Author Topic: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration  (Read 4146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #105 on: January 20, 2017, 02:05:13 PM »
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.

How can accusing someone - with nothing but anecdotal evidence - of being a racist/homophobe/child molester/whatever "benign"?   

Does anyone think of Mel Gibson now and not think "bigoted fuck"?   Howard Stern, as much as I love him, wrongly, in my view, said just that about a week or so ago.  "I wouldn't have Mel Gibson on my show in a million years, bigoted fuck!"   He may be right, it's his show to decide who is on, but the stink of these things LINGERS.   

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #106 on: January 20, 2017, 02:49:43 PM »
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person.
The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #107 on: January 20, 2017, 02:51:35 PM »
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Sounds good to me!

Sarcasm green?
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #108 on: January 20, 2017, 03:05:43 PM »
No, I do believe Tick is serious.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #109 on: January 20, 2017, 03:22:48 PM »
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Sounds good to me!

Sarcasm green?

The sarcasm goes to both quotes

Member?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #110 on: January 20, 2017, 03:23:48 PM »
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!
The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry. If there were, and every instance was clearly defined, then perhaps I'd agree with you that it need not be tolerated. However in cases where there is nothing but individual judgement to rely upon there must be a deference to the free expression of ideas. And as I thought this out another problem came to me. Who gets to decide where the exceptions are? So we decide that no bigotry will be tolerated. Well, if we can't tolerate racist ideas, what about un-American ones? Chauvinistic ones? Religiously intolerant ones? The harm from those can be just as great as the racist ideas, can they not? At a logical level you can't base the binary nature of an issue on the severity of the outcomes. They're unrelated.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline FreezingPoint

  • Posts: 190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2017, 03:29:16 PM »
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person.
The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

I can't speak for Stadler, but I will give this a response. I won't disagree that racism and bigotry have led down dark paths in human history and the result of such has led to a high amount of loss of life.

However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

it isn't that racism and bigotry aren't problems and aren't bad things, or even things that should be tolerated and we shrug our shoulders at and say oh well. It is that those words have become convenient descriptors and accusations against people when disagreements happen, not even pertaining to those problems at hand.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #112 on: January 20, 2017, 05:14:23 PM »
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #113 on: January 20, 2017, 05:41:27 PM »

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #114 on: January 20, 2017, 05:44:53 PM »
:rollin :rollin
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #115 on: January 20, 2017, 05:57:08 PM »
 :rollin there were a lot of good memes today from the inauguration, but can we keep the memes to the political humor thread?

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #116 on: January 20, 2017, 06:08:28 PM »
It's not so much about the humor, really. It's about how accurately it reflects the mindset that has seemingly prevailed throughout this circus show of an election. We'll burn this whole goddamned country down and burn with it, just to spite "libs".

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #117 on: January 20, 2017, 06:32:03 PM »
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.
Where does the concept of white privilege fit into your standard? It's a generalization and it targets an singles out an ethnic group. Yet being able to discuss it seems to be an important part of not being a racist. That simple metric you're using doesn't fit every situation. Moreover, there's till the little problem of my second point. Once you decide that it's alright to quash "harmful" ideas, like bigotry, you've opened the door to a very ugly place. To use a topical example, plenty of people see Islam as a more dangerous idea than racial prejudice. The foundation of the first amendment remains solid largely because the courts generally try like hell to avoid bringing the content of the speech into question. We really don't want a situation where that changes and 'spooky men in black robes' determine what we can and can't say.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #118 on: January 20, 2017, 07:36:27 PM »
Where does the concept of white privilege fit into your standard? It's a generalization and it targets an singles out an ethnic group.

I think the concept of white privilege is really the concept of majority privilege that exists for every religious and/or ethnic group majority in any country. I have lived in four countries and it looks the same. Not saying it's cool but I think it's largely unavoidable.

Yet being able to discuss it seems to be an important part of not being a racist. That simple metric you're using doesn't fit every situation. Moreover, there's till the little problem of my second point. Once you decide that it's alright to quash "harmful" ideas, like bigotry, you've opened the door to a very ugly place.

Fuck yes that's a door to an ugly place! My point here is NOT to "quash" or limit free speech by decree, but to always retaliate relentlessly, a right and duty IMO. The dickbag idea that's been floating around that PC is a bad thing is essentially saying "I've got the right to say shit that you think is awful, so shut up and don't bother me about it", well no.. you definitely go ahead and say it but I'm not going to shut up and I'm gonna hit you back as hard as I feel what you said merits it, just as you would. The freedom of speech thing flows both ways.

