@milkman: I find the combining of the Dickwolves controversy (one centered around the ethical concerns of dark comedy/gallows humor) and the "I'm pretty sure women have vaginas" controversy (one centered around Mike Krahulik not knowing that gender and sex are different things) to be demonstrably fallacious. They are two different arguments made on two different topics, to combine them is political in nature and not rationally justified. This is like saying that since a political party is wrong or right about agricultural spending, we should view their proposal of tort reform with a hairy eyeball. It's how you turn an argument about a subject into a referendum of suspicions.
Furthermore, his "willful ignorance" lasted exactly until someone approached him with instruction rather than condemnation. The person literally said that they don't see themselves as being a part of that mob, because the mob's anger precedes their desire to see things improve. And then after a short discussion, he apologized. You suggest that I should hold him in moral contempt because he didn't immediately change his mind when presented with a torrent of abuse, even in the noblest of intentions, but I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation of another person.
Getting a little pedagogical, everyone you know is ignorant about something, and so are you. We accept that there are very understandable reasons for people being ignorant; one may be ignorant from the absence of information or from the presence of misinformation. A reasonable person does not hold someone in contempt for it. I understand why someone lacks information and has misinformation. Until a person rejects a logical scenario which entails the denial of their proposition, without further inquiry, I see no reason to hold someone in moral disdain for not knowing something. Furthermore, we accept that overwriting an old understanding of reality with a new one is naturally dissonant, and the best way to do so is a sober application of solid, objective evidence and logic. I probably could make you understand that 2+2=4 if I repeatedly call you a stupid dogfucker every time you return an answer that is not 2+2=4, but it would be far better if I explained why 2+2=4 through reason. When you teach someone, you should expect they would say "well what if..?" because they are attempting to understand how it applies in the universal sense, they are testing cases. People asking "what if" is not the process of refusing to learn, it is literally how learning works.
edit: Someone compared this to LGBT centers in university, and they are quite apt. There is an LGBTT* (which means Two-Spirit, which as I understand it is a gender identity only available to indigenous Canadians) office in my university that I walk by every day and check out if there's any of those Ally Training workshops. I'll say this about "the SJW movement" or whatever you want to call this cultural zeitgeist; they've made being comfortable around LGBT people something I can actually get preferential treatment for in the hiring process. It's amazing what a stupid certificate that means I understand other people are people too can do.
Log in to comment