I've only read one response to Ms Moon (from mondyboy, who was outraged but focussed on her statements rather than her person). I won't seek out further responses, because the quality of online debate is so poor that I am unlikely to learn anything new or worthwhile from it without wading through a ton of slag looking for a gem.
IMHO, one of the reasons for that poor quality is a persistent focus on character instead of statements - a focus which quickly sours into cyberbullying. Online fandom is not rigorous about the truth, and it loves to define in and out groups. Again IMHO, this is one reason so little of the discussion is fruitful.
In the face of all this noise, what can I contribute that others already aren't? Two things, I hope. One, debunking - my cherished hobby! The "bad citizen" thing is the spine of Ms Moon's argument; remove it, and the whole thing comes tumbling down. Obviously, there are plenty more bones to pick (mondyboy addresses the assimilation business with more authority than I ever could!), but I figured I'd grab the biggest one and yank it out.
Two: a message which Ms Moon (and others who share her views) may be inclined to listen to. A huge hurdle to discussing racism is white peoples' defensiveness. Well, white people ought not to be so defensive; but we are, as are all people when they feel threatened. While anger is necessary and appropriate, a non-threatening message may have a better chance of getting people to change their minds. From personal experience I know that a single respectful message after a flood of abuse comes as a great relief; it gives you a chance to stop defending yourself and instead turn your energy to thinking about the problem.
I'm sorry to have made you think less of me - although alas, my goal is not to earn anyone's approval! I mean to continue with this whole non-violent communication thingy, and I cling desperately to the importance of facts in what you rightly call the "climate of unreason".
However - and this is the important part of this comment, never mind all that other stuff - I take your point that I haven't addressed the attitudes expressed in the posting. I think you're right that it's those views and assumptions which, in the face of wrong or missing facts, produce the counterfactual statements I'm keen to correct. So what I'd like to do (in the next day or so) is make a second posting taking a look at those attitudes - keeping the same respectful, evidence-based approach.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 03:59 am (UTC)I've only read one response to Ms Moon (from
IMHO, one of the reasons for that poor quality is a persistent focus on character instead of statements - a focus which quickly sours into cyberbullying. Online fandom is not rigorous about the truth, and it loves to define in and out groups. Again IMHO, this is one reason so little of the discussion is fruitful.
In the face of all this noise, what can I contribute that others already aren't? Two things, I hope. One, debunking - my cherished hobby! The "bad citizen" thing is the spine of Ms Moon's argument; remove it, and the whole thing comes tumbling down. Obviously, there are plenty more bones to pick (
Two: a message which Ms Moon (and others who share her views) may be inclined to listen to. A huge hurdle to discussing racism is white peoples' defensiveness. Well, white people ought not to be so defensive; but we are, as are all people when they feel threatened. While anger is necessary and appropriate, a non-threatening message may have a better chance of getting people to change their minds. From personal experience I know that a single respectful message after a flood of abuse comes as a great relief; it gives you a chance to stop defending yourself and instead turn your energy to thinking about the problem.
I'm sorry to have made you think less of me - although alas, my goal is not to earn anyone's approval! I mean to continue with this whole non-violent communication thingy, and I cling desperately to the importance of facts in what you rightly call the "climate of unreason".
However - and this is the important part of this comment, never mind all that other stuff - I take your point that I haven't addressed the attitudes expressed in the posting. I think you're right that it's those views and assumptions which, in the face of wrong or missing facts, produce the counterfactual statements I'm keen to correct. So what I'd like to do (in the next day or so) is make a second posting taking a look at those attitudes - keeping the same respectful, evidence-based approach.