More about Crazy Racist Guy
May. 5th, 2006 02:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brigdhOh, crazy racist guy. The ways in which you drive me insane.
I've taken to discussing everything with him in only the most general, fictional terms I can manage. Because, well, it's not fair to anyone else; it's a group for writers, not the "watch Brigdh and Crazy Racist Guy scream at each other for two hours" group. But besides that, it's the only way I can handle him on humane level. Whether or not I should be even trying to do that, I go back and forth on. On the one hand, regardless of what he happens to believe, I want to treat him like a person who deserves understanding and compassion. On the other hand, I can't help but think that allowing him to say some of the things he does without throwing a fit only encourages him to say them to other people, and I don't want anyone to suffer because of this asshole. God, I don't know.
Anyway. Distant and fictional. Because while I can't even allow myself to think the words "I cannot believe you're defending Hilter" without quickly going down a path of rage and incoherence, I can deal as long as I stick to statements like "Well, I think if you have Hitler as a character in your story, your readers are going to automatically react to him in very emotional, intense ways, which you should be aware of".
Here's part of our conversation from tonight:
Him: [Long, long description of a story he's writing, which I'm skipping.] So then Job gets a chance to talk with God, to ask him if there isn't some way to prevent the war between the Christians and the Muslims, because Job knows if it happens, many, many people will die. But God says no, that genocide is necessary in this case.
Me: That's your portrayal of God in this story?
Him: Yes. Because, look, God has asked for genocide before. Saul had the crown taken from him because he refused to kill every last one of the Amalekites like God asked him to. God wanted him to kill every last man, woman, and child. God said that. That's how David became king! A lot of people ask 'is genocide wrong?' and they say that the answer is always yes, but no, it's not. We have these examples from God.
Me: I think the problem most people would have with this is not that you can't make an argument for it using examples from the Bible, but that such examples might not be the sole determiner of morality, even if they are from the Bible.
Him: But the Bible has to be the source of morality! Otherwise it's arbitrary- no, goodness is arbitrary. It's just what God says. You do good so you'll be rewarded, and you don't do bad because you're afraid of being punished.
Me: I don't think that's how most people see morality.
Him: Yes! That's the only reason why people do good, because they want to be rewarded for it. Reward and punishment, that's why people do things. That's the whole point!
Me: You don't think there's anything inherently good in doing good? You don't think people do things for the things themselves?
Him: No, it's abirtary.
Me: ...Mmm.
And this is the other reason why I try not to consider what he says in real life terms. It's pointless on a level I can't even comprehend. When I argue with someone, I do it in the hopes that, however unlikely it may be, we can find something to agree on or I might even convince them to my way of thinking. When you're so far distant from someone that you would need to first consider how to prove why genocide might be a bad thing, where do you even start? I mean, I just... what the fuck. If the sentence "No, the fact that it drained the German war effort is not the main reason why the Holocaust was a bad idea" would ever, ever enter the discussion, middle ground is so far away that it will never be reached.
The whole thing makes me furious. Or depressed, I'm not really sure. I just hate that he's accepted because he's a Christian (or claims to be. I can't imagine how he thinks he's actually following Jesus), and to so many people, that's what it means to be moral. Even ignoring the racism, the genocide thing, the hatred of other religions and cultures and sexualities, how the hell can you be in your mid-twenties and still believe that the only reason to do good is so you'll be rewarded? I'd be embarrassed to hear a six-year-old say that. And obviously people have justified him in these views; someone had to raise him to believe these things, there must be enough people who agree with him that he's never felt pressured to change his opinion. He must be able to surround himself with people who all agree: this is what being moral means. And how many times have I had to argue with people over whether it's even possible for me to be moral, if I'm an atheist? How many fucking times have I had people condemn me to hell autmoatically, or sincerely believe that it's not even possible for to judge the difference between good and bad? But him, he's okay.
