And that is where you are wrong. Those of us who operate businesses that explicitly cater to the trans community (three workshops in four years) will freely agree that the trans community is generally aware of their social fragility and appreciates being treated as human. The problem, however, is that those of us at the periphery of the trans community regularly encounter cisgendered culture warriors that believe "inclusivity" is a euphemism for internecine jihad against all others in order to claim the title of "woke." It's never the people who claim the asterisk. It's the people who learned what the asterisk meant yesterday, and in order to atone for their previous shame they will now beat you over the head for not knowing before they did. It's the constant castigation of the community in practice for a community that is very much in theory to them. It's the woker-than-thou bingo played by privileged white people in order to feel better aligned with the angry dudgeon on their social media. It's the white Orange County trust fund kid with the MFA from USC telling you to check your privilege when you link to the Bureau of Indian Affairs without apologizing for Wikipedia's title. THAT is what we're discussing here: not that the transgender community will ever "cancel" anyone but that the enlightened Karens of the world will make enemies rather than allies to show that they're one of the Good Germans. I have an employee who is half Brazilian, half Japanese. She suffered ridiculous amounts of prejudice from a student who disregarded her and disrespected her to such a degree that when we went on vacation, the student decided she'd just go home. And there was a massive kerfuffle when we dismissed the student because the student is African American... so on the Wokeness Scale being taught at their institution, she has more purity points. A handful of straight white women in their 40s and 50s are literally teaching minority students that some minorities are more deserving of protection than others. We have more minority hires than white people and it took six weeks of careful maneuvering to not be the racist birth center. THAT is the problem. All the other birth centers that explicitly do not hire minorities? They don't have to deal with this. And THAT is the problem.See the thing is though that as fast as trans rights is moving, you aren't obligated to keep up with it or keep track until you want to participate in discussions about them.
Again, that is not the problem. We formally ceased to communicate with the student the minute we dismissed her because you could feel the lawyers rising behind your backs. The university required the student to write us a "thank you" card for some reason; it very deliberately and purposefully side-eyed the minority midwife in a coldly calculated way to denigrate her skills and professionalism in such a way that the university couldn't notice and we totally could. The minute we dismissed her, our interactions were entirely with the student liaison, who thankfully is also a person of color. The problem is that in order to keep the rest of the (entirely white, entirely privileged, entirely non-minority-hiring) community from branding us as the racist birth center, they had to make this student speak publicly - on the record - in front of all her peers - in a mandatory attendance seminar - about what she had "learned" from being dismissed from two birth centers (we were the second) to apply to her third (who are friends of ours, and whom we discussed her hiring with for 45 minutes prior to them signing on). Because there's a lot of anger going around, and people will do whatever it takes to be on the right side of that anger. And when the side you're aligned with decides that you deserve more anger for not doing it exactly as they say than the other side gives you for not doing it at all YOU WILL FUCKING CHANGE SIDES. It's so much easier to say "those idiot bitches over there who tried to hire the darkies got what was coming to them" than it is to say "we all need to try harder to better integrate multiracial professionals." And THAT is the real problem here: The Good Germans are still Germans. And they're being rewarded for being Germans. And they associate with Germans, and they think German thoughts, and they aren't Nazis? But they catch a lot less grief from integrating with Nazis than integrating with The Woke. I fucking lived this with the anti-vax crowd. Nearly all of 'em were typical, normal, semi-fearful parents who read that Kennedy article in Salon and compared their kids' vaccine schedules with their own. Then they'd ask their doctors and be told what terrible parents they were for even thinking about the vaccine schedule. Then they'd surf around online and find a welcoming community telling them not to vaccinate their kids and a whole bunch of "skeptics" shouting them down and accusing them of genocide for questioning dogma. And within weeks they knew more about thimerosal than they did about mumps and the acceptance drove them together and multiplied their numbers until my wife was making $40 a pop explaining how to keep their non-vaccinated kids from getting sick and what additional precautions they needed to take if they wanted to interact with the world at large because that fear, and that distrust, and that hate, became their identity. You want to be angry at the people you're angry at without having to think about the consequences. And you're apologizing to me that I'm forced to think about the consequences but you don't see that we all are.I'm sorry that you had to deal with the "you fired me because I'm black" level of human garbage.
