Well, you've checked out, but for the benefit of others (and the off chance you decide to check back), I'll highlight a few things here.
Arlia wrote:Well, we all know about her life now, don't we? I didn't make it personal at all...
This was blatantly false; Sonic# and Alun enumerated the ways that you immediately turned it personal, and anyone can scroll up to read it. But that isn't really the point. The point is that every one of your points relies on your assumptions about other people (Jenner in this case) being true. Which is why it's almost laughable that you're getting it so wrong -- the point isn't for you to be right about your assumptions of her or her background, it's for you not to have to make assumptions about other people to prove your point in the first place. Another case in point:
Arlia wrote:What has your wife ever done but explain how much of a victim she is, demand from the world around her simply for being born, and spit on anyone who disagrees with her? Who is the "privileged" one here?
She's opened up her house to people who would otherwise be homeless, given her time even when she was strained for it, and bailed her own family and personal friends out of several messes. But again this isn't the point -- you still refuse to anchor your argument in something other than personal accusations and assumptions about other people, so when another one of those assumptions turns out wrong, you have no point to be made and are left scrambling for another assumption.
Next, the most important thing to bring up:
Arlia wrote:I'm just on the other side of the debate, and I don't like hearing about how white men, who built the country everyone looks up to, and who's money you're so eager to take, "aren't being fair".
This is, literally, a white supremacist argument. This ignores the millions of enslaved Africans who built much of the infrastructure of this country for centuries, the indigenous people who had and maintained this land prior to and in the early days of colonization (who were then 90% wiped out by plague, and then pushed off those lands once white settlers wanted them -- part of this applies to your country as well), and the thousands of women and people of color who have made major contributions to our way of life for the past four centuries, from Sacajawea to Frederick Douglass to Cesar Chavez to Mae Jemison. Your comment that it's white men who built the country is an argument of white and male supremacy, since it absolutely ignores the contributions of everyone non-white or female.
Take all of this together for a moment. You've tried to make a claim for small-government conservatism, but in the entire thread you've primarily relied on:
- Assumptions about other people (that have so far all been proven wrong)
- Contradicting yourself (cf. Alun's post where that's collected)
- Appeals to white supremacy
Given that, it should be no surprise at all that no one is taking you seriously. You view attempts at overcoming or even recognizing racial inequality as an attack on white people. You view attempts at overcoming gender inequality as an attack on men. You view the criticisms of your argument as "silencing your voice". But since your arguments are entirely rooted in personal assumptions and white supremacy, why would you expect anyone to take you or your arguments seriously? There's a case to be made for small-government conservatism that's rooted in more objective principles, but you've failed to make it. And this conversation would've taken a very different turn if you had.
....there are some other points that I could raise, but it's useless at this stage. I'm not going to pretend like your argument has been objective only because there were perhaps two or three sentences out of a hundred that weren't rooted in the above. KF
That is, shall we say, an understatement. I've now had the misfortune of poking around his YouTube page (I don't recommend doing this BTW) and learning about him. I haven't had the opportunity to verify some of the accusations about him but it seems pretty much undeniable from his own videos that he is a proponent of some very fringe theories on race (basically ideas often referred to by proponents as "racial realism" or "human biodiversity" that attempt to spin white supremacist views as being rooted in science/genetics) and peddles in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, in addition to any number of other unsavory views (e.g. on gender). You really can't have come up with a different source?
Hi I'm back. I dropped some really personal stuff in this thread and then went away because I'm used to the toxic doubling down of misogynists and white supremacists. I didn't want to deal with it for awhile. I'm grateful for all of you who dove in and tried to debate with Arlia. I'm touched. Thank you so much, I love you all.
How odd that Arlia completely missed the part where I said I was disabled. Just completely ignored it. Should I have made it bold? Maybe enlarged the font? How cute that she thinks I didn't work and just expected I was owed other people's money. Arlia, from the age of 15 to the age of 22 I worked 2-3 jobs and gave about 70% of what I made to my mother to help her pay the bills so we could have a home and food. But after 2 years of testing by physicians and psychiatrists combined with a mountain of paperwork and lengthy history of mental illness to back me up I was finally declared disabled and awarded SSI for my disabilities. But gosh, how dare I pursue that. I should have just kept having mental breakdowns, violent outbursts, and panic attacks while working my -Fatal Hopper- ass to death. Ooh yeah, that American Dream is so good. These bootstraps, they're so real! SO REAL!
