Splinter: Rhetorical Ethics (Those Astonishing Heteros)

[Baron Max]

Thus, without ado, let us turn our scrutiny to those nifty hets, ...

Interesting, Tiassa. When I called homosexuals "homos", you threatened me with banishment for using a derogatory term. Yet, here, you're doing exactly, precisely the same in using "hets" in a derogatory manner for heterosexuals.

Is it because you're a moderator that you can get away with such things, but not me or others?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Why is it so hard for you to contribute?

When I called homosexuals "homos", you threatened me with banishment for using a derogatory term.

It's possible. Cite the post, please?

Yet, here, you're doing exactly, precisely the same in using "hets" in a derogatory manner for heterosexuals.

Would you prefer "gaffes"?

Is it because you're a moderator that you can get away with such things, but not me or others?

Once you've cited the post, as I noted above, I'll put on my green cap and think about it.

In the meantime, we'll mark you up as a second heterosexual who can't handle for a second being treated the same way the gays are every day.

 

[Baron Max]

Originally Posted by Baron Max: "When I called homosexuals "homos", you threatened me with banishment for using a derogatory term."
It's possible. Cite the post, please?

Don't need to, you already know it's true.

In the meantime, we'll mark you up as a second heterosexual who can't handle for a second being treated the same way the gays are every day.

Gays should get anything they want, anytime they want, all they should have to do is ask.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Considering the complaint

Mod Hat — Considering the complaint

Considering the complaint—

When I called homosexuals "homos", you threatened me with banishment for using a derogatory term.

—and the proof offered—

Don't need to, you already know it's true.

—I can only dismiss the accusation and officially warn the member to stay on-topic.

You've had your complaint. You've had your opportunity. Now contribute.

 

[Baron Max]

You've had your complaint. You've had your opportunity. Now contribute.

Interesting, Tiassa. Basically your thread is intended to poke fun at, and denigrate, a large portion of the world's population. And you call it to "contribute"?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Ah, so are you saying that treating people the way gays are treated is denigrating?

Exactly! You wouldn't allow me to start a thread devoted to gay hatred, would you? But yet here you are basically starting a thread devoted to hatred toward heterosexuals. And you don't find that a "banning offense"?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

You seem to be stuck in hypocrisy, Max

Exactly! You wouldn't allow me to start a thread devoted to gay hatred, would you? But yet here you are basically starting a thread devoted to hatred toward heterosexuals. And you don't find that a "banning offense"?

Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

What's fair is fair, Max. I'm trying to treat the hets equally here, and all you can do is complain, complain, complain.

Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?

 

[distantcube]

Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

That certainly seems the intention of your original post. If I had made a thread entitled "Those Astonishing Negroes" and posted news articles detailing indiscretions of black individuals accompanied by a sarcastic and flip rejoinder, I doubt you would have stood for it.

Quite simply, you've responded to bigotry with bigotry. Do you really think such an approach is logical or just? Will it even help your cause?

 

[Tiassa]

Something about the earthsick

That certainly seems the intention of your original post. If I had made a thread entitled "Those Astonishing Negroes" and posted news articles detailing indiscretions of black individuals accompanied by a sarcastic and flip rejoinder, I doubt you would have stood for it.

In the first place, the title of the thread is nearly a joke; it's a play on Sufism. The title comes from Adilbai Kharkovli's essay, "Those Astonishing Sufis", which I first considered at Sciforums just over seven years ago.

And that works for me. But in the same volume (Sufi Thought and Action, ed. Idries Shah), there also appears an essay by Emir Ali Khan, called "Sufi Activity":

The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilisations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitueds of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

Such challenge, description, or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their fellows.

(Khan)

I figured "Heterosexual Activity" wasn't an appropriate title for the thread. So I went with the other, which is still philosophically applicable, in my opinion, but—

The much-repeated theory (for we can see it only on that level until it is verified by experience) that "virtues" are not keys to heaven but essential steps which clear the way to higher understanding, is perhaps the most attractive of all [religious] statements. There has been, both in the East and the West, an uneasiness about believing that something done from fear or hope should be rewarded by paradise; or that ordinary human duties, carried out even by the most primitive peoples, should be represented as things which a highly-evolved religious system proclaims as part of advanced religious thinking.

