Sunday, September 15, 2013
I don't care how positive you feel about it
You still basically named a character "Defective" and then suggested she's mentally disabled. Yet you really don't comprehend how someone might see that as offensive?
Friday, September 13, 2013
Intent does matter
In the blogs I follow, I've been seeing a lot of the statement "intent isn't magic" in response to when someone unintentionally says or does something rude, insulting or harmful. Meaning well doesn't make it hurt less, doesn't make the thing OK or unproblematic. I agree. To an extent.
If a friend says something sexist to me, for example, it's not going to hurt less just because it's a friend who genuinely likes me. In some ways, being a friend who supposedly respects me may even hurt more. I'm going to feel hurt and I'm going to get angry, I have a right to my feelings, and that doesn't change based on their intention, whether it was said or done out of naivete or ignorance, or out of a truly sexist worldview.
But their intention does matter in how I respond.
If they're a friend who claims to respect me and didn't intend to hurt me, I'm going to talk with them about what they said, why I think they were wrong, why it hurt, and because they're my friend, expect them to at least consider what I have to say. If they claim to be a feminist or ally, I'm going to talk with them about why I found what they said to be sexist. Maybe they're just not entirely informed, or maybe they have their own thoughts on why they think what they said was fine. After all, I may have simply misunderstood or they may simply have a different but potentially still valid perspective I hadn't considered. Just because I feel hurt doesn't mean they necessarily said something "wrong," but even if they did, I expect to be able to have a conversation with them, or at least be able to come to a point where we can still move towards the same broad goals, albeit in different ways. I'd like to think we don't have to be in perfect agreement, or even be completely correct or ideologically consistent to share that. We don't even have to like each other to still be allies.
If I did or said something to hurt a friend or an ally in an issue we both care about, I'd hope they would talk to me as well, instead of just get angry, refuse to be my friend any longer, or call me a "bad ally" because I didn't understand something perfectly the first time. Or even the second or third time.
However, if the person's intent was simply to belittle me, to disregard my thoughts, to hurt me; if they refuse to listen to what I have to say or consider views outside of their own; if they reject the history and research that should inform a well-thought-out opinion, even after being exposed to it; if they refuse to have a back-and forth discussion and just assert their own correctness and insist my feelings are irrelevant or illegitimate while theirs reveals the truth, never considering if they simply misunderstood, then I am going to consider them a "bad ally," ideological opposition, someone who is not a friend. Then I am going to avoid discussing it with them, avoid wasting my time and energy. Then I may even warn others about them.
If someone say they didn't mean to hurt me, they're sorry I was hurt by their words or actions, I don't consider that a "not-pology" most of the time. To me, it means they acknowledged that they have hurt me and do feel bad about that. They may just not understand why, but recognizing that they did certainly seems like a good place to start that conversation.
If a friend says something sexist to me, for example, it's not going to hurt less just because it's a friend who genuinely likes me. In some ways, being a friend who supposedly respects me may even hurt more. I'm going to feel hurt and I'm going to get angry, I have a right to my feelings, and that doesn't change based on their intention, whether it was said or done out of naivete or ignorance, or out of a truly sexist worldview.
But their intention does matter in how I respond.
If they're a friend who claims to respect me and didn't intend to hurt me, I'm going to talk with them about what they said, why I think they were wrong, why it hurt, and because they're my friend, expect them to at least consider what I have to say. If they claim to be a feminist or ally, I'm going to talk with them about why I found what they said to be sexist. Maybe they're just not entirely informed, or maybe they have their own thoughts on why they think what they said was fine. After all, I may have simply misunderstood or they may simply have a different but potentially still valid perspective I hadn't considered. Just because I feel hurt doesn't mean they necessarily said something "wrong," but even if they did, I expect to be able to have a conversation with them, or at least be able to come to a point where we can still move towards the same broad goals, albeit in different ways. I'd like to think we don't have to be in perfect agreement, or even be completely correct or ideologically consistent to share that. We don't even have to like each other to still be allies.