I didn't ask for a hand out, sweetheart, I -Fatal Hopper- earned my disability payments. And even if I didn't are you honestly going to take the position that the disabled should just starve and/or freeze to death? What about our troops, Arlia? What about the veterans? At least 70% of veterans are disabled. To the point where they, like me, can't work and have to, as you so generously put it, demand unearned money from the state. Did you know that disability is a pre-existing condition? They couldn't even get insurance before the Affordable Care Act (which you claim creates poverty. News flash, Arlia, sudden extreme illness creates poverty.) They had to rely on Medicaid or Medicare (which conservatives want to privatize at best and do away with completely at worst.) You claim to honor and respect our veterans but you are literally virtue signaling. You don't really give a -Fatal Hopper- about them, your politics prove that. You want to strip them of their incomes, strip them of their insurance, strip them of their food, and make them homeless. Yes, Arlia, homeless veterans. What about those homeless veterans Arlia? #AllLivesMatter right? In 2015, veterans made up 8.6% of the homeless population. They need affordable housing and housing subsidies but gosh that nanny state! But you know Arlia, I guess they should just have had a better -Fatal Hopper- work ethic, right? If they hadn't made such stupid choices like serving in our military and getting disabled, often on the battlefield, they would have been fine. Nevermind the fact that over 80% of our enlisted soldiers come from lower-income households because joining the military is literally their only option if they want to go to college and get an education and get the -Fatal Hopper- out of their dying jobless towns. (Because they sure as -Fatal Hopper- can't afford college on their own and their family can't help.) Get the -Fatal Hopper- out of here with that concern trolling you insincere sealion.
My mother taught me toxic ideas and perpetuated a sick system? Incorrect. My mother wasn't perfect but she worked so -Fatal Hopper- hard she crippled herself. And yes, my father was a misogynistic, emotionally and physically abusive, alcoholic chain smoker but -Fatal Hopper- you I did have a great man and father figure in my life growing up, my paternal grandfather. He was the one of the greatest -Fatal Hopper- men I have ever known. My grandfather lied about his age to join the Marines, fought in World War II in the Pacific theater, tried to enlist again for Korea. He worked on the rail road, he was in the union, he used to take me to union meetings and put me on his shoulders so I could see and listen. When the KKK tried to rally in my town grampa showed up with his gun in his uniform and stared them down. When things got too hard at home, grampa opened his home to me. He never smoked, rarely drank, and taught me so much.
You think I hate men? I don't. Don't define me. I am married to the greatest man I have ever met, he is wonderful and supportive and, to be quite honest, I do not deserve him. I have amazing male friends who are all fantastic people and I adore them. You don't know me Arlia. And no, I'm not angry at you and I don't hate you. I'm heartbroken for you, you're poisoned and corrupted. You have internalized the misogyny inherent in this -Fatal Hopper- up patriarchy and you have become an enemy to your own sex. You reject both our personhoods in service to the patriarchy and you can submit and oppress yourself all you want but I'm not gonna humor that -Dragon Diamond- on myself or on others. You say white people are under attack but white people have been attacking for like forever, with their foot on the necks of minorities and the underprivileged since, at least, they started colonizing and conquering other people.
But it doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter what facts and truths I present you, you are gone. You are going to burrow up your own ass and cry racism and oppression and play like you're the victim. You're going to find your own "truth" from Breitbart, or Infowars, or Drudge Report, or -Fatal Hopper- Alex Jones. And you've ghosted this thread, and perhaps these forums. Even if you come back and read all this you will come to new assumptions about me because you can't face your own -Fatal Hopper- privilege.
But if Republicans succeed in defunding Planned Parenthood discriminating and litigating against Planned Parenthood for the services they provide more vulnerable women are going to have those babies you think they shouldn't be having, more are going to die in childbirth, people are going to die. And if Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act millions of Americans, including your beloved veterans, are going to lose their healthcare and many will die. And if the Republicans succeed in dissolving the EPA you will lose the right to clean air and clean water and so many other things you take for granted and people are going to die. Also the extent of permanent, irreversible, environmental damage done by this fascist, bigoted administration will be huge. The number of innocent, unarmed, people murdered by cops, the people charged with protecting them, is going to be massive because they do not have to fear investigation from the justice department now. American children have had, and will continue to have, their parents taken away from them and left to fend for themselves as your boy Trump deports them, some won't survive without support (and so much for your -Fatal Hopper- strong family.) And when benefits and public assistance are gouged, disabled people, like me, are going to die. No vote comes without blood, Obama did some awful -Dragon Diamond- (the drones, grr!) But your boy Trump is on the fast track to racking up the highest American death toll since the civil war. This isn't a lie, which is why you won't believe me, you only believe lies. But you have expressly voted to kill people, for a man who promised to kill people. You might escape, you might survive, but if you're really on the system? Congratulations, you voted to kill yourself.
