Prompt: A popular subject of criticism is Criticism itself; very often (more predominantly on social media), persons have a tendency to react negatively to any criticism of their community or object of affection (celebrities, fictional literature, television, etc). This seems to be especially true when the one providing criticism is not within the group, even if their criticisms are not framed offensively (Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect). A "negativity bias", or being forced to counteract our own physiology when our (the group's) actions are called into question. As K. Wright framed this in her Psychology Today article in 2011, "Our reactions are based on deeply seeded “fight or flight” survival instincts. When we are critiqued we risk exclusion and with a pack mentality, this would equal death." Baumeister explains this in his 2001 publication ("Bad is Stronger than Good") as the brain retaining a changed pattern of neuronal connection between cells in response to a fear-inducing conditioned stimulus, even after the stimulus is no longer present.
Group identity, when approached with criticism, can then provide the battleground for issues that is fueled by modernity through an incredibly interconnected society provided by social media and increased communication. When the group is criticized, a member thus might as well see this as a criticism of themselves and exposes the ego. Now in a fight-or-flight scenario, an individual has two choices: they can reflect on their character, practicing mindfulness and considering the possibility that their actions or understanding of a subject are worthy of criticism; or they can become defensive, questioning the validity of the criticism.

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups? When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material? When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic? Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

pp

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

well, it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, right

if we're just talking about fandoms and stuff, then it's probably not that serious—if i'm criticizing an anime show, for example, and a fan of that show gets upset, i have no compunctions about listening to whatever they have to say in defense, because after all, i do want to understand why they like this show

at that point, it comes down to the strength of their arguments or whatever they need to do to persuade me

if they don't really provide me with anything substantive, and they just want to insult me or claim that i'm too stupid to understand the show, or that i have bad taste or whatever, then i can safely disregard their opinion and not take them seriously at all

the more often this happens, the more it'll affect my personal perception of this show's fanbase, but there's a responsibility on my part to not necessarily allow these anecdotal experiences to completely color my perception of the fanbase, until it becomes persistently apparent that the fanbase itself is steeped in these issues (e.g. it's generally accepted that competitive smash players tend to have poor hygiene; this is corroborated by the smash community itself, so there's no real reason to doubt its veracity, as embarrassing of a stereotype as it may be)

so yeah, i think it really just comes down to the individual—if you wanna learn about a group, engaging with individual members of that group by politely asking questions about stuff (while taking care to avoid passive-aggression, jumping to conclusions, etc) is a good start; this way, you're far more likely to receive the most level-headed response possible, and those kinds of responses are the ones you want to take into consideration the most

this is assuming that giving the subject of the fandom a shot and becoming a part of that group yourself is off the table, of course—if you're trying to understand a fandom, it's probably a good (or at least fair) idea to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith if you lack any good reasons to dismiss them entirely

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

when you know enough about the material to make moral value judgments about it, i think

if i never heard of GTA before (or video games in general), and i asked someone why they enjoyed it, and they said, "because it's really fun to just go around and shoot people," until i learn more about how video games work, i might find myself at odds with this person

so if i ask, "really? you don't think it's wrong to kill people?" they might say, "no silly, it's just a game, it's not real"

and i'll say "oh, okay, i understand now"—i still don't enjoy the idea of wantonly killing people in a video game, because that's just not my idea of fun, but i can see why someone else might enjoy it, and i don't have any moral compunctions about them enjoying it, because it's been established that it's not real anyway

now, if there was a video game that involved unsimulated wanton murder (so you're actually killing people, however that would work), that's pretty much the only thing i need to know about the game in order for me to be opposed to its existence, and i'll gladly censure anyone who enjoys a game like that

maybe there's a less heavy-handed example i could've used, but that's what my brain immediately went to

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

depends on your goals, i guess

i think all criticism is okay, regardless of whether it's pedantic, but before you criticize anything, it's wise to know a few things first: what is the appeal of the thing you're criticizing? why do people enjoy this in the first place? if you can't figure out, it's important to at least try your best to ask questions about that, because otherwise, you'll run the risk of sounding ignorant or out-of-touch

the storyline of street fighter is not shakespeare, and you can certainly criticize it if you want to—but it's important to understand that most street fighter players don't give a fuck about the story; it's not what makes the games entertaining for them at all, so your criticism, however valid, will be considered pedantic by the community at-large

if story matters to you, it's up to you to make that clear before doling out any critiques about a game's plot

