Pronoun use mostly by younger Canadians: Poll

[marshwiggle]

Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both).  The two often move in tandem...

And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.

What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.

[jimbogumbo]

marshwiggle: yes, we would be lascivious to some previous generations. Don't consider that nasty, just descriptive. Also descriptive: for most of its existence the US population as a whole has been accurately described compared to now (of course, IMO) as homophobic and racist. So in those two regards I (again, my view) see the US now as better on those two measures.

[mahagonny]

Statistic: hate crimes against white people are up sharply over the last three years...https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/fbi-report-shows-41-increase-in-hate-crimes-with-anti-white-bias

[jimbogumbo]

The FBI database also shows intimidation against Blacks slightly more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 (849 to 1710). I'm guessing a change in reporting.

[Parasaurolophus]

Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both).  The two often move in tandem...

And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.

What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.

IIRC, one of the favourite pastimes of 16th-century Parisians involved setting a live cat on fire and playing hot potato with it (in the streets). They did not recognize that as wrong (in part because they believed animals could not feel pain, since they hadn't committed original sin). But it was, and their failure to recognize it as wrong reflects poorly on them.

More generally, if your argument is that because early 20th-century Europeans/North Americans would have thought us lascivious, but contemporary Europeans/North Americans don't, then there's no such thing as an objective standard of lasciviousness or morality... well, I'll content myself with observing that the argument is invalid. And noticing that it's invalid is purely a matter of the argument's formal properties, not of its content--which means that even if we can't pinpoint an objective standard of lasciviousness/morality, that doesn't matter. The conclusion still doesn't follow from the premises. I can translate it into first-order logic if that'll help, since I know you're a computer scientist. It's just logic gates, basically.

[little bongo]

Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.

"Progressives" didn't invent this yesterday. Decent, thoughtful, intelligent people have been doing this for decades. (Actually, probably more like millennia, across all kinds of cultures. All kinds of "wisdom literature" contain advice about things like "not judging a book by its cover.)  The idea that there are people who, for any number of reasons, go under the radar isn't remotely novel. And there are dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with "identity" categories.

The arrogance of acting like no-one ever thought of this before is what gets particular younger progressives dismissed as annoying and self-righteous.

Are you saying I personally didn't invent goodness and decency? Hey, man, I've got a patent. Well, patent pending, anyway. Shall we say pistols at dawn?

Ah, well. Sorry you find looking for goodness to be annoying and self-righteous. Doesn't sound like a happy outlook. (Hey, I just concern-trolled a troll!)

I'm curious what makes me a troll. Is it due to my point of view or how I express it?

It's not about who thought or didn't think of this sort of thing before. It's who's doing it now, and who's doing it better. And yes, a lot of us are annoying, self-righteous sons-of-bitch. (I won't flatter myself to take on the description "younger.")

Even though I am a Christian, I almost always avoid "Christian" movies, books, etc. Even though I may agree with 90% of what they say, the preachiness makes it tedious to listen to. No wonder it makes other people even more averse to it.

WHY IS IT BOTHERSOME FOR PEOPLE TO USE ALL CAPS? In speech, loudness can be physically annoying, but I've never seen any research to indicate that the mere sight of upper case letters causes some adverse neurological reaction. The reason all-caps is annoying is that it implies that the person being addressed is somehow unwilling or incapable of comprehending what is being said without sustained additional emphasis. (Note: people who actually disagree aren't going to change their minds BECAUSE A POINT HAS BEEN MADE WITH MORE EMPHASIS!!!!!!)
People who already agree don't need to be nagged, and people who disagree will need some alternative approach since the current approach is clearly ineffective.

But overall I like what's happening among the "woke." I'll tell you something I learned from this fora:

I used to make fun of the convention of naming the indigenous peoples of the land from where you happen to be speaking when giving a presentation or a speech, for example. It seemed to me to be a performance of concern and righteousness--"virtue-signaling," if you will. Someone on the fora gave an example of an indigenous representative who expressed sincere gratitude for the naming. The act of naming and acknowledging truly meant something to that person.

At the very least, it's much more important to know how the majority of people in that community feel about it. (For example, most Black people don't agree with "defund the police", and most people of Latin American descent don't like the term LatinX. Using those terms is more for the benefit of the person saying it than for the people they are supposedly "supporting".)

What an amazing example of what we human beings can do for each other! And who's making an effort to do that? Who is trying to make that kind of behavior the norm rather than an exception?