To use a topical example, plenty of people see Islam as a more dangerous idea than racial prejudice. The foundation of the first amendment remains solid largely because the courts generally try like hell to avoid bringing the content of the speech into question. We really don't want a situation where that changes and 'spooky men in black robes' determine what we can and can't say.

I'm on board with you there.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #119 on: January 20, 2017, 07:43:38 PM »
My point here is NOT to "quash" or limit free speech by decree, but to always retaliate relentlessly, a right and duty IMO.
But there's no practical distinction. In first amendment terms that retaliation is known as a chilling effect. If somebody is afraid to speak their mind because he fears the repercussions, then how is his speech not quashed?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #120 on: January 20, 2017, 08:17:35 PM »
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16185
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #121 on: January 21, 2017, 09:56:23 AM »
It's not so much about the humor, really. It's about how accurately it reflects the mindset that has seemingly prevailed throughout this circus show of an election. We'll burn this whole goddamned country down and burn with it, just to spite "libs".

That is well said and made a better point than the meme though.  Hard to take an internet meme seriously IMO.  I thought it was funny, not meant to make discussion.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #122 on: January 21, 2017, 11:28:58 AM »
Metty, while I understand your reasoning, I completely disagree.  One particular issue, no matter what the issue is, does not HAVE TO be the single trump card or litmus test to decide whether someone can be a "valid" choice for office, whatever that even means.

If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

With Trump, we don't even get past a "no" answer to question #1, so the rest is irrelevant.  And even if we could assume the answer to question #1 is "yes" (which I completely disagree with), the answer to #2 is still "no," so we stop there anyway.  Sorry you feel differently.  But you being apoplectic over the fact that others disagree with you over whether this HAS TO be a deal breaker is irrational.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #123 on: January 21, 2017, 12:02:14 PM »
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol
I'm aware you didn't mean physical retaliation. The problem is that it doesn't have to be. Fear of being fired. Fear of boycott. Fear of having an alternator thrown through your window. Fear of alienation from your friends. Fear of not being hireable. All of these are things that are just as likely to prevent somebody from speaking their mind just fear of being imprisoned or punched in the mouth would. In 1st amendment terms they're all called chilling effects and they're frowned upon because the free expression of ideas is so very important. Consider this. If you're hanging out at a bar (we'll say a hookah bar in your case), how comfortable would you feel discussing Grabby or Crooked Hillary with a stranger? Myself, I generally try to avoid discussing politics with strangers anymore because you never really know how things are going to play out. I'm not worried about getting smashed in the jaw, but the variety of unpleasant possibilities make it not worth my wile. You still have the right to tell them what you think, but why would you even bother?

And there's still the problem that none of this is governed, so even though you have that right, and you're willing to take that risk, you're not only subject to the ramifications of what you said, but all of the ramifications of what some inbred hick thinks you said. This being a function of the current state of things with twitter and facebook telling people when to begin the uproar.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #124 on: January 22, 2017, 12:16:59 PM »
If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

Solid reasoning, these would be my points as well. My answers would be Yes to 1 and 2 unless we assume Trump is full of shit, which he is but still pushing a hateful rhetoric to win an election is a deal breaker for me. Feeding and legitimizing this rhetoric would have been harmful enough even if he had lost.
I might exclude the 4th point though, you know from the old elections thread that I was totally opposed to HC and I mentioned I talked some friends out of voting for her. Simply for the "backs to the wall" situation the DNC has created by pushing her down our throats, I thought she was being crowned, not elected. I didn't vote for her and I don't regret it. But this transcends her, what Trump could do to the American identity makes him above comparison to the other candidate, whoever the candidate is. Hillary at the end of the day is another conniving politician, thinking that she would have been especially bad or harmful to America is as unfounded as thinking the same thing about Obama, W. or Bill Clinton. My point being that there was nothing extra special about Hillary's awfulness, she just really failed at masking it.


Sorry you feel differently.  But you being apoplectic over the fact that others disagree with you over whether this HAS TO be a deal breaker is irrational.

I'm not apoplectic at all but I'm definitely baffled, mainly because of the shaking of standards I thought we upheld. Tell you the truth I wasn't as upset when Trump won as I was happy that Hillary lost, a bit childish but I was ecstatic hehe, so all these realities on the nature of the situation only really dawned on me the last couple of weeks.

