= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Swimmer963 comments on Positive Thinking - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (278)
From what I saw, the general sentiment was "we feel like we should believe homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, but we're a bit embarrassed about that, so we're just not going to talk about the issue." Some churches focus more on that element than others though. (One branch of the Canadian Anglican church, for example, has explicitly declared that they're OK with homosexual ministers.)
I'm not sure whether that constitutes a position on human rights or not, and whether it's a noxious position if so.
It is certainly an active refusal to adopt a position I can endorse on a human rights issue. Then again, pretty much everyone I know is in that position with respect to some issue or other.
For my own part, I have difficulty endorsing any community that is incapable of supporting families like my husband and I, and I would not feel welcomed or supported by them.
I'm unclear on why the parent has been voted down. Can someone who has downvoted it please explain?
Thinking about it, I suppose they might be rejecting the idea that my endorsal of a community should be contingent on that community offering support for families like mine.
Which, actually, I agree with; there are lots of communities I endorse that don't actively support such families. Heck, LW is itself such a community, insofar as it has not getting involved in politics as a virtue, given that the existence of my family is a political issue in the U.S..
It was clear to me that by "community" I meant community of the sort Swimmer963 was talking about, but I can certainly understand if that wasn't clear to others.
The idea seems reasonable to me; it would be pretty tough to get any of the support benefits of a community if the community explicitly won't offer you support. :-\
I think that's a somewhat different kind of support than what swimmer963 was talking about. For a given community to be considered supportive of you, they only have to actively support you. If they hypocritically denounce others who are in the same situation as you but who aren't part of the particular community, that's an indication of internal doublethink going on and also a stress on the relationship between you and the community, but I dunno if I'd call it "unsupportive".
Sure. There's a reason I talk about support for my family here, rather than support for me.
I mean, something like "Hey, Dave, we think you're awesome, and it's a real shame that you're caught up in this relationship, and we want you to know that whatever we can do to help you get over that, we're here for you, buddy!" is perhaps supportive of me, but it is certainly not supportive of my family.
(I actually had someone say essentially this to me once, upon discovering that I was queer. We'd met professionally, and she made me a job offer to join her on a startup, and had commented that she was a devout Christian and that was very important to her. I commented in turn that I was indifferent to her religion, but it might make her reconsider the offer upon knowing about my sexuality. Which indeed it did. I thanked her for her concern, let her know that I didn't consider my family to be at all inappropriate, and offered my assistance should she ever choose to get over her religious affiliation, and we haven't spoken since. But I digress.)
That is...fairly horrible. Good comeback though.
(shrug)
She believed that the way I lived my life wasn't in my best interests and wasn't moral/ethical, and she therefore offered her assistance should I wish to change the way I live my life. She did that without trying to impose herself into my life or take away my freedoms or damage me or etc.
I actually endorse all of that, as far as it goes. The world would be a far better place if more people responded to that situation that way.
And given the number of people in the world who do try to impose themselves into my life, take away my freedoms, damage me, etc. based on their beliefs about my interests and/or the morality of my life (or do the equivalent for people in my reference class), I feel it's important to calibrate my reaction. If I get bent out of shape by people like her, then I don't have a way of dealing with people who would, say, beat me up and hang me from a tree, or remove legal protections from my marriage, or force me into a behavior-modification program.
I consider her evaluation of my interests flawed, of course, but that's just as true of the many people who offered to, or informed me that they were, praying for my recovery after my stroke. And I really appreciated them.
I...guess. Maybe I'm just spoiled by living in a country, and belonging to an age group, where the people who are okay with homosexuality say so loudly and the people who AREN'T okay with it don't talk about that. The church I go to (the Anglican Church of Canada) officially accepts homosexuals into its clergy, and that's kind of what I'm used to. So to me, a response like hers does seem pretty awful, but not to you because you're used to worse...
I still think what you said was a good comeback. Not helpful, maybe, but snappy and funny, and it might have made her think...
Don't get me wrong: in my actual life I don't have to deal with much of that stuff.
I go to friends' religious ceremonies with my husband all the time, for example, and nobody blinks... or if they do, they keep it to themselves. More generally, people who don't consider me a social and moral peer are cordially invited to get the hell off my lawn, and I have enough social power to make that stick, enforced by an awesome community in which my basic humanity is simply never in question. (Well, at least not because of my sexuality. I do get a certain amount of "What planet are you from, Dave?" but that's different.)
I suspect that if I didn't have those advantages, I would rapidly lose my sense of perspective.
All of that said, I think it's the correct perspective, and would remain so even if I lost it. It makes no sense to judge people against my social context rather than their own.
Oh, yeah, that is pretty nasty. I was imagining something more along the lines of "Oh, we support you and you family, you're not like those other gay families".
Ah, I see.
Yeah, I get that sort of thing too, by virtue of not being stereotypically Other in any particularly visible way.
