Unappreciated compliments

[Vovchandr]

51 minutes ago, SENC said:

 

I suspect this is the crux of many disagreements these days - the growing chasm between those who focus on intent and those who focus on perception.  It's a conversation I have frequently with my (now adult) kids, as the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" mentality I grew up with is definitely dinosaur material to the younger set who discount intent altogether.  I'm trying to understand it but admittedly struggle.

 

The discussions that prompted this breakout, I think, are at least somewhat reflective of this chasm (and I do see value in this discussion in improving understanding of the various perspectives).

 

I, personally, find Trump repugnant - and have since I started following him in the mid/late 80s (when, parenthetically, he was considered a bit of a liberal favorite).  Given my opinion of Trump, had Bruce directed his comment toward me I might have initially wondered whether he insulted me. Having said that, and notwithstanding my opinion of the man, I recognize that there are many people in this country who think extremely highly of him.  And because my tendency is to look for intent when something strikes me funny, my considered response to Bruce would probably be along the lines of - "Bruce, your Trump reference doesn't hit me as the compliment you may have intended, but assuming you intended a compliment, thanks for the thought."  It seems Croc got to a similar place.

 

Had I been the target of Vlad's Hussein reference, given my focus on intent, I would have been left with a making a conclusion between 2 alternatives: 1 - he truly admires Hussein or 2 - he is making an absurd comparison.  Because (unlike Trump) I know of absolutely no-one who actually admires Hussein, I'd have concluded the second intent - and, as a result, ignored the comment entirely as trolling and not worthy of a response.  Perhaps, given Vlad's continued insistence he intended it as a compliment I might start leaning more towards believing he does actually admire Hussein (or some of his characteristics) as he claims - but that still seems so preposterous to me.

 

Assuming Bruce has a similar tendency to prioritize intent as I do, it seems quite easy to understand how differently he sees his comments from Vlad's comments.  I don't think I'd take offense though, because of the absurdity of them.

 

Alternatively, as I consider how someone who focuses on how comments are perceived upon receipt (rather than intent), I can see how Vlad (and others) see no difference between the "compliments" and find Bruce's reactions to them inconsistent.

 

Of course, by reaching my own conclusions about Bruce's and Vlad's comments based on my own knowledge and experience, I'm doing at least a little of the same.  I guess the best response to each would simply be "What did you mean by that comment - compliment or insult?"  And then to accept the response at face value.

 

What I personally find even more interesting and confounding than any of the above (and so genuinely would love some insight), is that several to whom Bruce's initial comment were not directed felt called to respond.  What drove that?  Defense of Croc?  Why?  Did you know/think he would be offended and think him incapable of defending himself?  Or did a comment towards someone else somehow strike you as offensive towards you or your sensibilities?  Something else?  I'm truly interested in gaining some understanding here, as I can't fathom injecting my thoughts/biases/reactions into a comment Bruce directed towards Croc, at least not before Croc responded.  Maybe I need to go back and reread the initial comments again to see if they were more broadly targeted.

 

While I may disagree with or take a different tack than Bruce about many things, I do agree there is value in sussing out different reactions to gain understanding.  I very much appreciate that this forum and several others I enjoy, leave the door open for such discussion in a way that folks can choose to participate or not.  I think the "zero tolerance" rules that have been enacted in so many places (online and in person) have had the opposite of their intended purpose and have created more triggers and polarization than they have eliminated.  I appreciate diversity of opinion and civil debate, and think they add much greater potential for value than shutting down discussion.

 

Very well said. I don't have time to go deep into this but I really appreciate your perspective onto the matter.

 

I would like to quickly say one thing where you ask what drove this whole discussion.

 

If you go back to the source of all this you will see a slight nudge towards Bruce to reconsider bringing politics and controversial figures as a means of praise towards beloved Croc on the side of caution by multiple people.

 

He double and tripled down, including bringing "freedom of speech" as defense of his clearly considered "right" to say whatever he wanted.

 

His lack of nuance, misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and the determination to double down has brought fourth the discussion that followed.

[SENC]

5 minutes ago, Vovchandr said:

 

Very well said. I don't have time to go deep into this but I really appreciate your perspective onto the matter.

 

I would like to quickly say one thing where you ask what drove this whole discussion.

 

If you go back to the source of all this you will see a slight nudge towards Bruce to reconsider bringing politics and controversial figures as a means of praise towards beloved Croc on the side of caution by multiple people.

 

He double and tripled down, including bringing "freedom of speech" as defense of his clearly considered "right" to say whatever he wanted.

 

His lack of nuance, misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and the determination to double down has brought fourth the discussion that followed.

Thanks for the response, Vlad.  I'll take the time to go back and read initial comments and early responses again (I probably should have before commenting).

 

More generally, your response reminded me of the freedom of speech components.  If I'm remembering correctly, I think it was you who said, and I totally agree, that there is no guarantee of such freedom on a forum or other private place.  The only "right" we have is that the government won't infringe upon freedom of speech - individuals and private groups can set whatever rules they like and we can choose to associate or not with those individuals and groups.  That said, I appreciate that this forum seems to allow such freedom rather than shutting it down.  Though I'll rarely jump into such conversations, I enjoy periodically reading then to get perspectives other than my own.

 

One correction - that is all 1st amendment.  Start messing with the 2nd amendment and I might get defensive! 

[barbox]

@SENC that was a great summary, and definitely helped me consider a broader view on all this.  I think you may be spot on with the analysis about it being an age/generational difference.

 

1 hour ago, SENC said:

What I personally find even more interesting and confounding than any of the above (and so genuinely would love some insight), is that several to whom Bruce's initial comment were not directed felt called to respond.  What drove that?  Defense of Croc?  Why?  Did you know/think he would be offended and think him incapable of defending himself?  Or did a comment towards someone else somehow strike you as offensive towards you or your sensibilities?  Something else?  I'm truly interested in gaining some understanding here, as I can't fathom injecting my thoughts/biases/reactions into a comment Bruce directed towards Croc, at least not before Croc responded.  Maybe I need to go back and reread the initial comments again to see if they were more broadly targeted.

 

Do go back and reread the thread - there's only 4 commenters between Bruce's initial metaphor and Croc's response.  2 are critical of the metaphor, 1 is in support of Bruce's right to say what he wants, and 1 praising the "No Political Talk" rules of other car forums.  I think this one best highlights why the 2 critical comments felt compelled to chime in:

 

On 1/16/2024 at 1:05 AM, Cueball1 said:

It's hard to imagine a more polarizing or controversial person you could have used ... I believe politics and religion don't belong in most threads.  Only sows discord among the ranks!

