"Happy holidays" is bullshit Christian normativity.

[Psyche]

Do you think it's wrong to wish anyone anything?

[Psyche]

When you say happy holidays, what you are actually saying is "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

the problem with shea's post is the fact that this is innaccurate

[Psyche]

I'm curious why you say that.

Pretty simple. I often say "Happy Holidays" without ever thinking "everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now" or "I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

Maybe I'm just peculiar.

[Psyche]

Let me rephrase then. Why do you say "Happy Holidays" at this time of the year, but not at others?

It's the only time of year that I'm conscious of the existence of multiple holidays.

[Psyche]

Furthermore, as someone who vividly remembers getting the crap kicked out of him in middle school for being the only jewish kid in the class, I can personally tell anyone who wants to say "it's just being nice! there's nothing wrong with it! it's just PC bullshit." that otherization and the attempted normalization of one religious ideology has real world consequences for real people. It's not just you being nice, it's you actively participating in a system of control that is hurtful and offensive.

Also, this is red herring bullshit. None of the people who go out of their way to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or whatever are the ones kicking the crap out of jews. "Happy Holidays" is an active attempt to avoid the otherization and and attempted normalization of one religious ideology you complain of.

[Psyche]

Member of the majority: You shouldn't feel that way. Your feelings are illegitimate.

They are illegitimate. I don't care if you can construe it as an action of the majority. If you are wrong, you are wrong.

If you want anyone with sense to take your objections seriously, you have to convincingly explain why your being offended is

justified

. Simply being offended or feeling passionate about it is not enough.

I have no idea how your positions feels, because I am not ever subjected to it, but I still feel comfortable telling you to get over it. I don't mean to be offensive!

Please, don't make assumptions about the sort of experiences people you do not know have. It's a really dickish thing to do.

[Psyche]

If you choose to feel offended

Oh.

People may not choose to feel offended, but they

can

be mistaken.

[Psyche]

You can certainly conclude that their reason to be offended isn't valid, but that is your conclusion and it is, of course, informed by your perspective.

Great.

But to assert that someone chooses to be offended is the same as asserting that people are angry; if my response to every female in this thread was "WELL I CAN SEE IT'S YOUR TIME OF THE MONTH", it would be the same thing. It is a rhetorical tactic to discredit a victim.

No, it's a rhetorical tactic to discredit whomever you want. Your example's power comes not from the fact that anger is identified, but from the implication that the anger's source is not legitimate.

Whether the source is legit is in fact the point that tsq is failing to convincingly argue.

[Psyche]

If you are wrong, you are wrong.

Oh.

Identifying rhetorical devices is surely easier to do than actually addressing an argument, but it's not as effective at actually changing minds.

[Psyche]

When you say happy holidays, what you are actually saying is "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

the problem with shea's post is the fact that this is innaccurate

[Psyche]

Tamuz, drawing a poor and unflattering analogy is also different from and less effective than actually addressing an argument.

[Psyche]

If you are wrong, you are wrong.

Oh.

Identifying rhetorical devices is surely easier to do than actually addressing an argument, but it's not as effective at actually changing minds.

Your argument here is "you're wrong cause you're wrong". I'm not sure what more to do with that than express that it is a tautological statement.

pedit. OK, so your argument is Shea is wrong because he is wrong. Come on dude, be intellectually honest.

I really thought a linguist wouldn't be so inclined to equivocation.

[Psyche]

Tamuz, drawing a poor and unflattering analogy is also different from and less effective than actually addressing an argument.

Quote your arguments. All I've read from you is:
1. "Shea is wrong because he's wrong."
2. "Shea doesn't know my life and my struggles, how dare he say something!"

That means you aren't reading.

[Psyche]

My argument is dispersed over 10 posts.

[Psyche]

Let's make it thorough.

I am religiously atheist and culturally jewish. I don't believe in god above, and I certainly don't believe in your little baby jesus. Furthermore, as someone who vividly remembers getting the crap kicked out of him in middle school for being the only jewish kid in the class, I can personally tell anyone who wants to say "it's just being nice! there's nothing wrong with it! it's just PC bullshit." that otherization and the attempted normalization of one religious ideology has real world consequences for real people. It's not just you being nice, it's you actively participating in a system of control that is hurtful and offensive.

red herring
see my iso

When you say happy holidays, what you are actually saying is "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

not an accurate account of the literal meaning, utterance meaning, or impact of the phrase "Happy Holidays". Why? Because the literal meaning of happy holidays is not "celebrate christmas". When I and others say it, I do not mean, "Celebrate Christmas" or, more importantly, think that you should, When I and others say it, I do not cause you to celebrate christmas with me.

This is true for two reasons. First, when you wish me happy holidays, you are only demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that the "Holiday" I am supposed to be celebrating ended roughly 2 weeks ago. If someone were to wish you happy holidays on January 9th you would look at them a little funny and wonder what they were talking about. I don't have to do that, because I know what you're actually talking about. You're talking about Christmas. Stop with the patronizing, faux-inclusive bullshit.

Ignorance about another culture != "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

And, no. I'm talking about the many holidays I sincerely believe are happening around Christmas.

The other reason it is true is because Hanukkah is not an important holiday. Like, at all. It is minor as all hell. In terms of important holidays Hanukkah is about as important as boxing day is. To Americans. It just happens to be almost exclusively the only Jewish holiday that Christians know about. It's almost as if this is because they trot it out to act like their Christmas celebrations are somehow secular. They sing 6 Christmas carols and 1 Hanukkah song at the kids "Holiday concert" and they go home in their nice little subaru foresters marveling at how cosmopolitan they all are.

Ignorance about another culture != "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

Because the instances of ignorance described here has nothing to do with the Christian normativity thesis as described by TSQ, they have no bearing on the question of whether "Happy Holidays" in fact advances this thesis.

Since these are the only reasons brought up for tsq's argument, but they do not actually support it, tsq's position is unjustified and his state of offension lacks legitimacy.

This post argues more effectively that Christians are ignorant about Hannukah than anything about Christian normativity.

[Psyche]

I mean I honestly don't see what isn't tautological about these statements. There is no explanation of how 'you' is wrong, just that you is and the reinforcement that 'you' is wrong. On the first one, again, no explanation, just the assertion of truth the word 'fact' makes and the continued assertion of falsehood that inaccurate makes. Neither statement explains anything other than a reflexive truth.

Somehow I don't think my argument consists of those two sentences you cherrypicked from the many others I've made ITT. Both, in fact, signified much more in context.

[Psyche]

I wasn't picking those statements to show you have no point. I was pointing that out as self-encompassed tautological statements. You moaned on for 5 posts like they had value and refused to quote your point. When asked to quote, you still don't.

Basically Psyche you shot smoke, got called on it and then whined like a baby for a while. I'm kinda disappointed in you for pulling this after how you've treated other's arguments in racism/religion threads

You're still wrong. I didn't quote it because quoting ten posts is hard. What's intellectually dishonest is making an unreasonable request and then using failure to meet that request as evidence of some victory for your side. You repeatedly avoided addressing my argument in order to make an irrelevant point about two sentences you picked out from my iso. That's strawmanning and that is bad.

They are not both self-encompassed tautological statements (one specifies what part of a most I mainly object to, carrying more meaning than what you imply; the other did not constitute an argument, but merely an emphasis on an important part of the argument you cherry picked from), and the proposition that they are has no important on what the statements actually mean.

not an accurate account of the literal meaning, utterance meaning, or impact of the phrase "Happy Holidays"

You're better than this. You know that the literal meaning of phrases is not the whole meaning of phrases.