This involves, of course, rethinking many of the values to see whether they are not, indeed, pitched at too low a level, rather than, as fashionable theoreticians affirm, too high. "The best that we have" in institutions may be insufficient, not a matter for self-congratulation. This applies to various forms of human relationship which might have been in the past regarded as sublime, but which research might well show to confirm the [religious] claim that they are valuable but only on a lower level.

(Kharkovli)

—I specifically chose to not confuse people with that one.

As to "Those Astonishing Negroes"? Depends on your explanation. If it's at least as good as I hold mine, I'd probably let the thread stand.

Quite simply, you've responded to bigotry with bigotry. Do you really think such an approach is logical or just? Will it even help your cause?

Split that according to its three sentences:

(1) Depends on what you call bigotry. Most days I'd agree with you, but my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call bigotry doesn't seem to be bigotry. Don't ask what that means, and I won't drag out an explanation.

(2) It's not necessarily logical in the short term. In fact, some of the responses are better than I would have guessed at the outset. As to whether it's just? To each his own, I suppose. Again, most days I would agree with you, but my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call just is apparently unjust.

(3) Will it help my cause? Depends on what cause we consider. If my cause is to win the affection and acclaim of the general membership, I doubt this thread will help. However, that's not my concern. There is an obscure cause that this might eventually help, but that is, like I said, obscure. We'll worry about that if it comes up. As to the most obvious sense of cause, that's a coin toss right now. Like I said, some of the responses are better than I would have guessed.​

One point, however, is so obvious that I can only apologize for making it here: People want to complain, but they don't want to contribute. That's their own damn problem, and they shouldn't make it anyone else's.
_____________________

Notes:

Shah, Idries, ed. Sufi Thought and Action. London: Octagon Press, 1990.
—————Khan, Emir Ali. "Sufi Activity", pp. 43-47.
—————Kharkovli, Adilbai. "Those Astonishing Sufis", pp. 167-177.

 

[distantcube]

Split that according to its three sentences:

(1) Depends on what you call bigotry. Most days I'd agree with you, but my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call bigotry doesn't seem to be bigotry. Don't ask what that means, and I won't drag out an explanation.

(2) It's not necessarily logical in the short term. In fact, some of the responses are better than I would have guessed at the outset. As to whether it's just? To each his own, I suppose. Again, most days I would agree with you, but my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call just is apparently unjust.

(3) Will it help my cause? Depends on what cause we consider. If my cause is to win the affection and acclaim of the general membership, I doubt this thread will help. However, that's not my concern. There is an obscure cause that this might eventually help, but that is, like I said, obscure. We'll worry about that if it comes up. As to the most obvious sense of cause, that's a coin toss right now. Like I said, some of the responses are better than I would have guessed.​

The above is so vague and convoluted, it's essentialy a non-answer.

May I ask what the point of this thread is? Because to be honest, it seems as if you are simply belittling heterosexuals in an attempt at 'poetic justice', to give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak. Which I find repugnant. You can dress it however you like, but I'm willing to bet that if Baron Max had made a similar thread regarding negroes, you would have come down on him hard.

One point, however, is so obvious that I can only apologize for making it here: People want to complain,

Of course they want to complain, you're being deliberately antagonistic. Haven't you complained in the past when you felt posters were being deliberately antagonistic?

 

[Tiassa]

Life is performance art

The above is so vague and convoluted, it's essentialy a non-answer.

Good. On the one hand, I don't like spoon-feeding people. To the other, it annoys them when I do.

The general theme, however, is that I'm recognizing other people's standards. You know, as in, not insisting on my own.

And yet people complain.

May I ask what the point of this thread is? Because to be honest, it seems as if you are simply belittling heterosexuals in an attempt at 'poetic justice', to give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak.

Nope. I'm trying to give heterosexuals equal time in the social-policy debate I've dubbed "The Gay Fray".

You can dress it however you like, but I'm willing to bet that if Baron Max had made a similar thread regarding negroes, you would have come down on him hard.