Fear of being fired. Fear of boycott. Fear of having an alternator thrown through your window. Fear of alienation from your friends. Fear of not being hireable. All of these are things that are just as likely to prevent somebody from speaking their mind just fear of being imprisoned or punched in the mouth would. In 1st amendment terms they're all called chilling effects and they're frowned upon because the free expression of ideas is so very important.

It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.

Consider this. If you're hanging out at a bar (we'll say a hookah bar in your case)

Nicely done :lol

how comfortable would you feel discussing Grabby or Crooked Hillary with a stranger? Myself, I generally try to avoid discussing politics with strangers anymore because you never really know how things are going to play out.

I avoid discussing politics with American strangers, I've received that advice from American friends over and over.
However I engage Egyptians all the time, in hookah bars actually heh. And my Egyptian political views are opposed to the two fighting factions in our political scene, so I'm the minority under the minority, yet enjoying the first amendment here in the U.S. I do speak out, granted there's a group of people that generally have the same centric views as I do and we tend to flock together but so does the supporters of the bigger factions.

I'm not worried about getting smashed in the jaw, but the variety of unpleasant possibilities make it not worth my wile. You still have the right to tell them what you think, but why would you even bother?

That's really a circumstantial thing IMO. Case by case, you see how hinged the person is before engaging, their mannerisms, etc. A lot of times it's entirely dependent on my mood and willingness to engage. "why bother", is not a bad reasoning not to engage, I'm not a fan but I won't ride a high horse about people who do it. Actually I practice "why bother" almost exclusively online haha

And there's still the problem that none of this is governed, so even though you have that right, and you're willing to take that risk, you're not only subject to the ramifications of what you said, but all of the ramifications of what some inbred hick thinks you said. This being a function of the current state of things with twitter and facebook telling people when to begin the uproar.

I agree on the first part. However, even with the shit ton of downsides to social media, I'm thankful for it's existence as a tool to communicate, share ideas and organize. I have never been pushed into an "uproar" or an action I didn't agree with. The Egyptian 2011 revolution started as a post on facebook, I still remember it. Israel's numerous demands of Facebook to take down Palestinian activists accounts shows that even governments worry about people organizing and communicating resistance on social media.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 12:22:49 PM by Progmetty »
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9232
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #125 on: January 23, 2017, 07:27:10 AM »
No, I do believe Tick is serious.
Why wouldn't I be?
Besides being wrong on civil rights issues, there is plenty of stuff I prefer about the state of the world 60 years ago. So yeah, Tick is serious for sure.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #126 on: January 23, 2017, 08:20:27 AM »
It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.
It is a conundrum. Everybody should have the freedom to express themselves. The problem is that we're at a point where it too easily moves from a stern reply to a legitimate attempt to ruin somebody. Eddie Murphey's "I'm offended you called. Fuck you." is now "I'm offended you called and I'm going to make sure 273,169 other people are to make you pay for it."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #127 on: January 23, 2017, 09:42:26 AM »
With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Okay, but my point stands, because just because YOU think it's "binary" doesn't make it so, and doesn't free you from dealing with it in a more nuanced fashion.  There are a LOT of things I PERSONALLY think are binary, but I don't get the luxury of telling everyone else to think of it that way.   It was a controversial statement during the election, but Hillary was right on the mark:  we have PUBLIC positions, and we have PRIVATE positions.     I have many things - guns, abortion, drugs - where my PERSONAL views are at odds with what my PUBLIC views are.   I am vehemently against abortion PERSONALLY.  I think it is murder, and while as a man, it's never actually MY choice, with my partner I've been in that position, and when asked my opinion, I gave it (not an option).  But I recognize that whether I'm a man or a woman, I can't tell ANOTHER woman what is right for her.   Drugs.  I don't use anything harder than Guinness or aspirin, and am scared shitless (and unwilling to accept the consequences) for doing drugs like cocaine and heroin and even pot (though I sort of like pot; or at least I did the last time I did it, even if I did as a result blow an evening with one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen as a result) but I don't feel it's either smart to ban it (might as well regulate it so the quality and safety can be maintained) or our right to tell someone else that they shouldn't be able to self-medicate with it.   

Same with racism.  I don't want to participate in racism.  I have to look my gay and black and Jewish friends in the eye, and I can't do that if I'm engaged in that kind of activity.   But guess what; I don't get to tell other people how or what to think.  I don't want to hang out with drunks or addicts, and that's my choice; if someone doesn't want to hang out with blacks, that's their (self-limiting, narrow-minded) choice. 

