Lets all Get along.

[blue bunny sparkle]

Here have a free hug.  ;D

Commere and get a hug!


Please know Lustful Bride that you are not alone in your wishes! I have also wished the same many, many times before, and too often have gotten the same kinds of responses as to why it could never work. For most people, I think, something like that is hard to imagine. But because it is hard, does that take away the need or the value in such a thing?

Here is a little example, poorly told...

I lived in NYC during 9/11. Before that day you could walk down the street, sit on the subway, do all sorts of things and no one would notice you. Rare was the person that would make eye contact. Everyone lived in a separate mental space (which is normal when a bajillion people are crammed onto one little island). After the Towers fell, that changed. People worked together to make a difference, to try to make life normal again, to help where they could. People noticed each other, made eye contact and offered compassion, whether silent or verbalized. It no longer mattered about race, about income, about sex, about any of that other stuff.

And it was horribly beautiful. It took a terrible toll to bring that many people together, and people responded to tragedy with love and hope and compassion. Not just for their families, but for complete strangers, with nothing in common. They pulled together and cared, and consoled.

I saw horrible things, but I saw beautiful, amazing acts of kindness too.

Time passes and people forget, and things go back to what they were before... but I saw people working together peacefully. I saw compassion for others. It does exist... even if its just for a little while. And that gives me hope.

[Cycle]

Funny, I've always had far more success being nice than I have being demanding. 

And no one, no one, has ever made the mistake of thinking me being nice was me being weak.  If anything, it's the opposite.


Lustful Bride, thanks for putting this up.

[Sheoldred]

Wouldn't there be more to it than just being nice if people thought you were weak? For example, maybe you also appear anxious. I think there are many more factors involved.

[Kythia]

The thing is, Kythia... sure, I might not be able to convince you. (I might; there are actually examples of people going "Holy shit that pissed people off, maybe there's something to it", but I'll admit that's the minority.) But on the Internet, there's an audience for every conversation. Even if I don't convince you, I help build my side - which translates back into real-world action. I cite the example of harassment policies at atheist conventions as an example of greater real-world equality brought on directly by righteous anger on the Internet.

Yes, and I specifically mention

Building outrage amongst your "side"

as a situation where tone concerns aren't applicable.  Your comments about the minority who are persuaded to it nowithstanding - and I'd still submit that its not the most effective method - I did limit the applicability to:

Genuine disagreement on the internet 

We, you and I, disagree on topics but have had some relatively pleasant talks about them.  That wouldn't have happened had either of us adopted an aggressive tone and both of us would have been denied the insights of the other. 

You can cry "tone police" as loud as you will, but tone of communication is important; if you want to strike a dialogue it needs considering (and, Steampunnkette, precisely how many dialogues have you had with newspapers and radio shows?  With people on the internet?  They are inherently different: the internet, at least in the way I was using it, is interactive.  Think about it that way).  Claiming a "tonal fallacy" if someone doesn't want to listen to you because of your tone is missing the point - its a fallacy, sure, but your goal isn't to win points in a "who makes the least fallacies" competition, its to actually be heard and understood.  The internet is easier to ignore, easier to insulate yourself in, than other methods.

Steampunkette - in addition to the above, I think you missed my sense of humour there.  Also, I think you were weirdly aggressive about it, even given that.  Sorry if I touched a nerve, obvi it was unintentional.

EDIT:  Wrote "effusive" rather than "effective" for some reason.  *shug*

[Marchoisas]

Funny, I've always had far more success being nice than I have being demanding. 

And no one, no one, has ever made the mistake of thinking me being nice was me being weak.  If anything, it's the opposite.

Then you are VERY lucky, and I envy you. Thats all I can say. My experiences were quite diferent. Then again, I supose its easier for a man then for a woman to be nice and not being perceived as weak, because thats how the misguided societal norms have conditioned us to see things, thru-out history. I tend to pick and choose very carefuly vho I'm going to be nice towards and vho I keep firmly at arms length, depending on the sort of "vibe" I get from them. And my instinct is rarely vrong there.

[Ephiral]

Yes, and I specifically mention

as a situation where tone concerns aren't applicable.

I'm not talking about building outrage among my side. I'm talking about building my side.

Your comments about the minority who are persuaded to it nowithstanding - and I'd still submit that its not the most effective method - I did limit the applicability to:

Disclaimer: I'm not going to debate the merits of the groups I mention here in this thread; that would be a massive derail.

There is a "genuine disagreement" between GamerGate and people who think women should be able to contibute meaningfully in the video game industry. There is a "genuine disagreement" between the Slymepit and people who think women have value in atheism. Does that mean we shouldn't raise our voices or get angry at a literal deluge of silencing tactics, threats, attempts to destroy lives and careers, etc?

