I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans workDo you see the problem here?I don't.
Surely not all of Lovecraft's work is blatantly racist.
How does not reading the work of a racist somehow combat racism? What does it matter if you read it or not? It's just a bizarre thing to say.
|
Re: Racism in Lovecraft, he seemed to point out "mongrel" races and interracial anything as examples of wrongness, to the extreme that children of mixed marriage were a minor form of cosmic horror to him. Sometimes humans doing it with fish people are just humans doing it with fish people, but in Lovecraft's hands hot hot Creature From The Black Lagoon action turns into an unfortunate metaphor. And then there are examples where he doesn't even bother with the metaphor...
Check out the "horrifying" climax of Medusa's Coil for example.
|
Re: Racism in Lovecraft, he seemed to point out "mongrel" races and interracial anything as examples of wrongness, to the extreme that children of mixed marriage were a minor form of cosmic horror to him. Sometimes humans doing it with fish people are just humans doing it with fish people, but in Lovecraft's hands hot hot Creature From The Black Lagoon action turns into an unfortunate metaphor. And then there are examples where he doesn't even bother with the metaphor...
Check out the "horrifying" climax of Medusa's Coil for example.
Yes, but this isn't all that different from Burroughs, who doesn't have the same rep. There's lots of dodgy pseudo-Darwinism in both of them (with red men, green men and white men all milling about on Mars, for example, together with the bestial creatures they evolved from). Plus the "mongrel races" stuff may well also draw from Lovecraft's views on sex and heredity due to his dad giving his mum syphilis and it driving them both mad and ultimately killing them when he was still a child. For example, The Shadow Over Innsmouth could be read as a racist rant against Polynesians and the perils of doing it with fish (falsely) or as a metaphor for the inheritance of madness and the impact of watching your mother go slowly mad with syphilis (more correctly, in my view).
Not to say either of them didn't have racist views, of course - but we're talking the 1920s here. Most (white) people held those views. Nor is it especially blatant either. I mean, doing it with tentacled horrors is normally considered a bad idea anyway - it might not be a metaphor for anything other than that.
|
|
No. Lovecraft's pretty vile in a lot of ways. I'm fond of a lot of his work, but it takes some effort to get past the bigotry.
OTOH, it's not quite as simple as racism and it really does run through all of HPL's work, whether blatantly or not. His racism is partly just that common to his time and partly an aspect of his overall xenophobia. He didn't just despise and fear black people (or asians or which ever Europeans weren't white enough at the time, Irish and Italians at least), but everyone that wasn't pretty much the same as him: educated westerners. His depiction of white backwoods New Englanders is as negative as that of blacks or of non-Western European immigrants.
Well, he was also a terrible snob. On the other hand, his job was to write horror fiction. He's also trying to evoke a "bad atmosphere" as part of the genre he's writing in. Lovecraft wasn't a "horror on a sunny day" sort of writer, he wanted to evoke darkness. The backwoodsmen he wrote about were often actually cultists, so they wouldn't have been depicted in a positive light anyway (and HPL wasn't a subtle writer either in many ways). I mean, Deliverance depicts backwoodsmen in a fairly negative light too, but then that's the plot. I don't deny that he uses racist stereotypes, especially in some of the urban settings where said Italians and Irish hang out. But if you read stuff from that era you will find these assumptions. None of it stopped him getting published, for example.
And this xenophobia is the basis of much of his horror. All about discovering new horrible secrets or aliens creatures beyond our comprehension.
To be fair, that's not exactly the preserve of HPL and a fairly common horror trope. I don't think you can read that as just being a product of xenophobia.
Oh and HPL on homosexuality:As a matter of fact—although of course I always knew that paederasty was a disgusting custom of many ancient nations—I never heard of homosexuality as an actual instinct till I was over thirty . . . which beats your record! It is possible, I think that this perversion occurs more frequently in some periods than in others—owing to obscure biological & psychological causes. Decadent ages—when psychology...
Again, pretty much a man of his time.
Ah. I assumed he'd read enough of it to know. Or perhaps he'd done a little research? Or maybe was just told it was by the person who suggested it: "Here read this. It's great. You just have to ignore the bits where he talks about people like you as subhuman monsters."As in... How do you know it's blatantly racist if you won't read it?I don't.I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans workDo you see the problem here?