And don't confuse thought and ideas with ACTION.   I can hate blacks (I don't, but go with me here) but I can't kill them.  Not because they are black, but because they are HUMAN and there are laws against that. I'm not suggesting anarchy or the Wild Wild West, but we have to preserve ideas, even those ideas we find abhorrent.   


Quote
Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

How so?  How is that the most binary way of thinking?    To the extent we can't interpret it, it's because we've artificially make it that way with our preachy PC nonsense.  Again, you are confusing "thought" and "action".   You keep conflating the dialogue about race with "piles of corpses".  No one - least of all me - is advocating for "piles of corpses".   Even the most egregious examples of what you're talking about weren't perpetrated by people that ACTUALLY HAD THE THOUGHTS.  If we actually had meaningful dialogue about it, and understood that yes, people could think this way, we might have avoided some of the problems you're talking about.  I have to be careful here, but I can remember having a conversation - names and dates changed to protect the innocent, though I was in my early college career at this point - with a Polish gentleman who lived in the Warsaw ghetto, and he was fairly candid:  "We didn't want to be German, we hated the German occupation for various reasons, but we also weren't that fond of the Jews as a whole, either.  That didn't mean we wanted to kill them, and that didn't mean that we didn't do what we could to help them."   We're allowed to have our feelings.  We are allowed to see the world as binary or as nuanced as we choose. 

And again, I'm not at all suggesting we tolerate violence, or worse, in keeping with our views.  I love the Patriots and Mike Portnoy; I don't get to kill Jet fans or beat up fans of Mangini. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #128 on: January 23, 2017, 09:53:45 AM »
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.

No.  What does it mean to "generalize"?  Do you think any Liberal is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Republicans want to take their healthcare?  Or want to see gays put back in the closet?   Do you think any Conservative is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Democrats want to take their money for bullshit feel-good social programs?  Or want to see our economy come to a standstill by completely undermining it with pie-in-the-sky environmental nonsense?   

What about me?  I'm 5'8"; do you know how many women single out men under 6'0" for dating?  I'm being a little facetious here, but you have YOUR way of drawing these lines, but for someone that is so worried about the rights of others, you're not doing very much to consider that others may not think like you do or draw the same lines as you do. 

Point is, we generalize and single out every single day, when it's convenient for us to do so; that you don't think it "convenient" in this case is not determinative.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #129 on: January 23, 2017, 10:08:29 AM »
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol

But you didn't answer el Barto's question;  what about the repercussions to the repercussions?   There are no controls, no safeguards that the much-vaunted "free speech has consequences" gets almost free reign.  Ask Phil Anselmo if he's going to speak his mind so freely next time. Or Michael Richards?   Or Isaiah Washington?  Or Mel Gibson (who's gone on record to this point multiple times)?   Or Axl Rose?   

The "stink" of racism and bigotry doesn't go away, and while you seem to want a standard by which to vent your vehemence to the idea of "racism", there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response "reasonable".   Being a rather hard line capitalist, I think the "consequences" for a businessman who opts to not sell a cake that says "Adam, I love you and am so happy to be your husband! Love Steve!" loses out on that profit, and the profit from every other Adam and Steve that comes in for a cake.  Most businesses at that level can't afford to turn down ANY sales, and for them to potentially jeopardize their livelihood ought to be some indication that they feel as strongly about that issue as you do your feelings on "bigotry". 

I think the point to remember here, is that we're talking about RIGHTS, and while most of these rights are inalienable - meaning, they cannot be taken away by man - there is also a mechanism for adjudicating when various rights are in conflict.  I have freedom of religion, but I cannot undertake human sacrifices, because I then tread on the rights of another to "life, liberty, etc.".   That's the case here.  Typically, how that is parsed out is that you can limit time, place and manner, but you can't limit "CONTENT".   Restrictions have to be CONTENT NEUTRAL.  So while I am not married to the notion of the "cake" example, I think we got to a potentially right answer in all the wrong ways. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #130 on: January 23, 2017, 10:30:28 AM »
If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

Solid reasoning, these would be my points as well. My answers would be Yes to 1 and 2 unless we assume Trump is full of shit, which he is but still pushing a hateful rhetoric to win an election is a deal breaker for me. Feeding and legitimizing this rhetoric would have been harmful enough even if he had lost.