 

It wasn't until after the dust in that thread had settled, and the conversation had moved into this thread, that I stumbled upon it (during my weekly review of Croc's for-sale aggregation).  At that point, enough people had chimed in that it didn't feel weird.  If I had been in the original thread when Bruce's compliment had just been posted, and no one else had chimed in, I may have said something along the lines of Vovchandr's first response ("that's maybe not the compliment you think it is"), or I may have said nothing, and merely thought to myself "man, I really hope he's familiar with Croc's opinion of Trump, otherwise that could backfire big time."

 

I also want to comment on your last point:

1 hour ago, SENC said:

I very much appreciate that this forum and several others I enjoy, leave the door open for such discussion in a way that folks can choose to participate or not.  I think the "zero tolerance" rules that have been enacted in so many places (online and in person) have had the opposite of their intended purpose and have created more triggers and polarization than they have eliminated.  I appreciate diversity of opinion and civil debate, and think they add much greater potential for value than shutting down discussion.

 

Big agree from me.  From a moderator's point of view, I would absolutely prefer a "no politics" rule as it's much easier to enforce.  But when every forum takes that stance, then there's nowhere left online to discuss hard topics with folks on the other side of the aisle, and I think that leaves us worse off.  As a commenter that doesn't have to moderate, I'd like to say kudos to the mods and admins of this forum for allowing us this space to hash out these hard topics.

[Vovchandr]

1 hour ago, SENC said:

One correction - that is all 1st amendment.  Start messing with the 2nd amendment and I might get defensive! 

 

Hahah, good call. I'm used to having arguments around 2A. This was just muscle memory. Thanks for the correction

[Bruce K]

14 hours ago, barbox said:

 

I'm trying to consider the context surrounding them.  If he'd said it in a vacuum, I'd feel very differently about them.  But, regardless of context, regardless of intent, you have every right to be offended.  And he, in turn, has every right to decide for himself whether to acknowledge your offense as earnest, and/or take any responsibility for it.

 

 

To use your earlier example, since I can't think of a better one at the moment, is an insult more like manslaughter or murder?  I'd argue it could be either.  An intended insult is certainly a worse offense than an unintended one, but an unintended one can definitely still be offensive.  Proving intent is an enormous challenge, though, so in many cases I think it's simpler and more straightforward to keep a discussion focused on the effects that someone's words had.  And to your last point in this quote, I couldn't disagree more - I would say you absolutely have every right to be offended by anything that offends you.  I have said many, many things in my life that I meant no offense by, but which someone later took the time to educate me that it did cause or could have caused offense just the same - and thus my communication has evolved over time to become more respectful and less ignorant, a process that hopefully never ends.

 

 

If you're "deciding" to call something insulting, without actually feeling insulted by it, then sure I'd agree with you.  But, as long as your feeling is genuine, then I don't see the issue.  Feeling insulted would be your truth in that scenario.  And perhaps in this hypothetical scenario where I've accidentally insulted you, it's also my truth that I didn't mean to insult you... but I still did.  And then with some conversation, we could find a middle ground where maybe you were a little overly sensitive, or maybe I was ignorant of something in my words that could be interpreted as offensive, or maybe it's a little of both.

 

 

This feels like a false dichotomy.  I'd argue these are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum with lots of middle ground.

@barbox & @SENC - I am very much enjoying this courteous and logical exchange.  However, I am becoming aware of some fundamental differences in our world views.  In my universe, truth cannot be determined by feelings.  Legitimate insult cannot be solely ascertained by how another feels about it, because that discourages all communication - are we to stop saying "Hello" because someone, somewhere may take offense?  Are we to cease all criticism, because someone might feel hurt?  It is an essential belief of mine that words have universally understood meaning, outside the realm of feelings.  Thus, if anyone utters words that are logically and reasonably offensive, based on their common definitions, offense is justified.  Otherwise, in the absence of language that is hurtful by definition, feelings about the language are immaterial.  Certainly, anyone can feel hurt, at any time, about anything, but in the absence of actual harmful language, the emotions are unjustified and should be ignored, or better yet, withheld.   In your example above, the true reason for offense was discovered in your words at a later date.  Discovery is a legitimate tool in the search for truth. In fact, that is what happened to me - I discovered over time that the mention of Trump could turn a compliment into an insult by association.  We can never find absolute truth, because that belongs to God, but we agree on definitions and get as close as we can.  I disagree with the term "your truth" because truth is independent of us and our feelings.  Truth is what juries seek, regardless of how defendants feel.  Truth is often revealed to us by a conspiracy of our guts and heads, but it stands apart from any individual.  Truth is immutable, though not always scrutable.  We spend our lives searching for it, but find, by grace of God, only our earned share.  To say that truth relies on and changes with individual feelings is to deny the entirety of western learning.   To unmoor the meanings of words from their accepted definitions, and replace their meanings with feelings, is to render the search for truth impossible.

 

Further, intent is not something obscure and arcane.  It is an essential survival tool, and elemental to human nature.  Humans are taught to interpret and respect intent from a young age.  I am old enough to remember neighborhood bullies and fist fights, and even though I was a kid, I studied and came to understand, in acute detail, the intent of my block bully.  Humans utilize perception of intent at every stoplight, at every crosswalk, whenever we meet a stranger or someone new.  Study of intent is at the root of nearly every human transaction.  Even animals study and understand intent.  Use your angry voice and yell "Good dog " at your pet and see how it responds  Thus, intent is not only material, but usually obvious, and in any event, scrutable in most cases by ordinary folk.  And intent is a requisite in delivering an insult, because otherwise it is just a mistake.  Vovnchandr knew exactly what he was saying.  I have already established that "argumentum ad absurdum" is not an excuse for the use of insulting language but rather a tool in the search for truth.  The truth about Saddam Hussien is this:  He butchered both his political enemies and his governed people - fed them to wild animals and Doberman Pinschers, cut them into pieces, shot them, stabbed them - likely about 300,000 such deaths, not counting those from war.  There is no quality of Saddam's that any reasonable, moral person would ever want associated with themselves.  Ditto his reference to the serial child molester responsible for over 50 underage assaults.  Therefore, Vovchandr, by reasonable measure and definition, intended to insult.

 

[Vovchandr]

27 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

We can never find absolute truth, because that belongs to God

 

Who had any of of these on their Bingo card?

• Burden of proof
• Ad populum
• Appeal to authority

[barbox]

Well, we are in the "Politics, Religion, and Controversy" section, aren't we.  We're now 3 for 3.
 

57 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

are we to stop saying "Hello" because someone, somewhere may take offense?  Are we to cease all criticism, because someone might feel hurt?

 

Why do you keep jumping to extremes like this? Not everything is a slippery slope.

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

if anyone utters words that are logically and reasonably offensive, based on their common definitions, offense is justified.

