6 ms·

I don't see how this is on-topic in the slightest, nor how this could lead to any form of useful discussion on this site. Regardless, if you agree with the art

by mdszy 6y ago

I don't see how this is on-topic in the slightest, nor how this could lead to any form of useful discussion on this site. Regardless, if you agree with the article wholeheartedly, maybe stop to consider why you're getting more worked up over destruction of some property than over the decades-long oppression of black, hispanic and other minority communities by the police.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think there's a discussion worth having on the increasing trend towards argument by analogy, where we judge things as good or bad based not on a concrete analysis of their effects but whether we can attach a label like "violence" to them. It's obviously prone to dragging people into political slapfights (which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!), but I don't know if that should be a disqualifier; a lot of important topics have that quality.
- mdszy 6y ago
  > which I see you're excited to engage in yourself! There is nothing in my comment that indicates that I'm looking to engage in a "political slapfight" - that's entirely your deal.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I have no interest in engaging myself, but I encourage you to reread the last line of your comment and consider how it comes across to people who don't agree with your perspective.
    - mdszy 6y ago
      So you're saying that you think that some property is more important than murders of innocent people by police that have been going on for decades? If that's not what you're saying, you should make yourself clear. Because you imply that you don't agree with my perspective, which I think is pretty straightforward and clear - people are more important than property.
      - blotter_paper 6y ago
        I, for one, both agree with your perspective and see how the last sentence of your original comment could be taken as engaging in a "political slapfight" (a pretty vague term) when viewed from the other side. I think being able to view the world from the eyes of the other is a useful skill, even when the other is a literal fascist -- I'm not even arguing that you should necessarily come across differently, just that you should understand how you may come across to people with different perspectives.
        diffrinse 6y ago
        Or, put another way, you can't say one side's behavior is historically determined but not the other's.
        blotter_paper 6y ago
        While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.
        diffrinse 6y ago
        Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product of history
        blotter_paper 6y ago
        No prob, but if mdszy reads this I want to explicitly note that this is not meant as a caricature of their statement, I'm just trying to distill my meaning down into the most simple terms I can muster. Alice buys a status symbol instead of donating to a charity. Bob says "Alice, stop and think about whether you care more about status symbols than charities!" Even if I agree with Bob's implicit condemnation, I can still see how Alice would feel attacked by the wording. Perhaps Bob wants Alice to feel attacked (this could be an attempt to jar Alice into recognizing her own greed), but it does Bob no good to not understand how he might be perceived by Alice. If Bob understands how he will be perceived then he will be able to craft his message in more useful ways -- ways that I would expect to be significantly friendlier on average, but which may sometimes actually be more combative. Ignorance of the perspectives of others does the message writer no good. I also feel like I agree with your point, which is significantly more empathetic and less realpolitik than mine.

by mdszy 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I think there's a discussion worth having on the increasing trend towards argument by analogy, where we judge things as good or bad based not on a concrete analysis of their effects but whether we can attach a label like "violence" to them. It's obviously prone to dragging people into political slapfights (which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!), but I don't know if that should be a disqualifier; a lot of important topics have that quality.

mdszy 6y ago
> which I see you're excited to engage in yourself! There is nothing in my comment that indicates that I'm looking to engage in a "political slapfight" - that's entirely your deal.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I have no interest in engaging myself, but I encourage you to reread the last line of your comment and consider how it comes across to people who don't agree with your perspective.
  - mdszy 6y ago
    So you're saying that you think that some property is more important than murders of innocent people by police that have been going on for decades? If that's not what you're saying, you should make yourself clear. Because you imply that you don't agree with my perspective, which I think is pretty straightforward and clear - people are more important than property.
    - blotter_paper 6y ago
      I, for one, both agree with your perspective and see how the last sentence of your original comment could be taken as engaging in a "political slapfight" (a pretty vague term) when viewed from the other side. I think being able to view the world from the eyes of the other is a useful skill, even when the other is a literal fascist -- I'm not even arguing that you should necessarily come across differently, just that you should understand how you may come across to people with different perspectives.
      - diffrinse 6y ago
        Or, put another way, you can't say one side's behavior is historically determined but not the other's.
        blotter_paper 6y ago
        While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.
        diffrinse 6y ago
        Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product of history
        blotter_paper 6y ago
        No prob, but if mdszy reads this I want to explicitly note that this is not meant as a caricature of their statement, I'm just trying to distill my meaning down into the most simple terms I can muster. Alice buys a status symbol instead of donating to a charity. Bob says "Alice, stop and think about whether you care more about status symbols than charities!" Even if I agree with Bob's implicit condemnation, I can still see how Alice would feel attacked by the wording. Perhaps Bob wants Alice to feel attacked (this could be an attempt to jar Alice into recognizing her own greed), but it does Bob no good to not understand how he might be perceived by Alice. If Bob understands how he will be perceived then he will be able to craft his message in more useful ways -- ways that I would expect to be significantly friendlier on average, but which may sometimes actually be more combative. Ignorance of the perspectives of others does the message writer no good. I also feel like I agree with your point, which is significantly more empathetic and less realpolitik than mine.