Political Cartoons

In many cases, yes, there is a objective answer. Take dexeron's example above - if there's complaints about harassment, and a significant number of people begin asking for a response, but the actual "problem" is a handful of isolated incidents, is it a call for significant action? Logically, we should say no. That's not how "social justice" works, though.

In the cases we cannot come to an objective answer, however, I'm not sure there's ever an appropriate response. Unfortunately, the cries of "do something" are always going to be louder, and no one wants to come across as [insert label here]-ist, so...

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

Is there some benchmark, some minimum value that things like harrassment must rise above before something is done about it? Do we simply ignore it when it exists below that level?

Keep in mind, all that was being asked for by those complaining was a more clearly defined set of rules, an anti-harassment policy similar to those in place in almost every other type of convention. The response of those in charge, which eerily mirrors yours, was for a long time: "Ehhh, it's just some isolated incidents, you're overreacting." Then it was: "Well, here's one person who hasn't experienced it, hence none of you have." Then, finally, they were forced to acknowledge that it actually was a widespread problem, beyond just some "isolated incidents."

But why not just adopt an easy to understand, comprehensive policy from the beginning? Why the digging in of heels and refusal to address something that was going on if the only rationale is "it's not going on ENOUGH for us to really care?"

From:

Is there some benchmark, some minimum value that things like harrassment must rise above before something is done about it? Do we simply ignore it when it exists below that level?

Should we have the same response whether a situation is isolated or systemic? That's what it comes down to for me - when you start treating isolated issues as systemic ones, you're exchanging one allegedly hostile environment for the creation of a new one that ends up being unwelcoming for everyone who isn't aligned with whatever social flavor of the week is in.

Keep in mind, all that was being asked for by those complaining was a more clearly defined set of rules, an anti-harassment policy similar to those in place in almost every other type of convention.

That was the message, yes. By no means was there anything to believe that it would end there, or that the proper protections would be in place for the accused. We don't need more Adria Richards-types.

But why not just adopt an easy to understand, comprehensive policy from the beginning? Why the digging in of heels and refusal to address something that was going on if the only rationale is "it's not going on ENOUGH for us to really care?"

Policy for the sake of policy is never a good thing. If it's an isolated situation, there's no need to overreact. If it's systemic, then you do something about it.

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

Combining post replies into one thread:

Re: Rebecca Watson. Dude. Lol. Elevatorgate? Maybe look up what Rebecca Watson ACTUALLY said with regards to the incident (and then the response from the thousand agreived dudebros who read way too much into that response) and then reconsider what your sources are with regards to your perceptions on the harassment going on at skeptic conventions.

Here's a hint: she said, in effect: "Hey, it was kind of creepy. Guys, don't do that." That's it.

-

Re: your post just above this one

This is just rationalization of the refusal to address bad behavior, couched in fancy sounding faux-thoughtfulness. "We mustn't overreact! We must be careful in our responses!" Which is about as useful as "I'll pray for you!" and translates to "We're not actually going to do anything. Status-quo ahoy!" In other words, a way to say something (because saying nothing equates to implicit approval) without actually having to go to any effort to address the problem.

It's also the rhetorical equivalent of spitting in the face of every woman who has been harrassed at these conventions. "Oh, you're just overreacting, honey." "Maybe you're only seeing such negative feedback because you're being so negative yourself!" "Maybe you were leading those guys on?" "Are you sure you're remembering what happened correctly?" "Are you just making this up?"

Yea, sorry, no, and here's the line

---

beyond which I can no longer engage in rational discussion, because I'm sorry, but that kind of bullshit pretend-thoughtfulness attempting to mask privilege-blinded self-serving status-quo championing is too shitty for me to just sit and keep politely saying: "Well, I respect your opinion, but..."

Nope.

Edited Date: 2013-07-25 05:06 pm (UTC)

From:

And yet this is a firm demonstration of exactly the problem being posed. There cannot be a dialogue, because a dialogue isn't desired. Instead, we go with the feelings of a group that claims to be aggrieved, and then paint the other side with whatever handy brush exists to avoid actually engaging with the issue.

I mean, to your credit, you note that you can't engage in a rational discussion on it. Many others actually believe the "feels are reals" style of justice is actually rational. But let's not pretend this is trying to find a solution to a problem. What it is, and what we're doing, is dismissing the questions in favor of the already-conceived answer, whether the facts and reality support it or not.

