sounds a bit like theistic apologetics though doesn't it. Did gentle activism reduce the number of drunken drivers on the road. It certainly didn't it did make people more aware of the problem. but in the end punishment is what stopped the drunks that endanger our lives on the road. and then only to a degree. Asault is what harming a child is and shall always remain.
I understand your sentiment, but there are many people who may be more receptive to patient speech, or activists who can more effectively communicate when they have the intention of being gentle. We are dealing with an insane culture that is not only clueless on the reality of what they condone, but also many of them have such twisted value structures or traumatic repression that they may still be unwilling to agree with you even when you explain in clear terms that circ is harmful and in no way materially beneficial to the child or his family. I think the majority of intactivists want real legal action, explicit illegality and punishment for perpetrators. I am fully aware that some don't really want to achieve an explicit and severely enforced ban; and I also know that some would argue for religious exemption; I strongly disagree with both of those stances and agree that it's foolishness to think any measure of child abuse should be tolerated on any grounds. But it seems that it should be difficult to win over the law at large, as well as law enforcement, when the culture at large is indifferent to the issue at best. So where we are at now is to work on getting enough people to participate in speaking out such that we can make easier legal progress; as expressed in the article, one can debate exactly how the communication should be to that end.
My current understanding is that it's possible to communicate truthfully and in earnest whilst still trying to "be the bigger man" than your opponent, i.e. being compassionate for your opponent's ignorance and emotional suffering. As such it should be possible to communicate in a gentle way that MGM constitutes assault for example. If someone is offended merely by your use of the word "assault", that does not mean you were being aggressive towards them; that is a manifestation of their fragility and you can help them to understand this given enough time and effective communication. The truth is that although most people will have a knee-jerk defensive reaction to such a characterization, there are many people who can be reasonable when you speak to them and listen to them in such a way that reassures them that you are genuine. I feel that this was the core message and purpose of this article.
I would agree with you that it is very easy for people who favor the gentle activism approach to fall into apologetics, ass-kissing and withering under pressure. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to speak to people as a fellow human and yet still make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind and are standing your ground, and will accept nothing less than compliance with basic decency. I suppose at the end of the day, aggressive vs gentle activism is almost a point of semantics, as people will perceive certain language or conduct differently. I see value in both modalities. Certain individuals may be more suited to one approach or the other; I see potential value in that duality being presented.
Thank you Brendon. This and the previous podcast were helpful for me.
sounds a bit like theistic apologetics though doesn't it. Did gentle activism reduce the number of drunken drivers on the road. It certainly didn't it did make people more aware of the problem. but in the end punishment is what stopped the drunks that endanger our lives on the road. and then only to a degree. Asault is what harming a child is and shall always remain.
I understand your sentiment, but there are many people who may be more receptive to patient speech, or activists who can more effectively communicate when they have the intention of being gentle. We are dealing with an insane culture that is not only clueless on the reality of what they condone, but also many of them have such twisted value structures or traumatic repression that they may still be unwilling to agree with you even when you explain in clear terms that circ is harmful and in no way materially beneficial to the child or his family. I think the majority of intactivists want real legal action, explicit illegality and punishment for perpetrators. I am fully aware that some don't really want to achieve an explicit and severely enforced ban; and I also know that some would argue for religious exemption; I strongly disagree with both of those stances and agree that it's foolishness to think any measure of child abuse should be tolerated on any grounds. But it seems that it should be difficult to win over the law at large, as well as law enforcement, when the culture at large is indifferent to the issue at best. So where we are at now is to work on getting enough people to participate in speaking out such that we can make easier legal progress; as expressed in the article, one can debate exactly how the communication should be to that end.
My current understanding is that it's possible to communicate truthfully and in earnest whilst still trying to "be the bigger man" than your opponent, i.e. being compassionate for your opponent's ignorance and emotional suffering. As such it should be possible to communicate in a gentle way that MGM constitutes assault for example. If someone is offended merely by your use of the word "assault", that does not mean you were being aggressive towards them; that is a manifestation of their fragility and you can help them to understand this given enough time and effective communication. The truth is that although most people will have a knee-jerk defensive reaction to such a characterization, there are many people who can be reasonable when you speak to them and listen to them in such a way that reassures them that you are genuine. I feel that this was the core message and purpose of this article.
I would agree with you that it is very easy for people who favor the gentle activism approach to fall into apologetics, ass-kissing and withering under pressure. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to speak to people as a fellow human and yet still make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind and are standing your ground, and will accept nothing less than compliance with basic decency. I suppose at the end of the day, aggressive vs gentle activism is almost a point of semantics, as people will perceive certain language or conduct differently. I see value in both modalities. Certain individuals may be more suited to one approach or the other; I see potential value in that duality being presented.