Yes...that is why I didn't talk only of literal meaning. Get it??

As to the "impact of the phrase"... Who are you to tell TSQ how it impacts him? Are you saying he's lying about his own feelings?

In a sense. I don't believe that he is being impacted in the way he says he is. And I believe that the actual negative impact of hearing the phrase is caused not by the phrase at all, but by illegitimate beliefs and feelings.

And overall, you miss out. Shea isn't saying that HH/MC DEMANDS you celebrate Christmas and such, the issue is that it is expected that EVERYONE knows and that society operates on a schedule that operates around this spectacle that we call Christmas.

No, that is very different from his thesis, which is that "Happy holidays is bullshit christian normativity". There's a pretty clear distinction between that proposition and the other one, "society operates on a schedule that operates around Christmas." You're equivocating. Again. Or you are imposing your own meaning on the OP.

[Psyche]

You can never address the actual argument, can you? You recreate your own interpretation of that argument, and then ridicule that. That is not going to achieve the goal of changing anyone's mind.

[Psyche]

Shea's gripes are illegitimate and he's choosing to be offended by non-offensive things.

oh

[Psyche]

Making it a cultural imperative to say happy holidays around christmas time normalizes Christianity as a dominant social group, and that is a pretty bad thing. It leads directly to what things like what happened to me frequently when I was a kid.

all of these statements are false
happy holidays is an instrument against the normalization of Christianity
and you'll find a negative relationship between people's statements of "Happy Holidays" and people's doing on things that happened frequently to shea when he was a kid

HH is part of the cure, not the disease

[Psyche]

and you'll find a negative relationship between people's statements of "Happy Holidays" and people's doing on things that happened frequently to shea when he was a kid

also proof?

If you mean doings to jews like shea described over the specific time period of winter that may be because any such statements of 'merry christmas', 'happy holidays', and the like leads to increased benevolence and tolerance in people that celebrate Christmas (at the least) and therefore those people would be inclined to treat everyone better.

no i mean people who elect to say, "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" are not the ones otherizing Shea

The point is that saying 'happy holidays' enforces the view/perception that Christianity is a superior religion to others.

well that is wrong, or at least no one has said anything that should convince any reasonable person to believe so

I just want to throw this one thing out there -

nobody chooses to be offended

so for the love of god, stop fucking saying shea (or anyone else) is deciding that they are offended by this. You get offended when you feel that something is offensive. Different things are offensive to different people at different levels of offensiveness.

I don't think people choose to be offended. I do think people can be wrongly offended, just as they can be wrongly angry at someone or wrongly unhappy. This shouldn't be controversial.

Don't tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by something, because that's tantamount to saying "your feelings are not as important as mine."

This is not correct. Telling someone that they shouldn't be offended by something is telling them that the beliefs that predicate their offense are incorrect.

[Psyche]

I think you guys's false idea that a given emotion cannot be illegitimate stems from an intuitive theory of emotion that simply is not correct. So now I'm going to give a short and vague introduction to appraisal theory that I will later regret making so short and so vague.

What causes people to feel an emotion like anger, sadness, joy, and - offense? Usually, the answer is beliefs. People extract some sort of meaning, or perceived relation between the persons and their environment, from their situation, and, depending on that perceived relation/meaning, they may feel a certain way.

For example, anger may be triggered if Billy thinks someone has wronged him or someone he cares about.

Other emotions are also possible - sadness, most clearly; which emotion is triggered depends on other aspects of one's perceived relationship with his/her environment. For example, if one thinks he is helpless (there is no way to resolve or obtain justice for his problem), then he may be more likely to be sad. Or perhaps he'll be even angrier.

What's important here, though, is the fact that feelings are predicated on beliefs, and the fact that beliefs may not be accurate.

For example, Billy may be angry because he thinks someone has stolen something from him. If, in fact, he has simply misplaced what he is missing, then his anger is predicated on a false belief. It is an illegitimate feeling. Understand?

Let's have another example. Joe might be sad because he thinks his life promises nothing but different sorts of suffering. If, in fact, he will be incredibly happy tomorrow, he lacks a good reason to be sad. His sadness is not legitimate.

In the same way, if it is incorrect that "Happy holidays" is bullshit Christian normativity, then Shea lacks a good reason to be offended. His offense is not legitimate.

Because of this relationship between emotions and beliefs, "X is offended" is not enough to justify calls to end some practice; it's in fact more important to show that X has good reason to be offended. That's why we don't listen when conservatives get offended by the presence of homosexual teachers in their schools. They are offended for bad reasons.

I hope this little tidbit of psychology that you can read more about by googling "appraisal theory" or "core relational themes" or "Richard Lazarus" will help you approach our objections to your position a little more coherently.

[Psyche]

No, I didn't. Try reading again.

[Psyche]

You assert this, which, sure whatever.

Woo, I win.

and then you conclude that it is incorrect with no reasoning

False.

You clearly think you're a moral center of the universe and you're so full of shit with it.

Nah, I just think I'm

right

, not

moral

. So that's the epistemic center of the universe, as you might put it. And what I'm full of is unwarranted pride, not fecal matter, silly tamuz.

[Psyche]

Let's make it thorough.

I am religiously atheist and culturally jewish. I don't believe in god above, and I certainly don't believe in your little baby jesus. Furthermore, as someone who vividly remembers getting the crap kicked out of him in middle school for being the only jewish kid in the class, I can personally tell anyone who wants to say "it's just being nice! there's nothing wrong with it! it's just PC bullshit." that otherization and the attempted normalization of one religious ideology has real world consequences for real people. It's not just you being nice, it's you actively participating in a system of control that is hurtful and offensive.

red herring
see my iso

When you say happy holidays, what you are actually saying is "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

not an accurate account of the literal meaning, utterance meaning, or impact of the phrase "Happy Holidays". Why? Because the literal meaning of happy holidays is not "celebrate christmas". When I and others say it, I do not mean, "Celebrate Christmas" or, more importantly, think that you should, When I and others say it, I do not cause you to celebrate christmas with me.

This is true for two reasons. First, when you wish me happy holidays, you are only demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that the "Holiday" I am supposed to be celebrating ended roughly 2 weeks ago. If someone were to wish you happy holidays on January 9th you would look at them a little funny and wonder what they were talking about. I don't have to do that, because I know what you're actually talking about. You're talking about Christmas. Stop with the patronizing, faux-inclusive bullshit.

Ignorance about another culture != "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

And, no. I'm talking about the many holidays I sincerely believe are happening around Christmas.

The other reason it is true is because Hanukkah is not an important holiday. Like, at all. It is minor as all hell. In terms of important holidays Hanukkah is about as important as boxing day is. To Americans. It just happens to be almost exclusively the only Jewish holiday that Christians know about. It's almost as if this is because they trot it out to act like their Christmas celebrations are somehow secular. They sing 6 Christmas carols and 1 Hanukkah song at the kids "Holiday concert" and they go home in their nice little subaru foresters marveling at how cosmopolitan they all are.

Ignorance about another culture != "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

Because the instances of ignorance described here has nothing to do with the Christian normativity thesis as described by TSQ, they have no bearing on the question of whether "Happy Holidays" in fact advances this thesis.

