For Your Consideration... On Debate

A few points to consider as we move forward with this conversation, if you will.

1. A debate and a discussion are two very different things. If you are debating, you are expected to present your arguments in a logical fashion and support your argument with evidence. In a discussion, there is no implicit expectation of logical or factual reasoning. Freedom of speech does not exist in debate. There are very particular rules about what speech is allowed and when you can use it. Lawyers understand this very well.
2. Considering the last point, it is up to both (or more) parties involved to be clear about whether this is a discussion or a debate. Debates have rules; discussions do not.
3. Once an interaction has been established as a debate, winning or losing (yes, debates are a contest with a winner and loser) is often determined more by how one responds to their opponent's arguments as much as how they present their own. It is possible to win a debate without ever presenting any evidence of your own so long as you are able to contradict any evidence presented by your opponent. Defense attorneys in the U.S. do this all of the time.

So, are we having debates in this Temple or are we having discussions? It is pretty evident to me that nearly every interaction here is a discussion. We need to be mindful of this as we interact with those who disagree with our opinions or don't understand how a conversation is making us feel. It is on each one of us, individually, to accept that until this is a court of law or a scholastic debate tournament, our expectation for any conversation to go the way we want it to should be checked with a dose of reality.

MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie in some cases there is not any room for nuance. Some things are or they are not. Yes, you might consider that too crass or blunt but I tend to be a very upfront person. I don't mince words nor do I beat around the bush. So I appreciate the clear up. Further, my intentions here have never been to upset you but to get you to think about how your own actions can cause others to feel exactly as you claim people are making you feel. That's all my goal was and nothing more. Oh, and the insults are beneath you Jamie you are far better than that, further, I think I have extended you the courtesy of being civil so I would ask you do the same.
So I will close with these three things:
1. I hope you understand my clearing this up here and not via pm was out of respect for your telling me not to contact you which to me meant no more PM
2. I never intended to insult you, twist your words, or anything else I simply wanted you to think about how we are all guilty of doing things unintentionally that hurt others or make them feel less than welcome
3. I hope you understand that no matter what you think of me that I for one respect you and value the challenge you present to much of my way of thinking. Growth to me only happens when pushed and you are a prime source of that challenge for me here and I respect and appreciate it. So I truly hope you don't lever leave.

Jamie Stick wrote: Buckle up, kiddo, this bus is taking you to school.

Today's lesson: how to read a sentence. Class is now in session.

Jamie Stick wrote: I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie, it is statements like this that seem to highlight the disconnect between a desire for "friendly debate" and actually participating in adversarial discussion. Injecting emotionally charged statements into an otherwise clearly stated point damages the credibility of the speaker. It is also detrimental to making a point when we attack others for their inability to understand it rather than explaining it further or moving past it altogether.

You have such great information to offer, and you offer it from a rare and valuable perspective. I want to hear you, and it frustrates me every time these conversations turn into bickering. I believe it frustrates you as well, which was the point I took from the original post.

We are all guilty of becoming adversarial, and when we do we miss opportunities to further a constructive discussion. We miss opportunities to both teach and learn. I want to learn from you, Jamie, so don't give up even if we leave a lot to be desired in the way we communicate.

MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie in the PM that we discussed that matter the last post from you was you asking me not to contact you which is why I didn't. It's that simple.

Further, you might not feel those things because I tend to be blunt and maybe I need polishing on how I approach things sure I'll grant that. However when your message comes across as saying that people are unsafe when they disagree with you on things you consider fundamental to your being well how else can it feel but accusatory.?
Also what I was trying to point out is that you often come across in the same manner in which you said others come across to you. I was trying to get you to think about the fact that you don't often intend to cause others to feel unsafe, unwelcome or any other negative emotions do you? Yet you have made me feel exactly that for a brief instant before I let it go. What I was trying to get at with that is that your intentions are generally good so maybe you should try to give people a little more slack and take some matters slightly less personally.

So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

Jamie Stick wrote: So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

No not regardless of the post. I felt that the situation had bearing on what was said. Its a matter of how some conversations can make others feel and that was an example of how we are all guilty of it. Some people say things that we take to heart but were not meant the way we take them. As we saw with my misunderstanding of your statement.

