PSA: rules of the road

[rm]

Hey. Can we talk about guns for a second?

Okay.

Guns, more or less, are for killing shit. Even when you're shooting targets for sport, that's a training activity related shooting accurately in case you actually want to kill shit.

And you know what? That's okay. Maybe you hunt. Maybe you're in law enforcement. Maybe you're military. Maybe you're learning to use a gun for self-defense. Maybe you just really enjoy target shooting or are a competitive sport shooter and it is, for you, an abstract exercise. Maybe you're trying to become familiar with guns so you can make your own decision about them.

All that stuff can be debated. Whether or not hunting is okay. Whether or not police should have guns. Whether or not we'll always have war. Whether or not guns are an effective means of self-defense.

But this post isn't about that.

This also isn't about gun control (which, btw, isn't about "Yes" or "No" but a range of legal issues surrounding gun ownership, use and sale).

This is about, CAN WE ALL JUST AGREE THAT GUNS ARE FOR SHOOTING THINGS?

And that generally, shooting things means harming/destroying them in some way?

Now, sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a gun's purpose is, as reviewed previously, essentially for killing.

Of course, other things can kill people too and even be repurposed as weapons -- like cars and airplanes. But neither of those things are explicitly designed to be weapons or lack other uses. Guns, on the other hand, pretty much are just for shooting shit.

So here are a bunch of things that are not equivalent to guns, gun ranges, or gun instruction:

airplanes
flight schools
cars
driving school
mosques
Islamic cultural centers

To say otherwise is disingenuous and illogical, and no, "I'm just playing devil's advocate" is not an excuse to be offensive about this.

I have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists reading and participating in this journal. Probably a whole bunch of other belief systems too. There are folks from all over the world, all ages, all races, playing along here.

So, if someone says to you "that statement is racist," they are not calling you a racist. They are saying you said something they feel is racist. Please debate with this in mind. Also, please refrain from calling people racists or what-have-you unless you are pointing out a systematic pattern of behavior.

Please also keep in mind that concepts and terms that may not be loaded where you live, may be deeply loaded where someone else lives. Sometimes people can say really offensive shit and not only have meant no harm by it, but really, have no idea it could cause harm elsewhere (i.e., acceptable uses of "Asian" and "Oriental" are different in the US vs. the UK and elsewhere and mean different things in various places; "English-only" as a policy in a multi-national corporation is different than "English-only" as a policy in a school district where 80% of the kids are recent immigrants; etc).

Also, I would appreciate it a lot if we could try to play by the rules of the subway. If someone says you've said something hurtful to them and you don't get it after going three rounds over it? Just fucking apologize and move on.

Because honestly? Sure, some people like to make a career out of taking shit personally. But most of the time if someone speaks up to go "wow, this made me really uncomfortable" it's because they're really uncomfortable, not because they want attention. Chances are they want anything but.

So if you wanted them to feel that way? Fine, own it. If you don't give a shit if they feel that way? Fine, own that. If you don't get it? Own that.

But don't tell them how to feel or that they feel too much. And if you feel those emotions are coming from biases, then suggest they examine them, but you can't tell people how to feel, mainly 'cause it doesn't work.

Now, of course, I'm no expert in any of these things. I fight and argue on the Internet where PEOPLE ARE WRONG all the damn time. And I've absolutely, and rightly, been called on for saying racist and ableist shit (I hope it's the sort of thing I keep learning from), and I've been incensed by other people's emotions and engaged in ad hominem attacks and been called on shit that I totally haven't gotten, maybe right or maybe wrongly.

But can we try? Because I try. I'd like it if you fucking tried.

I won't be policing the journal for this shit. I don't have the time, and I'm not interested in being a cop. When I ban people, which is rarely, it's because I've lost my patience and they've made it abundantly clear they do not view me as a human being. So bans: unlikely and at random. Live in fear, or, more rationally, don't worry about it; you're probably safe.

