I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”...I support the Mohammed drawing day, Koran-burning, and similar attempts involving other religions and political doctrines.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
I mean, all these things feel like they’re in a different category than the things you described, but I wouldn’t know how to describe that difference to a computer.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
The distinction here is that if an outsider does these things it is clearly hostile.
Black people are reclaiming the word “nigger”. Part of the stated reason is to take away the word’s ability to harm, in other words, exactly the reason I mentioned. I am not black, so in context, it would seem hostile, just as bombarding the only Muslim family in a neighborhood with Mohammed cartoons would be hostile.
The example you gave above treats the images as harmful without context. (For a Muslim, seeing an image of Mohammed “hurts” [I don’t accept this, btw, offense and harm are not the same thing.] regardless of the intention of the image creator.) So the comparable example would be using “nigger” by another black person or in an academic context, or a Holocaust survivor making jokes about the Holocaust, or a family member joking about the foibles of a dead relative. And yes, I have no problem with any of these things.
It doesn’t really seem like you put thought into these examples. Rather, it seems like you made a list of doubleplusungood things and tried to tar me with the association.
My point was that what hurts people about Yvain’s examples is that someone is obviously behaving in a hostile way toward them, not the offensive thing in itself. Images of Mohammed are haraam in Islam regardless of intent.
Ah, I see. Then a white person saying ‘nigger’ is indeed not comparable to participating in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, but a black person saying ‘nigger’ is still not comparable either. No person saying ‘nigger’ could actually be comparable, since that word is not haraam.
Now that I’ve written this, I realise that some black people hold the opinion that this word is haraam; they argue that even black people should not use it. Then EDM Day is a bit more like a white person saying ‘nigger’ (as a protest against banning it, of course, not with the intention of causing offence).
By the way, I’d appreciate it if whoever downvoted the grandparent would explain what was wrong with it. Too brief? (But I think that knb understood it fine.) I would hate to think that people get downvoted for admitting that they don’t understand somebody.
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
So by rejecting sacred cows, does this mean you would eliminate the whole category of moral rules that depend on something bring sacred? (I don’t think this is necessarily so from what you’ve said.)
I ask myself if I attach moral weight to anything sacred and I’m not sure.
Actually, I think so—I can think of some things that I care about symbolically, rather than just at the object level—but I attach the morality to my relationship with this thing rather than other people’s, so I’m not easily as offended. (though I can now think of some cases where I am)
So I’m confused on the topic. What do you think of ‘sacred’ in general?
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
You probably have in mind the theories of Jonathan Haidt.
I am skeptical towards his theories, though. There may be some truth in them, but his approach is extremely ideologized and, in my opinion, biased accordingly. (On the other hand, I do appreciate that he is explicit and upfront about his ideology and its role in his work. It is certainly a welcome contrast to what is commonly seen in academia.)
The 3 are community, autonomy, and divinity, and they come from the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. Purity was a big part of the ethic of divinity, so much so that you could even argue that “purity” would be a more appropriate label for it.
Jonathan Haidt worked with Shweder at the start of his career and basically adopted Shweder’s system, but he has since modified his views to include 5 moral foundations rather than 3: harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity.
But I never read Shweder or Haidt, I was only exposed to those ideas on LW.
Aha! Now that I know what to google, I discover that I was exposed to these ideas here.
I even took that quiz to find that I was relatively low on the purity foundation, just as in the example figure. The model and the quiz made a favorable impression—I decided I was comfortable with carving morality in that way—but then I apparently forgot the details.
I feel like I read the answer already in this page. These offenses aren’t just negligent (oops, I didn’t realize you didn’t like that) or insensitive (this is what I want to do, too bad if it offends you) -- they are pointedly hostile. The person receiving these offenses can rationally experience these offenses as an expression of hate and thus an intent to do harm. Depending on the status of the offender, the victim can feel threatened about their continued place in the clan.
meh.. In this specific case it seems the organized, intended signal is ‘defiance’. For some of the artists it is probably simple irreverence that motivates them. But I wouldn’t doubt that a lot of people feel hostile too.
Everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks regarding attempted genocide of one’s ethnic group—not least because it’s very difficult not to perceive it as a veiled threat.
Not everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks of one’s cultural/religious/philosophical inspiration—not least because it’s an obvious strategy for a utility monster.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It’s very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they’re improving the world?
I still believe there’s a problem in using the word “hostility” since it’s negatively connotated. Further, I think there’s a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won’t bring us further by discussing much further.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
I mean, all these things feel like they’re in a different category than the things you described, but I wouldn’t know how to describe that difference to a computer.
The distinction here is that if an outsider does these things it is clearly hostile.
Black people are reclaiming the word “nigger”. Part of the stated reason is to take away the word’s ability to harm, in other words, exactly the reason I mentioned. I am not black, so in context, it would seem hostile, just as bombarding the only Muslim family in a neighborhood with Mohammed cartoons would be hostile.
