I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”. Admittedly, I say this as someone without many sacred cows. I’m non-religious, an anti-nationalist, and (other than a long career as a “non-denominational” anti-war activist) essentially apolitical.
I support the Mohammed drawing day, Koran-burning, and similar attempts involving other religions and political doctrines. When people do these things, it helps create a safe space for people to speak their reasoned criticisms.
I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”.
“Exposure therapy”. Could you explain how that works, doctor? How your cure makes the patient better?
Isn’t it great that we have so many people here so sincerely concerned with making the world a better place rather than with rationalizing their own prejudices.
ETA: I Googled for “exposure therapy”, and the 2nd item on the list informed me that:
Exposing someone to their fears or prior traumas without the client first learning the accompanying coping techniques — such as relaxation or imagery exercises — can result in a person simply being re-traumatized by the event or fear. Therefore exposure therapy is typically conducted within a psychotherapeutic relationship with a therapist trained and experienced with the technique and the related coping exercises.
For some reason, the karma that knb’s comment received really annoys me. When did we come to define rationalism as “thinking about something just deeply enough to achieve self-affirmation, and then pushing the upvote or downvote button”?
Your intent seems unclear to me. The West has over the past couple hundred years loosened its restrictions on public speech regarding taboos—on atheism, racial&sexual equality, etc. This has surely caused many people mental pain.
Was this course of events then morally wrong?
Should the debaters of yore have made sure their opponents had learned ” the accompanying coping techniques — such as relaxation or imagery exercises” before proceeding towards our more pluralist world?
I think a lot of Americans completely missed the subtle critique behind the plan to burn a Koran. Basically, they were telling the pastor, “hey, you have the right to burn one and all, but you really need to hold off, just out of sensitivity to others”—not realizing that this was the exact argument people were making about the mosque near ground zero, and getting an unsympathetic ear. Instead, they just saw it as a crude shock-based attempt to get attention.
But game-theoretically, these two situations are not parallels at all. In particular, the pastor who wanted to burn the Qur’an actually wanted to offend. In contrast, the people behind Park51 want to integrate Muslims into American society.
The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”.
I ask sincerely: why do you believe this?
I’ve known quite a few people who’ve left religion (among them, myself) or started to take it less seriously, and I can’t think of a single case where the process was helped along by “exposure therapy” (e.g. atheists trying to offend their sensibilities). In fact, it’s mostly the opposite.
I’m referring specifically to the angry emotional reactions to perceived slights, not what causes people to leave their religions.
I’m trying to think of the last time anything offended western Christians as much as the Mohammed drawings (apparently) offended Muslims in the middle-east. The anger over Piss Christ was mostly because that project was partially government funded by the NEA. There was no serious attempt to legally censor it. And of course, there were no riots and no one was harmed during that brief controversy.
I think that the difference is not primarily theological but rather cultural. In America, Christians have their beliefs mocked pretty regularly in popular culture. That largely inoculates them to outrage. My guess is that the difference between American Christians and Muslims in Afghanistan is not inherent in their religions, but a matter of exposure. Afghan Muslims have always had governments and strict cultural rules that insulated them from offensive treatments of Islam. With modern telecommunications they will be exposed to things that offend them, even if those things happen in Florida or Denmark. Either they will change or the rest of the world will change for them.
the difference between American Christians and Muslims in Afghanistan is not inherent in their religions
agreed
but a matter of exposure
perhaps
You certainly have a point, but I’m not persuaded that you’ve identified the core of the difference. My guess is that at least one other component is the context in which the exposure takes place. In America, there is a fairly strong norm to at least pay lip service to freedom of speech, and anyone growing up here who has a religion, and who has heard it mocked, will probably also have heard that this mockery is defended by another national norm. Exposure to equivalent mockery in Afghanistan may not have equivalent effects.
Also now that other religious groups are noticing how much success Muslims are having with their tactic of violent rioting, what do you think they’re going to do?
I suspect that this is an over-simplification, and expect that there will not be a significant effect on the number or intensity of violent Christian riots. (For one thing, I expect Christians to value appearing more civilized than violent Muslims.)
Would you know if it did? People’s stated reasons are often different than their actual reasons.
No one ever says “I changed religious beliefs for reasons completely other than the truth of the religion”, even though one of the biggest predictors is the belief of their social circle.
Like I said, including me. And I am talking about social reasons.