But try not to be assholes, okay?

And a mosque is not a gun is not a car.

Thank you.

Comments

[marcmagus]

I hope you won't mind if I interject briefly:

Riddle me this : If I was an anti-Semite, Anti Islam, Racist as I've been called, woudl I have any Islamic friends? No , I would not.

I'm Jewish. I have friends who have made anti-Semitic statements, some even in my hearing. A few even in the strictly anti-Jewish sense. They're still my friends, and in many cases, if I were for some reason asked I would probably say that no, they aren't anti-Semites.

In general, people have been calling your statements anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, or racist. I have not observed anybody calling you any of those things. That distinction really is relevant.

I encourage you to attempt to go back with a clear mind and reread rm's response to you at the beginning of this thread, where she specifically attached all those -ists to a sentence about your statements and their effects, and then your reply to that, where you responded that you (rather than what you said or the effect of it) are not personally anti-Islamic.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

I trust my friends to tell me if I'm being culturally / racially insensitive. They have done so, but always in an appropriate but firm way. No snarking, no personal insults, no degrading - like " Hey man, that's not right ". As you might guess from the antics here, I have very few friends, but I trust the ones I have explicitly - and I believe that they would call me out if I was a racist/*-phobe/etc.

My statements, which I have clearly said multiple times that I do not agree with, were part of understanding why some people oppose the location. I do not agree with reasons that are racist/phobic/hate based, and I also clearly said that in my opinion it's a signal to noise ratio issue. Now I also said I don't expect nor demand people to agree with me. In return for this I have been called damn near every bad name under the sun, told that I am a racist , and any attempt to defend that has been twisted into further proof. This is a no win situation, and like the last round - it was shown that people give up when they realize you can't force someone to admit they are something that they are not.

I don't expect you to understand the depth of hurt that is involved when someone who knows better accuses me of being an anti-Semite. You are not me, and no one but I really has a grip on how that cuts.

I don't mind if you interject. Historically speaking you have always been respectful and yet firm on your stance. In contrast to the snarking , name calling and 'oh no you ARE a racist' that is much appreciated.

In conclusion, I made many statements that I have derived as being from the point of view of many people, a point of view that I do not agree with , nor support , but understand. I also feel that misdirected religion is as dangerous as a loaded gun in the sense that it can cause destruction and death at the command of one person. Finally I stated that my opinion is that I disagree with the location of the Mosque, based on signal to noise ratio and effectiveness in completing it's goal of cultural (re)education. This was not based on bias, hate, or any phobia. It was stated that in fact it IS based on these things, which is simply incorrect.

There is a limit to the abuse I will take, especially in this forum which has historically lead to many pieces of hate mail and snark directed towards me. I slipped and started matching snark for snark, which was a mistake on my part, but I'm human and I will make mistakes now and then. It just happens that this round two things happened - one of the attacks I took personally and therefore it hit a nerve, and I had an apology thrown in my face. I don't see any reason to continue down this path. People have demonized me , and there is apparently no changing their mind.

[marcmagus]

It's a bit difficult to respond to this, as I feel like you've replied a lot more to what you're feeling in response to the discussion at hand and my comments than to what I actually wrote. Although I think the biggest point I wanted to make earlier was in fact that you appear to be doing exactly that with respect to other people, I guess that's a good comment to make.

I appreciate that you've felt attacked in the discussion, and I totally appreciate that having a number of people criticize your position can be overwhelming. However, I'm also seeing a lot of interactions of the following form:

You: A statement.
Someone: That statement is problematic in its assumptions or claims about Islam.
You: I'm not an Islamiphobe.

Watching discussions like this unfold is really frustrating for me, because I see how you/the person in your position and the people on the other side are arguing in good faith, but I also see how poor statements, misunderstandings, a different background for the basis of discussion, and arguing from emotion start to spiral out of control.

Usually, it follows the form I described above, and the "I'm not an Islamiphobe." response is the point of conversational breakdown, although it continues long after it.