But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 



Quote
But this transcends her, what Trump could do to the American identity makes him above comparison to the other candidate, whoever the candidate is. Hillary at the end of the day is another conniving politician, thinking that she would have been especially bad or harmful to America is as unfounded as thinking the same thing about Obama, W. or Bill Clinton. My point being that there was nothing extra special about Hillary's awfulness, she just really failed at masking it.

Again, says you. I think Hillary Clinton was every bit as dangerous to the American ideal as Trump, and here's why:  the VAST majority of people are not racists, and there is no amount of rhetoric that can change them into racists (despite the fearmongering from those that think that we're all one meme away from being Nazi soldiers).   But Hillary's blatant disregard for the law, her persistent idea that the law doesn't apply to her or that the law is something to be manipulated and played with for advantage, and that we can lie, cheat, and obfuscate in order to get past laws that don't help us, is not so cut and dry.  For every person that takes the speed limit as a suggestion, not a requirement, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks that the court system is prejudiced against, for example, black people, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (wrongly) thinks that every dollar a billionaire makes is a dollar out of their pocket, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (also wrongly) thinks that corporate America is comprised of hoods, thieves and criminals, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks the American economy is a "fuck or be fucked" game, that ideal appeals.   She was a far more dangerous candidate because she tapped into a much more base ideal than Trump ever could, she just tapped into it the wrong way. 

Quote

I'm not apoplectic at all but I'm definitely baffled, mainly because of the shaking of standards I thought we upheld. Tell you the truth I wasn't as upset when Trump won as I was happy that Hillary lost, a bit childish but I was ecstatic hehe, so all these realities on the nature of the situation only really dawned on me the last couple of weeks.

What "realities".  These are YOUR ideas, YOUR "realities" not universal ones.  I didn't vote for Trump, and still don't like him (for policy reasons; see the "Two Rules" thread for one of them) but I demand we be fair to him.  Does that make me a "racist" and "bigot"?  By your "standards", perhaps it does.  I am glad that but for a few select folks here that I trust, I'm relatively anonymous here.  For many of the same reasons that el Barto set out, I no longer talk politics in public much anymore.  I can remember having a full on conversation in Philly around the time of Obama's first election and having some Rivers Cuomo-looking dude in an ironic military jacket and carrying a man-purse want to get up in my grill and fight me because I didn't understand what "real oppression" looked like.  He shut the fuck up when I asked him if he was attending UPenn or Temple, and to explain how either of those excellent and not at all cheap schools taught him anything about "real oppression".  Even his friends had to chuckle at that one.  I don't feel like the conversation is the same when the underlying implication is as you put it "you're either a racist or you're not" and the standard is how vehemently you "fight" even the perception of racism.

 
Quote

It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.

But you're sort of blurring the lines.  What's a suitable "stern reply"?   "Hey, dude, I don't know if you mean to be, but someone might think you're a racist with that.  Might want to rethink how you say that!" might be okay.  But "I CALL ON ALL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO NEVER ATTEND A PHIL ANSELMO CONCERT AGAIN!  DON'T SUPPORT THAT RACIST MOTHERFUCKER!" has problems.  Now you aren't just sharing your ideas, you're mobilizing.  You are economically punching him right in the face.  And what about those people that like Phi's music, but really, don't want the hassle of explaining that they just want to get their mosh on, and they didn't even HEAR the so-called racist comments to begin with?   Or the guy that DID hear them and either disagreed, or didn't care enough to eat that $40 ticket that they already bought? 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19084
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #131 on: January 23, 2017, 10:43:46 AM »
But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him he seems to appoint racists to rather high positions in his administration?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 
:lol

Sorry, man. Couldn't pass up an empty net goal.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #132 on: January 23, 2017, 11:00:22 AM »
But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him he seems to appoint racists to rather high positions in his administration?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 
:lol

Sorry, man. Couldn't pass up an empty net goal.

I'm not averse to tossing up a softball now and again.  :) 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #133 on: January 23, 2017, 11:45:01 AM »
Yeah, seriously.  Per bosky's first point, has Trump said things that indicate he may be a racist?  Maybe not.  But he certainly seems to surround himself with racists, so on a practical level, I'm not sure there's much of a difference.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11185
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #134 on: January 23, 2017, 11:59:52 AM »
Yeah, seriously.  Per bosky's first point, has Trump said things that indicate he may be a racist?  Maybe not.  But he certainly seems to surround himself with racists, so on a practical level, I'm not sure there's much of a difference.

