Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Calm]

Well I assume the concept is to drive them into hiding which in modern lingo means in the closet.

In regards to smoking, the concept from what I've seen is to help people get enough motivation to stop smoking. My daughter's teacher was a wonderful woman, the knowledge of the children looking up to her was a huge motivation to her to curb and eventually stop her smoking. The commercials on TV that make the point of shaming parents and grandparents into quitting smoking so that they will be alive to see their kids and grandkids graduate, etc. are not simply to drive the behaviour "into the closet" where it would be just as dangerous to them as would smoking openly. Edited May 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Interesting comparison. That was a definite cultural revolution. So you think that stigmatizing smoking accomplished that change?

I think that was a huge part of it.

I think racism is another example. Those feelings run deep, but they are not politically correct to express, yet you still hear racism in private conversations.

In fact the whole notion of "politically correctness" indicates that there are some things which cannot be expressed for fear of being stigmatized.

People stigmatize "homophobes"

People stigmatize people who are overweight.

People stigmatize people who spank children.

All these behaviors are disappearing.

Edited May 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

In regards to smoking, the concept from what I've seen is to help people get enough motivation to stop smoking. My daughter's teacher was a wonderful woman, the knowledge of the children looking up to her was a huge motivation to her to curb and eventually stop her smoking. The commercials on TV that make the point of shaming parents and grandparents into quitting smoking so that they will be alive to see their kids and grandkids graduate, etc. are not simply to drive the behaviour "into the closet" where it would be just as dangerous to them as would smoking openly.

Calmoriah, I agree with you in the case of tobacco smoking, however , centuries of stigma attached to non-heterosexual conduct and even effeminate men regardless of their actual orientation has never succeeded in doing anything other than driving the homosexuals into either hiding or into enclaves. Now what has clearly happened is with the lack of rather intense social stigma, homosexuality has become more overt. It may have also attracted some who are engaging in such lifestyles voluntarily. Whether this genie can ever be put back into a bottle -- at this stage without some catastrophic social disruption that I cannot easily conceive of -- I suspect the answer is no. But, let's assume that I am wrong in this regard and that sufficient application of stigma could be applied to suppress this behaviour. Would we as a people be willing to bring that kind of social pressure to bear against the gay community. Now we have talked about the change in attitude towards smoking. Now in that case, education has in fact played a role, but it has not been unaided. We have also made it very difficult for smokers to smoke by making it increasingly illegal to smoke in public and to find eating and sleeping locations where smoking is allowed. But while there may be some venues where sex winds up in public, that is very much not the rule. So are we going to start up something akin to bed checks on adults as supportive legislation? Perhaps deny dining and public accommodations to gays and lesbians?

[mfbukowski]

Having a Southern Accent is regarded as making one stupid

If you have a British Accent, you are automatically a genius.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited May 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Having a Southern Accent is regarded as making one stupid

If you have a British Accent, you are automatically a genius.

Tend to agree there is a tendency to paint all persons with a Southern accent as less than bright which is not always the case, its kind of like Obama's annoying dropping of "g" on the end of words. I am not sure i would agree with the English accent connotation, in many circles it just comes off as snobby and arrogant. I remember in high school and college there was a tendency of people from the East Coast to view Midwesterners as badly educated.

[USU78]

Anytime we have to stigmatize or bully someone into agreeing with our argument we have lost the argument.

Like the bullies during and in the aftermath of Prop 8?

[Stone holm]

Like the bullies during and in the aftermath of Prop 8?

Which side was bullying in that debacle?

[USU78]

Which side was bullying in that debacle?

I dunno . . . maybe the people who lost their jobs? Maybe the people who were mobbed? Maybe the little old lady in Palm Desert who got roughed up and the crucifix she had been carried p!$$ed on by somebody? Maybe it was the LDS Church and its members, having TV ads depict our missionaries as being willing to barge into people's houses and steal their stuff?

Maybe something like that?

USU "Is he being purposefully obtuse or is he really so very indoctrinated that he cannot see much?" 78

[Stone holm]

I dunno . . . maybe the people who lost their jobs? Maybe the people who were mobbed? Maybe the little old lady in Palm Desert who got roughed up and the crucifix she had been carried p!$$ed on by somebody? Maybe it was the LDS Church and its members, having TV ads depict our missionaries as being willing to barge into people's houses and steal their stuff?

Maybe something like that?