When i was growing up, I got a lot of variants on "Funny, you don't look Jewish"; when I came out I got a lot of "But you don't really act gay." (To which my usual response was "I do, actually. This is how a lot of gay people act. It's part of our devious plot to trick you into treating us like people.")
I mostly treat that kind of statement as a good sign, though... a symptom of cracks in the infrastructure.
That is, someone starts out believing that all Xes are Y, and that W is not Y, and then discovers W is an X. If they can avoid concluding that W actually is Y after all (which is the easiest fix), the contradictions in their worldview will start to build up. My usual experience is that after weeks or months or years of continued acquaintance, those people ultimately reject the "All Xes are Y" bit.
I've gone through the analogous process myself when breaking down some of my own prejudices, and I appreciate the patience of the folks who helped me through it. It seems only just to pay that forward.
Of course it constitutes a position on human rights. Human rights are not passive things. They must be actively defended or they simply cease to exist. Tyrannies often begin not with the stripping of rights but simply with a lack of enforcement (Haebius Corpus? Don't worry, you still have that right - it says so right here on this paper.) until the memory of it fades away.
There are no rights but those we take. When someone expresses doubts that a particular group of humans should be allowed certain rights they are attacking the concept of universal human rights in its entirety. And anyone who is embarrassed into silence rather than at least saying "no, that's wrong" is implicit in the murder of human rights.
Some groups of humans are excluded from rights that other humans have, in every legal system. Examples would include minors, convicted criminals, and adults who have been found mentally incompetent. Going further, you have the right to own and dispose of your own property, and I do not share this right to your property. I don't subscribe to any conception of "universal human rights" that would suggest otherwise.
Those are, in my opinion, all examples of groups that don't have the power to enforce their rights. They lack the numbers to protect their rights, and lack the ability to draw powerful allies to their cause. Another example of "no rights but those we take."
Which is exactly why I wish to keep social pressure high for all humans to defend what I consider the most basic rights. Reminding people that rights must be actively defended, and condemning those who shrink away from doing so, is one tactic. I do this because I'm rather attached to the rights I have now, and would like to hold on to them. You do not?
I'm surprised at your reaction. Let me illustrate my examples: for "minors," think "five year olds." For "incompetents" think "people in comas." For criminals...well, just think about convicted criminals. You can't seriously be arguing that criminals should never be punished. There is no society on Earth that does not restrict the rights of minors, convicted criminals, and adults who have been found mentally incompetent.
I'm not arguing that (see replies to Davids). But I also note that I am not a minor, convicted criminal, or mentally incompetent and therefore expect I may be biased. I certainly don't trust everything I think, and I note that as long as I'm running on hostile hardware it can be in my best interest to follow certain rules proven to protect me against myself.
Of course you start with biases. We all do. But we seek to overcome these biases in order to become less wrong. So, I ask you, in light of the responses you have received, and as one aspiring rationalist to another: is it not true that some groups of humans must be excluded from rights that other humans have?
No. There may be good reasons for certain individuals to have their rights violated. Entire groups cannot be excluded from the rest of humanity.
I don't think it's sufficient to simply note "I may have these biases, and I should seek to overcome them". This may make one seem less biased without actually changing anything. The rest of the tribe applauds your self-awareness and wisdom, and then continues to preferentially hire white people. Actually overcoming a bias means doing the work of imposing rules we find inconvenient. Rules like "I will not take leadership for the good of the tribe, even when it's for the good of the tribe" or "I will not exclude groups of humans from certain rights, even when they should be excluded from those rights."
I buy that human rights might well be an example of how ends don't justify the means for humans. But what do you mean by 'groups'. Criminals could be considered to be (maybe even defined as?) 'individuals whose rights we're justified in violating'.
It's trivially true that you could identifiy a set of 'individuals whose rights we should violate'. They'd also have common qualities such as criminality, insanity etc. So what defines a 'group' for your purposes? Is the point simply that you can't take rights from a whole group based on a undeserving minority?
You're saying some individuals should have their rights violated? What do you think a "right" is?
Question: are there other reasons, in your opinion, why the rights of these groups might be restricted? Or is it purely a matter of power?
To put this another way, and to pick a specific example for clarity: suppose on Tuesday, Sam and Pat are both free to walk around the city as they choose. Then on Wednesday, Sam and Pat are put in a cage (or whatever), preventing them from exercising this freedom. They attempt to prevent this, and attempt to enlist powerful allies to prevent it, and they fail.
From your perspective, is it correct to claim that their rights are being curtailed and I deserve condemnation if I fail to defend those rights... for example, if I have the key to that cage and don't use it to free them?
Or are there additional factors that need to be established to justify that claim?
There are many reasons why certain actions should be taken, such as putting someone in a cage. It may prevent others from doing whatever it was that prompted us to put that person in a cage. However it is still true that in general we are all better off if everyone possesses a love of freedom for all, even if in this individual case the consequences of locking someone up outweigh other considerations. Thus we should respect that their right to freedom exists even as we are violating it, and acknowledge that the world would be a better place if this wasn't necessary.