I don't recall him saying anything during the campaign, but isn't there a quote from him back in the early 90s about how he wouldn't want a black person to do his accounting.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #135 on: January 23, 2017, 12:30:11 PM »
Not sure about that, but here is a story about How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #136 on: January 24, 2017, 12:18:27 AM »
With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Okay, but my point stands, because just because YOU think it's "binary" doesn't make it so, and doesn't free you from dealing with it in a more nuanced fashion.  There are a LOT of things I PERSONALLY think are binary, but I don't get the luxury of telling everyone else to think of it that way. 

Your point is freakin gospel to me man, if you knew me personally you'll see how odd it is for me to be trying to convince you of the importance of a binary thinking on a subject. I don't disagree with the rule, I assert the exception, the base point or the ground we all stand upon to maintain civility.
I think something is still lost in translation, let's work with an example, just so I can make sure we understand each other right and just completely disagreeing. Do you think the treatment of Westboro baptist church as social pariahs is wrong? Do you think they should be given a broader stage to share their ideas?

And don't confuse thought and ideas with ACTION.   I can hate blacks (I don't, but go with me here) but I can't kill them.  Not because they are black, but because they are HUMAN and there are laws against that. I'm not suggesting anarchy or the Wild Wild West, but we have to preserve ideas, even those ideas we find abhorrent.   

I disagree, thoughts and ideas lead to action. That's not guess work, it's history. Hateful rhetoric works, it might take time but it grows and it works.

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

How so?  How is that the most binary way of thinking?    To the extent we can't interpret it, it's because we've artificially make it that way with our preachy PC nonsense.  Again, you are confusing "thought" and "action".   You keep conflating the dialogue about race with "piles of corpses".  No one - least of all me - is advocating for "piles of corpses".   

Seldom in history has commoners advocated the "piles of corpses", it just happens when you stand by and let the hateful thoughts spread, win hearts and mobilize into actions.
I recall XJDenton's recent post about people lashing out against PC are simply bothered that they cannot be rude or insult others without people slamming them for it, I agree with that. 


Even the most egregious examples of what you're talking about weren't perpetrated by people that ACTUALLY HAD THE THOUGHTS.  If we actually had meaningful dialogue about it, and understood that yes, people could think this way, we might have avoided some of the problems you're talking about.

I'm genuinely confused on whether or not you guys are getting what I'm saying, cause I agree with this. Yes meaningful dialogue, yes! I'm not talking about cursing out people who bring a discussion to the table! But when you come in with a certain attitude and presentation that only prompts aggression then an aggressive tone you shall get in return. And I think the "meaningful dialogue" gang is jumping ship with Trump's rhetoric and mannerisms empowering of the other gang.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #137 on: January 24, 2017, 01:24:46 AM »
Lost Internet connection on my laptop while replying to your third post Stadler, I can't do this by phone but I'll get back to you as soon as I get my connection back.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9899
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #138 on: January 24, 2017, 07:41:31 AM »
Your point is freakin gospel to me man, if you knew me personally you'll see how odd it is for me to be trying to convince you of the importance of a binary thinking on a subject. I don't disagree with the rule, I assert the exception, the base point or the ground we all stand upon to maintain civility.
I think something is still lost in translation, let's work with an example, just so I can make sure we understand each other right and just completely disagreeing. Do you think the treatment of Westboro baptist church as social pariahs is wrong? Do you think they should be given a broader stage to share their ideas?

I'm glad we have some common ground, here, because I have a lot of respect for your opinions and your point of view.   I

As for the Westboro Baptist Church, great example; no I don't at all think their treatment as social pariahs is necessarily wrong, but I think they should have whatever stage anyone else has.   

My whole point is only that the response is content neutral.   We can't have this assumption that because I disagree with what is being said, I get carte blanche to respond however I want.  I think there has to be some civility to this.  We should be able to discuss ideas that are on their face abhorrent.  The DISCUSSION ITSELF can't be abhorrent, and that's where we seem to be at this point.

Quote
I disagree, thoughts and ideas lead to action. That's not guess work, it's history. Hateful rhetoric works, it might take time but it grows and it works.