Anyway, there's a science march and a tax march being planned and I'll link to those ITT soon. There's also some kind of general strike being loosely planned for March 8th but... I have complicated feelings about that one. Thank you again, you're all amazing. I love you too Kizyr.
The Infamous Jenner! Maker of Lists.
RIP Coley... still adore you Kiz.
I know I'm a total noob, but if there's any interest in a Lunar Threads meetup in a march in DC, I'd love to come down and make some noise with you guys. I don't think we've ever had a president who's so easily tweaked by protests, which makes it even more fun and powerful to get out and make your voice heard.
I think political discussions should be banned from the lunarthreads. I'm so sick of seeing all this arguing and hatred from BOTH sides. I've been unfollowing a lot of my friends on Facebook recently because of this because I hate seeing 90% of my feed covered up with this mess. Look, a lot of the women in these protests are being arrogant and disrespectful. HOWEVER, a lot of the people that are against these protests are opposing them in rude and disrespectful ways. Yay! We ALL lose!
Ladies, Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status. Trump supporters, PLEASE...take him with a grain of salt. He's going to do some good things for this country, and this country absolutely needs a change after this last administration. That doesn't mean he's the savior of our country and our very own Jesus Christ. He's an evil, wicked man that pretended to care about issues that happen strike a chord with conservatives, but he IS a savvy businessman that will improve our economy by tenfold. Who knows? He might also follow through with a handful of social changes he doesn't care about in order to appease the conservatives that voted him in, but don't bet on it.
Bottom line:
Liberals, please quit whining and protesting. Conservatives, please quit being rude and condescending to the liberals and quit acting like Trump is the savior of mankind. That title belongs to one man, and one man only, Jesus Christ. Loving one another is way more important than all this division caused by everyone's desire to prove that their opinion is right.
I am first and foremost a citizen of the kingdom of God. Being an American citizen is a very distant and very meaningless second.
Hopefully this post will resonate with at least one person. God bless.
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
^ It seems contrary to ask at once that political discussions are banned and then to offer your own political perspective.
I think we're capable of having great political discussions while respecting one another. That's what I've been trying to do throughout. I've thought a lot about issues like abortion thanks to threads like this.
There's not much substance here.
Liberals, please quit whining and protesting.
No. If you're going to paint valid political activism as "whining," I can't engage in dialogue with that. You thinking something is not worthwhile to speak up about (hence "whining") isn't going to convince most people to listen to you. For instance, you don't seem to be engaging with the issues women were raising at the women's march: there's more detail than a single claim that he'll "take away your rights."
Sonic#
"Than seyde Merlion, "Whethir lyke ye bettir the swerde othir the scawberde?" "I lyke bettir the swerde," seyde Arthure. "Ye ar the more unwyse, for the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde; for whyles ye have the scawberde uppon you, ye shall lose no blood, be ye never so sore wounded. Therefore kepe well the scawberde allweyes with you." --- Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory
"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time
1) I am quite aware of the appearance of contradiction in wishing that political posts be banned and then offering my own. Basically, I was trying to show how both sides are acting very poorly during this early time of Trump's presidency, and how continuing to argue and insult one another online is doing zero good to unify us as one people. Therefore, I was trying to use my Devil's advocate opinion as a means for showing that these types of discussions do more harm than good. There's a reason why people have said for years that there are two things you avoid talking about in the workplace: politics and religion. No matter how good the intentions are, and how civil people claim they are going to act...it always eventually gets out of control.
2) As for my use of the word "whining" in regards to political activism, and my condensed non-specific statement "take away your rights": I basically didn't want to get in depth with my personal political views. Any time I do that, I get extremely angry and I push people away that don't share my views. I'm sorry you don't feel like you can "engage in dialogue" with me making vague statements like that, but believe me, I have my reasons and it's much better this way. Me discussing my feelings on current social issues is a Pandora's box that need not be opened, and my fiance will be much happier later tonight if I don't (because of my mood).
