you can't be sure of any situation, something could change and then you won't know (part three)

(Continued from part two.)

Again, we're pretty much picking up mid-conversation: read part one and part two if you don't know what's being discussed.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I try to avoid dictating without power in part because it implies I have authority over the person, and will definitely more often lead to them being angry and ignoring rather than considering what I have to say. That's how I react when someone dictates to me without power, anyway. I have authority issues about being clear who has power over me and on what subjects so I very strongly react negatively to people powerlessly dictating over me that way, heh.
[9:46 PM] Iron: If I have to be dismissive to use the term, which I may have to be in some ways, then so be it. But I'm not dismissing them entirely, I am using the term to say that I am paying attention to and looking at that group of people. I am dismissing the individuality of each person because it is necessary to do so to address the overall intent as a whole. I cannot state my opinion about each single person involved because there are thousands, all with nuances and I am a single being.

That's a good point too. Part of what we do as humans is label. We pick out patterns, we identify by general traits, it's how we're wired to exist in the world. So to a certain extent, categorization will always be a part of who we are as humans.

[9:46 PM] Iron: As a note, I find it better, if possible, to use an example that is counter to one's usual opinion sometimes so as to not contribute to just always painting the "other" group as always the villains. So maybe like, looking at people that were dismissing those that are boycotting Gillette or something would have worked better, but sure.
[9:46 PM] Iron: I am certain a number of people dismissed the Chik-Fil-A boycott after looking into it and finding they disagreed with it. I'd still eat there, if friends were going there. I'd hesitate before going there on my own, there are less problematic chicken places to eat at easily available, but that's just me. The chicken is probably still good and so are most of the people that work there. But see, that's not me dismissing the issue, that's me thinking about it and deciding the strict boycott doesn't make sense to my choices for me personally so I know it's a bit different. In this case I understand people that do boycott it because some money will still support the owner or whatnot.

Our perspectives, our learning, our observations, form our lives. If we never get out of our insular spaces, we don't learn about the larger world. And at times, that reaching out gets us harmed, or makes us angry, or makes us sad. All we can do at that point is use our own experiences to evaluate the new experiences and see if they can integrate in a meaningful way.

Of course, it's easier for me to say that, because I'm for the Chick-fil-A boycott. We don't order from Papa John's for similar reasons. I've only gone into a WalMart once, under duress, and I deliberately bought nothing. I have never bought anything from Starbuck's. I'm kind of pro-boycott, because hitting corporations in the finances works much better than writing letters, calling them, leaving messages, protesting outside their offices. If enough people refuse to buy from Business A, most of the time, Business A reconsiders. At the very least, Businesses B and C will perk up and say to the protesters, hey, WE aren't like THEM, come buy OUR things instead.

Though all of this is a longer-winded way to say I don't really understand the big divisive deal over Chick-fil-A. Simple biscuits are easy to make, the secret to Chick-fil-A chicken in the first place is pickle juice, and their "secret sauce" is pretty similar to other large chains. So what's the big deal? Just make it at home. Easy, done, no reason to ever go into the chain again.

[9:46 PM] Iron: Dismissal of individuality is necessary when addressing large issues. It has to be done. I am not trying to say outrage culture is a thing and so it can be dismissed. I'm trying to say outrage culture shouldn't be a thing, but it is, and I wish it could be ignored and dismissed but it isn't. It is too loud. It is a bad thing, in my opinion, that is too loud and not easily dismissed. I am very much not dismissing it by saying so, I am addressing it.
[9:46 PM] Iron: Lumping people is needed. I recognize they are individuals at their core, but the culture, the movement, is a larger than individual thing that exists and I need to reference its existence using words to do so.

Because again, it's easy for us to lump an entire group with certain traits into one box, than address each of them as individuals.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I don't hate the people involved in it. I don't like hating people. I can hate general movements but not easily hate people. Which is also part of why I wish people were more selective about including a movement as part of their identity but that's a whole different thing.
[9:46 PM] Iron: I should note that there are liberal based shows that will use deceptive methods to stoke hatred as well. But less of them, in my experience, for sure.

Oh, absolutely. No one's hands are clean where identity politics are concerned. All sides have done harm.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I'm not convinced that's true, that he'd never work again, especially if he never went through with it. I mean, there are black celebrities who claim to have shot someone and have successful careers after, although I'm thinking of rappers. That's always seemed odd to me how that type of violence is celebrated in that realm.
[9:47 PM] Iron: But point is, you assume he'd never have a job again. If so, that sucks. I'd be against that as well. Moreso than I'd be against the way they are treating Liam currently, because that's harsher than how they are treating Liam. I don't think I've indicated that treating a black man the same way, or worse, than they are treating a white man would be okay. Both are wrong.
[9:47 PM] Iron: Also getting shot isn't the same as being raped but that might be besides the point.
[9:47 PM] Fermium: Getting raped is worst.
[9:47 PM] Fermium: But that's subjective.
[9:48 PM] Fermium: They are both heinous crimes.
[9:49 PM] Iron: Yep yep. Just wasn't entirely sure why the switch from rape to being shot, for the example.

