If it is at all helpful in interpreting the response, ~60% [0] of people aren't capable of doing that and will interpret you having feelings as equivalent to you accepting homophobic role models. Because they literally don't know how to construct their own values by independent reflection.
It was eye-opening to me discovering just how limited most humans are on that sort of basic empathy; I had no idea it was that big a blind spot. But it explains some of the weirder downvote storms.
Learning to control your actions doesnt necessitate controlling 'that' action, it gives you the option. Having the options beyond following your impulsive feelings is useful.
I have no idea what 'that' action is youre referring to. In generic terms some impulse actions are good (move hand from burning thing), some indifferent, and some bad ( ie dog barking annoys someone so they punch the dog).
What's useful is the option and ability to do either. I wouldn't want to let go of a hot pan only to have it fall on a baby, even though I'd otherwise drop it.
> Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions
If you’re afraid of the monster under your bed, the solution isn’t to clench you teeth—it’s to learn there’s no monster.
Recognising the bias is good. We all have subconscious biases based on fear and disgust. But the solution is to learn more about the thing so it stops triggering a reptilian response.
> But the solution is to learn more about the thing so it stops triggering a reptilian response.
That takes time or may never happen, even in the best cases. In the meantime, clenched teeth sounds exactly like what they should do, as they prevent subconscious bias from controlling conscious decisions.
Not a lot honestly. You're not involved, it doesn't affect you in any way, no one is being harmed, why would you bother forming feelings about it?
Generally when I stumble upon a couple kissing in public, if I think anything at all about it, it's something along the lines of "Oh, good for them, they're in love," and I'm happy for them.
I'm not sure why the genders of the participants would be relevant. I've got my own gender preferences for relationships (I'm a straight man) but again, I'm not involved, so my preferences for myself aren't relevant to the situation.
In a larger sense, one of the dumbest things you can do is form opinions for no reason. You aren't obligated to form an opinion on everything you come across.
It's literally self-destructive to feel some sort of negative feeling about this. You don't have to. Why would you want to?
> Is the implication of this question that a heterosexual man should be aroused whenever they see a heterosexual couple kissing?
This kind of wild accusation doesn't further the conversation. What the person you've responded to said is off base enough without you accusing him of saying random things that aren't there.
They asked a question specifically about the feelings of a "heterosexual man". Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person in the question if their sexual preferences were not intended to be part of the answer?
I don't mean that or my previous questions rhetorically. I was less "accusing him of saying random things that aren't there" and more asking for confirmation on their answer to the reverse of their question: "what do you think an unbiased heterosexual man should feel stumbling upon [a heterosexual couple] kissing in public?"
> They asked a question specifically about the feelings of a "heterosexual man". Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person in the question if their sexual preferences were not intended to be part of the answer?
> I don't mean that or my previous questions rhetorically.
If you don't mean these questions rhetorically, then stop asking them in the form of a rhetorical question, where you propose an answer and ask a yes/no whether it's correct. If you're really asking, then you don't know the answer, so just ask the question and listen to the answer.
For example, if you want to know why the sexuality of the person stumbling upon two men kissing is relevant, you can just ask, "Why is the sexuality of the person stumbling upon the two men kissing relevant?" You don't have to pose a hypothesis like "it's because the person would be aroused by seeing them kiss". That's just a weird hypothesis, limits answers to yes/no, and makes it sound like you're more interested in communicating that accusation than understanding what the person said.
Curious people ask open-ended questions, not yes/no "Is X what you think?" type questions that sound a lot like you're accusing them of thinking X.
"Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person?" is a great question, and in fact, "Why is the sex/gender of the people kissing relevant?" is also a good question.
> Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person in the question if their sexual preferences were not intended to be part of the answer?
They were speaking from the perspective of familiarity. The feeling they’re experiencing is probably mild disgust and/or fear, a typical reaction to the unknown and novel.
Yes I agree 100%, although I admit the reptilian response might never fully attenuate.
Which leads me to, is public nudity/display of sex something we feel is wrong based on fear or disgust? Or because there is a scientific basis of degraded life outcomes? There can be health hazards in say most indoor spaces but for say printed material those biohazard don't exist. I'm seeking to find if I'm being a reptile here.
I think it's not even reptilian--it's cultural (assuming you're from the US) based in the American history of Puritanism and related strains of Christianity. There are a ton of human cultures that don't vilify nudity. Germany, for example, has a much more relaxed attitude toward nudity.
> although I admit the reptilian response might never fully attenuate
That’s fine. The problem is in the bits between your senses and the reptilian brain. When a kid screams for their iPad on a plane, the reptilian part of their brain is legitimately freaking out. You’re not going to ever shut that off. But the adults in their life should attempt to disconnect it from the stimulus.m
If you’ve genuinely never overcome a fear or disgust, this could be a rewarding learning opportunity. Go to a pride event.
