Political Correctness

[Rallywagon]

Like I said, this is an argument of opinions. Your opinion seems to be that respect is only for the regard of the living. My opinion is that respect is irrespective of the living. I'll grant that perhaps only humans are capable of understanding the concept, but respect isn't only for living humans.
As for who it's significant to, that is a clear answer, but a moot point honestly. It's significance is, in this case, only to humans, since it was a human event, and currently understanding says we are the only ones who understand the concept. But it's not only events that happened to us that can be respected.

 

[Danoff]

My opinion is that respect is irrespective of the living.

What does that even mean? A rock can respect another rock?

I'll grant that perhaps only humans are capable of understanding the concept, but respect isn't only for living humans.

I literally do not know what you're trying to tell me. Are you saying that dead humans can respect things? That dogs can respect things? What's the point you're trying to make. You say you understand perfectly what it is you're trying to say, so explaining it should be do-able.

It's significance is, in this case, only to humans, since it was a human event,

Does that make sense to you? An event can only be significant to humans if it is a human event? If we nuke the planet can it not be significant to every other living creature on the plant? Does this also mean (doesn't have to, just asking a question) that events that are significant in the animal world are not significant to humans?

You typed the words, you must have meant something by them.

But it's not only events that happened to us that can be respected.

By whom? Animals? Rocks? People? This appears to be the conclusion of your post, how does it change the conversation at all? I never claimed that that only events that happened to us can be respected.

I am thoroughly lost here. You came to present a rebuttal to my point that respect for the dead is not a thing. What you're saying in support of that position is impossible to follow (at least for me) so far.

 

[Rallywagon]

Is anyone else having trouble tracking what I'm saying?
Forget it, straight to brass tax. Current understands suggests only humans are capable of respect. So no, clearly I do not mean the rock respects the rock, that's asinine. What I mean is, a person can respect anything. Not just living people. That's all.

 

[Danoff]

What I mean is, a person can respect anything. Not just living people. That's all.

In what way does that contradict anything I have written?

 

[Rallywagon]

I understand that sentiment. My statement was that there is no reason to "respect" any of it except out of respect for the living. What you do with a particular place or artifact or even dead body doesn't matter to anyone who isn't alive.

I mean, there is that....

 

[Danoff]

I mean, there is that....

...which doesn't say that people can't respect things that aren't living. It says the reason to respect things (including non-living) is out of respect for the living (including yourself).

 

[Rallywagon]

That's sounds like a semantic quibble. More to the point, your initial stance was that the person who was filming wasn't being disrespectful since there was no one there to disrespect. Which would suggest that your meaning was that we shouldn't worry about him disrespecting the site, since none of those people killed there are alive now, and the site itself is just a place and not worthy of respect on its own.

 

[Danoff]

That's sounds like a semantic quibble. More to the point, your initial stance was that the person who was filming wasn't being disrespectful since there was no one there to disrespect. Which would suggest that your meaning was that we shouldn't worry about him disrespecting the site, since none of those people killed there are alive now, and the site itself is just a place and not worthy of respect on its own.

It's not a semantic quibble if you think about the concepts involved here. I listed a whole bunch of people who weren't killed there and are alive now as a possible reason for showing respect at that particular location and explained why each group is eliminated from this discussion.

What do you mean "respect on its own"?

 

[ryzno]

So we should not respect the dead cause they are dead? That's all I've gathered from this.

 

[Danoff]

So we should not respect the dead cause they are dead? That's all I've gathered from this.

Respect for the dead is done for the sake of the living. It's not actually respect for the dead, it's respect for the living. If you got what you said above from this, you haven't been reading very carefully.

 

[ryzno]

It's not actually respect for the dead, it's respect for the living.

I'm trying to figure out where you get that idea from? We've been building tombs(some quite elaborate) and tombstones for thousands of years for the dead, in memory of the dead. Is it really about the living?

