Thoughts about Lasto from a longtime poster

[halplm]

Please, let's not get into personal arguments here. Thanks.

halplm, I'm sorry that you don't want to present your points. I guess the discussion will have to continue without them.

Well, that's good to know. Thanks.

I'll be seeing you all.

[Primula Baggins]

I didn't mean you should leave, unless you want to. I just thought you'd pretty clearly elected not to participate in this thread.

As you wish, though.

[narya]

Is it just Tolkien and Tolkienists who relish the black and white clarity of Good vs Evil, and are willing to throw themselves into The Great Battle, or is everyone like that? I'm not sure, because of who I am and who I associate with. But it seems to me that there are few centrists in his works. In fact, his whole point is that you are either for one side or for the other, actively or passively.

[anthriel]

That's a great thought, narya.

Even I, who tend to the center of most RL social situations, tend to see pretty black and white in Tolkien's World. It's such a relief, really! I often, in RL, look with doe eyes at the people who are so sure that they are right, in real life situations. They are so sure that the other side is so clearly wrong (on all points, btw). I feel that that sort of social clarity would truly be an emotional blessing. I'm not sure it's fair or realistic, but it would be easier.

In Tolkien's created world, I have the luxury of black and white. And I indulge myself with it! It is difficult for even me to see the point of view, and sympathize with, for example, the orcs. Tolkien tried to create them as purely evil creatures, I think.

Thoughtlessly evil, which is particularly chilling. If you create a beast, you can make it one-note. People are not one-note. People are harder to compartmentalize than orcs. Darn them.

Thank goodness for orcs, really. They are a relief, a break from the real life task of realizing that different points of view do not necessarily fall along the clear fault lines of Right and Wrong. All those cowboy and Indian movies I saw when I was a kid, when the cowboys were valiant and the Indians were mindless savages? That whole picture looks a little different to me now.

It was fun, then, easy, to know who the heroes were. Real life sometimes doesn't afford you that luxury.

[River]

What Anthy said. It's a nice break, to drop into Middle Earth where things are easier. It's okay that the orcs get mowed down by the hundreds. They're evil. They deserve it. You don't have to wonder if those orcs had a family somewhere, or if, when it's all said and done, if you could have been the orc had the same pressures been applied to you. It's a relief really, not to have to hold things in balance and just love and hate immoderately.

[Teremia]

Wait! Wait! Remember the moments where the orcs are bickering among themselves! It's not just comic relief; it's a kind of window into orcs as "people," with problems of their own.

I know that sounds silly, but I think it's true. I always felt somewhat sorry for the orcs, after hearing them chatter to each other.

So even in LOTR, where -- I agree! -- there is a real fight between good and evil, which to a reader coming in from the real world is indeed a huge relief and a sort of Vacation -- even there, I say, there is grey.

Plus Denethor, of course.

Anyway, the part of this that seems important to remember is that the absolute struggle of GOOD vs. EVIL is a FICTION.

There is no purely good side in real life, and no purely evil people.

(Of course, there are good deeds and evil deeds, and there are people whose minds are dreadfully warped by forces we don't understand, and on the other hand there are people who mostly spend their lives helping others -- but still there are no absolutes, outside of fiction.)

[WampusCat]

I thought Gandalf was the Grey.

I used to wish this life were more like Middle Earth, where good and evil were so easy to recognize. The older I get, the more I think that although Teremia is right that there are no purely good or purely evil people, it is not that hard to discern good from evil. It's just all too easy to rationalize evil when standing up for good is difficult.

[Cerin]

Of course, when discussing politics, we're not discussing people so much as the policies they institute, and how those policies change people's lives (at least, that is what I'm discussing when I discuss politics).

It is not so difficult to view policies in absolute terms, because of the concerns they represent. Ex., one person sees only dead babies when they contemplate the abortion issue, another sees only women injured in 'back-alley' illegal abortions. To a single issue voter, dead babies or injured women may indeed seem to represent black and white, good and evil, much more so than any individual person could. The same could be said for strong feelings on war and peace, social injustice, aid to the poor, and so on.

The difficulty comes when a person transfers their perspective on an issue to the people who represent that issue, and begins thinking that all those people are as black and white as they perceive the issue to be.

I think this may be an actual source of confusion on this board. I get the feeling that some people are interpreting condemnation of a policy with condemnation of the people who support it.

IF we understand that support or opposition to policy is based on our perspective and interpretation and a myriad of other factors, and IF we bear in mind that others do not necessarily view an issue the same way we do, then we will never condemn supporters of policy along with the policy. Only when we believe that our perspective is the only one, only when we believe that others must see the evil we see, can we condemn them for supporting evil.

