"The Fetish for Dialogue"

Post Reply New Topic

http://skepchick.org/2013/05/the-fetish-for-dialogue/

This mainly has to with with feminism and atheism, but this is coming from someone who is bicurious. I hate how everyone romanticizes that sitting down and talking to people who put you down will make everything okay, especially if they are bigoted. If both sides willingly want to come to a compromise, that is fine, but I have no intention of ever standing up for or sympathizing with any anybody who calls me a disgusting sinner and seeks to deny me my ability to live how I individually want for any reason. The enabling needs to stop now before more innocent lives are claimed.

If one outright coerces two opposing forces to equally compromise, homosexuals and religious zealots for example, you in this case A) erase all of the torment that homosexuals have been through for simply being built differently and refusing to conform to traditional standards, and B) you deny both sides their autonomy and freedom of association. You will have forced people to give up their ability to fight their own battles. Then again, I once said that if one side is hellbent on keeping another down, then that side doesn't deserve to be themselves. You can't force a bullying victim to stand on equal footing to his bully, you simply cannot.

I'm surprised to see that from a liberal source. I thought "dialog" and "educating" was their whole routine. Glad to see some of them are smarter than that, but I doubt that many will take the step from "talking doesn't work" to direct action to undermine bigots' material power.

I don't understand what is implied by "fetish."

I think "fetish" implies a cultural obsession. I believe John Stuart Mill and Voltaire were major contributors to that particularly liberal obsession.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists"
-said by many U.S. presidents

Ok, ok pretty much all the presidents who said that actually did at some point negotiate with terrorists. But it's a good sentiment. Negotiation doesn't fix everything. Dialogue doesn't necessarily lead to compromise.

As starkid noted, the idea that congruence can be found through dialogue and education is pretty common among liberals. I am a liberal who was raised by two liberals in a liberal city so I have spent decades marinating in that idea. It sure is appealing. But I also think it's often wrong. It's based on the idea that everybody values the same things so that if you are in opposition with somebody, that person (or group) is simply lacking the information or point of view that would put them in agreement with you.

Sometimes it's right. Former Republican vice president Dick Cheney famously reversed his negative stand on gay marriage when he got the new information that his own daughter was gay. That it is sometimes right can lead liberals to think it is always right and to double down on the education.

It isn't just liberals. Evangelists of any type (Christian, non- smoking, vegan etc. etc.) are convinced that the only reason people don't do things their way (continue to not be Christian, continue to smoke or eat meat) is lack of information. So many, many vegans have tried to "open up a dialogue" with me because they see my liberal politics as being inconsistent with my BBQ steak and figure I merely lack information about the evils and perils of meat. Sometimes when people say "open up a dialogue", what I hear is "I will not stop talking until you agree with me".

But all that^^^ is tangential to the OP which is more about "you shouldn't even try to negotiate with terrorists" and I agree.

One thing that absolutely irritates me to no end is when bigots say the most hateful crap and the side that is being being attacked says that they merely "disagree." It should be clear that the bigoted have no intention of ever compromising, so what is there to gain except conformity when you roll over and let them have their way? Like I said, both sides have to willing to put there differences aside if there truly has to be an understanding. I think I read that Sigmund Freud said that arguing over smaller differences can be more devastating than the big picture. I think people like Don Lemon have a lot of trouble understanding that.

What exactly is the issue that you seek to reddress through non dialogue (whatever that might be)?

The only issue you mention seems to be the issue of convesation itsself. You dont seemed to have any complaints about equal rights for gays, job descrimination, marriage equality, nor societal issue like that.

Its just hate speech itsself .

If some peckerwood calls you a fa***t to your face you have my blessing to beat him with a tire iron If thats all that your are on about. Tire iron, or baseball bat. Either one is philosophically sound in my mind (and Ive been accused of being a liberal- whether that relevent or not).

Trouble is- its not very practical. The peckerwoods out number you, and out gun you. So I dont think the tire iron route is very productive. It would just kinda get you dead.

So you may still have to 'dialogue' sideways (not with your enemy) to get allies to make common cause with so youll have more muscle on your side.

But again-besides stopping peckerwoods from calling you bad names- is there any actual real thing you're seeking to accomplish?

Sorry, I don't believe in the thought police that the extreme left believes in. I believe that everyone has the right to think want ever they want no matter how "bigoted" they are as long as they don't harm anyone based on their beliefs. However, people like the OP makes me sick as they are just as an extreme as the people they hate. They want the ability to force their justice onto others; but, not vice versa. Changing people ideals through reason and logic is the only way to truly change someone as force will only create resentment and will begin the cycle of hatred anew again.

You are wrong.

First off, I could personally care less about the right or the left or any of there political schemes on anything and I don’t believe in “political correctness.” I also fail to see how being yourself, a perfectly knowledgeable individual with the ability to think, act, and learn on your own accord, calls for any sort of “dissent,” especially if you have a different set of built-in instincts.

Second, saying people have the right to believe whatever they feel like is an attempt to dodge the truth. That is an attempt to silence criticism and is basically saying "I can believe whatever I want even if it's wrong, nyah!" No opinion is safe from debate, not mine or yours, from finding the unvarnished truth.

Just read this.
http://www.antisupernatural.com/opinion.html

Third, I want to ask you something. Why is it that conservatives don’t get called out for “thought-policing?” Why is it when minorities get attacked and they fight back, they are ones who get accused of that? Last time I checked, it has always been the conservatives who are trying to keep us who are different from the set norms in a place where we don’t want, and when we say that, they are so quick to demonize us. They are the ones who are trying to keep us in check and prevent us from living in which we want to individually. Sometimes you just have to tell a bigot to shut the ever-loving f@#$ up.