I hate that I can make every effort to treat him decently, and spend hours wondering about the right thing to do in this regards, and he's the one who's supposed to have values, the moral vote that politicians pander to. I can't even... I don't even know what to say.
I've taken to discussing everything with him in only the most general, fictional terms I can manage. Because, well, it's not fair to anyone else; it's a group for writers, not the "watch Brigdh and Crazy Racist Guy scream at each other for two hours" group. But besides that, it's the only way I can handle him on humane level. Whether or not I should be even trying to do that, I go back and forth on. On the one hand, regardless of what he happens to believe, I want to treat him like a person who deserves understanding and compassion. On the other hand, I can't help but think that allowing him to say some of the things he does without throwing a fit only encourages him to say them to other people, and I don't want anyone to suffer because of this asshole. God, I don't know.
Anyway. Distant and fictional. Because while I can't even allow myself to think the words "I cannot believe you're defending Hilter" without quickly going down a path of rage and incoherence, I can deal as long as I stick to statements like "Well, I think if you have Hitler as a character in your story, your readers are going to automatically react to him in very emotional, intense ways, which you should be aware of".
Here's part of our conversation from tonight:
Him: [Long, long description of a story he's writing, which I'm skipping.] So then Job gets a chance to talk with God, to ask him if there isn't some way to prevent the war between the Christians and the Muslims, because Job knows if it happens, many, many people will die. But God says no, that genocide is necessary in this case.
Me: That's your portrayal of God in this story?
Him: Yes. Because, look, God has asked for genocide before. Saul had the crown taken from him because he refused to kill every last one of the Amalekites like God asked him to. God wanted him to kill every last man, woman, and child. God said that. That's how David became king! A lot of people ask 'is genocide wrong?' and they say that the answer is always yes, but no, it's not. We have these examples from God.
Me: I think the problem most people would have with this is not that you can't make an argument for it using examples from the Bible, but that such examples might not be the sole determiner of morality, even if they are from the Bible.
Him: But the Bible has to be the source of morality! Otherwise it's arbitrary- no, goodness is arbitrary. It's just what God says. You do good so you'll be rewarded, and you don't do bad because you're afraid of being punished.
Me: I don't think that's how most people see morality.
Him: Yes! That's the only reason why people do good, because they want to be rewarded for it. Reward and punishment, that's why people do things. That's the whole point!
Me: You don't think there's anything inherently good in doing good? You don't think people do things for the things themselves?
Him: No, it's abirtary.
Me: ...Mmm.
And this is the other reason why I try not to consider what he says in real life terms. It's pointless on a level I can't even comprehend. When I argue with someone, I do it in the hopes that, however unlikely it may be, we can find something to agree on or I might even convince them to my way of thinking. When you're so far distant from someone that you would need to first consider how to prove why genocide might be a bad thing, where do you even start? I mean, I just... what the fuck. If the sentence "No, the fact that it drained the German war effort is not the main reason why the Holocaust was a bad idea" would ever, ever enter the discussion, middle ground is so far away that it will never be reached.
The whole thing makes me furious. Or depressed, I'm not really sure. I just hate that he's accepted because he's a Christian (or claims to be. I can't imagine how he thinks he's actually following Jesus), and to so many people, that's what it means to be moral. Even ignoring the racism, the genocide thing, the hatred of other religions and cultures and sexualities, how the hell can you be in your mid-twenties and still believe that the only reason to do good is so you'll be rewarded? I'd be embarrassed to hear a six-year-old say that. And obviously people have justified him in these views; someone had to raise him to believe these things, there must be enough people who agree with him that he's never felt pressured to change his opinion. He must be able to surround himself with people who all agree: this is what being moral means. And how many times have I had to argue with people over whether it's even possible for me to be moral, if I'm an atheist? How many fucking times have I had people condemn me to hell autmoatically, or sincerely believe that it's not even possible for to judge the difference between good and bad? But him, he's okay.
