| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One day, Ann decides to go to the owner of the boat, Charlie. Charlie tells her that she can have the boat if she sleeps with him. She refuses.
Consider how the rankings change if you simply alter the cost of the boat. "One day, Ann decides to go to the owner of the boat, Charlie. Charlie tells her that she can have the boat if she pays him an amount of money equal to half the value of the boat. She refuses."
In that scenario, he's offering her the boat -- which presumably he needs, too -- for half its actual value. Charlie becomes a saint.
In Sissyl's scenario, he offers Ann the boat for free, asking instead what is, in practical terms, a few minutes of her time. And, almost universally, people condemn him as the worst of the lot.
It's amazing how the introduction of an act normally associated with reproduction suddenly changes the whole perception of morality by 180 degrees.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that scenario, he's offering her the boat -- which presumably he needs, too -- for half its actual value. Charlie becomes a saint.
"Saint" is a strong word...
In Sissyl's scenario, he offers Ann the boat for free, asking instead what is, in practical terms, a few minutes of her time. And, almost universally, people condemn him as the worst of the lot.
It's amazing how the introduction of an act normally associated with reproduction suddenly changes the whole perception of morality by 180 degrees.
With sex, I think it's because it's not really "just" a few minutes of her time. It is active, physical intimacy - a physical intimacy that it is impossible to achieve through other means, and has deep-seated and definitive emotional and cognitive elements associated with it beyond the physical actions itself.
Beyond that, it's exploitative: it's actually her working for the purpose of his pleasure, regardless of her preferences - in other words, he is actively elevating his desires above her own, and, due to the strength of her conviction, he ends up with a leverage over her.
In this case, he is exploiting her desires for someone else in order to gain his own pleasure.
Money, at least, has a distance between the person and acts taken to accomplish it. It is not a person's physical intimacy.
Had he asked only for a few minutes of her time, no one would really object. He, instead, asked for a few minutes of her time, which come with a host of risks, and for her to take physical actions that have deep mental and emotional connotations with him that she didn't want to (as she wanted them with someone else) seeking to use his position to require and exploit her in spite of her desire.
Well, there's an added bit of missing information: Does Anne have access to reliable birth control?
True -- since there appears to be only one boat in the entire world, I guess we shouldn't take the availability of anything for granted.
Regardless, very few people dismiss sex as "in practical terms, a few minutes of her time."
So morality gets defined by a majority "ick"? I'd like to think there's a better basis than that.
Of course, I'd sort of assumed he was offering her a ride on the boat, not the boat itself, since that's what she actually wants. I admit it doesn't say that, but that just brings us back to hidden assumptions and poorly phrased questions.
Quote: "Charlie tells her she can have the boat." Not "borrow," not "that he'll row her across."
We are also missing what the cost was to allow her to cross, or to temporarily use it for herself. Almost like people didn't talk at all...
We are also missing what the cost was to allow her to cross, or to temporarily use it for herself. Almost like people didn't talk at all...
Quote: "Charlie tells her she can have the boat."
Not "Charlie tells her she can borrow the boat," not "Charlie tells her that he'll row her across," not "Charlie tells her she can have the boat for the weekend."Almost like people didn't read at all...
The problem with speaking hypothetically with Kirth is, he's a scientist, so he assumes a certain level of specificity that slides by the rest of us. (That's a compliment Kirth, I swear.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Money, at least, has a distance between the person and acts taken to accomplish it. It is not a person's physical intimacy.
To a fair extent, I disagree. There are any number of jobs that involve physical, moral, and/or psychological degradation of one's person -- jobs that people nevertheless do for money, because they need to eat and support their families.
|
My rankings on the problem (since this is the only interesting part of rehash thread #726838939).
Best to worst
1) Dave: doesn't really exist, isn't listed as a friend so he's a non-person. Not even really there.
2) Eric: idiot who does the violent bidding of others
3) Charlie: scumbag opportunist
4) Bob: was incapable of solving the original problem, weak.
5) Ann: Let her emotions govern her into a mess where she
-a) involved 4 other people in her problem, including violence by proxy
-b) compromised her morals for gain,
-c) selfishly acted on her emotions without the foresight to see consequence/cause effect.
So, Ann goes to his neighbour, Eric, tells him her story, and asks him to beat up Bob for her. He does so.
Let's look at Eric, another universally reviled figure. We can easily say, "He thuggishly beats up people for no good reason!" and condemn him. Or we can phrase it, "He selflessly champions a wronged woman's cause through strength of arms," and by Arthurian standards, he's a paladin.