Since these are the only reasons brought up for tsq's argument, but they do not actually support it, tsq's position is unjustified and his state of offension lacks legitimacy.

This post argues more effectively that Christians are ignorant about Hannukah than anything about Christian normativity.

here's my reasoning you said i didnt provide
of course, it does more to refute a specific argument than the actual position, which for all i know may be true

My position is more emphatically that "tsq's position is unjustified and his state of offension lacks legitimacy" than that "Happy holidays is not bullshit Christian normativity."

I believe you tried to move the goalposts in response to this reasoning, but that I reacted appropriately. The fact that you did respond to this reasoning makes me wonder why you say that I provided no reasoning for my position.

[Psyche]

I believe you tried to move the goalposts

I've mostly ignored you because your so full of yourself that there is no real conversation to have with you.

You believe you're right cause you agree with yourself. Your statement about right wingers is an example of this.

But whatever, you're young and your in academia. Maybe your professors will force you to grow up, I won't.

You never try to approach the arguments. I hope my professors know better than to avoid doing that.

You believe you're right cause you agree with yourself.

No, that doesn't even make sense.

I believe I am right because every apparently consistent argument put forth about the issue coheres with my position. Guess what will happen as soon as I see an argument that is both consistent and not in accord with my position? My position will change.

That's why I am an atheist. That's why I don't think homosexuality is wrong. So many deepset beliefs of mine have been pushed aside by the force of someone else's argument! Do you want me to change my mind? Show me that I am wrong.

Until you do, I can only assume you're throwing an overgrown temper-tamtrum and hiding behind your experience.

[Psyche]

Also, you won't get any argument from me on the fact that Shea is a dick. I was telling Singer yesterday that if Plum (who, need I remind you, agreed 100% with Shea, meaning that every Jew I know of who has posted here despite totally different backgrounds and temperaments agree on this issue) had written the OP, this conversation would be much different because Shea doesn't know how to bring up arguments without being a dick.

100% is a tad strong, but I generally agree and sympathize, yeah.

If I were to write the OP, it would say: Please don't think that by saying 'Happy Holidays' you're necessarily being super inclusive of Jews, and presumably of other religious and/or cultural minorities. I for one don't identify with this 'Holiday Season' and in my mind Ḥanukah is not a part of it at all. I think it feeds into the notion that Ḥanukah is Jewish Christmas, which I think is wrong and which I really dislike. I feel like the 'Holiday Season' for which people think it's appropriate to say 'Happy Holidays' is a construct of a Christian culture even though many people celebrate Christmas secularly. I don't think individuals mean anything but pleasantries when they say 'Happy Holidays', and I don't think anyone's bad or mean because they do it, but it still reminds me that the culture I live in will ignore my feelings about my own holidays and culture, and expect me to be pleasant about or even pleased with the way it treats them, above and beyond inundating me with Christmas stuff.

See, this is different from the thesis that Happy Holidays is bullshit Christian normativity.

[Psyche]

the culture I live in will ignore my feelings about my own holidays and culture

Why the self-pity? You could always invite others to participate in your festival and culture.

and expect me to be pleasant about or even pleased with the way it treats them,

Why the jealousy? Are you not happy that others are? You can't even justify that they are being happy at your expense.

Self-pity is warranted by the lot Plum finds herself with as part of a minority. Reasonable.

It's not jealousy. It's unhappiness with subjection to unfair expectations. Reasonable.

[Psyche]

To me it seems like last sentence characterizes Happy Holidays as a reminder, not an effector, of the unfavorable circumstances (Christian normativity).

[Psyche]

Self-pity is warranted by the lot Plum finds herself with as part of a minority. Reasonable.

There's no need to wallow in negative thoughts if you can do something positive to change it.

Eh. MLK had the ability to do something positive to change it, and even exercised that ability, but it doesn't seem correct to say that if he, during this exercise, felt pity for African Americans, this pity would be unreasonable. Until the bad situation is gone, the rationale for pity stays.

It's not jealousy. It's unhappiness with subjection to unfair expectations. Reasonable.

I can accept that.

[Psyche]

Is it wrong to ignore a culture?

[Psyche]

Why didn't you just say so???

[Psyche]

He's just trying to capture the nuance.

[Psyche]

Is there a difference? Seriously, isn't repeatedly reminding someone of normativity one of the strongest ways to push it on them?

Er, no? Shea's post reminds me of Christian normativity, but even if it were read to me 20 times a day, it wouldn't really be pushing it on me.

It looks like we need a clearer notion of normativity. The definition I used earlier was the one asserted by Shea: "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

It is flatly inaccurate that people who say "Happy Holidays" think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and that "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas", and that saying "Happy Holidays" makes anyone celebrate anything.

Perhaps you can provide me a more

nuanced

version of the concept.

Multiple people here are arguing that Shea is entirely correct in saying that "Happy holidays" is bullshit Christian normativity.

Multiple people are also arguing that feelings cannot be illegitimate. That's what that post was arguing. My other post argued that the feeling of offense in question was illegitimate.

[Psyche]

Isn't it about all of those things and more?

[Psyche]

if you have to google or wiki to find them there is no real way you can defend that you mean

those

holidays.

They mean

any

holidays, Mr. Nuance.

[Psyche]

:3

[Psyche]

something about post number two hundred and sixty looks...different

[Psyche]

well now i gotta edit my response to look less douchy

[Psyche]

tell me
did i pull it off?

[Psyche]

you did not
omg, you did

[Psyche]

Oh.

[Psyche]

At least in one sense, we might say that normativity is the

quality

of being normative, like clarity is the quality of being clear. And so Christian normativity might involve being normative with respect to Christianity.

So then what does being normative mean in this context? Making/establishing Christianity [as] the ideal or normal? Prescribing or imposing christian values upon others?

I think the exclusion might be driven by the same attitude that a stranger saying to me, "Isn't God great?" or "Damn she's hot, right?" might. There's an assumption of a universally shared trait that I don't have, and so my otherness gets unduly emphasized and that makes me uncomfortable and different — though not offended.

Happy Holidays is supposed to avoid this effect by referring to all holidays happening in december and very early January, as well as the off-from-work holiday that most of us seem to get. Some people might indeed still be excluded from this pool (but some people might be excluded from statements like "great day!", too), but the assumption that drives the exclusion is supposed to be less unwarranted in America than the one that drives "Merry Christmas".

The problem with this attitude brought up cemtered around the fact that Hannukah doesn't merit the attitude "Happy Holidays" seems to assert. But it seems avoidable to me, if focus is placed on New Years, which people who have a distinct cultural calendar probably still recognize for the same reason they'll say to a stranger that it is December. Is this wrong?

But since it is used in exactly the same places as the old word or phrase

Except it isn't. Christmas is over, but Happy Holidays is still in play until New Years is over, and perhaps until we return to school, right?

[Psyche]

It's gonna be a long time until we all return to school.

darn it

[Psyche]

is as if they don't realize that the gregorian falender isnt thenonly game in town

[Psyche]

eh
people can disagree over a moral issue without being dicks
i think this was one of those times

[Psyche]

The way I used to post was so pedantic. I like the way I used to thoroughly think through things (something I don't really do much on this forum anymore), but at the same time I totally missed the point. I can see that as sort of dickish - I glazed over someone's feelings to focus on their argument.

shea made this statement

When you say happy holidays, what you are actually saying is "I think everyone should be celebrating Christmas right now, and I will make you celebrate it with me with a thinly veiled code word for Christmas."

and instead of paying attention to the emotion he was trying to connote, I only concerned myself with whether the statement was concretely true or false (I still think it's plainly false)

I think that if I could do it all again, I'd have treated the OP more charitably and focused more on clarifying the sentiment it conveyed, but still left with the belief that "Happy Holidays" is a suitable, and even effective weapon in the war on Christmas.