On a side note, while I'm sure you can tell I'm a conservative, I hope you can see that I'm extremely disapproving of the arrogance and hatred that most people who share my particular political views have been displaying. Don't think I didn't notice you went straight to my criticism of Liberals while completely ignoring my criticism of Conservatives and my calling out of Trump supporters.
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
Therefore, I was trying to use my Devil's advocate opinion as a means for showing that these types of discussions do more harm than good.
Or to put it another way, you were using your Devil's advocate opinion as a means of doing harm. Or don't you think dismissive statements like "Ladies, Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status." and "a lot of the women in these protests are being arrogant and disrespectful" and "whining" are harmful? These are all quite gendered -- "ladies" is used as a put-down of the "don't worry your empty little heads" ilk in that kind of construction, and the bar for calling women arrogant and disrespectful is set at a vastly different place from where it is for men. You may as well have said "shrill." Your criticism of Trump supporters was considerably less pejorative.
I understand your not wanting to see politics here when you see it everywhere else. But this isn't Twitter or a blog feed. You can always choose not to click on the thread. You and your betrothed will be happier if you don't, as you say.
N.b., I am politically neutral for religious reasons -- similar to yourself, my allegiance is to a heavenly government, not an earthly one. But that doesn't stop me from seeing that there are absolutely horrible, disastrous things going on. And that some of that horror has been mitigated by pushback -- that is, protests. That is what protesting is for.
Or to put it another way, you were using your Devil's advocate opinion as a means of doing harm. Or don't you think dismissive statements like "Ladies, Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status." and "a lot of the women in these protests are being arrogant and disrespectful" and "whining" are harmful? These are all quite gendered -- "ladies" is used as a put-down of the "don't worry your empty little heads" ilk in that kind of construction, and the bar for calling women arrogant and disrespectful is set at a vastly different place from where it is for men. You may as well have said "shrill." Your criticism of Trump supporters was considerably less pejorative.
I wasn't trying to do harm by any means by making the statements I made. Maybe I did come across a bit more critical of liberals than I did of conservatives, but at least I WAS still critical of the conservatives. I also criticized the character of Donald Trump himself. Considering that I do lean more towards the conservative side myself, that's saying something. I will say this though, please don't put words in my mouth or read too far into my statements. I have great respect for women, and the whole "don't worry your empty heads" statement you made is something that would never cross my mind, nor would I imply through other statements. My fiance is a strong, wonderful woman who is FAR more successful in her career field than I am in mine in spite of my 2 college degrees to her zero college degrees. She's ambitious, puts her nose to the grindstone, works harder than anyone I know, and makes her own destiny. I respect that, and her, with all my heart and soul, so once again, please don't put words in my mouth or assume that I'm being condescending.
I do, however, believe the women that marched in these protests are overreacting tremendously. Due to these marches occurring exactly ONE day after Trump took office, it basically comes across as "we didn't get our way in the election so we're going to gripe about it". It was very similar to all the "safe spaces" that opened up in colleges and universities across the US precisely ONE day after the election, where literal, not figurative, crying occurred....simply because these young college students didn't get their way. Basically, if these women's marches occurred in a different time frame, maybe a few weeks after inauguration rather than one day, I would be far less likely to view them the way I do. I still don't agree with particular issues being protested, for personal religious reasons, but at least at least the marches wouldn't look like a gut-reaction of "I didn't get my way, so I'm going to protest". Whether that was the intention or not, that's how those protests came across.
Oh, and the statement I made about a lot of the women being arrogant and disrespectful? Just listen to Madonna's disrespectful speech, or at least read a few of signs women were holding up. A lot of them were legit, but a lot of them were also extremely crude. That is NO way to send a message and have people take you seriously.
Now, if you would truly like more in-depth criticism from me of my fellow conservatives, here you go:
1) Most conservatives are provoking liberals through their arrogance. Mostly it's making fun of them, making derogatory statements about them, and posting unhelpful videos that portray liberals in a bad light. I think the "safe space" thing in universities was ridiculous, but I don't think it's remotely helpful for people to share that one particular viral video on Facebook where newscasters were making fun of those students who partook in that. all it does is cause more division.
2) I think most conservatives will do anything to 100% back Trump. I voted for Trump with a very heavy heart because of his moral character. I felt he was a better choice than Hillary, but that statement is like being the Valedictorian of Summer school. Lol. Anyway, I've watched so many of my Trump-supporting, Conservative Christian friends basically 100% back everything Trump says or does, even if it contradicts the teachings of the Bible. Basically, most conservatives are blinded by narrow-minded, judgemental ignorance.