 

When you were offended by what Vovchandr said, it wasn't because of the definitions of any of the words he used, it was because of the associations and implications of the cultural figures he referenced.  Those associations and implications are not universal truths - different people have different associations for the same cultural figures, as you learned with Trump.  That doesn't mean one's associations and implications are invalid or untrue, they just vary person to person.
 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Certainly, anyone can feel hurt, at any time, about anything, but in the absence of actual harmful language, the emotions are unjustified and should be ignored, or better yet, withheld.

 

Why "better yet, withheld"?  Like you'd actually prefer to not know if something you said unintentionally offended someone?  I am looking to always learn, always grow, always improve.  I need feedback to do that.  I absolutely want someone to let me know if I said something that's a racist dog whistle or an insensitive stereotype or whatever else may have inadvertently caused offense.

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

I disagree with the term "your truth" because truth is independent of us and our feelings.

 

But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?  Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense?

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Truth is what juries seek, regardless of how defendants feel.

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they're any good at finding it.  Their bar is generally "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is far from absolute truth.  For example, did you know that, since 1973 (when executions were resumed in the US after Furman v. Georgia), for every 8 people executed, 1 person on death row has been exonerated?  Especially impressive if you're at all familiar with the enormous challenge it is to exonerate a convict under our legal system.

[SENC]

@Bruce K I generally agree with the first 3/4 of your post (before you turn to Vlad), but I suspect you and I are from similar backgrounds and beliefs and/or had similar raising.  I, too, think words have universal meanings (or at least should, if we are to use them for purposes of communication) - but as I've found with my kids (and bet my parents found with me, too, at least some extent), they shift more than I'd like.  I suspect you'd join me in my complete frustration that words and sayings I've used with no (zero) ill intent have become taboo in today's world.  I'd give some examples but suspect we'd all go off on tangents that wouldn't add to the conversation at hand.

 

I also think your pet/dog comment is quite useful, in that it goes to another lesson I've learned over the years... that while words may be universal, tone of voice trumps definition.  Who can argue that "good dog" is anything but positive?  As you observe, the dog that hears it in an angry voice!  As I've learned, this is a major issue with texts, emails, and forums - where tone is completely absent.  Are someone's comments serious, joking, sarcastic, righteous, smart-ass?  I have no real idea without tone unless they say so explicitly (or display in some other way, as with emojis).

 

To the quarter of your post with which I struggle...  I don't disagree with your truths about Saddam nor the child molester, and if I had to bet I'd guess Vlad would agree with them as well.  As your Trump compliment is based on the fact that you find him (or find at least some things about him) praiseworthy, Vlad's suggest that either Vlad or someone somewhere thought highly of them, too.  I think those are so far afield as to be absurd and incomprehensible.  I, too, would have found Vlad's comments out of place and insulting if I thought for a second he was actually comparing you to either - but because both are so far out of the realm of any comparison to Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, McConnell, Pelosi, insert your least favorite US politician here, I think I would find it hard to be seriously offended.  I can't put myself fully in your shoes, but as I noted had a similar barb been targeted at me I'd have laughed and ignored it due to its absurdity.  I'd put $100 on the table right now that Vlad's intent was not to insult you by actually comparing you to either... rather that it was a totally sarcastic (and hyperbolic) comment based solely on mimicking your defense of Trump as a compliment.  I'm speculating that his tone changes the meaning of his words, just as and angrily voiced "good dog" means anything but good dog - and my indication of tone comes from the absurdity of the comparisons he used.  He can certainly correct me if he meant ill. 

 

[Bruce K]

@barbox - You are a worth adversary, or shall I say accomplice in the search for truth.  My responses are in red:

 

Well, we are in the "Politics, Religion, and Controversy" section, aren't we.  We're now 3 for 3.  I have never brought up a single political issue, except for the use of Trump's name.  Religion and apolitical controversy are, however, fine subjects for discourse on this thread, and highly pertinent.
 

  2 hours ago, Bruce K said:

are we to stop saying "Hello" because someone, somewhere may take offense?  Are we to cease all criticism, because someone might feel hurt?

 

Why do you keep jumping to extremes like this? Not everything is a slippery slope.  THESE are accurate examples of argument ad absurdum, but like other correct examples of the breed, they establish a point, and do not deliver insults.  Regarding feelings:  People can feel anything they want.  Searching for the truth, however, is a different goal, a higher bar.  Truth is difficult to find, but as long as we allow words to have commonly understood definitions, we can approach truth. I made the point earlier that absolute truth belongs to God alone, but our best attempts can still be very good.   But any attempt must be centered on the meaning of language.  Any philosophy that ignores the meanings of words, or exchanges them for feelings, disables the search for truth.

 

  2 hours ago, Bruce K said:

if anyone utters words that are logically and reasonably offensive, based on their common definitions, offense is justified.

 

When you were offended by what Vovchandr said, it wasn't because of the definitions of any of the words he used, it was because of the associations and implications of the cultural figures he referenced.  Those associations and implications are not universal truths - different people have different associations for the same cultural figures, as you learned with Trump.  That doesn't mean one's associations and implications are invalid or untrue, they just vary person to person.   The dictionary definition of the term "definition" is the agreed meaning, which in this case encompasses any additional significances acquired by "association".  The meaning of Saddam Hussein's life is death:  300,000 largely innocent victims savaged unto demise - a meaning similarly associated with Adolf Hitler.  Associating anyone with Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler has an agreed meaning:  It means that the person is like these individuals, and is therefore despicable.  To unrealistically argue that some other beneficent meaning was intended is to ignore the generally understood significance of the words, and to therefore abandon the search for truth.

 

BTW, I have no emotional response to anything Vovchandr said.  My offense is a logical decision, based on his word choice.
 

  2 hours ago, Bruce K said:

Certainly, anyone can feel hurt, at any time, about anything, but in the absence of actual harmful language, the emotions are unjustified and should be ignored, or better yet, withheld.

 

Why "better yet, withheld"?  Like you'd actually prefer to not know if something you said unintentionally offended someone?  I am looking to always learn, always grow, always improve.  I need feedback to do that.  I absolutely want someone to let me know if I said something that's a racist dog whistle or an insensitive stereotype or whatever else may have inadvertently caused offense.  People should not burden others with unnecessary feelings.  If individual A expresses a thought to individual B that, based on the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words, is in no way injurious, then individual B should go no further.   If the thought is a true "dog whistle" or other injury, then communicate.  Expressing our feelings of insult irrespective of the meanings of words just retards communication and prevents open exchange.  This is happening on college campuses now, when speakers who are simply conservative, or Jewish, are not allowed to speak.  I don't want to know what everyone is thinking all the time - it would drive me insane.  If an auditioner can find fault in the meaning of my words, then they should speak, but they should not analyze with feelings.  When others told me that many people find any sort of association with Trump to be offensive, it surprised me, but I could understand - Trump's meaning includes several brash and unpopular statements and lots of conservative positions unwelcome to many.  It was a truth I did not contemplate when I tendered my original compliment.  However, I recognize that truth now and will not repeat the error.  Vovchandr should similarly recognize his mistake, based on the meanings of his words.