We, you and I, disagree on topics but have had some relatively pleasant talks about them.  That wouldn't have happened had either of us adopted an aggressive tone and both of us would have been denied the insights of the other. 

You can cry "tone police" as loud as you will, but tone of communication is important; if you want to strike a dialogue it needs considering (and, Steampunnkette, precisely how many dialogues have you had with newspapers and radio shows?  With people on the internet?  They are inherently different: the internet, at least in the way I was using it, is interactive.  Think about it that way).  Claiming a "tonal fallacy" if someone doesn't want to listen to you because of your tone is missing the point - its a fallacy, sure, but your goal isn't to win points in a "who makes the least fallacies" competition, its to actually be heard and understood.  The internet is easier to ignore, easier to insulate yourself in, than other methods.

Sure, tone is worth considering if you want a clam, reasonable dialogue. But, looking at my earlier examples again, I'm not so sure there's a calm, reasonable dialogue to be had on the subject of "Should women be harassed to the point of psychological breakdown or fear for their lives?"

More importantly, and this is the difference between deciding to take a calmer tone and tone policing, you don't get to decide which issues I'm allowed to get angry over.

[Kythia]

I'm not talking about building outrage among my side. I'm talking about building my side.

Yeah, through the mechanism of righteous anger. 

Disclaimer: I'm not going to debate the merits of the groups I mention here in this thread; that would be a massive derail.

There is a "genuine disagreement" between GamerGate and people who think women should be able to contibute meaningfully in the video game industry. There is a "genuine disagreement" between the Slymepit and people who think women have value in atheism. Does that mean we shouldn't raise our voices or get angry at a literal deluge of silencing tactics, threats, attempts to destroy lives and careers, etc?
Sure, tone is worth considering if you want a clam, reasonable dialogue. But, looking at my earlier examples again, I'm not so sure there's a calm, reasonable dialogue to be had on the subject of "Should women be harassed to the point of psychological breakdown or fear for their lives?"

This is, once again, not what I'm saying.  Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation with them?  No?  Well I don't see how this is related to my points about tone of voice being important for a reasonable conversation then.

More importantly, and this is the difference between deciding to take a calmer tone and tone policing, you don't get to decide which issues I'm allowed to get angry over.

Granted.  And I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out that freedom of speech isn't the same as guaranteed audience.

ETA:
I'm in a foul mood and I may well be talking it out on this ironically inappropriate thread now I think on it.  Pretty much made my point as best I can anyway, gonna exile myself from here til at least tomorrow.

[Ephiral]

Not expecting an immediate response, but gonna get this down so it's out there.

Yeah, through the mechanism of righteous anger.

So we're agreed that there's a difference between rallying the troops and recruitment, then. Perhaps we're disagreeing on whether the latter can be done through anger?

This is, once again, not what I'm saying.  Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation with them?  No?  Well I don't see how this is related to my points about tone of voice being important for a reasonable conversation then.

But that's not what you were saying.  In fact, this is the first time in this thread that you've mentioned "reasonable conversation" at all. What you were saying is that righteous anger does not work on the Internet, full stop.

Granted.  And I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out that freedom of speech isn't the same as guaranteed audience.

Sorry, generic "you" was probably not clear in what I said. But - and this is the point I was trying to make originally - "Let's all get along!" is frequently used as a bludgeon and a silencing tactic. Before deploying it, one should be aware of whether or not the underlying issue something that is possible and just to "just get along" over.

[Oniya]

Y'know, I'm looking at the first post in this thread, and these last two pages (and the thread is only three pages long!) and can't help but think that it has been wildly hijacked from the OP's intention.  A few people have posted things that show they understand what the OP was talking about, but very few have even approached the idea of how just making the human connection between people can make a difference.  Maybe not a huge difference or an immediate difference, but a difference.

[Cycle]

Thanks, Oniya.

[Ephiral]

I, um... wow, you're absolutely right, Oniya. I'm so used to seeing it used as a weapon that I kneejerked instead of appreciating the actual context. My apologies to everyone in this thread, and a hug in celebration of everything we have to share to anyone who'll have one.

[Lustful Bride]

Y'know, I'm looking at the first post in this thread, and these last two pages (and the thread is only three pages long!) and can't help but think that it has been wildly hijacked from the OP's intention.  A few people have posted things that show they understand what the OP was talking about, but very few have even approached the idea of how just making the human connection between people can make a difference.  Maybe not a huge difference or an immediate difference, but a difference.

Thank you! Could not have said it better myself.  ;D

I just didn't want to start anything or spread more negative feelings and such.