What gives me the right? The fact that this is a free forum and anyone can respond to the topic at hand in any manner they see fit so long as the response follows site guidelines. How are they the same its all perception of how things are said or meant. That is what makes them the same.

Finally, you say that you cant help but to take these things personally as they are a threat to you or those you love. How? How is disagreeing with your views a threat?

We are welcome to take things personally, and we can also become very emotional about certain topics, particularly those that impact our personal sense of well-being. We are human, and to expect any different would remove the very reason to have these conversations in the first place.

However, when taking things personally, we should be prepared for others to do exactly the same. We can hold certain topics very close to our hearts, but we should still be able to separate the topic from the people discussing it. Disagreeing with someone's opinion does not have to equate to disrespecting them or harboring negative feelings (for long).

In theory, we are all here to educate each other. Individually, we can choose what information presented here should be incorporated into our paths and what should be left by the wayside. The goal should be to present information in a way that can be used or discarded by others without attaching our emotional well-being to it. "You can lead a horse to water..." and all that.

MadHatter wrote:
Finally, you say that you cant help but to take these things personally as they are a threat to you or those you love. How? How is disagreeing with your views a threat?

You're conflating, which is exactly why I stress nuance and distinction.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing.I disagree on quite a great deal with others and I don't feel threatened by their disagreements. Disagreeing isn't the issue.

The issue is that certain ideas, such as the idea that trans women don't have a right to use the women's bathroom, threaten my very existence (since the most probable time for someone like myself to be assaulted or killed would be while trying to use a public bathroom). As such, if someone were to post a topic about trans people using bathrooms and asserted that trans women don't have a right to use the women's bathroom, I would feel as though my very right to exist were in question. My sense was that people may not be aware of this and therefore I started this thread to begin a discussion on how there's a certain luxury to being able to discuss and debate topics without feeling as though your very right to exist, to have your existence respected is being challenged. That was purpose of this thread; not a place for you drag me into a personal vendetta lesson, not a place for you to bring up something which I asked to be dropped because I wasn't successfully having a respectful discussion on it (and yes, I was struggling with being respectful just as much as anyone else might have been).

EDIT: Grammar, removed the name of a member and generalized it so as to not put that person on the spot, added a clarifying remark in parenthesis to acknowledge my part in the issue in context.

So... I'd like to join!

Hi,

I am a minority on several levels (race and gender being just two). I get what you are saying Jamie, sort of. I think that is why people who have a certain experience within society tend to group with others who have that same experience. It takes a lot of courage to step out and take a risk to engage with others that might not agree with you. I do it every Sunday. Sometimes I think that its worth it, sometimes I do not.

People have opinions about the poor, about African Americans and about Women that I do not share. They adopt different political frameworks that I find personally harmful. But everyone is given that liberty. I am allowed to believe what I do about myself and about the people that surround me. They are allowed to believe what they do about me.

I purposely don't get into debates or discussions surrounding heated topics because they are hot bottons for me. I have never seen a winner in say, a political debate. I have only seen people with their feelings hurt. I have, when asked, or when I feel its appropriate, spoken my truth. I have let others speak theirs. That is all I can do.

Maybe this will help?
Lao Tzu wrote

30
Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself. The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him.

Jamie Stick wrote: The issue is that certain ideas, such as the idea that trans women don't have a right to use the women's bathroom, threaten my very existence (since the most probable time for someone like myself to be assaulted or killed would be while trying to use a public bathroom). As such, if someone were to post a topic about trans people using bathrooms and asserted that trans women don't have a right to use the women's bathroom, I would feel as though my very right to exist were in question. My sense was that people may not be aware of this and therefore I started this thread to begin a discussion on how there's a certain luxury to being able to discuss and debate topics without feeling as though your very right to exist, to have your existence respected is being challenged. That was purpose of this thread; not a place for you drag me into a personal vendetta lesson, not a place for you to bring up something which I asked to be dropped because I wasn't successfully having a respectful discussion on it (and yes, I was struggling with being respectful just as much as anyone else might have been).
.

Jamie it's not as if I can't get the concept you are reaching for here. Ok as a bisexual male with libertarian views I have been ripped apart from the left and right wings. I have been torn apart by the LGBT community with people bashing me for conservative leanings or saying that bisexuals don't exist. And yea it hurt and felt scary and it felt as if the one place I was supposed to turn to be safe was shanking me in the back. But you know what I learned after coming here?