Mocking religion can probably turn some agnostics into atheists, but in most cases it makes religious people more rigid in their beliefs- you’re offering them the “choice” between their religion being true and them being an idiot.
I think you’re missing the point by ignoring the last part of knb’s post. The specific instance of offensive behavior is not going to convince anyone. But being in a society where it is permitted is a huge difference from one where it is not. seeing that you can live your life without being constrained by silly commandments and still be happy and respected by your friends can make a huge difference.
I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”...I support the Mohammed drawing day, Koran-burning, and similar attempts involving other religions and political doctrines.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
I mean, all these things feel like they’re in a different category than the things you described, but I wouldn’t know how to describe that difference to a computer.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
The distinction here is that if an outsider does these things it is clearly hostile.
Black people are reclaiming the word “nigger”. Part of the stated reason is to take away the word’s ability to harm, in other words, exactly the reason I mentioned. I am not black, so in context, it would seem hostile, just as bombarding the only Muslim family in a neighborhood with Mohammed cartoons would be hostile.
The example you gave above treats the images as harmful without context. (For a Muslim, seeing an image of Mohammed “hurts” [I don’t accept this, btw, offense and harm are not the same thing.] regardless of the intention of the image creator.) So the comparable example would be using “nigger” by another black person or in an academic context, or a Holocaust survivor making jokes about the Holocaust, or a family member joking about the foibles of a dead relative. And yes, I have no problem with any of these things.
It doesn’t really seem like you put thought into these examples. Rather, it seems like you made a list of doubleplusungood things and tried to tar me with the association.
My point was that what hurts people about Yvain’s examples is that someone is obviously behaving in a hostile way toward them, not the offensive thing in itself. Images of Mohammed are haraam in Islam regardless of intent.
Ah, I see. Then a white person saying ‘nigger’ is indeed not comparable to participating in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, but a black person saying ‘nigger’ is still not comparable either. No person saying ‘nigger’ could actually be comparable, since that word is not haraam.
Now that I’ve written this, I realise that some black people hold the opinion that this word is haraam; they argue that even black people should not use it. Then EDM Day is a bit more like a white person saying ‘nigger’ (as a protest against banning it, of course, not with the intention of causing offence).
By the way, I’d appreciate it if whoever downvoted the grandparent would explain what was wrong with it. Too brief? (But I think that knb understood it fine.) I would hate to think that people get downvoted for admitting that they don’t understand somebody.
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
So by rejecting sacred cows, does this mean you would eliminate the whole category of moral rules that depend on something bring sacred? (I don’t think this is necessarily so from what you’ve said.)
I ask myself if I attach moral weight to anything sacred and I’m not sure.
Actually, I think so—I can think of some things that I care about symbolically, rather than just at the object level—but I attach the morality to my relationship with this thing rather than other people’s, so I’m not easily as offended. (though I can now think of some cases where I am)
So I’m confused on the topic. What do you think of ‘sacred’ in general?
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
You probably have in mind the theories of Jonathan Haidt.
I am skeptical towards his theories, though. There may be some truth in them, but his approach is extremely ideologized and, in my opinion, biased accordingly. (On the other hand, I do appreciate that he is explicit and upfront about his ideology and its role in his work. It is certainly a welcome contrast to what is commonly seen in academia.)
The 3 are community, autonomy, and divinity, and they come from the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. Purity was a big part of the ethic of divinity, so much so that you could even argue that “purity” would be a more appropriate label for it.
Jonathan Haidt worked with Shweder at the start of his career and basically adopted Shweder’s system, but he has since modified his views to include 5 moral foundations rather than 3: harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity.
But I never read Shweder or Haidt, I was only exposed to those ideas on LW.
Aha! Now that I know what to google, I discover that I was exposed to these ideas here.
I even took that quiz to find that I was relatively low on the purity foundation, just as in the example figure. The model and the quiz made a favorable impression—I decided I was comfortable with carving morality in that way—but then I apparently forgot the details.
I feel like I read the answer already in this page. These offenses aren’t just negligent (oops, I didn’t realize you didn’t like that) or insensitive (this is what I want to do, too bad if it offends you) -- they are pointedly hostile. The person receiving these offenses can rationally experience these offenses as an expression of hate and thus an intent to do harm. Depending on the status of the offender, the victim can feel threatened about their continued place in the clan.
meh.. In this specific case it seems the organized, intended signal is ‘defiance’. For some of the artists it is probably simple irreverence that motivates them. But I wouldn’t doubt that a lot of people feel hostile too.
Everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks regarding attempted genocide of one’s ethnic group—not least because it’s very difficult not to perceive it as a veiled threat.
Not everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks of one’s cultural/religious/philosophical inspiration—not least because it’s an obvious strategy for a utility monster.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It’s very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they’re improving the world?
I still believe there’s a problem in using the word “hostility” since it’s negatively connotated. Further, I think there’s a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won’t bring us further by discussing much further.
I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them.
I generally agree. We should only keep the fun sacred cows, the ones that people
would admit to being a matter of personal taste and don’t mind being mocked about,
like sports teams or musical preferences. We shouldn’t get rid of those because it
would make the world more boring.
The only way
to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”.
Do you mean “The only way” literally ?
Or do you mean “the best way” ? Or maybe “worth the expected carnage ?”
I guess it could change from within Islam, but I basically don’t see any other ways random outsiders can influence the behavior of fundamentalist Muslims.
The West has had centuries of liberalization, as it has gradually transitioned from norms where behavior is highly restricted to prevent violations of people’s sensibilities to norms where it’s generally accepted that people can mostly do what they want, as long as it isn’t directly harmful to others. Other cultures haven’t gone as far through this process, and I don’t think that poking at their most sensitive views is going to be a helpful kind of “therapy” for them.
I think the world is better off without sacred cows, rather than with them. The only way to eliminate these kinds of reactions is via “exposure therapy”. Admittedly, I say this as someone without many sacred cows. I’m non-religious, an anti-nationalist, and (other than a long career as a “non-denominational” anti-war activist) essentially apolitical.
I support the Mohammed drawing day, Koran-burning, and similar attempts involving other religions and political doctrines. When people do these things, it helps create a safe space for people to speak their reasoned criticisms.
“Exposure therapy”. Could you explain how that works, doctor? How your cure makes the patient better?
Isn’t it great that we have so many people here so sincerely concerned with making the world a better place rather than with rationalizing their own prejudices.
ETA: I Googled for “exposure therapy”, and the 2nd item on the list informed me that:
For some reason, the karma that knb’s comment received really annoys me. When did we come to define rationalism as “thinking about something just deeply enough to achieve self-affirmation, and then pushing the upvote or downvote button”?
Your intent seems unclear to me. The West has over the past couple hundred years loosened its restrictions on public speech regarding taboos—on atheism, racial&sexual equality, etc. This has surely caused many people mental pain.
Was this course of events then morally wrong?
Should the debaters of yore have made sure their opponents had learned ” the accompanying coping techniques — such as relaxation or imagery exercises” before proceeding towards our more pluralist world?
I think a lot of Americans completely missed the subtle critique behind the plan to burn a Koran. Basically, they were telling the pastor, “hey, you have the right to burn one and all, but you really need to hold off, just out of sensitivity to others”—not realizing that this was the exact argument people were making about the mosque near ground zero, and getting an unsympathetic ear. Instead, they just saw it as a crude shock-based attempt to get attention.
But game-theoretically, these two situations are not parallels at all. In particular, the pastor who wanted to burn the Qur’an actually wanted to offend. In contrast, the people behind Park51 want to integrate Muslims into American society.
I ask sincerely: why do you believe this?
I’ve known quite a few people who’ve left religion (among them, myself) or started to take it less seriously, and I can’t think of a single case where the process was helped along by “exposure therapy” (e.g. atheists trying to offend their sensibilities). In fact, it’s mostly the opposite.
I’m referring specifically to the angry emotional reactions to perceived slights, not what causes people to leave their religions.
I’m trying to think of the last time anything offended western Christians as much as the Mohammed drawings (apparently) offended Muslims in the middle-east. The anger over Piss Christ was mostly because that project was partially government funded by the NEA. There was no serious attempt to legally censor it. And of course, there were no riots and no one was harmed during that brief controversy.