They can't both be right, can they? How do you decide which interpretation trumps the other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond that, it's exploitative: it's actually her working for the purpose of his pleasure, regardless of her preferences - in other words, he is actively elevating his desires above her own, and, due to the strength of her conviction, he ends up with a leverage over her.
And if he had sold her the boat at half price, instead of simply giving it to her: "Beyond that, it's exploitative: it's actually robbing her of her sweat and labor for the purpose of his own greed, regardless of her preferences - in other words, he is actively elevating his desires above her own, and, due to the strength of her conviction, he ends up with a leverage over her." See, we can use emotionally-laden language to demonize anyone, regardless of the actual morality of what they do. (Well, unless you conclude that selling her the boat is also an evil act, which would be consistent. In which case total Communism and communal ownership of all goods and labor is the only "moral" possibility!)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Ann goes to his neighbour, Eric, tells him her story, and asks him to beat up Bob for her. He does so.Let's look at Eric, another universally reviled figure. We can easily say, "He thuggishly beats up people for no good reason!" and condemn him. Or we can phrase it, "He selflessly champions a wronged woman's cause through strength of arms," and by Arthurian standards, he's a paladin.
They can't both be right, can they? How do you decide which interpretation trumps the other?
I think the violence part.
One guy breaks off his relations with his GF(?), the other guy comes and beats him up for it. There is nothing here that warrants violence. If Bob beat up Ann then he should rightly get trounced Eric.That isn't what happened though.
* and I wouldn't say Eric was universally reviled, I had him ranked second best after Dave who wasn't a real character (vaporNPC). He's just a tool that beat someone up because someone else told him to do so.
As an exercise it would probably would be best to not read anything extra into the puzzle/problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Ann goes to his neighbour, Eric, tells him her story, and asks him to beat up Bob for her. He does so.Let's look at Eric, another universally reviled figure. We can easily say, "He thuggishly beats up people for no good reason!" and condemn him. Or we can phrase it, "He selflessly champions a wronged woman's cause through strength of arms," and by Arthurian standards, he's a paladin.
They can't both be right, can they? How do you decide which interpretation trumps the other?
You yell "Alignment! Alignment!" at the top of your lungs, and then everyone else is forced to agree with you or be accused of being a murderhobo MMO munchkin.
I think the violence part. One guy breaks off his relations with his GF(?), the other guy comes and beats him up for it. There is nothing here that warrants violence.
That's a very modern viewpoint, though, and by no means universal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the violence part. One guy breaks off his relations with his GF(?), the other guy comes and beats him up for it. There is nothing here that warrants violence.That's a very modern viewpoint, though, and by no means universal.
Its obvious that it isn't universal, that's the point of the exercise.
For me though being told to inflict physical violence and acting out that violence =/= breaking off a relationship on the morality metric.
I should point out that I personally think Charlie is a disgusting creep, and that Eric is a mindless thug. But I don't claim to have any objective ability to pass judgement on their morality, when alternate viewpoints can be found that are equally viable (even if less emotionally appealing).
Its obvious that it isn't universal, that's the point of the exercise.
Bingo! People's natural desire to seek consensus was hiding that until I started up, though. You need a devil's advocate, lest "morality" be defined simply as "the current majority emotional response."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Well, unless you conclude that selling her the boat is also an evil act, which would be consistent. In which case total Communism and communal ownership of all goods and labor is the only "moral" possibility!)Which brings me back to my early "Nationalize the boat!" argument.
Geez, where is Comrade Anklebiter when you need him?
Though of course most of the non-modern viewpoint (at least Western non-modern ones) would strongly condemn all of Anne's non-community sanctioned sex.
And while I disagree with them, I don't get to claim they're objectively wrong unless I can provide some objective metric for judging them. The problem is compounded because they claim to have exactly that, in the form of tradition or scripture or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it's [saying "Check your privilege!"] respecting them. It's assuming that with the reminder they'll figure it out. If they don't, then you proceed with the explanation.
To bring the discussion back to this in light of what we've just been over, I'd offer that one could make the response, "So, you repeat a hip in-group catch-phrase, expect everyone to know it and agree, and if not, mansplain to them how benighted they are?"
Please be aware that I personally don't disagree that "checking of privilege" is something that a lot of people need to do a lot more of. In fact, I feel very strongly that they should. What I disagree with are some of the methodology and assumptions in trying to make that happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Ann goes to his neighbour, Eric, tells him her story, and asks him to beat up Bob for her. He does so.Let's look at Eric, another universally reviled figure. We can easily say, "He thuggishly beats up people for no good reason!" and condemn him. Or we can phrase it, "He selflessly champions a wronged woman's cause through strength of arms," and by Arthurian standards, he's a paladin.