I think we should take care not to assume that someone expressing a strong political opinion is also expressing disapproval of everyone who doesn't agree with them. I think that assumption is unfounded.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think we should take care not to assume that someone expressing a strong political opinion is also expressing disapproval of everyone who doesn't agree with them. I think that assumption is unfounded.

Just because you think it is unfounded, doesn't mean that it necessarily is in all cases. I think there is a big danger in people thinking that what they post is fine because they don't think any should be upset or offended by it. A little sensitivity to the feelings of others, even when they differ from your own, can go a long way.

[anthriel]

I get the feeling that some people are interpreting condemnation of a policy with condemnation of the people who support it.

This may be. However, the condemnation of people above and beyond the condemnation of their policies is well evidenced on this board. Individual people as well as entire groups of people.

When there is a quote from someone who says they "loathe" McCain, I think that is more than condemnation of a policy. When someone characterizes Palin as a "barking poodle", I think that is more than condemnation of a policy. I think that line has been crossed repeatedly, almost casually, in full view of many people who did or said nothing to challenge it.

Frelga and Imp and Ethel taught me long ago that not challenging a statement that was unjust was to be seen as agreeing with it. I have really learned from those fine people. They are right.

The older I get, the more I think that although Teremia is right that there are no purely good or purely evil people, it is not that hard to discern good from evil. It's just all too easy to rationalize evil when standing up for good is difficult.

My own journey has been different. The older I get, the more those absolute lines blur. People who bomb abortion clinics are taking strong measures to try to stop evil, and they are trying to save the lives of the unprotected unborn. They are clearly choosing to not rationalize evil while they stand up for good.

From their point of view, of course.

Which is where the lines between a humanistic definition of good and evil get fuzzy. Those lines are drawn by people, and people have unique perspectives on morality.

[Cerin]

I think we should take care not to assume that someone expressing a strong political opinion is also expressing disapproval of everyone who doesn't agree with them. I think that assumption is unfounded.

Just because you think it is unfounded, doesn't mean that it necessarily is in all cases.

You seem to be suggesting that you believe there are people here who are expressing disapproval of everyone who disagrees with them, when they address a policy issue. Is that the case, or is there another interpretation of your comment that I've missed?

I think there is a big danger in people thinking that what they post is fine because they don't think any should be upset or offended by it. A little sensitivity to the feelings of others, even when they differ from your own, can go a long way.

Could you try and apply that practically in an example? How are you imagining that sensitivity to the feelings of others could or should be shown when discussing a policy issue? Are you suggesting that we begin adding addendums like 'imo' (i.e., By expressing my view on this policy, I don't mean to imply disapproval of those who disagree with me.)

[Cerin]

When there is a quote from someone who says they "loathe" McCain, I think that is more than condemnation of a policy. When someone characterizes Palin as a "barking poodle", I think that is more than condemnation of a policy.

Certainly neither of those is an example of a statement on policy; they are personal remarks (and it seems to me the second is a violation of the Lasto standards and ought to be edited). However, if I could just use one of them in illustration of my point, if I don't agree with that poster's view of Palin, that doesn't mean that poster's disapproval of Palin extends to me, and it would be mistaken and unfounded of me to assume that it does.

[River]

This post is not targeted at any one person or group in particular. This is just me thinking in public.

Could you try and apply that practically in an example? How are you imagining that sensitivity to the feelings of others could or should be shown when discussing a policy issue? Are you suggesting that we begin adding addendums like 'imo' (i.e., By expressing my view on this policy, I don't mean to imply disapproval of those who disagree with me.)

I think it's more a question of just watching one's language in general. There's a difference between saying "This is a bad policy" and "This is a bad policy and anyone who doesn't see that is bad/stupid/whatever." Or saying "This person should not be president" and "This person should not be president and anyone who thinks otherwise has drunk the koolaid/is a droid and so on." A lot of people here have not committed these offenses, but there are some that have and that definitely throws a wrench into the discussion as the people targeted by such statements get justifiably sarcastic and offended.

There's another wrinkle in this. I can't say for certain that I have seen this happen here, but I have seen it elsewhere. Person A will say something contrary to Person B's strongly held viewpoint and Person B reads a personal attack in when none was intended. This also puts a damper on discussion and in this case, maybe Person A should have been a tad more careful, but Person B also needs to take a deep breath, count to 10, and think about what's being said or written as another point of view, not necessarily an attack on them as a person.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think we should take care not to assume that someone expressing a strong political opinion is also expressing disapproval of everyone who doesn't agree with them. I think that assumption is unfounded.

Just because you think it is unfounded, doesn't mean that it necessarily is in all cases.

You seem to be suggesting that you believe there are people here who are expressing disapproval of everyone who disagrees with them, when they address a policy issue. Is that the case, or is there another interpretation of your comment that I've missed?

