Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-04-22 04:29 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-04-22 04:29 pm
[ SECRET POST #3031 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3031 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
Notes:
Going to be a late day, so early secrets!
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: OP
I don't think you were being sarcastic, but it would make far more sense if you had been, in terms of squaring it with other statements you've made.
The position you're arguing against seems, in all ways, like it should be your own. It's kinda baffling.
I really don't see how you came to that conclusion nonny. I don't recall ever arguing that everything should be held up to an ever-present political/sociological scrutiny.
A lot of my statements would logically contradict that idea, actually.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2015-04-23 07:06 pm (UTC)(link)I think your position there was correct and it's this position that's wrong, to be clear. This isn't a vendetta from that argument or anything. But I don't think it's really possible to make use of the concept of micro-aggressions and then also say that there's some space that can or should be free of political concerns.
Re: OP
Link, please. I think you're telling an untruth, nonny, but one hopefuly rooted in misunderstanding rather than malice.
But I don't think it's really possible to make use of the concept of micro-aggressions and then also say that there's some space that can or should be free of political concerns.
That makes no sense, sorry nonny. You're going to have to explain how talking about something political/sociological once = believing "NO SPACE SHOULD EVER BE FREE FROM POLITICAL CONCERNS, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE, ALL THE TIME".
I think the link is tenuous at best and you're jumping to an illogical conclusion based on all-or-nothing reasoning.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2015-04-23 08:17 pm (UTC)(link)And I don't see how it's jumping to conclusions. If something is a micro-aggression, surely it's a micro-aggression regardless of context? And given that's the case, how can you have a space that's free from those concerns regarding language? If we're taking that model of language seriously, these concerns, which I think are fundamentally political concerns, have to be regarded as inseparable from the use of language as such. If the use of certain terminology is a micro-aggression regardless of context or intent, then I don't see how the line of thought can escape being all or nothing. On this argument, all speech as such is a political action.
You can't reject a slang term as objectively and totally politically unacceptable one day, and then embrace the concept of devoid of politics the next. It seems to me totally contradictory.
Re: OP
I don't reject it as objectively and politically unacceptable. I stated that the term was a classist microaggression. That's not the same as saying the term is unacceptable, or should never be used.
If you examined more statements that I've made, you'd know that I'm a moral relativist, and don't believe in absolute morality, aka that things are objectively good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable.
My comment on micro-aggressions was here. You'll notice that nowhere in that comment did I tell people to stop using that term, or that it's unacceptable.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2015-04-23 08:49 pm (UTC)(link)But that's not specific to you, I don't think moral relativism is a really coherent position in general. And that probably leads us to an argument that's too broad for some place like this.
Re: OP
That's stereotyping.
or that your words are compatible with saying the term is ever acceptable.
Acknowledging that blue is X is not a statement that X is bad. You're just (I assume) so used to thinking of (X = bad), that you assume someone saying (blue = X) is saying (blue = bad). You're projecting your own beliefs about X onto other people, as if other people couldn't think (blue = X, X = neutral) or (blue = X, X = good).
[Where "blue" is a stand-in for "classist microaggressions" or any other term]
I don't think moral relativism is a really coherent position in general.
And I don't think most moral absolutist systems can be argued for logically, but you don't see me bashing on them. To each his own.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2015-04-23 09:35 pm (UTC)(link)I think my point of view (if you care) is that moral relativism more or less collapses into moral nihilism. I don't think that's an argument against it - I think it's a very real possibility. But my argument would be that I don't think the view that the goodness or badness of any given phenomenon (for instance, classist microaggression) is basically indeterminate and down to the particular system of values of a given individual is compatible with using the language of morality and moral judgment. I can acknowledge the possibility that the goodness or badness of things is only in relation to the preferences of an individual - I just don't think, if that's the case, we're really talking about morality anymore. And I think (for instance) your language is moral language that's writing moral-judgment checks.
But, again, this is an argument on a fundamental point of ethical theory that I don't think we're going to resolve over fandomsecrets.
Re: OP
And that's fine, you can talk about things without delving into the deeper ethics of them. There may be a fine line between moral relativism and moral nihilism: if it helps you to think of me as coming from a moral nihilist perspective, that's fine.
And I think (for instance) your language is moral language that's writing moral-judgment checks.
If you could point out where I put a moral value judgement on the trash thing, you might be right, but you can't, so...I think you're just having a hard time separating your moral opinions about those things and are projecting that onto other people.
But, again, this is an argument on a fundamental point of ethical theory that I don't think we're going to resolve over fandomsecrets.
Don't underestimate fandomsecrets. If you don't want to discuss ethics here, that's cool, but some of my best discussions on meta-ethics have occurred on anon memes.