 

  2 hours ago, Bruce K said:

I disagree with the term "your truth" because truth is independent of us and our feelings.

 

But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?  Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense?  Your feelings are not truth - they are just your emotions, and I don't need or want to hear everyone's feelings.  Yes, your feelings belong to you, making them yours, but that doesn't make them logical, fairly derived or true.  Again, we must return to the definitions or commonly understood meanings of the words employed in the exchange.  If the words were truly racist, or homophobic, or in some other way insulting, state that and prove your point.  Otherwise, keep your vagrant whims and emotions to yourself - our heads are already too cluttered.

 

2 hrs ago, Bruce K said:

Truth is what juries seek, regardless of how defendants feel.

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they're any good at finding it.  Their bar is generally "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is far from absolute truth.  For example, did you know that, since 1973 (when executions were resumed in the US after Furman v. Georgia), for every 8 people executed, 1 person on death row has been exonerated?  Especially impressive if you're at all familiar with the enormous challenge it is to exonerate a convict under our legal system.  I believe, though flawed, the American jury system is the fairest and best available system for providing our jurisprudence.  Would you rather have AI decide our fates?  Otherwise, your statement agrees with mine.  Juries seek the truth, but because only God knows the absolute truth of any situation, they will often get it wrong.  As jurors, and in life, we are attempting, as essentially fallible beings, to find the truth, and failure is inevitable.  This is why the Catholic Church, source of so much good, for many years burned "heretics" and "witches" at the stake, accumulated ill-gotten fortunes, and waged territorial wars - because the human nature of its leaders included susceptibility to lies, greed, and other mortal weaknesses.  We humans WILL fail, but seeking the truth with words of defined meaning is our best hope to obtain our share of the truth.

Edited January 30 by Bruce K

[Vovchandr]

If praising Saddam for anything is a such a foul redline for you, you might want to reconsider who you praise

 

“You know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good,” Trump said at a Tuesday night stop in North Carolina. “They didn’t read ’em the rights, they didn’t talk. They were a terrorist, it was over.” 

 

“He killed terrorists. He would shoot terrorists in the street. There were no terrorists.”

 

“They had very few terrorists, because he didn’t want terrorists in Iraq, and he killed terrorists.”

 

“Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, ‘oh, he’s using gas.’ They go back, forth, it’s the same. And they were stabilized."

 

 

Trump 

 

 

[barbox]

11 hours ago, Bruce K said:

You are a worth adversary, or shall I say accomplice in the search for truth.

 

Thank you, Bruce!   I too have enjoyed our discussion thus far.  And I feel like we're getting closer to some common ground here so I'm gonna try to keep on target with this one. 

 

11 hours ago, Bruce K said:

People should not burden others with unnecessary feelings.  ... I don't want to know what everyone is thinking all the time - it would drive me insane.

 

This is a strawman.  I never said people should share inconsequential feelings, nor did I suggest anyone should even attempt to share all the feelings they feel.  I think the only examples I used were about feeling genuinely offended, for example due to a dog whistle or stereotype. And even then, I wouldn't advise sharing that feeling all the time, rather I'd say it's only worth it if you think there's a chance of a productive conversation.

 

11 hours ago, Bruce K said:

If individual A expresses a thought to individual B that, based on the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words, is in no way injurious, then individual B should go no further.   If the thought is a true "dog whistle" or other injury, then communicate.

 

I certainly agree that if what someone said is a true dog whistle, you should consider communicating that fact.  Though I'll note that proving to someone that something is a true dog whistle - that's not an easy task.

 

Moreover, I think my disagreement here is on the phrase "the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words" because I think often we are not operating with shared definitions.  That doesn't mean we need to start all conversations by going over definitions of words, but it does mean we shouldn't assume everyone's definitely using the same definitions we are all the time, particularly when people have reactions to something we say that we did not anticipate, or that don't seem reasonable.  After all, each of us comes to the table with a different upbringing, different cultures, different experiences - it's quite reasonable to assume that, along the way, we may have internalized slightly different meanings for certain things.

 

As an example: the word "racist".  I've had some surprisingly productive conversations with friends and family in the past few years about racism, and I've found that often, at some point in the conversation, we need to talk about how to define that term.

 

This is because a lot of people have internalized a definition that revolves around intent (I'm starting to sense a theme in this thread...) - they think, in order for something to be racist, it has to be malicious, willful, conscious.  This internalized definition often puts them on the defensive when you suggest that something they said might be racist.  They think you're attacking them by calling them willfully and intentionally racist.  That's not conducive to a productive conversation, and thus I don't think it's a productive definition for the term.

 

To get a conversation back on track from that point, it helps to remind them that often racism can stem from unconscious biases, or from stereotypes that were socialized into us from childhood, and thus doesn't need to be intentional or malicious.  What matters is the outcome, the effect - not the intent.  For example, one can absolutely spread a racist stereotype without intending to spread it.

[SENC]

26 minutes ago, barbox said:

As an example: the word "racist".  I've had some surprisingly productive conversations with friends and family in the past few years about racism, and I've found that often, at some point in the conversation, we need to talk about how to define that term.

 

This is because a lot of people have internalized a definition that revolves around intent (I'm starting to sense a theme in this thread...) - they think, in order for something to be racist, it has to be malicious, willful, conscious.  This internalized definition often puts them on the defensive when you suggest that something they said might be racist.  They think you're attacking them by calling them willfully and intentionally racist.  That's not conducive to a productive conversation, and thus I don't think it's a productive definition for the term.

 

To get a conversation back on track from that point, it helps to remind them that often racism can stem from unconscious biases, or from stereotypes that were socialized into us from childhood, and thus doesn't need to be intentional or malicious.  What matters is the outcome, the effect - not the intent.  For example, one can absolutely spread a racist stereotype without intending to spread it.

This one is a VERY interesting one, to me - and one which has definitely shifted over time and in a way I think is counterproductive.  In my opinion and observation, we have trended towards using more "extreme" words for all things and lost more descriptive words that better capture nuance and "shades of gray".  I recently read a pretty good article that captured many of my thoughts on this that I'll try to find and share, but I'll do my best on my own...