Hopefully these two statements will show that while I'm biased to a degree, I'm a lot less biased than you may think I am.
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
"Ladies, Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status" is condescending. No assumptions required. If you don't want to come across as dismissive, it's best to avoid referring to women as "ladies" before telling them what to do (well, really, just avoid telling women what to do but the false politeness doesn't help).
*Edited for clarity as to my position*
Last edited by Imperial Knight on Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you don't want to come across as dismissive, it's best to avoid referring to women as "ladies."
Imperial Knight,
Am I really reading this correctly? When did we become a society that views the words "lady" or "ladies" in a dismissive or condescending manner? I'm sorry, but this may be the most ridiculous response I've seen to any of my posts on this thread.
If my particular phrasing and specific choice of words is what you are choosing to zero in on, rather than my message as a whole, I think you have a much deeper issue than anything women's rights related. This comes across as nitpicking for the sake of attempting to make me look bad....simply because I don't share your viewpoints. I'm not supportive of this type of interaction.
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
I’m in agreement with AlexHiro4: there is nothing condescending about calling women “ladies.” By that reasoning “ladies and gentlemen”, “Galadriel, Lady of Lorien” etc are condescending, which they are not. I’m a firm believer in gender equality, but obsessive political correctness doesn’t solve inequality, in fact Trump’s rise is in part a reaction to political correctness IMO. Granted there ARE words that actually are offensive to call women, or other historically disadvantaged groups, but “ladies” isn’t one of them.
Shinto-Cetra wrote:I’m in agreement with AlexHiro4: there is nothing condescending about calling women “ladies.” By that reasoning “ladies and gentlemen”, “Galadriel, Lady of Lorien” etc are condescending, which they are not. I’m a firm believer in gender equality, but obsessive political correctness doesn’t solve inequality, in fact Trump’s rise is in part a reaction to political correctness IMO. Granted there ARE words that actually are offensive to call women, or other historically disadvantaged groups, but “ladies” isn’t one of them.
Thank God. Someone actually backed me up. Thanks Shinto-Cetra!
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
If you don't want to come across as dismissive, it's best to avoid referring to women as "ladies."
Imperial Knight,
Am I really reading this correctly? When did we become a society that views the words "lady" or "ladies" in a dismissive or condescending manner? I'm sorry, but this may be the most ridiculous response I've seen to any of my posts on this thread.
If my particular phrasing and specific choice of words is what you are choosing to zero in on, rather than my message as a whole, I think you have a much deeper issue than anything women's rights related. This comes across as nitpicking for the sake of attempting to make me look bad....simply because I don't share your viewpoints. I'm not supportive of this type of interaction.
First of all, "I think you have a much deeper issue than anything women's rights related" is INCREDIBLY rude. If you're going to use that sort of tone, don't complain about the tone others take with you.
Second, Alun already explained why it is condescending.
These are all quite gendered -- "ladies" is used as a put-down of the "don't worry your empty little heads" ilk in that kind of construction,
And of course context matters. There's a big difference between the examples Shinto-Cetra gave and using "ladies" in a dismissive way to minimize the concerns of women.
Third, I was responding specifically to your assertion in the previous post that Alun was making assumptions and putting words in your mouth. She wasn't. I wasn't even directly responding to your original post, for which Sonic# and Alun covered most of the ground I would want to anyway. I could add some things, like how off your assumptions are about the motives of protestors, how I don't think there should be a waiting period before it's acceptable to protest a president who literally bragged about committing sexual assuault, how skeptical I am of claims he will improve the economy, etc. But again I was specifically responding to your comment to Alun, for which your choice of language is quite pertinent.
I'm done with this conversation. I shouldn't have even participated in a conversation predominately dominated by liberals in the first place. I have very valid points, and I believe I showed a great deal of objectivity by expressing critique from both sides. Yet, the liberals on this thread are nitpicking my criticism of them, and they ARE making assumptions about what I mean. If you notice, not a single conservative (although there are only a few) has jumped on me for my criticism of them. Meanwhile, the liberals participating in the discussion are criticizing every single word I say. I'm tired of defending myself, and to do so to the best of my abilities would require me to go more in-depth with my views and beliefs than what I feel comfortable with.