I think that the difference is not primarily theological but rather cultural. In America, Christians have their beliefs mocked pretty regularly in popular culture. That largely inoculates them to outrage. My guess is that the difference between American Christians and Muslims in Afghanistan is not inherent in their religions, but a matter of exposure. Afghan Muslims have always had governments and strict cultural rules that insulated them from offensive treatments of Islam. With modern telecommunications they will be exposed to things that offend them, even if those things happen in Florida or Denmark. Either they will change or the rest of the world will change for them.
agreed
perhaps
You certainly have a point, but I’m not persuaded that you’ve identified the core of the difference. My guess is that at least one other component is the context in which the exposure takes place. In America, there is a fairly strong norm to at least pay lip service to freedom of speech, and anyone growing up here who has a religion, and who has heard it mocked, will probably also have heard that this mockery is defended by another national norm. Exposure to equivalent mockery in Afghanistan may not have equivalent effects.
Print of Piss Christ destroyed by Christians in France
Also, “It was vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Serrano show in Sweden in 2007.”
Yes, the anger it created was real, and that reaction was why I chose it as an example.
It still falls orders of magnitude below the Jyllands-Posten cartoon riots, in which more than 100 people died.
Also now that other religious groups are noticing how much success Muslims are having with their tactic of violent rioting, what do you think they’re going to do?
I suspect that this is an over-simplification, and expect that there will not be a significant effect on the number or intensity of violent Christian riots. (For one thing, I expect Christians to value appearing more civilized than violent Muslims.)
Some will, some won’t. Unfortunately, under current conditions the ones willing to embrace violence will be more successful.
Would you know if it did? People’s stated reasons are often different than their actual reasons.
No one ever says “I changed religious beliefs for reasons completely other than the truth of the religion”, even though one of the biggest predictors is the belief of their social circle.
Like I said, including me. And I am talking about social reasons.
Mocking religion can probably turn some agnostics into atheists, but in most cases it makes religious people more rigid in their beliefs- you’re offering them the “choice” between their religion being true and them being an idiot.
The claim was that they would become thicker-skinned, not that they would become atheists.
Mockery of my religion helped me to change my mind, but I doubt it would have helped if I was not already suspecting those beliefs were wrong.
I think you’re missing the point by ignoring the last part of knb’s post. The specific instance of offensive behavior is not going to convince anyone. But being in a society where it is permitted is a huge difference from one where it is not. seeing that you can live your life without being constrained by silly commandments and still be happy and respected by your friends can make a huge difference.
I can disagree with one of his claims without bothering about the argument’s bottom line.
What about calling black people the n-word, making Holocaust jokes to Jews, and insulting people’s dead relatives?
I mean, all these things feel like they’re in a different category than the things you described, but I wouldn’t know how to describe that difference to a computer.
The distinction here is that if an outsider does these things it is clearly hostile.
Black people are reclaiming the word “nigger”. Part of the stated reason is to take away the word’s ability to harm, in other words, exactly the reason I mentioned. I am not black, so in context, it would seem hostile, just as bombarding the only Muslim family in a neighborhood with Mohammed cartoons would be hostile.
The example you gave above treats the images as harmful without context. (For a Muslim, seeing an image of Mohammed “hurts” [I don’t accept this, btw, offense and harm are not the same thing.] regardless of the intention of the image creator.) So the comparable example would be using “nigger” by another black person or in an academic context, or a Holocaust survivor making jokes about the Holocaust, or a family member joking about the foibles of a dead relative. And yes, I have no problem with any of these things.
It doesn’t really seem like you put thought into these examples. Rather, it seems like you made a list of doubleplusungood things and tried to tar me with the association.
I don’t understand your comment. We’re not talking about Muslims drawing pictures of Muhammad.
My point was that what hurts people about Yvain’s examples is that someone is obviously behaving in a hostile way toward them, not the offensive thing in itself. Images of Mohammed are haraam in Islam regardless of intent.
Ah, I see. Then a white person saying ‘nigger’ is indeed not comparable to participating in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, but a black person saying ‘nigger’ is still not comparable either. No person saying ‘nigger’ could actually be comparable, since that word is not haraam.
Now that I’ve written this, I realise that some black people hold the opinion that this word is haraam; they argue that even black people should not use it. Then EDM Day is a bit more like a white person saying ‘nigger’ (as a protest against banning it, of course, not with the intention of causing offence).
By the way, I’d appreciate it if whoever downvoted the grandparent would explain what was wrong with it. Too brief? (But I think that knb understood it fine.) I would hate to think that people get downvoted for admitting that they don’t understand somebody.
I recall reading somewhere that there are different sources of moral rules, I think things being sacred was one of them, ‘purity’ might have been another one or the same one, and if anyone remembers the three things I would appreciate knowing.
