Posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 18:17:11
In reply to Re: hearing and fearing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 10:44:13
> I agree, it's not directed at any particular individual. But religion is important to lots of people. IMO, saying the world would be a better place without it isn't being sensitive to their feelings.
You know, there were a lot of suggested alternatives earlier in the thread. What if she’d said ‘The world would be a better place without xyz’? And it’s very hard to come up with something as symbolic and emotive as religion. What is important to lots of people in the same kind of way that religion is important? What kinds of social institutions do people invest in with their hearts and souls?
The closest thing I could come up with was marriage. What if someone said, “The world would be a better place without marriage”? Would that be uncivil? Would it be insensitive to the feelings of married people? (I mention marriage partly because my own feelings about marriage as an institution are highly ambivalent, although I love my husband; just as my feelings about religion are highly ambivalent, although I value my Christian upbringing). I honestly don’t know if that would be considered uncivil, and I’d genuinely like to know what others think.
My view is that it should not be considered uncivil to critique social institutions. If Estella had identified a particular religion (or, in my own example, a particular form of marriage such as polygyny) then perhaps it could be considered uncivil. But it was a comment about a social institution that is too broad to be identified with one of its subsets.
I think this point is important because it touches on the whole question of acceptable and unacceptable opinions, and I agree that some opinions are not civil. I would expect a barrage of babblemail if I said I thought the world would be a better place without sexist men. But if I say I think the world would be a better place without sexism, I’d hope no one would PBC me. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Does that make sense?
> That's a good point. People may become afraid of that (maybe especially if they've been hurt when vulnerable in the past). But I take civility seriously and don't consider it trivial.
I don’t consider it trivial either. I take it seriously too. But I think it is most easily achieved when people understand the rules well enough to stay within them. This particular blocking seems to be a very grey area. In particular, the sentence quoted was part of a complex argument, and to take one sentence out of context might not do justice to the meaning of the posts as a whole.
> But the primary goal of blocking isn't to teach, it's to keep it civil here. Whether or not people learn.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. Maybe it’s mentioned somewhere and I missed it. Does that answer my question about whether the issue of reconsidering this block is about justice or authority? It sounds to me as if you’re saying it’s more important to exercise your authority in order to ensure civility than to block justly in order to ensure that civility is imposed fairly. I don’t mean that as a criticism; it just looks to me as if the issue of authority is more important than fairness. But if I have misunderstood I will apologise.
> I've discussed this with the deputies, and my decision is to let both blocks stand.I see. And perhaps if I or others continue to raise the issue it might constitute a challenge to your authority. So I’d like to make it clear that I’m not challenging your authority for the sake of it. I’m still talking about this block because I’m still struggling to see it as fair. I guess that reflects my own agenda. I can live with it. I hope you can too.
Tamar
poster:Tamar
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/659851.html