That's all in ideal-world-land though. In practice, it's just a matter of power. Right now there are war criminals giving book tours and talk-show circuits in the US who are free because they harnessed a great deal of power over their lives. And there are national heroes who are locked away in isolation because they made those people uncomfortable.
OK, thanks.
For the record, I think there are people in the real world whose freedoms are being restricted, not only because they lack the power to prevent it, but because a variety of other conditions apply that I endorse restricting people's freedoms for... much like what you say of ideal-world land.
To say that more succinctly, I think there are people in the real world whose freedoms are being justly restricted. I gather we disagree about this, which is fine... I'm content to leave it there.
I certainly agree with you, though, that power is a critical factor, and that there are people in the real world who are being made to suffer unjustly, and that there are people in the real world who are unjustly benefiting.
I'm trying to understand your last few posts. Do you believe that human rights SHOULD BE universal, but in fact ARE only for those who take them? Or does 'universal' here mean something like 'with the inherent ability to claim and enforce them'? Because I'm not sure why it would be fundamental that criminals would be unable to enforce their rights?
Because of this, I'm not sure if you think we should defend rights for criminals, minors and/or the mentally incompetent as well as for homosexuals.
As a side point, you say that you encourage others to defend rights because you're attached to your own rights. Is this a case of valuing them in others because you do in yourself, or a matter of your own rights being safeguarded by a society that defends rights in general?
As I said to TheOtherDavid, there are sometimes reasons to take actions that violate others rights. There are more such reasons for violating the rights of minors/criminals/mentally incompetant than for homosexuals and so I'd put more energy into preventing the violation of rights against homosexuals. In fact I think there's so few reasons for violating the rights of homosexuals that I view it as an affront to civilization and to myself as a civilized human to do so.
Both.
OK: so rights are universal over all people, but they're not inalienable, in that you sometimes have good reason for violating them. I'm not sure whether that always reflects our approach, especially for minors: is it that we think they have rights such as voting, contract etc. but we violate this right due to some risk or danger? Or do we simply not hold that they have those rights?
On the sidepoint: fair enough. Presumably it's mostly valuing them in others, as if you want to defend your own rights than doing so by encouraging a general culture of defence of rights is very indirect and the net effect to you personally would presumably be much smaller than simpler accruing greater wealth/power/knowledge.
Hm... I've never fully thought out the situation with minors. This probably would have occurred to me earlier if I had children of my own.
I want to say that I'm not sure that very young children can be considered fully human in the same way as adults, but this raises several red flags, not the least of which is the problem of determining when a person counts as "human" or not. I think rather than dig myself into a hole that I'm not sure I even support, I'd rather default back to my previous position -
Minors have rights at the same point that anyone else has rights: once they have the power/allies to assert and defend those rights.
The position in general does deserve some more pondering.
I suppose that depends on whether the 'basic rights' include things like voting and contract, that you might consider distinctively rights of citizens.
To be honest, I never know how to take human rights language. Some people treat it as morally factual that people have certain rights, whether these are upheld and exercised or not. For me, 'rights' has to refer to a sort of social contract. We say that people have the 'right to life' because it makes certain decisions more difficult to take than if we just said you had to do what was best for your citizens in general.
It's very difficult to condemn a country for 'not pursuing policies that evidence suggests maximises the freedom and quality of life of its citizens'. Doing so involves all sorts of sub-arguments and complexities. Whereas saying 'they torture people' at least gives you a clear point of objection, even if the fact and justification are both subject to argument afterwards.
Kudos on the 'I've never fully thought the situation through', btw. Remarkably rare words on the net.
What about people who simply are silent, but not necessarily embarrassed?
I mean, there are lots of people in the world whose rights are being deprived, and I am silent about most of them most of the time. So is pretty much everyone I know. I don't know all of our emotional motivations, but our silence is demonstrable.
If that means we're all implicit in the murder of human rights and the spread of tyranny, I can accept that, but it's not clear that there's any grounds for singling out Swimmer's community for special treatment (which I understood to be the original context) on that basis.
I don't spend every minute decrying all the injustices of humanity, but if someone I know says in my presence that muslims are violent I at least let them know of my disapproval. Maybe that's a contributing factor to Swimmer's non-believing friends seeming grumpy and judgmental.
Actually I like it when people frankly correct other people's incorrect opinions. The negativity I'm talking about is more on the line of 'I hate this job, I'm so bored, my family is so stupid, I'm so sick of school' and also comments like 'That kid has the biggest head ever, I bet it makes her sink to the bottom of the pool' or 'seriously, why do fat people keep coming here and buying chips? They should just die.' This is the kind of negativity I see a LOT less of in Christian circles. Atheists may also be more likely to correct people's opinions, being more contrarian, but it's not something I've noticed personally.