THIS is why I political posts should not be allowed on here. I realize everyone has a choice as to whether or not they want to participate, but let's face it, it's extremely difficult. The vast majority of us are wired to be drawn to this kind of garbage as soon as we catch a glimpse of it.
Anyway, I'm tired of my character being portrayed in a poor light because of the insinuations that I am condescending and disrespectful to women. All of this because I felt the motives of these women's marches were based off of overreactions? Yeah, I'm not down with this.
By the way, if you ever met my fiance she would tell you I'm more respectful towards women than any man she's ever met.
I know who I am. I'm a gentleman. I'm a follower of the one true God, Jesus Christ. I'm a man humbly and thankfully washed in his blood. Christ's opinion of me is all that matters, your opinion of me is irrelevant.
Dwight: "One thing about deer, they have very good vision. One thing about me, I am better at hiding than they are...at vision."
I'm not sure if you're even going to read this, but I hope you do and keep an open mind. Believe it or not, I actually do sympathize on some level with your frustration. Having a conversation where it feels like everyone is disagreeing with you can be difficult, and it probably does seem unfair to be catching flak from the other side over a post in which you also criticized your own. However, your frustration is ultimately misguided. There is a fundamental difference in the way you talked about conservatives and liberals that essentially comes down to not understanding the worldview of your opponents.
Essentially, your critique of conservative reaction to Trump's election consists of two themes: (1) don't be rude (2) a critique of Trump. The first is a perfectly fine point, and one everyone should take to heart after an election. It's only natural to be happy that your candidate won but all too often it starts crossing the line into gloating and acting in mean-spirited ways towards those who supported another candidate. This was as true four years ago as it is today.
The second is basically your opinion on Trump. I would disagree with much of what you said. You said the country needed a change after the last administration while I happen to think Obama was a very good president (if I were to rate presidents from best to worst I'd probably put him somewhere in the 6-10 range). Obviously we aren't on the same page. And that's fine. It's a matter of opinion and people are going to disagree. You believe his administration will help the economy, I am very skeptical of that. Again, it's fine to disagree. We'll find out as his administration unfolds.
The point here is that there's not really all that much in your criticism of conservatives to strongly object to, from the right or the left. Maybe one would have a more positive assessment of Trump and his character, but again we end up in the realm of opinion. Donald Trump might have grounds to be offended by what you said about him, but not conservatives in general. Also, this is secondary to my point, but it is worth noting that your criticism of conservatives included a mix of criticism and praise for Trump, while the marchers are given nothing but criticism.
On the other hand, your critique of liberals, the march, and replies to you in this topic are all based on ascribing motivations to people. This is a very common trap to fall into all across the political spectrum (for instance, liberals who assume conservatives are motivated purely by greed). You describe the march as whiny and suggest it's motivated by not getting our way, as though people are protesting merely because the election didn't go the way they wanted. You qualify this statement by suggesting that maybe that's not how it's meant to come across, but still don't really make any effort to try and understand where the protestors are coming from. It may seem like the protestors aren't giving Trump a chance by marching the day after his inauguration, but it's not like there was nothing to go on or he was starting from scratch. Between the campaign, the transition, the picks for cabinet positions, and Trump's personal history, there was plenty of cause for protest. Again, this is a man who bragged about committing sexual assault and using his position of power walk in on teenagers undressing. That alone is justification for women to protest. He made racist comments throughout the campaign, his choice of White House Chief of Staff is disturbing on many levels, etc., etc., etc. This wasn't about losing an election and not getting our way. Likewise, you ascribed a motivation to me (nitpicking in an attempt to discredit you for having a different opinion) when I was merely backing up Alun's point about your use of dismissive language. You clearly want to increase the quality and respectfulness of political dialog. That is a noble goal, to be sure. One of the biggest things we can all do to that end is to try to talk to others and understand where they're coming from, rather than assume that they have dishonorable motives.
Finally, I get that it is unpleasant to be told you are being condescending and it can feel like a personal attack, but you really need to get past that. All of us should always be open to learning and evolving in our understanding. A correction is not an attack on your character.
Last edited by Imperial Knight on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.
I'm done with this conversation. I shouldn't have even participated in a conversation predominately dominated by liberals in the first place.
