India Arie shares videos of Joe Rogan using N-word

[Jacob]

My experience lines up with DGuller's.

The story of my turn against political correctness begins at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, during the Ethics class.  The professor says "there are some we would say are wrong even if the victim does not object.  For example we would say rape is wrong even if the woman enjoyed it."

A group of female students complains to the professor and I guess the dean on the grounds that women can't enjoy rape, or it's a myth that women enjoy rape, and what he said suggested women enjoy rape, and the professor apologizes.

I'm truly puzzled by the offense, and I ask one of the complainants to explain their grievance to me, since in my understanding of English syntax he in no way suggested or insinuated that women enjoy rape and I don't get what they're upset about.

All she can say to me over and over again is "you just don't get it.  You just don't get it." 

Well yeah I don't get it, that's why I'm asking.

Very little if any of the rhetoric of identity politics has improved my opinion since that point.

I think it's just about the excercise of power.  If we complain we're going to get a retraction so let's complain.

Yeah that makes sense. "You just don't get it" is not a compelling argument, nor a useful response to an honest request for information.

I'm not sure how it's relevant to the whole "if you're not continuing to engage on the topic at languish it's because you actually realize the other person is right" argument that DGuller put forward and that I disagree with.

This Saturday a bunch of people in pickup trucks and cars drove through my city, honking loudly, declaring the Trudeau was a traitor, that vaccines are terrible, that vaccine and mask mandates are evil, and a whole bunch of stuff - some of which was contradictory (which is fine, it was a whole bunch of different people and maybe they don't all agree). Their planned route took them past three different hospitals (and hospital workers had been warned not to wear their scrubs in public on that day for fear of harassment), and ended downtown. One of the intended speakers at their destination downtown (in front of a TV station) was organizing using the slogan "the Media is the Virus". Since it was declared to be in support of the convoy occupying Ottawa (and honking and blowing truck horns 16 hours a day), it wasn't clear whether they intended to depart at all.

They passed not far from where I live. So we went out - my wife and I - with some signs that said "honk if you're a bully", "Canadians support healthcare workers, not the FluTruxKlan", "Support healthcare workers, patients, and journalists", and "Honk in your own neighbourhood - people live and work here."

We were standing at a corner by ourselves - we deliberately avoided big groups at that point - and some guy came up and decided to chat with us. He was clearly pro convoy and was looking to engage. I chatted with him a bit, going with "yeah we can all have our opinions and should express them, I disagree with the convoy... and I think the honking is obnoxious". Very quickly he started throwing all sorts of random things out - blathering about Vimy Ridge, about media control, about concentration camps in China, and all sorts of other things. At one point he got out his phone and started filming me as well. When he mentioned China we told him that if he thought Canada was anything like China - a statement he'd just made - then he didn't know shit about China. In response he went up three notches throwing out "are you calling me racist" and "you're racist".

At that point I told him that as far as I was concerned, the conversation was over. He exploded at me saying "oh are you telling me to stop talking? You're against freedom of speech! You're a fascist!" I replied with "you can say what you want, but I'm done talking to you."

So... my point is that I did not stop engaging with him because I deep in my heart knew he was right. I stopped engaging with him because I decided it was not fruitful for me to engage with him and I had better things to do.

And what I'm suggesting to DGuller is that that dynamic may in fact sometimes also apply to people who chose to withdraw from a conversation, whether it has to do with topics of political correctness, international politics, local politics, or indeed any other topic that has nothing to do with politics.

In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.

[DGuller]

I suspect the amount of time people go "secretly I realize I'm wrong while this other person is right, but I don't want to admit it" is much lower than the times they go "Jesus fucking Christ this other person lacks self-awareness, intellectual honesty, and even a tiny amount of desire to engage in good faith - what a pointless waste of time."

Alternately, they may simple not care that much having the detailed discussion on languish because they have other venues for debate they consider more interesting, fruitful, or otherwise worthwhile.

My experience lines up with DGuller's.

The story of my turn against political correctness begins at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, during the Ethics class.  The professor says "there are some we would say are wrong even if the victim does not object.  For example we would say rape is wrong even if the woman enjoyed it."

A group of female students complains to the professor and I guess the dean on the grounds that women can't enjoy rape, or it's a myth that women enjoy rape, and what he said suggested women enjoy rape, and the professor apologizes.

I'm truly puzzled by the offense, and I ask one of the complainants to explain their grievance to me, since in my understanding of English syntax he in no way suggested or insinuated that women enjoy rape and I don't get what they're upset about.

All she can say to me over and over again is "you just don't get it.  You just don't get it." 

Well yeah I don't get it, that's why I'm asking.

Very little if any of the rhetoric of identity politics has improved my opinion since that point.

I think it's just about the excercise of power.  If we complain we're going to get a retraction so let's complain.

I agree that "you just don't get it" is a really bad way to educate people, only marginally better than "you just don't get it because you're not X".  It's probably more likely to make the target of education dig in (at least secretly) than to learn something.