 

I grew up in the midst of desegregation, just after the major Civil Rights movements and during the period where change was finally being implemented and catching hold at a mainstream level and not just talked about.  To be sure, there was a lot of racism still in existence - I would posit significantly more than remains today (though I could only make that argument using generally accepted definitions of racism at that time).  We would have defined racism along the intentional lines, where folks specifically and willfully treated folks differently based on skin color - and, frankly that was "racism light" (made up term) whereas "real" racists weren't just treating people differently but intentionally doing harm.  I was fortunate to grow up in a family that was VERY anti-racist (by that definition), and the societal and educational models at the time focused on teaching that we should be blind to skin color differences.  Of course, this was the lofty and worthy goal we were working towards, and I think most accepted it as a journey and not likely something ever to be fully achieved in our broken world.  As such, with racism on one end of the spectrum and race blindness on the other end of the spectrum, there was a full continuum in between - and my generation was often challenged to look at and accept where we were on that continuum.  Words like "prejudiced" described those who struggled with the idea that skin color was irrelevant but who didn't think negatively about those with other skin colors - and words like "biased" described those who had accepted the conceptual goal of skin-color blindness but also recognized biases they had (real or perceived) that sometimes resulted in actions with unintended consequences.  In my opinion, this "individualistic" approach allowed for one-by-one self-definition and opened the door for dialogue between individuals and groups that promoted growth and development (generally, but not always, in the right direction).

 

Today (again, my perception and opinion, so not infallible), we seem more focused on putting groups into either/or boxes with labels (racist, sexist, phobic, etc.) and no room for shades or individuals.  Where I would say that I have shifted (consciously and intentionally) rather radically over the years from somewhat prejudiced to still-have-some-unconscious-biases and continuously shifting in the right direction (and, in my opinion, much more importantly having raised the next next generation to be much less skin color conscious), using the trending definitions of the moment (similar to the definition you proposed) I'd be called, simply, racist.  I think this is highly damaging in a couple ways: first, without an anchored definition of racism, positive change/improvement in behaviors over time are lost due to the shifting definition (societal level damage as it gives the appearance nothing has changed, or even that things have worsened); and, second, individuals react negatively to being labeled and put in group boxes and tend to get defensive and shut down conversation, inhibiting growth and change. In my opinion, this is exactly what is causing the polarization of our society - sorting people as racist/non-racist, sexist/non-sexist, phobic/non-phobic, pro-life/pro-choice, etc., etc.  Doing so eliminates any middle or common ground between the groups that once existed even between individuals with quite different viewpoints.

 

I'll clarify here that I don't think this grouping/boxing/polarization is the sole domain of any one political party or group, but rather that plenty on both sides are guilty (Trump and Biden equally and similarly, to use our 2 most recent presidents as examples, are all too happy to label those who disagree with them on anything as kooks and crazies).

 

So, to get back to your specific comments - I disagree wholeheartedly with a generic statement that outcomes matter more than intent when it comes to defining people or even actions.  Changing outcomes is what we all hope to achieve - they are results of actions - and they are ultimately the measurement of change (positive or negative) - but they should not be used to define us.  Actions (process) have limited value in defining us as people, as many of us have quite similar intent but have different opinions on how to achieve intended outcomes - nor should actions be defined by outcomes as not every outcome will be successful in a complex and multi-variate world.  Maybe more obvious, outcomes are only known "after the fact" so using them for defining actions or people retrospectively adds zero value or opportunity for change, and carries the severe downside of castigating and demeaning the well-intentioned person or behavior.

 

Rather, intent is THE critical piece, and the only one (IMO) that allows for civil dialogue and for positive change.  Without it, I can't see how someone determines/evaluates actions/behaviors nor how they determine/evaluate change/progress.

 

Sorry for the long note, but as you can see this idea of subjugating intent confounds me and gets me worked up.

[Vovchandr]

[Bruce K]

@barbox -  I agree with you - the outlines of the argument diminish as the issues come into focus.   Also, if anyone wishes to use my new favorite line, "Truth is immutable, but often inscrutable", they have to remember to give me attribution!  Again, my responses are in red:

 

You wrote this just now:

 

"I think the only examples I used were about feeling genuinely offended, for example due to a dog whistle or stereotype. And even then, I wouldn't advise sharing that feeling all the time, rather I'd say it's only worth it if you think there's a chance of a productive conversation."

 

But I had in mind your earlier statement

 

"But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?  Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense?  It is everyone's right to be offended at any time, for any reason.  My point is this:  Don't argue or vociferously retort based on feelings, unless you can also demonstrate a legitimate insult, based on the accepted meaning of the words.  Reasonable people gave me legitimate reasons why they disliked a correlation with Trump.  Their complaints had substance.  I would dislike a generalized comparison of myself to Joe Biden for similar reasons.  Simple feelings, however, are the insufficient excuse for the propagation of complaints.  It is rude and distracting to complain about perceived insults which, upon examination, contain no offense.  We should hold our tongues until we are certain that legitimate offense was given, and not just benign opinions, or preferences, or appropriate arguments ad absurdum, etc.  Otherwise, our society runs the risk of maturing into frequently injured, frequently complaining nags who seek to prevent the suppress differing opinions.  This is why I waited a few days before registering a significant complaint apropos Vovchandr's insulting comments.

 

You wrote this just now:

 

"I think my disagreement here is on the phrase "the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words" because I think often we are not operating with shared definitions.  That doesn't mean we need to start all conversations by going over definitions of words, but it does mean we shouldn't assume everyone's definitely using the same definitions we are all the time, particularly when people have reactions to something we say that we did not anticipate, or that don't seem reasonable.  After all, each of us comes to the table with a different upbringing, different cultures, different experiences - it's quite reasonable to assume that, along the way, we may have internalized slightly different meanings for certain things."  We do not disagree, my friend.  The purpose of topical discourse like this is to arrive as close as we can to the truths of the issue, and then (if possible) forge a compromise.  To begin a discussion, terms must be commonly understood.  That subject is the first worked out in any conversation.  How many conversational ripostes have you heard begin like this:  "To begin, by _____ I mean . . . "  That is ordinary people setting agreed parameters around the meanings of words, in order to engage in conversation.  In intercollegiate debate, it was the practise of many/most teams to write on the chalkboard behind them the definition of any controversial terms.  Another example:  Your excellent points regarding racism, wherein you correctly establish out that racism is not only intent but systems of operation, of actual practise, i.e., laws that prevent equal opportunity, or reflex opinions beaten into us from youth.  In that conversation, you were defining the word for some friends of yours, enabling everyone to enjoy comprehensive discussion of the issue.  We will never understand each other fully, but the closest possible understanding can be obtained via language, which enables communication by providing defined terms.

 

 

Regarding your racism points:

 

Laws are WAY ahead of any old lingering cultural stereotypes.  My position is:  Laws are TOO far ahead.  Well-deserved, hard-working children of white and asian families are being bypassed at high-quality universities in favor of disadvantaged students.  Investment firms like Blackrock are reducing the value of shareholder equities by investing in less profitable but DEI- and Green-intensive firms.  If your firm is not profitable, and ownership is white, try getting a loan from the SBA.  Try firing a black man if he intends to fight it.  IMO, disadvantaged students (who could have made it with effort in damaged schools, like the estimable Ben Carson, or Thomas Sowell, who never even graduated from his Harlem high school) should attend community colleges to acquire the skills they missed in their substandard primary and secondary schools.  Preventing white and asian racism is now a significant and ascending issue.  IMO, regarding social equity investing, it is a violation of law and trust to be paid to provide the  best possible return on legal investment, while knowingly shortchanging their constituents with suboptimal funds placements. 

