`Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack`

[liminal_luke]

Thanks for responding SereneBlue. I kinda thought that was the policy and it's fine with me.

[Sanzon]

It's all about respect for each other the way I see it. Here is a repost from the other thread I made in regards to "fair play" while discussing contentious issues.

 

"If you notice, here & in the other threads on the topic, I have attempted to validate the positions of both [members I was addressing], while attempting to encourage each to decrease the emotive intensity behind their delivery of "facts", and thus make their points clearer, and more receivable/palatable to people who are taking offence at them. I, for one, will defend LGBTI peoples and persuasions for all I am worth, because I believe that we are not separate as human beings. Though please note I am not attempting to change the minds of those that do not support my views, what I perceive myself as doing is challenging them to rephrase what they mean so that an equanimous discussion may take place here. I do like human diversity, and I do think my intent is based on the inclusion of the other side of the argument, given that it not be derogatory to others. Therefore, I do believe that the delivery of the message is important, for the sake of inclusion".

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sanzon

[Birch]

I have a question, why is it up to the person who is offended to 'undo' the offense through the non-attribution of self? I know that it's probably more pragmatic, and the closest thing one might have some kind of influence over in order to feel no pain. But it could just as well be suggested to the person doing the 'offending' that they should drop the whatever it is about them, no?

[Sanzon]

Hey K, not too sure if you were responding to my post. I was referring to the "offenders" rephrasing the point being made.

[Birch]

Hey K, not too sure if you were responding to my post. I was referring to the "offenders" rephrasing the point being made.

 

No, I wasn't responding to your post but I agree there are much easier ways of talking about things. The question I had was one that I've been wondering about quite a bit. As the suggestion to 'not self' is so often (it seems) given to the person who is feeling the offense, when (IMO) it could go either way. Why does it tend to go one direction, not the other? Your idea is a good, neutral one. Why doesn't that get suggested more often?

[liminal_luke]

I hear ya K. At least I think I do. A related thought: if we use our ability to identify with our non-dual selves to blunt the pain of dualistic injustice--and thus not bother working to make the world a just place-- well, is that an ideal solution? Just because I might be able to align with a part of myself that is beyond sexual orientation, beyond gender....does that mean that I should remain silent in the face of homophobia, sexism?

 

Or maybe that's not how it works practically speaking. Perhaps people who are in touch with that level of their being are just as inclined, or even more so, to make the world a better place-- even in a more narrow, everyday dualistic sense.

[Birch]

I don't know (yet). I hope that's how things work:-)

[JustARandomPanda]

....

 

Cheers to everyone.

Edited February 14, 2013 by SereneBlue

[Birch]

I'm referring to what I have a sort of a hope are 'deeper workings' of Tao or whatever's happening. Not reflecting on the moderation at this point although it's part of whatever's happening.

 

To your point above, I'm not sure respect is that complicated. If it looks fiddly and difficult like that, it might very well be that there's a bit of something else in there somewhere. I guess another suggestion aside from the ignore is for the poster who feels offended to just call it. But I think sometimes it might seem 'unbecoming' to someone with spiritual goals to admit they feel offense.

 

I do think it's a skill (full) thing to learn to do, to bring a very unpopular view to a forum with respect.

 

 

Edit: I got interested in this respect idea and went hunting. I found the following interesting.

 

"

Respect

Acknowledging Dignity

 

You respect others when you recognize and sincerely acknowledge their humanity, worth, and significance. Each of us deserve respect simply because of our humanity.

Definitions

Acknowledging the dignity of another.

Valuing Humanity.

Acknowledgement of a person's high stature.

Showing approval of anothers action or being.

Acknowledging the existence, significance, and humanity of another.

Expressing your true values and authentic self.

Recognizing your commonality and connection to another.

Related Terms

The terms admiration, appreciation, awe, honor, and esteem are approximate synonyms for respect. The word respect originates from the Latin re- meaning again (as in repeat) and specere, meaning to look (as in spectator). These root words taken together mean to look again, or to notice with attention. Overlooking an opportunity to show respect is often considered a slight. The opposite of respect is disrespect and violence. If someone considers our disrespect seriously, we may insult or humiliate them.

 

Showing Respect

Respect is action. We demonstrate our respect for others by giving them authentic positive attention, listening with positive attention, acknowledging them as fellow human beings, and providing appropriate recognition. Avoiding, withholding, or manipulating these responses are signs of disrespect. Any form of insult or humiliation is disrespectful.

 

Disrespect is the precursor to hate. Heed the warning. Reevaluate the evidence, avoid the distortions, correct the errors in reasoning, and reject the temptation to dismiss the other.