 

[Danoff]

I'm trying to figure out where you get that idea from? We've been building tombs and tombstones for thousands of years for the dead, in memory of the dead. Is it really about the living?

You have to invoke an afterlife to claim that it's about the dead. If your pyramid with the entombed servants and riches and weapons are for the dead, you have to invoke that it's somehow helpful to them after they're dead.

We don't put a tombstone at the head of a cemetery plot so that the people buried in the cemetery know who is buried there. We do it so that living people know where to put flowers.

...and btw, even the act of putting flowers there requires invoking an afterlife to claim that it's for the dead. Many people do it to show other people in the cemetery and the public in general (living people) that the person buried there was loved - or just as an act of remembrance to honor their own (living) personal feelings.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We don't put a tombstone at the head of a cemetery plot so that the people buried in the cemetery know who is buried there. We do it so that living people know where to put flowers.

Partly correct. That tombstone also serves as a focal point for memories, for people to address their memories of the dead, and for people to do what many humans call "paying respects". If you in particular only see tombstones (or other memorials) as flower-signposts then that's perfectly fine - it goes to illustrate the subjectiveness of "respect for the dead".

...and btw, even the act of putting flowers there requires invoking an afterlife to claim that it's for the dead.

Only sort-of. People can accept that the dead are only "living" in the memories in their head. I used to put my Grandmother's favourite flowers on her grave because I knew she liked them while she was alive. I didn't think she was in an afterlife (despite her fervent belief that she would be) but I understood that it was important for me to remember her. Sometimes we have a fear that we might be guilty of forgetting the dead. Sometimes we desperately wish that a certain person was still alive and so we exercise our memories through given focal points of memory or through repeating inane actions that make us feel some connection to the shared events in our memory.

Many people do it to show other people in the cemetery and the public in general (living people) that the person buried there was loved - or just as an act of remembrance to honor their own (living) personal feelings.

Absolutely. You could describe that social phenomenon as "respect".

The Auschwitz chambers serve many peoples' memories, consciousnesses or beliefs in many ways. There seems to be a consensus that those rooms were the instruments of large-scale murder and that their presence as a focal point for that memory alone is justification for them being shown some respect. That respect serves as a message for the people that are alive and informs wider society of the gravity of the events before, around and in those rooms. Guilt and fear may well feature in that respect too.

It is all subjective though, that's why I don't have a problem (and I'm sure you don't care if I do) with you having issues with the concept of Respect for the Dead. However, there are significant sections of society that agree it's a Thing and who practice such respect in one way or another.

 

[Danoff]

Partly correct. That tombstone also serves as a focal point for memories, for people to address their memories of the dead, and for people to do what many humans call "paying respects".

Which I said.

Only sort-of. People can accept that the dead are only "living" in the memories in their head. I used to put my Grandmother's favourite flowers on her grave because I knew she liked them while she was alive. I didn't think she was in an afterlife (despite her fervent belief that she would be) but I understood that it was important for me to remember her. Sometimes we have a fear that we might be guilty of forgetting the dead. Sometimes we desperately wish that a certain person was still alive and so we exercise our memories through given focal points of memory or through repeating inane actions that make us feel some connection to the shared events in our memory.

Which I said... and you agree with below. Remember the part where I talked about honoring your own memories? That would be the dead being "living" in the memories in your head. You're not disagreeing with anything I'm writing.

Absolutely. You could describe that social phenomenon as "respect".

So we're on the same page...

The Auschwitz chambers serve many peoples' memories, consciousnesses or beliefs in many ways. There seems to be a consensus that those rooms were the instruments of large-scale murder and that their presence as a focal point for that memory alone is justification for them being shown some respect.

To whom?

That respect serves as a message for the people that are alive and informs wider society of the gravity of the events before, around and in those rooms. Guilt and fear may well feature in that respect too.

As I said.

It is all subjective though, that's why I don't have a problem (and I'm sure you don't care if I do) with you having issues with the concept of Respect for the Dead. However, there are significant sections of society that agree it's a Thing and who practice such respect in one way or another.

