Backward Parenting Mindset and Social Justice

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Within the LGBTQ+ conversation, one of the criticsms by conservatives is the of parents "right to control" their children as a part of their disciplinary routine. The claim is, if inclusivity and tolerance is the goal, then to be inclusive, parents who believe in this type of discipline practice should be "tolerated" to practice their belief.

Although intuitive, especially if you have pre-existing biases, let us deconstruct the flaws of this argument.

1. What does Inclusivity and Tolerance Mean?​

Inclusivity does not mean tolerating "everything". Not all opinion and beliefs are equal. We do not just just tolerate everything. In a secular society, what should be tolerated are those that follow these principles at least.
-If the belief does not lead to actions to hurt others or disrupt society
-it should respect autonomy of those who are not causing others harm

2. Obedience was just a 'means for an end', not the goal.​

In light of the idea on parenting and discipline, conservatives still think making children "obedient" is a necessary step in disciplining a child regardless on how you do it.
But these parents are inevitably modelling their children just to be 'like' them. With the right things that the parent teaches, they will also pass on the bad and wrong ideas and mannerism.
Modern society has already shifted parenting to more of a teaching them how to think, than feeding them the parents' dogma. It falls in line with this quote: "An unexmined life is not worth living" said Socrates, teaching us to question, and not blindly follow convention. That is what Social Justice means. The goal is for the next generation to not be indoctrinated and constrained as dogmatic followers, but instead blossom as creative leaders themselves.

Fallacious Arguments:
We should not allow homosexuality > Why > Because it disrupts society > How does it disrupt society? > Because our society does not agree with homosexuality. (Circular Argument)
We should not allow homosexuality > Why > Becuase it disrupts society > How does it disrupt society? > If we allow homosexuality, we may end up removing more rules until society becomes immoral (Slippery slope)

3. "If we allow homosexuality, then we might end up allowing more sinister practices later on."​

This conservative sentiment is usually rooted, but not exclusive to, Judeo-christian beliefs. Even non-religious conservatives fall for it.

But this is really a slippery slope. The Social Justice that the LGBTQ+ movement asks for is not arbitrarily just something to benefit them. If we go back to number 1, there are two basic principles. Our current society norm ALREADY breaks the first principle which is why this is even a conversation.

The reality is, even the most religious groups refer to these exact principles when they deviate from their previous understanding of the Bible.

-If the belief does not lead to actions to hurt others or disrupt society
-it should respect autonomy of those who are not causing others harm

(One example is when christians decides to not be hostile against different religious group)

4. Not all opinion are Equal​

Ideally, opinions are meant to be examined with responsible reasoning. Responsible reasoning must begin with an accurate and fair account of the facts; one must listen to all sides with an open mind, one must become familiar with all the relevant issues at stake, and one must pursue the logical analysis of each issue fully and with intellectual rigor.

With that in mind, we can tell that some opinions are simply parroting of ideas that pleases the person emotionally, may it be the familiarity, or the conformity to people they look up to. Either way, it impedes the "Responsible" examination of the ideas, which then they project that to opposition thinking that, "their ideas must be based on their feelings too." From here, the conversation devolves into personal attacks.

 

[OrangeMoon]

Talagang tolerance ang key
Pero dahil sa bias nating lahat, minsan di maiwasang i-force ang beliefs natin sa iba

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Talagang tolerance ang key
Pero dahil sa bias nating lahat, minsan di maiwasang i-force ang beliefs natin sa iba

Bias and "forcing" your belief on others is not inherently wrong. The word "forcing" is a loaded word. Our understanding of "bias" and "forcing ideas" is very vague and lacking nuance.

Opinions and ideas are meant to compete with one winning and the other losing. Pero it should be done with proper dialogue. The term "Forcing" an opinion is really only applicable if spreading it is only grounded in authority and power, and less subjected to scrutiny.

So in short, it is not inherently wrong to want to share your ideas. What is wrong is if it is done authoritatively through fear-mongering, triggering or other emotion inducing ways to undermine people's capability to investigate the opinion. What makes it wrong is refusing to back down with your held opinion, kahit hindi ito nagsurvive sa scrutiny, and demand entitlement for this opinion.

 

[mutagenesisx]

Talagang tolerance ang key
Pero dahil sa bias nating lahat, minsan di maiwasang i-force ang beliefs natin sa iba

indeed, parang kahoy lang yan although na iisa lang tayo kahoy na pinanggalingan magkaiba parin tayo na mga sanga. wala ka magagawa dito, atheist's pipedream yang perfect utopian society.