I've been to multiple pride events, a gay nightclub, drag shows, have gay friends, and been to the odd party that was 90+% gay. Had a great time, no problems, and liked the people. I've learned to look past the feeling, but it doesn't shut off.
It is literally the dictionary definition of prejudice.
From Merriam-Webster[1]:
>1. b (1) - an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
They directly said "two dudes kissing... feels wrong to me but when I try to come up with an explanation I have none." That is an "adverse opinion" they immediately admit to holding "without just grounds".
Which provides the nexus, are we being prejudiced when we arrest the couple banging on a park hill in view of public? Or is there actually some deteriorated outcome from that other than it don't seem right.
Sure it being against the law allows an arrest. But in reality someone usually has to call it in, and unless there is a reward in it for them their real reason is it is bothering them somehow.
If you grill at the park, beer in hand, while grilling up an American classic of burgers and dogs for your onlooking happy family, in reality there is about 99% chance anyone seeing it is at worst going to ask you to put a coozy on it in the politest way (and rarely even that). Even though it is illegal. Now if you get sloppy and harass people, or look homeless, the calls will start.
Banging in the park in open sight on a hill? Odds are totally inverted. There's something more than law at play.
I don't know why I'd form an opinion on whether he's prejudiced--I'm not particularly interested in classifying people based on arbitrary divisions, especially when they're pendantic dictionary definitions that include archaic meanings of the word. I'm more interested in discussing people's beliefs and behaviors.
Two situations have been mentioned in this thread:
1) coming across two men kissing in public, and
2) you seeing a morbidly obese person naked.
I honestly have no interest in classifying either you or the GP as prejudiced or not prejudiced for your feelings in either of these situations. What I'm more interested in is:
1) Can you regulate your emotions and behave reasonably in these situations, and
2) What underlying beliefs cause you to feel some kind of way about these situations in the first place.
To be frank, I think it's childish to be unable to regulate your emotions in these situations. Context of course matters--if someone is trying to force you to look at these things, that's not okay. But that's not what's happening in the vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases, if you come across men kissing in public, or a fat person naked in a locker room or bathhouse, those are just people going about their lives and if you have some negative feeling about that, that's very much your problem. It's not their problem, and it's not the problem of the legal system.
To be clear, your purely qualitative preference is 100% not anyone else's problem. I don't care what your purely qualitative preference is, but I do care that you're making it other people's problem.
People will really talk about how they value freedom and make fun of "snowflakes" for getting "triggered" and then those same people will want to restrict gay or fat people from doing the same things as straight or thin people so they can avoid getting triggered. It's childish in a literal sense, like a kid crying because they're mad that it's raining. Sure, you can not like the rain--that's valid--but at a certain maturity level we can expect that you will regulate your emotions enough to not lose your shit about situations where you can have no reasonable expectation that things will go the way you prefer.
The reason your beliefs matter is because people like me are willing to teach you how to regulate your emotions. Part of how you regulate your emotions is by questioning the beliefs that cause you to feel what you're feeling. For example, you seem very concerned about the absurd possibility that someone might expect you to (in your words) "let a man fuck [you] in the ass". I'm sure you can find some fringe weirdo who wants that, but I am very confident that nobody in this conversation is interested in coercing anyone into anal sex, or any sort of gay activity for that matter. The only thing I want from you in relation to gay people is for you to treat them with the same kindness and respect that you (ostensibly) treat anyone else with. Maybe if you were a little less irrationally terrified that a gay guy would try to have sex with you, you'd be able to regulate your emotions about gay people a bit better.
And... I'm not fat positive by the way. I think the science is pretty clear that obesity is a serious health issue. I just don't see any rational reason to leap from that to insisting that fat people are ugly and gross. Do you go out of your way to tell people with lung cancer that you're not attracted to them?
> by questioning the beliefs that cause you to feel what you're feeling
I think one oversight is that you presuppose this.
My beliefs in this case counter my feelings. I have nothing but warm regards, in belief, for dudes that want to kiss dudes. And I've gone to gay events, pride, gay nightclubs, made gay friends, worked with gay peopke, done all the things to normalize it in my mind and the negative feeling from watching homoerotic activity doesn't hamper this or stop me from enjoying my time with these people.
In this case it's not belief driving feelings, it is a negative feeling I get counter to my beleif that I just have to overlook. I don't see this as a 'problem' as you put it. For all I know it is some genetic drive my ancestors had that lead to my genesis. I have no reason to believe it is maladaptive.
Half the ancestor comments have been flagged out of existence, so I have no way of reminding myself of what was said, but my memory was that you said something which pretty much no gay person needs to be hearing. There's not some sort of accounting where you go to a gay event and then you get to make X number of shitty comments about gay people online. This is basically the "I have a black friend so I can't be rascist" thing.