 

Also IMO, racist reflexes have been purged by law for decades now, reinforcing enlightened teaching.  I don't believe in subtle, reactionary racism on a wide scale anymore, and the laws are overweening.  Everyone I know, and most I know of, have many friends and acquaintances of color, and many are close friends or associates.  The first manager of my business was a black man.  One of my chief techs is black.  Many blacks and asians attended my daughter's wedding.  Nearly every commercial on television features mixed racial groups.  Most white people don't think like that anymore, and even if they tried, legislation prevents it.  But where legislation creates racism against whites and asians, those laws need to be corrected.

[barbox]

I really appreciate your response, and I think there's no need to apologize for the length - you clearly put a lot of thought into it! And I think maybe you'd be surprised by how much I agree with you.

 

First I'll say, with my example about the definition of "racist", I'm not trying to argue in favor of either definition, I'm merely trying to make the point that we should be cognizant of the fact that others might have different definitions of it.  If we're not cognizant of that fact, we'll argue in circles and walk away thinking the other must be crazy, because nothing they said made any sense, and they reacted unreasonably to everything you said.  If instead we are cognizant of it, then when someone says something that doesn't make sense, or they react in an unexpected way to something you said, then the conversation can turn to clarifying those definitions, and then we can communicate better and understand each other better.

 

31 minutes ago, SENC said:

Actions (process) have limited value in defining us as people, as many of us have quite similar intent but have different opinions on how to achieve intended outcomes - nor should actions be defined by outcomes as not every outcome will be successful in a complex and multi-variate world.

 

I think this is really the crux of it.  Humans are far too complicated to be defined by a single action or statement.  We all make mistakes, we all have done or said things that we look back on with embarrassment or regret.  We need to be able to criticize actions or words without extending that criticism to the person.

 

As for defining actions by their outcomes, I agree it's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter, particularly if that outcome was predictable.

 

42 minutes ago, SENC said:

Where I would say that I have shifted (consciously and intentionally) rather radically over the years from somewhat prejudiced to still-have-some-unconscious-biases and continuously shifting in the right direction (and, in my opinion, much more importantly having raised the next next generation to be much less skin color conscious), using the trending definitions of the moment (similar to the definition you proposed) I'd be called, simply, racist.

 

Based on what you've said, I think it's pretty clear you're not racist.  But, as you acknowledge, that doesn't mean you're free of unconscious biases.  Because of those unconscious biases, you might unintentionally say or do something racist.  That action or statement doesn't make you a racist.  Just like your not-being-a-racist doesn't prevent you from saying or doing racist things.

 

49 minutes ago, SENC said:

So, to get back to your specific comments - I disagree wholeheartedly with a generic statement that outcomes matter more than intent when it comes to defining people or even actions.  Changing outcomes is what we all hope to achieve - they are results of actions - and they are ultimately the measurement of change (positive or negative) - but they should not be used to define us.

 

Who said anything about defining people or actions?  If I criticize a statement or action, it's not because I'm attempting to define or judge the person, or even the action - it's because I want them to not make similar actions or statements moving forward.

 

Let's take the original reason for this thread as an example.  I was critical of Bruce's Trump metaphor.  I tried to keep that criticism limited to the statement itself, and to not have it be misinterpreted as criticism of him as a person.  Bruce has since agreed not to make such comparisons in the future.  That's great!  If anything, that interaction says positive things, rather than critical things, about Bruce as a person, because he was willing to listen, learn, grow, and change.

 

50 minutes ago, SENC said:

Rather, intent is THE critical piece, and the only one (IMO) that allows for civil dialogue and for positive change.  Without it, I can't see how someone determines/evaluates actions/behaviors nor how they determine/evaluate change/progress.

 

This is where I disagree.  If you're critical of someone's intent, that's very likely to be interpreted by them as a criticism of their motivations, their values, or themselves.  They're then likely to get defensive, and now your criticism is unlikely to change their future behavior.  If, instead, you're critical of the effects that their action or words had, and you clarify that you're actively assuming there was no ill intent on their part, then they're much more likely to be open to listening, learning, growing, and changing.

 

Another reason I think outcome is the critical piece, not intent, is because outcome is the only part that matters to people in the present, particularly when analyzing historical actions.  Outcomes are the legacy, not intent.  Is it any consolation to the people of Flint, MI that the responsible officials didn't intend to poison their children? Of course not!  Regardless of intent, their children were still poisoned.  The decisions that led to that outcome need to be analyzed critically so it never happens again.  Analyzing the intent behind those decisions won't change anything.

[Vovchandr]

 

58 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

Also IMO, racist reflexes have been purged by law for decades now, reinforcing enlightened teaching.  I don't believe in subtle, reactionary racism on a wide scale anymore, and the laws are overweening.  Everyone I know, and most I know of, have many friends and acquaintances of color, and many are close friends or associates.  The first manager of my business was a black man.  One of my chief techs is black.  Many blacks and asians attended my daughter's wedding.  Nearly every commercial on television features mixed racial groups.  Most white people don't think like that anymore, and even if they tried, legislation prevents it.  But where legislation creates racism against whites and asians, those laws need to be corrected.

 

Wow, I'd never thought I'd witness "racism doesn't exist, I have a black friend" in person.

 

You remind me of the saying "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression."

[barbox]

59 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

It is rude and distracting to complain about perceived insults which, upon examination, contain no offense.  We should hold our tongues until we are certain that legitimate offense was given, and not just benign opinions, or preferences, or appropriate arguments ad absurdum, etc.  Otherwise, our society runs the risk of maturing into frequently injured, frequently complaining nags who seek to prevent the suppress differing opinions.  This is why I waited a few days before registering a significant complaint apropos Vovchandr's insulting comments.

 

I think I see where you're coming from here.  My point with "But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?" (emphasis added) was to allude to the fact that one may feel genuine offense, but be unable to convince the other party that the offense felt was legitimate, or justified, or worthy of an apology, or any number of other things.

 

Hypothetical example: I say something that offends you, and you claim offense, and we talk about it, but you're unable to convince me that what I said contained legitimate offense, so we agree to disagree and move on.  Based on what you wrote (quoted above), it sounds like you think I should walk away thinking it rude for you to have raised the concern in the first place, because upon examination, I didn't find it contained offense.  Am I understanding that correctly, or misinterpreting?   I would say it's not rude to merely raise the concern, even if you're unable to convince the other party of whatever it is you're claiming.  But I would agree that it would cross the line into rudeness if you continued to pester the person with the same arguments ad nauseam, rather than agreeing to disagree and moving on.

