Quote:
Originally Posted by PhDGirl
Okay, so since you seem to take issue with my post, if you were not categorizing people in your "Type A" vs "Type B" post then what were you doing? You made statements like "this person is sincere" as though you know their intentions and in an earlier post in this thread equated people who don't dress modestly (however you define it - not clear on what that is) to someone wearing a swastika shirt to a Jewish group event as though it was the same thing. If the goal is the least amount of headaches, then you're right, not being as inclusive does eliminate them because it takes out room for debate and discussion. The problem with the whole line of thinking is that it holds some people as the "judgers" as though they have some authority.
|
No, my issue was with you assuming that people want to decide who is worthy for the MSA or not when they have a different intention even though you seem to have a problem with deciding people's intentions.
All I was trying to make clear is that some people come to the MSA to cause problems. That's my point with the swastikas, that they come to cause problems, be it swastikas or dandelions. I'm not equating people who dress immodestly to racists, I'm equating people who want to cause problems to people who want to cause problems, irrespective of their actions. (And no, I'm not saying that all people who dress immodestly are troublemakers, it's an example, just an example, which was brought up before)
I see no need to include them, frankly. All other organizations deal with people who are problematic. Why should the MSA bend backwards to include people who causing the organization problems? In a student government for example, if a senator or executive only wants to organize events with petting zoos and carnivals and thus act outside of the purpose, there is no discussion of inclusion or whether they're a good person deep down inside, they get impeached.
Forget mini-skirts, that's just an example (which is not that big of a deal, I only used it because others brought it up), but there's a whole host of things that people do to cause problems.
Yes, I caterogized people because not everyone is the same.
I mean I'm looking at this discussin and in all honesty a little bit puzzled. On the one hand, you have people who are like "let's not get caught up in outward appearances, it's what's on the inside that counts" then you talk about the inside and you get "no, we can't judge people, we dont know what their intentions are."
Then what? What is the standard? We all make judgment calls every day about people, we have to even in order to get things done. When you choose study partners, you judge, when you hire someone, you judge, when you make a friend, you judge, we judge people every. single. day. Why? No, not because we think we are better than everyone else or we are sitting on some pedestal. Because we have a purpose in choosing that study partner or hiring that person or making company of this friend. Same with the MSA, it has a purpose and there are people trying to learn and benefit and the line is drawn when a trouble maker comes to cause problems in whatever way that is. Because no one wants penalize the uninformed, and rightfully so, you have to make an educated judgment call on what a person intends and often, it's pretty clear.
Bottom line: Yes, we should include everyone and give people the benefit of the doubt, but not at the expense of the MSA.