I think that your assuming the issue is that you're talking to liberals is a big issue here that avoids addressing how condescending you were to people who disagree with you. You just basically told people that what they're doing is an empty endeavor, rather than arguing against some specific point with reasons for why you think they should do otherwise. You presented your avoiding an "in-depth" discussion as avoiding conflict, but in this case it makes conflict more likely, since without further context your statements constitute attacks without substance, as calling something "whining" without making sure your readers understand why you're justified to call them "whiners." As I said earlier - it's hard to enter dialogue with that, because rather than using some evidence, reasoning, and appeals to belief (ethos, logos, pathos) to challenge each other's thinking on an issue, the best I can do is say, "No, we're not whiners" in response to your "Yes, you are whiners!" Playing devil's advocate without engaging with others' arguments isn't really a devil's advocate, and interceding on both liberals and conservatives without speaking to why one would protest Trump and why another would support Trump doesn't really work.
A bit on the "ladies," I agree with everyone in some way. I see no necessary harm in saying "ladies." Yet I think Imperial Knight, Alunissage, and I all see that seemingly-respectful forms of address are often appended to comments that tell that group in forceful terms what they should think. Literally, "ladies" is respectful, but it's also acting as cover for "Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status," which explains to activists that they shouldn't be concerned when they have several concrete reasons for being concerned about issues like the Affordable Care Act, immigration bans, or access to contraception and safe sex education through Planned Parenthood and other groups; or questions of character, like Trump's status as a known adulterer who has discussed grabbing women's pussies as an extension of his power and influence.
THIS is why I political posts should not be allowed on here. I realize everyone has a choice as to whether or not they want to participate, but let's face it, it's extremely difficult. The vast majority of us are wired to be drawn to this kind of garbage as soon as we catch a glimpse of it.
If individual posters are a sufficient obstacle to political discussion, then I'd rather deal with those posters than ruin potentially beneficial discussions for everyone. Just because you didn't have a political discussion without being condescending to the marchers doesn't mean that no one else should be able to express themselves. Note that neither Arlia nor you have earned any moderator warning here, even though you've been pretty disruptive. I think the community has done a good job by themselves calling personal attacks and unsubstantiated attacks out. And Shinto-Centra's post is a good model of fairness: he spoke to a particular question and wrote what he thought.
Anyway, I'm tired of my character being portrayed in a poor light because of the insinuations that I am condescending and disrespectful to women. All of this because I felt the motives of these women's marches were based off of overreactions? Yeah, I'm not down with this.
I don't think you're a bad person. I don't think Arlia's a bad person. I know neither of you well enough to judge your character. However, I do have access to your words, and it seems fair to call out certain expressions as condescending.
If you didn't intend to be condescending, I understand. Multiple people have still read you that way, which indicates that there must have been some problem in how you expressed yourself. Your intent didn't meet your effect. I think the issue is that you were basically calling women silly for having concerns without engaging directly with those concerns. You told "ladies" what to think, rather than engaging directly with what they thought or taking their arguments seriously. I think you demonstrated the same arrogance you criticized in other conservatives.
We are capable of being condescending without intending it, or while being respectful in other areas of my life. People who are personally respectful to the people around them may nonetheless say things that are condescending to larger groups of people. Rather than doubling down on an image of yourself as the "gentleman" (I don't know whether you are, and if you are it doesn't change what I'd say to you about your conduct here), it would show more integrity to recognize that no one here is saying you don't respect your fiancee. We're asking you to respect us instead of immediately denying any validity to what we think or do. Jesus would be all about that consistency in comportment. And personally, I'd love to discuss an issue or two rather than continually cycling back to posters' feelings when someone points out that a post was condescending.
I'll note I also pointed out that I wished Jenner made fewer assumptions about Arlia. While she didn't respond directly, nor did she fuss about it.
Sonic#
"Than seyde Merlion, "Whethir lyke ye bettir the swerde othir the scawberde?" "I lyke bettir the swerde," seyde Arthure. "Ye ar the more unwyse, for the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde; for whyles ye have the scawberde uppon you, ye shall lose no blood, be ye never so sore wounded. Therefore kepe well the scawberde allweyes with you." --- Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory
"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time
I just want to say, I love you guys. Thanks, IK and Sonic, for articulating so well what I was thinking and for explaining the problems so well.
AlexHiro and ShintoCetra, I understand the confusion of being told that an address which is supposed to have respect built in to it has the opposite effect in some contexts. I had a similar reaction when I was first told, as a college freshman, that "Oriental" was problematic, because as a term it comes from defining everything not-Britain (or not-European?) as exotic, other, implying an alienness rather than simply a geographical description. It took quite a few years for that to really sink in.
