to think about is a third question: Do you really want to damage your longstanding relationship with these people over this issue?
This question brings together the issues of consequences and of character. You may feel that you can’t, morally speaking, be friends with someone who is mistaken about such an important ethical matter. When you recognize that someone is morally misguided, it can be a natural response to break off the relationship. And, though doing so may not change the person’s mind, it does impose a penalty.
Here’s a final consideration for you, though. We live in a society full of clashing views about matters like immigration and racial justice. Cutting off everyone with whom we have serious disagreements about these things undermines our capacity to have political conversations with one another as friends and fellow citizens. People are a complex mixture of good and evil, virtue and vice. (Not you and me, of course, but everyone else.) So you might want to consider hanging in there with these people while continuing to insist, when occasions like this come up, that you will make reasoned objections to what they say. Think about responding to your friends not by airing your abhorrence but by carefully explaining why their views are wrong.
I've had mixed results with this -- although, it should be mentioned that I did it with mere acquaintances or people I don't know very well. Co-workers. People I've met online. That sort of thing. Not longtime, close friends. Partly because, unlike my parents, I don't really have any that have these views. And if they did have these views they wouldn't necessarily share them with me, because I'm fairly outspoken regarding my own.
I remember changing a women on a meetup group discussion board's mind about the legality of same-sex marriage way back in the early 00s ( before it was legalized, obviously). She was against it because she thought it impaired the rights of religious organizations -- a common argument. I was able to turn it around, by proving that it doesn't interfere with any religious rights. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not force churches to perform the marriages. It's not a religious issue. And making it one -- could hurt religious organizations far more in the long run, you do not want to make things like marriage purely governed by religion. If you do, you run into the problem of which religion do we go by? It's better to keep religion and state separate for all concerned. Basically I addressed the religion argument, not the same-sex argument, and kept my emotions out of it.
I've also discussed the immigration issue with folks at work, with mixed results. The problem is post - 9/11, a lot of people equate immigration with terrorism. It's not logical. They just do. I've had more than one discussion regarding it...and considering the people are all immigrants, many of whom are first or second generation, it's even more insane.
Their argument? They aren't against immigration, just illegal immigration -- living under the assumption that their families immigrated legally (eh, no, most likely not, some did, some didn't...it wasn't really clear at various points in time). Also under the assumption that it is easy to do, and there aren't extenuating circumstances -- such as you are fleeing for your life and don't have time to go through legal channels.
At times the discussion feels a wee bit too much like I'm Meathead or Gloria trying to smack sense into Edith and Archie Bunker and getting nowhere.
So, I gave up after a while. You can't change Archie Bunker's mind. Or you can't change the mind of someone who is invested in their views, and feels that to change them would mean admitting a) they are wrong, and worse b) morally wrong. I've been known to crack one-liners at times, mostly out of a sense of despair for the human race as a whole. But this, obviously, does not go over well and gets me nowhere.
Example?
Co-worker (who has long since retired -- this was in 2010) (Looking at resume that I printed off of a consultant with a Middle Easteran sounding name): You might want to do a terrorist check on that guy.
ME: Watch it, your prejudice is showing.
He got red in the face and walked away. I probably could have handled that better.
As I posted on FB...
The trick is not to react to it with anger or rage or condemnation. Because it is sort of like hate + hate =hate. Rage+ Rage = rage. But hate + love = love. Rage + Calm water = peace. Or another way of looking at it? Fire + Fire= fire. Fire + Water = no more fire. On FB -- it is difficult to have these kinds of conversations -- and it is equally difficult on Twitter -- neither are set up for deep or meaningful discussion. So it can quickly derail into a kerfuffle. The trick is to...not embarrass, humiliate, demonize, or condemn the other person with your words. And find common ground and move from there. You can't do it -- if you feel strongly about the topic -- or too strongly. Also, the ethicist is right in a way -- I don't think people are good or evil, I think people often will do good or evil things out of self-interest, and at the time they are doing these things good/evil/etc really isn't something they are thinking about.
You can't do this on FB or Twitter though. You can do it on DW for the most part, and on LJ, again for the most part. But FB? People will either ignore you or insult you. It's not a productive forum for discussion.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-21 11:24 pm (UTC)Oddly enough she still stayed friended.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-22 01:49 am (UTC)And your side -- I'm guessing she doesn't post on politics much?
I've avoided high school folks -- the ones who tried to friend me, were staunch conservatives and bullied me in high school -- I didn't like them. So ignored them. I only friended undergrad -- the undergrad I went to was cool -- that was my people. The people in law school and high school -- if I never see them again, I'll be extremely happy. (And it looks like this will be the case, since they never left Kansas and I'll never return.)
According to a co-worker -- there's a new version of Avenue Que being done in high schools and they updated the song "Everything is Temporary", which originally stated... "even Bush was temporary", now it's "even Trump is temporary"...and one of the parents in the audience had a hissy fit over it. And walked out.
Seriously, if someone voted for the Doofus, they have to deal with the fact that people are angry at them and mock them. It comes with the territory.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-22 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-09-22 02:05 am (UTC)So far it's worked out all right.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-22 02:36 am (UTC)I had an ultra-conservative (not a Trump supporter, a Brexit supporter - they were UK) on DW once. It was in 2016-2017 and it did not go well. They kept trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't post in my own journal, and how I was offending their delicate sensibilities discussing Brexit, tribalism, or pushing for a female Doctor Who. And I thought -- if you don't like it? Stop reading me. I'm not going to cater to your needs. It was aggravating. I defriended them finally.