It's no wonder so many people have a problem with me when this is the fight that's being waged. I, for one, don't think "give up and go home" is a good answer.

From:

But let's not pretend this is trying to find a solution to a problem

Are you going to admit there is a problem?

From:

If there's a problem to admit to, sure.

From:

I think this might be the biggest issue that I have with you. Trying to get you to admit that there is a problem seems to be impossible for you to do.

The reason that emotions even show up in dialogue is because personal problems usually have emotions tied to them. Saying that because an issue is emotional means it is not a problem doesn't work. Saying that an isolated problem isn't a problem doesn't work. A problem is a problem no matter how sparse because if something happens once, it is viable to happen again.

From:

I think this might be the biggest issue that I have with you. Trying to get you to admit that there is a problem seems to be impossible for you to do.

It's funny, because I get this mostly from people who really can't provide even a lick of evidence. Instead, I've merely "internalized it" or I'm a "liar" or worse. It's kind of silly. I'm willing to look at any evidence available, and I will discuss the evidence and accept it if its there. It's the only way I can come to a conclusion.

People, moreso here than most anywhere else I've discussed political issues (exceptions being the ontd network and some SJ-aligned areas), are extremely afraid of examining angles that make them uncomfortable or challenge their viewpoints. It's a bubble mentality to the extreme that does little to expand ideas.

The reason that emotions even show up in dialogue is because personal problems usually have emotions tied to them. Saying that because an issue is emotional means it is not a problem doesn't work.</>

Sure! No doubt about it. The problem, however, is that emotion is a terrible way to handle a situation. Are you more likely to make a good decision or come up with good choices when you're fired up and angry, or when you're able to examine the situation and what surrounds it? Emotional thinking appeals to our base instincts.

Saying that an isolated problem isn't a problem doesn't work. A problem is a problem no matter how sparse because if something happens once, it is viable to happen again.

This then leads to pretty much anything being on the table simply because someone feels a certain way. What, should we then pretend, for example, that convention culture has a misandry problem because some guys were offended by the "anti-harassment" measures? It's an unserious complaint and should be treated as such as opposed to elevated to the level of actual problems.

From:

I'm willing to look at any evidence available, and I will discuss the evidence and accept it if its there. It's the only way I can come to a conclusion.

Its a reasonable way to come to a conclusion, but absolutely not the only way. All humans are bound by the subjective nature of their perceptions.

Emotional thinking appeals to our base instincts.

Which is also not an absolute. Sometime emotions are the right answer. There WILL be times when emotion will serve us well.

From:

Its a reasonable way to come to a conclusion, but absolutely not the only way. All humans are bound by the subjective nature of their perceptions.

By no means do we need to accept this as such, though. People can learn to make better decisions by using logic as opposed to emotion.

Which is also not an absolute. Sometime emotions are the right answer. There WILL be times when emotion will serve us well.

What's an example you have in mind?

From:

By no means do we need to accept this as such, though. People can learn to make better decisions by using logic as opposed to emotion.

I agree with that general rule of thumb, but there are exceptions.

The example is our families. They need love, and one who emotes healthily is usually a good family member.

Edited Date: 2013-07-26 04:16 pm (UTC)

From:

The example is our families. They need love, and one who emotes healthily is usually a good family member.

Certainly, but I'll use my own situation as an example. My mother is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's at this point. Doesn't recognize me as her son if at all, and so on and so forth. I was very close to my mother, and it's not an easy situation to live with her like this on a daily basis.

Emotionally, I'm exhausted, I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm bitter. Emotionally, I know I want her to be comfortable and with us as long as possible.

Logically? At some point, a decision has to be made about long term care, not what I might want selfishly or emotionally. Talking to my father about what we need to do if she gets in an accident or something was not easy, because the emotional ties to my mother were in the forefront as opposed to the reality that you'd be putting a lot of time, energy, and finances into the quality of life of someone who completely lacks it.

Our use of emotion in family situations is why people suffer longer than they should when they're hooked up to all sorts of equipment, being kept alive by all possible means for illogical, emotional hope. Terri Schiavo is a great example of this. We do our loved ones a disservice in that regard.

From:

Well, I see/feel your point here. But lets not throw away the baby with the bathwater. All those actions were motivated by love.

Do you have clear instructions laid out for yourself? Its something I need to do for myself, so my wife isn't burdened like that....