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

i think if you're going to associate or identify yourself with some kind of group or label, it's a good idea to be self-aware, or at least make a concerted effort to understand the traits connoted by your affiliations

if you're comfortable calling yourself a republican, for example, you're gonna have to understand that there's millions of people out there who will consider you retarded, scum, etc—and you can either take that in stride, never mention it publicly, or take on a different label that means the same thing, but doesn't bring up as much ire

or, secret fourth option, try to avoid labels entirely—this will get you labeled a centrist in political circles, and you'll be hated for it, but for fandoms, if you don't want people to make sweeping assumptions about you, it's probably good if you avoid calling yourself a weeb or a furry or a brony or whatever

since pretty much any form of self-expression involving your identity gives the internet carte blanche to malign you, it's best to know when to back off of certain labels, certain fandoms, certain affiliates, or certain forms of expression if you care about being seen in a negative light as a result of associating with any of those things

This is interesting. It's something I've noticed, but not something I've thought much about. As someone that can get heavily invested in entertainment, I don't think I've ever considered myself part of a "group" (subconsciously or otherwise) because of it. If someone told me my favorite movie was complete shit, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure if I've always been like this or not. In contrast, I have someone close to me that consumes entertainment far more heavily than myself (sports, novels, tv shows, all of it), and he can barely handle criticism of the those things he likes, but tends to be very critical towards the things he doesn't (even at someone else's expense). The complete end of this spectrum would probably be those accounts that patrol social media for criticism of their favorite celebrity, which I just found bizarre until reading this thread.

I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.

This is interesting. It's something I've noticed, but not something I've thought much about. As someone that can get heavily invested in entertainment, I don't think I've ever considered myself part of a "group" (subconsciously or otherwise) because of it. If someone told me my favorite movie was complete shit, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure if I've always been like this or not. In contrast, I have someone close to me that consumes entertainment far more heavily than myself (sports, novels, tv shows, all of it), and he can barely handle criticism of the those things he likes, but tends to be very critical towards the things he doesn't (even at someone else's expense). The complete end of this spectrum would probably be those accounts that patrol social media for criticism of their favorite celebrity, which I just found bizarre until reading this thread.

I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.

i'm incredibly defensive of the things i enjoy, but i don't think it's necessarily because i can't accept that people have different tastes or whatever—and i don't think it comes from a place of tribalism either; i just like arguing, and i like challenging people, because it gives us the opportunity to defend our interests

i just tend to have very rigid and clearcut standards that are relatively easy to understand—if you knew exactly what i consider "good" when it comes to film, you would be able to watch any movie i haven't seen and know for a FACT whether i'd enjoy it or not, without even asking me

i've always prided myself in my ability to put all of my opinions into words, which i've come to understand is something that half the population struggles with, because they don't necessarily think in words—they think in emotions, pictures, or ideas—whereas, if i can't put something into words, then it means i don't really understand it

therefore, if i think something is good, and i have a 10,000 word essay in my head that goes over all the little reasons why it's good, the idea that somebody could disagree with me makes me recoil a bit

that's what prompts me to engage with people—i don't necessarily want to change your mind; i just want to understand

that's why i've historically gotten frustrated with people about stupid shit like this over the years, because if i'm capable of holding 10,000 words of well-substantiated opinions in my head about one of my favorite things, but all you've ever had to say about your favorite anime is "i just like boobs, man," it makes it difficult for me to relate with you on any level, and i like relating with people

or rather, i HATE not being able to relate with people

Quote from: 🍁 Aria 🔮 on May 19, 2020, 11:44:30 AM

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

well, it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, right

if we're just talking about fandoms and stuff, then it's probably not that serious—if i'm criticizing an anime show, for example, and a fan of that show gets upset, i have no compunctions about listening to whatever they have to say in defense, because after all, i do want to understand why they like this show

