You're viewing part of a thread.
What is your definition of being "nice", actually? This question is hard to answer, i know. What i mean is, demanding from someone who is upset and therefore gets emotional, to switch to "non-violent speech", is a form of tyranny. My stance on voices that get emotional because of dissatisfaction is that they are in need to get heared more than those who are satisfied anyway. Conflicts are actually a valuable part in my work, as they are so revealing about people, and they provide a lot of energy that can get transformed for the better. People might be in a state where it's just impossible for them to be "nice", and demanding it from them would result in them getting yet more aggressive. In that sense, a demand for being "nice" is a demand for masking dissatisfaction, thus becoming a hindrance to resolution.
I can very well be nice and slap someone in the face with a sarcastic irony, without people even realising it. Just don't want my account to be trapped in a space that tends to consequently give PC tyrants an upper hand. I'm not from USA btw so those typical masking standards are not so much part of my culture. I'm all for being civilised and i think that i am :-) but i'm also understanding of people getting angry because i might understand some of the psychology behind it -- and some people might be nice and all but they are still fundamentally being idiots.
The two philosophy posts in the sidebar touch on a lot of this. Have you had a chance to review them?
I sympathize with the need to escalate both speech and action when changes need to happen but are being ignored. This kind of behavior is what lead to the creation of this website as the platform we fled was becoming a centrist and rationalist echo chamber where discussions were growing increasingly hostile towards specific minority groups (mostly women and transgender folks).
Yep i read the first part. That was part in my decision making for sighing up on this server. Now i'm getting around to reading the second part. Thanks for explaining your take on what you call "rationalism" because else that would have left me questioning. Am i right in taking the term "centrist" as political? Would have to educate myself on that.
Don't focus too much on the labels themselves. I'm using them as shorthand notation to describe a specific kind of mindset. The issues that were happening were essentially people of a privileged group starting discussions about a marginalized group to just ask questions or otherwise create a hostile space towards these minority groups but within the bounds of the rules.
Imagine being a woman, confronted with sexism every day, posting an article about a study which proved this sexism, for the thread to be immediately dominated by men all talking about how that's definitely not how they act. While it may be true (generous interpretation), it's rather exhausting for the women who already experience being dismissed like this regularly in their lives and it's also emotionally draining and doesn't set up a very nice space for the women.
Ooh ... excuse my slight neurodiversity. I guess i'm just not a part anymore of a sickening society. Went to other places on that other platform the short periods i spent there.
Appreciate you taking your time to be so verbose. :-)
No need to apologize, I'm neurodiverse too 🙂 I can't promise I'll always have the time to be verbose or respond to everything, but I shall try my best. Please feel free to ask clarifying questions if you ever have them, and I'll do my best to explain.