What, did Max hire an advocate?

Look, it's interesting to watch you make one part of this complicated while simplifying the other, and yet missing entirely on both parts.

Of course they want to complain, you're being deliberately antagonistic. Haven't you complained in the past when you felt posters were being deliberately antagonistic?

Of course they want to complain, because it's all they can think of. Sorry, D/C, but this time what you're missing is so obvious that I'm not sure which one of us should be insulted. Me, because I have to explain it to you, or you when I finally explain it.

Now, just step back for a minute and think about it. What obvious response is not yet in evidence?

 

[distantcube]

Good. On the one hand, I don't like spoon-feeding people. To the other, it annoys them when I do.

Making your bone of contention clear is *not* spoon-feeding the audience.

The general theme, however, is that I'm recognizing other people's standards. You know, as in, not insisting on my own.

'Other people's standards'? Who are these other people? Heterosupremacists, homophobes, or heterosexuals in general?

And yet people complain.

Of course they will complain. Bigotry is unattractive, whether it is directed against a majority or minority group. This is evidenced in past discussions on sciforums regarding homosexuals, where a wrong headed perspective of homosexuality has been condemned. What you have written may be satire. If so, it's hard to tell, and in bad taste.

 

[Tiassa]

Water is wet, the sky is blue

Making your bone of contention clear is *not* spoon-feeding the audience.

It is when it's this obvious. I might as well tell you that water is wet, or the sky is blue.

Besides, it's already part of the discussion.

'Other people's standards'? Who are these other people? Heterosupremacists, homophobes, or heterosexuals in general?

If you want.

Of course they will complain. Bigotry is unattractive, whether it is directed against a majority or minority group.

Look, I'm not claiming to be some kind of revolutionary thinker on this one, but just as a baseline, have you anything to say to Jane Elliot?

After all, what hope I had that people might learn something is rapidly dwindling.

In the meantime—

This is evidenced in past discussions on sciforums regarding homosexuals, where a wrong headed perspective of homosexuality has been condemned. What you have written may be satire. If so, it's hard to tell, and in bad taste.

—there is an obvious response. Okay? Water is wet. The sky is blue. There is something here that is easy to do.

At this point, I must confess that it's getting a bit entertaining. But no, it's not satire. There are more ways to make a point than with satire.

 

[swarm]

Well, my friends aren't generally alienated by my efforts to be fair.

You are not trying to be fair.

[lame excuses snipped]

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

You are not trying to be fair.

It's not my fault if the standard people want isn't nice.

I never did understand that, how so many people could blindly participate in a cruelty, and then when they're treated remotely in the same fashion, they screw up their faces and bawl, "That's not fair!"

Strangely, though, no matter how much I make the point that there is an obvious response, nobody wants to take it up. Now, for those who aren't so offended by the idea of looking at heterosexuals according to the same standard that is allegedly "fair" for viewing homosexuals, there is no reason to take up that response.

For the rest, though, it seems they just want to cry about it.

I remember this one time—and, really, I didn't realize denim burned like that—this guy, Ted, somehow landed a cigarette cherry in the rolled cuff of his Levi's 501s. I don't know. It only took a few seconds. I think someone said, "Uh, Ted?" And maybe someone else didn't really think much of it; we'd all dropped cherries on ourselves before. Just not like this. In the seconds it took for us to recognize the difference, smoke was pouring off Ted's leg. He literally did that cartoonish, "What's burning?" thing, and then looked down as the heat finally reached his ankle.

Yes, it was hilarious watching him hop around with, really, quite thick smoke trailing off leg as he tried to unroll the cuff. And then it was over, and Ted was sitting on the curb laughing his ass off and lighting another cigarette.

Life goes on.

The one thing he didn't do was stand there and scream, "That's not fair!" and cry about it until someone did something for him.

The jeans weren't totally wrecked. He put a classic blue and white bandana-looking patch over the burned part, and defiantly wore the damn things, smiling graciously whenever someone asked him about it, since the patch was on the inside of the fabric, and therefore visible when he rolled the cuff.