So by rejecting sacred cows, does this mean you would eliminate the whole category of moral rules that depend on something bring sacred? (I don’t think this is necessarily so from what you’ve said.)
I ask myself if I attach moral weight to anything sacred and I’m not sure.
Actually, I think so—I can think of some things that I care about symbolically, rather than just at the object level—but I attach the morality to my relationship with this thing rather than other people’s, so I’m not easily as offended. (though I can now think of some cases where I am)
So I’m confused on the topic. What do you think of ‘sacred’ in general?
You probably have in mind the theories of Jonathan Haidt.
I am skeptical towards his theories, though. There may be some truth in them, but his approach is extremely ideologized and, in my opinion, biased accordingly. (On the other hand, I do appreciate that he is explicit and upfront about his ideology and its role in his work. It is certainly a welcome contrast to what is commonly seen in academia.)
The 3 are community, autonomy, and divinity, and they come from the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. Purity was a big part of the ethic of divinity, so much so that you could even argue that “purity” would be a more appropriate label for it.
Jonathan Haidt worked with Shweder at the start of his career and basically adopted Shweder’s system, but he has since modified his views to include 5 moral foundations rather than 3: harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity.
Those are the three, thanks.
But I never read Shweder or Haidt, I was only exposed to those ideas on LW.
Aha! Now that I know what to google, I discover that I was exposed to these ideas here.
I even took that quiz to find that I was relatively low on the purity foundation, just as in the example figure. The model and the quiz made a favorable impression—I decided I was comfortable with carving morality in that way—but then I apparently forgot the details.
I feel like I read the answer already in this page. These offenses aren’t just negligent (oops, I didn’t realize you didn’t like that) or insensitive (this is what I want to do, too bad if it offends you) -- they are pointedly hostile. The person receiving these offenses can rationally experience these offenses as an expression of hate and thus an intent to do harm. Depending on the status of the offender, the victim can feel threatened about their continued place in the clan.
Now I’m imagining a consensus that rationalists are just too picky, so there should be an Everyone Argue Like a Normal Person Day.
Well, the same goes for “everybody draw Mohamed day”, no? It’s hostility, not negligence.
meh.. In this specific case it seems the organized, intended signal is ‘defiance’. For some of the artists it is probably simple irreverence that motivates them. But I wouldn’t doubt that a lot of people feel hostile too.
Everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks regarding attempted genocide of one’s ethnic group—not least because it’s very difficult not to perceive it as a veiled threat.
Not everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks of one’s cultural/religious/philosophical inspiration—not least because it’s an obvious strategy for a utility monster.
And? That doesn’t change the fact that “everybody draw Mohammed day” falls in the category of hostility, not negligence or insensitivity.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It’s very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they’re improving the world?
I feel we’re talking past each other. What I’m saying (and Yvain is saying) is that if you categorize actions thatpeople find offensive in:
A) Accidental offense (you didn’t know someone would be offended)
B) Indifferent offense (you know, but don’t care, and do the action anyway)
C) Deliberate offense (you do the action because you know someone will be offended)
.. then “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” falls under C), for the prepretator.
That is a seperate issue from whether it’s sometimes acceptable to deliberately offend people, or of how offensive various actions are.
Okay, I see your point.
I still believe there’s a problem in using the word “hostility” since it’s negatively connotated. Further, I think there’s a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won’t bring us further by discussing much further.
I generally agree. We should only keep the fun sacred cows, the ones that people would admit to being a matter of personal taste and don’t mind being mocked about, like sports teams or musical preferences. We shouldn’t get rid of those because it would make the world more boring.
Do you mean “The only way” literally ?
Or do you mean “the best way” ? Or maybe “worth the expected carnage ?”
I guess it could change from within Islam, but I basically don’t see any other ways random outsiders can influence the behavior of fundamentalist Muslims.
I am not sure that my understanding of sacred cows includes things like this.
How do you know this?
The West has had centuries of liberalization, as it has gradually transitioned from norms where behavior is highly restricted to prevent violations of people’s sensibilities to norms where it’s generally accepted that people can mostly do what they want, as long as it isn’t directly harmful to others. Other cultures haven’t gone as far through this process, and I don’t think that poking at their most sensitive views is going to be a helpful kind of “therapy” for them.