Not gonna talk about cancel culture. I don't know enough to make a honest assessment of the situation, let alone share an informed opinion. But on goodness? I think you're leaning too far into the cynical and I encourage you to pull back a bit and look at things from a different angle. Never read Dostoevsky, but I think from that scenario that it can also be read that his heroes are admirable because they insist on doing the right thing despite the risk of the world tearing them apart. By your logic then, Dostoevsky's heroes fit that ideal. Dala and I were talking the other day, about people doing the right thing, and we both joked that we're in a bit of a catch 22. More people would do the right thing if it was easier and there was less risk involved, but in order for that to happen, we need more people to do the right thing. So for now, our hopes rest on the brave and the bold and the stubborn who insist on doing the right thing. Our hopes rest on the ripples of their actions and the ripples of the hopes of others. In doing so, we're able to live in a country where there's two pandemics going on (covid and the pandemic of despair), economic hardships everywhere you turn, political polarization so strong it's insane, and yet in the past two months we've made more progress towards minority rights and police and criminal reform than we've seen in the last decade.The reason I mention and recommend Dostoevsky again is that all of his books examine how completely the world will tear you apart again and again for doing the right thing, in ways it never could have done if you never went out into the world. His heroes are tragic because they will never learn to act differently because of it.
I don't believe that anyone is really a good person until it's hard for them to be a good person.
Which isn't a theme exclusive to that novel. But look, "realistically" and "truthfully," in the real world, that's not the a good metric. People can be good yet still flawed, hold all sorts of dichotomies in themselves, in their thoughts, and in their behaviors without ever warranting titles such as "hypocrite" or "bad person." I know people who want the best for their kids and go out of their way to try and give them every opportunity they can, but at the same time feel like supporting public schools so other kids can have similar opportunities shouldn't be their responsibility. I know people who are kind, generous, and charitable, and extremely concerned for the happiness and the well being of people in their lives, but at the same time argue against social safety net programs. I know people who have very strong sense of right and wrong and do their best to live by those ideals, but are quick to judge and condemn anyone who can't keep pace with them. Even those with the kindest of hearts and the best of intentions and who want nothing but good things for the world and the people in it have their flaws, short comings, and blind spots. Dostoevsky is allowed his world view. I bet it's complex and compelling, I bet it's poetic. But I don't think it reflects reality. People are good, not because they choose to be in times of convenience or in times of adversity, but because they want to be. That's the true metric. Everything else is circumstance. It's up to each of us, both as individuals as well as collectively, to do what we can to help empower others to be good, to do the right thing. Hence the Catch 22.A large, recurring theme in that novel is that, to truly live a life of goodness, you must know and acknowledge everything that the cynical man believes and decide, simultaneously, while acknowledging that, to love the world anyway.
Dostoevsky is a poet. But if that quote is exemplary of his philosophy, then I wonder if he really knows what makes someone "good." Wanting to be a good person is what makes someone a good person. It is the very beginning, the spark, the catalyst, that can drive their hopes, their thoughts, their words, their actions, their whole being towards goodness. For most people though, we cannot expect them to develop goodness through sheer force of will. It has to be developed and nurtured and brought forth, by educating people about what is important and just, by encouraging them and inspiring them through our actions and examples of goodness in the world that surrounds us, and by empowering them by not only creating an environment that promotes good behavior, but by creating opportunities for them to make choices that allow them to express their good will, their generosity, their kindness, their humility. Goodness in a person is more than just the product of personal choices, it is a reflection of the world they live in. It's incumbent upon all of us to help build that world.