at that point, it comes down to the strength of their arguments or whatever they need to do to persuade me

if they don't really provide me with anything substantive, and they just want to insult me or claim that i'm too stupid to understand the show, or that i have bad taste or whatever, then i can safely disregard their opinion and not take them seriously at all

the more often this happens, the more it'll affect my personal perception of this show's fanbase, but there's a responsibility on my part to not necessarily allow these anecdotal experiences to completely color my perception of the fanbase, until it becomes persistently apparent that the fanbase itself is steeped in these issues (e.g. it's generally accepted that competitive smash players tend to have poor hygiene; this is corroborated by the smash community itself, so there's no real reason to doubt its veracity, as embarrassing of a stereotype as it may be)

so yeah, i think it really just comes down to the individual—if you wanna learn about a group, engaging with individual members of that group by politely asking questions about stuff (while taking care to avoid passive-aggression, jumping to conclusions, etc) is a good start; this way, you're far more likely to receive the most level-headed response possible, and those kinds of responses are the ones you want to take into consideration the most

this is assuming that giving the subject of the fandom a shot and becoming a part of that group yourself is off the table, of course—if you're trying to understand a fandom, it's probably a good (or at least fair) idea to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith if you lack any good reasons to dismiss them entirely

Quote

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

when you know enough about the material to make moral value judgments about it, i think

if i never heard of GTA before (or video games in general), and i asked someone why they enjoyed it, and they said, "because it's really fun to just go around and shoot people," until i learn more about how video games work, i might find myself at odds with this person

so if i ask, "really? you don't think it's wrong to kill people?" they might say, "no silly, it's just a game, it's not real"

and i'll say "oh, okay, i understand now"—i still don't enjoy the idea of wantonly killing people in a video game, because that's just not my idea of fun, but i can see why someone else might enjoy it, and i don't have any moral compunctions about them enjoying it, because it's been established that it's not real anyway

now, if there was a video game that involved unsimulated wanton murder (so you're actually killing people, however that would work), that's pretty much the only thing i need to know about the game in order for me to be opposed to its existence, and i'll gladly censure anyone who enjoys a game like that

maybe there's a less heavy-handed example i could've used, but that's what my brain immediately went to

Quote

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

depends on your goals, i guess

i think all criticism is okay, regardless of whether it's pedantic, but before you criticize anything, it's wise to know a few things first: what is the appeal of the thing you're criticizing? why do people enjoy this in the first place? if you can't figure out, it's important to at least try your best to ask questions about that, because otherwise, you'll run the risk of sounding ignorant or out-of-touch

the storyline of street fighter is not shakespeare, and you can certainly criticize it if you want to—but it's important to understand that most street fighter players don't give a fuck about the story; it's not what makes the games entertaining for them at all, so your criticism, however valid, will be considered pedantic by the community at-large

if story matters to you, it's up to you to make that clear before doling out any critiques about a game's plot

Another question then, mostly semantic delving: how does one know that they know enough? I can't imagine many people would criticize things if they were to only do so with certainty of their knowledge (found through authentic scrutiny, of course). Should you commit to having your finger on the pulse of a community, or is having a wiki-entry's worth of knowledge of a subject enough?

Quote

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

i think if you're going to associate or identify yourself with some kind of group or label, it's a good idea to be self-aware, or at least make a concerted effort to understand the traits connoted by your affiliations

if you're comfortable calling yourself a republican, for example, you're gonna have to understand that there's millions of people out there who will consider you retarded, scum, etc—and you can either take that in stride, never mention it publicly, or take on a different label that means the same thing, but doesn't bring up as much ire

or, secret fourth option, try to avoid labels entirely—this will get you labeled a centrist in political circles, and you'll be hated for it, but for fandoms, if you don't want people to make sweeping assumptions about you, it's probably good if you avoid calling yourself a weeb or a furry or a brony or whatever

since pretty much any form of self-expression involving your identity gives the internet carte blanche to malign you, it's best to know when to back off of certain labels, certain fandoms, certain affiliates, or certain forms of expression if you care about being seen in a negative light as a result of associating with any of those things

The issue is less that one knows that somebody criticizes of their group (or a trait of it), but rather why the criticism is being leveled.

