![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I’m going to go ahead and name Star-anise in this one, since I already mentioned you earlier. You don’t need to respond if you don’t want to, and I’m not accusing you of anything. I haven’t recently interacted with the other person, so I’ll just call them Anon.
Anon got really mad at Star once. I don’t remember exactly what the issue was (TERFs, maybe?), but somehow, Star had reblogged a non-bigoted post from a person who also made bigoted posts. Star explained that she believes it’s important to interact with bigoted people. After all, they’ll never stop being bigoted if they only ever talk to other bigots. Anon couldn’t accept this, and implied that Star must be a bigot for talking to bigots.
I think Anon was in the wrong here. Regardless of whether, or to what degree, Star’s approach is effective, Star is clearly trying to be helpful. Accusing her of bigotry is unfair.
On the other hand, there’s a distinction I do believe in. I will reblog from people who say messed-up things, because I’m not especially concerned with the people themselves. Statements aren’t inherently contaminated by those who state them--Hitler Ate Sugar and all. But if the post itself so much as mentions messed-up ideas, I try to call those out, because I think there’s danger in creating an environment where those things can be said casually without being addressed. In this case, it was an offhand mention of guillotines, but I don’t think that should be permitted to be offhand. It should have a giant spotlight on it--“this person thinks capital punishment is morally acceptable.”
(Of course, this brings up its own questions. As Iran-contrarian points out, when you go after people for posting about Wojack or making the OK sign, you’re prioritizing in-group signaling over being effective. I try to keep it to things that are directly linked to a messed-up idea. Not everyone knows what Wojack is, but I think we all know what a guillotine is.)
Anon got really mad at Star once. I don’t remember exactly what the issue was (TERFs, maybe?), but somehow, Star had reblogged a non-bigoted post from a person who also made bigoted posts. Star explained that she believes it’s important to interact with bigoted people. After all, they’ll never stop being bigoted if they only ever talk to other bigots. Anon couldn’t accept this, and implied that Star must be a bigot for talking to bigots.
I think Anon was in the wrong here. Regardless of whether, or to what degree, Star’s approach is effective, Star is clearly trying to be helpful. Accusing her of bigotry is unfair.
On the other hand, there’s a distinction I do believe in. I will reblog from people who say messed-up things, because I’m not especially concerned with the people themselves. Statements aren’t inherently contaminated by those who state them--Hitler Ate Sugar and all. But if the post itself so much as mentions messed-up ideas, I try to call those out, because I think there’s danger in creating an environment where those things can be said casually without being addressed. In this case, it was an offhand mention of guillotines, but I don’t think that should be permitted to be offhand. It should have a giant spotlight on it--“this person thinks capital punishment is morally acceptable.”
(Of course, this brings up its own questions. As Iran-contrarian points out, when you go after people for posting about Wojack or making the OK sign, you’re prioritizing in-group signaling over being effective. I try to keep it to things that are directly linked to a messed-up idea. Not everyone knows what Wojack is, but I think we all know what a guillotine is.)
More Executions? Are You Positive?
Dec. 8th, 2018 06:00 pm I once tried to read about a guy called Gilbert Ryle who called himself a logical positivist. The only part I managed to understand was that you’re a logical positivist if you’d be willing to undergo surgery with a paralytic drug, a drug that prevents you from forming memories, and no anesthetic. You'd still feel all the pain, but no one would ever be able to prove it, and no future version of yourself or others would show any sign of having seen or experienced it, so by Ryle's standard, it never happened.
I think that’s the principle the American death penalty runs under. No one cares if the dying experience horrible pain. It's just about whether they demonstrate physical signs of pain before they expire, because that might call into question the morality of killing people.
I think that’s the principle the American death penalty runs under. No one cares if the dying experience horrible pain. It's just about whether they demonstrate physical signs of pain before they expire, because that might call into question the morality of killing people.
