Just a Fire Break Check (was Religion, etc)

2003-07-06 Thread Kanandarqu

John wrote-
I will concede that I have been somewhat disappointed by the fact 
that very few people have spoken up to affirm that the behavior of 
several atheists on this List has been out-of-line in terms of 
respecting the people of faith who are also members of this 
community. :(   Still, this was not entirely unsurprising, as the 
Community has always preferred to rely upon self-correction of 
behavior detrimental to the List, and has always been slow to build 
the critical mass of opinion towards censuring or even most 
drasticly, taking action, against another List Member.   I am sure 
that it also doesn't help that we no longer have Jo Anne Bird around 
to ding listmembers who step out of line.  Still, I think that part 
of the great Brin-L experiment is to become self-regulating in the 
interests of creating our own little on-line civilization, without 
resorting to the use of moderators.  I think that raising my concerns 
that the uncivil actions of certain List-Members were having a 
detrimental effect upon the Community was an entirely appropriate 
course of action.


I think you will find that there are no clear rights and wrongs here, no 
heros and no villians, just a hot topic that is a tinderbox and people who 
recognize the grey areas as much as the extremes of the discussion.  Largely we try 
and respect what members are passionate about, there is also a certain amount 
of background noise and same old, same old that I think we tolerate from 
each other.  There is always a chance that someone will stomp on any given post- 
and if it is something you are passionate about you may risk getting your 
feelings trampled.   Religion/or not is one of those topics the players and 
responses tend to stay passionate and true to form.   Religion or not is 
largely a personal decision in our society and the whole basis of faith is 
intangible- it is not a matter of building consensus.  Sometimes threads mutate and 
live on for weeks, sometimes threads/topics die quickly... no matter how much 
anyone wants to make the list hospitable to religion/safe from religion it 
isn't the perogative of any individual to dictate what it is/isn't.  

Perhaps I have been idealistic in thinking of tolerance as the opposite of 
intolerance, perhaps the word tolerance is not comprehensive enough when it 
comes to interaction (tolerance may be more passive action of non posters?- not 
firmly sure on this yet). (Looking back Jon did a better job than I pointing 
out the need for both respect and tolerance.)  What I see lacking is respect 
for each other- one need not agree with a position, but at least respect the 
other person's ability to have an opinion different from you.  There are really 
no candidates for great shining white knight (to be above reproach) in recent 
heated discussions.  Frankly, people seem to be coming across like those not 
seeing their opinion are mentally deficient for not being able to see matters 
of faith/no faith.  Serious discussion is lots of work this is not a race 
for speed points or dig quality points.  Sometimes I think people don't 
respond since the topic has not exceeded some kind of reasonable response 
threshold for posters.  Joanne is still around as far as I know, but sometimes I have 
to figure you would rather not have/need one of the list goddesses, crones, 
aunts saying something like don't make me pull this car over or stop 
fighting about whose half of the seat you are sitting on (do we really have no 
males that have threatened to ding- or the male equivalent of smote). 

Some topics will not come to consensus.  There is a fundamental principle of 
adult learning that might be helpful in understanding why the group may be 
slow to change.. learning is based on a perceived need to change something.  
Quite simply, some people just don't see a need to change and others saying 
things harsher, more condescendingly, will generally not assist people in 
identifying a need (or cognitive dissonance) to promote change.  

Granted list business is partly my responsibility as much as it is any other 
list members, but I try and keep a few fire breaks around to help keep things 
in perspective.  
Dee
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Just a Fire Break Check (was Religion, etc)

2003-07-06 Thread Jan Coffey
Gautam 
 Perhaps I have been idealistic in thinking of tolerance as the opposite of 
 intolerance, perhaps the word tolerance is not comprehensive enough when it
 
 comes to interaction (tolerance may be more passive action of non
 posters?- not 
 firmly sure on this yet). (Looking back Jon did a better job than I
 pointing 
 out the need for both respect and tolerance.)  What I see lacking is
 respect 
 for each other- one need not agree with a position, but at least respect
 the 
 other person's ability to have an opinion different from you.  

First we have to define what we mean by these words:

Tolerance: 

To many americans I think tolerance means putting up with others differences
and accepting someone for what they intend, rather than how they come across
based one ones personal cultural norms.

In other macro cultures tolerance means trying to interact with others in
they way they expect based on the other's cultural norms.

Consider the example where onep erson (A) were to act so drasticaly different
that to another person (B) it would generaly be considred offensive.

1) If B were an American (or others who have the same model) B would most
likely ~be tolerant~ and first assume that not offense was intended.

2) However if B was rasied with another bodel of tolerance, B would likely
consider A to be intolerant and to be very offended. What is more if A in
this case was following the American model, A would mow find B to be
intolerant.

I think that this defines the American version of multi-culturalism often
refered to (and misunderstood) as a melting-pot. The American model gives a
greatest common denominator result, while maintaining a high degree of
individuality.

The alternative Multi-Cultural model results in a least common denominator
result (much more in line with what many think when they hear melting-pot)
and results in much less individuality.

You may disagree with this, but I think it provides a starting point from
which to discuss tolerance and what it means. 

I think it might have something to do with the NA influences on my own
personal microculture, but I personaly fail to see how anyone has really been
~that~ intolerant.

It is hard to define the existance of a lack of respect for anothers
viewpoint. Clearly, simply restating already stated consept is a symptom, but
then one must diagnose and that is where it becouse dificult. 

Consider an example where person (A) is restating something to person (B).

1) It may be that person (B) has not shown a good understanding of what (A)
said. (B) may not be respecting what A has to say, or may not be respecting
that what (A) has said may have important subtle differences to what (B) is
expecting. (B) may be purpously ignoring certain features of (A)'s consepts
or arguments. In short it may be a sign that (B)is lacking respect.

2) (A) could simply be ignoreing everything (B)sais and simply repeating. (A)
may be lacking respect.

Defining a lack of respect is more troublesome than it may at first appear.
While it may be more obvious that the lack of respect exists, it is not
necisarily obvious who specificaly is lacking respectfulness.







=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l