Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

I think it's dehumanising to say that someone's views are vile, abhorrent etc as it implies they are beyond what normal, decent people would say. Only a vile person thinks vile things, after all. Do you accept that your opinion that men aren't women is vile, disgusting, abhorrent, repulsive etc? No? So why should others accept that characterisation of their opinions? You know its a way of trying to silence you. And when you do it to other people, it's a way of trying to silence them.

It's also usually (as in this case) an extreme exaggeration. You can dislike and disagree with JHB's opinion but it's based on logic and is shared by many, so you actually need to make a proper case against it. You weaken your critical thinking skills if you simply rely on name calling and silencing, or hope that people are just going to be shamed into nodding along.

If we throw these accusations at actually reasonable opinions then what have we got left when we confronted actually vile opinions? If KJK and JHB are fascists, what do we call actual fascists?

I understand JHB to be saying they're already in a safe country, which is also how I see it. Why risk your kids' lives when you're already in a place of refuge? I assume people traffickers sell them on the dangers/hopes so I'm not going to say they don't feel desperate, because I can imagine they do. But they are taking a terrible, and as far as I can tell, unnecessary risk.

I’ve always had a problem with people being described as vile or horrific based on one thing they’ve said, or the fact that they are politically on the wrong side, or something similar. The same behaviour can be seen on ANY article about comedians, where the comments underneath are invariable full of people saying “xxx is just not funny” etc. Clearly not true - and it would be a lot better if people said instead “I don’t find xxx funny”.

However, I am perfectly fine with labelling some views vile or abhorrent - you’re labelling the view and not the person, how is that a problem? I think most of us should be perfectly capable of differentiating between the view and the person, and labelling someone’s view on a specific subject as vile does NOT mean that you think that person is vile, and is certainly not misogynistic. In my opinion.

As an immigrant myself in the USA I hope I can't be accused of anti-immigration. But on the point of logic that JHB made, why is France such a terrible place that people need to risk their lives to get away from it?

I think her comments in context are perfectly fine and I broadly agree with her. I'm willing to accept that my understanding of the situation could be wrong, but simply saying it's a vile opinion does nothing to convince me that I'm wrong OR that you have any coherent argument.

I also think if you want to name call, moralising, and shut down discussion you are part of the problem. The problem being the silencing of women/others whose views you don't like. You think it would be a wonderful world if everyone shared your ideology, but in reality it would be hell. Let women speak!

Yeah, seems pretty VILE to me.

In my opinion, saying that people desperate enough to drown in the channel aren't desperate, is horrific

I totally agree.

I'm not asking you to agree with anyone's bundle of beliefs. Not sure where you've got that idea from? That's the opposite of how I think.

I don't think you are following my logic, Kucing. I apologise if I am being unclear. I agree you have the right to agree, disagree, say what you like. And I have the right to respond to that how I like.

I also believe that by labelling certain views as immoral (vile, horrific etc) we make it difficult for anyone to express those views. Therefore we are taking part in silencing those we disagree with. I have a big problem with that. I think the cure for bad speech is better speech, I.e. use logic and reason and evidence to show why a view is incorrect and another view is better. That way you bring people along with you, rather than creating a moral hierarchy with them at the bottom. That could be you at the bottom, if we changed the subject.

You could be wrong. I could be wrong. The only thing we can do is use our voices to figure it out. If you tell me my voice is horrific and refuse to hear it, then we'll never know who is right or wrong and you're doing me a great injustice.

I do need to get on with my day now but I appreciate the discussion and I'm certainly not trying to silence you!

I didn't know where to put this but as the topic here at the moment seems to be monstering of alternative political views it seems relevant. It's a Brendan O'Neill interview with Matt Goodwin who is a political scientist. I've heard him interviewed many times before and he makes a lot of sense to me.

He makes a very clear distinction between radical progressivism and classical liberalism and talks about how radical progressivism is fundamentally illiberal and it's adherents form a new political elite who are disconnected from the reality of most people's lives.

It's an hour long but MG is articulate and very easy to listen to.

So it's factually right that men aren't women but it's morally wrong to say it? Am I getting this right? So we can say that's a horrific view? Which means we can assume the person expressing it is horrific, because why would you say something horrific unless you were a vile and terrible person?

If you think that is a wrong way of talking about KJK then you should also see it's a wrong way of talking about JHB. It's flawed logic.

No, I'm explaining why I disagree with you. Don't take it personally. I haven't said your views are horrific. I've said that by labelling women's views this way you are taking part in attempts to silence those views and by extension those women.

I think you are entitled to disagree with JHB but I don't understand why you can't put forward a logical argument as to why you think she's wrong rather than simply labelling her "horrific" and then getting upset when someone takes issue with that? I agree with JHB on this and I don't consider myself to be horrific, rather the opposite. I'm sure I could be wrong in my understanding, but by labelling me horrific and taking offence you are shutting down the conversation and the possibility of changing anyone's mind. I don't understand why anyone would do that who says they support women's right to speak.

There is factually correct and wrong, and there is morally right and wrong.

To me, saying people drowning in an attempt to cross the channel is their own fault is both types of wrong - but only one of those types can be evidenced by both side presenting their facts. And yes, I'm very comfortable calling that opinion unpleasant/vile. As Kucing says, that is not monstering the person.

It's a criticism of her views IF you explain what you disagree with and why. E.g. I find this view unpleasant because... (although you will find you are moralising, because that's your starting point.)

Simply saying she has unpleasant, vile, repugnant, disgusting etc views is monstering. Of course it is. You say, oh her views are vile - so you're not listening to them, you can dismiss them as not worth listening to, by extension that means she's not worth listening to, you've just told anyone who agrees with her that they're agreeing with something vile and they are going to assume that you think they're vile for agreeing, because why would you think something vile unless you're a vile person? Of course it's monstering and attempting to silence women you don't agree with.

They're not "horrific"!!! You just don't agree with her.

Present the evidence that shows you are right and JHB is wrong. That's fine. She can present her evidence and then the person with the most convincing argument wins. That's how this should work. Give her respect that she's an intelligent woman who has reason and logic supporting her, so discussion is perfectly possible.

Using language to describe women as vile, unpleasant, repugnant, horrific for expressing their perfectly ordinary and legal views is monstering. You can see it when the view is "men aren't women" but for some reason you are blind to it when it's a view you personally don't hold? How does that make you any better than a TRA?