So what kind of disrespectful behaviour is the norm? (See above for the point about what the majority of a community prefers. Something that is not the preference of the majority cannot logically have its absence considered disrespectful.)

Well, more or less in order:
1) For trolling, see this excerpt from Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew." For "anti-Semite," just substitute "Marshwiggle."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity

Also, check out the slang definition of "sealioning." You do that... well, a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

2) Christian messages are delivered in a large variety of ways. Some folks go for Christian movies, others not so much--they can go to church or study independently, for example. (I kind of like the movie "Soul Surfer," I have to admit.) And if you don't like the particular church or pastor, you can always find a different one. Pretty much the same deal with any religion, philosophy, or way of life you generally like, but don't care for the issues surrounding the particular organization, person, or group espousing it.

3) Lost me with the all-caps thing--not sure where you were going with that one.

4) I don't know that it's particularly fruitful to examine the deeper motives of would-be do-gooders. People very often do good deeds for their own self-esteem or their own benefit, and that doesn't really matter very much except perhaps to the individual and their own conscience.

5) What kind of disrespectful behavior is the norm? The kind of behavior where we're NOT listening, acknowledging, and including. That's why we have terms like "systemic racism."

And there we are.

[Kron3007]

Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both).  The two often move in tandem...

And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.

What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.

Yes, my grandparents would not approve of my Brother's life choices for example.  They may very well have disowned him if the timing was different.  I think that is wrong.

When I look back at my childhood and the jokes we told, they were homophobic, and some were racist.  It was also wrong, but pretty common place at the time.

In both cases, I don't really put the blame on the individuals, it reflects the cultural norms of the time. Regardless, they are still homophobic/racist actions.

The point of calling previous generations is not any sort of personal attack, just a recognition of the facts.  If you don't recognize historical wrongs as such, how can we move forward?.  Slavery was once accepted, most people now agree that it was wrong and racist.  It was common place for thousands of years, and I don't necessarily blame individuals for participating, but fully acknowledge that it is a racist practice and wrong.

Do you disagree that previous generations were more homophobic and racist?

[marshwiggle]

Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both).  The two often move in tandem...

And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.

What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.

Yes, my grandparents would not approve of my Brother's life choices for example.  They may very well have disowned him if the timing was different.  I think that is wrong.

When I look back at my childhood and the jokes we told, they were homophobic, and some were racist.  It was also wrong, but pretty common place at the time.

In both cases, I don't really put the blame on the individuals, it reflects the cultural norms of the time.

The important thing about that is to see how individuals were in relation to their culture. We can learn from the stories of individuals, even flawed ones, by looking at the ways that they influenced their own cultures. (For instance, apparently MLK was a womanizer. Does that negate all that he did for the civil rights movement? Or, does that need to be suppressed in order that he can have a "pure" legacy? Was he either a sexist or a civil rights hero? Can he be both?)
   

Regardless, they are still homophobic/racist actions.

The point of calling previous generations is not any sort of personal attack, just a recognition of the facts.  If you don't recognize historical wrongs as such, how can we move forward?.  Slavery was once accepted, most people now agree that it was wrong and racist.  It was common place for thousands of years, and I don't necessarily blame individuals for participating, but fully acknowledge that it is a racist practice and wrong.

Do you disagree that previous generations were more homophobic and racist?

If we only view history through the homogenized lens of culture, without looking at the actions of individuals relative to their cultures, then all generations will eventually be written off by later ones.

Well, more or less in order:
1) For trolling, see this excerpt from Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew." For "anti-Semite," just substitute "Marshwiggle."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity

Also, check out the slang definition of "sealioning." You do that... well, a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

From the wikipedia entry:

The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate", so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.

When do I act as the aggrieved party? (FWIW, I'm not "aggrieved" now; I'm curious.)

3) Lost me with the all-caps thing--not sure where you were going with that one.

The point of the all-caps thing was that being louder and/or more shrill does not make people more likely to change their minds. (Rather the reverse, from everything I've read.) So things like calling people <whatever>-ists or <whatever>-phobes is intended to shame or shock people into changing their minds, but its main effect seems to be to get people to be quiet and keep their heads down, rather than to actually change their minds. (Opinion polls often show significantly different results than "consensus" on social media, for instance.)

5) What kind of disrespectful behavior is the norm? The kind of behavior where we're NOT listening, acknowledging, and including. That's why we have terms like "systemic racism."

And there we are.

Where is the norm to not listen and include? Every community organization, institution, etc. has for years been hiring, appointing, promoting, etc. in order to move away from the homogeneity of the past.