Honey and vinegar

[tv_vt]

+1

[Tickdoc]

I just don't give a damn. I never can understand how people get so bent out of shape over stuff like this. It matters not to me what you think or how you feel towards these issues. You are welcome to your opinion and can champion them as much as you want. Just don't expect me to change my opinion and we are good.

Now if it was my daughter up there on the podium how would I feel?
What if she were the one on the second or third tier?

Still doesn't matter. It only matters how she feels, and just like me, she is entitled to her own opinion.

[ptourkin]

I commend the thoughtful post and agree in spirit even though I am often the most incendiary one here.

I just want to offer one anecdote regarding the current civility debate:

The person who was posting the most hateful and inflammatory remarks on yesterday's thread contacted me via private message about a year ago and excoriated me for a somewhat political statement I posted here. I repeatedly asked him whether his objection was based on the viewpoint I am obviously coming from. Both privately and publicly, he denied that. He then went on to post statements that I at least found outrageous which came from a particular political mindset and engaged vehemently with people from the "other side," eventually straying into slurs.

As I said, I understand the thoughtfulness expressed above, but sometimes those who are asking for tolerance want that merely to express their own intolerance without objection. I'm not claiming that I have never been guilty of that, but I'm also not sure if letting it pass without condemnation is always possible.

This is a discussion on "my" side right now - there are people who believe that gatherings like that in Charlottesville should be ignored and that if we ignore them, they'll go away. Others say that a lack of confrontation allows it to grow.

[joosttx]

MLK words are very topical to the discussion:

“Violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.[6]

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Originally Posted by ptourkin

I commend the thoughtful post and agree in spirit even though I am often the most incendiary one here.

I just want to offer one anecdote regarding the current civility debate:

The person who was posting the most hateful and inflammatory remarks on yesterday's thread contacted me via private message about a year ago and excoriated me for a somewhat political statement I posted here. I repeatedly asked him whether his objection was based on the viewpoint I am obviously coming from. Both privately and publicly, he denied that. He then went on to post statements that I at least found outrageous which came from a particular political mindset and engaged vehemently with people from the "other side," eventually straying into slurs.

As I said, I understand the thoughtfulness expressed above, but sometimes those who are asking for tolerance want that merely to express their own intolerance without objection. I'm not claiming that I have never been guilty of that, but I'm also not sure if letting it pass without condemnation is always possible.

This is a discussion on "my" side right now - there are people who believe that gatherings like that in Charlottesville should be ignored and that if we ignore them, they'll go away. Others say that a lack of confrontation allows it to grow.

[notsew]

Here, here.

Obviously, its hard to communicate by type and easy to spew trash when you don't have to look someone in the eye. Worse, some people also think their opinions are infallible. As a society we've glorified the opinion. So much of the media landscape is dedicated to people's opinions or people's opinions on other people's opinions. That there is some sort of righteous truth in the act of having an opinion. Opinion's can be, and often are, wrong, I've had opinions that I look back on and recognize as short sighted and wrong. As grown-ups we should be able to welcome questions to our opinions and look to facts (if we can agree facts are facts) to help guide our decisions.... Or at least, that's my opinion.

Plus somehow have forgotten the most important life philosophy there is: don't be an asshole.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by joosttx

MLK words are very topical to the discussion:

“Violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.[6]

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Again, understood and respected. The MLK quote is frequently cited on one side of the civility debate lately and it could be valid here.

A historical fact that is often left unsaid is that by 1967 he basically took that back. See his September 1967 speech to the American Psychology Convention.

His message of non-violence is uplifting but those statements have frequently been misused as of late as are Gandhi's when equating them with pacifism.

Most importantly, MLK's statements were not a call to bothsidesism. This is how he closed in 1967:

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by ptourkin

Again, understood and respected. The MLK quote is frequently cited on one side of the civility debate lately and it could be valid here.

A historical fact that is often left unsaid is that by 1967 he basically took that back. See his September 1967 speech to the American Psychology Convention.

His message of non-violence is uplifting but those statements have frequently been misused as of late as are Gandhi's when equating them with pacifism.

Most importantly, MLK's statements were not a call to bothsidesism. This is how he closed in 1967:

“Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.”

And what I quoted is how he purposed a solution. My point understand your foe, try to see’ where he is coming from. Treat him with respect. The best is you may turn him, you may earn his respect, you may get nothing . But attacking him will not help your cause unless your in to try and silence others who disagree through imitimidation

[earlfoss]

It's probably not a good place to start by labeling a person you're debating/discussing with as your foe but I get what you're saying.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by earlfoss

It's probably not a good place to start by labeling a person you're debating/discussing with as your foe but I get what you're saying.

