The True Face of Tucker Carlson

[Steely Glint]

Showing basic kindness and respect to everyone does not require you to condone, accept, or be passive when someone is actively harming another.

So, lethal force is OK in defence of yourself or others, but mean words aren't?

Well trained police officers show respect to suspects in their custody, even if they know they have committed a horrible crime. They do not curse at them, do not physically violate them beyond what is absolutely necessary, and do not go out of their way to antagonize them. Suspects who are injured are given treatment.

They're acting in their professional capacity as agents of the state, and that bit is not their job - that's what the judicial system is for. Have you seen some of the things judges say in sentencing remarks, once a criminal has been convicted? If the crime is particularly bad, they absolutely go to town on them. Phrases like "despicable acts of evil" and "depraved cruelty" are not uncommon. There are important reasons that they do this, it's not just the judge letting off steam.

I would expect as much, if not better for those who have not raped, murdered, or maimed. Who may in fact only be guilty of disagreeing with me, or having a different perspective or understanding. How they choose to respond to that is outside my locus of control.

Speaking harshly to someone is one tactic we humans like to use to correct someone's behaviour before they rape, murder or maim anyone, or any other things they might do to someone which are less severe but we still need to stop. Or we do it after they've done it, to try and make sure they don't do it again. We also do it publicly and performatively, so to show solidarity with victims and to set boundaries to anyone else who might thinking of doing something similar.

If in your presence someone says something horribly racist and you 'respectfully disagree', what happens? Well, what you've just done - unintentionally - is set the help establish the idea that A) that's an OK thing to say and B) the content of what they said is up for discussion. It's now a point of discussion that some,human beings are inherently inferior. Even if you crush them with your rationalist debater skills - which is not guaranteed because debating in person is hard and they likely have a lot of bullshit up their sleeve for just such an occasion - that's still a win for them and very likely the entire point of the exercise from their point of view, because it's not about having a reasoned discussion about ideas, it's about pushing boundaries. If on the other hand, you tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up, you have sent the message that saying things like that will not be tolerated and ideas like that will not be entertained.

You gotta be able to say 'you just crossed a line, buddy'.

Incidentally, it is my strong belief that our collective failure to do this previously, and the pernicious idea that it is worse to be called a racist than to be one and our general, collective coddling these vicious little shits is pretty much directly responsible for Trump and the rise of the right in America right now. With the accompanying increase in hate crimes and far right mass shootings, the chances of you actually having to use a weapon in anger in some Situation are thus increased, albeit by an infinitesimal amount.

I am as guilty of this as anyone.

If the time ever came where it became necessary for me to defend myself or others with lethal force, I would not relish it. I pray that day never comes. I go out of my way to avoid situations where it might be necessary - and part of that is trying to treat everyone I encounter as though they matter, and deserve respect, even if they do not feel the same towards me.

I think it's best to have a few tactics for dealing with aggressive people between the treating them with respect and kindness stage and the shooting them dead stage. Watch cats or dogs interact or something - if one animal starts being aggressive or annoying the other will normally start warning the other animal before they progress to biting the offending animal in the face. Hiss at them or something.

You should hiss at people before you shoot them.

If you believe there is no obligation to show kindness and respect to others regardless of whether or not they reciprocate, that is your choice. However, it is a bad one - one that more often than not leads to bitterness, unhappiness, and destruction.

Deescalation has it's place on people who are legitimately upset and angry, but if you try it with people who are simply trying to get their way through intimidation or bluster, you'll just encourage them. Since, you know, it just worked.

[Enoch the Red]

So, lethal force is OK in defence of yourself or others, but mean words aren't?

If someone is trying to kill you, someone you love, or those around you, feel free to say mean words to them if that's all you can do. If someone is trying to change the tax code, has different ideas about immigration, or crazy theories about the earth being flat, maybe there are other, better ways to handle it.

They're acting in their professional capacity as agents of the state, and that bit is not their job - that's what the judicial system is for. Have you seen some of the things judges say in sentencing remarks, once a criminal has been convicted? If the crime is particularly bad, they absolutely go to town on them. Phrases like "despicable acts of evil" and "depraved cruelty" are not uncommon. There are important reasons that they do this, it's not just the judge letting off steam.

This is all true. It also has no bearing on the argument. The argument was that you don't have to be passive or complicit in hurting someone else to still believe it is important to treat everyone with kindness and respect.

Speaking harshly to someone is one tactic we humans like to use to correct someone's behaviour before they rape, murder or maim anyone, or any other things they might do to someone which are less severe but we still need to stop. Or we do it after they've done it, to try and make sure they don't do it again. We also do it publicly and performatively, so to show solidarity with victims and to set boundaries to anyone else who might thinking of doing something similar.

If in your presence someone says something horribly racist and you 'respectfully disagree', what happens? Well, what you've just done - unintentionally - is set the help establish the idea that A) that's an OK thing to say and B) the content of what they said is up for discussion. It's now a point of discussion that some,human beings are inherently inferior. Even if you crush them with your rationalist debater skills - which is not guaranteed because debating in person is hard and they likely have a lot of bullshit up their sleeve for just such an occasion - that's still a win for them and very likely the entire point of the exercise from their point of view, because it's not about having a reasoned discussion about ideas, it's about pushing boundaries. If on the other hand, you tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up, you have sent the message that saying things like that will not be tolerated and ideas like that will not be entertained.

You gotta be able to say 'you just crossed a line, buddy'.

I don't disagree. There is a time and place for speaking harshly, setting expectations, and even cutting off communication. None of those belies being respectful when you do so. Saying, "You crossed a line, buddy," is a perfect example. It is fine to set boundaries, express those boundaries, and stand by them. That doesn't mean you have to do so in a way that debases yourself, or your beliefs.