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Well-deserved, hard-working children of white and asian families are being bypassed at high-quality universities in favor of disadvantaged students.

 

Do the recent SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC decisions address your concern here?

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Investment firms like Blackrock are reducing the value of shareholder equities by investing in less profitable but DEI- and Green-intensive firms.  ...  IMO, regarding social equity investing, it is a violation of law and trust to be paid to provide the  best possible return on legal investment, while knowingly shortchanging their constituents with suboptimal funds placements.

 

I'll admit this is not a concern I've ever heard before from anyone.  I'm not really sure what exactly the problem is.  Do you think the prospectus of the relevant funds didn't adequately disclose their plans and goals?  Do you think their managers shouldn't be allowed to invest in what they view as long-term, high-risk high-reward opportunities when shorter-term, lower-risk opportunities exist?  Do you think fund managers should be held legally liable for the performance of their investments?  What law is it you think was violated here?

 

It's long been my opinion that private business would not invest in DEI or Green initiatives if it didn't make business sense (and that includes the possibility that the only benefit is "looking good", but that even then, they would only invest in it if they think there's profit to be made in looking good).

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

IMO, disadvantaged students ... should attend community colleges to acquire the skills they missed in their substandard primary and secondary schools.

 

You seem to acknowledge that there's a racial bias in quality of primary and secondary schools.  How, then, can we claim to live in an egalitarian society?  How is that equal opportunity?  How is that not all the evidence you need to convince you that there is more work yet to be done?

[Bruce K]

@barbox - our discussions have certainly mutated, following lots of agreement on central issues.  The areas we are now exploring reminds me of metaphysics or sociology or philosophy classes.  Again, I applaud Barbox and Senc thanks for your thoroughly contemplated responses.  I'm going to copy your complete statements, plus my rejoinders in red, and then my new responses in green:

 

  1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

It is rude and distracting to complain about perceived insults which, upon examination, contain no offense.  We should hold our tongues until we are certain that legitimate offense was given, and not just benign opinions, or preferences, or appropriate arguments ad absurdum, etc.  Otherwise, our society runs the risk of maturing into frequently injured, frequently complaining nags who seek to prevent the suppress differing opinions.  This is why I waited a few days before registering a significant complaint apropos Vovchandr's insulting comments.

 

I think I see where you're coming from here.  My point with "But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?" (emphasis added) was to allude to the fact that one may feel genuine offense, but be unable to convince the other party that the offense felt was legitimate, or justified, or worthy of an apology, or any number of other things.

 

Hypothetical example: I say something that offends you, and you claim offense, and we talk about it, but you're unable to convince me that what I said contained legitimate offense, so we agree to disagree and move on.  Based on what you wrote (quoted above), it sounds like you think I should walk away thinking it rude for you to have raised the concern in the first place, because upon examination, I didn't find it contained offense.  Am I understanding that correctly, or misinterpreting?   I would say it's not rude to merely raise the concern, even if you're unable to convince the other party of whatever it is you're claiming.  But I would agree that it would cross the line into rudeness if you continued to pester the person with the same arguments ad nauseam, rather than agreeing to disagree and moving on.  Once again, we are in agreement.  I utilized the terms "upon examination".  Each of us should critically weigh the words and intent if we believe we are being insulted.  If our conclusion is insult, then by all means raise an objection.  I stated the same in an earlier post, and in the paragraph above gave my example of Vovchandr.  I thought about his remarks for several day before judging them insulting.  But under no conditions is it appropriate to foment enmity or hatred by sharing unexamined feelings.  I don't care if something hurts you - if you consider the words, and can find no offense, keep it to yourself.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Well-deserved, hard-working children of white and asian families are being bypassed at high-quality universities in favor of disadvantaged students.

 

Do the recent SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC decisions address your concern here?  Yes,nominally, but the open repudiation of the decisions by Harvard and other schools worries me.  As you pointed out, it is the effects were are concerned with.  Harvard has already promulgated their plan for an end-around on this decision.

 

  1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

Investment firms like Blackrock are reducing the value of shareholder equities by investing in less profitable but DEI- and Green-intensive firms.  ...  IMO, regarding social equity investing, it is a violation of law and trust to be paid to provide the best possible return on legal investment, while knowingly shortchanging their constituents with suboptimal funds placements.

 

I'll admit this is not a concern I've ever heard before from anyone.  I'm not really sure what exactly the problem is.  Do you think the prospectus of the relevant funds didn't adequately disclose their plans and goals?  Do you think their managers shouldn't be allowed to invest in what they view as long-term, high-risk high-reward opportunities when shorter-term, lower-risk opportunities exist?  Do you think fund managers should be held legally liable for the performance of their investments?  What law is it you think was violated here?   You hit the nail on the head - many of these funds did not include these objectives, and certainly not at the time that long term investments were placed.  Many investors continue to be unaware, and are unwittingly helping the nefarious racism of DEI.  DEI moves us away from a meritocratic achievement economy into an economy premised on racial subsidies.  To grow the economy and enrich our people, and for our future security, we require an achievement economy, where the best and brightest perform our important services, and are generally allowed to accumulate as much success as they can.  Would you want your airplane pilot hired, not because he was the best, but because he was a brown man with lesser qualifications?  Same with your neurosurgeon, your pancreatic cancer oncologist, the scientists working on your drugs, and so on.  In less critical situations, lesser hires will prove adequate, and only the most troglodytic businesses are unaware of our equal opportunity laws, so the numbers will level out.

 

The specific laws are likely contained in the Investment Advisors Act, though I can't point to the specific section, but I'm certain that fee-paid investment agents have the requirement of working only towards the goals outlined in the prospectus.  In most prospecti, the goal is to maximize returns.                                                                                              

 

It's long been my opinion that private business would not invest in DEI or Green initiatives if it didn't make business sense (and that includes the possibility that the only benefit is "looking good", but that even then, they would only invest in it if they think there's profit to be made in looking good).  Often, the profit is not only less - it disappears with the demise of the various electric bus companies, solar panel companies and others involved in cutting edge tech.  These and other problems are the reason DEI and Green funds are losing investors.  However, if certain investors want to make less money and enjoy more virtue signaling, that is their God-given right.

 

  1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

IMO, disadvantaged students ... should attend community colleges to acquire the skills they missed in their substandard primary and secondary schools.