It's possible that this difference arises from our different social experiences. Where I'm from (South Carolina), everyone celebrates Christmas and to say "Happy Holidays" is to acknowledge and validate other religions, and even irreligion, in a way that's taboo in my community. "Happy Holidays" is an overtly liberal exercise, and to conservatives it threatens the Christian hegemony they believe holds our nation together; this has even been preached to me countless times in my churches. Seeing someone claim that the phrase in fact an agent of that hegemony just strikes me as ridiculously counterfactual.

[Psyche]

Denying someones experience and telling them they shouldn't be offended is being a dick.

I mean, rationalize it however you want. I'm not the person who has to live with it. I would note that I almost completely stayed out of this discussion last year after I raised the issue because of how painful (your posts in particular) it was to have people constantly deny my experience and my emotions. I'm anticipating a similar vacancy from this thread, but this issue is important enough to me to bring it up again.

Shaft.ed: It must be nice to have the only completely sanctioned break from lab work fall on christians religious holiday of choice so as to make celebrating it easier. I wonder what that feels like.

I think you're just really wrong here. We have to tell

some

people that they shouldn't be offended. One of the main devices of american conservatism is to be unjustly offended - by public displays of same-sex affection on the streets, by "X-mas" and "Happy Holidays", by people standing in solidarity with victims of racialized police brutality, and so forth. There are so many examples of moments when we are

obligated

to tell people that their offense makes no sense. To claim that all experiences of offense are righteous is to subvert their very meaning.

I really, sincerely believe that it's important to make that distinction whether it's applicable here or not and I wish I could make you understand that I'm not doing it because I don't care about how you feel.

[Psyche]

Well the claim makes a lot more sense to me now than it did before. To be honest, actually, I think I'm fully in Shea's camp now on the issue. Damn it.

"Happy Holidays" used specifically to connote inclusion of minority religious identities is actually just a mainstream liberal tactic for skirting the actual challenge of Christian hegemony in America. The word choice of "Happy Holidays" gives liberal peoples their special sort of moral self-satisfaction without doing anything to address the issues that drive that word choice in the first place.

It's like proudly announcing, "I don't see race". The sentiment is nice, but it's worse than useless.

[Psyche]

but that's a terrible reason to feel offended

[Psyche]

yeah clearly intention to offend isn't a good metric
i think a better metric might be to ask, "does this offensive thing actually wrong some person(s)?"

Because whenever someone feels offended, it's because they have this belief that they or theirs has been

wronged

, just as whenever someone feels happy it's because they have this belief that something good has happened or something. If that belief is incorrect (no one has been wronged / something good has not happened), then the corresponding feeling is itself inappropriate.

If you agree with me that emotions are based on beliefs about what's going on in the world, then the answer to your question with respect to almost any feeling seems easy to answer.

[Psyche]

The disconnect for me is how someone wishing you well in their own cultural way or language or whatever becomes wronging you just because you don't ascribe to the same cultural upbringing or identity that the person wishing you well does. I think it's nice when someone tells me Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah despite me not affiliating with any of the religions that those phrases were born from.

No one is claiming that "someone wishing you well in their own cultural way or language or whatever becomes wronging you just because you don't ascribe to the same cultural upbringing or identity that the person wishing you well does", and in fact saying "Merry Christmas" might be better than saying "Happy Holidays" in the contexts shea cares about since at least it isn't disingenuous.

The idea is that "Happy Holidays" gives people moral satisfaction for their inclusivity without really challenging Christian hegemony in our society at all.

[Psyche]

yeah clearly intention to offend isn't a good metric
i think a better metric might be to ask, "does this offensive thing actually wrong some person(s)?"

Because whenever someone feels offended, it's because they have this belief that they or theirs has been

wronged

, just as whenever someone feels happy it's because they have this belief that something good has happened or something. If that belief is incorrect (no one has been wronged / something good has not happened), then the corresponding feeling is itself inappropriate.

If you agree with me that emotions are based on beliefs about what's going on in the world, then the answer to your question with respect to almost any feeling seems easy to answer.

But being offended can definitely be a form of being wronged. If I feel like someone has snubbed me or ignored me, that can definitely upset me; particularly so if it happens multiple times. Upset is a form of harm: my life is less good than it was prior to the upset. To argue otherwise, you have to argue that the harm to someone is independent of their perception of how their life is and what the most important things in their life are and that's quite an elitist step to make.

Sure, upsetting someone harms them. But you're confusing causation with this line of thinking.

Let's put it this way. We're trying to examine whether a particular experience

A

of being offended at event

X

is legitimate or not. But being upset is a totally different and later event

Y

, and so can only be the basis for a later experience

B

of being offended. What you're doing is shifting focus to the legitimacy of experience

B

, but it has nothing to do with legitimacy of experience

A

.

Did that make sense?
I think it's totally worthwhile to examine whether

upsetting

someone by saying something they'll appraise inaccurately is also

wronging

someone - and I think that in and of itself it is wronging someone but find it hard to blame the speaker for that upset since it stems from corrigible ignorance on the latter party's part - but it's really a different question to be examined by itself.

[Psyche]

Okay, you're arguing for a little bit of transitivity. That legit-experience B happens lends legitimacy to experience A. And maybe that's valid. So I'll have to take the strong position that experience B isn't really legit at all and so has no legitness to lend.

Being offended isn't just noting that something bad has happened, but also that someone else has been the agent of that badness.

When someone comes out to their parents as gay, that can upset those parents

a lot

, often depending almost entirely on those parents' incorrect beliefs about the moral valence of homosexuality. But I just think it's either the parents' fault for not doing anything previously about their corrigible ignorance on the issue, or no one's fault. To blame someone for doing something that would be wholly harmless but for the ignorance of the people spectating is just a misattribution.

But maybe "coming out" is more clearly blameworthy if it's unnecessary. If we live in a world where the intimacy between a son and his parents is of no import and they don't really live their lives together, perhaps needlessly coming out to those parents and upsetting them (because of how they're currently disposed to react to that info) is actually wronging them similarly to how husband detailing his various affairs to his wife out of an interest in transparency might be needless and cruel.

But that analogy actually comes off as pretty weak?

[Psyche]

maybe you'll understand when you're older

[Psyche]

Saying that every time someone's offended is legitimate condones every -ism ever...

I don't understand why Shea feels he can speak for the Jewish population as a whole when empirical evidence suggests that the issue is not societal but more a conflict with his own personal ideology.

He posts a lot about how "Happy Holidays" makes him feel, but what's important is the claim that "Happy Holidays" enables the otherization of non-Christians - which is more about what the cultural Christian population is doing than the Jewish population.

[Psyche]

I'm just saying what I've already said...

"Happy Holidays" used specifically to connote inclusion of minority religious identities is actually just a mainstream liberal tactic for skirting the actual challenge of Christian hegemony in America. The word choice of "Happy Holidays" gives liberal peoples their special sort of moral self-satisfaction without doing anything to address the issues that drive that word choice in the first place.

And so it sort of protects Christian hegemony, which consists of that otherization, and enables the bullying and discrimination shea detailed earlier as well as more subtle aggressions, causing Jewish people to feel out of place.