USU "Is he being purposefully obtuse or is he really so very indoctrinated that he cannot see much?" 78

I see. I wasn't on the West Coast so didn't see it. I just witnessed Vt and NH experience where it would be hard to say which side behaved more like bullies, but given the number of members we lost I would say those opposing Civil Unions and Gay Marriage kind of garnered the most votes for the title.

[Calm]

Calmoriah, I agree with you in the case of tobacco smoking, however , centuries of stigma attached to non-heterosexual conduct and even effeminate men regardless of their actual orientation has never succeeded in doing anything other than driving the homosexuals into either hiding or into enclaves.

So you don't believe there was any decrease of behaviour with the stigma? That homosexuals were just as active, but in hiding? Or do you mean that they didn't actually act in homosexual ways in order to hide their attraction? If the last, didn't this lead to a significant decrease in behaviour even if it didn't eliminate it completely?

[Stone holm]

So you don't believe there was any decrease of behaviour with the stigma? That homosexuals were just as active, but in hiding? Or do you mean that they didn't actually act in homosexual ways in order to hide their attraction? If the last, didn't this lead to a significant decrease in behaviour even if it didn't eliminate it completely?

I think there was a decrease in the amount of overt evidence of homosexuality, and I think there was a decrease in the amount of people engaging in homosexual activity as a lark. Whether there was a decrease in the number of homosexual activity, I don't know. I suspect that there was -- but I don't know enough about the community to actually say so. But, I believe that the stigma to be effective in this manner has to be attached to the individual in this case. We used to use stigma to discourage pre-marital sex and that was effective as well, but the stigma wasn't just attached to the sin -- it was attached primarily in that case to the girl. She was normally branded for the rest of her high school career unless she moved away to another school district where there was no interaction.

I don't question that stigma can be a tremendous tool of social control. I also agree that in essence it is used all the time for good and for evil. I am just not sure that the world was necessarily a better place where stigma was used so extensively. Seems like there can be a fair amount of collateral damage -- am thinking of all the girls whose reputations were ruined, and an effeminate boy in my class in high school who was subjected to constant daily ugly comments. On the other hand, we didn't have as many known homosexuals nor as many teenage pregnancies. So I don't know, maybe we need the viciousness of stigma for social control. Some stigma washes off, like the smoker who quits -- in a year or so everyone forgets they smoked. Not sure that people are likely to forget that somebody was exposed as gay, even if they later mend their ways -- and the girl who gets branded a slut pretty much wheres that brand for the rest of high school and in some cases for the rest of her life if she doesn't move away even if she reforms.

[thesometimesaint]

Like the bullies during and in the aftermath of Prop 8?

Yes.

[Stone holm]

Yes.

Little cryptic her?

[wenglund]

I don't question that stigma can be a tremendous tool of social control. I also agree that in essence it is used all the time for good and for evil. I am just not sure that the world was necessarily a better place where stigma was used so extensively. Seems like there can be a fair amount of collateral damage -- am thinking of all the girls whose reputations were ruined, and an effeminate boy in my class in high school who was subjected to constant daily ugly comments. On the other hand, we didn't have as many known homosexuals nor as many teenage pregnancies. So I don't know, maybe we need the viciousness of stigma for social control. Some stigma washes off, like the smoker who quits -- in a year or so everyone forgets they smoked. Not sure that people are likely to forget that somebody was exposed as gay, even if they later mend their ways -- and the girl who gets branded a slut pretty much wheres that brand for the rest of high school and in some cases for the rest of her life if she doesn't move away even if she reforms.

I sense considerable softening in your position, and if so, that is great. I am wondering, though, if you might soften even more were you to take into consideration more than just the negative side affects of stigmas, and looked also at the positives. For each girl whose reputation was "ruined," think of how many reputations were saved and significant challenges avoided.

You bring up a good point about females often bearing the brunt of stigmas against sexual indiscretions. This is unfortunate--not in the sense that there are stigmas, but that the stigmas are unequally applied. It is in the interest of all parties for there to be no disparity in stigmas, and in a perfect world perhaps it would be. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world, and some people will inanely use the disparity as an argument against stigmas, when it is actually an argument against the disparity, itself.

Also, as I have iterated and reiterated, I am against stigmatizing human characteristics, including things like SSA. though I am undecided about things like boys acting effeminate or as helpless waifs. There may be some advantage in toughing boys up so that they, as men, are better equipped to handle the oft cold and cruel world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 20, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

I sense considerable softening in your position, and if so, that is great. I am wondering, though, if you might soften even more were you to take into consider more than just the negative side affects of stigmas, and looked also at positives. For each girl whose reputation was "ruined," think of how many reputations were saved and significant challenges avoided.