It's not even a thing to those sections of society, not in any way that I haven't described. It's a misnomer. A poor description. I'm not saying that the behavior attributed to it doesn't exist, I'm saying that the concept attributed to that behavior is not accurate.

The only way you can actually have "respect for the dead" is if you think they're in an afterlife. Every other behavior attributed to that (including the ones in your post) is a respect for someone who is alive precisely because they are alive.

Edit:

Let me see if I can drive this home a different way. "Memories of the dead" exist in people that are alive. Honoring a memory of the dead is not literally honoring the dead, they remember nothing, it is literally honoring the living - people who have those memories.

 

[LeMansAid]

A while back in here we debated the ins and outs of having/not having weight scales in a college gym. Potential downsides can be argued for both sides of that debate, and the question of how to proceed with the situation actually matters. With the respect for the dead thing, I don't really see any downside to playing it safe. Call it superstition, call it religious gobbledigoop, call it needless tradition - whatever, I can't see the harm in remaining cautious about it. It saves us from getting it wrong and accidentally trampling on the sensitive emotions that people have in this area. Also, I really have no idea whether or not the "dead" are actually entirely dead, or if something of them lives on and can observe goings-on. Again, I can't see the downside to cautiousness.

The attitude of not respecting the dead can probably be maintained as a victimless "crime" - but it seems to me that respecting the dead, in the manner being discussed, is a victimless precaution. If I were to endorse the former in myself, it would really just be pure ego, and I've got enough ego without adding pure and pointless forms of it to the pool.

 

[polysmut]

Andy Murray has corrected a journalist after he said Sam Querrey, who knocked the British player out of Wimbledon earlier, was "the first US player to reach a major semi-final since 2009".

The newly-deposed Wimbledon champion reminded the reporter he was only talking about male players, as there had, of course, been considerably more success for the US on the female side of the sport.

The headline of the article says:

Andy Murray corrects journalist's 'casual sexism'

The setting was a post-match press conference following a match in the men's singles draw. Can it be assumed that media questions and comments at that press conference would be about the men's singles tournament unless otherwise stated?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can it be assumed that media questions and comments at that press conference would be about the men's singles tournament unless otherwise stated?

That assumption is called unconscious bias.

 

[polysmut]

That assumption is called unconscious bias.

If the assumption occurs at post-match press conferences for the men's singles but doesn't occur at post-match conferences for the women's singles, yes.
I should have asked, more generally, whether it can or should be assumed that media questions and comments at any post-match press conference are relating to the specific tournament in which the match was played?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's still unconscious bias.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's still unconscious bias.

No it isn't. You're talking to men about the men's tournament. Why would you answer a question in that atmosphere and include the women? I've never seen a hockey player asked a question at a men's hockey game and answer including the women. I've never seen a hockey player at a woman's tournament answer a question and include the men in her answer, unless it's included in the question. It's political correctness gone mad.

 

[polysmut]

It's still unconscious bias.

Why is that? I suspect you have a good reason to say so but I don't know what your reason is.

Note:
If casual sexism is necessary for the journalist to have omitted other tournaments then I don't think there's any reason to have brought it to this thread.

I'm trying to explore the possibility that Andy Murray didn't need to correct the journalist as it was a press conference specifically related to the men's singles tournament. If that's the case then reporting it as casual sexism would seem to be something that can relate to political correctness. As would the player feeling the need to "correct" the journalist.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Why is that? I suspect you have a good reason to say so but I don't know what your reason is.

I doubt it

 

[polysmut]

I doubt it

I can think of possible reasons. For example, maybe the championship as a whole is normally talked about as one thing. As in "Martina Navratilova won 20 Wimbledon titles. Some of those were singles, some were doubles."