I think, respectfully, you're sort of dealing with the flood waters after the flood, and I'm trying to prevent the flood.  In our reactionary, PC world, yes, thoughts lead to action, because we've been taught that's what we should do.  I love him, and I like the sentiment, but the actual implementation of Billy Joel's "Don't take any shit from anyone!" is problematic.   I should be able to say something like... "The performance of black students in schools is not entirely a function of "racism against blacks perpetrated by whites" without being branded a "racist".  I'm not at all saying "blacks are inferior", or that "blacks are stupid".  I am beginning a dialogue as to how we can get to a point where you can't tell the racial makeup of a school by their test scores.   I should be able to say "there is equal blame to go around in the problem of how black people and cops interact" without being branded a racist.   And yet... we're not at that place.  If you're not entirely on board with the PC, "common sense" analysis, not only is your opinion dismissed, it is branded in a way that is chilling moving forward. 


Quote
Seldom in history has commoners advocated the "piles of corpses", it just happens when you stand by and let the hateful thoughts spread, win hearts and mobilize into actions.
I recall XJDenton's recent post about people lashing out against PC are simply bothered that they cannot be rude or insult others without people slamming them for it, I agree with that. 

Well, I agree there is some truth in XJDenton's comment, but he's still wrong in the sense that so what?  Here's the thing:  if HATEFUL IDEAS are so powerful, if IDEAS breed action, then so must "LOVING" (or whatever word you want to use) ideas breed action.  If you have faith in your position, if you feel you are SO right, let your ideas stand.    For every person that just wants to be an asshole to others, there are five or six (like me) that believe we are sugar-coating or outright ignoring crucial discussions that we HAVE TO HAVE to fix our society, out of a justified fear that people like XJDention will dismiss our ideas with the incendiary tag "RACISM!" without having the courtesy or facts to marshall a coherent intellectual counter.   If my idea is HATEFUL, and it is so BAD an idea, you should be able to counter it without resorting to meta- ad hominem attacks like "OH, you just want to be an asshole!" or "You're a RACIST!".  The argument against Hitler should have been one of science and fact and reason, not "Ooooh, you're BAD!, you're an ANTI-SEMITE!"   I know, I had family (non-Jews, even though I have some Jewish in my family) that were gassed in Poland, and it's not as simple as history paints it.  There WAS resistance, at least in Poland, and there WERE people saying "this isn't right, we don't want this."  Ultimately, when it came out, there were MILLIONS of people that said "this isn't right" and millions who gave their lives to make sure it stopped.   The course of man isn't perfect; unfortunately people get caught in the transition periods.   Being "PC" doesn't prevent that from happening, and my argument is that it probably HELPS it, more than it prevents it.

Quote
I'm genuinely confused on whether or not you guys are getting what I'm saying, cause I agree with this. Yes meaningful dialogue, yes! I'm not talking about cursing out people who bring a discussion to the table! But when you come in with a certain attitude and presentation that only prompts aggression then an aggressive tone you shall get in return. And I think the "meaningful dialogue" gang is jumping ship with Trump's rhetoric and mannerisms empowering of the other gang.

Not sure I follow this; can you help me?

But I will say this:  dismissing the idea - even if the presentation is flawed - as "rhetoric" and "hate speech" perpetuates the problem.  Here's the point:  when I go into a negotiation, there are three things that are understood by my team:  one, we WILL walk away if we have to, two, we WILL have to make concessions, and so we frame our argument to accommodate that, and three, IT IS NOT PERSONAL, and emotion has no place at that table.    Don't get me wrong; the aggressive racists are just as wrong here.  It's not an effective way of making your point (and no, I'm not trying to help the racists be more effective).  But that's their weak point.   By dismissing them as "assholes" and "haters", and denying them their rights, you are reinforcing their belief system.  They already feel attacked by a system that they don't see as fair, so to continue to attack is to reinforce the behavior.   Come in, demand not SILENCE, but CIVILITY, have the dialogue, and keep the notion of "I'm OFFENDED!" out of it.   

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #139 on: January 25, 2017, 12:01:59 AM »
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.

No.  What does it mean to "generalize"?  Do you think any Liberal is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Republicans want to take their healthcare?  Or want to see gays put back in the closet?   Do you think any Conservative is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Democrats want to take their money for bullshit feel-good social programs?  Or want to see our economy come to a standstill by completely undermining it with pie-in-the-sky environmental nonsense?

By generalize I meant paint with a broad-brush.
By these rhetorical questions I think again you're bringing this down to partisan issues, I believe the issue at hand is bigger and on a different plain than that.

But you didn't answer el Barto's question;  what about the repercussions to the repercussions?   There are no controls, no safeguards that the much-vaunted "free speech has consequences" gets almost free reign.  Ask Phil Anselmo if he's going to speak his mind so freely next time. Or Michael Richards?   Or Isaiah Washington?  Or Mel Gibson (who's gone on record to this point multiple times)?   Or Axl Rose?   