[Remiel]

I find it hilarious, and also more than a little ironic, that a thread entitled "Let's all get along" has provoked such passionate disagreement.   It kind of reminds me of the quote from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series:  "If God had said, 'Let there be light,' He'd have gotten no further because of all the people demanding, 'what colour?' "

I think the point that Lustful Bride was trying to make with her original post was that although we all may disagree on things, quite strongly in some cases, that is no reason for us to be dicks to each other.  You can take a stand for what you believe in and still manage to remain respectful and civil while doing so.   Yes, social change does sometimes require people to stand up and say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"  and yes, sometimes you have to make people uncomfortable, or inconvenience them, in order to upset the status quo.   But there is a difference, a world of difference, between making people uncomfortable and attacking their person, property, or reputation.

Take Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.   Both are famous examples of civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience.  King organized marches, sit-ins, and boycotts, but he never advocated violence.  Gandhi rallied his supporters and went on a hunger strike in order to bring about his nation's independence.  Both effected real, substantial social change while still taking the path of civility.

That's what I think Lustful Bride meant, and what I think Kythia was trying to say.   We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to afford each other a modicum of respect if we wish to engage in actual, productive debate.   Otherwise the discussion quickly devolves into pointless and childish insult-slinging.


I should probably end my post here, but I simply have to comment on this:

What we think about as "Human Nature" is actually thousands of years of capitalist society being applied to cultural norms. Greed is a trait of "Primal Human Nature" because we're trained from birth to perceive objects as owned and that objects can be traded for other objects. So of course it's best to get as many objects as possible so you can have enough for ... whatever.

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more.  We're not trained from birth to be selfish bastards; quite the contrary, I believe that we're all Selfish Bastards by default.   Have you ever sat and watched little kids interact?  Kids are not naturally inclined to share.  Everything is "mine!"  Mine, mine mine.  That toy is mine, this cookie is mine.   No, quite the converse, we have to be taught to share, to sympathize, to be unselfish.   The fact that we're not all out there fighting each other over a scrap of meat is because human beings learned, through many thousands of years of evolution, that while selfish behavior may profit you more than unselfish behavior in the short term, in the long term you're better off cooperating with your neighbor. (E.g. The Prisoner's Dilemma).  And thus society has evolved, to the point where we have Nutella and the Shamwow.  But all other things being equal, half of us would still rather save the life of our pet than the life of a human stranger.  That tells me that, trappings of civilization aside, we're still all Selfish Bastards at our core.

Capitalism is just a way of harnessing that selfish nature to drive technological  and economic advancement, like using a yoke and harness on a horse to drive a plough.  Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and all that.    To paraphrase the great Winston Churchill, Capitalism is the worst economic model known to mankind--except for all of the other ones that have been tried.

[Ephiral]

I think the point that Lustful Bride was trying to make with her original post was that although we all may disagree on things, quite strongly in some cases, that is no reason for us to be dicks to each other.  You can take a stand for what you believe in and still manage to remain respectful and civil while doing so.   Yes, social change does sometimes require people to stand up and say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"  and yes, sometimes you have to make people uncomfortable, or inconvenience them, in order to upset the status quo.   But there is a difference, a world of difference, between making people uncomfortable and attacking their person, property, or reputation.

Take Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.   Both are famous examples of civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience.  King organized marches, sit-ins, and boycotts, but he never advocated violence.  Gandhi rallied his supporters and went on a hunger strike in order to bring about his nation's independence.  Both effected real, substantial social change while still taking the path of civility.

If you count attacks on reputation as 'uncivil', then I think you're wrong here. The entire point of Gandhi's campaign, for example, was to shame Britain into doing the right thing - to make them see that they were, frankly, being horrible people, and tear down their reputation and self-image as the Great Civilizers. That is neither polite nor respectful - in fact, it could be phrased as "I cannot respect you while you do these things."

[Lustful Bride]

I find it hilarious, and also more than a little ironic, that a thread entitled "Let's all get along" has provoked such passionate disagreement.   It kind of reminds me of the quote from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series:  "If God had said, 'Let there be light,' He'd have gotten no further because of all the people demanding, 'what colour?' "

I think the point that Lustful Bride was trying to make with her original post was that although we all may disagree on things, quite strongly in some cases, that is no reason for us to be dicks to each other.  You can take a stand for what you believe in and still manage to remain respectful and civil while doing so.   Yes, social change does sometimes require people to stand up and say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"  and yes, sometimes you have to make people uncomfortable, or inconvenience them, in order to upset the status quo.   But there is a difference, a world of difference, between making people uncomfortable and attacking their person, property, or reputation.

Take Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.   Both are famous examples of civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience.  King organized marches, sit-ins, and boycotts, but he never advocated violence.  Gandhi rallied his supporters and went on a hunger strike in order to bring about his nation's independence.  Both effected real, substantial social change while still taking the path of civility.

That's what I think Lustful Bride meant, and what I think Kythia was trying to say.   We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to afford each other a modicum of respect if we wish to engage in actual, productive debate.   Otherwise the discussion quickly devolves into pointless and childish insult-slinging.