I assume by now you've read "Derailing for Dummies" or some variant on the idea. I feel I should point out that you've used "I'm not a X-ist", "My X friend says I'm not a X-ist", and in this comment you've made allusion to "the tone argument". I'm not saying any of this makes you an X-ist, or even particularly makes you look like one, but it does call up the "haven't we done all this before, many times?" response.

I'm truly sorry to hear about the hate-mail. That shit is never appropriate.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

I have read derailing for dummies. I think that it is a insulting, degrading piece of work that takes a serious subject and turns it into a hate-fest. It is needed, and the points it makes are valid, but it does so in such a disgusting way that it takes away from the purpose. It's more of a blueprint of how to corner someone no matter what they say into a negative position. It defeats it's own purpose.

How do you make comment about thoughts, actions and observations of other people without having the results cast on you?

Me : People who hate cats generally say that hate them because of the destruction of furniture, vomiting, and difficulty training them. I understand these issues, and how they effect a negative image of cats, but I don't agree with them. I like cats, and with proper training these issues can be mitigated.

Someone : That statement is anti cat, and problematic with my view of cats. Why do you hate cats? You are cat-phobic.

Me : I don't hate cats. I have cats. My friends have seen my cats and they can tell you that they are happy and well cared for.

Someone : You say you are not cat-phobic but your words are clearly cat-phobic if not cat hating. (insert argument for derailing via the "my friends" argument, then the " I'm not a x-ist" argument )

Can you see the frustration there?

[marcmagus]

Yes, I really, really can.

However, what I see is [this analogy may get really tortured]:

You : People who hate cats generally say that hate them because of the destruction of furniture, vomiting, and difficulty training them. I understand these issues, and how they effect a negative image of cats, but I don't agree with them. I like cats, and with proper training these issues can be mitigated.

Someone : That statement is anti cat, and problematic with my view of cats.

You : I don't hate cats.

Someone Else : Your ideas on cat training suggest a disrespect for cats as individuals. I find this problematic.

You : I don't hate cats. I have cats. My friends have seen my cats and they can tell you that they are happy and well cared for.

Someone : You say you are not cat-phobic but your words are clearly cat-phobic if not cat hating. (insert argument for derailing via the "my friends" argument, then the " I'm not a x-ist" argument )

---

Commenting on somebody else's ideas which you want to introduce to the discussion can be tricky for a few reasons. Lots of people skim a bit when reading, so it's easy for people to misconstrue you as supporting the idea. That may well have happened.

However, when you introduce an idea as being worthy of discussion in a positive or neutral way, you are implicitly lending some small measure of support to that idea, because you thought it had enough merit that it should be brought into the discussion.

But really, I saw people respond to "some people make this argument" with attacks against the argument itself, but in follow-up you responded to them in ways that sounded like you were now a proponent of and defending the position, and people responded accordingly.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

which s why I clarified , multiple times. I was not trying to defend the position, but defend my analysis of the situation. This is WHY some people act this way. This is what causes people to be afraid, and it's not always racism.

for example when I suggested that the crescent moon symbol could be just as much a trigger to some people as the image of the airplane flying into the building. This triggers fear and that fear leads them to be afraid of the Mosque. I was not defending the position, but explaining it. My vector for understanding it was based on my personal PTSD experiences, which lead to things like objects in a supermarket inducing fear, and anxiety.
At no point am I agreeing with the point of view, but I am deconstructing it to it's roots and using personal experience and knowledge to understand why it could/does happen. Also the ad is offensive and insensitive, which is also a reaction that can be based on fear. As a person who lived in NYC before, during and after 9/11 , and witnessed the event from the fire escape of my apartment, I have seen this fear, I have seen people react this way. I'm not saying it's right , but I get it. I know why it happens. It's not always racism, (which seems to be the default answer for everything here) sometimes it's fear, flashbacks, and anxiety. When I lived in NJ recently I had to escort a friend out of the office secretly during a fire drill because the fire alarm triggered 9/11 flashbacks and he went into fight/flight panic. My friend is not a racist, nor a bigot, but when that fear struck him he needed help. he has a similar reaction when visiting ground zero, even just driving by it, or seeing it on TV. I have these experiences, and I was there. It's not always racism, anti-Islam, or *-phobia. Sometimes it's just as simple as being afraid for your life because of something you saw. It's silly to keep inventing new forms of racism to account for things that are not racism.