Research and as I said more than a few friends who have suggested that I read his work with caveats.
And THANK YOU JEFF, for not automatically assuming that I'm a complete idiot. And I mean that in the most honest and least sarcastic way possible.
|
|
Re: Snob.
It went beyond that. I meant to add in something about despising himself as much as anything else.
Yes, it did, that's true. I don't know about the self-loathing angle. He was a strange guy, but to write him off as a racist xenophobic misanthrope I think (as with Card, probably) does the man a serious injustice by making him seem one-dimensional. After all, his correspendence circle was wide and he helped many other writers with their careers. Even his ex-wife said he was OK.
Re: xenophobia.
I'm no so sure. It's very much a cosmic horror trope, but cosmic horror is very much influenced by HPL. In his time the portrayal of science as leading to mind destroying secrets instead of as limitless progress was rare.
Some of these tropes are taken from Lovecraft or at least partly shaped by him.
There's definitely chicken and egg here but HPL wasn't entirely sui generis. Nor was he anti-science either. I personally see his stuff as early science fiction, before the term was actually coined and the label applied. He was apparently getting a bit bored with his horror stuff and the stories get more science fiction-y as they go along. Clearly there are other influences too, like Dunsany and Abraham Merrit, which have a similar "weirdness". The "science as progress" thing was more coming out of John W Campbell a bit later - it was one of his strong editorial biases. A lot of proto-SF is stuff like Burroughs which doesn't really engage with science at all.
|
Yes, but this isn't all that different from Burroughs, who doesn't have the same rep. There's lots of dodgy pseudo-Darwinism in both of them (with red men, green men and white men all milling about on Mars, for example, together with the bestial creatures they evolved from).
Yeah...the difference here is that Burroughs doesn't call out some of these races as superior or inferior to others (and, indeed, only has villains do so), for the most part, and his protagonist has a mixed-race kid with a member of one of them. The presence of various races isn't racist, how they're treated is. Burroughs was an elitist, but not really very racist.
Not to say either of them didn't have racist views, of course - but we're talking the 1920s here. Most (white) people held those views. Nor is it especially blatant either.
Lovecraft's contemporaries thought his racism was extreme. And references to non-white people as disgusting-looking at the very least are pretty ubiquitous in Lovecraft's work.
I have to admit I am uncomfortable with some of the labeling (bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, etc.) occurring in this thread. I am equally uncomfortable when anti-gay-marriage proponents denigrate, demonize, or make slurs about those who support gay marriage. I just wish both sides could be more civilized in their approach.I believe that the time to be civil was when this country was having the gay marriage "discussion". But that discussion is over. You could have maybe claimed ignorance as an excuse 15 years ago, but not today. We, as a country, know full well what the right thing to do is - and, by and large, we're doing it. There is no longer an excuse for that flavor of bigotry.
So the time for civility is past. Now it's time to treat the anti-gay crowd the same way we treat openly racist or misogynistic people - with a level of derision and shaming appropriate to their offensive views. We don't see a need to treat the Klan with civility when discussing their views. And we are, thankfully, getting to the point where being against gay rights and wearing a white hood are both looked at with the same kind of revulsion.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that we need to be civil to people who are against gay rights?
I believe that to be the best human possible, we need to treat everyone with respect, even when when we don't like them or their views. Derision never wins people over, it just breeds mutual contempt.
Yes, it did, that's true. I don't know about the self-loathing angle. He was a strange guy, but to write him off as a racist xenophobic misanthrope I think (as with Card, probably) does the man a serious injustice by making him seem one-dimensional. After all, his correspendence circle was wide and he helped many other writers with their careers. Even his ex-wife said he was OK.
It's not all Card is. But he spends his time and money promoting an anti-gay agenda, he links child abuse to homosexuality and plenty of other unpleasant bits and bobs. Again, the man was fine using a boycott when trying to stop Starbucks being pro-gay. Why is he surprised that people are not interested in his movie because of his views, especially knowing that some of there ticket price will go to a man likely to spend it on an anti gay platform? And why, now, is he all for tolerance from gays but when he had the chance he had no tolerance for them? That desire for tolerance seems to have sprung from his wallet, and his wallet alone...which, again, is a wallet he opens for an anti-gay movement.