I hate that I can make every effort to treat him decently, and spend hours wondering about the right thing to do in this regards, and he's the one who's supposed to have values, the moral vote that politicians pander to. I can't even... I don't even know what to say.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 09:14 pm (UTC)how the hell can you be in your mid-twenties and still believe that the only reason to do good is so you'll be rewarded? I'd be embarrassed to hear a six-year-old say that.
Actually, I have met people like that. People who, say, find a $20 on a sidewalk or find a good parking space near the store, and say that it's because they've been good, or God was looking out for them. (And I've met middle aged adults who expressed those sentiments.) That worldview is so alien to my own, that it bypasses the urge to argue or discuss, and hits all my, "must gawk, analyze, and figure out a way to get more info" buttons.
And how many times have I had to argue with people over whether it's even possible for me to be moral, if I'm an atheist?
...huh? People actually argue that? Then again, I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, where religious-based ethical arguments make no sense to me. I mean, the other person you're talking to might be of an entirely different religion, or an atheist. And now, I probably have to look at my own unexamined liberal assumptions about How the World Works.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 10:10 pm (UTC)That was pretty much my reaction the first time I met him, too. I still wonder about it actually, if just because I can't imagine that he's capable of functioning if he's truly this racist and this open about it.
That worldview is so alien to my own, that it bypasses the urge to argue or discuss, and hits all my, "must gawk, analyze, and figure out a way to get more info" buttons.
Mm, yes. I hadn't thought of that- the good luck = reward for my behavior attitude- as part of the same attitude, but you're right, they share the same basis. And I do see people who express that belief very often, though like you, I don't understand it myself. Because if you believe that good luck is a reward, than surely you must believe the reverse too, right? That bad luck is a punishment. So do they think that all the people who have had horrible things happen to them deserved it? I don't know.
...huh? People actually argue that?
*All the time*. And I don't mind the question in itself, because "how do you know what's right and what's wrong" can be a very interesting debate, and while some people simply rely on what God/Scriptures/Buddha/whoever says, seeing what basis other people use can be neat. But people tend to phrase it in incredibly rude ways, and not just random crazy people. I've had people who I consider to be very close friends say- though not it so many words, true- "But you can't be moral, you can't even know how to try", seemingly entirely unaware of how insulting that is.
I think the argument goes that if you're not basing your views of right/wrong on God (or some other figure or text), you're only basing them on what you think, and they are therefore unstable, full of unconscious prejudices, arbitrary, and meaningless.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 11:52 pm (UTC)I've seen the reverse as well. I once had a conversation about a friend, where I was consoling her over what a bad day she was having and how random shit just happens, when she said something like, "It makes me wonder what I did to deserve this."
I was agoggle, and asked her what she meant. To which she replied that she believed in karma. Then again, I'm sure that I must be equally strange to other people--the universe is an arbitrary place and largely indifferent to the microscopic scale of individual human lives, and cause and effect are so widespread and intricate that it's hard to suss out why things happen so you just got to stop analyzing the whys and do something. But that's harder said than done.
I think what the reward/punishment worldview has going for it is that it's more orderly, and there's more of a sense of control over your life.
I think the argument goes that if you're not basing your views of right/wrong on God (or some other figure or text), you're only basing them on what you think, and they are therefore unstable, full of unconscious prejudices, arbitrary, and meaningless.
I agree that asking what people base their morality on is an interesting question, and find the idea of structuring your worldview around religion passively interesting. (It's interesting whenever it comes up, but I don't spare it much thought.)
But I suppose my problem is: which religion do you choose? I can't keep track of all the variant strains of Christianity, or how they interpret the bible. What about Islam? Or Judaism? Or getting out of the Judeo-Christian family entirely, and choosing Buddhism which is one of the major religions in the world, and also has various strains? Or paganism, which seems to have a grassroots popularity going for it in the U.S. There's also Hinduism, and Zoroastranism, etc. And if you managed to pick a religion, then your moral arguments would only be relevant to those already converted, and would be useless for atheists or someone with a different religion. This is why religious-based moral arguments make little sense to me, other than as a tool to explain why someone's making the argument, or what their concerns are.