——-

For the record, I'm not just speaking about destructive criticism, but also constructive criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is a rather apt example of the subject. A person creates a series of criticisms of the video game industry through a feminist lens. I don't really have to describe the response this provoked, as it is quite ubiquitously known here. Despite most of her videos being on subjects along the lines of "the damsel in distress archetype is way too common" and "bikini armor shouldn't be a standard", she is (or at least was) viscerally despised by the gaming community at large. There's no instance of her attempting to destroy the industry; hell, Ubisoft advertised a few years ago that she was brought in to consult on their depictions (the one interesting thing they've done in years). Her criticisms are clearly leveled at bringing attention to issues she sees in the medium. A majority of the vitriol seems to have existed largely because she has relatively simple gripes with the thing people have attached themselves to.

i'm incredibly defensive of the things i enjoy, but i don't think it's necessarily because i can't accept that people have different tastes or whatever—and i don't think it comes from a place of tribalism either; i just like arguing, and i like challenging people, because it gives us the opportunity to defend our interests

i just tend to have very rigid and clearcut standards that are relatively easy to understand—if you knew exactly what i consider "good" when it comes to film, you would be able to watch any movie i haven't seen and know for a FACT whether i'd enjoy it or not, without even asking me

i've always prided myself in my ability to put all of my opinions into words, which i've come to understand is something that half the population struggles with, because they don't necessarily think in words—they think in emotions, pictures, or ideas—whereas, if i can't put something into words, then it means i don't really understand it

therefore, if i think something is good, and i have a 10,000 word essay in my head that goes over all the little reasons why it's good, the idea that somebody could disagree with me makes me recoil a bit

that's what prompts me to engage with people—i don't necessarily want to change your mind; i just want to understand

that's why i've historically gotten frustrated with people about stupid shit like this over the years, because if i'm capable of holding 10,000 words of well-substantiated opinions in my head about one of my favorite things, but all you've ever had to say about your favorite anime is "i just like boobs, man," it makes it difficult for me to relate with you on any level, and i like relating with people

or rather, i HATE not being able to relate with people

This is a compelling argument. I wasn't really thinking of you when I wrote that, but maybe the people I was thinking of are the same way, but aren't as willing to let their opinions be challenged?

For example, I've noticed my opinionated cousin tends to hate any movie review channels that are also opinionated, so he just say they suck and won't watch them.

Do you feel the same way if the debate is in regards to another person?

was this in response to me?

Quote from: 🍁 Aria 🔮 on May 19, 2020, 11:44:30 AM

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

Listening to what those excluded by a group have to say about it could be useful when analyzing the group in question, while keeping in mind the perhaps overly negative perspective this individual may have towards it. i.e. Why they are excluded, and what conclusions you'd draw from it. Obviously the reasons will very widely depending on the situation, and may be very well justified.

I'm not intrinsically speaking of othered people who are excluded from the group (in the sense that one may no longer be friends with another) but really any "us vs them", "out-group vs in-group" situation. I wouldn't particularly say Democrats and Republicans exclude each other, but I would contend that modern politics are built on the foundation of Othering.

Quote

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

I don't believe it should have much bearing. Obviously identity is a very personal thing, it's how you see yourself in the world. But that can easily change and none of us really fit into the boxes we are assigned to or assign ourselves to. There's also always going to be the more obvious outliers of people who you'd never expect to be in a certain group, possibly providing a much more unique perspective. Or perhaps not, it could always just be an Uncle Tom. But even then, analyzing how they ended up there would provide some interesting insight.

I do find the mention of Uncle Tom interesting to the subject, and actually quite relevant to the subject. The impoverished who support tax cuts (which will negatively affect infrastructure they rely on) do so because they have convinced themselves (or were convinced) that they belong to the group that will benefit, and that criticism leveled at the group  is an attack on themselves. Really, an Uncle Tom is the ultimate example of one who shuns criticism to protect their ego.