If I did or said something to hurt a friend or an ally in an issue we both care about, I'd hope they would talk to me as well, instead of just get angry, refuse to be my friend any longer, or call me a "bad ally" because I didn't understand something perfectly the first time. Or even the second or third time.
However, if the person's intent was simply to belittle me, to disregard my thoughts, to hurt me; if they refuse to listen to what I have to say or consider views outside of their own; if they reject the history and research that should inform a well-thought-out opinion, even after being exposed to it; if they refuse to have a back-and forth discussion and just assert their own correctness and insist my feelings are irrelevant or illegitimate while theirs reveals the truth, never considering if they simply misunderstood, then I am going to consider them a "bad ally," ideological opposition, someone who is not a friend. Then I am going to avoid discussing it with them, avoid wasting my time and energy. Then I may even warn others about them.
If someone say they didn't mean to hurt me, they're sorry I was hurt by their words or actions, I don't consider that a "not-pology" most of the time. To me, it means they acknowledged that they have hurt me and do feel bad about that. They may just not understand why, but recognizing that they did certainly seems like a good place to start that conversation.
Sometimes I think I shouldn't be blogging
I see I've gotten a comment, and I feel sick. I'm glad it's a friend because I respect my friends' thoughts and I feel pretty comfortable that they respect mine. So it's OK if we disagree. But I already know we disagree, so what if I've unintentionally insulted them or hurt their feelings?! What if I haven't really thought through what I was trying to say and embarrassed myself? Maybe if it were a stranger commenting, it would be easier. But then they might be rude, a troll, or someone who isn't really interested in discussion, just looking to tell me I'm wrong!
I want to have discussions, but then I think I have too much anxiety to deal with potential disagreement.
So three comments have sat unread since April.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
An End of Religion?
If you are of the opinion that religion is a human creation, invented to explain things about the world, to give meaning, to maintain a power structure, or for any other "practical" purpose (and not something given to people by some supernatural entity), then religion by itself is not the cause of the problems in the world; people are. People invented religions, and they reflects people's worldviews.
And if you recognize that religion evolves and change over time, then it's logical to conclude that religious people interpret their religion to meet their own cultural or individual biases, and their is no "true" form of the religion and never was, since it's always a product of it's culture.
And if you are of the opinion that religion is irrational, or that following a religion is irrational, yet people practice it anyway; if they can always say "it's just a mystery" when then encounter an apparent contradiction or irrational aspect or cognitive dissonance, then they can and will use their religion to justify anything they want to believe, good or bad. They can always read into it what they want to read into it.
Now, having a formal structure portrayed as something outside of human control reasonably likely ends up creating a positive feedback loop, where the biases of the religious followers, positive and negative, become reinforced and magnified and passed down over time. They are thus are reinforced as "correct" because their personal opinions, feelings, thoughts, etc. are attributed to an outside, infallible, or at least superior, authority. But take away the religion, take away the supernatural authority, and the original feelings, biases, and opinions are still there. They are what founded the religious point of views. And if religion does change with culture, then new biases and ideas, good and bad, are always being added and taken away.
And remember, these biases and thoughts come from people.
So if harmful and helpful perspectives come from people, and people invented religion to support their perspectives (consciously or subconsciously) then an end of religion will not spell an end to either the harmful or helpful aspects of religion. Sexism, xenophobia and racism, community, compassion - people experience these things and invented irrational support for them to be "Truth." If people invented religion, then without religion, they may very well simply invent other, new, irrational support for them to be true. An end of religion would not mark the end of the human irrationality that brought religion into being in the first place. It would not mark the end of harm done in the name of religion, just the end of it being in the name of religion. It would not suddenly bring about pure rationality.