 

Sometimes respect is inaction. Listening, hearing, comprehending, understanding, and believing are often more respectful than speaking, debating, denying, explaining, interrupting, and dismissing. Calm, patience, serenity, order and a certain stillness may encourage a deeper bond than chaos, hurry, and disorder. Retreating to rest and relax rather than advancing; silence instead of constant chatter, requesting instead of nagging; considering and contemplating rather than rushing to decide or judge, and quality rather than quantity can all enhance a meaningful relationship. Subtlety, nuance, and accuracy demonstrate more respect than superficial and boisterous hype. Choose presence instead of transience and being instead of doing. Choosing a hospice instead of medical heroics may be the final and ultimate act of respect.

 

Demonstrating due respect is often the basis for establishing rules of etiquette. Some polite customs, however, emphasize asymmetry rather than symmetry in a relationship. These customs act to preserve the existing status hierarchy and make it more difficult to question authority and speak truth to power.

 

Respect and Symmetry

Respect is closely related to symmetry in a relationship. Formal and informal hierarchies are ubiquitous in organized societies. The boss manages the workers, adults discipline children, teachers instruct students, and doctors treat patients. Respect is commonly seen as deference to status within the recognized hierarchy. The worker is expected to show respect to the boss and the patient is expected to show respect to the doctor. A more powerful and more meaningful respect occurs, however, when the boss respects the worker and the doctor respects the patient. Respect is recognizing this human connection. Since power establishes a asymmetrical relationship, demonstrating respect through a symmetrical relationship is the voluntary sharing of power. It acknowledges that the bonds of humanity are more important that the trappings of power and the formality of a hierarchy. Respectful relationships are mutual and reciprocal. Respect often works against the grain of bureaucracy, providing a partial antidote to its frustrating impersonalization.

 

Self-Respect

Although genuinely respecting yourself is sometimes more difficult than respecting others, we all deserve to respect ourselves. We each deserve to acknowledge our own dignity. Recognizing our own intrinsic worth frees us from the expectations and judgments of others. It is a source of deep inner peace, strength, and autonomy. Status is not image and self-respect is certainly not gained by winning the praise of others and accumulating awards and other status symbols. Self-respect begins at birth and is sustained and increased by living an authentic and honorable life.

 

Dissent

Be careful to distinguish dissentexpressing disagreement with an idea, decision, or actionfrom disrespectdenying the dignity of a person. Dissent is often helpful and constructive. Better decisions are made by considering a variety of viewpoints. Dissent is often required to introduce valid alternative viewpoints. Unfortunately dissent is often confused with disrespect. For example if you disagree with views expressed by a powerful (or pretentious) person, they may react by scolding you for attacking them. The message: How dare you disagree with me is often sent one way or another. This is a common and manipulative ploy that combines the fallacy of an ad hominem attack with the fallacy of ad vericundium. Do not tolerate this manipulation; learn to identify it and defend against it. Respond by saying: Let's not confuse dissent with disrespect here. I can disagree with your statements and still respect you as a person. That is what I have done. I deserve similar respect from you. Let's continue to discuss the issues at hand without attacking each other. . . Perhaps it is helpful to review the evidence supporting various points of view. . . Have the courage to speak truth to power. Work toward a dialogue, rather than acquiescing to a more power-based mode of communication.

 

Expect Respect

Do not tolerate disrespect. Respect yourself, as described above. Respect your spouse, family members, friends, and co-workers. Demonstrate your respect for them in every interaction. Dissent whenever it is helpful, but never show or tolerate disrespect, either publically or privately. Take quick and effective action to identify and respectfully express your intolerance of disrespect whenever it arises in groups, gatherings, or meetings you are a part of. Respond by saying: That was disrespectful because . . . We all deserve to be respected and there is no excuse for disrespect. If you disagree, then express you dissent. Find a constructive resolution of the conflict. If you have relationship issues to resolve, then participate in a constructive dialogue to resolve them. I do not tolerate disrespect, there is no reason for it, it is destructive, don't do it. Do not gloat or become self-righteous, disrespectful, sarcastic, spiteful, or vengeful when expressing your intolerance. This is not easy, but is extremely valuable. Also, speak up to defend any scapegoat that may be emerging. Describe the fallacy in blaming a single person for the difficulties of the group.