I'm sure some of my money has gone to anti-gay stuff before. It's one of the reasons I make a donation each month to pro movements. The difference is, I know about Card, and I know that money would be going to him. Even if it's only pennies. I'd still say it's better to see the movie if you wish and donate to a good pro-gay organization, but if people prefer to boycott it I'm entirely fine with that. The only person Card has to blame for it is himself.
I would also say, again, that I'd be even less likely to see the film after his, 'why can't you all be tolerant of my hate and give me cash?' speech. I despise that kind of two faced, one rule for me and another for you attitude.
I generally try to avoid controversy and heated discussions, but maybe it won't hurt to throw in one little tidbit, for those who might be interested.
I have not read the book in question, so grain of salt, but one of the older threads here mentioned his example of a positive homosexual character being one that was struggling against his sexuality.
The character was Zdorab, from the "Homecoming" saga. When reading that series, I got the feeling that OSC's views on homosexuals were pretty well summed up in Zdorab's part of the 2nd and 3rd "Homecoming" books. (And it's a pretty fun series to read, just for the entertainment value. I read those 5 books twice.)
|
|
Listen politely to the racists and the sexists and homophobes and all the other bigots. Respect their rights to push their opinion that you are evil lesser scum. Certainly don't mock them or shame them for their bigotry. Make sure even their viewpoints remain acceptable.
At least when you lose your rights, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you were "the best human possible".
There's no point arguing with a true bigot, politely or otherwise. Their mind is made up, and they live to argue, because that is how they convince themselves they're right.
But always be polite, because if you do argue, anyone else overhearing will be more likely to listen to the person who is so certain the facts are on their side that they don't need to be belligerent. The loud, angry person in the argument is the one who really wants his argument to be true, but secretly suspects it isn't.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Ah. I assumed he'd read enough of it to know. Or perhaps he'd done a little research? Or maybe was just told it was by the person who suggested it: "Here read this. It's great. You just have to ignore the bits where he talks about people like you as subhuman monsters."As in... How do you know it's blatantly racist if you won't read it?I don't.I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans workDo you see the problem here?Research and as I said more than a few friends who have suggested that I read his work with caveats.
And THANK YOU JEFF, for not automatically assuming that I'm a complete idiot. And I mean that in the most honest and least sarcastic way possible.
I didn't "automatically assume" you were a complete idiot. I merely pointed out that if you haven't read Lovecraft, you have no basis to make sweeping generalizations about how his works are "blatantly" racist. TBH, I have no dog in the fight of whether you read Lovecraft or not, but I'd suggest that maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I would say that they are not "blatantly" racist; rather, that racial prejudices are an underlying assumption common to almost all literature pre-Civil Rights era. Lovecraft's work certainly takes place in an time and place in which racism is the norm and incorporates racial fears into the overall atmosphere--we might expect a master horror writer to play to the pervasive fears of his audience, even if we now find those fears unfounded and uncomfortable. Certainly, we 21st century readers are more sensitive to issues of race and more aware of them in the work of Lovecraft and his contemporaries than perhaps they were themselves. But that's part of engaging with literature; paradoxically, you both check your assumptions at the door and bring them with you as well.
I noticed that everyone ignored the comparison to Tom Cruise and Scientology.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this always an answer to boycotts? Think about the poor bus drivers in the segregated South. Or the poor folk working lunch counters during that boycott.
Small point, but I thought it worth mentioning:
The Civil Rights Movement protesters weren't boycotting the segregated lunch counters, they were sitting-in in them and demanding integrated service.
---
Like I said above, I have no interest in this movie because I've never read Card, but I finally got around to reading his statement and plea for tolerance and I had to chuckle.
D.W. Griffith, the guy who invented much of the "language" of film, is most famous for his Klan-propaganda movie (and masterpiece, you know, if you like racist films) The Birth of a Nation. This film was pretty controversial, on the one hand getting the thumbs up from Woodrow Wilson (keep that in mind when talking about Lovecraft), on the other, leading to riots in Boston and a couple of other cities, and being banned in many others.
Griffith's next film was Intolerance, a sprawling 4-storied epic that depicted the crucifixion of Christ, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, and other happy stuff.
Revisionist conventional wisdom has it that this was Griffith's apology for The Birth, but it turns out that that isn't quite true. As it turns out, Intolerance was about the reception that The Birth received and a plea for tolerance--for Griffith!!!