I know I made the shift earlier in discussing mass shooters because it's easier to come up with codified examples. (I think I say this later on this conversation as well. I believe the same reasoning applies here with the switch to being shot.

[9:50 PM] Emilly Orr: This thing that [Platinum] said--"people just being outraged and only caring about the outrage". That's it. That's it exactly.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr: I'm not talking about the people who are genuinely hurt by this, the ones who are thinking, man, I looked up to this guy as an actor/friend/date/whatever, and now feel confused as to how they SHOULD feel about him and his actions.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr That, I get.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr: I'm talking about that large stripe of people--and right now, it's being seen in ALL sections of the political spectrum--that are outraged by things just to BE outraged by things.

Okay, hold up for a moment, me. Am I saying this because I'm thinking subconsciously of the incel community? Especially the virulently self-loathing, and misogynistic, "black pill" contingent? There is a group that is part of that community that does get outraged just to get outraged. They seem to live to be outraged at "horrible" women and "attractive" men. Am I just thinking of that when I'm using the term "outrage culture" and "outrage warriors"?

[9:53 PM] Emilly Orr: The switch from rape to being shot is because I see how easy it would be to get to that place. It's terrifying. It SHOULD be terrifying. Shooters were the easiest example I had, but really, it's anyone who temporarily steps away from empathy. For any reason. Anyone who looks at an entire race of people and can say honestly they are not human, they're animals, they don't deserve whatever they have because they aren't "like us". Whomever we identify "us" as.
[9:54 PM] Fermium: This all started because I stated that my dislike is of people who get outraged about people being outraged.

True. And it expanded into a larger conversation from there.

[9:54 PM] Fermium: And I stand by that. I find that people are too quick to call someone's or some group's outrage 'misplaced' or an 'overreaction'. Even listening and parsing what has been said by everyone else here, I'm still getting that same feeling, though you are all my friends and I know you better than that.

[9:54 PM] Fermium: But it is a dismissal, and in a sense it is a refusal. A refusal to understand why they are outraged and instead just say 'They are looking to be outraged' 

And that is also a good point. Am I seeking a way to dismiss a group of people, myself? Am I stepping away from my own empathy about individuals to cull the herd?

[9:54 PM] Fermium: It took me ten minutes of searching to find comments and views that explain why people are outraged about Liam. And they have a point.

They do, yes. (And I  can't figure out the coding in the above quotations that make it look like two separate statements, and I'm giving up trying.)

[9:54 PM] Emilly Orr: Liam did it. The Black Israelite movement, holy hells, that's how they TRAIN their people to interact with others--that only black people in their movement are human and worthy. All whites are animals, all blacks who work with whites are Uncle Toms, anyone else is to be ignored as nonentities.
[9:55 PM] Emilly Orr: And that's fair, [Fermium], I thought I scrolled back to the beginning of things, but apparently I didn't. Not the first time this has happened with long discussions.
[9:56 PM] Iron: Still reading, but I meant the switch from rape to being shot in [Fermium]'s example of Denzel. But that doesn't take away from what you said there or anything.
[9:56 PM] Emilly Orr: Ah. Which is apparently part of what I missed.

Which is also slightly confusing, because, when I went back in the chat to capture all of this, there wasn't much beyond the Denzel allegory, so...I did tackle it from the beginning, as I'd originally thought, I'd just somehow missed the Denzel reference. No clue why.

[9:56 PM] Iron: np
[9:58 PM] Fermium: Oh. Because it was relevant to the broader topic of racism. The example I used is not uncommon for black people in America. White people get away with a lot. I was originally going to use Police, which would have been just as valid, but went for a more random schmo. [10:02 PM] Iron: Ah I see.

Pretty much. The police-as-allegory would also have been a good example, but that is only partially racism, the rest, I truly believe, involves the rise of Homeland Security and the militarization of local police forces.

[10:04 PM] Iron: But I do need to be clear that while I am against the treatment of Liam, and would be against the same treatment of a black man in his situation. More against it if the treatment was worse, which it might very well unfortunately be.
[10:04 PM] Iron: I can be against multiple potential situations.
[10:05 PM] Fermium: You can, but the majority cannot. As MIB stated...
[10:05 PM] Fermium: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

And again, I'm going to divide this into a fourth part, because we're still not even close to the end. Ye gods.

(Continued in part four.)