Your feelings may be acceptable, but it's not necessarily acceptable to share every acceptable feeling you have with everyone. There are plenty of people I meet on a day to day basis that I'm not attracted to, of many genders and sexualities, and that's fine. But I've never once felt it necessary to tell one of those people that I'm not attracted to them, and doing so would be pretty rude and inconsiderate. If my memory of the flagged comments is correct, that's basically what you did. Sure, your feelings are fine, you don't really control those. But did you have to share them on the internet where they might hurt people who read them?
I don't want to blow this out of proportion. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't that bad and I don't think you need to be like ostracized from society or barred from holding positions of power or something. People make mistakes and this isn't a big one. But I do think it is a mistake.
I'm not saying there's not any appropriate context for sharing these feelings.
I'm saying that you should consider what effect sharing your feelings will have before you do it, and I think if you considered anyone other than yourself here, you wouldn't share these feelings here.
Or alternatively, someone else with homophobic feelings will use my comment to reflect and realize it's OK to acknowledge their feelings while acknowledging the rights and freedoms of others. I welcome gays the freedom to kiss in public, just as they must accept my freedom to discuss my feelings.
It's a two sided coin, and I'm not sure it's a loaded coin as you imply.
It's similar to sharing your feelings when you're offended by a black person walking on the street. We don't tolerate people complaining about that. Why would the LGBT community be treated differently?
Second of all, I want to really zero in on "we don't tolerate." I want to know who we is, and how they plan on stopping me from expressing my feelings. Because last I checked we even tolerate nazis in the town square in this country, because the alternative is even worse.
How is it different? People being gay or trans is just like people being black or white. They are born that way. We just give them the tools and trust so they don't have to hide it. Having them hide it doesn't make them not gay. And it doesn't matter because there's nothing bad about that anyway.
And how the non toleration works? Well through law. Discrimination and racism are a crime. Even though the white house is full of white supremacists now. And male chauvinists too. Even white women get the short end of the stick. They're already unwelcome in the military (trump fired the female head of the coast guard and the black chief of staff)
I think you're imagining a caricature of someone who gets a negative feeling from seeing homoerotic activity. Whatever it is, you're talking about someone else. I get a negative feeling, but I have no explanation for it nor any desire to stop gay people from being gay or black people from walking.
By all means, kiss whoever you like for all to see.
Good luck on you law, because it will only be struck. You're going to need a constitutional amendment.
Perhaps you are not desiring to do so but the people in the whitehouse surely are. Many of their supporters do too.
> By all means, kiss whoever you like for all to see.
Ok thanks! :)
> Good luck on you law, because it will only be struck. You're going to need a constitutional amendment.
I'm not in the US, luckily. Here in the Netherlands racist slurs are already illegal, as is discrimination during hiring. Our constitution doesn't work like the one in the US, it actually has less influence than normal law (for example, a judge can't use the constitution in a verdict).
Tolerance means little if it's about stuff that you have nothing but good or neutral opinions and feelings about.
The virtue of tolerance is accepting that which gives you unpleasant opinions or feelings. This is the kind of tolerance that actually takes meaningful effort to develop.
You're limiting tolerance to a form where it has little to no value.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You should be able to see the entire thread if you turn 'showdead' on in your profile. The only posts that don't show up that way are ones which their author deleted.
However, your comments have been breaking the site guidelines regardless of what else is in the threads:
I know it always feels like the other person started it and did worse (and indeed, many of the comments you were replying to were bad ones that got deservedly flagged), but we need you* to follow the guidelines regardless of what anyone else is doing. Any other approach just invokes a downward spiral (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
* I don't just mean you, of course, but everyone who is posting to HN.
The paradox of tolerance is not a law of physics. It doesn't automatically win you the argument because it was always merely some dude's opinion.
Moreover, given that the public mood has turned decidedly anti-progressive, it's really, really a bad idea to bring up the paradox of tolerance because they might just adopt it and decide you're the intolerant ones that don't have to be tolerated.
> it's really, really a bad idea to bring up the paradox of tolerance because they might just adopt it and decide you're the intolerant ones that don't have to be tolerated.
If the use of a meta-position like this is contingent on a particular set of people being in charge and using it, that means that it wasn't a good meta-position to begin with.
Either you believe that we shouldn't tolerate "intolerant" people (and accept that being turned against you when you're not in power), or you don't.
Only believing in it (or supporting it) when you have the power to enforce it on your political opponents is hypocritical and deeply evil.
Yes, agreed. I've made that same point to progressives who quoted the paradox of tolerance many times but it fell on deaf ears. Perhaps they'll listen now.