So, at least OSC can find solace in the fact that he isn't, historically speaking, alone amongst tolerance-seeking repugnant douchebags.
|
|
I didn't "automatically assume" you were a complete idiot. I merely pointed out that if you haven't read Lovecraft, you have no basis to make sweeping generalizations about how his works are "blatantly" racist. TBH, I have no dog in the fight of whether you read Lovecraft or not, but I'd suggest that maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
** spoiler omitted **
I would say that they are not "blatantly" racist; rather, that racial prejudices are an underlying assumption common to almost all literature pre-Civil Rights era. Lovecraft's work certainly takes place in an time and place in which racism is the norm and incorporates racial fears into the overall atmosphere--we might expect a master horror writer to play to the pervasive fears of his audience, even if we now find those fears unfounded and uncomfortable. Certainly, we 21st century readers are more sensitive to issues of race and more aware of them in...
The analogy occurred to me too, especially in the context of another recent thread. Not wanting to read something because you heard it wouldn't be to your taste is one thing. Making definitive statements about something you have never read is something else.
|
|
Listen politely to the racists and the sexists and homophobes and all the other bigots. Respect their rights to push their opinion that you are evil lesser scum. Certainly don't mock them or shame them for their bigotry. Make sure even their viewpoints remain acceptable.
At least when you lose your rights, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you were "the best human possible".There's no point arguing with a true bigot, politely or otherwise. Their mind is made up, and they live to argue, because that is how they convince themselves they're right.
But always be polite, because if you do argue, anyone else overhearing will be more likely to listen to the person who is so certain the facts are on their side that they don't need to be belligerent. The loud, angry person in the argument is the one who really wants his argument to be true, but secretly suspects it isn't.
I don't know; eliminationist rhetoric has a way of bringing out strong emotions. Better to look at why someone is angry than simply dismissing them out of hand for being angry.
|
|
So, at least OSC can find solace in the fact that he isn't, historically speaking, alone amongst tolerance-seeking repugnant douchebags.
The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible. All this noise (assuming there is much noise other than in the geekverse over this) probably does more to promote his views. And it almost doesn't matter how much money Card spends on his agenda - the debate has moved on. Actually knowing Card's views, rather than angrily avoiding him and his works, is surely the best antidote to what he's saying. I know there are parts of the US somewhat less liberal than your typical European city but when even a fairly conservative Supreme Court won't ban gay marriage, it's pretty much already over. He's just wrong.
|
|
I don't know; eliminationist rhetoric has a way of bringing out strong emotions. Better to look at why someone is angry than simply dismissing them out of hand for being angry.
While that is true, it just underscores the reason to always argue politely: don't be the one eliminated from the arguement based solely on your tone.
So, at least OSC can find solace in the fact that he isn't, historically speaking, alone amongst tolerance-seeking repugnant douchebags.The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible. All this noise (assuming there is much noise other than in the geekverse over this) probably does more to promote his views. And it almost doesn't matter how much money Card spends on his agenda - the debate has moved on. Actually knowing Card's views, rather than angrily avoiding him and his works, is surely the best antidote to what he's saying. I know there are parts of the US somewhat less liberal than your typical European city but when even a fairly conservative Supreme Court won't ban gay marriage, it's pretty much already over. He's just wrong.
Potayeto/potahto.
Btw, many people seem to be under the impression that the striking down of DOMA has legalized gay marriage throughout the United States. This isn't true. The debate hasn't moved on at all except for in a few states.
|
|
So, at least OSC can find solace in the fact that he isn't, historically speaking, alone amongst tolerance-seeking repugnant douchebags.The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible. All this noise (assuming there is much noise other than in the geekverse over this) probably does more to promote his views. And it almost doesn't matter how much money Card spends on his agenda - the debate has moved on. Actually knowing Card's views, rather than angrily avoiding him and his works, is surely the best antidote to what he's saying. I know there are parts of the US somewhat less liberal than your typical European city but when even a fairly conservative Supreme Court won't ban gay marriage, it's pretty much already over. He's just wrong.Potayeto/potahto.
Btw, many people seem to be under the impression that the striking down of DOMA has legalized gay marriage throughout the United States. This isn't true. The debate hasn't moved on at all except for in a few states.
