multifariaceMar 1
Nothing in my comment has anything to do woth someone’s right to exist. My comments have been about how they are treated. Nothing in my comments has been about trans people needing to justify themselves. Your perception of this is way off from reality. That is because of feelings overwhelming your communication. I’m sorry you are so hurt. Please try to stop seeing the world as dichotomous. It is far from it.
Show threadfossilesqueMar 1

Ah, and there it is. You have proven my point, yet again, better than I ever could.

“In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?”

You just told me my anger is the problem and that my feelings are “overwhelming my communication.” That I should stop seeing the world as dichotomous. In other words: the person naming the injustice is responsible for the discomfort caused by naming it. You tone police the objection so you never have to address the objection itself, and your response to being told you were handling it badly was to diagnose my emotional state.

letterfromjail.com

Letter from Birmingham Jail, by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter to 8 white church leaders, written from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

Show threadmultifariace

You continue to add context that I did not give. Try going back and reading carefully to see how incorrect you are. That is why I say feelings cannot work alone. They fill in blanks with biases rather than asking why. For example, why do you believe I think anger is a problem? In all the context I have said feelings are important. The only feelings I have mentioned is hurt. How can you not be by the state of the world? I am. Also, your writing has tone that would appear as such. This is called empathy.

I deal with all kinds of people all the time. It is more common than not for bias to get in the way of communication. Feelings are a major player here. I’d like to recommmend reading some neuroscience. I am a fan of Jonathan Haidt. His books have helped me understand a lot of this. The Righteous Mind is a great start. Also, understanding how falacies work is very helpful.

King’s letters from jail are great pieces of history but do not connect here. It doesn’t feel like you have been reading what I have written and are even fabricating meaning. So again, I have no idea what your point is or if it has anything to do with mine?

Mar 1 at 10:15pmWeb
Show threadfossilesqueMar 1

You just recommended Jonathan Haidt, a man whose entire thesis is that we should empathise with the moral intuitions of people who oppose civil rights, as a corrective to my reading of MLK. I don’t think you’ve understood either of them. He has been extensively criticised for false equivalence on exactly these kinds of questions.

behavioralscientist.org/whats-wrong-with-moral-fo…

Moral psychology and civil rights protesters: Exemplary, different, and mad -> compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…/spc3.12915 This one specifically talks about MLK and Haidt’s pet theory.

What’s Wrong with Moral Foundations Theory, and How to get Moral Psychology Right - Behavioral Scientist

Moral Foundations Theory has theoretical and empirical weaknesses argues Oliver Scott Curry. He proposes a new theory of morality.

Behavioral Scientist
Show threadmultifariaceMar 1
Criticism is a good thing! That is where I am coming from. And no, it is not a correction to your reading. I did not see any connection from the letters to our conversation. I reference Haidt because he has helped me to begin understanding how so many people around me are thinking. As I said earlier, I care. I care about everyone and want the best for them. This does not mean I think they have good intentions or that they should not be corrected. It just gives a place to start. I did make a joke in my original comment that I see as similar to King’s “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” The law is obsurd, so should be the moral people.
Show threadfossilesqueMar 1
You are claiming empathy while using a framework that pathologises the people you claim to care about.