There is a grey area between blanket disapprovel of people and not expressing disapproval. In many cases, the way that some people express their opinions about policy issues strongly implies that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is either stupid or evil. Usually the latter. Particularly when those same opinions are repeated repeatedly by different people, sometimes gratuitously.

I think there is a big danger in people thinking that what they post is fine because they don't think any should be upset or offended by it. A little sensitivity to the feelings of others, even when they differ from your own, can go a long way.

Could you try and apply that practically in an example? How are you imagining that sensitivity to the feelings of others could or should be shown when discussing a policy issue? Are you suggesting that we begin adding addendums like 'imo' (i.e., By expressing my view on this policy, I don't mean to imply disapproval of those who disagree with me.)

One practical example that I can think of is the way people repeatedly ended their posts about the ACORN issue by saying that what the GOP was doing was worse. Another example is the way some people have talked about McCain's tax plan in regards to the discussion of Joe the Plumber. Generally speaking, the more people can attempt to see why the other side views things the way they do rather than just assuming that issues are black and white, with one side completely right, and the other completely wrong, the more productive the discussion is going to be. That's not always easy to do, I know, but the results can be very gratifying. For everyone involved.

[Cerin]

I think it's more a question of just watching one's language in general. There's a difference between saying "This is a bad policy" and "This is a bad policy and anyone who doesn't see that is bad/stupid/whatever." Or saying "This person should not be president" and "This person should not be president and anyone who thinks otherwise has drunk the koolaid/is a droid and so on."

River, I can't think of a time, ever, when anyone said something like the examples above. What I think happens is that when people read, 'This is a bad policy,' they actually assume the person is saying, 'This is a bad policy and anyone who doesn't see that is bad/stupid.'

If these assumptions are being made and leading to bad feeling, it simply isn't the fault of the person who never said such a thing and never intended such a meaning to be inferred.

edit: cross-post

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The older I get, the more I think that although Teremia is right that there are no purely good or purely evil people, it is not that hard to discern good from evil. It's just all too easy to rationalize evil when standing up for good is difficult.

My own journey has been different. The older I get, the more those absolute lines blur. People who bomb abortion clinics are taking strong measures to try to stop evil, and they are trying to save the lives of the unprotected unborn. They are clearly choosing to not rationalize evil while they stand up for good.

From their point of view, of course.

Which is where the lines between a humanistic definition of good and evil get fuzzy. Those lines are drawn by people, and people have unique perspectives on morality.

I think that this is a subject that would be worth a thread all to itself. Generally speaking (and perhaps not terriby surprising ), my experience has been roughly equivalent to yours, Anthy.

[anthriel]

When there is a quote from someone who says they "loathe" McCain, I think that is more than condemnation of a policy. When someone characterizes Palin as a "barking poodle", I think that is more than condemnation of a policy.

Certainly neither of those is an example of a statement on policy; they are personal remarks (and it seems to me the second is a violation of the Lasto standards and ought to be edited).

I believe that it was edited.

However, if I could just use one of them in illustration of my point, if I don't agree with that poster's view of Palin, that doesn't mean that poster's disapproval of Palin extends to me, and it would be mistaken and unfounded of me to assume that it does.

I absolutely agree. The examples I gave were meant to be general illustrations of comments which went further than policy discussions. Your quote, though, was "I get the feeling that some people are interpreting condemnation of a policy with condemnation of the people who support it", and that is a bit different than the examples I gave. However, I believe that this association has also been made on this board.

Unfortunately, to provide good examples to you would require some time to dig for comments extending past policy discussion into the character of the people who would support such a policy. I may take the time to find some examples later, but I am going to pause to ponder whether quoting people on this subject is ultimately a fruitful exercise.



Sir V, my first inclination would be to say that I have said all I can think to say on a subject like that. But as history has proved time and again, I really, really do seem to always have one more thing to say.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

But as history has proved time and again, I really, really do seem to always have one more thing to say.

Thank heavens.

[WampusCat]

I think the best way to deal with this whole issue is simple, now that it has been discussed in abstract:

If someone says something specific that goes over the line, any one of us can gently point it out. Not in "sez you!" fashion, but by saying something along the lines of "You may have a good point there, but there's no need to demonize everyone on the other side." Then at least there will be something specific to point to, and we can all get a better sense of where the boundary lies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sir V, my first inclination would be to say that I have said all I can think to say on a subject like that. But as history has proved time and again, I really, really do seem to always have one more thing to say.

I'm not sure how much more I have to say on the subject, either, my friend, but I am interested to hear whether other people's experience is more consistent with what you and I have expressed, or with what Wampus expressed, and exploring what that may mean. I suspect that hearing what others have to say may inspire more thoughts on the subject in both of us. It often does.