Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[KevinG]

My daughters lost a lot of third dates when they proved they really were chaste. We could use a little more social stigma when it comes to teen sexual behavior.

[Stone holm]

Really? In the world of today, it seems like just about anything goes... without much of any stigmatization to speak of...

However, back in the olden days of the 50's when I was a teen, there was indeed a stigma in regard to certain behaviors that kept things in control...

For instance, the standards of the Church were faaarrr easier to live because of that stigmatization, i.e. only those types of girls smoked... or drank... or dressed provacatively... or made out (if a girl was considered "easy" her reputation was absolutely shot). This is just the way it was at that time, and it made it easy for me to keep the standards as a faithful LDS girl.

Whereas today, attitudes are so casual about these types of things, and our young people face difficult challenges and peer pressures while trying to maintain the dress and behavioral standards of the Church.

Being able to get birth control or abortions without parental consent was not even on the radar... and was shocking to imagine.

GG

edit to add... I just read the posts about tatoos... well, in my day (heh-heh), again only those girls had tatoos... or had pierced ears for that matter. I just don't see the same level of stigma today...

So you would favour the idea of letting girls get branded as "easy"?

[mfbukowski]

How does that work that you stigmatize smoking without stigmatizing the smoker, or you stigmatize bullying without stigmatizing the bully, or you stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual, or you stigmatize pre-marital sex without stigmatizing the mother of an illegitimate child? I have always heard the saying, "Hate the sin, and not the sinner" -- try explaining how that works as a practical matter.

It works for me- do you have a problem doing that?

We are all sinners- condemning others because they sin differently than I do just doesn't make sense. How would you feel if someone condemned you for your favorite sin?

Again, it is making the maxim universal which is important.

[mfbukowski]

So you would favour the idea of letting girls get branded as "easy"?

I haven't a clue how you come to your conclusions- this statement has nothing to do with what was said.

She was talking about historical standards but somehow you read it to mean she advocates and supports those standards.

I hope you have never written a report on slavery, because by that logic, that would indicate that you wanted to be a slave owner.

Edited May 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[pmccombs1]

I think it goes beyond all this- the fact is that the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females. "Stigmatization" may be unfortunate, but it is a regulatory system society has come up with to enforce those standards.

I believe that we should live according to standards of behavior which we can generalize to all of humanity- that if all of humanity lived these standards, humanity would survive and prosper. You can figure the rest out for yourself, I am sure.

If a behavior would, if generalized, and everyone did it, lead to the destruction of humanity, I would think that it would be clear that that would not be a good behavior to encourage. It seems quite simple to me.

Kind of like your mother told you: "What if everyone did that?"

Nature seems to be rather plastic in order to fit circumstances that are rarely the same from one minute to the next. Your comment that "the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females" applies to normal circumstances, but in conditions of overcrowding and the presence of other environmental stressors, we sometimes find a spike in behaviors (such as homosexuality) that tend to limit reproduction in order to buffer the species from tipping points that could lead to suffering and death on a large scale. When things return to homeostasis, then behaviors tend to normalize on their own. In this practical use case, there appears to be a reason why some, but not all individuals, would behave erratically and yet be justified by dint of nature.

I do suspect that much of our "deviant" behaviors are a result of the artificial and urban environments that we create for ourselves. They bring with them poor nutrition, myriad stresses, pollution, disease, and whatever else Earth produces as She raises her immune system against the plague of humanity that begins to corrupt her. We no longer treat our bodies in the manner that they have become accustomed over who knows how many eons of development. But the pious still demand that people observe a natural morality as if such a thing were still possible in such an unnatural world. I think it's an injustice.

[mfbukowski]

Nature seems to be rather plastic in order to fit circumstances that are rarely the same from one minute to the next. Your comment that "the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females" applies to normal circumstances, but in conditions of overcrowding and the presence of other environmental stressors, we sometimes find a spike in behaviors (such as homosexuality) that tend to limit reproduction in order to buffer the species from tipping points that could lead to suffering and death on a large scale. When things return to homeostasis, then behaviors tend to normalize on their own. In this practical use case, there appears to be a reason why some, but not all individuals, would behave erratically and yet be justified by dint of nature.

I do suspect that much of our "deviant" behaviors are a result of the artificial and urban environments that we create for ourselves. They bring with them poor nutrition, myriad stresses, pollution, disease, and whatever else Earth produces as She raises her immune system against the plague of humanity that begins to corrupt her. We no longer treat our bodies in the manner that they have become accustomed over who knows how many eons of development. But the pious still demand that people observe a natural morality as if such a thing were still possible in such an unnatural world. I think it's an injustice.

Renounce "natural morality"?

Death is a powerful equalizer.

When your unnatural world eliminates it, you might have a case. Before then, though, the species must survive.

And clearly mass suicide would rid the earth of the "plague" of humanity. Until you are personally ready to volunteer for that, your words ring hollow.

Edited May 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Danzo]

Are we opposed to teaching the consequences of sin?

[Stone holm]

I haven't a clue how you come to your conclusions- this statement has nothing to do with what was said.

She was talking about historical standards but somehow you read it to mean she advocates and supports those standards.

I hope you have never written a report on slavery, because by that logic, that would indicate that you wanted to be a slave owner.

Well I was just reminding her nostalgic tour that for that form of deterrence to work we have to employ the tools involved such as viciously branding certain girls as "easy" or "fast" course speaking as one who actually lived through that era, some girls got unfairly branded as such and some that should have been branded skated free. Plus there was a considerable amount of URL standards involved because the boys who gave them those titles were often considered studs. No. I am just curious how far some of you will regress in your quest for a more righteous society. Wenglund has called it when applied to gays as pragmatic stigma, not sure where he came up with that term possibly from a drug addict who is a serial monogamous , don't know. In part this comes down to how much incivility you are willing to countenance in order to "encourage" people to conform with your religious standards and apparently the answer is quite a bit.

[wenglund]

If we were to eliminate any deterrents for harmful behavior that may make people feel bad and that may, in exceptional cases, be abused and warped into inappropriate expressions of prejudice, then we would have to pretty much eliminate all deterrents, which then would leave us with no deterrents and a proliferation of harmful behaviors. Welcome to Stone holm's world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

If we were to eliminate any deterrents for harmful behavior that may make people feel bad and that may, in exceptional cases, be abused and warped into inappropriate expressions of prejudice, then we would have to pretty much eliminate all deterrents, which then would leave us with no deterrents and a proliferation of harmful behaviors. Welcome to Stone holm's world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Innappropriate expressions of prejudice"....interesting turn of phrase. We are talking about cranking up "prejudice" here, that is what stigma is all about, people are going to be prejudiced. Whether it is the old fashioned rumor mill type of prejudice or a somewhat more vicious form. We are talking about branding people because of non-conformity, not necessarily non-conformity with the law mind you, but non-conformity with standards we set as a community.

[pmccombs1]

Renounce "natural morality"?

I don't know what you're talking about. Would you say it is natural to breathe air underwater? I am suggesting that we have a world where living a moral life is increasingly, for many people, like trying to breath underwater. It's losing its practicality. Consequences are being divorced from their actions. Do we seek to change the world? No, we insist that everybody breathe underwater. We call it, "in the world, but not of the world."

Death is a powerful equalizer.

When your unnatural world eliminates it, you might have a case. Before then, though, the species must survive.

I'm sorry, you've completely missed the point. There is a hypothesis that suggests that one reason why nature inhibits the ability for some individuals to reproduce is precisely to guard it from mass extinction, or from corruption. The apparent use of the function is to "equalize" the population in order to preserve it. Hence, the argument, "what if everyone were that way?", is a moot point. In some species (maybe all of them), sexual "orientation" can be changed by simply adjusting hormones at the right point in development--delicate balances that are easily subject to environmental stresses. All I'm saying is that we ought to be putting First Things First and looking to the nature of our surroundings, the health of our homes, communities, families, workplaces, neighborhoods, and so forth, before we get all "pragmatic" in a broken world where there is nothing more natural than the unnatural.

And clearly mass suicide would rid the earth of the "plague" of humanity. Until you are personally ready to volunteer for that, your words ring hollow.

Easy there, Mr. Neverbend. Nobody is talking about mass suicide. The world does have ways of keeping things in check without such nonsense.

No name calling please.

[Garden Girl]

So you would favour the idea of letting girls get branded as "easy"?

It was the boys that branded the girls, based on the girl's behavior... didn't take long for the word to get around among the guys about the girls willing to behave a certain way and so subsequently become generally known... kids talk... every girl knew the consequences of such behavior, i.e., a bad or questionable reputation. That's what the deterrent was, in other words the stigmatation factor acted as a control...

Funny, somehow the boys' reputations didn't receive the same type of result... double standard...

GG

[thesometimesaint]

There are numerous examples like this that can be given of stigmatizing on the Left. And, so, you can understand my surprise when the Left universally rejects stigmas (it is a key plank in their indoctrination) since it is so self-condemning--that is, until I realized that to the Left, stigmatizing is only wrong when Right does it, or it is only stigmatizing when the Right does it.

As I see it, this is yet another way, as Rush has pointed out, in which the Left conveniently changes/mangles the language in order to win the argument since that can't do so otherwise. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Stigmatizing knows no politics. Classic FAIL.