From:

Well, I see/feel your point here. But lets not throw away the baby with the bathwater. All those actions were motivated by love.

Yes and no. Yes because I love my mom, but no because I would make the same recommendation for anyone else.

Do you have clear instructions laid out for yourself? Its something I need to do for myself, so my wife isn't burdened like that....

It's on the ever-growing list, and I'm still ashamed I haven't prioritized it. There are a lot of complexities to our situation currently, though, so...

(no subject)

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com - Date: 2013-07-26 06:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

It's funny, because I get this mostly from people who really can't provide even a lick of evidence. Instead, I've merely "internalized it" or I'm a "liar" or worse. It's kind of silly. I'm willing to look at any evidence available, and I will discuss the evidence and accept it if its there. It's the only way I can come to a conclusion.

I'll admit that I'm unable to find a lick of evidence (research papers were always a problem for me), but I won't call you any names because of my inabilities.

It's a bubble mentality to the extreme that does little to expand ideas.

Yes, but on the other end of the same spectrum lies you, unwilling to search for a solution to a problem you're hearing about because it doesn't happen enough, whatever that means.

Sure! No doubt about it. The problem, however, is that emotion is a terrible way to handle a situation. Are you more likely to make a good decision or come up with good choices when you're fired up and angry, or when you're able to examine the situation and what surrounds it? Emotional thinking appeals to our base instincts.

Of course; at least we can agree on this. Emotion isn't the way to deal with a problem, but it is the way to bring attention to it. From there, logic and reason should be applied.

This then leads to pretty much anything being on the table simply because someone feels a certain way. What, should we then pretend, for example, that convention culture has a misandry problem because some guys were offended by the "anti-harassment" measures? It's an unserious complaint and should be treated as such as opposed to elevated to the level of actual problems.

I think this brings us back to where we disagree. As a black woman, I know for a fact that women and minorities are not treated fairly. For those men, they know that men are being attacked. The number of people in each group doesn't matter. Putting yourself in the place of the complainer and using your emotions to decide a legitimate attack from a ridiculous one is the only way to resolve the issue.

From:

Yes, but on the other end of the same spectrum lies you, unwilling to search for a solution to a problem you're hearing about because it doesn't happen enough, whatever that means.

Sure. Part of it is because I don't think you make significant changes to address rare-to-nonexistent issues unless there's good reason to do so. Another part is that there are a lot of issues to address, so why not address real ones first?

Putting yourself in the place of the complainer and using your emotions to decide a legitimate attack from a ridiculous one is the only way to resolve the issue.

Sure, but that might help understand if there's a problem. Is using that emotion a good way to come to a conclusion as to how to handle it, or are we better off looking at it more analytically?

From:

Sure. Part of it is because I don't think you make significant changes to address rare-to-nonexistent issues unless there's good reason to do so. Another part is that there are a lot of issues to address, so why not address real ones first?

But what constitutes a "real" problem? And who gets to decide what that is? Everyone can generally agree that problems that affect them should be dealt with first, but what about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and housing the homeless? What should go first shouldn't be based on the number of people with an issue (I'm sure everyone in America wants a tax break), but with the severity of the problem. This is all objective, though.

Sure, but that might help understand if there's a problem. Is using that emotion a good way to come to a conclusion as to how to handle it, or are we better off looking at it more analytically?

Not always. Sometimes problems need to be solved with emotion, but in the case that they do not, you are definitely correct.

From:

But what constitutes a "real" problem? And who gets to decide what that is?

I'd love to find an objective measure, but I'd also like to think that one person's feelings are not it.

What should go first shouldn't be based on the number of people with an issue (I'm sure everyone in America wants a tax break), but with the severity of the problem.

Is one person being hungry more important than policy that impacts 1 million? Severity seems subjective.

Sometimes problems need to be solved with emotion

Do you have an example in mind?

From:

I'd love to find an objective measure, but I'd also like to think that one person's feelings are not it.

You're completely right on this. It does help to prioritize problems, though.

Is one person being hungry more important than policy that impacts 1 million? Severity seems subjective.

It depends on the policy. If it is a policy that will save millions from being beaten to death or something, then yes. If it's a policy that will give a tax break to millions, then no.

Do you have an example in mind?

Unfortunately, I cannot think of any off the top of my mind, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

From:

So, I'm confused. You suggest that the problem is non-existent AND you feel that no viable solutions have been put forward.

Is there a problem to solve?

From: