I like thinking about these discussions in terms of "contextualizing" vs "decoupling" norms (not my terms). Most people switch between these based on whatever serves their argument at the moment, although the choice can be used intentionally too. I find it really interesting because (IMO) it sheds a light on a lot of disagreement where the actual facts aren't really all that controversial.
Decoupling norms = it's totally reasonable to discuss an issue in isolation regardless of the context or consequences of any conclusions. For example: "Seems like you're getting pretty hypersensitive about a generation that was wildly racist being called racist."
Contextualizing norms = we can't have discussion without considering the context of the issue & consequences of any conclusions. Example: "Calling an entire generation of people from the mid 1900s wildly racist is pretty stereotypical and idiotic."
Is there even a disagreement about facts here? The first poster is making a de-coupled statement: "past generations were more racist than present ones". The second poster reads this with a contextualizing lens, where the statement is clearly 1) frequently inaccurate when applied to a given
individual, and 2) likely to lead to
undeserved bias when applied to individuals. But look at the words themselves! The first poster never said that every individual of that generation
was/is racist, and the second poster never said that the generation as a whole
wasn't more racist on the whole. The entire disagreement lies outside the actual words.
I'm sure there are many other examples in this thread, that's just the first one I found. The entire topic of words as violence (or not) is heavily linked to whether words are interpreted in a decoupled or contextualized way.
I also don't have a solution, just find it interesting given the high levels of polarized debate out there. As far as internet debates go, as others have said, this is a pretty civilized and interesting one - so kudos to Loyalty posters
What was the actual topic here again? Oh yeah, Huggins - I agree with others who say he
sounded like someone who isn't afraid to use that word in private conversations. I'd have to say that's a deal-breaker if I had control over whether to let him lead within my organization.