They can't both be right, can they? How do you decide which interpretation trumps the other?
The point isn't to say which interpretation is correct. The point is illuminate how many interpretations exist, highlighting difficulty in communicating with other people who have/make different assumptions than you.
The actual morality discussed is at best secondary to the entire exercise. It's purpose is purely to exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, where is Comrade Anklebiter when you need him?(Well, unless you conclude that selling her the boat is also an evil act, which would be consistent. In which case total Communism and communal ownership of all goods and labor is the only "moral" possibility!)Which brings me back to my early "Nationalize the boat!" argument.
Edited: to add music to be more correct.
The point is illuminate how many interpretations exist, highlighting difficulty in communicating with other people who have/make different assumptions than you.
Which is exactly what I agreed with Auxmaulous about, above. However, until I started offering these other interpretations, that isn't at all what we were seeing. We were getting a whole lot of agreement as to how these people ranked in terms of morality, and no discussion at all of what the standards were, which is why I needed to add: "People's natural desire to seek consensus was hiding that... You need a devil's advocate, lest 'morality' be defined simply as 'the current majority emotional response'."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And would likely question where Anne's father was in all this, since he should be deciding such matters - with proper ceremonies and arrangements for the care of the inevitable children.
I don't think its very fair of you to bring up Anne's father who is situated on another moral quandary/metric test called Shark Island.
Right now they are currently debating if he should cut off part of his left hand, use his son's (Joe) leg or Anne's dead mother's body (Mabel) as bait to throw in the water for the sharks while other swims out to the adjoining island to use the pay phone that is located right in the middle of the island (surrounded by palm trees).
So what is it - Hand? A Leg? Or the remains of their beloved wife/mother who demanded a traditional funeral before she died?
Personally I think their whole stupid family should invest in some tools and learn how to build a damn boat.
That's probably just my privilege speaking..er typing.
Actually it's [saying "Check your privilege!"] respecting them. It's assuming that with the reminder they'll figure it out. If they don't, then you proceed with the explanation.To bring the discussion back to this in light of what we've just been over, I'd offer that one could make the response, "So, you repeat a hip in-group catch-phrase, expect everyone to know it and agree, and if not, mansplain to them how benighted they are?"
Please be aware that I personally don't disagree that "checking of privilege" is something that a lot of people need to do a lot more of. In fact, I feel very strongly that they should. What I disagree with are some of the methodology and assumptions in trying to make that happen.
Y'know, I will say that I find it much more useful (in the interest of communication) to talk to someone casually so that I can figure out how much privilege they're bringing to their point of view, rather than assuming disagreement with me is evidence of privilege.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I will say that I find it much more useful (in the interest of communication) to talk to someone casually so that I can figure out how much privilege they're bringing to their point of view, rather than assuming disagreement with me is evidence of privilege.
Sure. And if they're part of the SJW club, and also use "check your privilege!" as a hip catch-phrase, by all means throw it back at them. But if not, I suspect that actual two-way communication probably gets better results than cute sound bytes and lecturing from atop a moral high horse.
EDIT: Ninja'd by thejeff, who says basically the same thing with regards to the first part.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now they are currently debating if he should cut off part of his left hand, use his son's (Joe) leg or Anne's dead mother's body (Mabel) as bait to throw in the water for the sharks
...
So what is it - Hand? A Leg? Or the remains of their beloved wife/mother who demanded a traditional funeral before she died?
Did she specify the tradition? Burial at sea is a tradition. Boom, lawyer'd!
Y'know, I will say that I find it much more useful (in the interest of communication) to talk to someone casually so that I can figure out how much privilege they're bringing to their point of view, rather than assuming disagreement with me is evidence of privilege.
Or just deal with what they're saying rather than trying to read the tea leaves?
Or just deal with what they're saying rather than trying to read the tea leaves?
Y'know, I will say that I find it much more useful (in the interest of communication) to talk to someone casually so that I can figure out how much privilege they're bringing to their point of view, rather than assuming disagreement with me is evidence of privilege.
I find that dealing with what they're saying and figuring out how much privilege they bring to their point of view are the same process. I wouldn't say there's any part of having a conversation with someone that deserves to be equated with divination magics.