[thesometimesaint]

If we were to eliminate any deterrents for harmful behavior that may make people feel bad and that may, in exceptional cases, be abused and warped into inappropriate expressions of prejudice, then we would have to pretty much eliminate all deterrents, which then would leave us with no deterrents and a proliferation of harmful behaviors. Welcome to Stone holm's world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Go your way and sin no more.

[Calm]

Go your way and sin no more.

Are you suggesting that Christ never used stigmatizing in his mission? I remember some pretty hefty comments about whited sepulchres applied to a certain group of people. Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

Really? In the world of today, it seems like just about anything goes... without much of any stigmatization to speak of...

However, back in the olden days of the 50's when I was a teen, there was indeed a stigma in regard to certain behaviors that kept things in control...

For instance, the standards of the Church were faaarrr easier to live because of that stigmatization, i.e. only those types of girls smoked... or drank... or dressed provacatively... or made out (if a girl was considered "easy" her reputation was absolutely shot). This is just the way it was at that time, and it made it easy for me to keep the standards as a faithful LDS girl.

Whereas today, attitudes are so casual about these types of things, and our young people face difficult challenges and peer pressures while trying to maintain the dress and behavioral standards of the Church.

Being able to get birth control or abortions without parental consent was not even on the radar... and was shocking to imagine.

GG

edit to add... I just read the posts about tatoos... well, in my day (heh-heh), again only those girls had tatoos... or had pierced ears for that matter. I just don't see the same level of stigma today...

I think stigmatization is alive and well in the world. I am not a social conservative, but a bible-thumbing, intolerant, right-wing loon. I am not someone that can believe that actions have consequences, but I must hate the poor and the needy. I cannot be someone that believes in the sanctity of life, but I am against a woman's right to choose, a control freak and misogynist. I am not someone that believes that the nuclear family is the only reliable, fundamental building block of society, I am an intolerant pig that hates gays and the right of people to choose whatever they want. I am allowed to think what I want as long as I think like "them"; I cannot conflict with them, I cannot differ, I cannot believe or think anything that might deter the choices of another. Every society has stigmatization; the only differences is what is being stigmatized or what is being discouraged.

[thesometimesaint]

Are you suggesting that Christ never used stigmatizing in his mission? I remember some pretty hefty comments about whited sepulchres applied to a certain group of people.

Sorry I just don't see that as stigmatizing. The verse in reference is to a person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous. A whited sepulcher is a, dissembler, dissimulator, hypocrite, phoney.

[Stone holm]

Sorry I just don't see that as stigmatizing. The verse in reference is to a person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous. A whited sepulcher is a, dissembler, dissimulator, hypocrite, phoney.

At what point does a directed insult become stigmatizing?

[mfbukowski]

No. I am just curious how far some of you will regress in your quest for a more righteous society.

I find it fascinating that you would think we need to regress to be righteous.

An interesting point of view indeed

[wenglund]

I get the sense that some people these days would prefer that we have untold numbers of people getting sick and possibly dying from STD rather than make a bunch of people feel uncomfortable about behaving badly. Got to love those upside-down priorities. Yeah, that is progression for you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry, you've completely missed the point. There is a hypothesis that suggests that one reason why nature inhibits the ability for some individuals to reproduce is precisely to guard it from mass extinction, or from corruption. The apparent use of the function is to "equalize" the population in order to preserve it.

No, I didn't miss the point- you did. The population would reach equilibrium just as well with a mass-extinction. You have two ways to limit population growth- by some kind of plague, or etc causing a mass-die off, OR to stop reproduction. Either strategy would work to achieve equilibrium and either strategy is still a "natural consequence" or an enforcement of "natural morality".

Of course we culturally create our morality in relatively minor ways, but even cultural creations are subject to natural consequences ultimately.

[Stone holm]

I get the sense that some people these days would prefer that we have untold numbers of people getting sick and possibly dying from STD rather than make a bunch of people feel uncomfortable about behaving badly. Got to love those upside-down priorities. Yeah, that is progression for you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I get the sense that some people these days would prefer that we have untold numbers of people getting sick and possibly dying from STD rather than make a bunch of people feel uncomfortable about behaving badly. Got to love those upside-down priorities. Yeah, that is progression for you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I get the sense that some people these days would prefer that we have untold numbers of people getting sick and possibly dying from STD rather than make a bunch of people feel uncomfortable about behaving badly. Got to love those upside-down priorities. Yeah, that is progression for you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I take it that pragmatic stigmatisation is your way of curbing homosexuality . And that phrase means a form of public shaming and ostracization. I agree that such did tend to keep homosexuals securely in the closet for a couple of centuries in America. We Mormons of course feel we would be curbing bad behaviour on the part of homosexuals. Of course recent Church policy would seem to suggest that approach would in itself constitute bad behaviour . I just wonder how that type of behaviour might reflect on Christians in general, or rather how that behaviour is already reflecting on Christians in general and exactly how The Lord might feel about that type of behaviour being linked with His Church? I guess the question is how much of that type of behaviour is tolerable in trying to force people to live according to our standards. Now the Missourians were willing to go quite far in making Mormons uncomfortable, I assume we wouldn't go quite that far.