You bring up a good point about females often bearing the brunt of stigmas against sexual indiscretions. This is unfortunate--not in the sense that there is a stigma, but that the stigmas are unequally applied. It is in the interest of all parties for there to be no disparity in stigmas, and in a perfect world perhaps it would be. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world, and some people will inanely use the disparity as an argument against stigmas, when it is actually an argument against the disparity, itself.

Also, as I have iterated and reiterated, I am against stigmatizing human characteristics, including things like SSA. though I am undecided about things like boys acting effeminate or as helpless waifs. There may be some advantage in toughing boys up so that they, as men, are better equipped to handle the oft cold and cruel world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, in my mind there has never been a doubt about stigma being a powerful tool. Whether it is a weapon that belongs in the Christian arsenal is another question. I have noticed that when we, as Mormons, get hit with stigma that we tend to call it bullying and jeering.

[USU78]

I see. I wasn't on the West Coast so didn't see it. I just witnessed Vt and NH experience where it would be hard to say which side behaved more like bullies, but given the number of members we lost I would say those opposing Civil Unions and Gay Marriage kind of garnered the most votes for the title.

During SS today, while I was teaching my 14-15 year olds, my wife learned that about 10% of the Church gave up and left after the seizures pursuant to the Edmonds-Tucker Act. Extreme, violent and extortionary enactments and/or strategies will achieve their aims, at least to some degree. In the bad old days, a Roman cohort was considered non-combat-effective if it had been decimated (i.e., lost 10% of its troops). Since Edmonds-Tucker was designed to destroy the LDS Church as a religious, social and political entity, it might be said that it was effective in its aims by Romans. That it took the Church over 50 years to get out of debt after the 2nd Utah War came to an "end," we can probably measure Edmonds-Tucker as effective economically as well.

Yet the Church keeps limping along, losing far fewer to apathy and apostasy than our sister institutions under the onslaught of the Culture of Narcissism that birthed and imposes upon the unwilling the horror that is homosexual "marriage."

Pruning happens.

Any Brigham City boy can tell you that.

The tree keeps on growing and producing good fruit.

Uncle Boyd remains right.

[Stone holm]

During SS today, while I was teaching my 14-15 year olds, my wife learned that about 10% of the Church gave up and left after the seizures pursuant to the Edmonds-Tucker Act. Extreme, violent and extortionary enactments and/or strategies will achieve their aims, at least to some degree. In the bad old days, a Roman cohort was considered non-combat-effective if it had been decimated (i.e., lost 10% of its troops). Since Edmonds-Tucker was designed to destroy the LDS Church as a religious, social and political entity, it might be said that it was effective in its aims by Romans. That it took the Church over 50 years to get out of debt after the 2nd Utah War came to an "end," we can probably measure Edmonds-Tucker as effective economically as well.

Yet the Church keeps limping along, losing far fewer to apathy and apostasy than our sister institutions under the onslaught of the Culture of Narcissism that birthed and imposes upon the unwilling the horror that is homosexual "marriage."

Pruning happens.

Any Brigham City boy can tell you that.

The tree keeps on growing and producing good fruit.

Uncle Boyd remains right.

I don't see the Church's growth necessarily linked to its stance one way or the other with regards to gays and lesbians. So you feel stigma helps nurture new healthy growth like in trees?

[wenglund]

Oh, in my mind there has never been a doubt about stigma being a powerful tool. Whether it is a weapon that belongs in the Christian arsenal is another question.

I understood this, and spoke to the later.

I have noticed that when we, as Mormons, get hit with stigma that we tend to call it bullying and jeering.

I think you are falsely stereotyping Mormons in this regard--a result, perhaps, of your seeming inability to distinguish between stigmas and bullying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Little cryptic her?

No.

[go_utes01]

I think there was a decrease in the amount of overt evidence of homosexuality, and I think there was a decrease in the amount of people engaging in homosexual activity as a lark. Whether there was a decrease in the number of homosexual activity, I don't know. I suspect that there was -- but I don't know enough about the community to actually say so. But, I believe that the stigma to be effective in this manner has to be attached to the individual in this case. We used to use stigma to discourage pre-marital sex and that was effective as well, but the stigma wasn't just attached to the sin -- it was attached primarily in that case to the girl. She was normally branded for the rest of her high school career unless she moved away to another school district where there was no interaction.