I learned that often people being that way is a sign that THEY are hurting or have some sort of inner insecurities that cause them to lash out. That nine times out of ten it's not about me or their view of me but their own fears and their inability to deal with them. That is when I learned to stop taking it personally. There is a quote that I do not know the author but I think fits here. "You’ll Worry Less About What People Think of You When You Realize How Seldom They Do".
What I mean by that quote is that most people are so wrapped up in their own worries and fears that they do not even entertain the idea of it impacting you. They never intend to cause a seconds discomfort they are just putting their own feelings out there. Hope that makes sense.

I'm realizing that after all of my effort to frame this conversation as an argument or a debate, it was not meant to be either. Rather, I think your original post, Jamie, was meant to highlight that certain topics will never be simply about the issue, but also the very personal feelings that inevitably come to the surface. Some conversations require emotion because to us, they are just too important.

I will likely never have to worry about being told I am not welcome in the bathroom I know I belong in, but I can still try to understand how even talking about this particular issue could make you feel threatened. It is easy for me to say "leave your emotion out of it" or "just ignore them", but that is belittling the real point you are trying to make. To you, this is an emotional issue and it cannot be ignored. To you and others who experience the reality of being afraid every day, it is also likely a conversation that has a sense of urgency to it. I might not know that feeling, but I can try to understand why you would feel that way.

I guess the real trick is learning how we can share our feelings and try to be compassionate, but also be able to fiercely debate about things we disagree on.

Madhatter,

If I might, I can sort of see where Jamie is coming from, and I don't think she meant to insult you with the "indirectly."

I've been very open about the fact that I grew up in foster care, essentially I was adopted. Sounds like things were similar with your stepfather. So let's look at it from that perspective. Let's say a baby is born of a Jewish mother. That baby is Jewish. His direct bloodline culture is Jewish. But that baby is adopted by a Catholic family. He's raised catholic, practices catholicism, and has an autographed collection of pope paraphernalia. So Catholic becomes his indirect culture. It's not the one of his ancestry, but is still the one he practices, much like someone who converts. However, Judaism would be that person's direct culture. I don't see direct or indirect as meaning to insult, but to distinguish. I could be wrong, and Jamie could correct me if I am.

MadHatter wrote: Jamie it's not as if I can't get the concept you are reaching for here. Ok as a bisexual male with libertarian views I have been ripped apart from the left and right wings. I have been torn apart by the LGBT community with people bashing me for conservative leanings or saying that bisexuals don't exist. And yea it hurt and felt scary and it felt as if the one place I was supposed to turn to be safe was shanking me in the back.

Your ability to sympathize doesn't mean you can invalidate my experience, though I appreciate the attempt at sympathizing. Furthermore, while I acknowledge bisexual erasure is real and believe you when you say it hurts, it is not the same as feeling like if I met a fellow Jedi in the streets that I would be in danger because they don't believe I have a right to exist. That is what I'm speaking to, that specifically. I left Christianity because I didn't feel safe there for the very same reason though the threat was more imminent since I saw them in person on regular basis whereas I have yet to meet any of you face to face. Right now there are people at this Temple I'd be afraid to meet in person because of where they stand on a few different issues and I don't think I'd go to Jedi gathering if they were planning to attend because I wouldn't feel safe there.

MadHatter wrote: I learned that often people being that way is a sign that THEY are hurting or have some sort of inner insecurities that cause them to lash out. That nine times out of ten it's not about me or their view of me but their own fears and their inability to deal with them.

That may be true, but it doesn't make the danger any less real. A person who believes trans women are disgusting and should be "put down like dogs" because they are secretly struggling with their own sense of gender or questioning their sexuality or whatever is no safer than the person who believes all trans people belong in maximum security psych wards simply because they hate trans people.

MadHatter wrote: "You’ll Worry Less About What People Think of You When You Realize How Seldom They Do".
What I mean by that quote is that most people are so wrapped up in their own worries and fears that they do not even entertain the idea of it impacting you. They never intend to cause a seconds discomfort they are just putting their own feelings out there. Hope that makes sense.