Okay, I'm not advocating actual damaging consequences to free speech, I really am not. I'm talking entriely about verbal responses, I never called to boycott any of these people or others.
Let's examine one of these though, I don't know details of Anselmo's deal and I vaguely remember the rest except Michael Richards. So Richards said something along the lines of "Look at them, they're niggers, look at the niggers, a 100 years ago you'd be hanging from a tree". Does that qualify as "speaking his mind freely" as you put it? Is that the kinda thing you deal with by means of meaningful dialogue?

The "stink" of racism and bigotry doesn't go away, and while you seem to want a standard by which to vent your vehemence to the idea of "racism", there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response "reasonable".   Being a rather hard line capitalist, I think the "consequences" for a businessman who opts to not sell a cake that says "Adam, I love you and am so happy to be your husband! Love Steve!" loses out on that profit, and the profit from every other Adam and Steve that comes in for a cake.  Most businesses at that level can't afford to turn down ANY sales, and for them to potentially jeopardize their livelihood ought to be some indication that they feel as strongly about that issue as you do your feelings on "bigotry". 

I'm completely against casting out that business, the bigotry here is not respecting the cake maker's ideals and forcing him to do something against his beliefs. I'm getting what you're saying about repercussions of repercussions but I don't believe it's gotta be like that. Yes that would be "PC run amok" and it gives a bad name to PC.
And as for "there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response reasonable", that seems to be the problem and the clear point of where I differ with you and Barto, for example the economical ruin is something that I'm definitely opposed to, that cake maker didn't say "fuck gays", he just doesn't wanna deal with them, he has every right to that!

I think the point to remember here, is that we're talking about RIGHTS, and while most of these rights are inalienable - meaning, they cannot be taken away by man - there is also a mechanism for adjudicating when various rights are in conflict.  I have freedom of religion, but I cannot undertake human sacrifices, because I then tread on the rights of another to "life, liberty, etc.".   That's the case here.  Typically, how that is parsed out is that you can limit time, place and manner, but you can't limit "CONTENT".   Restrictions have to be CONTENT NEUTRAL.  So while I am not married to the notion of the "cake" example, I think we got to a potentially right answer in all the wrong ways.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself.

I've said it many times before; I don't think Trump, the person, has any strong ideological convictions that he's loyal to. I think his compass only points to "WINNING!", he's megalomania exemplified. When I think or talk about Trump I'm thinking of the movement he has created, adopted and sponsored. I'm thinking of the people he pacified and allied himself to, I'm thinking of his administration and advisers. To me, Trump himself is nowhere comparable to Hitler like some folks like to, but the Trump movement that's now in power is eerily comparable in many aspects and that's coming from someone who usually rules out Nazi comparisons in politics as cliche and overly dramatic.

Again, says you. I think Hillary Clinton was every bit as dangerous to the American ideal as Trump, and here's why:  the VAST majority of people are not racists, and there is no amount of rhetoric that can change them into racists (despite the fearmongering from those that think that we're all one meme away from being Nazi soldiers).   But Hillary's blatant disregard for the law, her persistent idea that the law doesn't apply to her or that the law is something to be manipulated and played with for advantage, and that we can lie, cheat, and obfuscate in order to get past laws that don't help us, is not so cut and dry.  For every person that takes the speed limit as a suggestion, not a requirement, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks that the court system is prejudiced against, for example, black people, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (wrongly) thinks that every dollar a billionaire makes is a dollar out of their pocket, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (also wrongly) thinks that corporate America is comprised of hoods, thieves and criminals, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks the American economy is a "fuck or be fucked" game, that ideal appeals.   She was a far more dangerous candidate because she tapped into a much more base ideal than Trump ever could, she just tapped into it the wrong way. 

Yes, says me. I didn't claim that one was binary at all. I agree with your points about Hillary sans for the part that she's more dangerous than Trump, I still maintain that everything you said about her applies to other politicians and sometimes presidents, including disregard for the law, she's only unique cause she's exposed.

This discussion is interesting to me and thought provoking, I take the time to read and absorb what you're saying but it's really exhausting and time consuming since you say a lot that merits replying so it's not like I can respond to the gist of what you're saying, this post took an hour to type up :lol Long story short; bear with me here and if you will; don't give me more to work with until I get around to the rest of what you said heh
Night!
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.