No, I know. But on the other hand, when civilisation actually doesn't collapse in those states, the nay-sayers will start looking (even more) ridiculous. This will be a process of time, much like it was in Europe.
|
|
While that is true, it just underscores the reason to always argue politely: don't be the one eliminated from the arguement based solely on your tone.I don't know; eliminationist rhetoric has a way of bringing out strong emotions. Better to look at why someone is angry than simply dismissing them out of hand for being angry.
If someone's going to judge on tone instead of substance, how much of an ally are they going to be? I grant that there are debates where tone matters, but IMNSHO this isn't one of them. Does an argument comparing homosexuality to bestiality become more persuasive because the speaker is polite? Does an objection to that comparison become less persuasive because the speaker is angry?
The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible.When those views include the imprisonment or extermination of those of different orientation, it's no longer a laughing matter.
I am not trying to defend OSC, but can you please give a specific example where he has said that gays should be imprisoned or exterminated?
I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans workDo you see the problem here?I don't.
Surely not all of Lovecraft's work is blatantly racist.
How does not reading the work of a racist somehow combat racism? What does it matter if you read it or not? It's just a bizarre thing to say.
Actually, Lovecraft is racist (or at least xenophobic, intolerant and wasp-ish) pretty much throughout his work. So yes. But then again, he didn't go to any lengths to eradicate the opposition - unlike many of his contemporaries on the left and right.
Lovecraft's mythos is still interesting literature, with some bewildering, alien and entertaining concepts - and I do not have to share the author's racism, even while being aware of it. I can also read Sartre, like the subject Sartre deals with hand and not agree with his take of the world.
Same goes for Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Howard and far too many authors up until the present. Robert Jordan ? Ian Fleming ? Neill Asher ? Almost the entire bunch of WH40k writers^^ ? Racist, gender chauvinist, politically intolerant. In RL perhaps, rarely as well in their works.
That includes OSC. "Ender's Game" does not force any of OSC's real life views or political opinions on anybody. I can't seem to recall Ender's Game to be homophobic^^
Did anyone go and boycott the Conan movies because Howard was a racist ? Or boycott the Sword of Truth TV-series ? Or Game of Thrones ?
Basically, it's a matter of tolerance. Much vaunted by many contemporaries who really love and avow it, until they have to apply it themselves.
And delusional attitudes of changing the government - are regularly espoused by almost any pundit and especially politicians. So why should an author be exempt ?
Especially if his PoV does not enter the work to be boycotted ?
Did anyone check the politcal credentials of Sir Peter Jackson, Guilleremo delToro or Francis Ford Coppola recently ? Is it PC-ok, to
watch a James Bond movie ?
This is after all....not Ayn Rand ?
|
|
The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible.When those views include the imprisonment or extermination of those of different orientation, it's no longer a laughing matter.He's quoted as saying laws against homosexual acts should remain on the statute books in order to dissuade people from deviant behaviour, which more or less says that you should be prosecuted (and presumably jailed) for such acts. Now, most of the stuff online comes from outraged gay blogs and magazines who will have a certain editorial slant but it is a direct quote attributed to him, not third hand reporting or paraphrasing. Exterminated - no, I think LazarX was maybe getting confused with Ahmedinejad.
No, I know. But on the other hand, when civilisation actually doesn't collapse in those states, the nay-sayers will start looking (even more) ridiculous. This will be a process of time, much like it was in Europe.
Not just time. Overturning constitutional amendments in particular will also take effort, effort that OSC's money will undoubtedly go to thwarting. I'm content to not contribute to his coffers - there are plenty of other movies this summer that I can go see with my not-unlimited entertainment dollars and time.
He's quoted as saying laws against homosexual acts should remain on the statute books in order to dissuade people from deviant behaviour, which more or less says that you should be prosecuted (and presumably jailed) for such acts. Now, most of the stuff online comes from outraged gay blogs and magazines who will have a certain editorial slant but it is a direct quote attributed to him, not third hand reporting or paraphrasing. Exterminated - no, I think LazarX was maybe getting confused with Ahmedinejad.
We have politicians ignoring/defying the constitution or calling political atrocities "as the way to go" who still get democratically voted into power^^
Greens, Conservatives, facists, proto-communists and even satirical wanna-be-politicians."politically correct" boycotting is nothing but a rotten aspect of Zeitgeist. Even though I fail to see the relevant point in OSC's legal diatribe.
