Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
You say my views run counter, but from my position my views are just more nuanced than yours.
|
What you call nuance manifests itself as naivety and double-speak. Your views aren't nuanced, and saying they are nuanced does not address the fact that you consistently land on defending the people who set out to hurt or diminish the people (usually, your children) you use as shields from criticism of your own viewpoints. If you truly believe your views are nuanced and what you mean is that people don't understand your views because you are not able to communicate them correctly, that is not everyone else's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
I very much believe that the internet has put nuance on life support. When there is a rage mob ready to strip a young man of his dreams (or worse) for something he did as a child and there is a voice advocating penance, internet culture treats that as opposition. Or if a voice is not in lockstep with popular opinion, they are cast into the pile of deplorables. The internet is in a hurry to have a problem and mobs are easily formed, they also change direction on a dime and frequently eat their own. None of this, in my view, is good or should be encouraged. I am clearly in the minority here, if this thread is any sample.
|
Then you're not actually ever analyzing an issue, you're just responding to the reaction regardless of what the issue is. "The internet" hasn't done anything to Reimer, and in the terms you're using, you are using CP as a proxy for "the internet" as a whole, which renders you unable to have honest, nuanced conversations about issues with real people. If you view everyone as a rage mob every time, you do yourself no favors and add nothing for anyone else.
You think people on a Calgary message board (a rage mob, as you call it) criticizing a hockey player for harmful religious beliefs is a bigger issue than the actual beliefs that player holds, even when those beliefs are also consistently held by people with significantly more power than a message board holds. Doesn't that seem strange to you?
Give me an honest answer without dodging the question and waxing poetic about "the internet" or whatever, stay on topic. Which do you think is a greater threat to a trans child: beliefs that the way they are is an inherently wrong choice they've made, or beliefs that ideas (religious or otherwise) should be available for criticism? If you could choose between giving someone power who thought one of the two things, who would you give it to?
Pretending we're doing anything here but criticizing a belief that does harm to people is being dishonest. You can't talk about how nuanced you are or respectful or whatever if you can't even manage to be honest in what the starting point of the conversation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
You're allowed to criticize him all you want. And I'm allowed to criticize the rage culture that is wholly unhelpful to the "inclusive" mission.
|
Of course you are. Have you considered that you might not really know or be able to show what "rage culture" is? Because you seem to be lumping a pretty large pool of opinions and viewpoints into it, and your criticism has extended far beyond those who have shown any signs of "rage."
I also don't know why you need to go back to the idea of inclusivity being unlimited as someone who is apparently close to people who are going to struggle with the negative impacts of a culture that is not fully inclusive of who they are. Being inclusive of views or beliefs that are, by nature, not inclusive, is not inclusive. That's a good example of nuance and why it's hard to buy you having "nuanced" beliefs when you can't or don't want to recognize the nuance that inclusivity requires.
Which do you think is less helpful to the "inclusive mission": the idea that someone's biology is inherently wrong, a sinful choice, or makes them lesser... or the idea that those beliefs should be met with strong criticism? I doubt you'll answer this question straight either, but food for thought then I guess.