I should probably end my post here, but I simply have to comment on this:

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more.  We're not trained from birth to be selfish bastards; quite the contrary, I believe that we're all Selfish Bastards by default.   Have you ever sat and watched little kids interact?  Kids are not naturally inclined to share.  Everything is "mine!"  Mine, mine mine.  That toy is mine, this cookie is mine.   No, quite the converse, we have to be taught to share, to sympathize, to be unselfish.   The fact that we're not all out there fighting each other over a scrap of meat is because human beings learned, through many thousands of years of evolution, that while selfish behavior may profit you more than unselfish behavior in the short term, in the long term you're better off cooperating with your neighbor. (E.g. The Prisoner's Dilemma).  And thus society has evolved, to the point where we have Nutella and the Shamwow.  But all other things being equal, half of us would still rather save the life of our pet than the life of a human stranger.  That tells me that, trappings of civilization aside, we're still all Selfish Bastards at our core.

Capitalism is just a way of harnessing that selfish nature to drive technological  and economic advancement, like using a yoke and harness on a horse to drive a plough.  Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and all that.    To paraphrase the great Winston Churchill, Capitalism is the worst economic model known to mankind--except for all of the other ones that have been tried.

Again thank you! Almost exactly what I was trying to say, I just didn't have the words.

[Steampunkette]

The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but noncooperation and boycotts are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.
-Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957

MLKjr's weapon of choice: White Guilt.

American standards of what people consider "Rude" or "Civil" have changed, drastically, over the years. In the 20s standing silently in front of the White House's main gate holding signs that demanded action on Women's Suffrage was unthinkable and lead to mass arrests.

In the 50s and 60s sitting in a whites only restaraunt was enough to get you physically abused and arrested.

What is considered too aggressive or too angry has changed year after year, but the anger involved remains unchanged. And continues to push the boundaries of what is considered "Civil" along with it.

True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.
-Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955

[NenaShadowslayer]

I think that it would be great to have a world of peace. I know this at first will seem to have nothing to do with peace, but here I go. One day in my first period reading class, the teacher came in and asked "What would the your utopia be like?" Some kids answered that no one would hurt, some said that no one would starve, others said there would be no rules. After a while one of my friends said that "Utopia is impossible." He went on to explain that there are countries with no rules, but in those places, people are raped, stolen from and killed. He said that for utopia to work, everyone would have to have the same views on everything, and in a way, I agreed with him. Peace is unattainable because we each have a view that is uniquely ours. You view that the world needs to be peaceful, I hate wars, but for this world to have that peace, we'd have to first come to understand each other, which, from my own excarens, grown ups can't do, note I'm 19 right now. I'm a wiccan, I have christen friends, I have jew friends. I can see what peace is, and I have peace in my life. But I've meet grown ups who can't get past the fact that someone isn't like them...normally that doesn't include Wiccans and paggins, but that's because I've never meet one who would look at another and say 'because your a*insert what they are here* I can't be around you"...And mostly, all through history, the young don't understand the difference between color or race or religion. All they know is "I want a friend, your here, lets be friends." As for my own little peace, it's pretty funny. MY group is made of different religions and races, yet when we discuss anything about religion, we all have fun. So, I do have a good feeling that maybe, one day, a long time from now, the 'utopia' everyone wants will be possible. But in this time and age, no, not going to happen.

[Atarn]

I like "Can't we all just get along?"
Hell, as a Transhumanist at heart I believe it is a very important goal. And the keyword here is goal. We're not there yet, quite a good way to go really. However I've heard it tossed around a lot in my online days, and it's always the same...Which has made me a bit paranoid; "No no, don't give a damn about this controversial issue. Let's just all get along and keep the status quo!"
And that ,I am opposed to, pretending to be friends, pretending that everything is fine when it so damn clearly isn't.

[Lustful Bride]

I like "Can't we all just get along?"
Hell, as a Transhumanist at heart I believe it is a very important goal. And the keyword here is goal. We're not there yet, quite a good way to go really. However I've heard it tossed around a lot in my online days, and it's always the same...Which has made me a bit paranoid; "No no, don't give a damn about this controversial issue. Let's just all get along and keep the status quo!"
And that ,I am opposed to, pretending to be friends, pretending that everything is fine when it so damn clearly isn't.

Uhhhh youre missing the point.  :-\

I'm not saying ignore problems and stick your head in the sand. What I am saying is don't be an A-hole to other people because they are different by skin color, sexual orientation, religion, whatever. We are all Humans in the end and we should treat eachother like family and work things out like reasonable people.

And don't ever be down because someone else treated you that way, youre differences make you you.

[Ephiral]

Heh. I think everyone here is onboard with Wheaton's Law; some of us just need to point out that punching up isn't being a dick.