I don't question that stigma can be a tremendous tool of social control. I also agree that in essence it is used all the time for good and for evil. I am just not sure that the world was necessarily a better place where stigma was used so extensively. Seems like there can be a fair amount of collateral damage -- am thinking of all the girls whose reputations were ruined, and an effeminate boy in my class in high school who was subjected to constant daily ugly comments. On the other hand, we didn't have as many known homosexuals nor as many teenage pregnancies. So I don't know, maybe we need the viciousness of stigma for social control. Some stigma washes off, like the smoker who quits -- in a year or so everyone forgets they smoked. Not sure that people are likely to forget that somebody was exposed as gay, even if they later mend their ways -- and the girl who gets branded a slut pretty much wheres that brand for the rest of high school and in some cases for the rest of her life if she doesn't move away even if she reforms.

If you find stigmatization as too harsh a tool, how about education? How many high school health classes discuss the many-magnitudes-larger instances of STDs, mental health problems, drug use, suicides, etc. related with same-sex relationships? Or, would that be bullying? Do you think teaching kids about the dangers of smoking was bullying as well? If not, why not teach children about the very real dangers associated with homosexual relationships? Just curious where you think the line between education and stigmatization/bullying occurs. Thanks.

[USU78]

Yes.

Yet the district court overturned the CA courts and electorate . . . did the bullies really lose?

[USU78]

I don't see the Church's growth necessarily linked to its stance one way or the other with regards to gays and lesbians. So you feel stigma helps nurture new healthy growth like in trees?

Oh . . . you're actually talking about stigma and its usefulness? I thought you were throwing gratuitous bombs, saying as you did that the Church's membership has suffered as a result of the Prop 8 efforts on behalf of California's citizens at the urging of Archbishop Wiegand.

[Stone holm]

If you find stigmatization as too harsh a tool, how about education? How many high school health classes discuss the many-magnitudes-larger instances of STDs, mental health problems, drug use, suicides, etc. related with same-sex relationships? Or, would that be bullying? Do you think teaching kids about the dangers of smoking was bullying as well? If not, why not teach children about the very real dangers associated with homosexual relationships? Just curious where you think the line between education and stigmatization/bullying occurs. Thanks.

My personal feeling is that schools should try to stay as far away from discussion of homosexual vs heterosexual relationships as possible. I do favor the frank discussion of STDs, the risks, how they are caused, and to what extent various measures from condoms to abstinence are effective in preventing them. As to the mental health and suicide issues, the problem with that discussion is trying to sort out whether those are related to a person having SSA, or whether they are due to the social stigma (including parental reaction). Its kind of like marijuana usage -- the question there are the actual real problems associated with usage stemming from the usage, or from the fact that it is a crime. I am not sure where the line between stigmatization and bullying occurs. Bullying normally is associated with a person with more power and clout with the majority putting undue pressure on someone without power and clout. At the outset of this culture war, clearly the power and clout was on the side of the anti-gays -- now there may have been a shift in the amount of power and clout. I think the pivot point in that shift was the adoption of Prop 8 -- up until that point, I think that anti-gays had more power and clout -- however, the public relations disaster that followed in the wake of Prop 8, I believe switched the balance of power away from the anti-gays. So it now, in my estimation, depends on what the gay/lesbians next moves are after they win the culture war (assuming the present momentum continues and they do win it.) If a group tries to force the Church to change its doctrine and perform rituals against its will, then I would rush to the defense of the Church and say that the gay/lesbian crowd is engaging in bullying. So long as the situation is that we are trying to force them to behave according to standards that we set, their struggle doesn't seem like bullying. But the social standard which used to be enforced via stigma is changing -- whether we can somehow reverse that trend by the use of stigma is a legitimate question. And it is also a legitimate question as to whether it is appropriate for us to try to use stigma in this manner knowing that rhetorical stigma frequently gets taken to extremes that we may not feel comfortable with.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Stone holm

[thesometimesaint]

Yet the district court overturned the CA courts and electorate . . . did the bullies really lose?

I said they loose the argument. Not that they don't prevail in courts of law and/or the electorate. Given that heterosexuals have long used law to punish homosexuals. At what point does calling attention to that punishment, and seeking a redress of grievances through the courts become bullying? I'm no lawyer but I see no legal reasoning that would allow for the discrimination of homosexuals as a function of law.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/05/18/2033281/florida-teen-expelled-charged-with-felony-over-lesbian-relationship/

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedsheets is no concern of mine. It is between them and their God.