Jews can totally be unaware of the harm that comes with "Happy Holidays" and be made in this way to feel out of place because of it.

[Psyche]

"Have a nice day"?

[Psyche]

I think that necroing the thread made me think a lot and was pretty worthwhile.
I was wrong in a really obnoxious way in this thread and needed to reflect on that.

[Psyche]

I wish I could be angry all of the time but it's exhausting and I say things I don't want to and no one hears anything or wants to talk to me and when I'm always priming yourself with images of my minority status studies suggest that I perform more poorly in academics because of stereotype threat; here at Princeton I always think about my minority status in the middle of tests and I didn't used to do that before and I wish I could stop because I can see it taking over a mind that used to be filled with positive feelings and passion about something I loved instead of something I hated but at the same time in all of this righteous anger i feel guilt because i'm not giving myself to that anger and i'm not just majoring in politics or sociology or some other social justice field and living the sort of life that makes a difference but gives me no room to be happy

Ever since Trayvon was shot, nothing's been right. There's no way to negotiate this stuff and win.

[Psyche]

How do you stick a pin where it hurts the most and then say, "be respectful"? You're asking for a degree of moral bigness that's just not fair.

[Psyche]

it's so weird that this page happened at the same time as those other few pages

[Psyche]

I think Christianity is bad and should be replaced with darwinist socialism as dominant cultural force.

[Psyche]

darwinist socialism isn't actually a thing, is it?

[Psyche]

If everyone said happy holidays all the time, that would be great, because it would change the meaning of the phrase to something that isn't actually about Christmas anymore, eliminating what we set out to eliminate. But just dropping Happy Holidays and maybe educating ourselves about other major religious holidays might actually do a lot more for avoiding otherization.

[Psyche]

I just don't have faith that this whole 'identity politics' 'social justice' whatever thing can truly do anything for society in it's current iteration. Things will never be fair for everyone. Every single civilization that has ever existed has existed with groups of citizens with differing amounts on power, from random warring tribes in Africa up to the Roman Empire to Nazi Germany to America today. It sucks, but I don't think it's something we can *truly* fix, until major advances in tech come along that can truly eliminate a lot of the barriers in society. Even still, the world today is far better than the world of 20 years ago. You know what changed? The internet, for one. The internet has broken down more doors between groups in society than pretty much anything else. And the way the online 'social justice' movement represents itself online has, honestly, done more to destroy connectivity and acceptance of such concepts in society due to the way it has presented itself to the world--through hatred and condemnation. I have friends who have personally been persecuted by the 'social justice' movement, and it has caused them to turn their backs on it and condemn the movement, despite what it actually preaches. It's tragic, really.

Do you really think America is becoming more and not less apathetic with regard to social justice issues?

[Psyche]

I think people who say that Christmas in America is about as religious as July 4th are either fooling themselves or living in a liberal wonderland or both.

[Psyche]

They're not two separate holidays. They're the same holiday, and irreligious people from Christian cultures also celebrate it. Referring to "secular Christmas" is otherizing Jews and others who don't give a shit about it as much as anything else.

[Psyche]

They're not two separate holidays. They're the same holiday, and irreligious people from Christian cultures also celebrate it. Referring to "secular Christmas" is otherizing Jews and others who don't give a shit about it as much as anything else.

Yeah, but the Superbowl otherizes those that don't care about football. Do you get super-pissed at people who try to make small talk with you and ask about your plans for it?

I get a little annoyed. Lots of people think that me not liking football makes me a suckier person, including my parents. It's fine for lots of people to like the Superbowl. It's fine for lots of people to like Christmas. But it's another thing to pressure me to dig those things or make me feel weird for not doing so, which is what stuff like that does. It's not a big deal, but it's a thing to not do.

[Psyche]

reck you need to call the hell down

[Psyche]

these societies have really significant muslim populations and to not take any measures to accommodate those populations just seems unreasonably conservative

[Psyche]

me and tso are mortal enemies and must someday fight to the death

[Psyche]

Just imagine his blood pressure when someone likes you walks into the room and hasn't passed through a metal detector.

[Psyche]

Yeah I've gotta work on that.

[Psyche]

it depends on the reason they do it
like if the wasp kid does it in the name of anti-feminism
or the isl guy did it for political islam
etc.

[Psyche]

well the conspiracy is what shapes the unstable dude to act in the name of issl;
it's wrong to focus on his mental state, because what's going on is bigger than him
he's sort of a pawn of a broader political movement

[Psyche]

or kick an asshole's ass

[Psyche]

I don't dig the use of Happy Holidays to be inclusive,
but as someone who grew up not knowing the Hannukah was a thing,

I thought we used Happy Holidays because the late November to Early January period is basically the most holiday-packed time of year for people in my culture. It's just like saying Merry Christmas in that I'm not giving a shit whether the dude I'm saying it to gives a damn about Christmas, except I'm also imposing on him Thanksgiving and New Years.

[Psyche]

I think it's more important not to feel satisfied by the faux inclusion you may be saying "Happy Holidays" for than whether you use one problematic phrase or another.

If you want to be inclusive of other major cultures in your community, learn a little about them. If you don't, then stop pretending you give a shit, because you're not convincing anyone but your liberal Christian culture friends.

[Psyche]

yeah, say "Happy Days"

[Psyche]

Regardless, this entire conversation seems silly.


Appreciate the good will of others, recognize that you are in a sort of cultural minority, educate others charitably when they err factually about something.

The only way not to express culture is not to say or do anything at all.

That there are things that the minority can do doesn't mean that the majority isn't doing anything wrong. The burden goes both ways.

[Psyche]

Regardless, this entire conversation seems silly.


Appreciate the good will of others, recognize that you are in a sort of cultural minority, educate others charitably when they err factually about something.

The only way not to express culture is not to say or do anything at all.

That there are things that the minority can do doesn't mean that the majority isn't doing anything wrong. The burden goes both ways.

Have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change,
The courage to change the things you can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

I'm not pessimistic enough to think that assholes can't change.

[Psyche]

That there are things that the minority can do doesn't mean that the majority isn't doing anything wrong. The burden goes both ways.

The majority has a responsibility to educate themselves as well.

It is, however, absurd to expect that everyone spend all of their time reading up on black history, Chinese-American history, Japanese-American history, Filipino-American history, Mexican-American history, Cuban-American history, Irish-American history, Italian-American history, etc.; gay history, lesbian history, transgender history, etc.; Christian history, Jewish history, Muslim history, Buddhist history, Zoroastrian history, Sikh history, Wiccan history, humanist history, etc.; Republican history, Democratic history, Green Party history, etc.; communism, capitalism, socialism, etc.; monarchism, democracy, representative democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, tyranny, etc.

There are simply not enough hours in the day. All of those are rife with potential areas for offense because of ignorance or malice on the one hand or oversensitivity on the other.

The real question is whether there can be a manifest majority culture that still has respect for minority cultures. I believe the answer is yes, which is why I do not believe that there is any problem with saying "Merry Christmas" or anything like it. Accept the goodwill and move on.

I'm not saying that the majority culture needs to be perfect or do all it can.
But when you're shown a really easy way to change your behavior that would make things better, just do it.
It's a lot easier than listing all the things you did in that post.

[Psyche]

Like, seriously. All this thread is saying is that you should think more about how your words are affecting other people and keep trying to be a decent human being. But you're acting as if you've just been told to major in Queer theory.