 

[Danoff]

A while back in here we debated the ins and outs of having/not having weight scales in a college gym. Potential downsides can be argued for both sides of that debate, and the question of how to proceed with the situation actually matters. With the respect for the dead thing, I don't really see any downside to playing it safe. Call it superstition, call it religious gobbledigoop, call it needless tradition - whatever, I can't see the harm in remaining cautious about it. It saves us from getting it wrong and accidentally trampling on the sensitive emotions that people have in this area. Also, I really have no idea whether or not the "dead" are actually entirely dead, or if something of them lives on and can observe goings-on. Again, I can't see the downside to cautiousness.

The attitude of not respecting the dead can probably be maintained as a victimless "crime" - but it seems to me that respecting the dead, in the manner being discussed, is a victimless precaution. If I were to endorse the former in myself, it would really just be pure ego, and I've got enough ego without adding pure and pointless forms of it to the pool.

No, it's not victimless to misunderstand what it means to "respect the dead". You might think that it is worth it to you to have extra caution, but when it comes to crucifying someone for being offensive, it's important to actually have a basis on which to be outraged.

If we were literally respecting the dead, we could not build houses in the United States. There is probably a dead body somewhere deep under my house. Some native American died thousands of years ago below my house, where I use the toilet. Respect for the dead (literally) means I can't live here. It means no one can live or walk anywhere.

Understanding the nature of what it means to have respect for the dead helps answer questions like... can we build a cemetery on a cemetery? Can we build a strip mall on a cemetery? Can we put this housing development on a thousands of years old burial ground? What's the difference between throwing a party in an Auschwitz gas chamber and having a quiet reflective discussion about the political implications of the event with that as a backdrop? Do we need to take offense? Is it time for outrage?

I bring this up because it matters - in this and many instances. I know that most people just use caution when they get to an area of social behavior or philosophy that they don't understand well, but it doesn't help you in the longrun. Answer a binary question with caution... Are you going to shut down this 50 million dollar housing development project because there are dead people buried under it thousands of years ago and nobody currently cares? Yes or no. Why?

 

[Spurgy 777]

I can think of possible reasons. For example, maybe the championship as a whole is normally talked about as one thing. As in "Martina Navratilova won 20 Wimbledon titles. Some of those were singles, some were doubles."

I was mostly doubting that PM personally had a good reason, not that a good reason exists.

 

[PeterJB]

Unconscious bias is just an excuse to say that everyone* is always racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and transphobic without knowing it.

*Everyone who's white, at least.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you going to shut down this 50 million dollar housing development project because there are dead people buried under it thousands of years ago and nobody currently cares?

If you've found the remains then the site is arguably of high archaeological importance - of course you're going to shut the housing development down. In some countries (idk about the US) that would in fact be a legal requirement.

However, if we're just saying that it's likely (which it is) that there are traces of dead people down there and nobody has come up with any other reason why the site might be worth preserving then build because

nobody currently cares.

 

[Danoff]

If you've found the remains then the site is arguably of high archaeological importance - of course you're going to shut the housing development down. In some countries (idk about the US) that would in fact be a legal requirement.

Not the question

However, if we're just saying that it's likely (which it is) that there are traces of dead people down there and nobody has come up with any other reason why the site might be worth preserving then build because

Yup, but if we're "honoring the dead", then we have to pretend that they care. We do it for their sake.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yup, but if we're "honoring the dead", then we have to pretend that they care. We do it for their sake.

As you keep pointing out... we don't do it for their sake in terms of getting a sentient reaction or response from them. We don't have to pretend they care, we don't have to think of them observing us from an afterlife, it's about the living and how the dead exist in their consciousness. That doesn't mean we don't do it for their sake.

 

[Danoff]

As you keep pointing out... we don't do it for their sake in terms of getting a sentient reaction or response from them. We don't have to pretend they care, we don't have to think of them observing us from an afterlife, it's about the living and how the dead exist in their consciousness. That doesn't mean we don't do it for their sake.

Right, thank you. That has been my point all along. There is no such thing as literal "respect for the dead" it is actually "respect for the living". Glad we agree.