Another question then, mostly semantic delving: how does one know that they know enough? I can't imagine many people would criticize things if they were to only do so with certainty of their knowledge (found through authentic scrutiny, of course). Should you commit to having your finger on the pulse of a community, or is having a wiki-entry's worth of knowledge of a subject enough?

yeah, that's tricky

it may be impossible to pinpoint exactly when you've given your due diligence, but as long as you acknowledge this limitation by incorporating phrases like "in my experience" into your vernacular, and as long as you continue to make an effort to understand everything that you don't understand yet, that's probably in the realm of fairness

basically, closed-mindedness is cancer—when dealing with people matters, the idea that you might be wrong about everything you think you know should lie constantly in the back of your mind, and that it's okay to be wrong about things, because life is a series of constant course-corrections anyway

The issue is less that one knows that somebody criticizes of their group (or a trait of it), but rather why the criticism is being leveled.

right, of course—and you can't really get to that point until you've had the conversation, and it has to be an honest and cooperative conversation about real shit, like policy, and while i think i've seen more unicorns than i've seen this kind of political discussion on the internet, that's what i think you need to have

once you've had it, something interesting happens—the seeds of camaraderie are sown, as it becomes increasingly apparent that you and your political opponents (or whatever—i'm playing off my republican example, but this pretty much applies to everything else, too) are ultimately not fighting over ideals, but the methods to achieve those ideals—because ultimately, very few of us are unique; we all kinda want the same things for ourselves and each other at the end of the day, and we just have different ideas on how to attain that

so naturally, depending on your own proclivities, these conversations will have a greater likelihood of a.) softening whatever positions you may hold, making you more agreeable to your opposition, or b.) just the opposite; hardening or sharpening your argumentative skills by forcing you to compete with ideas you may never have considered before, allowing you to become a little bit more persuasive in the future

this is mainly why we criticize each other, i think, and this is why we must accept criticism—it's like a way of building intellectual ladders for each other, and even though we might despise our opponents at the end of the debate (especially if we handle ourselves poorly), i feel like there's still a subtle underlying camaraderie to it in the sense that we're both just trying to get each other to understand life better

again, assuming everyone involved is a good faith actor who checks their ego at the door, which is asking a lot

For the record, I'm not just speaking about destructive criticism, but also constructive criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is a rather apt example of the subject. A person creates a series of criticisms of the video game industry through a feminist lens. I don't really have to describe the response this provoked, as it is quite ubiquitously known here. Despite most of her videos being on subjects along the lines of "the damsel in distress archetype is way too common" and "bikini armor shouldn't be a standard", she is (or at least was) viscerally despised by the gaming community at large. There's no instance of her attempting to destroy the industry; hell, Ubisoft advertised a few years ago that she was brought in to consult on their depictions (the one interesting thing they've done in years). Her criticisms are clearly leveled at bringing attention to issues she sees in the medium. A majority of the vitriol seems to have existed largely because she has relatively simple gripes with the thing people have attached themselves to.

those videos are seriously so fucking innocuous, it's actually insane that there was ever any controversy—clearly, on the topic of making an effort to understand each other's points of view, i have some work to do on that, because to this day, it's tough for me to work out what was so wrong with anita's videos that they sparked up such vitriol

i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way—flaws that you might find in any average youtube video essay that nobody would really flip their shit over if somebody like matthew matosis pointed it out

and i guess most of the people getting angry at the time were young gamers, and young people don't appreciate being implicated as sexists, or the idea that there's something wrong with them for having a sexuality post-sexual revolution, but these were never actually points of contention anyway—as far as i can tell, they're just projections, kneejerk reactions

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

To believe in a ideal is to be willing to betray it. Well constructed criticism should be, if possible, always considered, whoever was constructing it put effort in it. Regardless of what purpose criticism served, if we can get a better idea (be it same idea but sharpened or entirely different thing) or at very least recognize the flaws in our current one, it would make us more prepared for the future and give us ability to design whatever idea we have in mind better.

More often than not though we can be faced with poorly constructed criticism or even some petty insults, and it's not always easy to work through it and maybe concerns in it aren't worth attention and will get ignored, however we should keep an eye on those too, if we are able to. If some concern is expressed multiple times there might be something that we missed. Note that people ability to communicate and their knowledge is limited, so even if they wanted to they can't provide comprehensive enough criticism for us to figure out what is wrong. In that case we should guess in what domain problem might be and seek for criticism from someone who can find what is wrong.