[Psyche]

i wasn't talking about you, who

[Psyche]

aw shucks
here's a pat on the head

[Psyche]

I always thought that race was about how others perceive you...

[Psyche]

I was thinking about this thread more and I've realized that I'm actually pro oppression of religion, and always have been. They aren't some sacred thing that I don't argue against or don't think negatively of. The only thing that mitigates how actively I fight religion is how ingrained a problem it is, which makes it only worthwhile when they are actively doing negative things to others.

This is the crux of the issue. "Inclusion" and "tolerance" are ultimately self-contradictory because every formal system ever necessarily involves excluding certain behavior.

that doesn't even follow

[Psyche]

"stop saying happy holidays"

[Psyche]

I feel like we always get so stuck on the "is there a problem?" that talks on "how will this problem be solved?" usually get crowded out.

[Psyche]

I bet there are studies out there on how people judge people with certain dialects.

[Psyche]

bro
they're never going to get it
certainly not in the next few pages

[Psyche]

I think you're doing Christmas wrong, AP.

[Psyche]

bro
they're never going to get it
certainly not in the next few pages

There is nothing to get; Psyche. Stop pretending that there is some higher plane on this issue from which the illuminated can look down upon the dirty masses, attempting in vain to pull them up out of their wretched provincialism.

I don't think you're dirty.

[Psyche]

Maybe in a metaphorical sense you're dirty.
Like if you're comparing dirt with the pernicious sort of ignorance.

[Psyche]

Yeah what I should have said is, "I'm not pretending."
Just like you're not pretending.

The "higher plane above the provincialist masses" is probably the perspective of anyone at any time who deigns to defeat anyone else's opinion. From MLK to the Klan.

[Psyche]

Well MLK would've frowned on calling Aegor an illiterate twat.

[Psyche]

I also hate your schtick about Protestantism because if ANY country knows all about that it's Ireland. My people were forced from their lands, not allowed to speak their own language or partake in their own religions and customs. That is oppression. The fucking ridiculous construct of oppression you believe in, which goes like "If it exists and I don't agree with it, it is oppression!!!" is not even on the same plane.

I agree with what Aegor's said, especially with his response to Psyche - it doesn't make you seem impressive, Psyche. At all.

PEdit: I quite strongly believe BRO's is.

lol
sorry for disappointing you, dude

[Psyche]

It's like a holocaust joke. Except Armenian.

[Psyche]

In the South, and only in the closeknit communities, not being Christian can make you vulnerable to a lot of discrimination, I guess. No one should be saying that it's as pervasive a phenomenon as, say, racism. But it's there.

In general, the way the bias works in the South is that "Christian" is seen as part as what makes someone a decent person. Without it, you're at best a figure of pity in your community. People will generally see you as morally lesser.

However, in part given the Christian right's unilateral support for Israel and condemnation of Nazism, being Jewish would probably actually soften this effect.

[Psyche]

I'm not even trying to sound rational anymore.

at which point did you stop

[Psyche]

Interesting that the South was brought up. I am in San Antonio on vacation and have never once been asked whether I celebrate Christmas, so I feel rather comfortable saying that "bad shit" does not happen if you do not celebrate Christmas.

haha well i guess that settles that

[Psyche]

Texas is part of the South. And apparently so is Tennessee!

[Psyche]

more like bible blob, amirite?

[Psyche]

I love love love those Boberry biscuits. <3

[Psyche]

I love love love those Boberry biscuits. <3

[Psyche]

no

[Psyche]

Stereotyping and casually racist remarks: totally okay as long as they're not about PoC

This is in fact mostly the case! It's also more okay if you're part of the race or group being casually joked about.

slaaaaaargh fucksake get me out of this thread before I have an aneurysm from all the faux-social justice horseshit

yeah you might need to take a break

[Psyche]

i disagree
it might be the worst sort of racism there is

[Psyche]

seriously knights
take a break

[Psyche]

That's really sad.

[Psyche]

You still don't really understand what racism is. And I just feel more comfortable trolling you over it than trying to explain it to you.

That probably makes me a bad person, but I've been told that being a good person is overrated.

[Psyche]

Of course you think you do. But you're really wrong. Like really, really wrong.
Whenever you talk about it, it's like listening to one of the rednecks from my high school.

[Psyche]

I think it's in part because you've been so neutral for so long that you don't really know much about what you're talking about.

You haven't really been forced to think through your preconceptions that often, which is what engaging with people who disagree with you helps happen.

I think Aegor's thought through his beliefs. But there are other factors involved in his story. And he isn't quite as wrong, I think.

[Psyche]

Also, pointing out that European and neo-European cuisines are generally bland relative to the rest of the world isn't really racism?

"lol those whiteys and their bland food"
"lol those blacks and their watermelon and fried chicken"
"lol those chinamen and their stir-fry and noodles"

You, Psyche and half the other "OH MY GOD HOW DARE YOU WISH ME A HAPPY HOLIDAY I AM SO TRIGGERED YOU ARE EVIL REGARDLESS OF INTENT" monkeyfumbling idiots

You see, this is a misrepresentation of the whole thing, and I don't think you're doing it on purpose. I don't think you're an asshole for being wrong. I just think that you're wrong, and that it hurts people.

Not so bad that it triggers anyone as far as I know, but bad enough that I'd feel like you wouldn't do it if you really understood. Maybe you don't really care how other people feel; sometimes I don't. But I feel like most people do, either out of decency or necessity. And I bet you're a conscientious human being.

are literally insisting that no-one says anything that could possibly hurt your precious feels

Naw, man. We're just telling you that it does hurt feels. We think that's a good enough reason not to do something for most people, but you do with that info whatever your conscience tells you. But don't expect us to smile while you do it.

while insisting that any stereotypical or racist comments you make are fine because

racism against whitey don't real

When you make fun of someone's whiteness, it's like making fun of someone for being well-off or for having a particularly good day. It just doesn't have the bite that making fun of someone for being poor or disabled or black.

Context really matters, and it surprises me that you don't see that.

and then making snarky comments about anyone who dares disagree with your tumblrite echo chamber shit

I'm sure your conduct here is much more exemplary of how sociopolitical discourse should be carried out.

PEDIT - congrats on proving my point fucknuggets, enjoy your circlejerk over how much more

enlightened

and

socially aware

you are while tiptoeing around anyone more coloured than a week's holiday in a sunny country

I'm not sure what you're saying here. BRO and I aren't masturbating at all. I'm using both of my hands to type up this post.

like seriously, when the fucking Jew is talking to you about pulling your head out of your ass with this persecution complex bullshit maybe you should fucking listen OH WAIT I'VE JUST GOT ME SOME OF THAT INTERNALISED OPPRESSION YES MASSA ANYTHING YOU SAY MASSA

This quote is actually one of the best examples of the persecution complex in this thread.

[Psyche]

I have never seen you debate your beliefs with anyone, or as you put it "engage with people who disagree with you".

That's strange. I even spent most of this thread arguing against Shea's OP with people. It got rather heated.

But anyway, I can't see you convincing me that it's cool for BROseidon to say white people have bland food taste, but not for me to say most terrorists are Arabs. One is an objective view, one is true - if anything, I should have the benefit of the doubt.

Bro actually made more of a joking and interesting claim about the cuisine of European-descended peoples, while you sort of argued for the racialized targeting of people for search and seizure.