[pmccombs1]

No, I didn't miss the point- you did.

No, you did. TIMES INFINITY!!

The population would reach equilibrium just as well with a mass-extinction. You have two ways to limit population growth- by some kind of plague, or etc causing a mass-die off, OR to stop reproduction. Either strategy would work to achieve equilibrium and either strategy is still a "natural consequence" or an enforcement of "natural morality".

Yes, and my point was that, if the consequence of reaching some tipping point is that nature produces more of what a popular morality despises, then it is silly to stigmatize that. It's short-sighted to ask the hypothetical, "what if everyone were that way?" in order to assign some value to the thing. By those terms, it's evil to choose management as a career path, because "what if everyone were that way?" Yes, clearly it's a problem if everybody were to have some quality that is very destructive when it is found universally. But there are obviously things that are quite useful when found here or there--even if it's nature that benefits at the expense of mankind. It's a question of context, and one must consider that when attempting to be practical.

What if people have over-stressed their environment so much (through Veblen's "conspicuous consumption," among many other things), that they are getting wiped out by disease and sterility? What if, say, homosexuality is one of the factors in that complex system? One might then say to the homosexual, "Now, behave yourself, you immoral fiend!" And that itself is a moral hazard, because it attempts to circumvent the natural consequences of systemic evil that has run out of control. Chances are that the person did not choose to be homosexual; nature chose that particular defect as a counterweight in the system. Alas, some people have the notion that, if you can control the symptoms (look! fewer people will die of STDs if we stop the homosexuals!), then hey, the system must be healthy.

This type of stigmatizing is like if a doctor asked his tuberculosis patient to please stop that wicked coughing! before coming in for treatment. Well, no healing is going to take place in those quarters.

I really think that if religion wishes to deal with same-sex attraction, it will need to put things in the right order. Marriages, families, communities, economies, and ecosystems won't be healed to any degree by crusading against, and stigmatizing, the symptoms of their sickness. That's a staring absurdity. Rather, marriages, families, and so forth, must first be healed. Then let us see what remains to be stigmatized.

[Stone holm]

No, you did. TIMES INFINITY!!

Yes, and my point was that, if the consequence of reaching some tipping point is that nature produces more of what a popular morality despises, then it is silly to stigmatize that. It's short-sighted to ask the hypothetical, "what if everyone were that way?" in order to assign some value to the thing. By those terms, it's evil to choose management as a career path, because "what if everyone were that way?" Yes, clearly it's a problem if everybody were to have some quality that is very destructive when it is found universally. But there are obviously things that are quite useful when found here or there--even if it's nature that benefits at the expense of mankind. It's a question of context, and one must consider that when attempting to be practical.

What if people have over-stressed their environment so much (through Veblen's "conspicuous consumption," among many other things), that they are getting wiped out by disease and sterility? What if, say, homosexuality is one of the factors in that complex system? One might then say to the homosexual, "Now, behave yourself, you immoral fiend!" And that itself is a moral hazard, because it attempts to circumvent the natural consequences of systemic evil that has run out of control. Chances are that the person did not choose to be homosexual; nature chose that particular defect as a counterweight in the system. Alas, some people have the notion that, if you can control the symptoms (look! fewer people will die of STDs if we stop the homosexuals!), then hey, the system must be healthy.

This type of stigmatizing is like if a doctor asked his tuberculosis patient to please stop that wicked coughing! before coming in for treatment. Well, no healing is going to take place in those quarters.

I really think that if religion wishes to deal with same-sex attraction, it will need to put things in the right order. Marriages, families, communities, economies, and ecosystems won't be healed to any degree by crusading against, and stigmatizing, the symptoms of their sickness. That's a staring absurdity. Rather, marriages, families, and so forth, must first be healed. Then let us see what remains to be stigmatized.

Interesting argument. However, what if religion is a part of the natural system?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, and my point was that, if the consequence of reaching some tipping point is that nature produces more of what a popular morality despises, then it is silly to stigmatize that.

I believe we are here to overcome our "natural" desires and become godlike. If that is silly, let it be so.

Nature may be the ultimate enforcer- we all die- but it does not have to be the best we aspire too. You know- the "carnal, natural man" and all of that.

I think that is fundamental to all religions.