 

Respect and Religion

Too often religious beliefs are misused as an excuse to disrespect others. What begins as demonstrations of faith and evangelizing can evolve into intolerance and escalate into hatred and tragic violence. Fortunately the Decalogue of Assisi for Peace was on adopted February 24, 2002 by 200 leaders of the worlds major religions. This important declaration recognizes that humanity must choose love over hatred. The Decalogue clearly states that violence and terrorism are incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion. These religious leaders also commit themselves to educating people in mutual respect and esteem. As you practice your own religion, join these leaders as they pledge to keep compassion as their highest priority.

 

Quotations:

Where respect says Don't hurt, responsibility says Do help. ~ Thomas Lickona

The key to a positive No is respect. ~ William Ury

You get respect when you give it; respect breeds respect

Respect is the cheapest concession you can give the other. ~ William Ury.

Liberty finally exists when the recognition I give you does not subtract something from myself.~ Richard Sennett

Self-respect has little to do with the outer world's evaluation of us but is about a separate peace, a private reconciliation ~ Joan Didion

References

The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, by Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore, Allan Collins

 

The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes, by William Ury

 

Respect: An Exploration, by Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot"

 

From: http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/respect.htm

Edited February 14, 2013 by -K-

[Aetherous]

In the first page of the insult policy thread Sean writes "but no insulting (or links to attacks) of individuals, nationalities, gender, political preferences, lifestyle choices, etc. To me this would seem to indicate that sexist, racist, and homophobic comments are already prohibited. Some confusion about the rules is understandable though, since to my way of thinking, a lot of insulting comments have slipped through the cracks uncommented on.

 

The moderators have remained strangely silent so far. How about it mods...is the supreme court prepared to rule on this issue?

 

Nice you got an answer from Serene. I'm not a mod but wanted to say...

 

The key is to identify whether someone actually insulted or attacked. Not merely that people are feeling insulted and attacked. There's a huge difference, and it can lead to "punishing" innocent people when action is based only upon how the "victims" are feeling.

 

If someone says something clearly offensive, it should be reported, and you should publicly say that it offended you. It will make the mods' job easier, if they decide to take action in your case.

[et-thoughts]

No, I wasn't responding to your post but I agree there are much easier ways of talking about things. The question I had was one that I've been wondering about quite a bit. As the suggestion to 'not self' is so often (it seems) given to the person who is feeling the offense, when (IMO) it could go either way. Why does it tend to go one direction, not the other? Your idea is a good, neutral one. Why doesn't that get suggested more often?

 

K maybe the reason it goes towards the person who is feeling the offense stems from the fact that they are responsible for taking offense (well assuming that no offense was meant). Imagine a little boy asking grandma why she looks so old, kind of thing... To some stating the truth corresponds to a statement of fact and to some its an intolerable offensive claim... just maybe the intolerance of the intolerant should be eradicated through 'forcing' them into tolerance of the tolerant :-)

[Birch]

I agree with what you're saying etthoughts. I reckon where things get messed up most often and confused is in the 'power/hierarchy' area and the dissent/disagreement/questioning area.

 

I'm pretty allergic to the power/hierarchy stuff.

[et-thoughts]

I agree with what you're saying etthoughts. I reckon where things get messed up most often and confused is in the 'power/hierarchy' area and the dissent/disagreement/questioning area.

 

I'm pretty allergic to the power/hierarchy stuff.

 

I am rather insensitive to the power/hierarchy stuff... whomever is right is right and whomever is wrong is wrong... the way I see it, where things get messed up most of the time involves claiming to be what isn't (and/or claiming that what be isn't). A warning flag for me involves emotional and irrational closed mindedness apprehensive trepidation. It is as if daring to even consider a certain possibility suffices to disrupt the delusional integrity and thus consideration of those possibilities becomes taboo... anything but the truth... is acceptable to some...

[voidisyinyang]

As archaeologists were later to discover, some of their campsites had been occupied continuously since the Paleolithic, with very little change in the material culture, suggesting extraordinary cultural stability as long as the Old Way pertained. Recent research with DNA has shown that Bushmen were the ancestors of us all, which is why they are called the First People, hence some of the things we noted in their culture were probably of considerable antiquity.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/the-old-way/?pagination=false

 

People in this thread have claimed that Elizabeth Marshall Thomas stating the Bushmen have no homosexuality is

 

"conjecture"

 

and "absence of evidence"

 

etc.

 

This is unfortunate but not too surprising -- symptomatic of projecting their own views onto the Bushmen culture.

 

In fact even the anthropologists did this to Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as she reveals in the NY Times review of her most recent book on the Bushmen -- the Old Way.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/the-old-way/?pagination=false

 

 

But the young anthropologists assumed that we had been misled or were mistaken, and attacked our work.