I definitely don't feel as strongly about your claim as BRO does (I don't think the gist of your argument was particularly racist), but the diametrical way you represented those two positions just seems strange to me.

[Psyche]

You still don't really understand what racism is. And I just feel more comfortable trolling you over it than trying to explain it to you.

That probably makes me a bad person, but I've been told that being a good person is overrated.

"You don't agree with me so I'm going to talk down at you and insist you just don't understand my self declared morally superior position. Also, not my job to educate you shitlord"

I even admitted that it made me a bad person, but you still thought it worthwhile to point out again that it was bad. :/

[Psyche]

Stop trying to redefine racism by insisting only institutionalised racism counts, stop treating anyone who disagrees with you like the unholy SMTesque fusion of a toddler, Mitt Romney and Nigel Farage and stop acting like fucking geniuses because you can make sarcastic remarks to each other.

I'm not going to do any of those things until you change the tone with which you speak to me young man.

[Psyche]

And that last part you quoted and your shitty snarky response proves my point. You are literally arguing with a member of one of the most historically persecuted minorities of the last 2 millennia and telling me that you know more about everyday racism than I do having had people call me a 'fucking kite cunt' as I walked down the street every time I went to the synagogue since I was old enough to know they werent nice words

I don't think you even understood my shitty snarky response. Here's a hint: the persecution complex was in the "internalized oppression" bit, not with the "i'm a jew" bit. I don't want to get into a contest with you over which group between the blacks, gays and jews is the more marginalized, because I know that blacks, jews, and gays are an intellectually diverse group of people whose beliefs shouldn't be reduced to their ethnicities or sexual orientations.

My mom thinks she has a harder time finding jobs because she's black. I don't believe her because she's black. I believe her because I've read numerous studies demonstrating the powerful impact of aversive racism on black employment opportunities and would never bet that she's immune to them.

We can talk about identity politics without bringing in our identities, and I think I'd prefer it that way because it lets us get to them bottom of what we disagree about rather that focus on pop psychological endeavors to explain away what we perceive as the ignorance of those we disagree with.

Take your politically correct saviour complex and shove it where the sun doesn't shine to be honest and don't you fucking dare tell me how angry I'm allowed to be or how much I can swear at you as if me being passed at you invalidates anything

I'm just worried about

you

, Knights. You can be angry all you want; I'm cool. It's just, we're all having a relatively casual conversation on the internet about a controversial issue and you seem really stressed out. I know how that feels, and it sucks. I don't want our chat to ruin your day, I don't.

In the context of everything else I've said, this may come off as a rather snarky, but it's serious. You don't have to get worked up over this.

[Psyche]

oh how i wish i were a jew, too
my race card would be the most powerful of them all


...That's how conservatives believe I think, right?

[Psyche]

I'm sorry for opting to troll, guys.

[Psyche]

That's the point!

[Psyche]

Well no I don't admit that.

[Psyche]

If trolling doesn't sound the same as someone serious about their beliefs, then it's not good trolling.

[Psyche]

But...your beliefs...agh.

I thought you understood! I thought you were the one who understood!

[Psyche]

"Happy holidays" being insufficiently sensitive, I mean. Not your views on turkey.

I actually think "Happy Holidays" is in fact totally sufficient in the sense that not beating your dog can be termed sufficient when it comes to caring about animal welfare. A vegetarian would go around saying "Good day" and only "good day" OR conscientiously educating themself about all the major holidays that significantly sized minorities in his society celebrate. A third, less-but-still involved option is to just say "Merry Christmas" and be pleased for others celebrating and wishing you a good whatever-their-major-holiday-is. I think the latter option is healthy enough, and would really be quite a radical reform for most of the world.

My change is that I think I was being unfair to Shea in my critique of his position before; his position has merit. Happy Holidays as politically correct inclusion is bullshit, a lie. And to believe the lie is to be part of the problem of religious marginalization.

He recommends that people stop saying Happy Holidays; I recommend that people stop saying Happy Holidays with the mindset that they're being inclusive, politically correct, "good" liberals. Since that mindset seems to be what the phrase is for, then the point of the word seems missing — Merry Christmas does just fine and doesn't have the cultural pretense.

But on the other hand, there are still lots of holidays to celebrate from late November to early January. So whatever. Say it if you want, but don't think you're more of a decent person for doing it.

[Psyche]

When you make fun of someone's whiteness, it's like making fun of someone for being well-off or for having a particularly good day. It just doesn't have the bite that making fun of someone for being poor or disabled or black.

Context really matters, and it surprises me that you don't see that.

Hey Psyche, don't you think positive racial stereotypes are also bad?

Yeah. But not as bad.

And this isn't quite an expression of a positive racial stereotype as much a claim about how great it is to be white, but there's no reason for me yet to think you don't know what I mean.

[Psyche]

I mean, isn't saying "white skin = well-off" is the same as saying "black skin = great athletes" or "asian = good at math"? There are consequences to that sort of thought process.

Well I didn't say that whites were well-off, similarly to how i didn't say that blacks were disabled. I just said that being white was like being well-off in that it's a great thing to be.

[Psyche]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upsho ... bias-.html

But I have a persecution complex!

[Psyche]

People were arguing that to believe that racism is ubiquitous evinces some sort of persecution complex.

[Psyche]

No one argued that promoting white stereotypes solves any problem whatsoever, as that would be ridiculous. The point is that they aren't pernicious to the extent that stereotypes of oppressed minorities are.

[Psyche]

I'm trying to find a way to respond to that in a way that gets my whole feeling across. I don't think anyone here has even begun to approach that degree of "personal over-ubiquitiousness" that you brought up.

But sure, it's a signal detection problem that everyone in a context of systemic oppression has to mediate. Those likely to be treated unfairly if they don't call out this oppression when it rears its head are in a situation that facilitates paranoia and anxiety that could result in dysfunctional behavior unpleasant for those party to that behavior, particularly for those in a different situation. But at the same time, those unlikely to be treated unfairly and even likely to benefit from not calling out this oppression when it rears its head are in a situation that facilitates apathy, complacency and incredulity that, too, can result in dysfunctional behavior unpleasant to those party to that behavior, particularly for those in a different situation.

In general, because of the way that systemic oppression tends to target minorities, behavior even vaguely representative of the former error tends to be more socially damaging (isolating, alienating, etc) than behavior representative of the latter.

The bipartite way I think society sets minorities up to do things that can be called "obnoxious" and then disproportionately condemns them for that mistake, along with the obvious ubiquity and harmfulness of racism (compared to, say, prejudice against white people), may be why I might be a bit less attentive to shows of "personal over-ubiquitousness" than to that other sorts of obnoxiousness that rear their heads whenever race comes up.

[Psyche]

I'll agree to be nice to white people, sure.

[Psyche]

Violence really is the shitty answer.

