What do you mean by "problematic" here? Is it like "sin?" Or maybe "shameful?" How should I read that?
Read it again. That’s precisely what happened, followed by clicking the person’s profile to move on to fundamentally shaming the person rather than the problematic idea. That’s a standard playbook in 2021 and it is absolutely not at all about what was actually said. It’s a mating dance for those with similar belief structures and the person being disagreed with is a passenger; the response is only marginally addressing the speaker.
This community can’t get enough of that conflict because the microcosm of people it represents themselves cannot. So it does well here. Other people peacock it, and before you know it, it’s our defining culture. It’s how talking about culture without disparaging other cultures gets risky, because of the pattern matching mechanic against a black and white list with no acknowledgment of grays. “You talked about race, therefore you’re racist” is increasingly logical to folks, and once that chum is in the water whatever point you may have had no longer matters.
If this was about the groups in his profile, it wouldn't be acceptable. The only reason his comment is acceptable is because he is picking on an easy target.
In this case, I think the commenter meant "xenophobic", based on the parallels to Trump's rhetoric.
The correct answer is that it’s a shibboleth to organize, and rally, like-minded people.
If you're going to assume everyone who thinks those things are real problems believes something pretty much nobody actually believes, more power to you I guess? Seems problematic. By which I mean "intellectually dishonest", maybe a bit of posturing for likeminded people, maybe a shibboleth to organize and rally like-minded people.
> The correct answer is that it’s a shibboleth to organize, and rally, like-minded people.
Well, you've clearly already made up your mind.
Fighting on social media is known to be pointless by most people. It is not the steady state of human nature. To keep doing it, and to do it passionately, the cause must be deemed important enough to consider throwing more shit into a pile of shit worthwhile within a limited lifespan, and that value calculus usually results in the moral framework I point out. It wasn’t even my main point; it was to counter the notion that these arguments pay any respect to civility or diplomacy (I mean, look even here).
Nobody worth listening to disagrees that those are extremely important issues within our societies. Some of us believe throwing bricks at each other in comments is counterproductive and don’t subscribe to partisan politics over real social issues. Calling someone’s views problematic, particularly when it’s a restating of their original point, is otherizing and is not a path to influencing people (roughly akin to “you’re on the wrong side” without explaining why).
Put it this way: one is either waging these cultural arguments to influence the viewpoint they find disagreeable or to remove that viewpoint from the discussion. There is no third option. If the approach is “that idea is problematic,” implicitly that tack supports concluding that the goal is removal, which undermines tackling those real social issues by driving the alternative opinion to darker corners where nobody is left to influence them in the direction you’re hoping.
Now look around in general and tell me I’m wrong.
The original examples:
1. The "Jewish Question" or "Jewish Problem" -- ideas from the then-intelligencia that led to the "Final Solution" of the Holocaust [1].
2. The "woman problem" (which had no similarly dramatic "solution") [2].
The current usage of "problematic" is an intentional "turning of the tables", an inversion of that previous use of language. The people who began this trend of inversion did so deliberately, knowing that they were playing with fire, since in the past those word-games had led to genocide.
A similar inversion of "ressentiment" [3] also happened. At one time it was used for antisemitic purposes; now you're more likely to see it wielded against Trumpists.
Over time, the weapons of one side can, and will, be appropriated by the other.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Question