I'm not getting defensive. I'm saying that what makes a good person is more than just the choices they make and I never said that people aren't allowed to be flawed or make bad choices. In fact, just the opposite. By saying that all that a person requires to be good is the desire to be good, they're given all the space in the world to be flawed and make mistakes because their choices and actions and mistakes and flaws haven't even been factored into the equation, yet. Eventually, their actions have to reflect their desires, but like I said, the desire is the catalyst. Philosophically, we're on similar pages but not. Being good and loving isn't about active or passive choices, because those are conditions of living we all go through whether we want to be good or not. The same is true of feelings of frustration and of attempting things and brushing up with failure. But that's part of the point. The frustrations and failures? We need those in our lives. They keep us humble, they make us cautious. More importantly though, they make us forgiving, so that we can first learn to forgive ourselves for the mistakes we make and learn to try to right our wrongs, and in doing so we learn how to forgive others and help them express contrition and grow as individuals. And thus, we further shape the world in a mindset that encourages people to be good, because instead of making people feel like they're condemned to their failures and flaws, we give them the opportunity to try again.
Here's the issue we're coming across. I'm not talking past you, you're talking past me. I'm not worried about what Dostoevsky thinks at this moment and I'm not worried about what Kierkegaard thinks at this moment. If I did, I'd pick up their books, read about what they have to say, and form my own opinions on their opinions. What occupies my mind, in this, are your thoughts and feelings on the matter, you, Odder, as a person. I've been trying to tease it out of you, first by bringing up the concept of what makes a person good. Then by bringing up the concept of why we fall short of our intent to be good and what why it's important we try to overcome it. Then by bringing up the concept of social contentedness and our responsibility to ourselves and each other to shape our environment to empower others to be good. Then by bringing up the issue of why we struggle, why we fail, why we suffer, and why those hardships matter. I figure sooner or later detachment could be brought up, if you really wanted to have this conversation with me. There is a lot of depth to this conversation to explore, because I've had these conversations before and I love exploring these issues, but instead you say this . . . Instead of having a conversation, you keep on leaning back into your original argument, instead of branching out, you're outright saying "I'm gonna be dismissive of your thoughts on the matter and consider them invalid until you read Dostoevsky (and now Kierkegaard)." I don't want to be "indulged" I want to have a conversation. I want to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points" and I want you to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points." But we don't get to have that, because apparently, in order to earn your respect I have to read Dostoevsky, as if that matters more than being an individual with his own books he's read, his own thoughts, his own experiences with triumphs and hardships, his own worldview. I mean, legit? I could try and talk about r/politics and where that anger comes from and what we can do about it. But why would I want to at this point? You seem to be more interested in championing the thoughts of dead men, however insightful and compelling they might be, than carrying a conversation with a live human being who is more interested in what you have to say. That's not healthy friend, not in the slightest, and it's part of why the world is what it is today. I'm not saying you're an r/politics kind of person, but I will say part of the reason people in r/politics are so angry is because they're more concerned about being able to crow about their worldviews than they are trying to actively engage and connect with the world. I could read Dostoevsky, but I don't want to. I got all the time in the world for that. I want to talk to Odder, because that's here and now.And regardless of whether or not you ultimately decide you agree with the Existentialist definitions of "Faith" and "Love," you will need to come to terms with them before you can decide if you agree with them or not. Otherwise we'll just keep talking past each other after a certain point.
I sincerely hope that I'm not coming off as condescending here when I say that you haven't even yet grasped what I'm talking about - the idea of Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith" and Dostoevsky's "Active Love" are complex philosophical ideas that take a rather large amount of effort to comes to terms with, and I am doing them a bit of a disservice by indulging you here instead of just telling you to study the course that I linked five-ish posts ago.