Jesus Henry Christ, what a condescending load of crap (not you, the quote).

People can still hurt you regardless of their intentions. Perhaps some of the most egregious violence done to trans people on daily basis is done without the intent to hurt us, but the impact is still that it hurts us. Intentions are virtually meaningless if the impact is negative. My intent to educate and build understanding pales in comparison to the hurt I caused you in the process.

Jamie Stick wrote: Your ability to sympathize doesn't mean you can invalidate my experience, though I appreciate the attempt at sympathizing. Furthermore, while I acknowledge bisexual erasure is real and believe you when you say it hurts, it is not the same as feeling like if I met a fellow Jedi in the streets that I would be in danger because they don't believe I have a right to exist. That is what I'm speaking to, that specifically. I left Christianity because I didn't feel safe there for the very same reason though the threat was more imminent since I saw them in person on regular basis whereas I have yet to meet any of you face to face. Right now there are people at this Temple I'd be afraid to meet in person because of where they stand on a few different issues and I don't think I'd go to Jedi gathering if they were planning to attend because I wouldn't feel safe there.

I am honestly sorry you feel that way and can only say that I have never seen anyone say a thing that would indicate they wish anyone actual harm. But that doesnt mean anything really as I have not seen all the conversation you've had on here.

Jamie Stick wrote: That may be true, but it doesn't make the danger any less real. A person who believes trans women are disgusting and should be "put down like dogs" because they are secretly struggling with their own sense of gender or questioning their sexuality or whatever is no safer than the person who believes all trans people belong in maximum security psych wards simply because they hate trans people.

But what it does do is paint a differing context to a persons words in a debate or conversation. It gives a differing light on why they might be seeing things the way that they do. That is important to keep in mind. Further I must say that stating that one does not believe that I can be bisexual is in no way a threat to my person. Ignorant maybe. Misinformed and callous? Sure. But not a threat to my person. At least I do not see it that way and cant understand how it could be.

Jamie Stick wrote: Jesus Henry Christ, what a condescending load of crap (not you, the quote).

People can still hurt you regardless of their intentions. Perhaps some of the most egregious violence done to trans people on daily basis is done without the intent to hurt us, but the impact is still that it hurts us. Intentions are virtually meaningless if the impact is negative. My intent to educate and build understanding pales in comparison to the hurt I caused you in the process.

But does it? I have learned that my feelings in the grand scheme of things mean next to nothing. The things that made me mad or worried ten years ago are forgotten. But how many lessons did I miss out on because I let emotion blind me?

MadHatter wrote: But does it? I have learned that my feelings in the grand scheme of things mean next to nothing. The things that made me mad or worried ten years ago are forgotten. But how many lessons did I miss out on because I let emotion blind me?

I think you're thinking too small. I'm not talking about words. Words hurt, yes, and my example with you was over words but I'm thinking about how I may go to the hospital and be in very real danger there. They may not intend to cause me harm, but because of ignorance and foolishness within the healthcare system I could be denied care, misdiagnosed, prescribed the wrong medication, subjected to involuntary psych eval, etc. In their minds, I'm sure most of them believe they're doing good and their intention is help me, but they could kill me or cause me to end up in a psychiatric facility without access to a lawyer or some sort of advocacy.

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote: But does it? I have learned that my feelings in the grand scheme of things mean next to nothing. The things that made me mad or worried ten years ago are forgotten. But how many lessons did I miss out on because I let emotion blind me?

I think you're thinking too small. I'm not talking about words. Words hurt, yes, and my example with you was over words but I'm thinking about how I may go to the hospital and be in very real danger there. They may not intend to cause me harm, but because of ignorance and foolishness within the healthcare system I could be denied care, misdiagnosed, prescribed the wrong medication, subjected to involuntary psych eval, etc. In their minds, I'm sure most of them believe they're doing good and their intention is to help me, but they could kill me or cause me to end up in a psychiatric facility without access to a lawyer or some sort of advocacy.

Being denied care for any serious medical situation is illegal and I do not think most hospitals would do it. Misdiagnosis and bad scripts are a risk for anyone can you please expand on how your risk is greater? A psych eval and involuntary holding are not only rare but highly illegal unless you are a proven danger to yourself. I mean such an event would be exceeding rare no?And not to mention highly illegal.