I find that dealing with what they're saying and figuring out how much privilege they bring to their point of view are the same process. I wouldn't say there's any part of having a conversation with someone that deserves to be equated with divination magics.
Its trying to take a very incomplete picture of someone, put someone into an ill defined sociological box (that is itself based on a questionable premise), to rate a very complex, multifaceted issue on a scale, and then use that like points for weighting what that person is saying when all that should matter is what they're saying. If anything the comparison is unfair to tasseographists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, Kirth. Here's the thing. Syssil did a great job of providing an immediate derail of this thread, and current you are feeding it.
EDIT: WELP, I GOT NINJA'D AND KIRTH PUT US RIGHT BACK ON TRACK. EGG ON MY FACE. (I blame children.)
My apologies, Kirth. And thanks.
The exercise was to point out "everyone has a different moral compass" and it has done so - what I got out of it, though, was that the whole thing could have been resolved if Ann and Bob had simply agreed about "What is love?" as everything else flowed from that.
Quote: "Charlie tells her she can have the boat."
Not "Charlie tells her she can borrow the boat," not "Charlie tells her that he'll row her across," not "Charlie tells her she can have the boat for the weekend."
Almost like people didn't read at all...
... or, like I indicated in the first post, people read into it elements based on their emotional histories and their own, internal language that others don't share - it is exceedingly close, but just off enough that people aren't reading the same thing, even when they read it.
Everything else is only distracting from the point of communication through words, and how to describe emotional reasoning and connotations - i.e. those things that are part of our language beyond (and including subtle nuance of) definitions. Please don't do that.
My rankings on the problem (since this is the only interesting part of rehash thread #726838939).
I'm curious: where is this a normal conversation? I've not actually seen a thread explicitly about the problem of communication due to language barriers between folks who both speak the same language (outside of the occasional posts - mostly my own).
I'd be interested in any sort of education you could give me.
FINAL-EDIT: Okay, I just realized - my response comment (with apology) was deleted - I understand now. My apologies for re-posting it; it was not my intent to inflame or irritate.
Suffice it to say that my apologies go to those whom they are due, and that, despite any apparent intent on my part, no ill will or anything other than respect was supposed to be part of my dialogue.
If anyone wishes, they are free to contact me for further dialogue, if they do not wish it in a public space.
Thank you, and apologies, again.
I find that dealing with what they're saying and figuring out how much privilege they bring to their point of view are the same process. I wouldn't say there's any part of having a conversation with someone that deserves to be equated with divination magics.
Its trying to take a very incomplete picture of someone, put someone into an ill defined sociological box (that is itself based on a questionable premise), to rate a very complex, multifaceted issue on a scale, and then use that like points for weighting what that person is saying when all that should matter is what they're saying. If anything the comparison is unfair to tasseographists.
Y'know BNW, the last, like, 3 years of post history would a whole new kind of sense if you and were talking about very different things when we used the term privilege.
|
|
My rankings on the problem (since this is the only interesting part of rehash thread #726838939).I'm curious: where is this a normal conversation? I've not actually seen a thread explicitly about the problem of communication due to language barriers between folks who both speak the same language (outside of the occasional posts - mostly my own).
I'd be interested in any sort of education you could give me.
Almost every other thread about race and privilege - even those that do not start out as such often turns into a melee between definitions, buzz words and people talking past each other due to personal views and belief systems.
You addressed this a communication issue as it concerns addressing SJ discussions, then it devolves into another SJ debate. Discussions between diametrically opposed, (or just opposed) groups are pointless because we do not the same language, valuation, morality, perception of power dynamics are not even on the same plane of thought. Hence the need for new language by parties involved.
I'm not going to argue it here, this has already been done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything else is only distracting from the point of communication through words, and how to describe emotional reasoning and connotations - i.e. those things that are part of our language beyond (and including subtle nuance of) definitions. Please don't do that.
With respect, I think you have to do that. Because, as I've tried to highlight, "emotional reasoning" isn't good enough, if we're trying to discuss morality (or worse, demand it of others). When we rely on emotional reasoning, language is not the root issue, and all the subtle nuances in the world are useless. For example, if you want to say "check your privilege" to someone and have anyone take you at all seriously, it pays to rely on some logical or empirical reason for them to do so, not just your own personal emotional feelings about it. And that applies equally, regardless of whether or not they know the phrase and its usage.
Y'know BNW, the last, like, 3 years of post history would a whole new kind of sense if you and were talking about very different things when we used the term privilege.
That would be the ill defined part.
Or you could just keep drinking till my posts make sense...