I definitely would say though that the example itself that you cite does trigger the cringe instinct in me.  I come from a culture where rape is trivialized on a cultural level, and the jokes about rape victim enjoying it are dime a dozen.  By far the most common reaction to someone coming out with an accusation of rape is "she probably enjoyed it in the moment, but then got pissed off at him".  It's doubly disgusting when people you love and respect do it, and you're not in a position to lecture them, so you just have to hold down your vomit and try to change the subject.  I think that professor really could use an explanation, hopefully a better one than "you don't get it".

[Admiral Yi]

1. The professor certainly did clearly suggest that women could enjoy rape, which does minimize the crime.

He certainly clearly did not. 

If I were to say "if the moon were made of cream cheese then blah blah blah" in no way whatsoever suggests that the moon might be made of cream cheese.

[Admiral Yi]

In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.

You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about.  There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.

[ulmont]

If I were to say "if the moon were made of cream cheese then blah blah blah" in no way whatsoever suggests that the moon might be made of cream cheese.

If you were to say, "if the vaccines really were safe, they would have gotten the full FDA approval and not just an emergency use authorization", on the other hand, I'm not going to think you believe the vaccines really are safe.  Your take of closer to cream cheese than vaccine safety is yours, but I highly doubt it universal.

[Jacob]

You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about.  There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.

Heh... I recall a number of times spending like half an hour composing what I thought was a detailed and solidly argued yet respectful post in the hope of getting a similar response and engage in what I hoped would be an interesting and substantivie discussion - I respect your perspective and analysis - and then getting a single emoticon or a short line like "I disagree" in response.

To me that came across as a desire to not engage - which is fine, of course - and over time I adjusted how I interact with you. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how I took it.

[Zoupa]

In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.

You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about.  There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.

And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.

[Admiral Yi]

Heh... I recall a number of times spending like half an hour composing what I thought was a detailed and solidly argued yet respectful post in the hope of getting a similar response and engage in what I hoped would be an interesting and substantivie discussion - I respect your perspective and analysis - and then getting a single emoticon or a short line like "I disagree" in response.

To me that came across as a desire to not engage - which is fine, of course - and over time I adjusted how I interact with you. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how I took it.

I think what can happen is when the fur is flying and I'm simultaneously debating six posters I will slack and not respond to each and every one.

I'm sorry if you felt slighted.  Would you like to raise your point again? 

[Admiral Yi]

If you were to say, "if the vaccines really were safe, they would have gotten the full FDA approval and not just an emergency use authorization", on the other hand, I'm not going to think you believe the vaccines really are safe.  Your take of closer to cream cheese than vaccine safety is yours, but I highly doubt it universal.

Let's start again.  Try to make a sentence starting with "even if" which suggests the if clause is true.

[DGuller]

And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.

Yes, we all pick and choose who we engage with, but the problem is when you choose people based on what they're saying rather than how they're saying it. 

I'm going to name names here instead of speaking obliquely:  it's very hard to find the legitimate "how" in people's response to you on the first page that made you "give up".  It sure looked a lot like the very thought that some people might think differently from you made you give up. 

It's not like it came as a surprise to you that you were going to debate me, I was the one you quoted when you asked the question.  If you quit because you knew that you wouldn't enjoy debating with me based on past experience, then why ask me a question in the first place?

[Jacob]

And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.

Yeah, I don't think you stopped responding but rather that the nature of your responses indicated a lack of desire to engage more fully. And, to the point of the topic at hand, I don't think it meant you thought I was right and you were wrong and you couldn't defend your point of view, but rather that you didn't think it worth your time to discuss in more detail.

[Jacob]

I think what can happen is when the fur is flying and I'm simultaneously debating six posters I will slack and not respond to each and every one.

Very possibly.

I'm sorry if you felt slighted.  Would you like to raise your point again? 

... no thanks, I don't remember any specific points at all

In fact - I ended up admiring your ability not to get suckered into a long drawn out argument you didn't care to participate in.

[HVC]

And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.

Yes, we all pick and choose who we engage with, but the problem is when you choose people based on what they're saying rather than how they're saying it. 

I'm going to name names here instead of speaking obliquely:  it's very hard to find the legitimate "how" in people's response to you on the first page that made you "give up".  It sure looked a lot like the very thought that some people might think differently from you made you give up. 

It's not like it came as a surprise to you that you were going to debate me, I was the one you quoted when you asked the question.  If you quit because you knew that you wouldn't enjoy debating with me based on past experience, then why ask me a question in the first place?

Sometimes it not the particular argument but the net history of that posters.  Sometimes people slip and start to engage and then remember it's not worth it.

There are certain posters where it's not worth it. They don't argue in good faith and it's more aggravating then it's worth. The point isn't what they're arguing it's to show how smart they are and you must be a total idiot not to agree.

*edit* to quote Gul Dukat " A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness."

[ulmont]

Let's start again.  Try to make a sentence starting with "even if" which suggests the if clause is true.

I copied your model.  But sure.  "Even if the vaccines were unsafe, they wouldn't let people know because of the panic."  "Even if Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, they've already covered up the evidence."

[DGuller]

Sometimes it not the particular argument but the net history of that posters.  Sometimes people slip and start to engage and then remember it's not worth it.

Sure, happens to me sometimes as well.  But why not just quietly slip out of the thread?  Why exit with a passive aggressive parting shot?  That's like trying to kick someone in the nuts and then running away, because you decided you're above having a fight.