 

You seem to acknowledge that there's a racial bias in quality of primary and secondary schools.  How, then, can we claim to live in an egalitarian society?  How is that equal opportunity?  How is that not all the evidence you need to convince you that there is more work yet to be done?   Absolutely not - no racial bias, no difference in the potential quality of the schools.  Instead, there is a cultural deficiency that results in one-parent households, and in many cases effectively no parents;  in obstreperous and unruly kids, who fail to apply themselves in a manner conducive to success: in lawbreaker kids who grow up running errands for gang-bangers and then look for their own street corner;  on prison graduates whose skills with drugs and larceny provide no advantage in the outside world;  and more.  In all cases, unfortunately, these are independent decisions made by both adults and kids.  We need to help these kids, but not at the expense of other kids who have accorded themselves properly and qualify for admittance to the best colleges.  We currently provide many opportunities to improve, including countless social services, charities and so on.  And many such kids also attend community colleges to acquire the skills necessary for larger institutions.  I know - I've interviewed and hired many of them.  We must remove racism from our solutions to these problems.

Edited January 30 by Bruce K

[SENC]

@barbox - I appreciate your post and respect your comments, and though we'd likely continue to disagree on and debate specifics, I suspect we'd get along just fine having the same conversation over a beer (or 10).  I suspect we're approaching the point of getting into circular discussions repeating covered ground, so will leave some final thoughts (from my perspective).  That isn't to meant to shut down any further response you may have to them - just to say I'm not sure I'll have much more of value to add.

 

1 hour ago, barbox said:

I'm merely trying to make the point that we should be cognizant of the fact that others might have different definitions of it.

Though I agree in general, I think this adds a lot of unnecessary work when there are (or should be) fairly universal definitions.  The purpose of language is just that, for words to have common meaning so that communication occurs.  When we accept/allow significantly varying definitions based on unique experiences or circumstances, we undermine the very purpose of language and words. I still shake my head at the Clinton response "It depends on what your definition of is is."

 

1 hour ago, barbox said:

 

I think this is really the crux of it.  Humans are far too complicated to be defined by a single action or statement.  We all make mistakes, we all have done or said things that we look back on with embarrassment or regret.  We need to be able to criticize actions or words without extending that criticism to the person.

Here we are in pretty solid alignment, with the caveat that (again) intent is critical.  There are people with bad intentions - and we should have no qualms about calling that out.  But we can only go there when we have clarity of intent (and not based on assumptions or poorly aligned definitions of words).

 

1 hour ago, barbox said:

As for defining actions by their outcomes, I agree it's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter, particularly if that outcome was predictable.

I can't go here with you, there is too much room for interpretation and opinion.  I mentioned desegregation earlier - specific to schools I don't think many would argue our schools are in bad shape and some would say the outcome has been predictable.  Was desegregation wrong?  I certainly don't think so, there are too many variables that have driven the outcomes - but forced bussing and resulting degradation of neighborhood schools are thought to have contributed to deteriotion of our education system (and, thus, have been reversed in many communities).  I'd say we mis-diagnosed the problem (or part of it) and implemented a faulty (or just partial) solution before I'd define the action based on the outcome even though it may have been predictable to some.

 

1 hour ago, barbox said:

Who said anything about defining people or actions?  If I criticize a statement or action, it's not because I'm attempting to define or judge the person, or even the action - it's because I want them to not make similar actions or statements moving forward.

We may be missing each other entirely, as this is exactly what "-ist" words do... they are adjectives, adverbs, or even nouns.  "-ist" words, by definition, define/describe people, things or actions.  Here is the Oxford definition, for example, of racist:

 

I should note that defining or describing is (or should be) quite different from judging (ascribing value), though the common definition of racist itself (whether adjective, adverb, or noun) does include an assumption/judgement call:  "on the basis of..."  I think this is exactly where overextending terms like racist, misogynist, homophobe, and genocide is problematic - their generally accepted definitions include judgements on intent (can't escape that word!).  Using terms like bias and even prejudice largely (or at least somewhat) avoid this contamination and acknowledge underlying differences/intentions without connotation of intent.

 

2 hours ago, barbox said:

Another reason I think outcome is the critical piece, not intent, is because outcome is the only part that matters to people in the present, particularly when analyzing historical actions.  Outcomes are the legacy, not intent.  Is it any consolation to the people of Flint, MI that the responsible officials didn't intend to poison their children? Of course not!  Regardless of intent, their children were still poisoned.  The decisions that led to that outcome need to be analyzed critically so it never happens again.  Analyzing the intent behind those decisions won't change anything.

We'll both agree and disagree here.  I'll agree fully that intent is irrelevant in terms of harm incurred.  Officials should be held accountable for their actions regardless of intent.  BUT, without understanding the root cause "why" there is no way to craft a solution that will prevent recurrence.  Intent is a definitely potential root cause and shouldn't be either assumed or eliminated if we really want an effective solution.  I won't go anywhere near applying a term such as racist to the Flint MI situation (nor did you, though I've heard it said) even though the outcome disproportionately impacted minorities as I have no reason to believe the actions taken were "on the basis of" race.  Nor would I discount the possibility of racial motivation as a root cause without further investigation.  My point is, we'd find a different way to prevent recurrence if the root cause was intent than we would if the root cause was negligence or ignorance or greed or just bad workmanship.

 

So, we're back to the criticality of definition being commonly understood and accepted rather than specific to individuals.  You may define racist or racism based on an outcome with no/zero intent implied ("on the basis of" eliminated).  You are welcome to that personal definition, and if you tell me that is what you mean and then tell me in a personal conversation a behavior or action of mine is racist I'll be less offended (I can't say I won't be offended at all as the word carries too much historical baggage for me).  But tell me that without clarifying your definition, or in a public space where I'm going to assume the generally accepted definition applies and I'll be highly offended and go on defensive or shut down entirely. 

 

I also think there is harm in diluting a term like racist by eliminating the intent component.  There are absolutely racists (in the common definition of the term), and we shouldn't be ashamed of having or using the word as defined.  David Duke comes immediately to mind as a person who has clearly admitted intent.  Slavery in the US was clearly a racist action/state.  Elimination of the Jewish race has been the clearly stated objective of multiple racist, genocidal leaders.  The terms are applicable and valuable in those contexts, but when watered down to include people or actions that have similar but unintended impacts the words lose value.  That isn't to say the impacts are better or worse or more/less important to be resolved, only that we've lost clarity and thus the ability to resolve them. Resolving a "racist" (traditionally defined) caused impact or outcome clarifies that the central cause of the outcome to be addressed is the racial motivation.  On the other hand, resolving an impact or outcome that disproportionately affects a race MIGHT require addressing racial motivation, or it MIGHT require addressing something altogether different.  Correlation is different than cause-effect.  When we know intent is the cause we should attack it head-on and clearly defined words like "racist" assist in doing so - but when we don't know intent or use more ambigous or personally defined words that can be misinterpeted we risk causing new harm and we miss an opportunity to search for root cause and identify solutions that might actually work.

[SENC]

39 minutes ago, Croc said:

I will respond here despite the presence of an ongoing menage a trois elsewhere in this thread. Just avert your eyes.  

How dare you carry on a forum-related discussion in this off-topic thread!  That said, I'm now satisfied and will return to on-topic reading and comments (though in the correct threads).