Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying

[King Ned Stark]

Dr. P, Theda,

How do we decide when it's assault, or just a rude prank?  There are rude and hateful people in every walk of life.  Doesn't setting different rules for one group, whatever group that might be (Muslim, Christian, etc.), a hindrance to equality?  Isn't equality for all what most decent people are after; whether right, left, or center?

[Dr. Pepper]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But if you could get folks to stop doing it by making them realize that it is rude in a sort of "common courtesy" sort of context, wouldn't you consider that to be progress of a sort?

The person the OP described has already proven to be beyond common courtesy and decency.  They already think that what they are doing is simply rude and they don't care.  Progress would be if they understood that what they are doing is at a bare minimum bullying, harassment, abuse, etc. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

The person the OP described has already proven to be beyond common courtesy and decency.  They already think that what they are doing is simply rude and they don't care.  Progress would be if they understood that what they are doing is at a bare minimum bullying, harassment, abuse, etc. 

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting that this person is redeemable, necessarily. The fact that they were seemingly emboldened by this EO is pretty telling in itself. 

That said, I think it would be a nice show of support for Scot to call this person out in the manner he's suggesting. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, yes, yes.  

I've heard people try to use this 'it's rude' argument to explain why someone shouldn't rip off a Muslim woman's hijab.  It belittles and minimizes what is experienced by the victim.  Yes, victim.  I'm wearing a scarf on my head right now because I haven't washed my hair in days and I didn't feel like dealing with it.  Pulling this scarf off me is rude.  It's not an article of clothing to me, at least not one that covers a part of my body that I've deemed very private.  On a Muslim woman, her scarf or hijab does cover a very private part of her body.  When you rip her covering off, it's assault.  At the bare minimum it's assault.  It would be as if you ripped off her dress.  

Two similar seeming actions can be very different depending on the person to whom it's directed.  Calling me by the male version of my name is rude.  Calling my girlfriend by the name and gender she was assigned at birth is, at the bare minimum, dangerous, hateful, bullying, bigoted.  

Ripping the clothes off of anybody is a pretty violent act and shouldn't be tolerated. Maybe you could consider it assault of some form.

Calling someone names or using the wrong pronouon purpose is bullying and upsetting.. but is it violence? Should we have laws to stop it? I'm not so sure.

[Dr. Pepper]

23 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Dr. P, Theda,

How do we decide when it's assault, or just a rude prank?  There are rude and hateful people in every walk of life.  Doesn't setting different rules for one group, whatever group that might be (Muslim, Christian, etc.), a hindrance to equality?  Isn't equality for all what most decent people are after; whether right, left, or center?

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying or asking.  Obviously no quest for something like equality would include erasing the identity, history, or experiences of a person or group of people.  

18 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting that this person is redeemable, necessarily. The fact that they were seemingly emboldened by this EO is pretty telling in itself. 

That said, I think it would be a nice show of support for Scot to call this person out in the manner he's suggesting. 

Certainly I think Scot should have a response in defense of the marginalized group being threatened.  It doesn't necessarily need to be calling out the person who created the post.  It's not always safe to do that (not just physically, but socially, professionally, and so forth).  Perhaps creating his own post explaining why he won't be misnaming or misgendering a person he knows to be transgender (because it's hateful, abusive, bullying, etc)...

That said, I can't support any call out or call in or advocacy claiming that it's simply rude.  Behaviors directed towards a marginalized and vulnerable group that are meant to harm are beyond rude.  Being impolite isn't the issue.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  Progress would be if they understood that what they are doing is at a bare minimum bullying, harassment, abuse, etc. 

That would be ideal, yes, but that offender simply stopping what they are doing would be a form of progress. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Ripping the clothes off of anybody is a pretty violent act and shouldn't be tolerated. Maybe you could consider it assault of some form.

Calling someone names or using the wrong pronouon purpose is bullying and upsetting.. but is it violence? Should we have laws to stop it? I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of talk in various circles about how the definition and understanding of violence is evolving.  

As for your question, harassment, intimidation, abuse, threats...these all have legal repercussions already.  It's a matter of including other types of victims under those umbrellas so as to further protect them.  We definitely shouldn't have a president issuing EO's that embolden a bunch of people to commit these acts against a marginalized group of people.  

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That would be ideal, yes, but that offender simply stopping what they are doing would be a form of progress. 

Where's the progress?  Has that offender also stopped writing what they wrote on facebook?  Are they voting differently?  Are they making sure other people aren't misnaming or misgendering?  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Where's the progress?  Has that offender also stopped writing what they wrote on facebook?  Are they voting differently?  Are they making sure other people aren't misnaming or misgendering?  

One step at a time. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

One step at a time. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

Lol, this is almost comical.  I'm not sure why that one step shouldn't be "Hey, you're harassing and/or bullying people."  

Imagine if someone were walking around kicking the genitals of people with penises and testicles and telling them to stop because it's impolite.  No, it's assault. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Lol, this is almost comical.  I'm not sure why that one step shouldn't be "Hey, you're harassing and/or bullying people."  

Imagine if someone were walking around kicking the genitals of people with penises and testicles and telling them to stop because it's impolite.  No, it's assault. 

Sure, when all you see is Nazis, the only appropriate response is to come out swinging, right? There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm just going to start talking in parables. This is fun. 

The circumstance that Scot describes is not assault. It's not defensible, but it's not assault.

 

/That said, I do believe it's fair to call it harassing or bullying. No issue with you defining it as such. The thing is, it's not up to you as to how Scot chooses to define it.

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, when all you see is Nazis, the only appropriate response is to come out swinging, right? There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm just going to start talking in parables. This is fun. 

The circumstance that Scot describes is not assault. It's not defensible, but it's not assault.

 

/That said, I do believe it's fair to call it harassing or bullying. No issue with you defining it as such. The thing is, it's not up to you as to how Scot chooses to define it.

Lol, oh jfc this again.  

Yes, a decent person is going to come out swinging, metaphorically speaking, when someone is being abused.  A shitty person is going to defend the abusers and minimize their actions.  You're free to PM if you continue to have questions aobut where you fall on that spectrum.

So you agree that it's something rude.  That it's harassment or bullying, hateful, bigoted.  I'm not sure what your argument continues to be.  Scot can define something however he wants.  But if he opens it up for discussion and he's wrong, people are going to say so, as has happened in this thread.  He can choose what sort of person he wants to be and how he wants to react to that from there.  

[Theda Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, yes, yes.  

I've heard people try to use this 'it's rude' argument to explain why someone shouldn't rip off a Muslim woman's hijab.  It belittles and minimizes what is experienced by the victim.  Yes, victim.  I'm wearing a scarf on my head right now because I haven't washed my hair in days and I didn't feel like dealing with it.  Pulling this scarf off me is rude.  It's not an article of clothing to me, at least not one that covers a part of my body that I've deemed very private.  On a Muslim woman, her scarf or hijab does cover a very private part of her body.  When you rip her covering off, it's assault.  At the bare minimum it's assault.  It would be as if you ripped off her dress.  

Two similar seeming actions can be very different depending on the person to whom it's directed.  Calling me by the male version of my name is rude.  Calling my girlfriend by the name and gender she was assigned at birth is, at the bare minimum, dangerous, hateful, bullying, bigoted.  

Yep - that's the thing, isn't it. The same action is just not going to be of the same severity to different people. 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But if you could get folks to stop doing it by making them realize that it is rude in a sort of "common courtesy" sort of context, wouldn't you consider that to be progress of a sort?

I would hope that dangerous and hateful would mean more to people than just plain rude. Why don't we go for...dangerous, hateful AND rude ? Would that be better.

[Theda Baratheon]

There is a world of difference between being unsure of pronouns and accidentally misgendering someone and someone who, fully cognizant of the fact, chooses to misgender someone and continue to use their birth name and sex. The former is an honest mistake, it might be an honest mistake that ends in pain nonetheless; but it isn't a deliberate act of hatred. Someone who knows full well what they're doing and chooses to tell someone, further pointing out how little they regard or respect them, that they are going to misgender them because of their own personal beliefs being more important than that persons genuine identity, is acting with hatred and contempt. Their action can lead to violence; belittling of transgender people feeds into the general hate towards transgender people that allows so, so many people to be harmed and killed and for others to commit suicide. If you don't think the deliberate misgendering of a person, the directly putting your own views over the identity and safety of another, isn't a violent act - think again. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So you agree that it's something rude.  That it's harassment or bullying, hateful, bigoted.  I'm not sure what your argument continues to be.  Scot can define something however he wants.  But if he opens it up for discussion and he's wrong, people are going to say so, as has happened in this thread.  He can choose what sort of person he wants to be and how he wants to react to that from there.  

Sounds like we are in true agreement here. Someone should bronze this thread!

[DunderMifflin]

A better question would be what does excuse rudeness, hatefulness, and bullying. And how much of it should be tolerated.

For example, if you have deemed yourself as victimized, marginalized, or oppressed by the world in some way. Or in particular if you are speaking on behalf of someone else who you feel is oppressed.  Are you then allowed to be rude, hateful, and bully? And to what degree are you allowed?

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

A better question would be what does excuse rudeness, hatefulness, and bullying. And how much of it should be tolerated.

For example, if you have deemed yourself as victimized, marginalized, or oppressed by the world in some way. Or in particular if you are speaking on behalf of someone else who you feel is oppressed.  Are you then allowed to be rude, hateful, and bully? And to what degree are you allowed?

 

I think the extent of the bullying is relevant. The odd upsetting comment should be brushed off by most people and forgotten about in almost all circumstance. Thats different to a sustained campaign of intimidation and bullying behaviour which can ruin peoples lives. 

My fear is we end up in a sanitised world where everyone is self censoring to the point of becoming static. I think we are already at a point where the fear of offence is so massive due to the plague of over-reaction that exists, that everyone ends up with an underlying resentment of each other. 

To answer your question, I don't think there is any justification in 'an eye for an eye' behaviour, or 'he started it' sort of thinking. Retaliation does nothing but create escalation in many cases. And you can't allow one group to have one type of behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated were another group to be doing it.

[ants]

20 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Theda,

That is not my intent.  My intent is to present this in an idiom that people cannot dismiss or ignore.  That they would recognize as unacceptable because it is comparable to common courtesy they would extend to anyone they happened to meet.

 

20 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But if you could get folks to stop doing it by making them realize that it is rude in a sort of "common courtesy" sort of context, wouldn't you consider that to be progress of a sort?

I think the good intentions of Scott are unfortunately bonkers. People with these prejudices can easily brush off an accusation of rudeness as either "they started it" (because of course anyone making that 'choice' is pushing themselves on the rest of the world) or that the rudeness is justified too either save that person's soul or society. Either way, I doubt they'll be fussed at the accusations of rudeness.  

[zelticgar]

I'm always skeptical of these "this is what happened to my friend on facebook" examples. Maybe there is not enough information available but this one just seems a little too conveniently set up to create a debate to show that something the government did created a mandate for religious people to be assholes.  My experience is that religious people are assholes about their beliefs without any help from the government. 

Unless I am reading this wrong, it sounds like Scot has a friend who is transgender. The "transgender friend" has a "religious friend" who apparently feels empowered to write a message declaring that because of some kind of executive order signed by the president they now feel it necessary to declare that because of their religious beliefs "religious friend"  intends to not respect "transgender friends" wishes to be called a certain name.

Unless I am missing something I am assuming that "transgender friend" has transitioned already? Why then would "religious friend" not have addressed their deep religious concerns prior to action taken in the executive order? If you have a religiously held belief prohibiting you from recognizing a transgendered persons request to be called a different name what does anything the government does have to do with this view? I'm just not getting the point of using the executive action as the motivation for all of a sudden making this declaration if "transgender friend" has already transitioned? I would assume that email would have come over right at the time the person became aware of the transition. 

And just to head off any debate on this - I am not calling Scot a liar, he has more than proven himself over the years, I just question the original story.

 

[Seli]

On 5-5-2017 at 9:11 PM, King Ned Stark said:

Dr. P, Theda,

How do we decide when it's assault, or just a rude prank?  There are rude and hateful people in every walk of life.  Doesn't setting different rules for one group, whatever group that might be (Muslim, Christian, etc.), a hindrance to equality?  Isn't equality for all what most decent people are after; whether right, left, or center?

Most 'pranks' are probably actually assaults to start with. It is simply that the victim doesn't feel the need to use the law.