What about Rudyard Kipling?
Anyone bring him up yet?
Funny story about Chick-fil-a (or whatever it is):
So, I think there's only one of these restaurants in all of New Hampshire, down at the Pheasant Lane Mall. Some of the local Occupy kids were planning New Hampshire Pride (says something, doesn't it, when it's the Occupy kids who have to organize Pride in your state?) and they were building for it at the PLM when they caught the attention of the franchise owner. He came over and explained that he hated Corporate's policies and wanted to know if there was anything he could do to help out. Long story short, his store became one of the sponsors of New Hampshire Pride.
My local comrades and some of the other Occupy kids/gay lefties were outraged and were organizing a boycott. I told them that that was stupid and if they didn't want to go, don't go, but there was no way in hell that I was going to help organize a boycott of New Hampshire Pride. I won. Yay me!!
What about Rudyard Kipling?
Anyone bring him up yet?
In a different thread, I brought him up with Joseph Conrad.
But, in this thread, I trumped them both with Louis-Ferdinand Celine and Knut Hamsun.
Yeah, forgive me, but is he saying that? Or some other people?
I am not trying to defend OSC, but can you please give a specific example where he has said that gays should be imprisoned or exterminated?
Ahem:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
(Original page now deleted, unarchived at Archive.org) Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
But homosexual “marriage” is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.
So if my friends insist on calling what they do “marriage,” they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes...
The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual “marriage.”
...
As for actions, I (again) refer readers to the list by NOM, where Card has served on the board since 2009.
He's an active boardmember of the National Organisation for Marriage, which isn't too shy about how it pursues it's agenda. You might want to check this wiki entry Which means he's not just someone who holds views I disagree with he's an activist on those views. Although given his Mormon background, one shouldn't be too surprised.I am not trying to defend OSC, but can you please give a specific example where he has said that gays should be imprisoned or exterminated?The thing is, Card's views are more ridiculous than reprehensible.When those views include the imprisonment or extermination of those of different orientation, it's no longer a laughing matter.
Thanks for the link. It was an interesting and informative read. I did not see anyone calling for the imprisonment or extermination of anyone else, however.
I can also read Sartre, like the subject Sartre deals with hand and not agree with his take of the world.
Hell is--other posters!
Saying both sides of an argument should try to be civil towards one another is not the same as saying both sides have equal merit or culpability. It's late/early and I am going to sign off. Thanks for an engaging discussion.I am not asking anyone to hug or even to be friends, I am just trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to advocate for civility on both sides and to speak against uncivil treatment and labeling of those we disagree with.You're right, we should all hug and be friends with people who want us to suffer and die.
I mean, it's just an opinion man.But you're also pushing a false equivalency, implying both sides are equally culpable and raising civility above the actual issues.
I understand your want for civility, but unfortunately sometimes it does move past the point of civility. As a gay man, I was kicked out of my house a 17 for coming out, I was ganged up and beaten by my fellow classmates on multiple occasions. I continually get criticized for something I had no choice in, and sometimes physically attacked. I really wish there were a civil discourse but realize there are a lot of people out there who will not be civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you can prove yourself to be the better person, you can set an example for others, you can bring people along with you rather than backing them into a corner and forcing them to dig in become more resistant to change.
Again, the country is more or less finished with the discussion over gay marriage. It's done. There is no one left to "bring along with". Most people cannot be made more resistant to the change, because the ones who are left are already staunchly opposed.
Again, approach this from the standpoint of trying to persuade the Klan with civility. The people who are in the Klan are not, by and large, interested in civility, nor do they respond well to it. When radicalization reaches a certain point, civility stops being redemptive and starts being seen as weakness. That's where we're at. We've made up all the ground that we can make up through civility and sensible discussion. Now we settle in for the long roll of shaming the holdouts into compliance.
I'm not arguing against civility. Civility is, in most things, essential. But it has largely outlived its usefulness here.
Scott I agree with a lot of things you say, but I find your style confrontational, aggressive and constantly turned up to 11.
I often don't comment in threads where I agree with you, because you go for the throat and I don't want to be associated with that.
I'm sorry you feel that way.