You probably never had a gym teacher telling you "Let's see some hustle, ladies," I'm guessing. That's a very easy example of context neutralizing the original meaning (as an address assuming nobility). Though honestly, saying things like "I guess that means 'ladies and gentlemen' is condescending" is a bit disingenuous. That particular example points out another problem, though: inequality of address. It's not uncommon to see adult females referred to as "girls" while in the same context adult males are referred to as "men".
I'm out of time here before I head off to a dental appointment, so I'll leave one last thought: being told you said something -ist is not the same as being told you ARE -ist. Seriously. We're all swimming in a society full of prejudices and inequality from birth and not one of us has rooted it all out of our heads. That's why other people have to tell us, because it's a lot harder to see from inside our heads. It doesn't make us bad people, it just makes us normal, imperfect people. What you do with the knowledge that something you said or did was inadvertently -ist is on you, of course.
Political discussions aren't going to be banned from these boards. Being apolitical is a luxury a lot of us don't have -- especially folks who are under fire or have been actually threatened by this administration or its policies, which are not simply talk and that they are implementing (some of them in the spate of executive orders that have already happened). If it drives some people away from the boards, so be it. If the primary justification for someone's worldview is white supremacy or condescending assumptions, and they're upset when people call them out on it, then so be it.
I'll welcome political discussions here from any side, but I will still enforce the rules of this forum, which prohibit things like overt sexism, racism, bigotry against religious belief or sexual orientation, and so on. And... that's more of a problem on one side of the political aisle than the other now.
AlexHiro4 wrote:Ladies, Trump is not going to take away your rights and put you at a less than human status. Trump supporters, PLEASE...take him with a grain of salt. He's going to do some good things for this country, and this country absolutely needs a change after this last administration. That doesn't mean he's the savior of our country and our very own Jesus Christ. He's an evil, wicked man that pretended to care about issues that happen strike a chord with conservatives, but he IS a savvy businessman that will improve our economy by tenfold. Who knows? He might also follow through with a handful of social changes he doesn't care about in order to appease the conservatives that voted him in, but don't bet on it.
Bottom line:
Liberals, please quit whining and protesting. Conservatives, please quit being rude and condescending to the liberals and quit acting like Trump is the savior of mankind.
There's a debatable point in here, and a dismissive point in here.
The dismissive point is the one telling people to stop whining and protesting, and that he won't do any or most of what he's campaigned on. Given that it's a right to protest, and that he's already tried to follow through on campaign promises that are directly harming many people (including myself), we feel justifiably threatened by things the administration has already done. So, chalking it up to "just whining" is at best misinformed, and at worst a willful refusal to realize that other people have different issues and things they're threatened by.
In my case, I've been affected by the increased bigotry against Muslims encouraged by this administration since before the election; I'm affected by the policies being promoted by people in the administration's inner circle (ones that have already come out -- like the travel ban that encourages discrimination against Muslim travelers, including citizens and green card holders -- and ones that have already been discussed by people on his staff and will likely be coming out in the next few weeks). So, I don't have the luxury of staying apolitical here. Women who need access to affordable health care, especially prenatal/postnatal care only available and affordable at Planned Parenthood, are already affected by the administration's attempt to refuse to cover Medicare/Medicaid payments for healthcare services there.
I'm not going to go on -- my background is public policy and economics, and I could literally do an entire lecture on this, but that misses the point. My point is, however, that we can disagree on the actual nature or benefits of certain policies -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, looser vs. stricter immigration policies, etc. -- but your argument that this is just "whining" is a way to dismiss a point entirely without needing to provide any rationale. It's much the same as offering a political opinion and then telling other people to knock it off -- it implies that yours is the only voice that matters here without feeling the need to offer any sort of reason for it.
The debatable point is on whether he'll improve our economy, or implement any beneficial policies. Maybe we could debate about this? I could bring up his failed and unreliable record as a businessman and support of economic policies that are associated with lower growth. You could bring up... some counterpoint I suppose. The point is that it's something that can be debated and discussed, possibly even without heated discussion.
I mean, I'd love to be having more of those kinds of discussions instead. I can talk a lot about energy policy, tax policy, regulation, etc.; it affects things I care about (even strongly -- I have strong feelings about capital gains), but at the very least I don't have to deal with having to defend my humanity or equal rights under the law. But since that's what I have to defend, more nuanced debates about economic policy have taken something of a back seat. KF