Example:
I drew a picture of horse, very detailed, with background, and most of people liked it. However there been people that said that it looks a little bit odd for them, but they can't put their finger on what exactly was wrong. So I found an artist much more competent than me and asked him what he thinks about my drawing and he immediately told me that anatomy of my horse was wack here, here and here and that realism of horse and realism of background doesn't match.

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

Whether it's okay or not depends on how you presented it and your intentions. You can criticise without knowing full material behind topic but you have to let whoever you criticise know what gaps in knowledge you have, whether you do it or not showcases whether your intentions are good for who are you criticising or not and whether you want to learn. Even if you don't know full extent of problem you are criticising it still might be good for who you criticise as showcased in example above.

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

I might miss something here, but I can pinpoint some points when I think criticism is pedantic. Criticism is pedantic when you don't care about topic (so you do it purely for the sake of giving critique or maybe you just don't like people behind ideas and you want to critique them on any idea they have) and it's also pedantic when you criticise the idea you already agree with so critique serves here as reminder of drawbacks of what idea you are going with.

"When is criticism necessary?" is a hard question for me. Necessary for who? In case it was necessary for me to take keyboard and write a careful surgery in a foreign language where I try to consider every outcome, intersept every response, it's sure not for pedantic reasons. It might be topic I'm interested in very much or maybe someone stepped on my values (despite how little of them I might have).

If it's necessary for idea or individual following certain idea, it might be both necessary for them and pedantic from me at the same time. Now that I think about it, whether it's pedantic is quite subjective too. It might seem pedantic from the perspective of person being criticized, but the critic might actually seek knowledge and mutual gain under the premise of critique.

Hard question indeed. I should read more, maybe there is something more basic underneath of the critique model and then those questions can be reconstructed using more basic ideas and then answered with more precision.

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

Never. From what I read there have been a lot of people blindly following ideas and it caused a lot of deaths. Never become slave to ideolodgy, always look for opportunity for reshaping it into something better, because good is the enemy of better, and the world changes every day. Keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything, even don't trust yourself and ideas that you took for your own that in fact might own you.

those videos are seriously so fucking innocuous, it's actually insane that there was ever any controversy—clearly, on the topic of making an effort to understand each other's points of view, i have some work to do on that, because to this day, it's tough for me to work out what was so wrong with anita's videos that they sparked up such vitriol

i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way—flaws that you might find in any average youtube video essay that nobody would really flip their shit over if somebody like matthew matosis pointed it out

and i guess most of the people getting angry at the time were young gamers, and young people don't appreciate being implicated as sexists, or the idea that there's something wrong with them for having a sexuality post-sexual revolution, but these were never actually points of contention anyway—as far as i can tell, they're just projections, kneejerk reactions

I'd honestly say groupthink, and the protected egos that fuel it. The Hitman thing is the one good example I can think of, and that happened waaaay after people hated her. Her saying she's not a gamer is a good piece of evidence to support that Othering was at play. If she's not a gamer, then there's no way she knows what she's talking about! Pay no mind that the bulk of criticisms were about portrayal of women, and you wouldn't think it's core to video games but I suppose some think differently. People have a hard time separating themselves from their interests, especially if they are the backdrop to their childhood. An insult on your idol is an insult to yourself, and that's the danger of blindly following anything.

I only have a few minutes to reply so I can only pick one line. "How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?"

I don't think it's so much a question of how strongly we should consider arguments made by anybody. It's a question of whether or not said argument has any foundation in logic whatsoever. That should always first and foremost be considered. Only after you've established that an argument has valid roots in logic can you proceed to actually weigh how strongly it's taken into account.