I think one of the assumptions I need to examine is how I default into taking a relativistic stance (which is dangerous, paradoxical, and unhelpful when taken to an extreme). So yes, the world is arbitrary, in that there are no universals, and that standards keep on changing according to historical era, location, and so forth. But, hm, I do believe in core issues of morality, and lines you don't cross, like genocide will always = bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 05:06 am (UTC)Aw. I sort of want to hug you; I so rarely find people who think about things in the same way I do that it's very exciting. But I think you're right in that this view often seems strange to other people. I'm taking a philosophy class this quarter, and on one of the first days we were talking about the reward/punishment view of things, and the 'things happen because they're part of a plan' view, and I was trying to argue that things could just, you know, happen. The professor closed the discussion with, "I don't think there's anyone who actually believes that things don't happen for a reason. I don't understand how anyone could." Which left me thinking 'I don't really understand your views either, but you don't see me announcing it to everyone'.
your moral arguments would only be relevant to those already converted
I think some people- though not everyone. I know many, many people who are deeply religious and also accepting and understanding of other value systems- think that their moral arguments are universal, regardless of whether or not anyone else is a follower of the same religion. The opinion that seems to be most popular among the people I know is that there are some standards that are open to interpretation, and some that are not. So, for example, very few people are willing to condemn another for not following Jesus or going to church every Sunday. But they would hold things like "thou shalt not steal/kill/commit adultery" to be true regardless of what religion, culture, time or place the situation is occurring in. So it doesn't matter where the person you're talking to is coming from, because your morals are truths that apply to everyone.
Relativism has its problems, but so does the other side. The hard part is finding where the middle ground is.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 10:21 pm (UTC)Aw. I sort of want to hug you; I so rarely find people who think about things in the same way I do that it's very exciting.
Heh, thanks! I usually get weird looks, or anticipatory noises over the forthcoming intellectual wank, instead of people wanting to hug me. :) What kind of philosophy class are you taking? Maybe your philosophy teacher isn't familiar with (bastardized) existential philosophy, which is about things just happening without any universal meaning, and the need/responsibility to create your own meaning and order. Then again, I'm not sure existentialism works well with ethics, and tackling social systems.
I'm taking a philosophy class this quarter, and on one of the first days we were talking about the reward/punishment view of things,
If you think about it, our (American) government is set up on a punishment type system. We punish those who don't follow the rules with jail time, or legal fines. And I think in psychology, there's operant conditioning (?) where it's about people behaving on a reward/punishment basis. But I don't think operant conditioning is fashionable now. To put a point on this rambling, your crazy racist guy may just be a more extreme, insane version of approaching the world. Like, there's a milder, more sensible form of reward/punishment.
The opinion that seems to be most popular among the people I know is that there are some standards that are open to interpretation, and some that are not. ... But they would hold things like "thou shalt not steal/kill/commit adultery" to be true regardless of what religion, culture, time or place the situation is occurring in.
I think those are the types of religious people I run into: "I don't care if you're a Christian or not, so long as you're a good person."
Leaving aside my urge to bring up extreme cases where you'd have to qualify the statements (e.g. society says killing is wrong except in war, the punishment of criminals, and sometimes euthanasia), if your morals are supposed to apply to everyone, then why frame it in religious terms at all? If you do pull the, "because it's in the bible/koran/scriptures" card, then you'll only appeal to the converted. For example, you can either argue, "The bible says not to kill," and only reach Christians, or you can say, "Killing is bad, because it causes harm to conscious beings, we've got to live in a cooperative society, blah blah," and reach a wider audience (religious, non-religious, etc.)
I suppose I can accept the idea that religion gives you a moral framework which you finetune yourself, or that it brings up the subject when you ordinarily wouldn't think about it in day to day life.
I'm also aware that relativism taken to an extreme can justify genocide. :( I still haven't figured out how to pull off a moderate, non-contradictory relativism.