Truth

[fignon's barber]

Originally Posted by joosttx

Truth

Good initial post. Honestly, I read that transgender thread and had a definite opinion, but the thread was such a bad mix of mean spirit and self righteousness that I chose not to participate.

[DRZRM]

Yeah, I appreciate the initial post here. I have a tendency of "getting into it" over certain subjects here, and sometimes I regret it, though usually not. I stayed out of that one, but had some broad thoughts as to the general incivility so visible there.

Few things sound as dismissive as people outside of either involved demographic starting posts with "sorry [insert whatever group you are about to slight and show how not actually sorry you are] trans/black/women..."

I also wonder about all this heartfelt sympathy for women athletes who are so wronged. You'd think that this forum was driven by its feminist sympathies and gender equality, though anyone who has been here for any longer than it takes to check the Classifieds, knows this forum is a rough place for the handful of female cyclists who participate--or more likely once participated. I expect nothing but a cringe-fest and a quick lock in any thread that addresses gender or identity, all the worse if it includes "humor".

[earlfoss]

You don't have to be a feminist to have sympathy for the women competitors who feel wronged. As an athlete I know the number of sacrifices required, and how hard you have to work to have success at any level of the sport. If one of the lady athletes who poured her heart and soul into the pursuit of this big goal feels cheated, that sucks bad.

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by Lewis Moon

It's easier to think in black and white, on or off, ones and zeros. Navigating the grey areas, or even admitting they exist is hard. But that's where we can find the space to move forward.

The problem with that black or white/ yes or no/ etc is that the entire world is made up of shades of grey. ...and yes, there are more than 50 of em...

IOW there's no such thing as someone that's purely evil or someone that's purely good.

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by joosttx

And what I quoted is how he purposed a solution. My point understand your foe, try to see’ where he is coming from. Treat him with respect. The best is you may turn him, you may earn his respect, you may get nothing . But attacking him will not help your cause unless your in to try and silence others who disagree through imitimidation

Part of debating is to attack the argument, not the person. The minute you attack the person, that argument is lost.

My $.02

M

[crankles]

Originally Posted by joosttx

I just finished reading the Transgender winning athlete thread and frankly want to make a plea. I wish I was more eloquent and technically skilled at writing so that I can surgically address my topic without it seeming like I am attacking different philosophical, ethical viewpoints because I am not but lack the skill to express that. And by not attacking them does not mean I agree with them. I am more concerned with how arguments or takes are formed and presented and rebutted. And this post is about that subject, so I will repeat my last sentence I am more concerned with how arguments or takes are formed and presented and rebutted than everyone's viewpoints on the subject.

Gender classification of transgender persons in sports is a very complex issue that I have not thought too much about simply because it is very complex and does not affect me personally or my personal orbit, forgive me. Sports physiology, ethics, psychological and personal experience all meld together in this debate like more social debates (substitute Science for sports phys.). Posters cited all these categories that helped build a picture of the complexity. Others admitted ignorance, and other posters took hard positions on either side of the issue without much reasoning. And of course, some trolled and got really nasty.

My plea that when someone disagrees with you or explains ignorance that you do not assume the worst and attack them. That is no way to convince someone. All it does is pushes them away from you. We are never going to get anywhere screaming at each other- it is like the opposite of logical stalemate, its a yellmate tm. (just made that up)

We can get somewhere by disagreeing . It is also cool to gravitate to people who share you views. Just make sound, thoughtful arguments for your position or simply provide credible information important to the discussion. Attacking people who disagree with you only drives a wedge between you and them, fueling distrust between you and them on all topics. Ultimately building tribes.

I am a middle-aged white male of privilege. I believe privilege comes with responsibility and that my viewpoint is not the same as others- I have not walked in your shoes. But my education and privilege have taught me to recognize this and learn from others views and experience.

So, please understand that the best way to have someone hear you is not to attack them or belittle them but present your stance and where it comes from so that they can understand your points. They may not agree but I think more of them will think you (and your ideas) are less of a jackass. And respect will be earned regardless of your position.

So try honey before vinegar and fight tribalism and champion thoughtfulness.

Nicely phrased. I hope one day we'll meet on the road....I only get to Larkspur these days for soccer games ;-)