on flooglebaxing
Feb. 3rd, 2009 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyI have been watching in a distant train-wreck sort of way the recent race-based flap on science fiction and racism, which to me has had a strong flavor of biting the hand that fed you. I've also been reading, and largely disagreeing with, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vito_excalibur's thought-provoking posts on the subject of racism.
A recent post from the Mayor of There lit the following comment, which I did not post there because I felt it would be seen as trying to hijack the discussion.
As someone who uses these stages of awareness in my daily work -- and holds decidedly third-party views on theories of "-ism" and oppression, I have to wonder whether I have inadvertently reached a new category, that of Chosen Conscious Incompetence.
In other words, someone who knows that flooglebaxing exists and can even give a good definition, but has neither skill nor interest in developing such skills. This would be someone who knows that they have no skill with firearms (or golf) and at the same time has no interest in developing any such skill, either from lack of personal interest or (as in my case) on strong ethical grounds.
This creates an interesting ethical question. Why should anyone learn to flooglebax? Why do those who flooglebax appear to have an ethical compulsion to either teach/force others how to flooglebax, or alternatively think of the non-flooglebaxers as less civilized or worthy of derision or contempt?
This conscientious objector to flooglebaxing would very much like to know -- as I believe that flooglebaxing merely perpetuates the problem it purports to solve while creating ugly disputes (as in the exhibit above) and nasty power dynamics.
I'm willing to own my actions and where those actions have harmed others, make reasonable amends at my own discretion. I'm not willing to allow flooglebaxers to dictate to me what I _should_ do based on their flawed and/or broken interpretations of my actions.
Fortunately we still live in a society where freedom of speech and of religion is a Constitutional right, outside the halls of academe and office cubicles.
That said, in all honesty, I've explored the idea at length that the flooglebaxers are on to something, and rejected it. Link-clicking resulting from the above dispute has reopened my interest but only solidified my opinion.
[info]prettydark says: >> someone points out they found something offensive in our speech or behaviour, to curtail the immediate reaction of defensiveness. Of course we didn't intend harm.
This is very far from an 'of course' in my experience. I may not have set out to harm anyone, and for strong ethical and practical reasons almost never do so, but I observe in my daily life a number of people who are consciously and deliberately offensive, including many who claim to be flooglebaxers.
[info]prettydark says: >> Thankfully, this is simple when someone points out we have been offensive. Instead of explaining how no we haven't, the appropriate response includes sincerely apologizing for the offense and then learning about another aspect of our privilege so that we don't step in that particular pile of shit again.
This comment made me think a lot. If someone claims that I stepped on their virtual toe, I'm willing to make a token apology for something I do not believe is an actual injury, for reasons of social convenience . . . but I don't see how this requires me to undertake a study of virtual body parts and learn to tip-toe around what they think is their virtual toe from that part forward. I choke on the idea that I am somehow wrong or privileged because I refuse to give them more rights and privileges due to their protected "-ism" characteristic.
(I am not blind to the idea that I could accidentally step on someone's toe with an inappropriate remark, and of course I would apologize for doing so and try to learn from the mistake. This is limited to those situations where I not only 'don't get' why they are offended, but moreover vehemently disagree that they had any cause or right to be offended.)
I suspect that this comment will win me few friends, and possibly result in a lot of name calling, but this is one reason why I simply don't talk about flooglebaxing much. Too much baggage, far too high a signal to noise ratio.
One last comment: savage attacks on fellow travelers are a great way to get shunned at the water hole.
vito_excalibur's thought-provoking posts on the subject of racism.A recent post from the Mayor of There lit the following comment, which I did not post there because I felt it would be seen as trying to hijack the discussion.
As someone who uses these stages of awareness in my daily work -- and holds decidedly third-party views on theories of "-ism" and oppression, I have to wonder whether I have inadvertently reached a new category, that of Chosen Conscious Incompetence.
In other words, someone who knows that flooglebaxing exists and can even give a good definition, but has neither skill nor interest in developing such skills. This would be someone who knows that they have no skill with firearms (or golf) and at the same time has no interest in developing any such skill, either from lack of personal interest or (as in my case) on strong ethical grounds.
This creates an interesting ethical question. Why should anyone learn to flooglebax? Why do those who flooglebax appear to have an ethical compulsion to either teach/force others how to flooglebax, or alternatively think of the non-flooglebaxers as less civilized or worthy of derision or contempt?
This conscientious objector to flooglebaxing would very much like to know -- as I believe that flooglebaxing merely perpetuates the problem it purports to solve while creating ugly disputes (as in the exhibit above) and nasty power dynamics.
I'm willing to own my actions and where those actions have harmed others, make reasonable amends at my own discretion. I'm not willing to allow flooglebaxers to dictate to me what I _should_ do based on their flawed and/or broken interpretations of my actions.
Fortunately we still live in a society where freedom of speech and of religion is a Constitutional right, outside the halls of academe and office cubicles.
That said, in all honesty, I've explored the idea at length that the flooglebaxers are on to something, and rejected it. Link-clicking resulting from the above dispute has reopened my interest but only solidified my opinion.
[info]prettydark says: >> someone points out they found something offensive in our speech or behaviour, to curtail the immediate reaction of defensiveness. Of course we didn't intend harm.
This is very far from an 'of course' in my experience. I may not have set out to harm anyone, and for strong ethical and practical reasons almost never do so, but I observe in my daily life a number of people who are consciously and deliberately offensive, including many who claim to be flooglebaxers.
[info]prettydark says: >> Thankfully, this is simple when someone points out we have been offensive. Instead of explaining how no we haven't, the appropriate response includes sincerely apologizing for the offense and then learning about another aspect of our privilege so that we don't step in that particular pile of shit again.
This comment made me think a lot. If someone claims that I stepped on their virtual toe, I'm willing to make a token apology for something I do not believe is an actual injury, for reasons of social convenience . . . but I don't see how this requires me to undertake a study of virtual body parts and learn to tip-toe around what they think is their virtual toe from that part forward. I choke on the idea that I am somehow wrong or privileged because I refuse to give them more rights and privileges due to their protected "-ism" characteristic.
(I am not blind to the idea that I could accidentally step on someone's toe with an inappropriate remark, and of course I would apologize for doing so and try to learn from the mistake. This is limited to those situations where I not only 'don't get' why they are offended, but moreover vehemently disagree that they had any cause or right to be offended.)
I suspect that this comment will win me few friends, and possibly result in a lot of name calling, but this is one reason why I simply don't talk about flooglebaxing much. Too much baggage, far too high a signal to noise ratio.
One last comment: savage attacks on fellow travelers are a great way to get shunned at the water hole.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 03:14 am (UTC)One of the problems with being Good at a very limited number of skills is the awareness that I will never be any good at a wide range of other skills, sometimes due to lack of interest but more often due to lack of time to practice.
I do not, however, endure the delusion that skill in one subject makes me skillful in all subjects -- and I think this is a major contributing factor to the larger flap. SF editors tend to believe that they are masters of all trades, and resent being called novices especially when it is true.
Thank you for the content-neutral term, which allowed me to cast into more careful perspective my views on what has been in prior decades so misleadingly and disturbingly called 'race relations' and perhaps should just be called 'people skills' -- which the world could use a lot more of.