• • •​

Yes, it changed the state constitution. And it also overturned the state Supreme Court's decision. Which further proves that we need to get rid of some of these ridiculous, archaic, obscure laws that allow for majority rule. We've never been a direct democracy, and majority rule is tyranny. Not even the state Supreme Court has a chance with laws like that, and they're supposed to be keepers and interpreters of the state constitution.

We do have a law in place. For some reason, though, the challenge is slow to come.

It's the Fourteenth Amendment, and when gay marriage finally goes before the Supreme Court of the United States, the main question will be whether the right to marry is invested in the sex of the partners, or if there is something more to it.

And there is something more to it, since heterosexuals get married for some pretty stupid reasons. You know, like how they think they're in love, and that it will always feel that way. And then the feeling fades, and they take up a lover, and eventually file for divorce, or some stupid melodrama like that.

Hence, the need to protect the sanctity of marriage.

 

[swarm]

It's not my fault if the standard people want isn't nice.

It is your fault when you do the same.

I never did understand that, how so many people could blindly participate in a cruelty, and then when they're treated remotely in the same fashion, they screw up their faces and bawl, "That's not fair!"

So what cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?

Strangely, though, no matter how much I make the point that there is an obvious response, nobody wants to take it up. Now, for those who aren't so offended by the idea of looking at heterosexuals according to the same standard that is allegedly "fair" for viewing homosexuals, there is no reason to take up that response.

This is pure bullshit. The excesses of others do not justify your excesses.

 

[Tiassa]

Hang on to your ego

Swarm

To address all three of your points at once:

It is your fault when you do the same ....

.... So what cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty? ....

.... The excesses of others do not justify your excesses.

Okay, let's back up a few posts, first. A couple of points I made in my discussion with Distantcube:

• ... my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call bigotry doesn't seem to be bigotry .... (#24)

• The general theme, however, is that I'm recognizing other people's standards. You know, as in, not insisting on my own. (#26)​

See, the thing here is that I'm trying to not impose my own standards on everyone else. There are many who would claim that such treatment shown homosexuals is not, in fact, cruel. Indeed, the fact that the theme of the majority of responses to this topic is to rush in and throw a hissy-cow is interesting. As I pointed out to Baron Max, for instance, in #18 above:

Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

What's fair is fair .... I'm trying to treat the hets equally here, and all you can do is complain, complain, complain.

Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?​

You'll notice he never answered either of the questions above. In fact, he changed the subject, which is about what I expect.

So it would seem that, according to you, I am wrong to accept for the purpose of argument other people's standards that a certain behavior isn't cruel or wrong? I owe it to—who, you?—to bang my fist on the table and insist that such a broadly-accepted standard is wrong?

Sorry, man. My sympathies on this occasion are split. I see what you're getting at, but it would seem you refuse to look at what I'm trying to point out. What did you ever do? I have no idea. This isn't about you as an individual, and if you want to feel hurt, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. After all, you are obviously the most important aspect of this discussion, right?

Furthermore, given that there is, in fact, an obvious response that nobody seems to be taking up, I might as well just shrug and say, "Whatever".

 

[Baron Max]

I see what you're getting at, but it would seem you refuse to look at what I'm trying to point out. .... This isn't about you as an individual, and if you want to feel hurt, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Interesting, Tiassa. That's almost exactly the same comments I hear from bigots and racist who try to defend their own bigotry and racism.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

So, it's wrong to make a point about bigotry, unless it's in favor of bigotry?

Interesting, Tiassa. That's almost exactly the same comments I hear from bigots and racist who try to defend their own bigotry and racism.

There's a big difference between the people you're describing and what's going on here.

In the meantime, I reiterate the questions:

• Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

• Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?​

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: "Interesting, Tiassa. That's almost exactly the same comments I hear from bigots and racist who try to defend their own bigotry and racism."

There's a big difference between the people you're describing and what's going on here.

I disagree, Tiassa, it's exactly the same!!

And even more interesting is how you're doing exactly the same as racists and bigots ......trying to show how there's a difference between "your bigotry" and "real" bigotry!

Baron Max