The example you gave above treats the images as harmful without context. (For a Muslim, seeing an image of Mohammed “hurts” [I don’t accept this, btw, offense and harm are not the same thing.] regardless of the intention of the image creator.) So the comparable example would be using “nigger” by another black person or in an academic context, or a Holocaust survivor making jokes about the Holocaust, or a family member joking about the foibles of a dead relative. And yes, I have no problem with any of these things.
It doesn’t really seem like you put thought into these examples. Rather, it seems like you made a list of doubleplusungood things and tried to tar me with the association.
I don’t understand your comment. We’re not talking about Muslims drawing pictures of Muhammad.
My point was that what hurts people about Yvain’s examples is that someone is obviously behaving in a hostile way toward them, not the offensive thing in itself. Images of Mohammed are haraam in Islam regardless of intent.
Ah, I see. Then a white person saying ‘nigger’ is indeed not comparable to participating in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, but a black person saying ‘nigger’ is still not comparable either. No person saying ‘nigger’ could actually be comparable, since that word is not haraam.
Now that I’ve written this, I realise that some black people hold the opinion that this word is haraam; they argue that even black people should not use it. Then EDM Day is a bit more like a white person saying ‘nigger’ (as a protest against banning it, of course, not with the intention of causing offence).
By the way, I’d appreciate it if whoever downvoted the grandparent would explain what was wrong with it. Too brief? (But I think that knb understood it fine.) I would hate to think that people get downvoted for admitting that they don’t understand somebody.
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
So by rejecting sacred cows, does this mean you would eliminate the whole category of moral rules that depend on something bring sacred? (I don’t think this is necessarily so from what you’ve said.)
I ask myself if I attach moral weight to anything sacred and I’m not sure.
Actually, I think so—I can think of some things that I care about symbolically, rather than just at the object level—but I attach the morality to my relationship with this thing rather than other people’s, so I’m not easily as offended. (though I can now think of some cases where I am)
So I’m confused on the topic. What do you think of ‘sacred’ in general?
You probably have in mind the theories of Jonathan Haidt.
I am skeptical towards his theories, though. There may be some truth in them, but his approach is extremely ideologized and, in my opinion, biased accordingly. (On the other hand, I do appreciate that he is explicit and upfront about his ideology and its role in his work. It is certainly a welcome contrast to what is commonly seen in academia.)
The 3 are community, autonomy, and divinity, and they come from the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. Purity was a big part of the ethic of divinity, so much so that you could even argue that “purity” would be a more appropriate label for it.
Jonathan Haidt worked with Shweder at the start of his career and basically adopted Shweder’s system, but he has since modified his views to include 5 moral foundations rather than 3: harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity.
Those are the three, thanks.
But I never read Shweder or Haidt, I was only exposed to those ideas on LW.
Aha! Now that I know what to google, I discover that I was exposed to these ideas here.
I even took that quiz to find that I was relatively low on the purity foundation, just as in the example figure. The model and the quiz made a favorable impression—I decided I was comfortable with carving morality in that way—but then I apparently forgot the details.
I feel like I read the answer already in this page. These offenses aren’t just negligent (oops, I didn’t realize you didn’t like that) or insensitive (this is what I want to do, too bad if it offends you) -- they are pointedly hostile. The person receiving these offenses can rationally experience these offenses as an expression of hate and thus an intent to do harm. Depending on the status of the offender, the victim can feel threatened about their continued place in the clan.
Now I’m imagining a consensus that rationalists are just too picky, so there should be an Everyone Argue Like a Normal Person Day.
Well, the same goes for “everybody draw Mohamed day”, no? It’s hostility, not negligence.
meh.. In this specific case it seems the organized, intended signal is ‘defiance’. For some of the artists it is probably simple irreverence that motivates them. But I wouldn’t doubt that a lot of people feel hostile too.
Everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks regarding attempted genocide of one’s ethnic group—not least because it’s very difficult not to perceive it as a veiled threat.
Not everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks of one’s cultural/religious/philosophical inspiration—not least because it’s an obvious strategy for a utility monster.
And? That doesn’t change the fact that “everybody draw Mohammed day” falls in the category of hostility, not negligence or insensitivity.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It’s very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they’re improving the world?
I feel we’re talking past each other. What I’m saying (and Yvain is saying) is that if you categorize actions thatpeople find offensive in:
A) Accidental offense (you didn’t know someone would be offended)
B) Indifferent offense (you know, but don’t care, and do the action anyway)
C) Deliberate offense (you do the action because you know someone will be offended)
.. then “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” falls under C), for the prepretator.
That is a seperate issue from whether it’s sometimes acceptable to deliberately offend people, or of how offensive various actions are.
Okay, I see your point.
I still believe there’s a problem in using the word “hostility” since it’s negatively connotated. Further, I think there’s a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won’t bring us further by discussing much further.