And indeed, we see sexism and racism in atheists because not all atheists are rational, or even necessarily more rational than religious people. Or who even use their supposed rationality to support harm they do to "less rational" people. We see demographic majorities and non-oppressed groups, regardless of religion, claim discrimination when they encounter their privilege. We see cognitive dissonance on some scale in nearly everyone.
Promote rational thinking, promote self-awareness, promote challenging your own subconscious biases even though it's hard. Promote reason-based humanism, promote a rational alternative to interacting with the world and improving it, promote something everyone can comprehend with no prerequisite biases. Religion as the "true" meaning of the universe, will fall away on its own. Maybe.
People aren't perfectly rational and likely never will be. But if religion remains as simply something that gives people personal meaning, does that really matter to anyone else? Should it? I don't think the goal is the end of religion. I think the goal is minimizing harm. Harm may be magnified by religion because it's the current system we have, but it's not caused by it. Compassion may be integrated into religion, but it's not created by it. Promoting rationality, acknowledging human compassion and human harm instead of attributing them both to outside forces, that is how we improve the world. That is how we keep ourselves from simply inventing new irrational systems that magnify our irrationalities and harm.
And if you recognize that religion evolves and change over time, then it's logical to conclude that religious people interpret their religion to meet their own cultural or individual biases, and their is no "true" form of the religion and never was, since it's always a product of it's culture.
And if you are of the opinion that religion is irrational, or that following a religion is irrational, yet people practice it anyway; if they can always say "it's just a mystery" when then encounter an apparent contradiction or irrational aspect or cognitive dissonance, then they can and will use their religion to justify anything they want to believe, good or bad. They can always read into it what they want to read into it.
Now, having a formal structure portrayed as something outside of human control reasonably likely ends up creating a positive feedback loop, where the biases of the religious followers, positive and negative, become reinforced and magnified and passed down over time. They are thus are reinforced as "correct" because their personal opinions, feelings, thoughts, etc. are attributed to an outside, infallible, or at least superior, authority. But take away the religion, take away the supernatural authority, and the original feelings, biases, and opinions are still there. They are what founded the religious point of views. And if religion does change with culture, then new biases and ideas, good and bad, are always being added and taken away.
And remember, these biases and thoughts come from people.
So if harmful and helpful perspectives come from people, and people invented religion to support their perspectives (consciously or subconsciously) then an end of religion will not spell an end to either the harmful or helpful aspects of religion. Sexism, xenophobia and racism, community, compassion - people experience these things and invented irrational support for them to be "Truth." If people invented religion, then without religion, they may very well simply invent other, new, irrational support for them to be true. An end of religion would not mark the end of the human irrationality that brought religion into being in the first place. It would not mark the end of harm done in the name of religion, just the end of it being in the name of religion. It would not suddenly bring about pure rationality.
And indeed, we see sexism and racism in atheists because not all atheists are rational, or even necessarily more rational than religious people. Or who even use their supposed rationality to support harm they do to "less rational" people. We see demographic majorities and non-oppressed groups, regardless of religion, claim discrimination when they encounter their privilege. We see cognitive dissonance on some scale in nearly everyone.
Promote rational thinking, promote self-awareness, promote challenging your own subconscious biases even though it's hard. Promote reason-based humanism, promote a rational alternative to interacting with the world and improving it, promote something everyone can comprehend with no prerequisite biases. Religion as the "true" meaning of the universe, will fall away on its own. Maybe.
People aren't perfectly rational and likely never will be. But if religion remains as simply something that gives people personal meaning, does that really matter to anyone else? Should it? I don't think the goal is the end of religion. I think the goal is minimizing harm. Harm may be magnified by religion because it's the current system we have, but it's not caused by it. Compassion may be integrated into religion, but it's not created by it. Promoting rationality, acknowledging human compassion and human harm instead of attributing them both to outside forces, that is how we improve the world. That is how we keep ourselves from simply inventing new irrational systems that magnify our irrationalities and harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)