No. You start with the abstract and drill down. We're going in circles because you don't want to drill. If you're telling me to go read Plato and Descartes, then no, you don't want to have a discussion. What you're saying is "I'm right. I don't value your thoughts. Go read these guys to see why I'm right. Conversations with you aren't worth it." Personal stuff edited out Honestly? If it wasn't for my wife and loving friends? I'd be one of those "deaths of despair" statistics you read about in the morning news and then tut tut to yourself about how the world is so cruel. I don't need to read Dostoevsky, because my life might as well be one of his novels. I want a conversation because these are concepts I care about. You want me to validate your worldview. So now there's no conversation, not because I'm mad at you, but because we can't agree on the conditions as to how this conversation should take place.Here's the problem with philosophical discussion, though - if you just discuss things in the abstract you'll be limited on where you can go and who you can learn from. We're already going in circles here
I'm happy to have those conversations with you even though I could just tell you to start with Plato and Descartes.
Because the arguments you are making? They're the kind of positions you take because you haven't lived them
I'm not mad. But honestly? You're being so dismissively condescending and assumptive of me that it's honestly baffling. I'm overwhelmed. Look at me, I'm not over here assuming and stating your positions for you so you have to waste your time taking them apart. Dude. Seriously? First of all, massively insulting. Second of all, I'm not the one who approaches conversations like "in order to have a conversation with me, you should read some Baha'i Writings, The Quran from cover to cover, a little bit of Tich Nach Hahn, some Saint Augustine." I can easily say "this is what I think and why" and when asked, expand on those thoughts. If you were to ask "Where did you get such an idea" I can often cite chapter and verse. I mean, the fact that you say "I can't talk with you about these things until you read these authors first" hints that you have less of a concrete grasp on your world view than I do on mine. Furthermore, I never asked you to expand on Dostoevsky, or existentialism, or anything of the sort. You just keep pushing the subject. Mercy. I mean, on I can go, but honestly? To be blunt? I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here, but make you understand the reality of the situation? You're being a condescending asshole. Like, massive, to the point of where everything you just typed is less of a conversation and more of an experiment in surrealist prose. I'm baffled. Utterly baffled. When you come here with your intro philosophy 101 student ideas of the nature of "goodness" and ask for debate without any references, you are being asked to be indulged without needing to learn.
Let's back up to two core arguments. First, mine: Next, yours and the reason we're still having a disagreement: I've given you several examples now of how my business is facing consequences for championing minorities - not from those minorities, but from other members of the majority trying to score purity points by dunking on each other to win the Wokeness Sweepstakes. You're bringing Dostoevsky into the mix. in the abstract you're arguing for the justness of publicly attacking anyone who doesn't toe the purity line properly because if they're anywhere near it, it's because of opportunism and the world exists to tear down good people anyway. In the concrete I'm arguing that the tendency for woker-than-thous to attack anyone who doesn't abide by their terms of inclusion drives the fence-sitters in the opposite direction. You mention Lawrence Krauss, I mention the literal hundreds of hours I had to sink into this (after my second vacation in twenty years was skunked) in order to not suffer permanent professional damage. Fundamentally? Discussions prior to the Internet were along the lines of "Hey I wish you wouldn't do that." Now those discussions are "Hey internet destroy this person for thinking mauve is lighter than magenta!" And I know you want to feel okay with being angry at strangers on the Internet because other strangers on the internet tell you to? But it's fucking corrosive. That's my whole point. No need to invoke Crime & Punishment, which I read 150 pages of before I decided that everyone that kept recommending Russian literature to me was an asshole.And the problem is, the language needs to change and the attitudes need to change but the people trying the hardest to champion usually end up being the ones being corrected the most because they're willing to put in the work.
It's the people who go out of their way to be loudly wrong about these issues who get their platform taken away, not those who are caught using the wrong pronouns or wrong words for things.
Just because the mob's been around forever doesn't mean we should accept mob behavior. That's my major point: "I hate you because my gang hates you" is never going to change anyone's mind in the direction you want it to go. And if you want change rather than self-satisfaction you need to encourage communication, not accept condemnation. Fuckin'A Tsarist Russia was bleak that's why my great great grandfather Mordechai emigrated.