[zanshin]

So modern people think we understand everything right and obviously the Bushmen are like original primitive people who stayed behind and didn't change for 100,000 years. Genetic scientists found the Bushman's genetic sequence much more diverged from ancestral sequence then the human reference.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/17/africas-genetic-diversity-revealed-by-full-genomes-of-a-bushman-and-a-tutu/

 

 

Most surprising of all, many of their unique SNPs are actually fairly recent developments. The Bushmen are one of the oldest human groups on the planet and you might expect their genes to reflect humanity’s most ancestral state. But not the SNPs – Schuster found that only 6% of !Gubi’s newfound SNPs matched the equivalent sequences in the chimpanzee genome; by comparison, the same positions in the human reference genome are an 87% match for the chimp one. They can’t be ancestral sequences. They must have turned up after the Bushmen dynasty diverged from other human populations, and they provide hints about the history of this most ancient of human lineages.

Edited February 14, 2013 by zanshin

[Apech]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/the-old-way/?pagination=false

 

People in this thread have claimed that Elizabeth Marshall Thomas stating the Bushmen have no homosexuality is

 

"conjecture"

 

and "absence of evidence"

 

etc.

 

This is unfortunate but not too surprising -- symptomatic of projecting their own views onto the Bushmen culture.

 

In fact even the anthropologists did this to Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as she reveals in the NY Times review of her most recent book on the Bushmen -- the Old Way.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/the-old-way/?pagination=false

 

 

I think you completely misunderstand the reservations expressed on here. But I am grateful for the info and links you have posted and have downloaded one of Marshall Thomas' books Harmless People ... from a quick look she seems like a wonderful writer.

[voidisyinyang]

I think you completely misunderstand the reservations expressed on here. But I am grateful for the info and links you have posted and have downloaded one of Marshall Thomas' books Harmless People ... from a quick look she seems like a wonderful writer.

 

I've emailed her and I told her that people are misrepresenting her quote -- projecting onto it denial by claiming her statements are just "conjecture" or "absence of evidence" and I asked her to provide a statement elaborating on the Bushmen having no homosexuality just to clarify things. She's something like 78 years old and the email address is unusual -- not sure if she'll respond but still I think she made a very important discovery and science should not ignore it.

[voidisyinyang]

So modern people think we understand everything right and obviously the Bushmen are like original primitive people who stayed behind and didn't change for 100,000 years. Genetic scientists found the Bushman's genetic sequence much more diverged from ancestral sequence then the human reference.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/17/africas-genetic-diversity-revealed-by-full-genomes-of-a-bushman-and-a-tutu/

 

 

Most surprising of all, many of their unique SNPs are actually fairly recent developments. The Bushmen are one of the oldest human groups on the planet and you might expect their genes to reflect humanity’s most ancestral state. But not the SNPs – Schuster found that only 6% of !Gubi’s newfound SNPs matched the equivalent sequences in the chimpanzee genome; by comparison, the same positions in the human reference genome are an 87% match for the chimp one. They can’t be ancestral sequences. They must have turned up after the Bushmen dynasty diverged from other human populations, and they provide hints about the history of this most ancient of human lineages.

 

Yeah but those SNPs are not deterministic definitions - genetics is faulty. For example Jeffrey Schwartz has great criticism of the time or age determination based on genetics compared to morphology. Just because something is different doesn't mean it is more recent.

 

Our current knowledge in this area is incredibly biased towards Western societies and the results of studies in such populations don’t always translate to other continents. For example, one of the Bushmen had a SNP that is reputedly linked to Wolman’s syndrome, a disease that prevents people from storing fat properly and kills at a young age. Try telling that to the eighty-something gentleman! Hayes says, “!Gubi is a very fit and healthy man and much better skipper on a skipping rope than I am

[voidisyinyang]

So modern people think we understand everything right and obviously the Bushmen are like original primitive people who stayed behind and didn't change for 100,000 years. Genetic scientists found the Bushman's genetic sequence much more diverged from ancestral sequence then the human reference.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/17/africas-genetic-diversity-revealed-by-full-genomes-of-a-bushman-and-a-tutu/

 

 

Most surprising of all, many of their unique SNPs are actually fairly recent developments. The Bushmen are one of the oldest human groups on the planet and you might expect their genes to reflect humanity’s most ancestral state. But not the SNPs – Schuster found that only 6% of !Gubi’s newfound SNPs matched the equivalent sequences in the chimpanzee genome; by comparison, the same positions in the human reference genome are an 87% match for the chimp one. They can’t be ancestral sequences. They must have turned up after the Bushmen dynasty diverged from other human populations, and they provide hints about the history of this most ancient of human lineages.

