Comment on Trans people in Kansas are being ordered to surrender their drivers licenses
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 week agoAh, 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. And your response to being told you were handling it badly was to diagnose my emotional state.
multifariace@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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?
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 week ago
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 civil rights questions.
multifariace@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 week ago
You are claiming empathy while using a framework that pathologises the people you claim to care about.