[Psyche]

unless you're planning to say "happy day" every day, you really ought not beat around the bush - just say "merry christmas"

[Psyche]

there's a lot that's just silly about the above post
but i want to examine the idea that "happy holidays" exists to include the jews
time for...ETYMOLOGY

[Psyche]

mmm

yeah it seems like the meme that "happy holidays" is used to include religious minorities is relatively new
but that doesn't mean it's not real or widespread so etymology is pointless here

[Psyche]

consolation

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holiday

[Psyche]

For the record:

a) Since people seem to not realize this: the jewish new year is not in january either.
b) When someone says merry christmas to me I say it back

but jews still believe in january don't they

[Psyche]

i 'flip flop' because you always overextend, tsq

[Psyche]

of course no one wishes people happy holidays at random times throughout the year
but i was wished happy holidays today and will probably be wished happy holidays many more times before i return to school in early january

[Psyche]

ok by many i mean like "one"
i dont have any friends
probably because i don't know how to respectfully engage with jews during the month of december

[Psyche]

i mean of course i have friends
but for comedic purposes let's say i have less than one but more than zero

[Psyche]

maybe if you're around jews

[Psyche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas ... y_Holidays

here's wikipedia on the issue
this time instead of etymology i seek out signs of contemporary meaning

[Psyche]

In the United States, "Happy Holidays" (along with the similarly generalized "Season's Greetings") has become a common holiday greeting in the public sphere of department stores, public schools and greeting cards. Its use is generally confined to the period between United States Thanksgiving and New Year's Day. American use of the term "Happy Holidays" to replace "Merry Christmas" dates back at least to the 1970s[60] and was a common phrase relating to the Christmas season at least going back to the 1890s.[61] The term may have gained further popularity with the Irving Berlin song "Happy Holiday" (introduced in the 1942 film Holiday Inn).

In the United States, it can have several variations and meanings:[citation needed]

As "Happy Holiday", an English translation of the Hebrew Hag Sameach greeting on Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot.
As "Happy Holiday", a substitution for "Merry Christmas".
As "Happy Holidays", a collective and inclusive wish for the period encompassing Thanksgiving, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Winter solstice, Christmas Day (The Nativity of the Lord), Boxing Day (St. Stephen's Day), the New Year and Epiphany.
As "Happy Holidays", a shortened form of the greeting "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year".
The increasing usage of "Happy Holidays" has been the subject of some controversy in the United States. Advocates claim that "Happy Holidays" is an inclusive greeting that is not intended as an attack on Christianity or other religions, but is rather a response to what they say is the reality of a growing non-Christian population.

Critics of "Happy Holidays" generally claim it is a secular neologism. The greeting may be deemed materialistic, consumerist, atheistic, indifferentist, agnostic, politically correct and/or anti-Christianity. Critics of the phrase have associated it with a larger cultural clash termed the "War on Christmas."

First, there's no citation concerning the different possible variations and meanings, which is annoying. But I think it captures a reality: happy holidays means different things to different people.

"Happy holidays" has been a thing far before the rise of political correctness, probably to connote all of the Christian/Western holidays/merriment that occur between Thanksgiving and New Years.

The fact that it might include "New Years" isn't really a rebuttal to TSQ's point; Christmas is at the core of the expression and when you wish someone "Happy Holidays", even if you're including New Years or Thanksgiving or a bunch of days off from work, you're still wishing someone a Merry Christmas.

The thing really at issue is whether "Happy Holidays" is trying-to-be-inclusive or still sends the Christian-centric it traditionally has.

Both believers in the "War on Christmas" and, er, well-meaning liberals affirm that it now does. Along with the Christian conspiracy theories, pretty much all popular culture that acknowledges/affirms non-Christian religions uses "Happy Holidays" to promote some messages of inclusivity, substantiating the claim that the meaning definitely exists in our culture. I'm not sure if it predominates, but that's enough. I bet the meaning is even more salient to jews.

[Psyche]

I never understood the hyp about christmas in america. I mean, when there's a holiday here, and I meet my friends, we don't care about the actual holiday, we just enjoy the no-university days and all the food. When we meet we don't say "happy holiday!" we say "whats up", and when we say goodbye we don't say 'merry christmas!' we say 'cya' -_-

r u a nihilist

[Psyche]

oh if only minorities would be more laid back about problematic language
what a utopia that would be!
for non-minorities

[Psyche]

people aren't being unreasonable
the thing is, if inequality is not actively identified and pointed out, it will always stay there and never get addressed
subtle - and less subtle - patterns you won't notice if you don't look for them will just go completely ignored
it might be more comfortable for you if no one ever said a critical word when you, say, dress as a native american for halloween or call Caitlyn Jenner a man
it might be more comfortable for non-minorities in general if minorities would just keep their heads down and work hard instead of speaking out about the disproportionately harmful treatment they face when they encounter the police or apply for a job, or try to get a new house or car or loan, or even just associate with other people
it would really keep the peace if all that happened
but would that really be better? if so, for whom?

[Psyche]

there shouldn't be any stigma against rooting out oppression that happens to be subtle anyway
quietism only serves the status quo

[Psyche]

it's a false dilemma
you can call people out and fight oppression without getting angry
and luckily not everything is worth getting angry about

[Psyche]

"psyque"

[Psyche]

basically no one is offended by that stuff
olha's just attacking a straw man

[Psyche]

oh yeah
racism in brazil is almost ancient history

[Psyche]

i can't read all of that

[Psyche]

also a problematic allusion to mental illness

[Psyche]

*scribbles in politically correct burn book*

[Psyche]

zzz

[Psyche]

woahh

[Psyche]

who knew this thread could get dumber

[Psyche]

a little earlier than that

[Psyche]

......the fuck are you on about khan

put the fists down, not everything needs to be a fight

yea seriously wtf man

i read this at the same time i noticed there were five more pages in this thread

[Psyche]

no, flum
plz read rask's post again

[Psyche]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe ... 6-edition/

extremely important

[Psyche]

counterpoint: tso says otherwise

[Psyche]

her post was not an argument; it was a proposition
no different from your recent posts, tso

[Psyche]

ok and why did he talk shit about your epilepsy

[Psyche]

ok now the tsq bashing itt is getting out of control

[Psyche]

i was making a joke about the course of this thread

[Psyche]

wowzers

[Psyche]

it's a very interesting and thoughtful contribution eagersnake and i thank you for making it
it can be hard to put yourself out there sometimes in a new community and it's heartening that you felt comfortable enough to do that here

[Psyche]

I think it's well documented that most people in the US trust atheists less than religionists. You're right that a lot of people have a bias against Christians, but this is apparently largely countervailed by distrust in atheists and a respect for the overall moral conviction of devout Christians. There isn't strong evidence that one's religion (unless one's maybe muslim) affects job prospects one way or another in America in a manner that isn't tracked better by other more well-documented traits like race and SES, though I could look this up to be sure. Anyway, the usual advice for people devoted to their religious beliefs is that they keep talk of said beliefs out of the workplace completely. It is, of course, illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their religion.

Atheists have lots of reasons to be moral besides self-comparison with religionists. Also, I feel like your characterization of real and fake Christians is vulnerable to the No True Scotsman fallacy. In fact, your characterization of "true" Christians as essentially moral saints who lack bias and are always convicted to do right misrepresents a lot about Christian theology. Humans, even Christian humans, are flawed, immoral creatures; it's part of their nature. That's

why

it was supposedly necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for our sins in the first place — so that we could be redeemed through Him anyway.

[Psyche]

maybe they're more likely to try, but everyone has biases

[Psyche]

I don't kill people because I like people!

[Psyche]

i think you're backtracking to this safer stance of broad cynicism but i don't really care

[Psyche]

no it’s often pretty helpful

[Psyche]

like, i can’t count how many times some white knight liberal white dude has saved me the effort and social capital it would’ve cost to call out some racist bs

[Psyche]

not really
weddings are lowkey culturally universal

[Psyche]

in the meaningless sense that everything people did in ancient times was religious, maybe