 

Yes I just received a response from Professor Jeffrey Schwartz stating he finds these "studies" to be "absolutely science fiction."

 

He says they just are bench biochemists without understanding developmental genetics and systematics.

[voidisyinyang]

I think you completely misunderstand the reservations expressed on here. But I am grateful for the info and links you have posted and have downloaded one of Marshall Thomas' books Harmless People ... from a quick look she seems like a wonderful writer.

 

I asked Liz Thomas if I could quote her and she didn't refuse so I am posting her response here. I did reply about if she actually had asked the Bushmen about homosexuality but she didn't respond and from her below change from "not permitted" stance previously I think she did not actually ask them.

 

I have now emailed anthropologist Richard B. Lee as he published a study on the marriage status of over 100 Bushmen males -- from 1968. So I mentioned the reply I got from Liz Thomas and have asked if I can quote any comment he has on the issue. http://sc2218.wetpaint.com/page/Marriage+in+Ju%2F%27hoansi+Society I was quoting him from this article on marriage in the Bushmen culture. Personally I still think there was no homosexuality in the Bushmen culture.

 

There’s no way I could say that the Bushmen did or did not have homosexuality because I didn’t know all of them—all I can say is that among the people we knew, homosexuality was not evident. But that could be true of any given population.

 

This is the above statement that Liz Thomas said she will allow to be posted online and she said she would rather that I did not post her email responses otherwise so please delete the below response quote. thanks.

Edited February 15, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

Interesting, her reply seems to confirm exactly what I said. Best guess. She is even kind enough to confirm the same possible reasons for it not being mentioned in their cultural record that I brought up. That was sweet of her.

 

Actually she just responded to me again and she said she will think about the issue further. She was only 18 years old at the time so she did not ask about sex but her mom did as her mom was married. She said the males made some jokes about sex to each other but that no one was seen having sex as they were very discreet about it.

 

So I sent her the article -- that I link above and I stated I still think there was no homosexuality for various reasons I explained. But also she said she did not remember stating the Bushmen did "not permit" homosexuality - or that "it was not permitted."

 

So then I sent her the googlebook link to The Harmless People documenting that indeed she had written "Homosexuality is not permitted."

 

haha. So well see how this all develops. I really hope to get a response from Professor Richard B. Lee.

Edited February 14, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[Sanzon]

PFL, kudos to you for chasing up information from its source, it has turned into an interesting topic worth reading. I wish it had a thread & title of its own, but again, it has taken this thread off topic. Are you able to relate your informative discussion to the thread title?

[liminal_luke]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the bushman don't have homosexuality in the sense that we imagine it today. That is, there aren't enduring same sex romantic relationships that parallel heterosexual relationships. I think this is true in many cultures actually, but it doesn't mean guys don't have sex with each other. They do, it's just that they don't bother to think of themselves as gay because of it. I'm living in Mexico now and in many places here that's exactly the way it is. There are guys who consider themselves gay and are very effeminate (obvio) and sometimes dress as woman, and the guys who seek them out for sex (always as the "top") and don't consider themselves gay in the slightest. (Of course there's also a lot of gay culture in Mexico that's similar to the US too--just depends where you are.)

 

I remember hanging out in a gay bar in Oaxaca years ago, or at least I considered it a gay bar-- there wasn't a woman in sight and the guys were clearly interested in each other. Turns out my opinion wasn't universally shared. This guy turned to me and asked if I was gay. I said I was and asked him about himself. He said he wasn't gay but liked to have sex with gays. Go figure.

[zanshin]

never mind

Edited February 15, 2013 by zanshin

[Apech]

Actually she just responded to me again and she said she will think about the issue further. She was only 18 years old at the time so she did not ask about sex but her mom did as her mom was married. She said the males made some jokes about sex to each other but that no one was seen having sex as they were very discreet about it.

 

So I sent her the article -- that I link above and I stated I still think there was no homosexuality for various reasons I explained. But also she said she did not remember stating the Bushmen did "not permit" homosexuality - or that "it was not permitted."

 

So then I sent her the googlebook link to The Harmless People documenting that indeed she had written "Homosexuality is not permitted."

 

haha. So well see how this all develops. I really hope to get a response from Professor Richard B. Lee.

 

Thanks for following this up! I am still reading Harmless People and the writing is amazing. Its very evocative of the people and the place ... I'd like to know more about their spiritual practices.

 

With regard to homosexuality ... there's a big difference between there being none and it not being 'permitted'. From a quick read round of what's available online it seems generally to be thought that there were gay people in every culture - and we learn even giraffes do it

 

If you know a lot about it let's have a thread in general on their spiritual practices .....