What had merit was understanding why some people are afraid , and what lead up to that fear. Right or wrong , this is what causes people to think that way. To say that it's just racism or some newly minted form or racism is oversimplifying and not recognizing that there are other reasons, reasons that have nothign to do with race , or religion , but people are forced into that pidgeonhole for the purpose of ridicule and abuse.

It's not just people who are racists or bigots that don't want the Mosque near ground zero It's people who are afraid, who are triggered, who are still reliving the event. They don't see a cultural center, they see a symbol of an organization that they believe was behind the attacks. Do I agree with this? No. Is it real, does it happen? Yes. Is this the same as being a race-hater or an anti-Semite? No.

I want people to think beyond the quick and easy slap on label of racist. As I pointed out racism is becoming the Communism of the McCarthy era - easy accuse, difficult to defend, and even if you do it's a stigma for life. Guilty until proven less guilty, but still guilty.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

1) People have all sorts of triggers around 9/11.

2) Some people have done everything they can to tie all of Islam into 9/11.

Pandering to the latter in the name of the former is an act of Islamophobia.

[lorem_ipsum]

+1 million

[lorem_ipsum]

Hi. I didn't read the entire thread with my full attention, but I'm sorry you were sent hate mail.

This sentence caught my eye and I wanted to respond to it specifically:

I want people to think beyond the quick and easy slap on label of racist.

Some people do quickly slap on the racist label. On the other hand, many other people have put a lot of thought and study into what "a racist" and "racism" really are.

We all understand that a racist is a type of person who harbors racial prejudice. But if we try to render judgement as to whom should be called a racist, things quickly get very murky. That's one of the reasons why people who are concerned about racism and have thought about it a lot will tend to focus their attention on a specific statement that may or may not be racially problematic, rather than on whether a person is racist. It's about reserving judgement on other people, because people are complex and valuable.

Once you start to think about racism as possibly being made up of things other than racial prejudice, it really opens up many avenues of inquiry.

For example, I did not know until a couple of years ago about the practice of redlining, which (to give a very short and incomplete summary) effectively funneled New Deal funds from taxpayers of all colors into the pockets of white families via real estate loans. Eventually, I realized that this little piece of history had-- and continues to have-- a direct effect on my life. You see, I'm not white, but some of my ancestors are; my mother would be financially dependent on me if she had not inherited half the value of her mother's house. Thanks to how that market boomed over the decades, my family made a 3900% profit off the deal.

Meanwhile, my coworker, whose grandparents would flat-out not have been allowed to buy a house in the same area... well, I don't know what his family's situation is exactly. But my point here is that even if we had been able to magically erase all racial prejudice in the world in 1980, the inheritance laws would still have perpetuated the racial wealth gap into the present day. So it turns out that once you set the gears in motion, you don't even NEED any white-sheeted bigots in order for a once-blatantly-racist society to continue its racial inequalities.

Other thing that I've frequently noticed among people who have put a lot of thought and study into racism-- they tend to admit that they have made remarks which they later realized to be racist, and sometimes still catch themselves having moments of racial prejudice. From a certain angle, when you take into account the fact that people tend to learn some racial prejudice from their culture even when they don't want to [science], everyone's a racist. And that (unless you are ready to consign everyone to hell, which most anti-racists are not) implies that "a racist" is not necessarily an unredeemable foamy-mouthed swastika-wearer. That there is hope for us all if we are willing to learn.