Incidentally, it is my strong belief that our collective failure to do this previously, and the pernicious idea that it is worse to be called a racist than to be one and our general, collective coddling these vicious little shits is pretty much directly responsible for Trump and the rise of the right in America right now. With the accompanying increase in hate crimes and far right mass shootings, the chances of you actually having to use a weapon in anger in some Situation are thus increased, albeit by an infinitesimal amount.

I am as guilty of this as anyone.

Yeah, I don't know what culture you grew up in, but that has not been my experience. If anything I think what we are seeing is a natural result of an increasingly sectarian and tribal focus that has evolved on both the right and left that has pushed everyone farther apart. I don't believe that further driving a wedge between people will do anything to improve the situation. When you can't disagree with someone without being called a racist, and you can't shut down a racist without being a leftist, there is little room for an interchange of ideas. If a "leftist" can't speak to a "racist," or a "racist" dialogue with a "leftist" without their peers attacking them for coddling the opposition we end up with little more than echo chambers and the coarsening of rhetoric creating a feedback loop. You shouting down a racist doesn't change his mind, it reinforces his views of the opposition - and of course it gets you likes and retweets.

I think it's best to have a few tactics for dealing with aggressive people between the treating them with respect and kindness stage and the shooting them dead stage. Watch cats or dogs interact or something - if one animal starts being aggressive or annoying the other will normally start warning the other animal before they progress to biting the offending animal in the face. Hiss at them or something.

You should hiss at people before you shoot them.

Deescalation has it's place on people who are legitimately upset and angry, but if you try it with people who are simply trying to get their way through intimidation or bluster, you'll just encourage them. Since, you know, it just worked.

Again, absolutely true. Again, missing the point. You can disagree with someone, you can even be angry with someone, and still strive to do so in a respectful way. And if you can temper your anger with kindness even better.

[Being]

Guys, take a break. He's on vacation...hopefully a vacation of the Bill O'Reilly kind.

[Steely Glint]

If someone is trying to change the tax code, has different ideas about immigration, or crazy theories about the earth being flat, maybe there are other, better ways to handle it.

If you think 'some human beings are inherently inferior to other human beings' is the same category of idea as 'lets change the tax code', then I don't know what to say to you.

This is all true. It also has no bearing on the argument. The argument was that you don't have to be passive or complicit in hurting someone else to still believe it is important to treat everyone with kindness and respect.

It is important to treat others with kindness and respect. However, other things are more important.

I don't disagree. There is a time and place for speaking harshly, setting expectations, and even cutting off communication. None of those belies being respectful when you do so. Saying, "You crossed a line, buddy," is a perfect example. It is fine to set boundaries, express those boundaries, and stand by them. That doesn't mean you have to do so in a way that debases yourself, or your beliefs.

I think you're going to need to explain what forms of communication you consider to be debasing and why if we're going to get anywhere.

Yeah, I don't know what culture you grew up in, but that has not been my experience. If anything I think what we are seeing is a natural result of an increasingly sectarian and tribal focus that has evolved on both the right and left that has pushed everyone farther apart. I don't believe that further driving a wedge between people will do anything to improve the situation. When you can't disagree with someone without being called a racist, and you can't shut down a racist without being a leftist, there is little room for an interchange of ideas. If a "leftist" can't speak to a "racist," or a "racist" dialogue with a "leftist" without their peers attacking them for coddling the opposition we end up with little more than echo chambers and the coarsening of rhetoric creating a feedback loop. You shouting down a racist doesn't change his mind, it reinforces his views of the opposition - and of course it gets you likes and retweets.

It's not about 'changing the mind' of racists, because their minds can't be changed ("You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."), it's about not giving them the space to spread their ideas as legitimate.

It'd be nice if we were all a bunch of rational beings who might happen to have profound but earnestly felt ideas about how the world works who can be persuaded from doing harm by patient and rational engagement. But, you know, we're not.

[GGT]

snip
If anything I think what we are seeing is a natural result of an increasingly sectarian and tribal focus that has evolved on both the right and left that has pushed everyone farther apart. I don't believe that further driving a wedge between people will do anything to improve the situation. When you can't disagree with someone without being called a racist, and you can't shut down a racist without being a leftist, there is little room for an interchange of ideas. If a "leftist" can't speak to a "racist," or a "racist" dialogue with a "leftist" without their peers attacking them for coddling the opposition we end up with little more than echo chambers and the coarsening of rhetoric creating a feedback loop. You shouting down a racist doesn't change his mind, it reinforces his views of the opposition - and of course it gets you likes and retweets.

I'm not sure it's a "natural evolution" when it's the intent of some bad actors to sow division. That's what Russia did with their disinformation campaign in 2016....but it's also what Tucker Carlson et al is doing on Fox, it's rampant on talk radio and social media, and even the president uses "wedge issues" to purposely divide people. If you haven't been reading about this then maybe you're in an echo chamber?

(There's also a distinct difference b/w Obama's policies and what Trump is doing, especially the treatment of minor children. But also detaining people for months in private prisons in Miss. and La. without due process...read about that.)

Again, absolutely true. Again, missing the point. You can disagree with someone, you can even be angry with someone, and still strive to do so in a respectful way. And if you can temper your anger with kindness even better.

I agree we could all speak with more respect (or at least feigned courtesy), especially on the internet. And I'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard, but often the worst comes from them! Besides, maybe it's high time we stopped treating bigotry with sugar-coated words and politeness.