- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
If you were actively being beaten to death in a highly public space, are the people who choose to walk past without trying to help you really neutral in this situation?
[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia
- Thread starter Cloud_Strife
- Start date
- Status
If you were actively being beaten to death in a highly public space, are the people who choose to walk past without trying to help you really neutral in this situation?
Zardnaar
Deity
Neutral they might help.
A lot of people are adverse to physical confrontations. So yes if they walked past still neutral.
If they joined in putting the boot in yeah.
I've been in the aftermath of this situation. Not in process.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Counterexample to demonstrate flaw in earlier assertion: "It is illegal to steal from people" can imply and enforce the crime of stealing from transpeople even if one can't even define the term "transpeople". The only thing you need to know to enforce this law fairly is that a transperson is a person (and what theft is).
By that standard every thread here is personal, which doesn't make sense. This thread is about transrights *in general* and JKR's conducts. We're not discussing individual posters because that's off topic.
I hold that being in favor of equal rights is a neutral stance, and that there are even selfish reasons to want this policy for people taking a rational stance towards law. Or to put it another way, if I'm foolish enough to allow transpeople in particular to be trampled by the law, what's stopping another targeted group from being next, perhaps one that includes me or people I know/care about personally? If we allow unfair targeting we can generally expect more unfair targeting, and that's bad for everyone.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
Slippery slope fallacy. You cannot imply a causal connection between protecting transpeople specifically from discrimination to discriminating against transpeople or any other chosen minority.
I just don't know how to completely parse out this morality. I mean, it's always possible to present a binary situation, but I also don't know if simple proximity shouldn't be weighted so heavily. This is a different thread topic, maybe, but:
- over a thousand people die every day from malaria
- I can deliver a bed net for about $15
- a movie here costs about $15
So, if I go see a movie, am I neutral with regards to malaria deaths? It seems 'yes' is the easier answer. I'm not on the side of malaria, really.
There's a lot of evil in the world, and we're constantly ignoring it. Or, preventing some other evil instead (opportunity cost).
We tend to defend against evils that we can empathize against and have proximity. But we don't treat human suffering as equal in any imaginable way, overall.
Lexicus
Deity
Many threads here are personal to someone. It is certainly no coincidence that this forum is crowded with white men and largely devoid of people for whom topics like sexism and racism are personal.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Remember that image about the white man wanting to debate a topic that personally affects other people
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Yeah that's 100% fair. In some ways my metaphor falls very, very flat. I am infamous for using bad metaphors in some corners of the internet, lol.
What I was trying to express my frustration at is the arguments that some leveled in the thread about neutrality makes absolutely zero sense. To extend this malaria metaphor, imagine if we had this conversation in a hypothetical CFC OT thread about malaria.
El_Machinae: "Malaria is very bad."
Me: "I am neutral on the topic of malaria, but I feel sorry for those mosquitoes that get squished in the name of stopping malaria.
I am now going to spend $15 watching a movie."El_Machinae: "You shouldn't feel sorry for the mosquitoes...what on Earth are you talking about? How about instead of watching a movie you donate your $15 to help stop malaria? Or failing that, would you at least show more sympathy towards people infected with malaria than the mosquitoes?"
Me: "WTH? If you're not going to let me be neutral then I'm going to be opposed to you! I'm going to donate $15 to helping spread malaria!"
El_Machinae: "???"
I wouldn't know how to describe that behaviour of me in that hypothetical thread but I don't think "neutrality on the topic of malaria" really fits the bill.
Last edited:
All metaphors are going to fail out when pushed too hard.
Luckily, I'm super-good at metaphors. I'm something of a shepherds pie at making them.
Luckily, I'm super-good at metaphors. I'm something of a shepherds pie at making them.
^Neutral can indeed go either way. But usually it connotes lack of participation.
It is also why there is no crime done if you just don't help someone who is at risk.
A metaphor is part of the set which includes anything tied metaphorically. By definition you get closer to an ideal metaphor the more knowledge you have of what the set is.
It is also why there is no crime done if you just don't help someone who is at risk.
A metaphor is part of the set which includes anything tied metaphorically. By definition you get closer to an ideal metaphor the more knowledge you have of what the set is.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Bystander effect/apathy. I'd still consider them neutral/apathetic in the scenario since they're just bystanders. Though if you want the real nitty gritty, i'd be apathy (and any of it's related synonyms like indifference, detachment, passivity, unconcern). Neather showing ill harm or hate towards the victim nor giving aid to the victim.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Just standing by, relishing the thought and sight of alien suffering.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Inaction is still a decision and a harmful, negative one at that.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
You know, generally speaking, bystander effect is considered a negative aspect in a society
Cloud_Strife
Deity
There's people it trying to justify their inaction on terrible things and it's gross, selfish and genuinely worrying
One of the greatest inoculations against bystander effect is actually just telling people about it. I guess frequent reminders are like booster shots
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Actually very few CFC threads are personal even on off topic. This is not one of them. This is about transrights in general and JKR's comments about them. It is not a thread about any of CFC's posters. Those do exist, but this isn't one of them.
Still doesn't make a case that inaction is anything but neutral. Plus quoted is indicative of a self-inconsistent position. None of us can take action on all the terrible things. There is always an element of bias/emphasis on things we care about more rather than less.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
To Cloud and other trans, they do see this topic as an issue they hold dear to, thus they see it as personal since it goes into the core of their identity and have a concern that JKR’s comments would be harmful in one way or another. Eather by normalizing that her statements are alright or influencing a socially conservative politician to propose and/or vote in legislation to curb trans’ liberties and rights.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Rowling continues to develop her anti-trans position, announcing now that she's "concerned" transpeople who transition are undergoing a kind of modern form of conversion therapy and permanently damaging their bodies. Which is just a completely mischaracterizing and unsubstantiated piece of slander against transitioning and transition support networks.
She's going to get people killed.
She's going to get people killed.
- Status