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

It depends on how alien that person or group's perspective is to the way you perceive and comprehend the world. Sometimes, conflicts in understanding are rooted in a belief so fundamental to how you process the reality of the world that trying to see their side becomes futile. I recently had an argument with someone who believed that monopolies based on market dominance were completely justified, and that companies should be able to extract any price from dependent consumers they please because, in his opinion, the market is always just. In his opinion, if you make a product that is superior to all other similar products to the point you squeeze competition out of existence, even if that product is something people, or society as a whole depends on, you should be able to charge much more than a reasonable profit margin, and he did not see that as taking advantage of consumers. It's not that I'm unable to understand his viewpoint, I'm just completely unable to understand how he could justify something like that. Should I even consider his argument when my fundamental values are so misaligned from his that where he sees acceptable business practices I see blatant abuse? Honestly, I don't think it would even be possible for me to seriously do so; what we believe is just too different on a very basic level.

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

Again, when something becomes so alien to your most basic understanding of the world we live in that you literally cannot comprehend their point of view. Some cultures believe (or have believed) it's okay to marry and have sex with children, but there would be absolutely no point in me watching some child pornography to attempt to understand the sexualization of minors. I don't even need to see it to know that I will never agree with it or view it as anything other than criminal. Conversely, if you come from a culture in which twelve year old girls are made into brides and that's your tradition, though I might see it as my moral duty to put an end to it, your worldview would be so fundamentally misaligned with mine that my arguments would be laughable and not worthy of consideration. The only way to snuff out something like that is to indoctrinate the youth at a very early age to understand your point of view, before the traditional understanding becomes cemented.

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

Same answer again. Criticism is only necessary when it can be effective, and becomes pedantic when there is an outstanding conflict in two moral viewpoints. Look at Congress as an example. The legislature only exists to make compromises and concessions in the areas least offensive to the opposing party. Radical agendas are so incapable of gaining traction because Republicans simply do not understand humanity in the same way Democrats do and vice-versa. Conservatives have a fundamental view that humans do not have the capacity to do good with the sole intention of doing good, rather that acting in one's own self interest is neither good nor bad, and people, given the opportunity, will always make the decision most profitable to themselves. However, by trusting the collective wisdom of society, and trusting centuries of accumulated tradition, we can benefit from wisdom much greater than any individual could muster, to the ultimate good of society. Liberals on the other hand, believe that humans are capable of doing good with the sole intention of doing good, and that by trusting the articulated wisdom of experts, we are able to defy backward and abusive traditions to the ultimate good of society. Because of this diametric opposition, radicalism on both sides is eschewed, and moderate policy prevails. This system oy works because each side's pedantic and ineffective criticism of the the other ends up being totally ignored (though it does often consume a great deal of time), while necessary and moderate criticism of each other shapes compromise into law without the opportunity for radicalism.

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

Whenever there is an opportunity to truly see a situation through the lens of another. In my first example, I was totally incapable of understanding how the guy I was arguing with could come to the conclusions he did, though I did understand the conclusions he came to. However, if my alignment were slightly different, and I could really consider his beliefs by virtue of the logic he had used to arrive at that conclusion, then even if I might not necessarily be convinced to change my stance, I would see it as worthy of my consideration. Anytime the lens someone sees a situation through is comprehensible to you, you owe it, not to them, but to yourself to look through that lens and understand what they are saying with an open mind. That doesn't mean that you will ultimately agree with them, merely that you have considered their point. You should always be reconsidering your stances when possible. If you do, and your stance does not change, then you will have a better understanding of why you believe what you do. If your stance does change, then you will be likely be happier and more complete with your new viewpoint than you were with the old one. Unfortunately though, seeing it the other way is not always possible, and attempting to do so when you really just can't will only cause confusion, consternation, and unresolvable self-doubt.

Honestly, sometimes I wish we lived in perfect world where unsolvable problems wouldn't exist. But then humanity as it is now would not exist either.

Unsolvable problems don't exist. It couldn't even be classified as a problem if its counterpart didn't exist. The only type of problem that exists is one where the solution hasn't been found yet.

Quote from: MarKhan on May 20, 2020, 10:00:31 AM

Honestly, sometimes I wish we lived in perfect world where unsolvable problems wouldn't exist. But then humanity as it is now would not exist either.

Unsolvable problems don't exist. It couldn't even be classified as a problem if its counterpart didn't exist. The only type of problem that exists is one where the solution hasn't been found yet.

Quite an optimistic look, I hope you are right.