User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 139

  1. #1
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default Why is our culture of acceptance so hypocritical?

    This is not the topic of the thread, but merely a common example I will use to explain the topic: homosexuality.

    Why are we as a culture so accepting of one person's choice to be homosexual and not another person's choice to merely have values against homosexuality when one is far more unnatural and taboo? This makes no sense. What's more, society has taken an anti-anti-homosexuality stance, which is acceptable to society, of course, so apparently it's okay to be against someone else's stance.

    Topic: How has our society become so hypocritical that it literally embraces anything in the name of acceptance, except only the first degree of nonacceptance? That seems very rigid, legalistic, and non-accepting.

  2. #2
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    You have a point. Otoh, it is a way to discourage harming those that are the target of said convictions. So in that respect, it is the lesser evil.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  3. #3
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Because most people aren't intelligent enough to make their own individual, or personal distinctions. So this is forced upon them instead.

    It's also because acceptance isn't really the right word. It's barely even tolerance. It's about as close to "do as we do or else" socially, without legally enforcing it.

    But if you are going to spread around an ideology of acceptance towards something previously unacceptable, then it will become part of a method of indoctrination towards the general. It's a ridiculous word anyhow, it's only useful on a subjective, personal level when an individual comes to terms with something. As soon as it is applied to a group structure it fails miserably, because a group socially defines what is acceptable by the majority vote, so it cannot avoid hypocrisy.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  4. #4
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    This is not the topic of the thread, but merely a common example I will use to explain the topic: homosexuality.

    Why are we as a culture so accepting of one person's choice to be homosexual and not another person's choice to merely have values against homosexuality when one is far more unnatural and taboo? This makes no sense. What's more, society has taken an anti-anti-homosexuality stance, which is acceptable to society, of course, so apparently it's okay to be against someone else's stance.

    Topic: How has our society become so hypocritical that it literally embraces anything in the name of acceptance, except only the first degree of nonacceptance? That seems very rigid, legalistic, and non-accepting.
    Mostly because we like to congratulate ourselves. It's pretty shallow. As far as tolerance of homosexuals goes, that's fine, but I think a lot of people just use it to make themselves seem better than everyone else. In reality they may even have a deeper seated and quite ironic disdain for homosexuals. It's as if they say, "ha-ha, look at us, we are so awesome we even think fags should be able to get married! Top that bitches!"

  5. #5
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,053

    Default

    Other people can do this with far more energy than I can, but something that came up in your individual post motivates me to provide the following link:

    Appeal to nature

    It's bunk, and both the right and the left do it (see anarcho-primitivism).
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  6. #6
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    Topic: How has our society become so hypocritical that it literally embraces anything in the name of acceptance, except only the first degree of nonacceptance? That seems very rigid, legalistic, and non-accepting.
    Hmm, this is interesting to me, what do you mean like political correctness? I'm very interested in what is socially acceptable and what isnt although I'm not sure what you're saying here that its taboo to have any taboos? That you are expected to approve the message that anything goes and that failing to do so is the only thing which doesnt go?

    In the mid and late eighties I know that some UK conservatives had the idea of attacking what they described as the "permissive society" and it sounded a little like this, although I couldnt have supported their message because objectively it panned out as nothing more than a pretty one dimensional criticism of single parent families, teen pregnancies and benefits claimants it started out OK as some sort of an assessment of the extent to which norms, values and attitudes where unlikely to regulate behaviour anymore were no formal state action existed to do so or could really be expected to do so in anycase.

  7. #7
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Other people can do this with far more energy than I can, but something that came up in your individual post motivates me to provide the following link:

    Appeal to nature

    It's bunk, and both the right and the left do it.
    It is interesting you bring this up, since it fits the same pattern. It takes an awful lot of illogical legalism to really believe that every way work equally well, and yet that itself would suggest that the mere suggestion that one way works better (and is therefore "natural") is either paradoxically true, or not included in the sense of "everything" and therefore be an inconsistent principle.

    See the similarity to limited unconditional acceptance?

    A better approach would be to say that what is "natural" is prone to question rather than trying to do away with the concept altogether. It's attractive because it should be... and yes, that is itself an appeal to nature. It also happens to be true, though, as soon as we leave the realm of rhetoric and step into real life.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    You have a point. Otoh, it is a way to discourage harming those that are the target of said convictions. So in that respect, it is the lesser evil.
    But does that work Amargith? I can understand that protective or paternalistic urge but beyond approval and support what does that individual need and is approval and support likely to provide that or be a distraction from it?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Because most people aren't intelligent enough to make their own individual, or personal distinctions. So this is forced upon them instead.

    It's also because acceptance isn't really the right word. It's barely even tolerance. It's about as close to "do as we do or else" socially, without legally enforcing it.

    But if you are going to spread around an ideology of acceptance towards something previously unacceptable, then it will become part of a method of indoctrination towards the general. It's a ridiculous word anyhow, it's only useful on a subjective, personal level when an individual comes to terms with something. As soon as it is applied to a group structure it fails miserably, because a group socially defines what is acceptable by the majority vote, so it cannot avoid hypocrisy.
    The personal individual vs. the group/social interests me when it comes to things like acceptance, that article from Cracked that I posted about online behaviour I felt reflected aspects of that at least in part, ie the approval of strangers mattering, grandstanding etc.

  10. #10
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    But does that work Amargith? I can understand that protective or paternalistic urge but beyond approval and support what does that individual need and is approval and support likely to provide that or be a distraction from it?
    I think of it more as a stamp of approval by society, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not...a big fan of it...but people are by nature xenophobic (it is a good survival instinct). When they are raised with the idea that something is not a threat, even if it aint their cup of tea, they are less likely to a) have a problem with in the first place and b) feel entitled to actually bully, pester or even get violent towards those targets, I think. It's basic socialization.

    So in a way, it is providing those targets with a much needed protection within the group.

    Otoh, it can swing too much the other way where it becomes condemned to actually think about and have your own opinion on that topic as you're instantly labelled as someone who isn't doing their part in society, which in and of itself is definitely oppressive as well.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 02:12 PM
  2. Why is American Culture so against the Martial Arts and Fight Sports
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 03:16 AM
  3. Why is 6 afraid of 7?
    By BerberElla in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 08:40 PM
  4. Why is your country of type X?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:20 AM
  5. How rich is our conception of personality typing?
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 06:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO