One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
Locked
One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
 
|
This has been gnawing on me for a day. Finally, as I was out on the mountain bike oxygenating my brain this morning the reason that this one statement below bothered me crystallized.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tolerance is a highly over-rated "Christian value". That whole 'turn the other cheek thing' simply provides the excuse to allow ludicrous, immoral, or downright evil actions to be allowed to continue unabated. Want examples?
Why did each of these things evolve and prosper, if only for a period? Because sufficient numbers of people tolerated them. Respecting a person's right to believe in a cause that clearly resonates is one thing. Tolerating irrational, abusive, and amoral actions performed in the name of those causes itself comprises an amoral act.
Just because people have the right to believe in whatever value set appeals to them does not mean that they are not sometimes due criticism. To hide behind the veil of "tolerance" in the face of clearly amoral (or perhaps just plain stupid) behavior is to allow these anti-social behaviors to spread like the cancer they are.
But, (be aware, complete and total reversal is coming): perhaps the human race deserves no better than to be forced to stand out in the middle of this shit storm we have created.
Finally, as a strangely related side-note: look at this global fundamentalist Islamic uprising that was caused because some asshole made a movie which depicted Mohammad as a philanderer. And now compare this to the reaction when "The Life of Brian" was released in 1979. You cannot possibly say that TLOB was any less respectful to the cult figure named Jesus than this latest opus was to the cult figure named Mohammad. Yet here we are with the political correctness police grilling Nakoula Basseley Nakoula over "The Innocence of Muslims."
Ludicrous. --Doug ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
|
|
I'm afraid I have not been following the news, but wasn't some of the discussion about Muslims who have no opinion on the video or don't take it seriously being antagonized? If so, I think the tenet that nobody has the same religion, just their own views of what they say their religion is may be a useful way to consider the issue.
-Arlo ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
This also applies to "trolls" and bullying on the internet. The method "Do not feed the trolls" seems (to me) to fail most of the time. And I tend to believe it fails mostly because the definition of "troll" is ambiguous and vague. People abuse the term all the time. Most of the so-called trolls I've met are actually authentic contributors who simply don't know how to get along with the people/fora they contribute to. Those who perpetrate and tolerate the false positives have, to me, a weaker moral foundation than the troll. To boot, in the case of an actual troll, it's universally the yahoos who insist on yelling about the troll who are more at fault for the degradation in quality content than the troll. Bullying is similar. Those who bully are one bogey, but they're a well known one. Everyone's experienced bullying at some point, I think. But the people who _refuse_ to speak out against the bully are, again, on a weaker moral foundation than the bully. Hell, many bullies may not even know they're bullies and all they need to hear is "back off" from someone in the their clique. Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/15/2012 02:24 PM: > Respecting a person's right to believe in a cause that clearly resonates is > one thing. Tolerating irrational, abusive, and amoral actions performed in > the name of those causes itself comprises an amoral act. > > Just because people have the right to believe in whatever value set appeals > to them does not mean that they are not sometimes due criticism. To hide > behind the veil of "tolerance" in the face of clearly amoral (or perhaps > just plain stupid) behavior is to allow these anti-social behaviors to > spread like the cancer they are. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
|
|
On 9/17/12 3:25 PM, glen wrote:
> This also applies to "trolls" and bullying on the internet. The method > "Do not feed the trolls" seems (to me) to fail most of the time. And I > tend to believe it fails mostly because the definition of "troll" is > ambiguous and vague. People abuse the term all the time. Most of the > so-called trolls I've met are actually authentic contributors who simply > don't know how to get along with the people/fora they contribute to. > Those who perpetrate and tolerate the false positives have, to me, a > weaker moral foundation than the troll. To boot, in the case of an > actual troll, it's universally the yahoos who insist on yelling about > the troll who are more at fault for the degradation in quality content > than the troll. > > Bullying is similar. Those who bully are one bogey, but they're a well > known one. Everyone's experienced bullying at some point, I think. But > the people who _refuse_ to speak out against the bully are, again, on a > weaker moral foundation than the bully. Hell, many bullies may not even > know they're bullies and all they need to hear is "back off" from > someone in the their clique. and there is someone in charge that can fairly discriminate and will make it right. The bully child will be sent to the principal's office but the bullied child does not settle things herself. The domestic abuse victim calls the police, etc. The person-in-charge may be an elected individual, or an official enforcing agreed-upon rules, or an employer, other times it is a person with special moral standing, like a cult leader or priest, or a community organizer that enforces (or invents) the cliques' rules. In this way, tolerance can be mapped to organizational rules. If the abuse is described by shared rules there's a mechanism to stop the abuse. If it is not described by shared rules, the (silent) bullied individuals need to work to make their organization serve their needs better -- or be better at being invisible -- or change their philosophy. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/17/2012 05:07 PM:
> In this way, tolerance can be mapped to organizational rules. If the > abuse is described by shared rules there's a mechanism to stop the > abuse. If it is not described by shared rules, the (silent) bullied > individuals need to work to make their organization serve their needs > better -- or be better at being invisible -- or change their philosophy. As usual, I'm compelled to disagree even though I agree with everything you said. ;-) Perhaps the bullied (or misidentified troll) serves a purpose to the group? And perhaps it's in both the group's and the victim's best interest to maintain the status quo. Hence, the bullied need to tolerate or even encourage the bullies to bully more. This might be a way to understand that strange desire on the part of some protesters to be pepper sprayed and roughed up by paramilitary riot police. What better way to stimulate the mirror neurons of your peers than to exacerbate the bullying? Go ahead. Taunt that cop! -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |