DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Stadler on February 12, 2018, 11:43:31 AM

Title: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 12, 2018, 11:43:31 AM
I didn't know where this should go; if it belongs in the P/R section, so be it.   

But mother of god, can it end, now? 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/sony-apologizes-for-controversial-peter-rabbit-scene-which-made-light-of-food-allergies/ar-BBJ02xE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/winter-olympics/nbc-fires-analyst-over-japan-comment-at-pyeongchang-games/ar-BBJ0WIj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

There's not a document, a promise, a law, or a statute that promises that we should be free from anything that violates our own personal sense of place.  This isn't about "just being careful about what you say" or "being more sensitive", this is about the clear and present danger of censoring ideas and thoughts.   This isn't helping anyone. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 12, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
yeah. the silliness that is our PC culture right now would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: BlackInk on February 12, 2018, 11:56:06 AM
It would be hilarious if it didn't run the serious risk of doing actual academic and intellectual damage to our culture.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Chino on February 12, 2018, 11:57:24 AM
I didn't know where this should go; if it belongs in the P/R section, so be it.   

But mother of god, can it end, now? 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/sony-apologizes-for-controversial-peter-rabbit-scene-which-made-light-of-food-allergies/ar-BBJ02xE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/winter-olympics/nbc-fires-analyst-over-japan-comment-at-pyeongchang-games/ar-BBJ0WIj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

There's not a document, a promise, a law, or a statute that promises that we should be free from anything that violates our own personal sense of place.  This isn't about "just being careful about what you say" or "being more sensitive", this is about the clear and present danger of censoring ideas and thoughts.   This isn't helping anyone.

I'm offended that you think I shouldn't have the right to be offended by this. Please apologize to me.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 12, 2018, 11:58:49 AM
The Peter Rabbit thing is stupid.  Yes, some people have food allergies, but I think the idea of a rabbit being allergic to something rabbits are known to eat is fair game.  Only people with food allergies could possibly find it offensive, and I'd still think most of them would find it funny.

The Japan comments are a different kind of stupid.  I thought Ramo was a shitty commentator, and if he's supposed to be some kind of expert on Asian culture and history, then he's an idiot as well.  His comment is akin to the textbooks claiming that black slaves from Africa "immigrated" here.  Using a very wide definition of the word, and a lot of mind-altering pharmaceuticals, it might technically be true, but it's a completely stupid thing to say anyway.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Phoenix87x on February 12, 2018, 12:06:40 PM
I totally agree. Let the madness end. All this uber, hyper PC non sense makes me nauseous.

People have it far too good these days, that the've run out of things to bitch about. So now its trigger warnings, micro aggressions and safe spaces. Its extremely worrying and as others have said, damaging to our society both academically and intellectually. And it weakens us a species.

I was so happy to graduate last year because this is what my University was turning into: 

(https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/08/06/636061024127387653-2114828900_Safe%20Space.jpg)

University isn't supposed to be safe space. Its a place to challenge yourself with difficult truths and come out stronger on the other side.

The world is not fair, and it can be very cruel. But all that means is that its time to find the strength to overcome it, not cry in your safe space. It is pressure that makes diamonds, and this fierce and brutal world doesn't give a damn about your feelings.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 12, 2018, 12:09:14 PM
I'm not sure that "slave" example fits.  It's a controversial statement, to be sure, but it's worded very well, and it didn't take sides, it merely pointed out to those that aren't a) Japanese, b) South Korean, or c) a global geopolitical history expert that there is a long and complex history between the two countries.  He didn't say "positive" example or "negative" example.  It's a comment that invites further discussion.   

And regardless, the point was, assume he  said something that was untoward; where is the discussion about the point, where is the dialogue about the issue?   No, he's removed from the air, and, it seems, the network.   That's not discussion; that's censorship.  Why are we sending the message that "discussion" is bad? 

As evidenced by my posts in the Political Humor thread, I get it that there is a time and a place and apparently NBC wants this to be all rainbows and flags and peace and love.  But there's a downside to the whitewashing of reality out of our daily discourse.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: pg1067 on February 12, 2018, 12:11:43 PM
The Peter Rabbit thing is stupid.  Yes, some people have food allergies, but I think the idea of a rabbit being allergic to something rabbits are known to eat is fair game.  Only people with food allergies could possibly find it offensive, and I'd still think most of them would find it funny.

It's even dumber than this.  The issue is that the human antagonist in the movie is allergic to blackberries, so the intelligent rabbit protagonist attacks the human by throwing blackberries at him and aiming for his mouth, which results in him going into shock and needing to stab himself with an epi pen.  I don't know if this is funny -- I'm not exactly the target audience and don't have young kids, so I'll never see the movie -- but it strains credulity to think that folks are actually offended by this.  If I understand the basic plot, this is another one of those movies in which the "protagonist" is cute but a total asshole bent on making the "antagonist's" life miserable and the "antagonist" is only considered a jerk because the other characters don't see that the "protagonist" is an asshole.  In any event, that a character who wants to make another character miserable would seek to exploit a weakness is hardly making light of a "serious issue.

What's worse than a bunch of clowns getting offended by this is the fact that the studio felt the need to apologize.  Seriously?!  Rather than apologize, why not take the opportunity to tell folks to lighten up and find something real to get offended about.  Should Warner Bros. apologize for how Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote made light of firearms and explosives safety?  Ugh....
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 12, 2018, 12:13:56 PM
I totally agree. Let the madness end. All this uber, hyper PC non sense makes me nauseous.

People have it far too good these days, that the've run out of things to bitch about. So now its trigger warnings, micro aggressions and safe spaces. Its extremely worrying and as others have said, damaging to our society both academically and intellectually. And it weakens us a species.

I was so happy to graduate last year because this is what my University was turning into: 

(https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/08/06/636061024127387653-2114828900_Safe%20Space.jpg)

University isn't supposed to be safe space. Its a place to challenge yourself with difficult truths and come out stronger on the other side.

The world is not fair, and it can be very cruel. But all that means is that its time to find the strength to overcome it, not cry in your safe space. It is pressure that makes diamonds, and this fierce and brutal world doesn't give a damn about your feelings.

That's funny you mention that; last year or so, around Halloween when Yale issued those "guidelines" (read:  PC Rules) for Halloween costumes, the administrator (a guy, I forget his name; his wife issued the guidelines) came out to ostensibly debate the crowd.   He began a cogent, reasonable statement - forget about whether I agreed with it or not, that's not the point - and one student interrupted him, and started crying and screaming that he was violating her safe space, and that she came to university to have a safe, comfortable environment, a home away from home.   I was like, wha???   You're there to be challenged.  To transition from youth to maturity.  To learn that the entire world no longer thinks you crap strawberry ice cream, like your parents do.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 12, 2018, 12:21:39 PM
I'm offended that you think I shouldn't have the right to be offended by this. Please apologize to me.

that's the underlying issue....no one has the right not to be offended. It's just not a thing. We do have rights...a lot of them but not being offended isn't one of them. Somewhere along the line people started believing that they did have the right not to be offended and that's why we are where we are right now in this embarrassing PC culture.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on February 12, 2018, 12:26:01 PM
I can think of very little I dislike in this world more than PC culture. It's such a cancer to comedy. Do these people like... not have any friends? Friends who just casually rib them for no real reason? How do they manage to make it through the day without breaking down in tears?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 12, 2018, 12:26:09 PM
I'm not sure that "slave" example fits.  It's a controversial statement, to be sure, but it's worded very well, and it didn't take sides, it merely pointed out to those that aren't a) Japanese, b) South Korean, or c) a global geopolitical history expert that there is a long and complex history between the two countries.  He didn't say "positive" example or "negative" example.  It's a comment that invites further discussion.   

And regardless, the point was, assume he  said something that was untoward; where is the discussion about the point, where is the dialogue about the issue?   No, he's removed from the air, and, it seems, the network.   That's not discussion; that's censorship.  Why are we sending the message that "discussion" is bad? 

As evidenced by my posts in the Political Humor thread, I get it that there is a time and a place and apparently NBC wants this to be all rainbows and flags and peace and love.  But there's a downside to the whitewashing of reality out of our daily discourse.

"every Korean will tell you that Japan is a cultural, technological and economic example that has been so important to their own transformation" makes it sound like the Koreans love the Japanese and view them as a glorious example of what to strive for.  The statement may be factually correct, but it absolutely is meant to present Japan in a positive light; it is not a neutral statement meant to invite discussion.  Japan occupied Korea for 35 years.  To say that the Japanese "influenced" them would also be a correct statement, but you don't phrase it that way.  That's why I pulled out the slavery analogy.  Yes, the African natives came to this country to work, but that is not the common definition of slavery.

You can use carefully chosen words to say something that's factually correct, but if the implication is basically the opposite of the truth, or intentionally misdirecting the narrative, then it's still bullshit.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: lonestar on February 12, 2018, 12:51:57 PM
Totally agreed, and I feel that this extreme level of offennsisensitivity is taking away from legitimate offenses. Now they are all being lumped into snowflake land where some probably are legit.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: TioJorge on February 12, 2018, 01:06:40 PM
What it is, is hypocrisy at its finest and/or taking an easy shot at fish in a barrel. I'm leaning towards the latter because 9 times out of 10 when some two-faced seemingly do-gooder runs in with their painted signs, chanting some dipshit protest rhyme, it's because it's easy to do and it's going to garner attention (keyword here) and illicit some kind of reaction; not because they're on a personal mission to change the world for the better (which is an entire discussion unto itself, because most of the "protesting" these days is bullshit and changes nothing. Mind you I'm talking about the tiny, bored groups standing around doing nothing, not an actual protest of hundreds or thousands built around illiciting change and doing something about it).

Nowadays, it's "protests" online, which is even easier. Make a post, hide behind the virtual wall of (relative) anonymity (or do the opposite and make yourself known and still be safe) and watch society react. This isn't an issue. It's not even a blip on the radar. But it's easy for people to use as kindling to start a fire, however brief and weak, to feel like they're doing something by bitching and moaning like toddlers asking for candy that after so long of hearing the little shit scream, the weak give in. Just like Sony did.

I don't think it'll change or stop, so I'd try to ignore it. It's been getting worse and worse (not so coincidentally) the more "voice" the internet gives the everyday mouth breather and society's reliance on the internet (and subsequently how the news spreads on the medium) is magnifying that one hundred fold.

On the other topic, I'm erring on the side of while it was a completely and totally different issue and surrounding circumstance (doused with political bias), the comment wasn't malicious; it wasn't the smartest comment and it was the worst time and place, but it's not like he said something horrifically offensive like "The Japanese gave the Koreans blackberry allergies". That would deserve a death sentence.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 12, 2018, 01:21:41 PM
It might also offend people with blackberry allergies.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: New World Rushman on February 12, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
Where were these PC police when Mrs. Doubtfire put Cayenne pepper in James Bond's Jambalaya?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: TioJorge on February 12, 2018, 02:01:39 PM
That just...wow. Yes.  :rollin

Proof! Hardcore proof in Mrs. Doubtfire. Boom. Debate team number 1.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 02:17:11 PM
I am not concerned at all. Should anyone feel it necessary, they can always procure the services of an emotional support peacock, hamster, or other animal.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: kingshmegland on February 12, 2018, 03:02:22 PM
I am not concerned at all. Should anyone feel it necessary, they can always procure the services of an emotional support peacock, hamster, or other animal.

Like Richard Gere?

Oops.  Incentive on my part.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on February 12, 2018, 03:18:24 PM
I am not concerned at all. Should anyone feel it necessary, they can always procure the services of an emotional support peacock, hamster, or other animal.

Only to have it flushed down the toilet in an airplane.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: pg1067 on February 12, 2018, 03:26:05 PM
Where were these PC police when Mrs. Doubtfire put Cayenne pepper in James Bond's Jambalaya?

Seriously.

When I was a kid my best friend (who was from a VERY Italian-American family) had a bunch of books of "Italian jokes" and "Polack jokes" and what-not.  I'm guessing if these sorts of books got passed around at school these days (as we did back then), it would be grounds for suspension, which is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 04:37:00 PM
Political correctness, or as I prefer to call it, "make the bare minimum effort in not being a colossal arsehole to someone", is not a significant problem. You don't have the right to not be offended, but equally there is no law preventing people from expressing their displeasure, nor companies responding to said market forces. In my day that was just called "capitalism".
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 04:44:05 PM
If that is your definition, you don't understand political correctness. There is a big difference between intentionally being an arse to someone, and saying something that someone else find's offensive.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 04:46:31 PM
And what is that difference?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
First:
Political correctness, or as I prefer to call it, "make the bare minimum effort in not being a colossal arsehole to someone", is not a significant problem.
These are not the same thing.  You are correct that the latter, or "what [you] prefer to call it" is not a problem.  But that is not what the thread is about.

Second:
...but equally there is no law preventing people from expressing their displeasure, nor companies responding to said market forces. In my day that was just called "capitalism".
No, it isn't "capitalism."  It us bullying, oppressiveness, and wrongfully using capitalism (market forces), the courts, and other mechanisms to force the appearance of false consensus.

Third:  Why is a non-political, non-religious topic in P/R?  ???
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 04:54:18 PM
I say "All British people are jerks" which is me being an ass because it is a disparaging statement.

I write a scene in a film about people allergic to a berry to advance a plot point, and people who are allergic to that berry are offended, forcing me to apologize for offending someone when no offensive was intended.

Your second point is accurate, though many people would express dismay at how it is being played out in today's world.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
I write a scene in a film about people allergic to a berry to advance a plot point, and people who are allergic to that berry are offended, forcing me to apologize for offending someone when no offensive was intended.

1. Who forced them?
2. Intentions matter very little when it comes to practical outcomes. Drunk drivers don't intend to hit their victims either.

Third:  Why is a non-political, non-religious topic in P/R?  ???

Because in my general experience all discussions on PC culture inevitably go down political routes. If you disagree, feel free to move it back.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 05:17:44 PM
These are not the same thing.  You are correct that the latter, or "what [you] prefer to call it" is not a problem.  But that is not what the thread is about.

Political correctness is, by any common definition, modification of behavior or language in order to avoid either offending or disadvantaging persons. So if you don't agree with political correctness, you are, ergo, either indifferent to causing offence/disadvantage or are in favour of actively causing it. Which, to me, is arseholish behavior.

Quote
No, it isn't "capitalism."  It us bullying, oppressiveness, and wrongfully using capitalism (market forces), the courts, and other mechanisms to force the appearance of false consensus.

Who is being bullied and oppressed by people voicing their displeasure at an allergy being the butt of a joke? What court or other legal mechanisms enforced the decision of a private company to terminate an employee because he spouted some bullcrap during the olympics and got called out on it?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 05:17:51 PM
I write a scene in a film about people allergic to a berry to advance a plot point, and people who are allergic to that berry are offended, forcing me to apologize for offending someone when no offensive was intended.

1. Who forced them?
2. Intentions matter very little when it comes to practical outcomes. Drunk drivers don't intend to hit their victims either.

In this case, no one that I could see. I for one wish Sony would have told those offended to fuck off and go watch Fifty Shades Freed.

Ignoring the bad analogy, as one is a crime (unless you are implying offending someone should also be a crime - I doubt you are, though am sure there are those who think it should be) yes intentions don't matter when it comes to outcomes. But I can know for certain if I punch a socialist in the face it might break their nose. I cannot know for certain if I say something that they will be offended.

So if you don't agree with political correctness, you are, ergo, either indifferent to causing offence/disadvantage or are in favour of actively causing it. Which, to me, is arseholish behavior.

I am largely indifferent to some offences because I find them wholly ridiculous. And (ironically?) I am offended that is considered arseholish of me.

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 05:26:11 PM
In this case, no one that I could see. I for one wish Sony would have told those offended to fuck off and go watch Fifty Shades Freed.

And they could have done. But instead they decided to apologise, because thats what will probably make them more profit in the long term by not alienating people. Hence, capitalism.

Quote
Ignoring the bad analogy, as one is a crime (unless you are implying offending someone should also be a crime - I doubt you are, though am sure there are those who think it should be) yes intentions don't matter when it comes to outcomes.

1. Wasn't an analogy. It was a purposefully extreme example to show the flaws in that logic.
2. I am not advocating it being a crime. Social pressure should be enough.

Quote
But I can know for certain if I punch a socialist in the face it might break their nose. I cannot know for certain if I say something that they will be offended.

Not the first time perhaps. The issue is if you decide to keep doing it regardless.

Quote
And (ironically?) I am offended that is considered arseholish of me.

Okay. So how do we resolve this?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: kingshmegland on February 12, 2018, 05:31:22 PM
I think we as a group need to be diligent over the real issues that are PC.  Everybody is getting too sensitive and it lessens the real issues we have as humans that need to be corrected.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on February 12, 2018, 05:33:24 PM
It's a shame that the people who drive this end up having the loudest voices.   It seems companies cave in so easily because a few people are offended over something the general population is not, and IMO many times should not be offended.  The skin in the country has become increasingly thin.  It's a real shame when it ends up impacting meaningful discussion.  Also, the whole safe space on college campus thing is a joke IMO.  I always felt college is where you grow up and a safe space doesn't really allow growth.  We have so many freedoms and options in this country.  If you don't like something, you can change the channel, go to a different school, vote for a different president, whatever.  We have freedom to chose, and it's amazing, yet some like to limit those choices on others when they don't agree with something.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 05:34:46 PM
Okay. So how do we resolve this?

Well if I was most people, I would get on FaceTwittGram, express outrage at how a Mod at dtf.org offended me, and demand an apology in addition to your removal. But as I have a level head, I will acknowledge we have differing opinions, that you are still a good Mod here and a solid guy, and if we met in person we'd probably have a reasonable discussion over some bourbon.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 12, 2018, 05:38:25 PM
Bourbon rather than single malt scotch?

Now that IS offensive. :P

So let me ask you a question: would you have preferred I expressed that view differently, and would you have been more accepting had I done so?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: kingshmegland on February 12, 2018, 05:51:52 PM
Bourbon rather than single malt scotch?

Now that IS offensive. :P

So let me ask you a question: would you have preferred I expressed that view differently, and would you have been more accepting had I done so?

 :lol. I'm a bourbon guy as well.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 12, 2018, 06:02:50 PM
The bourbon comment, my friend, was intentional. :cheers: (isn't there an emoticon for this?)

I wasn't actually offended, I was (failing at?) being ironic. You weren't calling me out personally, and were defending your opinions in a reasonably tactful, respectful way, thus I wasn't bothered my your statement.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 12, 2018, 07:00:34 PM
I didn't know where this should go; if it belongs in the P/R section, so be it.   

But mother of god, can it end, now? 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/sony-apologizes-for-controversial-peter-rabbit-scene-which-made-light-of-food-allergies/ar-BBJ02xE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

There's not a document, a promise, a law, or a statute that promises that we should be free from anything that violates our own personal sense of place.  This isn't about "just being careful about what you say" or "being more sensitive", this is about the clear and present danger of censoring ideas and thoughts.   This isn't helping anyone.

Well that’s a silly thing to be upset about.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 12, 2018, 07:45:01 PM
Or the female teacher at a Catholic school getting fired for posting pics on Facebook of her lesbian wedding. People are outraged, which as a parent of a student in her class is reasonable. But what the fuck did people expect? What did SHE expect? I hate organized religion as much as anybody, but I have no problem with them exercising their rights, and this seems like one you could see from a mile away.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 12, 2018, 07:58:32 PM
Or the female teacher at a Catholic school getting fired for posting pics on Facebook of her lesbian wedding. People are outraged, which as a parent of a student in her class is reasonable. But what the fuck did people expect? What did SHE expect? I hate organized religion as much as anybody, but I have no problem with them exercising their rights, and this seems like one you could see from a mile away.

I thought it was established in this thread that people DON'T have a right to not be offended,  the school is doing the same thing as those offended by a Peter Rabbit movie want.

 
 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 12, 2018, 08:30:47 PM
Not really.  If being a practicing Catholic is not a requirement for teaching at a Catholic school, I would at least expect that their employees be required to behave in accordance with Catholic teachings.  Homosexuality is still a big no-no for Catholics, so publicly flaunting your homosexual wedding would be against the rules.  And like it or not, Facebook is considered public knowledge.

People going to see a Peter Rabbit movie have no guarantee that they'll be free from jokes based on food allergies.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 13, 2018, 06:38:03 AM
Or the female teacher at a Catholic school getting fired for posting pics on Facebook of her lesbian wedding. People are outraged, which as a parent of a student in her class is reasonable. But what the fuck did people expect? What did SHE expect? I hate organized religion as much as anybody, but I have no problem with them exercising their rights, and this seems like one you could see from a mile away.

I thought it was established in this thread that people DON'T have a right to not be offended,  the school is doing the same thing as those offended by a Peter Rabbit movie want.

Orbert said it. As an employee of a Catholic institution, there were certain requirements that must be met. And the Church isn't acting from the position of being OFFENDED. I'm having a hard time understanding how someone could try and sell that point in the course of discussion. Not only is it not a NEW development, any person that hasn't been living under a rock for the last 20 years (the teacher was an ADULT) should be crystal clear on the Church's view of homosexuality. Additionally, the school did not bow to the pressure of the "mob" as Sony did. In fact, they're doing just the opposite.

Edit: Okay, I re-read my post and can see how the "Parent outrage" could be confused. What I MEANT was that "parents are upset that a teacher their child likes is no longer there because of something they don't particularly care about." The parents don't seem to mind that she's gay, but to expect the Church not to care seems like a futile endeavor.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: lordxizor on February 13, 2018, 07:02:14 AM
The biggest issue I see with the berry allergy thing is that the movie studio apologized. People need to stop apologizing for everything just because a handful of people got offended. Seriously, how many people complained about this, like 8? Companies need to stop publicly acknowledging every little complaint. I'm sure 50 years ago a handful of people would have written letters to the studio complaining and they would have gone straight in the trash. If the berry people hadn't been acknowledged they likely would have gone away, or if they did try and raise a stink, the vast majority of Americans would have just rolled their eyes at them.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on February 13, 2018, 07:29:46 AM
What a sad life these people must have that they can't simply let something slide - if it isn't funny, it's deeply offensive or ignorant, because there's no middle ground for them. They seem to know what is funny and what is not, and if it doesn't fall in lock step with the way they think - as if they're the objective authority on comedy - it becomes 'wrong' and 'offensive.'

And I'm offended by that. ;)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 13, 2018, 11:01:36 AM

Edit: Okay, I re-read my post and can see how the "Parent outrage" could be confused. What I MEANT was that "parents are upset that a teacher their child likes is no longer there because of something they don't particularly care about." The parents don't seem to mind that she's gay, but to expect the Church not to care seems like a futile endeavor.

Oh the parents were ok with it and were upset she was fired?  Yeah I totally misunderstood that part, my bad,  carry on.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 11:51:50 AM
Where were these PC police when Mrs. Doubtfire put Cayenne pepper in James Bond's Jambalaya?

Seriously.

When I was a kid my best friend (who was from a VERY Italian-American family) had a bunch of books of "Italian jokes" and "Polack jokes" and what-not.  I'm guessing if these sorts of books got passed around at school these days (as we did back then), it would be grounds for suspension, which is just ridiculous.

My dad - Polack - had the Italian one, and my cousin (married to my dad's neice) - at the time it was "Wop" not "Italian" - had the Polish one.  They would swap jokes every time they got together.   Those days are long gone now, but in the confines of a family home that actually created a lot of bonding.   To this day, my dad (79 years old) is like a second father to my two cousins, and when they have issues (he has cancer, she has MS) the first person they call is my dad.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 11:57:19 AM
Political correctness, or as I prefer to call it, "make the bare minimum effort in not being a colossal arsehole to someone", is not a significant problem. You don't have the right to not be offended, but equally there is no law preventing people from expressing their displeasure, nor companies responding to said market forces. In my day that was just called "capitalism".

But do you have the right to bully and/or shame those that do offend you? Do you have the right to ruin their lives and reputation with a response that goes well beyond the initial "offense"?  That's where the problem is for me.  I don't say these things, because it's more important that I not be a "colossal asshole" to someone (just a very mild asshole ;))  My beef is when the "consequences"  far outweigh the initial offense.   Like that guy that (legally) shot the lion in Africa, and lost his dental business, and his family received death threats (and had to get personal security for themselves).  That's not at all "capitalism".   

When you get offended, and shame others into either going along with your boycott, or outright bully those that don't go along with your boycott, that's also not "capitalism".   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on February 13, 2018, 11:58:41 AM
So I am part polish and my mom's side is dominantly Polish.  I grew up with my mom using the term Polacks as describing herself and other polish people.  I had no idea it was derogatory.  In third grade we did a class project that essentially created a boardgame about our heritage for the school's heritage day.  All the parents watched and we displayed this board game (it was the size of the gym as the pieces were people so it was like a spectacle to watch our class project).  I was tasked with writing some questions.  I read one of my question aloud to everyone in the gym (parents, students, teachers, and local news covering this):

What do you call Polish people? A. Italians B. Mexicans or C. Polacks?   :lol  We still laugh about this with my family
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 13, 2018, 12:04:55 PM
I had a co-worker of Polish descent at my last job.  Very cool guy.  We were looking at some applications, which included a female also of Polish descent.  I said "Hey, you're a Polack, how do you pronounce her name?"  And he told me.  No biggie.

Our BSA heard this and came running over from the next aisle, asking us to not use racial epithets (or however she phrased it) because it was offensive.  She's Hispanic but her boyfriend is Polish.  Then, having said her piece, she immediately went back to her cube in the other aisle.

The first guy and I just looked at each other and shrugged.  He said "But I am a Polack.  Why wouldn't you call me that?"


Edit: Okay, I re-read my post and can see how the "Parent outrage" could be confused. What I MEANT was that "parents are upset that a teacher their child likes is no longer there because of something they don't particularly care about." The parents don't seem to mind that she's gay, but to expect the Church not to care seems like a futile endeavor.

Oh the parents were ok with it and were upset she was fired?  Yeah I totally misunderstood that part, my bad,  carry on.

That is an interesting reversal of what you usually hear about these days, though.  The school acted, presumably according to their rules/guidelines/whatever, and fired the teacher.  Parents complained, school stuck to their guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there were at least a few parents that complained about the (now) openly gay teacher, so the school's action may still be in response to that.  But either way, it's their rules, their game, and somebody is gonna be unhappy.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 12:07:09 PM
These are not the same thing.  You are correct that the latter, or "what [you] prefer to call it" is not a problem.  But that is not what the thread is about.

Political correctness is, by any common definition, modification of behavior or language in order to avoid either offending or disadvantaging persons. So if you don't agree with political correctness, you are, ergo, either indifferent to causing offence/disadvantage or are in favour of actively causing it. Which, to me, is arseholish behavior.

That  is absolutely wrong.  I am VERY MUCH not indifferent to causing offense.  I don't use the N-word, even scholastically, and I take great pains to be considerate to people.   Both wives have said "too much pains".   I have stood at the mall door holding open while my family waits for me inside because I don't want to appear rude to the people behind me.  I put my shopping carts in the corral when I'm done.   But I am as vehemently anti-PC as anyone here, because while I don't want to offend anyone, I also DO NOT accept the idea that anyone else can tell me what to think, and I am extremely sensitive to any coercion in that direction.     

Quote
Who is being bullied and oppressed by people voicing their displeasure at an allergy being the butt of a joke? What court or other legal mechanisms enforced the decision of a private company to terminate an employee because he spouted some bullcrap during the olympics and got called out on it?

Well, the network clearly took that approach to avoid the bullying of an organized boycott from consumers.  Regardless, these may not be the best examples of "bullying".    When Diane von Furstenburg tweeted a supportive message to Caitlyn Jenner (something about designing a dress for her, or something) the PC Twitter bullies lambasted her to the point she felt she had to issue an apology to Caitlyn.  It has a chilling effect on further discourse.  And if even one person decides not to buy a von Furstenburg dress because the Twitter-verse believes her to be insensitive to transgender - as opposed to taking the facts and making their own determination - then that's bullying.  I know there are situations where I don't say certain things, not because I don't want to offend, but because it's not worth it to deal with the backlash of saying it.  Do you see the difference there?   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 13, 2018, 12:09:48 PM
But do you have the right to bully and/or shame those that do offend you? Do you have the right to ruin their lives and reputation with a response that goes well beyond the initial "offense"?

That's where the problem is for me.  I don't say these things, because it's more important that I not be a "colossal asshole" to someone (just a very mild asshole ;))  My beef is when the "consequences"  far outweigh the initial offense. Like that guy that (legally) shot the lion in Africa, and lost his dental business, and his family received death threats (and had to get personal security for themselves).  That's not at all "capitalism".   

When you get offended, and shame others into either going along with your boycott, or outright bully those that don't go along with your boycott, that's also not "capitalism".   

I agree with you for the most part. But what you are describing is a harassment campaign. Not political correctness.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
The biggest issue I see with the berry allergy thing is that the movie studio apologized. People need to stop apologizing for everything just because a handful of people got offended. Seriously, how many people complained about this, like 8? Companies need to stop publicly acknowledging every little complaint. I'm sure 50 years ago a handful of people would have written letters to the studio complaining and they would have gone straight in the trash. If the berry people hadn't been acknowledged they likely would have gone away, or if they did try and raise a stink, the vast majority of Americans would have just rolled their eyes at them.

And at this point, does anyone actually think the apologies are sincere, heartfelt and considerate?  Or just a legal requirement, followed abruptly with an internal memo banning any reference to said offensive comment in any future public correspondence.   

By the way, how many Polacks does it take to change a lightbulb?   

By the way, part II, the funniest thing?  The Polish and Italian joke books were almost identical but for the changing of the nationality. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:33 PM
Political correctness, or as I prefer to call it, "make the bare minimum effort in not being a colossal arsehole to someone", is not a significant problem. You don't have the right to not be offended, but equally there is no law preventing people from expressing their displeasure, nor companies responding to said market forces. In my day that was just called "capitalism".

But do you have the right to bully and/or shame those that do offend you? Do you have the right to ruin their lives and reputation with a response that goes well beyond the initial "offense"?  That's where the problem is for me.  I don't say these things, because it's more important that I not be a "colossal asshole" to someone (just a very mild asshole ;))  My beef is when the "consequences"  far outweigh the initial offense.   Like that guy that (legally) shot the lion in Africa, and lost his dental business, and his family received death threats (and had to get personal security for themselves).  That's not at all "capitalism".   

When you get offended, and shame others into either going along with your boycott, or outright bully those that don't go along with your boycott, that's also not "capitalism".

Death threats are bad (and you know, against the law) whatever the context may be.

   I don't know the particulars of how that guy lost his dental business, but that seems like a stretch to call it bullying.  I think most people would claim to be independent of thought so to imply that they would take their business elsewhere only out of fear of.. what exactly?   That's why I tend to agree with xjdenton on this, people voting with their dollars is just capitalism at work.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 13, 2018, 12:16:07 PM

That is an interesting reversal of what you usually hear about these days, though.  The school acted, presumably according to their rules/guidelines/whatever, and fired the teacher.  Parents complained, school stuck to their guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there were at least a few parents that complained about the (now) openly gay teacher, so the school's action may still be in response to that.  But either way, it's their rules, their game, and somebody is gonna be unhappy.

Isn't that a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination though, firing someone for their sexual orientation?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 13, 2018, 12:26:14 PM
That  is absolutely wrong.  I am VERY MUCH not indifferent to causing offense.  I don't use the N-word, even scholastically, and I take great pains to be considerate to people. Both wives have said "too much pains".   I have stood at the mall door holding open while my family waits for me inside because I don't want to appear rude to the people behind me.  I put my shopping carts in the corral when I'm done.


You are being politically correct then.

Quote
But I am as vehemently anti-PC as anyone here, because while I don't want to offend anyone, I also DO NOT accept the idea that anyone else can tell me what to think, and I am extremely sensitive to any coercion in that direction.

How exactly are the people mentioned in the original post coercing you into thinking a certain way?

Quote
Well, the network clearly took that approach to avoid the bullying of an organized boycott from consumers.  Regardless, these may not be the best examples of "bullying".

A boycott is not bullying. Otherwise I am bullying every single person I have chosen to to talk to. And the idea that a multi billion company with a legal department larger than some cities can be "bullied" by a minority of loud people (to use a sentiment expressed earlier in the thread) is, in my view, pretty laughable.

Quote
When Diane von Furstenburg tweeted a supportive message to Caitlyn Jenner (something about designing a dress for her, or something) the PC Twitter bullies lambasted her to the point she felt she had to issue an apology to Caitlyn.  It has a chilling effect on further discourse.  And if even one person decides not to buy a von Furstenburg dress because the Twitter-verse believes her to be insensitive to transgender - as opposed to taking the facts and making their own determination - then that's bullying.

I agree harassment is beyond the pale. but I have to respectively disagree on the last point. Online and ethical behavior by persons or companies is a perfectly valid criteria to be basing purchasing decisions on.

Quote
I know there are situations where I don't say certain things, not because I don't want to offend, but because it's not worth it to deal with the backlash of saying it.  Do you see the difference there?   

Yes. One is done as a consideration of other's feelings. The other is done for your own peace and benefit.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on February 13, 2018, 01:07:34 PM
The berry thing reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Marge protests itchy and scratchy forcing them to ditch the violence "But then we remembered that counts as VIOLENCE, which is morally wrong now, thanks to you."
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 13, 2018, 01:50:10 PM

That is an interesting reversal of what you usually hear about these days, though.  The school acted, presumably according to their rules/guidelines/whatever, and fired the teacher.  Parents complained, school stuck to their guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there were at least a few parents that complained about the (now) openly gay teacher, so the school's action may still be in response to that.  But either way, it's their rules, their game, and somebody is gonna be unhappy.

Isn't that a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination though, firing someone for their sexual orientation?

I would think so, but it's also possible that things get murky where religion is involved.  It is a Catholic school, so it seems like they might have some degree of "freedom" to discriminate against those who don't follow their doctrine.  It might also vary by state or something.  But I'm no expert.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 13, 2018, 02:03:31 PM

That is an interesting reversal of what you usually hear about these days, though.  The school acted, presumably according to their rules/guidelines/whatever, and fired the teacher.  Parents complained, school stuck to their guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there were at least a few parents that complained about the (now) openly gay teacher, so the school's action may still be in response to that.  But either way, it's their rules, their game, and somebody is gonna be unhappy.

Isn't that a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination though, firing someone for their sexual orientation?

I would think so, but it's also possible that things get murky where religion is involved.  It is a Catholic school, so it seems like they might have some degree of "freedom" to discriminate against those who don't follow their doctrine.  It might also vary by state or something.  But I'm no expert.

Yeah, the Church is exempt in that regard. And again, I just can't imagine how that comes as any surprise to anyone. She had a "conduct" clause (or something) that required at the very least a public appearance of living a Catholic life, or whatever. Basically a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It seems she was fired for posting the pics, not the actual fact that she is gay.

That being said, I kind of disrespect her. Where has people's integrity gone? Why the fuck would a gay woman accept or pursue a job at a Catholic school? They don't hide or shy away from their feelings about homosexuality. I grew up Catholic; I hate organized religion at the most fundamental level; I won't set foot in a church because I certainly don't want to, but I also will extend that small respect because they truly don't want me there if I feel the way I do. I guess there are gay Catholics that still function within the church... I don't know. I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Orbert on February 13, 2018, 02:33:24 PM
It's a tough call.  It's possible that the only offer she had was the one from the Catholic school.  Why did she apply there in the first place?  Same as anyone else; to cast as wide a net as possible.  I'm a former teacher myself, and had to scramble three times in six years to find a job.  If the only offer on the table was at a school that I would normally have some kind of issue with, the choice is actually between the full-time salaried gig and continuing to flip burgers or wait tables or something.

Integrity?  I don't know if that's the issue.  Pride maybe, but I'll eat it up if it means getting the gig and supporting my family.  I'm not Catholic, but if the only gig was at a Catholic school, I wouldn't consider it compromising my integrity to work there.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 02:52:07 PM
But do you have the right to bully and/or shame those that do offend you? Do you have the right to ruin their lives and reputation with a response that goes well beyond the initial "offense"?

That's where the problem is for me.  I don't say these things, because it's more important that I not be a "colossal asshole" to someone (just a very mild asshole ;))  My beef is when the "consequences"  far outweigh the initial offense. Like that guy that (legally) shot the lion in Africa, and lost his dental business, and his family received death threats (and had to get personal security for themselves).  That's not at all "capitalism".   

When you get offended, and shame others into either going along with your boycott, or outright bully those that don't go along with your boycott, that's also not "capitalism".   

I agree with you for the most part. But what you are describing is a harassment campaign. Not political correctness.

A harassment campaign rooted in and rationalized by political correctness.   You gave your definition of PC, and now I give mine: "bullying someone else into thinking like you do (or at least pretending to)."
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 13, 2018, 02:57:13 PM
That  is absolutely wrong.  I am VERY MUCH not indifferent to causing offense.  I don't use the N-word, even scholastically, and I take great pains to be considerate to people. Both wives have said "too much pains".   I have stood at the mall door holding open while my family waits for me inside because I don't want to appear rude to the people behind me.  I put my shopping carts in the corral when I'm done.


You are being politically correct then.

Quote
But I am as vehemently anti-PC as anyone here, because while I don't want to offend anyone, I also DO NOT accept the idea that anyone else can tell me what to think, and I am extremely sensitive to any coercion in that direction.

How exactly are the people mentioned in the original post coercing you into thinking a certain way?

Well, perhaps I am PC, but it's only me.  I don't bully or shame anyone that decides to not hold a door or leaves the cart in the middle of the parking space. 

Quote
Quote
Well, the network clearly took that approach to avoid the bullying of an organized boycott from consumers.  Regardless, these may not be the best examples of "bullying".

A boycott is not bullying. Otherwise I am bullying every single person I have chosen to to talk to. And the idea that a multi billion company with a legal department larger than some cities can be "bullied" by a minority of loud people (to use a sentiment expressed earlier in the thread) is, in my view, pretty laughable.

Well, I separate personal action from group action.  There are vendors I personally choose not to use for whatever reason.  I do not make that anyone else's problem and I feel no need to "educate" others to do the same.   As soon I as try to sway you to see things my way - to use or not use a service or product for some ancillary issue not related to the product or service itself - it's bullying and shaming, in my view. 

Quote
When Diane von Furstenburg tweeted a supportive message to Caitlyn Jenner (something about designing a dress for her, or something) the PC Twitter bullies lambasted her to the point she felt she had to issue an apology to Caitlyn.  It has a chilling effect on further discourse.  And if even one person decides not to buy a von Furstenburg dress because the Twitter-verse believes her to be insensitive to transgender - as opposed to taking the facts and making their own determination - then that's bullying.

I agree harassment is beyond the pale. but I have to respectively disagree on the last point. Online and ethical behavior by persons or companies is a perfectly valid criteria to be basing purchasing decisions on.

Quote
Quote
I know there are situations where I don't say certain things, not because I don't want to offend, but because it's not worth it to deal with the backlash of saying it.  Do you see the difference there?   

Yes. One is done as a consideration of other's feelings. The other is done for your own peace and benefit.

NO; there's no "consideration of other's feelings".   It's kowtowing to avoid a hassle.   I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.   That's not always the case. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 13, 2018, 03:11:39 PM

  I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.   That's not always the case.

How so? Seriously you're probably one of the most bullheaded, stubborn people I've ever met online (I mean that in a good way, mostly  :rollin)  I'm convinced you just do what you're gonna do, eat what you want, listen to what you want.  If not then I'm really confused. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on February 13, 2018, 03:13:43 PM

That is an interesting reversal of what you usually hear about these days, though.  The school acted, presumably according to their rules/guidelines/whatever, and fired the teacher.  Parents complained, school stuck to their guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there were at least a few parents that complained about the (now) openly gay teacher, so the school's action may still be in response to that.  But either way, it's their rules, their game, and somebody is gonna be unhappy.

Isn't that a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination though, firing someone for their sexual orientation?

I would think so, but it's also possible that things get murky where religion is involved.  It is a Catholic school, so it seems like they might have some degree of "freedom" to discriminate against those who don't follow their doctrine.  It might also vary by state or something.  But I'm no expert.

Yeah, the Church is exempt in that regard. And again, I just can't imagine how that comes as any surprise to anyone. She had a "conduct" clause (or something) that required at the very least a public appearance of living a Catholic life, or whatever. Basically a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It seems she was fired for posting the pics, not the actual fact that she is gay.

That being said, I kind of disrespect her. Where has people's integrity gone? Why the fuck would a gay woman accept or pursue a job at a Catholic school? They don't hide or shy away from their feelings about homosexuality. I grew up Catholic; I hate organized religion at the most fundamental level; I won't set foot in a church because I certainly don't want to, but I also will extend that small respect because they truly don't want me there if I feel the way I do. I guess there are gay Catholics that still function within the church... I don't know. I just don't get it.

People need to survive and if she felt she could teach there then so be it.  I won't judge someone for taking a job that's totally legit like being a teacher, but if she had this clause and broke it, then I don't feel bad or think it's wrong that she lost her job.  She signed on knowing that.  The parents have a right to be upset if their student liked the teacher, but they don't have a right to force her way back. (not sure if they are trying to do that, just saying)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 13, 2018, 04:03:38 PM
People need to survive and if she felt she could teach there then so be it.  I won't judge someone for taking a job that's totally legit like being a teacher, but if she had this clause and broke it, then I don't feel bad or think it's wrong that she lost her job.  She signed on knowing that.  The parents have a right to be upset if their student liked the teacher, but they don't have a right to force her way back. (not sure if they are trying to do that, just saying)

That's pretty much where I'm at. I don't necessarily judge her for having that job. I DO judge her for knowing the circumstances, and then after she's fired, taking to Twitter to spread the word, doing stories in publications, inciting some sort of outside rage. It's just a joke. I hate having to side with the Catholic Church  :rollin.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 13, 2018, 07:57:28 PM
You’ve got to be F’n kidding me....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386439/Schools-consider-banning-best-friends-inclusivity.html
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 13, 2018, 08:01:57 PM
Come on guys, are we really going after that kind of low hanging fruit?

Also Daily Mail. Come on.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 13, 2018, 08:12:03 PM
That isn't new, and it isn't low hanging fruit, and I don't know what it being in the Daily Mail means, I have seen this news covered by many sources.

Last year, my sister's kindergarten teacher had them do an art project focusing on their BFF. Somehow they all survived. Will check back in 20 years to see if anyone becomes a serial killer because they weren't anyone's BFF in school.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 13, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
The Daily Mail recently ran a front page headline declaring elected judges in the UK as "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE".

They are trash.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 13, 2018, 11:49:41 PM
A harassment campaign rooted in and rationalized by political correctness.

Ah, so we agree they aren't the same then. Good.

Quote
You gave your definition of PC, and now I give mine: "bullying someone else into thinking like you do (or at least pretending to)."

If that is the definition you are using then I can understand where the disconnect between our thinking lies.

Well, perhaps I am PC, but it's only me.  I don't bully or shame anyone that decides to not hold a door or leaves the cart in the middle of the parking space.

As I've said before, shaming is not bullying. If you feel shame after somebody calls you out on something that is because some part of you at least knows your actions are wrong. Being called out on wrong behavior is not a problem IMO. And bullying requires a power dynamic. Some guy in the street calling you out on your manners has no power you don't have and is ergo not bullying.

Quote
Well, I separate personal action from group action.  There are vendors I personally choose not to use for whatever reason.  I do not make that anyone else's problem and I feel no need to "educate" others to do the same.   As soon I as try to sway you to see things my way - to use or not use a service or product for some ancillary issue not related to the product or service itself - it's bullying and shaming, in my view.

By that broad definition, all debate, scientific journals, scientists and advocacy groups are bullies. I feel that is not a useful definition.

Quote
NO; there's no "consideration of other's feelings".   It's kowtowing to avoid a hassle.   I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.

Why? Why should your actions only exist in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 14, 2018, 12:21:17 AM
Being called out on wrong behavior is not a problem IMO.

Sorry to jump in but who is the arbiter of what constitutes "wrong behavior?" Some of us are feeling that it has become the person who complains the loudest because the behavior in question that doesn't conform to their beliefs.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 02:12:47 AM
Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 06:40:43 AM

  I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.   That's not always the case.

How so? Seriously you're probably one of the most bullheaded, stubborn people I've ever met online (I mean that in a good way, mostly  :rollin)  I'm convinced you just do what you're gonna do, eat what you want, listen to what you want.  If not then I'm really confused.

Mostly; but there are times when I opt out of a line of thought for no reason than I think some people will not be able to look past the patina of the statement and will make it something it's not.   This is less about a Phil Anselmo record (I think he blows, frankly) than it is subverting rational, intelligent thought.   There was an article in Discover Magazine - has to be 20 years ago now - that talked about "Race", from a scientific point of view.  The editors put in a commentary from them that read, basically, that "we don't THINK there are material differences in race - any attributes that might be attributed to race might also be reasonably attributed to culture or environment - but even if there was, we feel stronger that society can't handle those differences.  It's better for society in the short term to gloss over differences under the guise of "we're all the same on the inside" because the differences won't be exploited for good, but will be preyed upon for bad."   I agree with that. 

Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder.   Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such).    How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand? 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 06:51:15 AM
As I've said before, shaming is not bullying. If you feel shame after somebody calls you out on something that is because some part of you at least knows your actions are wrong. Being called out on wrong behavior is not a problem IMO. And bullying requires a power dynamic. Some guy in the street calling you out on your manners has no power you don't have and is ergo not bullying.

This really resonated with me, because it highlights where I see the line being, subjective though it might seem.  There are some things that are patently wrong:  killing someone for the sport of it.   Punching someone in the face and stealing their sneakers.   Recording a prog-rock album in 10 days and claiming it is your opus (just kidding).   Other things, not so much.  When you call someone out because YOU think it's wrong, and  not because it might be "objectively" wrong, is when it morphs into the behavior we're talking about.   I have the right to think that being gay is an aberration (I don't, but bear with me).  I have the right to believe that being transgender is a mental condition, and not just an "alternate reality" (my jury is out on that one, to be honest).  I have the right to believe that those accused of sexual assault ought to at least be indicted by a competent body of law enforcement/judicial system before they begin to suffer consequences (I do believe that).   To run afoul of any of those, at any given time, is to bear the wrath of the Twitter-verse (I use that as a euphemism for those whose sensitivity on PC matters is perhaps a shade high).   



Quote
Quote
NO; there's no "consideration of other's feelings".   It's kowtowing to avoid a hassle.   I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.

Why? Why should your actions only exist in a vacuum?

See above; they don't exist in a vacuum; but why should I be forced to accept your version of the moral code?    If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record).   If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right.   That's a shade hyperbolic, but the reality comes in when you vote for a Trump because you like his immigration plan, or you are for the repeal of the ACA, but you get tarnished as a racist - a "deplorable" - because you don't make that your number one, over-arching, deal-breaker criteria for selecting your President.  I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary (I went independent) but I can guarantee you, I wasn't going to JUST pick the candidate that I thought was "least racist", and that's what many want us to do.  That's the ESSENCE of the "deplorable" comment.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 06:52:06 AM
Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

By the way, XJDenton, good conversation.  I'm enjoying this. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 14, 2018, 06:58:51 AM
Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

By the way, XJDenton, good conversation.  I'm enjoying this.

Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time. It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

It's been said before: the pendulum. Unfortunately it seems like one side doesn't realize that they are pushing too far. It's going to undo any good change they could have hoped for because everyone else is going to actively fight back.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Implode on February 14, 2018, 07:28:16 AM
I definitely think there is a line being crosses with what some people call "PC Culture" but it's way further than most people see. There's nothing wrong with wanting to stop people from being passive assholes, but when things get into "call-out culture", there's a pretty big problem with a lot of kids these days. (says the 26 year old :lol)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 09:55:42 AM
Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

By the way, XJDenton, good conversation.  I'm enjoying this.

Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time. It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

It's been said before: the pendulum. Unfortunately it seems like one side doesn't realize that they are pushing too far. It's going to undo any good change they could have hoped for because everyone else is going to actively fight back.

As one of the leading proponents of the "Pendulum TheoryTM of modern American politics, a little give and take is necessary and required.   The problem here - and I'll table it after this but it's relevant and related - is that much like the "moralization" of politics we're seeing by one party, we're trying to stop the pendulum entirely.   There are always exceptions, but I think when you have one side that doesn't really want their own way, but just wants to have a dialogue, and the other side is saying "NO! No dialogue for you!  Back of the line!" that's sort of undermining the process. 

To Sylvan's point, I sort of see where XJDenton is coming from.  WITHIN REASON, I don't think "educating" the masses is a bad thing, as long as you tolerate their answer if they decide not to follow your lead.    What I object to is when the reaction shuts down the conversation  altogether.  When I'm so afraid of the reaction that I don't even bother putting the idea out there to begin with.  That doesn't help anyone. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 14, 2018, 12:11:25 PM
Kind of related to this but reading the discussions on Sean White in regards to his comments and dragging the flag. I'm so tired of so and so did xyz and users on (inserts social media name) are OUTRAGED. Apparently EVERYONE is expected to be perfect and never make mistakes and people on the internet are perfect and never do anything wrong. Why is everyone so outraged all the time? I think that there should be a holiday where every single form of social medai get's shut off though I'm sure the outrage would destroy the planet.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 12:54:29 PM
Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder.   Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such).    How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand? 

As a counterpoint, homosexuality was also classed as a mental disorder in the DSM in some form or another up until 1987. "Disorder" is not a neat category in any case, and does, whether you agree it should or not, have a stigma attached to it. People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

This really resonated with me, because it highlights where I see the line being, subjective though it might seem.  There are some things that are patently wrong:  killing someone for the sport of it.

By what objective measure is murder wrong? What is the measurable?

Quote
Recording a prog-rock album in 10 days and claiming it is your opus (just kidding).

Careful now. :p

Quote
When you call someone out because YOU think it's wrong, and not because it might be "objectively" wrong, is when it morphs into the behavior we're talking about.   I have the right to think that being gay is an aberration (I don't, but bear with me).  I have the right to believe that being transgender is a mental condition, and not just an "alternate reality" (my jury is out on that one, to be honest).  I have the right to believe that those accused of sexual assault ought to at least be indicted by a competent body of law enforcement/judicial system before they begin to suffer consequences (I do believe that).   To run afoul of any of those, at any given time, is to bear the wrath of the Twitter-verse (I use that as a euphemism for those whose sensitivity on PC matters is perhaps a shade high).

Sure, you have the right to believe those things, and express them. However equally they have the right to express their displeasure at the idea. Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

Quote
See above; they don't exist in a vacuum; but why should I be forced to accept your version of the moral code?

Again, how are you being forced to do so? The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least).

Quote
If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record).

You can, and lots of people did.

Quote
If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right.

And people did.

Quote
That's a shade hyperbolic, but the reality comes in when you vote for a Trump because you like his immigration plan, or you are for the repeal of the ACA, but you get tarnished as a racist - a "deplorable" - because you don't make that your number one, over-arching, deal-breaker criteria for selecting your President.

See, that's fine in the abstract but rather falls down when you deal with practical reality in my opinion. I will never argue that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That is patently false. What I will argue however is that by voting for him they were voting for a man who made it exceptionally clear on the campaign trail that he was happy courting racists, hiring racist people, and supporting racist policies while having a thorough disregard for due process, and thus even if a voter wasn't racist, they at least did not care about this enough to be a deal breaker for them and did in part make these racist proposals a practical reality. For the people who will be on the sharp end of the stick when it comes to these policies, the fact that they personally aren't racist is not going to be a significant comfort to them. In practical terms, being actively racist and simply apathetic have much the same effect.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Pink Floyd, Close to the Edge.

For some people, these "disagreements on deal breakers" cut a hell of a lot deeper than a disagreement on whether something should be privatised or not. Some of these deal breakers are literally the difference between life and death, between a family being together and being ripped apart, between allowing to stay where you've lived your whole life or being thrown out with nothing. At which point "well, lets agree to disagree" simply does not cut it.

Quote
Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time.

Not a reddit user then? :p

Quote
It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 03:08:59 PM
Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder.   Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such).    How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand? 

As a counterpoint, homosexuality was also classed as a mental disorder in the DSM in some form or another up until 1987. "Disorder" is not a neat category in any case, and does, whether you agree it should or not, have a stigma attached to it. People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

Fine, but when professionals schooled in the topic move it from the DSM to another classification based on hard data and replicable research, I'm in.  If it's a diagnosable mental disorder, we should be able to call it such without being shamed because someone's feelings are hurt.   I'm short.  There's no other word for it.   SHORT.  Not "height challenged", not "under grown", not Pre full post completed development".  I get that we don't like to feel broken or inferior, but the hard reality is that there are conditions that require description either for treatment purposes or other classifications. 

By what objective measure is murder wrong? What is the measurable?

I define that as a unilateral, non-negotiable, irreversible violation of a fundamental right that government - our government at least - has deemed a fundamental inalienable right.


Quote
Sure, you have the right to believe those things, and express them. However equally they have the right to express their displeasure at the idea. Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

But here's the thing.  I don't mind the "expression", until the "expression" moves into action.  We can debate whether it's a good standard or not, but a common standard between  what is acceptable when it comes to things that might reasonably be deemed "bad" (subject to any definition we might agree on for that) is when it transforms into "action".  We - in theory, anyway - allow people to have certain thoughts - be it raping, killing, racial, whatever - but they don't get to act on them.   Why do the SJWs get to act on theirs? 

Quote
Again, how are you being forced to do so? The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least).

Well, "allowed" is a loose term.   When you have organized CD boycotts against Phil Anselmo for some of the shit he's said (Ted Nugent, too) I would argue that "allow" is not being accurately applied. 

Quote
Quote
If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record).

You can, and lots of people did.

Not without recrimination, though.  You vote for him, you risk being labeled a "deplorable".  You said before that people don't like consider themselves broken or inferior.  Why doesn't that apply here? 

Quote
Quote
If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right.

And people did.

Prove it.  You have no idea whether that is true or not.   All you have is Hillary telling you that's so.

Quote
See, that's fine in the abstract but rather falls down when you deal with practical reality in my opinion. I will never argue that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That is patently false. What I will argue however is that by voting for him they were voting for a man who made it exceptionally clear on the campaign trail that he was happy courting racists, hiring racist people, and supporting racist policies while having a thorough disregard for due process, and thus even if a voter wasn't racist, they at least did not care about this enough to be a deal breaker for them and did in part make these racist proposals a practical reality. For the people who will be on the sharp end of the stick when it comes to these policies, the fact that they personally aren't racist is not going to be a significant comfort to them. In practical terms, being actively racist and simply apathetic have much the same effect.

No.  He made it seem clear to those that were predisposed to think that about him.   "Hiring racist people" is exactly what I'm talking about.  Why shouldn't you if you feel they are the most qualified?  Well, the answer is because "racism" is a silver bullet that trumps everything.  Which I just said is my perceived flaw with the PC argument.   If you're the Patriots, and you hear Brady use the word "n*****", do you cut him from the team?   That's what I mean; I don't think you do (forget for the sake argument about the divisive nature of that in a locker room for a sport that is 65% African American, about 5 times the national average).

Quote
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Pink Floyd, Close to the Edge.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one.  I liked that.

Quote
I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.

Well, I take a slightly different approach; for me, I don't think I'm 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong.  We are all reasonably smart and have reasonably different experiences.  I feel an obligation to incorporate ALL accurate facts into my world view, even if I don't agree with them (or where they lead) because I don't want to live in a vacuum.  So talking with people like you forces me to evolve my world view - even if slightly - to incorporate those aspects of your argument that I'm not yet dealing with appropriately enough. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 14, 2018, 03:17:16 PM
Transgender is not a disorder in the DSM. You're thinking of gender dysphoria.


PMS, however, is.

The DSM is not hard science. It's a perspective. It is also focused on disorder meaning something that makes life difficult and challenging in a more than tolerable way. Homelessness is listed in it as well. The reason something like gender dysphoria is in the DSM is because experiencing it, in our society, causes a ton of mental anguish, not because it's a mental imbalance, which I think you're implying.   


Also I don't know why you're even bringing up transgender, since the rest of your sentence is about terminology. No one is being outraged at the use of transgender.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 14, 2018, 03:49:54 PM
Quote
People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

That's a fair point as long as there is a line drawn. Trying in some ways to not make people feel MORE broken/inferior is a nice idea, as long as it doesn't ignore, or even rewrite, the facts. Some people are broken. Some people are inferior (I don't necessarily mean lgbtq, but we have a term... "Average", which entails that some are superior, some are inferior). That's just a fact.

Quote
By what objective measure is murder wrong? What is the measurable?

Considering he said "killing someone for the sport of it", I would argue that being ILLEGAL in every country on this planet is as close as you can get to an objective measure on the subjective matter of morality.

Quote
Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

In this particular example, for instance, if the person had watched Peter Rabbit and thought to themselves, "That's not funny, and it's insensitive to people with food allergies," and stopped at that... we have DISAGREEMENT. But, when the person took to twitter to inform people, not just that the scene exists, but that it is patently "food-allergy bullying", and also attached to super clever hashtag #BoycottPeterRabbit... we go way past disagreement and into COERCION. And at no point could any rational person describe this persons actions as challenging an opinion.

Quote
The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least)

Earlier Stadler remarked on how he was surprised by the Church not caving to the public pressures of the parents and people that want the teacher to be reinstated. You have now used Nazis/Communists as an example of the same unwillingness to cave to those pressures. Those two groups have something in common... they give absolutely NO shits about what anyone else thinks. On top of that, they have no product to sell (we can argue that idea about Christianity at another time  :mehlin). That these groups can't be bullied is a clear indicator of only that fact. Sony Pictures, Amazon, Walmart, Mom & Pop Small Business... they all have something to lose. And your characterization of it kinda implies that you believe the tactics being employed aren't bullying because you believe those on the other side CAN'T be bullied, and not that the TACTICS themselves aren't bullying.

Quote
You can, and lots of people did.

Not without being labeled a Deplorable (again), a Racist/Homophobe/Xenophobe, and even being thought of as guilty of committing a hate crime because of who was voted for. But hey, it's not bullying if those people SHOULD feel shame...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-vote-for-trump-was-a-hate-crime_us_58249871e4b0edfa1393613a (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-vote-for-trump-was-a-hate-crime_us_58249871e4b0edfa1393613a)

Quote
For some people, these "disagreements on deal breakers" cut a hell of a lot deeper than a disagreement on whether something should be privatised or not. Some of these deal breakers are literally the difference between life and death, between a family being together and being ripped apart, between allowing to stay where you've lived your whole life or being thrown out with nothing. At which point "well, lets agree to disagree" simply does not cut it.

You say that like people have some inherent obligation to care. I was born in America; I know, lucky me :biggrin:, but I can't change that. While I'm aware of world events, and sympathetic to certain peoples to a certain degree, I have no obligation to make their problem my problem. Is it sad that families get ripped apart? YES. Is that the risk they took, and should they have to live with the consequences of how things play out? YES. Just because parents illegally brought their children here in hopes of a better life DOES NOT mean I have to provide them with that better life.

Quote
I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.

The thing is, a lot of people (I can really only speak for myself though) didn't arrive at their opinion through ambivalence. I have thought long and hard about this subject. I live on the MIDDLE GROUND. I'm not on the left telling people what they can say/think/feel, and I'm not way on the right yelling racist hateful shit at anyone/everyone. I can accept that some people don't want "marginalized" folk to feel bad, or have their feelings hurt or offended or emarassed or whatever. I can accept that some people just hate other races, think the gays are ruining society, and that the Jews are hoarding all the money. What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that. And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.


Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 04:10:20 PM
Fine, but when professionals schooled in the topic move it from the DSM to another classification based on hard data and replicable research, I'm in.  If it's a diagnosable mental disorder, we should be able to call it such without being shamed because someone's feelings are hurt.   I'm short.  There's no other word for it.   SHORT.  Not "height challenged", not "under grown", not Pre full post completed development".  I get that we don't like to feel broken or inferior, but the hard reality is that there are conditions that require description either for treatment purposes or other classifications.

Again, I only feel shame for actions I know, at least partly, that are wrong. In any case, since the DSM has changed significantly over the last few decades I don't think it unreasonable to challenge parts of it. There's plenty of academics who believe characterising transgenderism as a disorder does more harm than good."

Quote
I define that as a unilateral, non-negotiable, irreversible violation of a fundamental right that government - our government at least - has deemed a fundamental inalienable right.

So if all 50 states ratified an amendment legalizing it you would be okay with it?

Quote
We - in theory, anyway - allow people to have certain thoughts - be it raping, killing, racial, whatever - but they don't get to act on them.   Why do the SJWs get to act on theirs?

What illegal acts are "SJWs" allowed to do that others can't?

Quote
Well, "allowed" is a loose term. When you have organized CD boycotts against Phil Anselmo for some of the shit he's said (Ted Nugent, too) I would argue that "allow" is not being accurately applied.

A boycott does not restrict his speech. It is a consequence of his right to free speech being expressed. No practical definition of freedom is complete without the freedom to take the consequences.

Quote
Not without recrimination, though.  You vote for him, you risk being labeled a "deplorable".  You said before that people don't like consider themselves broken or inferior.  Why doesn't that apply here?

I'd say it should apply, but at the same time I understand why a person who lost their ability to pay for their cancer treatment, has even less to spend on food for their children or see people who want your race dead elected to high office might feel more strongly on the subject. 

Quote
Prove it. You have no idea whether that is true or not. All you have is Hillary telling you that's so.


Well that and polling data.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/trump-white-voters-immigration-muslims-239446
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/15/racial-resentment-is-why-41-percent-of-white-millennials-voted-for-trump-in-2016/?utm_term=.ff316b28552b

And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on Twitter and Reddit of individuals supporting Trump for such reasons. I'm also fairly certain the guys on Stormfront weren't voting Hillary. Not saying all Trump voters thought like that, just that there were some who did. Perhaps my wording was ambiguous.

Quote
No.  He made it seem clear to those that were predisposed to think that about him.

Well them, and anyone who had paid the slightest attention to what he's said over the last 4 decades:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Quote
"Hiring racist people" is exactly what I'm talking about.  Why shouldn't you if you feel they are the most qualified?

Because you're saying to your voterbase "I'm okay with people who think you are genetically inferior at best and should be either imprisoned or dead at worst being in charge of your freedoms"?

Quote
Well, the answer is because "racism" is a silver bullet that trumps everything.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

You'll have to forgive me if I think that a worldview that runs contrary to one of the core tenants of the foundation of your country is tad disqualifying for public office, or might be considered an important characteristic of any potential candidate.

Quote
If you're the Patriots, and you hear Brady use the word "n*****", do you cut him from the team?

I'm not familiar with Hockey, but yeah. You should. Or at least metaphorically smack his arse so hard he doesn't do it again.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 14, 2018, 04:41:15 PM

 And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.


I'm not sure I follow, what's the "alternate viewpoint" that you're equating with the KKK or flat-earthers here? 

edit: I read the post again and all I can come up with is "ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel."   That seems like pretty wide and subjective thing that you can apply however you want.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 04:42:59 PM
That's a fair point as long as there is a line drawn. Trying in some ways to not make people feel MORE broken/inferior is a nice idea, as long as it doesn't ignore, or even rewrite, the facts. Some people are broken. Some people are inferior (I don't necessarily mean lgbtq, but we have a term... "Average", which entails that some are superior, some are inferior). That's just a fact.

Averages describe numbers, and all human characteristics fall within a finite distribution. Saying "I have lower than average testorerone" is a fact. Saying "I have inferior testosterone" is not. And superiority/inferiority statement must be made in accordance with a subjective criteria (ask whether Usain bolts muscle mass is inferior or superior, you'll get different answers if you ask a sprinter or a climber). And I'll be honest, describing mental faculty and health in terms of superior/inferior sounds a hell of a lot like the kind of stuff eugenics was pumping out at the turn of the 20th century to me.

Quote
Considering he said "killing someone for the sport of it", I would argue that being ILLEGAL in every country on this planet is as close as you can get to an objective measure on the subjective matter of morality.

So we agree it isn't objective then. "Close to" doesn't cut it. It's either objective, or it isn't.

Quote
In this particular example, for instance, if the person had watched Peter Rabbit and thought to themselves, "That's not funny, and it's insensitive to people with food allergies," and stopped at that... we have DISAGREEMENT. But, when the person took to twitter to inform people, not just that the scene exists, but that it is patently "food-allergy bullying", and also attached to super clever hashtag #BoycottPeterRabbit... we go way past disagreement and into COERCION. And at no point could any rational person describe this persons actions as challenging an opinion.

If these people are COERCING people they evidently aren't very good at it given how many people in this thread have somehow managed to resist their propaganda and call them stupid.

Quote
Earlier Stadler remarked on how he was surprised by the Church not caving to the public pressures of the parents and people that want the teacher to be reinstated. You have now used Nazis/Communists as an example of the same unwillingness to cave to those pressures. Those two groups have something in common... they give absolutely NO shits about what anyone else thinks. On top of that, they have no product to sell (we can argue that idea about Christianity at another time  :mehlin). That these groups can't be bullied is a clear indicator of only that fact. Sony Pictures, Amazon, Walmart, Mom & Pop Small Business... they all have something to lose.

They are selling their ideology, and the have followers and funding to lose. Plenty of ways they can be hurt financially.

Quote
And your characterization of it kinda implies that you believe the tactics being employed aren't bullying because you believe those on the other side CAN'T be bullied, and not that the TACTICS themselves aren't bullying.

Correct. Power over the victim is the key component to being a bully. If you remove that power, all you are left with is "being a dick to someone". And again, I find the idea that some people on twitter are somehow more powerful than Walmart or Sony is a tad ridiculous IMO.

Quote
You say that like people have some inherent obligation to care. I was born in America; I know, lucky me :biggrin:, but I can't change that. While I'm aware of world events, and sympathetic to certain peoples to a certain degree, I have no obligation to make their problem my problem. Is it sad that families get ripped apart? YES. Is that the risk they took, and should they have to live with the consequences of how things play out? YES. Just because parents illegally brought their children here in hopes of a better life DOES NOT mean I have to provide them with that better life.

You don't have to care, but equally you should not be surprised if a lot of other people with (to use your terminology) superior empathy find that attitude deplorable.

Quote
The thing is, a lot of people (I can really only speak for myself though) didn't arrive at their opinion through ambivalence. I have thought long and hard about this subject. I live on the MIDDLE GROUND. I'm not on the left telling people what they can say/think/feel, and I'm not way on the right yelling racist hateful shit at anyone/everyone.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't think that people complaining about Peter rabbit on twitter and literal nazis are equidistant from the middle ground.

Quote
I can accept that some people don't want "marginalized" folk to feel bad, or have their feelings hurt or offended or emarassed or whatever. I can accept that some people just hate other races, think the gays are ruining society, and that the Jews are hoarding all the money. What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that.

So the one thing you won't accept is also the one thing that has absolutely no effect on you?

Quote
And it's not that I'm stubborn

Not even a smidge?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 14, 2018, 05:10:48 PM

 And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.


I'm not sure I follow, what's the "alternate viewpoint" that you're equating with the KKK or flat-earthers here? 

edit: I read the post again and all I can come up with is "ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel."   That seems like pretty wide and subjective thing that you can apply however you want.

As ludicrous as the idea is that the KKK believes that one race is superior (there's that word again!), or that Flat-Earthers believe the Earth is indeed flat, I find it just as ludicrous this PC bullying. We know, we know, they're on the right side of history. Ask the KKK if they think they're right, or listen to Flat-Earthers talk about how the governments of the world have been lying to us. Yup, all people on the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 14, 2018, 05:23:22 PM
I feel like I have a lot to say on some of this stuff, but by the time I have a minute to reply, there's been 20 posts and it makes it impossible.

So I will say this one tiny little thing which is likely of no consequence to anyone.

XJ, I agree with almost everything you're saying. I just want to make a point about the difference between guilt and shame. You're describing guilt, which is healthy, but using the word shame, which is not. Just a minor point, especially when Stadler is arguing against shame, not guilt.


I obviously disagree with a ton of what Sylvan and Stads are saying, but I don't know if I have the time/energy to be able to quote all of it line for line with a detailed rebuttal. Dammit.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 14, 2018, 05:37:49 PM
Quote
Averages describe numbers, and all human characteristics fall within a finite distribution. Saying "I have lower than average testorerone" is a fact. Saying "I have inferior testosterone" is not. And superiority/inferiority statement must be made in accordance with a subjective criteria (ask whether Usain bolts muscle mass is inferior or superior, you'll get different answers if you ask a sprinter or a climber). And I'll be honest, describing mental faculty and health in terms of superior/inferior sounds a hell of a lot like the kind of stuff eugenics was pumping out at the turn of the 20th century to me.

First, not that it matters, but you're the one who used the word "inferior". My mistake for using the word "average". It's always word games, and that's why these things go nowhere. Okay, so people don't want to feel broken or inferior. But apparently all these criteria are subjective and there's no real starting point for what's considered better or worse. So if these things don't actually make someone inferior, why should anyone care if they FEEL inferior?

Quote
If these people are COERCING people they evidently aren't very good at it given how many people in this thread have somehow managed to resist their propaganda and call them stupid.

Apparently big business doesn't read DTF  :lol. You can argue against this label or that, declare it Free Market Capitalism... When people call for a boycott, that's $$$ to these companies. "How can a small group bully these large corporations? The power dynamic is not there!" When that small group has the potential to turn into a very large group, not because of a legitimate grievance, but because of mob mentality, then they have the power. They're not sending a message with their wallets, they're sending a message with social media. Social media is out of control, a major way people use it is to incite rage, and the companies know it.

Quote
They are selling their ideology, and the have followers and funding to lose. Plenty of ways they can be hurt financially.

Well, Nazis aren't going to lose funding or followers of their ideology when they spout hate speech. That IS their ideology, and that stuff doesn't drive any potential followers away. The Church, while having the real world potential to turn people (current and potential believers) away, that has no effect on their message, or their beliefs. They are not the NFL trying to find a way to exist in the modern world.

Quote
You don't have to care, but equally you should not be surprised if a lot of other people with (to use your terminology) superior empathy find that attitude deplorable.

That's the point! I DON'T CARE IF THEY FIND IT DEPLORABLE! Their opinion means nothing to me. But that's not what we're talking about. They can feel however they want to feel, as long as it ends there. Just because they find my attitude deplorable does not give them an extra right to affect my life in any negative way because of it.

Quote
You'll have to forgive me, but I don't think that people complaining about Peter rabbit on twitter and literal nazis are equidistant from the middle ground.

That's your opinion. I mostly disagree. (the Peter Rabbit "complainers" are not really the problem here, only just one small example of a much greater problem)

Quote
So the one thing you won't accept is also the one thing that has absolutely no effect on you?

Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.


Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 05:40:54 PM
XJ, I agree with almost everything you're saying. I just want to make a point about the difference between guilt and shame. You're describing guilt, which is healthy, but using the word shame, which is not. Just a minor point, especially when Stadler is arguing against shame, not guilt.

In my opinion there is a lot of overlap between the two (to me, guilt is a form of shame), but I agree it is probably best we ensure we are at least arguing over the same concept.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 14, 2018, 05:46:04 PM
Quote
Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.


But sylvan, harrassment is just bad whatever the ideology behind it is. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on February 14, 2018, 06:02:26 PM
Quote
Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.


But sylvan, harrassment is just bad whatever the ideology behind it is.

Yes, and I see the distinction you're making. I believe XJ is making the same distinction. The only problem is, we are too. The ideas you guys are talking about are not offensive to me in any way. But we're not complaining about THOSE ideas. We're talking about the real world practice of a significant number of those same thinkers (not going to say "majority" cuz who knows, but it's for sure a lot of people at this point). They go beyond the simple ideas, and into a "war to be won at all costs". But maybe we don't see the calls for boycotts the same. If you contact a company or a person about a grievance in efforts to hopefully change something, then you've done your part. If you immediately take to social media to grow your group and actively call for a boycott, how is that not harassment?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
First, not that it matters, but you're the one who used the word "inferior".

In the context of how someone feels. Not an "objective" measure of them.

Quote
My mistake for using the word "average". It's always word games, and that's why these things go nowhere.

You'll have to forgive me for insisting that certain words mean certain things. Especially when talking to someone who brings these words up in relation to statistics.

Quote
Okay, so people don't want to feel broken or inferior. But apparently all these criteria are subjective and there's no real starting point for what's considered better or worse. So if these things don't actually make someone inferior, why should anyone care if they FEEL inferior?

Empathy?

Quote
Apparently big business doesn't read DTF  :lol. You can argue against this label or that, declare it Free Market Capitalism... When people call for a boycott, that's $$$ to these companies. "How can a small group bully these large corporations? The power dynamic is not there!" When that small group has the potential to turn into a very large group, not because of a legitimate grievance, but because of mob mentality, then they have the power. They're not sending a message with their wallets, they're sending a message with social media. Social media is out of control, a major way people use it is to incite rage, and the companies know it.

True Capitalism allows companies to fail if they do not serve their consumers. And consumers are not required to be rational agents.

Quote
Well, Nazis aren't going to lose funding or followers of their ideology when they spout hate speech. That IS their ideology, and that stuff doesn't drive any potential followers away.

Of course it does. Why do you think the far right has tried to rebrand itself with terms like "alt-right"? Its because they want to bring in fresh people from the centre. Same way ISIL only survives if moderate Muslims get turned to the extreme. These groups thrive only when the conditions are right for their views to appeal to the mainstream.

Quote
The Church, while having the real world potential to turn people (current and potential believers) away, that has no effect on their message, or their beliefs. They are not the NFL trying to find a way to exist in the modern world.

Apart from all of those modernisation efforts many churches have made (with varying success). Listen to an average COE pastor sometime: they'll be doing their utmost to be relevant and modern.

Quote
That's the point! I DON'T CARE IF THEY FIND IT DEPLORABLE! Their opinion means nothing to me. But that's not what we're talking about. They can feel however they want to feel, as long as it ends there. Just because they find my attitude deplorable does not give them an extra right to affect my life in any negative way because of it.

How can their opinion affect your life negatively if you don't care about it?

Quote
That's your opinion. I mostly disagree. (the Peter Rabbit "complainers" are not really the problem here, only just one small example of a much greater problem)

Please find an example of the far left that is of equal extremity to advocating genocide as in the case of far right groups.

Quote
Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.

They aren't you. I'm referring to these two statements:

Quote
What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that.

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XJDenton on February 14, 2018, 06:13:49 PM
Yes, and I see the distinction you're making. I believe XJ is making the same distinction. The only problem is, we are too. The ideas you guys are talking about are not offensive to me in any way. But we're not complaining about THOSE ideas. We're talking about the real world practice of a significant number of those same thinkers (not going to say "majority" cuz who knows, but it's for sure a lot of people at this point). They go beyond the simple ideas, and into a "war to be won at all costs". But maybe we don't see the calls for boycotts the same. If you contact a company or a person about a grievance in efforts to hopefully change something, then you've done your part. If you immediately take to social media to grow your group and actively call for a boycott, how is that not harassment?

Again, for me it comes down to the power dynamic. A lone voice against a corporation is going to fail no matter what. Organised boycotts (and unions come to think of it) serve o equalize the relative power dynamic.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 14, 2018, 07:13:40 PM
Transgender is not a disorder in the DSM. You're thinking of gender dysphoria.

Yes, you are right; I'm sorry for my sloppy reference.  (Seriously).

Quote
The DSM is not hard science. It's a perspective. It is also focused on disorder meaning something that makes life difficult and challenging in a more than tolerable way. Homelessness is listed in it as well. The reason something like gender dysphoria is in the DSM is because experiencing it, in our society, causes a ton of mental anguish, not because it's a mental imbalance, which I think you're implying.   

It's not hard science, but it is a respected and relatively objective standard.   Yes it changes, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is subject to rejection or revision.   

As for the second, you're the professional here, so I'm not arguing with you, but is that latter statement really true?   I know it's gone through some revisions with respect to "addiction", and if "a ton of mental anguish" was the standard, why did "gambling" get in, but not "sex" or "food"? 

Quote
Also I don't know why you're even bringing up transgender, since the rest of your sentence is about terminology. No one is being outraged at the use of transgender.

I'm bringing it up because we're still at the early stages of learning about it (as opposed to just managing the "symptoms") and the PC crowd hasn't waited for any answers before they assumed the position and swung into action, thus chilling much of the meaningful dialogue that could later, someday, help people.   I think the same thing happened to weed in the opposite direction.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 11:28:26 AM
Why isn't sex addiction in the DSM? Because the people writing it decided it shouldn't be in there. That's how subjective it all is.

We all, in the field, have a lot of problems with the DSM. That's why it changes every few years. It's not like it's 100% set in stone until some new groundbreaking scientific research presents a paradigm shift. Sometimes it's just that enough conversations start or the writers change out and then it' different. So using it as some 100% objective benchmark is just very off. The only reason psychologists even universally use the DSM is because insurance and HMOs demand it. If we didn't NEED to use it for those purposes, it wouldn't be used quite as much. I'll also point out that it's not a zero sum game, whereby if some things are true, then all of it must be true, or if some things are questionable, it's all worthless. For instance Schizophrenia and Gender Dysphoria are in the same book but have nothing to do with each other than being addressed in the same field. So how we approach thinking about psychotic disorders, or mood disorders, and then other things like pica, or enuresis or gender dysphoria shouldn't be seen as the same thing.

How we define much of this, not all of it, is also simply viewed as what's normal for most people, which is not always a great idea.

For instance. If someone reports to therapy that God is talking directly to them, we might pathalogize them. Yet if a pope or pastor or whatever does it, no big deal. If someone reports a strong belief that the a giant octopus is in control of their lives, we think they're crazy. Yet if someone says God is in control of their lives, no big deal.

There's no research that states that believing in god isn't a mental illness, we just assume it's not because most people believe in god. Unless of course the god is not a standard one, then we might entertain the mental illness thing.

Yet if I go on twitter and start declaring that all religious people are mentally ill (which I don't believe at all), you'd expect I'd face a whole lot of back lash. And if a person in power had said it, you'd expect riots.

So if you need hard scientific evidence that states as an objective fact that being transgender is NOT a mental illness, then I would like the same for anything else I can just name as a potential mental illness that also has no research contradicting it.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 15, 2018, 11:52:24 AM
I disagree with Adami completely.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 15, 2018, 11:55:28 AM
I'm kidding.  Fair points, all of them, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that.

But while you're clearly right, and know more about this than I do, I'm not saying that gender dysphoria IS a mental illness or even should be.  Ultimately, I put that in because I wanted to make the point that while it's subjective (thanks to your enlightenment) it's not beyond the pale to suggest it might be.   We ought to be able to have the conversation.   And right now, with social media the way it is, and the PC culture the way it is, and the SJW being what they are, that conversation is not possible.   It's just not.  Hell, I'd even be willing to concede that social media isn't the place for the details of the conversation, but I would wager that we can't even suggest that the conversation SHOULD be had. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 11:56:02 AM
I disagree with Adami completely.

:adami:
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 12:14:09 PM
I'm kidding.  Fair points, all of them, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that.

But while you're clearly right, and know more about this than I do, I'm not saying that gender dysphoria IS a mental illness or even should be.  Ultimately, I put that in because I wanted to make the point that while it's subjective (thanks to your enlightenment) it's not beyond the pale to suggest it might be.   We ought to be able to have the conversation.   And right now, with social media the way it is, and the PC culture the way it is, and the SJW being what they are, that conversation is not possible.   It's just not.  Hell, I'd even be willing to concede that social media isn't the place for the details of the conversation, but I would wager that we can't even suggest that the conversation SHOULD be had.

I've heard you say this many times, the idea of needing to have the conversation. And in general, I agree, but what do you mean?

What does this conversation look like? How long does it last? When does it end? Does it even need to end before we do something? Does having the conversation mean we remain in limbo in how we address the situation until the conversation is done?

I mean, if a politician introduces the idea that all bald people should not be allowed to have children (which would suck for me), should we make sure they couldn't have children until we have a multi-decade conversation until all sides are 100% in agreement?

I guess I just want more specifics. The idea is good, but what does it look like?

Also these conversations ARE being had. That's why I wonder what it looks like to you. Do you need everyone to agree until we do anything? Cause that won't happen.


Did we ever really have a conversation as to whether or not Jews are an inferior people? I mean, in general people just assumed we were until the holocaust and then it kind of got soured. But if someone starts posting on twitter that all Jews are inferior beings and are the cause of all troubles in this world, you'd likely not be too upset about a backlash to that.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 15, 2018, 01:24:51 PM
It takes many forms.  First and foremost, we have to be better at comprehension.  We have to be able to separate HAVING the conversation, and the conversation itself.   Meaning, I will likely be called out for both of these statements:  "We need to know more psychiatrically and physiologically about gender dysmorphia, so that we can make better decisions about how to deal with the condition, how the people who have it can deal with it better (reference to the higher drug usage rates and higher suicide rates for people with gender dysmorphia), and how we can better accommodate this in our society by perhaps educating those that aren't aware of this condition." and "Fucking people who are transgender - ooops, sorry, have "gender dysmorphia" - are fucking sickos that shouldn't be on our streets."    One is a legit call for more information, more data - but no action! - the latter is just hate and intolerance and a call for action in the form of ostracization. 

Pragmatically, I get it; sometimes there ought to be a realpolitik around this; we have to balance tolerance and rights every day. I would very likely accept some backlash if someone posted that "Jews are inferior".  It's not a statement meant to incite deep insight, and history shows that far more than "gender dysmorphia" (I guarantee you if you ask 10 people what a "jew" is, they'll have some idea, if you asked that same number what "gender dysmorphia" you'd be lucky if two know).   

EDIT:  Shepard Smith just said it far better than I could ever do it:   "We put a man on the moon; we need to put our best and brightest  on this issue, whatever it takes, and find out why our children are killing other children."  It looks like the NRA and the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence (or whoever we agree is the largest anti-gun lobby) putting up 50% of their lobbying dollars to fund research with a tacit agreement that we follow the path of science.  However the cards fall, they fall.   It looks like a temporary injunction on the one or two main points of interest of the anti-gun lobby - say, bumpstocks, ammo limits, whatever  - and a temporary ban on sales or possession of a gun by anyone on a watch list or medical incapacity list.   We have the goods to have Amazon suggest I'd really LOVE Ozzy's Diary of a Madman because I bought "Paranoid", we can ask Alexa how to make a grilled cheese ("The recipe is IN THE FUCKING TITLE!"), and we can control a satellite almost 5 BILLION miles from our planet, but we can't tie in social media well enough to police this?   We can scan terabytes of data from the Soviet Union to catch phrases that might mean Putin has another nuclear sub or two, or determine that Hillary Clinton scrubbed 5, 296 emails from her personal server between the hours of 4:00 and 7:00 pm eastern on February whatever the hell, but we can't relate the "Nikolas Cruz" that wants to be a "professional school shooter" with the "Nikolas Cruz" that was voted by his classmates as "the most likely kid to lay waste to his high school"?  Most importantly, we can issue FISA warrants to monitor Carlton Page but not this kid? 

We may or may not have a gun problem but I guarantee you we have a priority problem. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 15, 2018, 01:37:31 PM

   Meaning, I will likely be called out for both of these statements:  "We need to know more psychiatrically and physiologically about gender dysmorphia, so that we can make better decisions about how to deal with the condition, how the people who have it can deal with it better (reference to the higher drug usage rates and higher suicide rates for people with gender dysmorphia), and how we can better accommodate this in our society by perhaps educating those that aren't aware of this condition."

Well that sounds like a good start for a conversation, not something to break out the pitchforks and torches.  I know someone through youtube who was suffering from Gender Dysphoria (not dysmorphia by the way)  and the solution was to transition. She's much happier and healthier now living as woman.

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 02:19:09 PM
Xe makes good points.

Yes it's dysphoria, not dysmorphia.

And gender dysphoria is the feeling of anguish of essentially being in the wrong body. It'd be like making a mental illness out of a gay person being forced to only have heterosexual sex. Life would be pretty awful and can be quickly helped by the person being allowed to do what they need to do live congruently.

Instead the conversation has the assumption of "what is wrong with these people, what is broken, how did they get messed up and how can we fix it in a way that keeps them cisgender?" Those are painfully awful assumptions to make.

But you, Stads, did make a brief good point about all of the surrounding elements like drug use, or suicide rates, or stuff like that with transgender people. THAT should be a conversation. How can we make it so they don't feel so rejected and judged and bullied by society that they resort to this. How do we help prevent the insane levels of trauma and abuse experienced by the LGBT community? I would love to have those discussions. However, "why are they transgender? Is it biological or did something make them that way?" is less interesting or helpful in general. Helpful to a degree, but definitely not the most important thing.


Also quick thing, we don't call transgender people "those suffering from gender dysphoria". We call them transgender, or non-binary, or something like that. No one is offended by the word transgender. Well, I'm sure someone is, but meh.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 15, 2018, 03:14:36 PM
But you're doing exactly what I'm railing against.  You're not really listening to the ARGUMENT, you're commenting on the fact that I'm (presumably) not being "sensitive" enough in my reference.   Fair point, personally, since I don't at all want to be insensitive, but still.   The point is, EVEN IF I'M WRONG we should be having the conversation ABOUT the topic, not finding ways to stop it from happening.

I'm not at all interested in "curing" someone.  If you follow me on other points, I'm nothing if not consistent; if someone of sound mind and full consent wants to change their gender, they should be able to do so, full stop.   This isn't about stopping people from transitioning and making them more like me.  It's about making them as complete a human as they can be.  Right now, transitioning is the best way (or so it seems).  The one person I know that transitioned was troubled before, and is better now but is still struggling.  I think we owe it to her (yes, I did that correctly) to know as much about why she felt she had to do that as we do for why some 50-year old doesn't bone up like he used to. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
But we are having the conversation. It's happening. You can research it if you want. Most conversations like that are being had between professionals, not usually making CNN or FOX.

That doesn't give you guys the right to say anything at all and expect everyone to shut up and take it.

I think you should be able to ask whatever questions you want, and everyone should treat you with respect, as long as the questions are sincere and not to make a point as an argument.

"Are transgender people born that way or does something happen to make them that way?" Fine question. Not terribly important, but a fine question nonetheless. People should discuss it respectively. Sadly we don't, but we should.

"Are transgender people REALLY wanting us to think they're born that way? REALLY?!?!?" That is not a sincere question and will understandably be met with defensiveness and offense.

So having the conversation is fine. HOW we have that conversation really matters though.

But like I said, if I post on twitter "Are Christians (picking them because they're the largest majority) mentally ill for their beliefs?", that would be met with all the same anger that you're against. Yet that's NOT a conversation anyone is looking to have, because the people in power have just assumed that it's not a problem or an issue worth discussing.

So while the conversations are fine to have, WHAT we have them about is a sign of a major power differential and you're expecting minorities to constantly defend their very existence to the satisfaction of the majority, who never have to defend or converse about their stuff at all.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 15, 2018, 03:25:52 PM
But you're doing exactly what I'm railing against.  You're not really listening to the ARGUMENT, you're commenting on the fact that I'm (presumably) not being "sensitive" enough in my reference.   Fair point, personally, since I don't at all want to be insensitive, but still.   The point is, EVEN IF I'M WRONG we should be having the conversation ABOUT the topic, not finding ways to stop it from happening.

I'm not at all interested in "curing" someone.  If you follow me on other points, I'm nothing if not consistent; if someone of sound mind and full consent wants to change their gender, they should be able to do so, full stop.   This isn't about stopping people from transitioning and making them more like me.  It's about making them as complete a human as they can be.  Right now, transitioning is the best way (or so it seems).  The one person I know that transitioned was troubled before, and is better now but is still struggling.  I think we owe it to her (yes, I did that correctly) to know as much about why she felt she had to do that as we do for why some 50-year old doesn't bone up like he used to.

Well there goes that good start...  :P   It seems we're drifting back into the problem I often have in our exchanges (problems wich are more often than not just me being a dick I'll gladly concede)  wich you say want to have a conversation but you only want to have it on your narrowly defineed terms and anything else you consider to be bullying somehow.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 15, 2018, 03:52:58 PM
Can I just say that’s it’s nice to have a thread not be about the economy or American government so that I can contribute?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 16, 2018, 09:51:50 AM
But we are having the conversation. It's happening. You can research it if you want. Most conversations like that are being had between professionals, not usually making CNN or FOX.

That doesn't give you guys the right to say anything at all and expect everyone to shut up and take it.

I think you should be able to ask whatever questions you want, and everyone should treat you with respect, as long as the questions are sincere and not to make a point as an argument.

"Are transgender people born that way or does something happen to make them that way?" Fine question. Not terribly important, but a fine question nonetheless. People should discuss it respectively. Sadly we don't, but we should.

"Are transgender people REALLY wanting us to think they're born that way? REALLY?!?!?" That is not a sincere question and will understandably be met with defensiveness and offense.

So having the conversation is fine. HOW we have that conversation really matters though.

But like I said, if I post on twitter "Are Christians (picking them because they're the largest majority) mentally ill for their beliefs?", that would be met with all the same anger that you're against. Yet that's NOT a conversation anyone is looking to have, because the people in power have just assumed that it's not a problem or an issue worth discussing.

So while the conversations are fine to have, WHAT we have them about is a sign of a major power differential and you're expecting minorities to constantly defend their very existence to the satisfaction of the majority, who never have to defend or converse about their stuff at all.

I think you're irreparably mixing apples and oranges here.   I get your point, but I don't think the analogy holds.  (Not relevant, but I think a fair question is "Is RELIGION a mental illness", since fundamentally there isn't a difference between worshiping Jesus (Christian), God (Judaism) or Allah (Muslim).   And even then, it's a poorly phrased question.) 

I think part of the problem is the "power differential" idea.  That ought not to have any factor here.   We're not voting.  We're not buying things.   And trying to "swing" this so-called "power differential" with the power of social media is not productive to the underlying facts.   It's one thing to respond to someone who says "I hate Dream Theater and think John Myung is a loud-mouthed asshole". That's purely an opinion, and we can, with almost no standard whatsoever and no real ability to measure it, debate it ad infinitum.  But some of things we're talking about are measurable.  And as such, origins matter.   It matters DEEPLY whether - to use your example - transgender is nature or nuture.   We address fetal alcohol syndrome very differently than we address, say, Down's Syndrome.     

 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on February 16, 2018, 09:53:27 AM
But you're doing exactly what I'm railing against.  You're not really listening to the ARGUMENT, you're commenting on the fact that I'm (presumably) not being "sensitive" enough in my reference.   Fair point, personally, since I don't at all want to be insensitive, but still.   The point is, EVEN IF I'M WRONG we should be having the conversation ABOUT the topic, not finding ways to stop it from happening.

I'm not at all interested in "curing" someone.  If you follow me on other points, I'm nothing if not consistent; if someone of sound mind and full consent wants to change their gender, they should be able to do so, full stop.   This isn't about stopping people from transitioning and making them more like me.  It's about making them as complete a human as they can be.  Right now, transitioning is the best way (or so it seems).  The one person I know that transitioned was troubled before, and is better now but is still struggling.  I think we owe it to her (yes, I did that correctly) to know as much about why she felt she had to do that as we do for why some 50-year old doesn't bone up like he used to.

Well there goes that good start...  :P   It seems we're drifting back into the problem I often have in our exchanges (problems wich are more often than not just me being a dick I'll gladly concede)  wich you say want to have a conversation but you only want to have it on your narrowly defineed terms and anything else you consider to be bullying somehow.

I never once said or even implied that Adami was "bullying me".  I don't think I've ever respected ANYONE that disagreed with me so openly and consistently more than I respect Adami, and I learn from him in almost every post.   And you can't really criticize me for directing the conversation when the conversation is ABOUT directing the conversation.  It's the very subject we're discussing.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on February 16, 2018, 10:19:51 AM
I don't think I've ever respected ANYONE that disagreed with me so openly and consistently more than I respect Adami, and I learn from him in almost every post. 

Will get to your other post when I have free time later today, but I just wanted to say that I completely disagree with you here.

:adami:
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on June 11, 2018, 12:35:57 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-criticized-eating-chick-fil-pride-month-124515593.html

Lolz
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on June 11, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Oh yeah, and...

Robert DeNiro

Lolz
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 11, 2018, 04:42:20 PM
Oh yeah, and...

Robert DeNiro

Lolz

Yeah....his behavior and antics over the past few years has pretty much ruined him in my eyes. Used to love the dudes acting but he's entered Alec Baldwin territory now. I can watch and enjoy liberal actors just fine. It's when they take that next leap like Balwin/deNiro/O'Donnell where it changes for me.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: KevShmev on June 11, 2018, 06:23:10 PM
I eat Chick Fil-A 1-2 times a week, every week.  :coolio
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 11, 2018, 06:35:18 PM
I eat Chick Fil-A 1-2 times a week, every week.  :coolio

But never on Sundays.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: KevShmev on June 11, 2018, 06:37:26 PM
I eat Chick Fil-A 1-2 times a week, every week.  :coolio

But never on Sundays.

Damn it. :lol :lol

It can be a bit maddening when I get that craving on a Sunday.

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 11, 2018, 06:44:27 PM
I love the Wendy's troll/meme

(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9166057472/hCD5EB14B/)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on June 12, 2018, 07:40:10 AM
Wendy's twitter is bad ass

also, I've gotten so mad before on work trips for sunday dinner going up to a Chick fil A and then realizing  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Harmony on June 12, 2018, 10:12:16 AM
Oh yeah, and...

Robert DeNiro

Lolz

Yeah....his behavior and antics over the past few years has pretty much ruined him in my eyes. Used to love the dudes acting but he's entered Alec Baldwin territory now. I can watch and enjoy liberal actors just fine. It's when they take that next leap like Balwin/deNiro/O'Donnell where it changes for me.

Yeah DeNiro really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.  Insulting a seated POTUS in such a public manner is classless, right?  Instead of using a cuss word, he should've simply accused Trump of having a fake birth certificate and intimated he was a super secret Muslim intent on bringing sharia to fruition in the US.  Then sent his detectives to his place of birth to obtain evidence of the forged document being sure to keep the controversy stirred up for months and months.

Sorry but I find it hard to muster up much sympathy here.  What goes around, comes around.  POTUS has set the tone.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on June 12, 2018, 10:15:54 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on June 12, 2018, 10:18:09 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Implode on June 12, 2018, 10:38:46 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 12, 2018, 11:17:50 AM
I eat Chick Fil-A 1-2 times a week, every week.  :coolio

But never on Sundays.

Damn it. :lol :lol

It can be a bit maddening when I get that craving on a Sunday.

Nothing worse than flying through Atlanta airport on a Sunday, and looking forward to a hot Chick-fil-A sandwich, then realizing... no soup for you.   :)

I have one now here, in my town, and Mondays is my son's therapy so we're pressed for time after school and before therapy, so about  twice a month or so we each get number one meals and go to the doctor. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 12, 2018, 11:26:58 AM
Oh yeah, and...

Robert DeNiro

Lolz

Yeah....his behavior and antics over the past few years has pretty much ruined him in my eyes. Used to love the dudes acting but he's entered Alec Baldwin territory now. I can watch and enjoy liberal actors just fine. It's when they take that next leap like Balwin/deNiro/O'Donnell where it changes for me.

Yeah DeNiro really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.  Insulting a seated POTUS in such a public manner is classless, right?  Instead of using a cuss word, he should've simply accused Trump of having a fake birth certificate and intimated he was a super secret Muslim intent on bringing sharia to fruition in the US.  Then sent his detectives to his place of birth to obtain evidence of the forged document being sure to keep the controversy stirred up for months and months.

Sorry but I find it hard to muster up much sympathy here.  What goes around, comes around.  POTUS has set the tone.

I happen to agree with you up to the last sentence.  It didn't start with the current POTUS, it has been a trend that's been coming for over a decade.   I don't blame Clinton, per se, but if you're asking me, ever since Clinton appeared on Arsenio Hall with a saxophone and a pair of sunglasses, we've seen a progressive erosion of the way we address our leadership.  Couple that with this (dead wrong) idea that everyone's opinion matters, and that we all have a right to express whatever it is we're thinking - regardless of whether we're right or wrong, or whether we have facts in our back pocket or no - and we have the shitstorm that is Bobby D.

I don't have a problem with celebrities speaking their mind, but I do have a problem with the recent trend of "normalizing" the resistance.   I'm not a Trump fan, I didn't vote for him, and I wouldn't now vote for him.  I like some of his policies, but I don't like others (tariffs are the single stupidest thing we can do for the global economy, and while it might help in the short term it will be a long term disaster).   Having said that, I can easily count four times in the last two weeks where I made a comment that was politically neutral and yet was taken as if it was an invite to disparage our current President.

I'm on - or should I say "was on" - another forum, and was consistently and regularly called a "Trump apologist" for no other reason than I didn't reject everything that he said, did, or stood for patently out of hand, and had the NERVE to actually offer to see the other side of certain issues.  One forumer - who posts here too - actually called me a "troll" and told me to "fuck off" because I didn't "resist" hard enough.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 12, 2018, 11:32:26 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

I agree; I'd like to think it was just 'education' but my experience tells me otherwise.    I had the pleasure of meeting C. Truett Cathy and two of his kids back when I was getting my MBA, and in total, he's done some remarkable things.   Yeah, he beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he's also given millions and millions of dollars to help orphans and underprivileged children, even going so far as to adopt many of them to give them an opportunity to have a chance.   They do a lot in the community, and whether you agree with the religious aspect of it or not, to consider the well-being of their employees when setting business policy is, I think, to be commended.  If it was Starbucks, it would be applauded without reserve. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on June 12, 2018, 11:52:34 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

I agree; I'd like to think it was just 'education' but my experience tells me otherwise.    I had the pleasure of meeting C. Truett Cathy and two of his kids back when I was getting my MBA, and in total, he's done some remarkable things.   Yeah, he beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he's also given millions and millions of dollars to help orphans and underprivileged children, even going so far as to adopt many of them to give them an opportunity to have a chance.   They do a lot in the community, and whether you agree with the religious aspect of it or not, to consider the well-being of their employees when setting business policy is, I think, to be commended.  If it was Starbucks, it would be applauded without reserve.

This is why I think the chick-fil-a hate is unwarranted.  They have their personal beliefs and they don't hate on anyone because of it.  It's not like they refuse to server gay people.  They just have their own personal beliefs about a touchy subject.  Who cares that they are religious?  I don't get why that makes it a good place to boycott.  They've demonstrated in a few ways that the franchise is run by decent people and they run the franchise in a very nice way that we should commend IMO, not hate.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: axeman90210 on June 12, 2018, 02:12:23 PM
My friends and I refer to Chik-Fil-A as "hate chicken" in a tongue in cheek manner, but we all also have no problem eating it :lol
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: KevShmev on June 12, 2018, 07:09:26 PM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!

Sadly, I have seen many liberals say, "We are tired of going high when Trump always goes low, so to hell with it."  And it is true that it is hard for Trump voters to take the high ground when they voted for such an ass clown, but it's just such a shame to see both sides devolve into a name-calling pissing contest.

Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

All of that nonsense just made it more popular. Tons of people who had never eaten Chick Fil-A tried it and were like, holy crap, this is great stuff!  I generally do not fast food, except for CFA.  The grilled chicken sandwich with just a touch of the honey roasted BBQ sauce is so yummy.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 08:49:00 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!

Sadly, I have seen many liberals say, "We are tired of going high when Trump always goes low, so to hell with it."  And it is true that it is hard for Trump voters to take the high ground when they voted for such an ass clown, but it's just such a shame to see both sides devolve into a name-calling pissing contest.

Which speaks volumes, because  not only are they simply self-rationalizing, but it highlights the general sort of "obliviousness" that some liberals have.    Hillary calling 30 million people "deplorable" because they don't agree with her is hardly "the high road".  Gaming the convention - perhaps illegally - to allow the elitist, Establishment candidate to win, despite a reasonable turnout for the anti-Establishment, populist challenger.   Making every issue a MORAL issue as opposed to just a rational difference of opinion (If you're against the ACA, you "want to see people DIE!")...     

Quote
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

All of that nonsense just made it more popular. Tons of people who had never eaten Chick Fil-A tried it and were like, holy crap, this is great stuff!  I generally do not fast food, except for CFA.  The grilled chicken sandwich with just a touch of the honey roasted BBQ sauce is so yummy.

Sad they seemed to have gotten rid of the chicken salad sandwich; it was chicken salad, lettuce, and tomato on a multi-grain bread.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Chino on June 13, 2018, 08:49:53 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

I agree; I'd like to think it was just 'education' but my experience tells me otherwise.    I had the pleasure of meeting C. Truett Cathy and two of his kids back when I was getting my MBA, and in total, he's done some remarkable things.   Yeah, he beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he's also given millions and millions of dollars to help orphans and underprivileged children, even going so far as to adopt many of them to give them an opportunity to have a chance.   They do a lot in the community, and whether you agree with the religious aspect of it or not, to consider the well-being of their employees when setting business policy is, I think, to be commended.  If it was Starbucks, it would be applauded without reserve.

This is why I think the chick-fil-a hate is unwarranted.  They have their personal beliefs and they don't hate on anyone because of it.  It's not like they refuse to server gay people.  They just have their own personal beliefs about a touchy subject.  Who cares that they are religious?  I don't get why that makes it a good place to boycott.  They've demonstrated in a few ways that the franchise is run by decent people and they run the franchise in a very nice way that we should commend IMO, not hate.

To be fair, it wasn't just because the guy is religious. He came out and said homosexuals and those who support them are arrogant.

“We are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 08:52:10 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!

Sadly, I have seen many liberals say, "We are tired of going high when Trump always goes low, so to hell with it."  And it is true that it is hard for Trump voters to take the high ground when they voted for such an ass clown, but it's just such a shame to see both sides devolve into a name-calling pissing contest.

Which speaks volumes, because  not only are they simply self-rationalizing, but it highlights the general sort of "obliviousness" that some liberals have.    Hillary calling 30 million people "deplorable" because they don't agree with her is hardly "the high road".  Gaming the convention - perhaps illegally - to allow the elitist, Establishment candidate to win, despite a reasonable turnout for the anti-Establishment, populist challenger.   Making every issue a MORAL issue as opposed to just a rational difference of opinion (If you're against the ACA, you "want to see people DIE!")...     
Because they don't agree with her? You know better than that, dude. By misrepresenting her you're doing the same thing you decry.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on June 13, 2018, 08:56:15 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

I agree; I'd like to think it was just 'education' but my experience tells me otherwise.    I had the pleasure of meeting C. Truett Cathy and two of his kids back when I was getting my MBA, and in total, he's done some remarkable things.   Yeah, he beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he's also given millions and millions of dollars to help orphans and underprivileged children, even going so far as to adopt many of them to give them an opportunity to have a chance.   They do a lot in the community, and whether you agree with the religious aspect of it or not, to consider the well-being of their employees when setting business policy is, I think, to be commended.  If it was Starbucks, it would be applauded without reserve.

This is why I think the chick-fil-a hate is unwarranted.  They have their personal beliefs and they don't hate on anyone because of it.  It's not like they refuse to server gay people.  They just have their own personal beliefs about a touchy subject.  Who cares that they are religious?  I don't get why that makes it a good place to boycott.  They've demonstrated in a few ways that the franchise is run by decent people and they run the franchise in a very nice way that we should commend IMO, not hate.

To be fair, it wasn't just because the guy is religious. He came out and said homosexuals and those who support them are arrogant.

“We are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”



I dont really interpret that the same way.  And I kind of do believe you are arrogant to believe your way/belief of something is better or more right than another when it comes to something that is not an absolute truth (that goes for being anti-gay marriage or pro it, so I also find that response arrogant but I don't think it makes him a homophobe or reason to protest).
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 09:04:34 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!

Sadly, I have seen many liberals say, "We are tired of going high when Trump always goes low, so to hell with it."  And it is true that it is hard for Trump voters to take the high ground when they voted for such an ass clown, but it's just such a shame to see both sides devolve into a name-calling pissing contest.

Which speaks volumes, because  not only are they simply self-rationalizing, but it highlights the general sort of "obliviousness" that some liberals have.    Hillary calling 30 million people "deplorable" because they don't agree with her is hardly "the high road".  Gaming the convention - perhaps illegally - to allow the elitist, Establishment candidate to win, despite a reasonable turnout for the anti-Establishment, populist challenger.   Making every issue a MORAL issue as opposed to just a rational difference of opinion (If you're against the ACA, you "want to see people DIE!")...     
Because they don't agree with her? You know better than that, dude. By misrepresenting her you're doing the same thing you decry.

I'm aware of that, but I honestly DO believe that at heart, it's because they didn't agree with her.  I'm very much against making political arguments "moral" ones, because it presupposes a hierarchy of issues and it only serves to shame those that don't adhere to that hierarchy.   I present here as possibly more conservative than most, but the reality is, in American circa 2018, I could  very easily vote Democrat and be happy, with one exception.   Trump/Sanders/Clinton all called for tariffs, all called for immigration reform.  I could care less about a wall versus an administrative solution - except where one is proven to be significantly more effective than the other; I just want results - so there's no difference there.  I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-single payer, and could care less who marries whom, so no difference there.   Where I disagree with the left, and in one of the very few areas I agree with our President, is that I don't consider identity politics positions as one-issue dealbreakers.   I do not at all agree with - in fact, I patently reject - the idea that if you're "silent", you're "complicit".    I don't think being a "racist" is a cause for rejecting someone outright from our society.  I don't at all think that racists forfeit their rights under the Constitution just because they hold a contrary position.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 09:08:22 AM
Chik-Fil-A is a grea example of a fad of a social justice "movement". I remember back in 2012-2013 when everyone (my age) was exclaiming, "Boycott them! Religious nuts! Homophobic!" But now all I see is, "I'm the gayest person I know, but hell if I don't love me some Chilk-Fil-A." I'm glad that some people have found better things to focus on.

I agree; I'd like to think it was just 'education' but my experience tells me otherwise.    I had the pleasure of meeting C. Truett Cathy and two of his kids back when I was getting my MBA, and in total, he's done some remarkable things.   Yeah, he beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he's also given millions and millions of dollars to help orphans and underprivileged children, even going so far as to adopt many of them to give them an opportunity to have a chance.   They do a lot in the community, and whether you agree with the religious aspect of it or not, to consider the well-being of their employees when setting business policy is, I think, to be commended.  If it was Starbucks, it would be applauded without reserve.

This is why I think the chick-fil-a hate is unwarranted.  They have their personal beliefs and they don't hate on anyone because of it.  It's not like they refuse to server gay people.  They just have their own personal beliefs about a touchy subject.  Who cares that they are religious?  I don't get why that makes it a good place to boycott.  They've demonstrated in a few ways that the franchise is run by decent people and they run the franchise in a very nice way that we should commend IMO, not hate.

To be fair, it wasn't just because the guy is religious. He came out and said homosexuals and those who support them are arrogant.

“We are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”



I dont really interpret that the same way.  And I kind of do believe you are arrogant to believe your way/belief of something is better or more right than another when it comes to something that is not an absolute truth (that goes for being anti-gay marriage or pro it, so I also find that response arrogant but I don't think it makes him a homophobe or reason to protest).

I'm with Cram on that point; having attended a southern church for a while (it was mandatory to get my kid in a certain school; we finally left when a sermon called for all women to be subservient to the man of the house.  As much as I dug that personally - being the man of the house - I couldn't in good conscience teach that to my daughter) that's a common argument when anyone deems to want to change church doctrine.  It's part and parcel with the argument that the Bible is the literal word of God and is the ultimate law for Christians seeking faith.  I know what it sounds like, but it's more about a general belief that man is subservient to god's will and god's laws than it is a dig at "homosexuals" specifically.  Read the quote; it's ANYONE that feels like they can subvert the bible.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 09:19:17 AM
Or how about:  "It's not cool, ever, no matter which 'side' is doing it."

Yup!

Sadly, I have seen many liberals say, "We are tired of going high when Trump always goes low, so to hell with it."  And it is true that it is hard for Trump voters to take the high ground when they voted for such an ass clown, but it's just such a shame to see both sides devolve into a name-calling pissing contest.

Which speaks volumes, because  not only are they simply self-rationalizing, but it highlights the general sort of "obliviousness" that some liberals have.    Hillary calling 30 million people "deplorable" because they don't agree with her is hardly "the high road".  Gaming the convention - perhaps illegally - to allow the elitist, Establishment candidate to win, despite a reasonable turnout for the anti-Establishment, populist challenger.   Making every issue a MORAL issue as opposed to just a rational difference of opinion (If you're against the ACA, you "want to see people DIE!")...     
Because they don't agree with her? You know better than that, dude. By misrepresenting her you're doing the same thing you decry.

I'm aware of that, but I honestly DO believe that at heart, it's because they didn't agree with her.  I'm very much against making political arguments "moral" ones, because it presupposes a hierarchy of issues and it only serves to shame those that don't adhere to that hierarchy.   I present here as possibly more conservative than most, but the reality is, in American circa 2018, I could  very easily vote Democrat and be happy, with one exception.   Trump/Sanders/Clinton all called for tariffs, all called for immigration reform.  I could care less about a wall versus an administrative solution - except where one is proven to be significantly more effective than the other; I just want results - so there's no difference there.  I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-single payer, and could care less who marries whom, so no difference there.   Where I disagree with the left, and in one of the very few areas I agree with our President, is that I don't consider identity politics positions as one-issue dealbreakers.   I do not at all agree with - in fact, I patently reject - the idea that if you're "silent", you're "complicit".    I don't think being a "racist" is a cause for rejecting someone outright from our society.  I don't at all think that racists forfeit their rights under the Constitution just because they hold a contrary position.
And you double down. By assuming her motivations, in contrast to what she actually said, you're participating in identity politics which you use to oppose her.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on June 13, 2018, 09:25:43 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 13, 2018, 09:44:23 AM
I'm with EB here.  She didn't say 30M people specifically... she said "half of Trump's supporters" - in what was (imo) clearly a hyperbolic statement... leading into classifications of racism, sexism, homophobia and other phobias that Trump "lifted them up ... given voice to their websites... tweets and retweets ... their rhetoric".

To boil that down to her calling 30M people deplorable because they disagree with her is - as EB said - assuming her motivations.

Here's food for thought, why not assume her motivation was to classify the *behaviours* as "deplorable", rather than what everyone assume was that she was classifying the *people* as deplorable?

Not really interested in re-litigating this, but just backing up EB on the matter.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 10:29:10 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Podaar on June 13, 2018, 10:34:42 AM
She also went on to say that the other half of Trumps supporters had a legitimate gripe about the state of D.C. and that their issues must be addressed if anyone was to win their support away from Trump. If she'd just stuck with the second half, she probably would have fared much better. I think.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on June 13, 2018, 10:41:24 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 10:49:46 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 13, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
(http://replygif.net/i/312.gif)

How 'bout this... "Can we just stop, please?" is the thread title after-all.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on June 13, 2018, 11:17:53 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.

That's fine.  Yes, it is "different."  But for purposes of the point Stadler was trying to make, I don't see it as qualitatively so.  The difference doesn't really appear to have any material distinction in context of what Stadler was saying.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 13, 2018, 11:58:04 AM
Whoulda thunk it... two lawyers agreeing with one another on a technicality.  When "qualitatively" and "material" are used in the same consecutive sentences, it's bound to be a lawyer.  :lol

One more retort from EB, and you'll be asking to treat the witness as hostile.   :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 11:58:40 AM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.


Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 12:05:14 PM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.

That's fine.  Yes, it is "different."  But for purposes of the point Stadler was trying to make, I don't see it as qualitatively so.  The difference doesn't really appear to have any material distinction in context of what Stadler was saying.
When Stadler's greater point is "identity politics be bad" and he cites HRC as an example by using her personality to reinterpret her words I'd call it highly material.


Whoulda thunk it... two lawyers agreeing with one another on a technicality.  When "qualitatively" and "material" are used in the same consecutive sentences, it's bound to be a lawyer.  :lol

One more retort from EB, and you'll be asking to treat the witness as hostile.   :rollin :rollin
Hell, I want 2/3 of the posts I make here to be regarded as Fucking Hostile.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: El Barto on June 13, 2018, 12:19:35 PM
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.


Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.
I didn't say you guessed her motivation. I said you assumed her motivation based on her personality, which you continue to do. Something you'd come down on anybody else for doing in big way.

Setting aside the question of how much defining you expect her to do in a 2 minute debate rebuttal, the question I ask is why she has to define them to make the point she made. The fucksticks can define themselves, and those that do will very likely be Trump voters. When I watch her make that comment I don't need to know what she considers a racist or homophobe because the fact is that they exist and will likely be in Trump's basket.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 13, 2018, 01:42:55 PM
I guess we can't just stop, please.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.
I didn't say you guessed her motivation. I said you assumed her motivation based on her personality, which you continue to do. Something you'd come down on anybody else for doing in big way.

Setting aside the question of how much defining you expect her to do in a 2 minute debate rebuttal, the question I ask is why she has to define them to make the point she made. The fucksticks can define themselves, and those that do will very likely be Trump voters. When I watch her make that comment I don't need to know what she considers a racist or homophobe because the fact is that they exist and will likely be in Trump's basket.

Help me out, sincerely.  How am I assuming her motivation based on her personality?  I'll give you the point if you said "I'm assuming her motivation  based on evidence that isn't included in her statement", sure, but I think it's a relevant point that almost the entire Democrat platform - a platform I would nominally agree with in large part, mind you - is predicated on MORAL concerns not practical ones, so it's hardly "personal" that I ascribe that to her.   I would - and have - said the same thing about Bernie Sanders.  I actually like Bernie, and admire him in a lot of ways, but the fact remains, the idea that he would absolve students of their debt, unilaterally, is a moral position.  That he bases much of his campaign on the fallacy of income inequality - a moral argument if there ever was one (our economy is NOT a zero sum game) - is a moral position.  The idea that anyone who is for "repeal and replace" necessarily wants to "see people die!".  I am very much for "repeal and replace", precisely because I DON'T want to see ANYONE die that doesn't have to. 

In a very real way, I'm not sure "motivation" even matters, except as validation of the outcome.   It's the outcome that is important.  This is what I'm arguing against, not Hillary Clinton. No, she didn't have to define anything, and on that point you are 100% correct.   But I would argue that the fact that ANY of Trump's voters are potentially "racist" is not a relevant factor for anyone but that person.  I don't see the relevancy of that point EXCEPT to bully people into voting FOR her out of fear of being put in the "basket".   

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 13, 2018, 01:58:43 PM
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on June 13, 2018, 04:00:29 PM
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.

I was just listening to this about an hour ago because you piqued my interest in Queen recently. Good timing. Good song. :)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on June 13, 2018, 04:19:59 PM
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.

I was just listening to this about an hour ago because you piqued my interest in Queen recently. Good timing. Good song. :)

One of my favorite and rarely listened to Queen songs.  I need to get that played more often. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on June 14, 2018, 06:59:46 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/14/kathy-griffin-calls-out-kevin-hart-for-not-attacking-trump.html

Lolz

Featured quote:
"Some of the dumbest hot takes on race and politics come from white liberals.”
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 14, 2018, 10:39:29 AM
I swear I'm not joking here; if a genie came out of a bottle right now and said "Three wishes, bro!",

1.  All social media, gone, as if it never happened.
2.  The entire world would realize immediately that "silence" is NOT "consent".   Not everyone who doesn't "Resist!" deserves ridicule and bullying.
3.  I need a minute; it's either $250 billion dollars, or a date with Margot Robbie.  Right now, leaning cash, since I don't know how that second thing would  play out. 


(And lest anyone criticize me for not picking "peace" or "eradication of disease", well the former might largely be covered by 1 and 2, and the latter I could probably kick start with a portion of 3, after I buy a few things (college for my kids, my new BMW M6, a Playstation 4/xBox One X gaming center, and a backyard concert by Kiss)). 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on June 14, 2018, 02:06:11 PM
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 14, 2018, 05:28:28 PM
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...

God, would I love to be a fly on the wall for THAT conversation
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Harmony on June 14, 2018, 06:26:19 PM
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...

God, would I love to be a fly on the wall for THAT conversation

Do you think either of them would be able to get a word in edgewise?   :D

Haha, just a little lawyer joke.  Bosk isn't nearly as wordy as Stadler.  So I'm rooting for Bosk to get to speak first.  Just don't take a breath there Bosk!   :P
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Cool Chris on June 14, 2018, 06:29:25 PM
Dostoevsky isn't nearly as wordy as Stadler.  :-X
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 15, 2018, 08:28:23 AM
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on June 15, 2018, 08:47:32 AM
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you.

Come on guys, let's get real... Dave_Manchester is the far and away leader of long posts  :hat
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on June 15, 2018, 08:51:27 AM
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you.

Come on guys, let's get real... Dave_Manchester is the far and away leader of long posts  :hat

Perhaps, but the quote pyramids and sheer quantity of loquacious posts also give Stads an edge.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on June 15, 2018, 09:10:07 AM
You guys say all this like it's a bad thing.  :)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on June 15, 2018, 09:36:15 AM
Dave may be the leader of the long post - but (and I say this with a) great respect and b) an acknowledgment that I lack the mental fortitude to keep up the pace sometimes) Stadler is the king of split-thought (and provocative) sentences, simultaneously 1) humorous and 2) reading like a lawyer's email (bullet points not (always) included).

:)
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: sylvan on July 13, 2018, 09:13:56 AM
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b327272e4b0b745f1784747

"The Hunt for the Trump Tapes with Tom Arnold"
Here I thought VICELAND missed the mark with "Action Bronson's Ancient Aliens"  :rollin :hat :facepalm:

Can you see it:
"Coming to Fox NEWS this fall, the long awaited answers we've all been searching for... The Obama Papers: The Hunt for the REAL Birth Certificate with Alex Jones."

  :yeahright
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 10:49:24 AM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 11:06:59 AM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

Yea, Disney kind of backed themselves into a corner with that one.

1) Conservatives would completely destroy Disney (or try to) if they maintained the employment of a guy who made tweets about kid rape or whatever. Since most of America is conservative, they can't really afford to lose all those movie goers.

2) They fired Roseanne for tweets as well. While these tweets and hers have nothing in common, they're stocks would suffer quite a bit if they're in the news constantly for double standards for liberals/conservatives, men/women, thin people/fat people etc.

But yea. I think firing the guy was tricky. He made these tweets years and years ago. Has already gone on the apology tour for them. And they were made out of a very very very bad sense of humor, not malice or anything else.

I dunno. I don't like it, but most people don't see any nuance or difference between this and someone making a super racist tweet and getting fired.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: axeman90210 on July 23, 2018, 11:09:21 AM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

I've gone back and forth about this in my head over the last few days. The stuff he tweeted was most definitely awful/inappropriate, full stop. That said, my understanding is that he had since publicly apologized for them a while back, and this was known to Disney when they first brought him in to work on GotG. It seems like it's part of a deliberate witch hunt by Cernovich to dig up old comments/jokes about anybody whose politics they don't like and make a fuss about them. Kind of hard to watch a guy who, by all accounts is a better person now, go down in flames courtesy of a guy who has trafficked in pizza-gate.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 23, 2018, 11:26:10 AM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

Yea, Disney kind of backed themselves into a corner with that one.

1) Conservatives would completely destroy Disney (or try to) if they maintained the employment of a guy who made tweets about kid rape or whatever. Since most of America is conservative, they can't really afford to lose all those movie goers.

2) They fired Roseanne for tweets as well. While these tweets and hers have nothing in common, they're stocks would suffer quite a bit if they're in the news constantly for double standards for liberals/conservatives, men/women, thin people/fat people etc.

But yea. I think firing the guy was tricky. He made these tweets years and years ago. Has already gone on the apology tour for them. And they were made out of a very very very bad sense of humor, not malice or anything else.

I dunno. I don't like it, but most people don't see any nuance or difference between this and someone making a super racist tweet and getting fired.

I don't disagree with your analysis in terms of it being an accurate reflection of the world we live in.  But I just wish we lived in a world where we (as a society) could take a more thoughtful approach to things.  I wouldn't at all mind the studios at issue in BOTH situations saying, "We are sorry that what Roseanne/James said was offensive to some of our customers.  Out studio does not support such view, and those views are not representative of the studio.  But we recognize that people often say or do things that may offend others, and that in a free society, we need to be tolerant of that and move on with living our lives.  If employers fired every employee that disagreed with the 'company point-of-view,' our national workforce would be a shambles.  So let's just move on, shall we?"
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Chino on July 23, 2018, 11:32:32 AM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

Yea, Disney kind of backed themselves into a corner with that one.

1) Conservatives would completely destroy Disney (or try to) if they maintained the employment of a guy who made tweets about kid rape or whatever. Since most of America is conservative, they can't really afford to lose all those movie goers.

2) They fired Roseanne for tweets as well. While these tweets and hers have nothing in common, they're stocks would suffer quite a bit if they're in the news constantly for double standards for liberals/conservatives, men/women, thin people/fat people etc.

But yea. I think firing the guy was tricky. He made these tweets years and years ago. Has already gone on the apology tour for them. And they were made out of a very very very bad sense of humor, not malice or anything else.

I dunno. I don't like it, but most people don't see any nuance or difference between this and someone making a super racist tweet and getting fired.

I don't disagree with your analysis in terms of it being an accurate reflection of the world we live in.  But I just wish we lived in a world where we (as a society) could take a more thoughtful approach to things.  I wouldn't at all mind the studios at issue in BOTH situations saying, "We are sorry that what Roseanne/James said was offensive to some of our customers.  Out studio does not support such view, and those views are not representative of the studio.  But we recognize that people often say or do things that may offend others, and that in a free society, we need to be tolerant of that and move on with living our lives.  If employers fired every employee that disagreed with the 'company point-of-view,' our national workforce would be a shambles.  So let's just move on, shall we?"

I think such and approach would be fine for most industries, but I can totally understand why a studio wouldn't want to take such a risk on a movie with a $400M+ budget.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 11:45:16 AM
I think one thing that isn't being talked about as much was that the tweets resurfacing was a direct and deliberate attempt by people to get James Gunn fired because of his views on Trump and so forth.

Disney set a pretty dangerous precedent by showing that...yes, this can work. If you don't like someone, you can destroy them if they've ever done anything bad on twitter.

Say what you want about Trump, but he has yet to actually suffer any consequence from his tweets or anything he's said. So I wouldn't say it's the same thing when people dig up his tweets, because they've yet to result in anything beyond liberals getting angry.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 12:17:36 PM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

I've gone back and forth about this in my head over the last few days. The stuff he tweeted was most definitely awful/inappropriate, full stop. That said, my understanding is that he had since publicly apologized for them a while back, and this was known to Disney when they first brought him in to work on GotG. It seems like it's part of a deliberate witch hunt by Cernovich to dig up old comments/jokes about anybody whose politics they don't like and make a fuss about them. Kind of hard to watch a guy who, by all accounts is a better person now, go down in flames courtesy of a guy who has trafficked in pizza-gate.

But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?

Adami made the point about there being nuance/differences between that and a "super racist tweet", and while I don't see any difference between the two - hate is hate, in my view, and any attempt to discern the difference between hate is another word for "rationalization" - we've already crossed the line where the "mention" of race is in fact "racism", so why are we firing ANY of these people?   

And I haven't even gotten to the cottage business of digging up Trump's tweets from 150 years ago in order to hang him as a "hypocrite". 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
I think one thing that isn't being talked about as much was that the tweets resurfacing was a direct and deliberate attempt by people to get James Gunn fired because of his views on Trump and so forth.

Disney set a pretty dangerous precedent by showing that...yes, this can work. If you don't like someone, you can destroy them if they've ever done anything bad on twitter.

Say what you want about Trump, but he has yet to actually suffer any consequence from his tweets or anything he's said. So I wouldn't say it's the same thing when people dig up his tweets, because they've yet to result in anything beyond liberals getting angry.

I think Roseanne being fired was directly tied, at least in part, to her views on Trump.    A good measure of the press on her comeback was about how "unabashed" a Trump fan she was.  Sarah Gilbert hasn't had that much press interest since, well, never, as she tried to walk the RESIST! line and be fair to her colleague and friend, with whom she has a political disagreement.   

As for Trump, I wasn't referring to the consequences; I don't think he SHOULD face consequences, simply because someone disagrees with what he says.   But that's not for lack of trying by his opponents.   But he's been painted as a liar and hypocrite in large part due to the disparity in his past tweets.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 12:23:33 PM
Huh? There's no difference between rape jokes and racism? Where is the hate in Gunn's tweets?

I agree that there shouldn't be a blanket firing policy. Each case should be looked at differently. They're not all the same, it's not black and white. Saying all negative tweets are exactly the same is also missing the nuance and context and playing into the all or nothing nonsense that's messing up the country.

Personally, our goal should always be to make the world a better place. Some people spewing hatred shouldn't necessarily get to continue their employment, depending on what kind of job they have. That said, people should be allowed the chance to grow and learn from their mistakes. Again, it's a case by case thing, not a black and white, all or nothing approach.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 12:28:24 PM
I think one thing that isn't being talked about as much was that the tweets resurfacing was a direct and deliberate attempt by people to get James Gunn fired because of his views on Trump and so forth.

Disney set a pretty dangerous precedent by showing that...yes, this can work. If you don't like someone, you can destroy them if they've ever done anything bad on twitter.

Say what you want about Trump, but he has yet to actually suffer any consequence from his tweets or anything he's said. So I wouldn't say it's the same thing when people dig up his tweets, because they've yet to result in anything beyond liberals getting angry.

I think Roseanne being fired was directly tied, at least in part, to her views on Trump.    A good measure of the press on her comeback was about how "unabashed" a Trump fan she was.  Sarah Gilbert hasn't had that much press interest since, well, never, as she tried to walk the RESIST! line and be fair to her colleague and friend, with whom she has a political disagreement.   

As for Trump, I wasn't referring to the consequences; I don't think he SHOULD face consequences, simply because someone disagrees with what he says.   But that's not for lack of trying by his opponents.   But he's been painted as a liar and hypocrite in large part due to the disparity in his past tweets.

Whether or not Rosanne was fired for being a Trump supporter isn't something you or I can know. Maybe she got fired for spilling coffee on someone with a lot of power backstage. Once we start ignoring official statements, then it's all pretty needless conjecture. I had a teacher who was officially let go ( or resigned or whatever) because of sexually reckless statements he made during class. Was this the reason he was really fired? No. He was fired because he was an awful teacher and had well over a dozen students (out of like 40) file grievances against him and complain about him. They just couldn't legally do anything until he did something that violated his contract. There's a ton of Trump supporters in the media, and in movies, and in TV shows. They're not all getting fired. The show wasn't doing very well, and she was apparently not easy to work with. Maybe they just wanted to let her go and this was a good way to do that. Who knows?

And I didn't say Trump should be fired. In fact, I said this is a dangerous precedent in firing someone for bringing up their history. People should be given the chance to grow. Gunn showed a lot of signs of learning from his mistakes. Rosanne didn't really seem to (yet at least) and Trump definitely hasn't shown any of that.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Chino on July 23, 2018, 12:33:18 PM
I'm really fascinated by how/when all of this really hit the fan.

I wasn't really an adult at the time, so I'm oblivious, but how did people like Andrew Dice Clay and Lisa Lampanelli (not asking if you like them or not) make it as far as they did without getting a modern day crucifixion? And now that they've made it, they seem to have entered this grandfathered in, untouchable territory. Even Michael Richards seems to have come out of his comedy club rant unscathed.   

I'm sure many people would be quick to blame the millennials, and I'm sure we contribute some, but I see the pitchforks with my aunts and uncles. They're even worse than people my age as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 12:41:26 PM
Huh? There's no difference between rape jokes and racism? Where is the hate in Gunn's tweets?

I don't want to get into parsing whether he felt "hate" or not; I can't do that.  That's why I say there's no difference.  I don't at all agree that just because you say something that is insensitive to a minority that there is "hate" involved; and if you do maintain that, then you have to follow with anything that is insensitive to women must have "hate" too, because the analysis is the same.    This is part of why I think this is all bullshit.   I'm on Gunn's side; I don't think there was hate, but I also believe that it doesn't matter.    If someone wants to hate, that's on them.  Look, we're not firing a bunch of Hollywood actors because they "hate" Trump, are we?    Hate is hate, and neither is illegal. 

Quote
I agree that there shouldn't be a blanket firing policy. Each case should be looked at differently. They're not all the same, it's not black and white. Saying all negative tweets are exactly the same is also missing the nuance and context and playing into the all or nothing nonsense that's messing up the country.

No it's not, because we're not arguing the opposite sides of the same thing.  I'm saying that I don't understand how "hate" became a subjective thing.  "Hating blacks" and "hating conservatives" is exactly the same thing to me. It's hate.  I know that many (particularly, but not exclusively) on the left like to talk about "choice" - the racist "chooses" to hate, and therefore should be open to ridicule and punishment - but that's not entirely true, and we need to reflect that in our thinking. 

Quote
Personally, our goal should always be to make the world a better place. Some people spewing hatred shouldn't necessarily get to continue their employment, depending on what kind of job they have. That said, people should be allowed the chance to grow and learn from their mistakes. Again, it's a case by case thing, not a black and white, all or nothing approach.

I personally agree 100%.   "Tend Your Own Garden".   And let me be clear:  I understand that this is a contradiction, but I believe any company can fire anyone for any reason.  I also think that people should recognize their own "hate" and view others' in the same light.  Essentially, it sounds naive, but the idea is that if we all just take our own personal step back, we can avoid a shit-ton of conflict.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on July 23, 2018, 12:42:02 PM
I'm really fascinated by how/when all of this really hit the fan.

I wasn't really an adult at the time, so I'm oblivious, but how did people like Andrew Dice Clay and Lisa Lampanelli (not asking if you like them or not) make it as far as they did without getting a modern day crucifixion? And now that they've made it, they seem to have entered this grandfathered in, untouchable territory. Even Michael Richards seems to have come out of his comedy club rant unscathed.   

I'm sure many people would be quick to blame the millennial, and I'm sure we contribute some, but I see the pitchforks with my aunts and uncles. They're even worse than people my age as far as I'm concerned.

I think about things like this all the time, great post.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 12:51:32 PM
I think one thing that isn't being talked about as much was that the tweets resurfacing was a direct and deliberate attempt by people to get James Gunn fired because of his views on Trump and so forth.

Disney set a pretty dangerous precedent by showing that...yes, this can work. If you don't like someone, you can destroy them if they've ever done anything bad on twitter.

Say what you want about Trump, but he has yet to actually suffer any consequence from his tweets or anything he's said. So I wouldn't say it's the same thing when people dig up his tweets, because they've yet to result in anything beyond liberals getting angry.

I think Roseanne being fired was directly tied, at least in part, to her views on Trump.    A good measure of the press on her comeback was about how "unabashed" a Trump fan she was.  Sarah Gilbert hasn't had that much press interest since, well, never, as she tried to walk the RESIST! line and be fair to her colleague and friend, with whom she has a political disagreement.   

As for Trump, I wasn't referring to the consequences; I don't think he SHOULD face consequences, simply because someone disagrees with what he says.   But that's not for lack of trying by his opponents.   But he's been painted as a liar and hypocrite in large part due to the disparity in his past tweets.

Whether or not Rosanne was fired for being a Trump supporter isn't something you or I can know. Maybe she got fired for spilling coffee on someone with a lot of power backstage. Once we start ignoring official statements, then it's all pretty needless conjecture. I had a teacher who was officially let go ( or resigned or whatever) because of sexually reckless statements he made during class. Was this the reason he was really fired? No. He was fired because he was an awful teacher and had well over a dozen students (out of like 40) file grievances against him and complain about him. They just couldn't legally do anything until he did something that violated his contract. There's a ton of Trump supporters in the media, and in movies, and in TV shows. They're not all getting fired. The show wasn't doing very well, and she was apparently not easy to work with. Maybe they just wanted to let her go and this was a good way to do that. Who knows?

Personally, and with nothing to back it up other than my gut - which is useless and irrelevant, I fully concede that - my guess is that this is the crux of the Papa John Schnatter situation.   He handed them a get out of jail free card and they exercised it.   

Quote
And I didn't say Trump should be fired. In fact, I said this is a dangerous precedent in firing someone for bringing up their history. People should be given the chance to grow. Gunn showed a lot of signs of learning from his mistakes. Rosanne didn't really seem to (yet at least) and Trump definitely hasn't shown any of that.

And I would argue that "growth" shouldn't be a pre-requisite.   We've gotten to the point that beliefs and opinions are not treated equally, depending on the content of those beliefs.   For all the lines and nuances of free speech, the one sort of constant in all of it is that for the most part you CANNOT control the CONTENT of someone's speech.  There are exceptions - notably "hate speech" is NOT an exception - but even when there are controls on speech, more often than not they are time, place and manner controls, NOT content controls.   

I get that this is controversial, and I get that I risk being branded by association a "racist", "bigot", or "homophobe" but I don't believe that racist, homophobic or bigoted speech should be controlled.  I WANT to know if someone is a fucking asshole racist, so I can make decisions - for myself - accordingly.   I believe that these emotions can't survive in the bright light of day.  I believe that these ideas and thoughts fester when pushed underground, and in restricting the content of people's speech, you do exactly that.   

I think when called out for "racist speech" (again, assuming it is racist) I think the logical reaction - in today's hyper-partisan, hyper divisive society - isn't "hey, wow, you're right; we're all pink on the inside", it's more likely "f*** you, you commie pinko libtard".    And where does that get us?  Right back where we started, if not even further entrenched in our biases. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 12:56:24 PM
I am busy at the moment but I'll say one quick thing.

I agree that thought shouldn't be controlled. Luckily, it can't be.

That said, guided isn't controlled. If your kids came home and said "Hey dad, I've realized recently that the holocaust was a great thing and that I think black people are monkeys who should be enslaved", will your response be "I don't agree, but I respect your right to think that....have a lovely day kiddo!"? or will you try to guide your kid into not being a racist crazy person? I dunno. Maybe you really would be 100% cool with it, because it seems you believe that love and hate are equal and no different, and that hating groups of people is just as legitimate as....I dunno.....liking New York style pizza.

But like I said, I want the world to be a better place. A better world has no racism in it. I can't control anyone, nor would I if I could. That said, racism doesn't go away unless we actively try to make it go away, to some degree, beyond simply stating facts back and forth, which rarely results in anything at all in this context. We don't destroy racist people, but we try to not give them free platforms to make things worse.

I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 01:08:43 PM
I'm really fascinated by how/when all of this really hit the fan.

I wasn't really an adult at the time, so I'm oblivious, but how did people like Andrew Dice Clay and Lisa Lampanelli (not asking if you like them or not) make it as far as they did without getting a modern day crucifixion? And now that they've made it, they seem to have entered this grandfathered in, untouchable territory. Even Michael Richards seems to have come out of his comedy club rant unscathed.   

I'm sure many people would be quick to blame the millennial, and I'm sure we contribute some, but I see the pitchforks with my aunts and uncles. They're even worse than people my age as far as I'm concerned.

I think about things like this all the time, great post.

Well, two things;  they weren't without controversy.  When Dice went to appear on SNL, Nora Dunn refused to appear, and Sinead O'Connor refused to perform.   You'll also notice that - at least Dice and Lampanelli - distanced themselves pretty significantly from the things they said.   Dice was "all about the character", and has done a number of serious dramatic roles recently that worked in contrast to his "Dice" character (Vinyl is a good example, as is Blue Jasmine and Blacklist).  I didn't watch it, but supposedly "Dice" was about how he deals with exactly what we're talking about.

I think generally - having grown up in that time frame - there was no thought to being "offended".  You're baffled by Dice and Lisa Lampanelli (you could add Archie Bunker to that as well) but I'm equally baffled by why people need to be on Twitter, and why kids shoot up schools.  I think the answer to all of these questions are related.  We didn't have this need to set everyone straight.  I got bullied and I either fought back one on one or I walked away.    Sometimes I kicked some ass, and sometimes I got my ass kicked.  We used to play football in the school yard, and if you had a beef, somehow it always worked out that you'd be on the other side of the dude you were bitching with.  At some point, you'd get the ball (or vice versa) and that other dude would put a hit on you (or vice versa).  You'd scrap and after a while they'd pull you apart and, provided you didn't bite or try to kick them in the nuts, it'd be over.  It wasn't like we were better than the kids today because we didn't shoot up schools, but it just never occurred to us.  Likewise, we didn't have this need to bully others to seeing things our way politically, musically, or otherwise.  You didn't like Dice?   You didn't listen.   It was that simple.   We, uh, dare I say, tended our own garden.   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on July 23, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
Well those are specific examples, I often think about South Park.  A pretty offensive show by many standards, although not offensive to one group, but to all.  I kind of figured that's why they don't get lumped into anything, but I mean they did a whole episode making fun of the Kramer incident. 

But what if that show was new today?  Would it get criticized?  Would comedy central even agree to air such a new show? 

And I know that's another specific example, but it does kind of seem like anything that used to be offensive is still allowed to be
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 23, 2018, 01:47:41 PM
I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.

I guess I should just shut up and let Stadler speak for himself.  But I'm in complete disbelief that you could think Stadler thinks anything remotely similar to what you just posted.  Honestly, sometimes I think you intentionally misstate people just to have something to argue against.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: axeman90210 on July 23, 2018, 01:54:22 PM
Not sure if this is the right place, but....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-star-quits-twitter-after-james-gunn-firing/ar-BBKZm8U?ocid=ientp

More interested in the Gunn firing than some actor who I've never heard of quitting Twitter (though I applaud them; perhaps we should ALL quit Twitter).

I've gone back and forth about this in my head over the last few days. The stuff he tweeted was most definitely awful/inappropriate, full stop. That said, my understanding is that he had since publicly apologized for them a while back, and this was known to Disney when they first brought him in to work on GotG. It seems like it's part of a deliberate witch hunt by Cernovich to dig up old comments/jokes about anybody whose politics they don't like and make a fuss about them. Kind of hard to watch a guy who, by all accounts is a better person now, go down in flames courtesy of a guy who has trafficked in pizza-gate.

But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?

Adami made the point about there being nuance/differences between that and a "super racist tweet", and while I don't see any difference between the two - hate is hate, in my view, and any attempt to discern the difference between hate is another word for "rationalization" - we've already crossed the line where the "mention" of race is in fact "racism", so why are we firing ANY of these people?   

And I haven't even gotten to the cottage business of digging up Trump's tweets from 150 years ago in order to hang him as a "hypocrite". 

I'm not drawing any distinction between what he said and what Roseanne said (since she's what has come up for comparison purposes). What I am drawing a distinction between is something(s) someone said nearly a decade ago and subsequently apologized for, and something someone said this month. If you take any one of James Gunn's tweets and drop them into his timeline now, I've got no problem with him getting the heave ho. Similarly, I didn't think Roseanne should have been fired for all the dumb stuff she said before her show got rebooted (e.g. the Susan Rice ape comment), but once she said what she said back in May I had no problem with her going.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2018, 01:54:46 PM
I am busy at the moment but I'll say one quick thing.

I agree that thought shouldn't be controlled. Luckily, it can't be.

That said, guided isn't controlled. If your kids came home and said "Hey dad, I've realized recently that the holocaust was a great thing and that I think black people are monkeys who should be enslaved", will your response be "I don't agree, but I respect your right to think that....have a lovely day kiddo!"? or will you try to guide your kid into not being a racist crazy person? I dunno. Maybe you really would be 100% cool with it, because it seems you believe that love and hate are equal and no different, and that hating groups of people is just as legitimate as....I dunno.....liking New York style pizza.

I would do neither, specifically.   I've had this conversation (sort of) already.  I would engage them.  Ask them to defend that position.  I would show them my evidence.   I can't now, but 15 years ago, I could ask them to talk to my uncle Alex who landed in Normandy. 

Don't belittle this with snark.  That I find them equal - they are but emotions - or legitimate - I don't get to tell you what to think and you don't get to tell me what to think - is not to say I consider FACT and OPINION to be equal and inseparable. It's also not to say that I don't value one over the other.  I believe that love is far more productive and positive an investment than I do hate.   I don't consider this to be a battle of subjective opinions.   I wouldn't bully them into thinking what I want them to think (or what society expects them to think) but I damn well would demand - and HAVE demanded - that they account for the facts, not opinions, that contradict their position.   What I won't do is tell someone ELSE how to relatively value any of those things. 

I'm thankful my kid is intellectually very capable of understanding this stuff.  I challenge her all the time in this way.  Her school is exceedingly - cloyingly - liberal (a family member of someone we ridicule readily and aggressively on this site went to her school, and the school basically disavows that they ever went there) in a way that makes her uncomfortable.  She has said to me "Dad, why doesn't this feel right to me?" and rather than say "because they're ridiculous libtards who don't know shit and just want a welfare state!" I ask her to dig in and figure it out.  I may give her a source to look at - JFK has come up; Thomas Friedman has come up; I suggested she read "The Audacity of Hope" at some point - but I won't tell her what to think. 

Quote
But like I said, I want the world to be a better place. A better world has no racism in it. I can't control anyone, nor would I if I could. That said, racism doesn't go away unless we actively try to make it go away, to some degree, beyond simply stating facts back and forth, which rarely results in anything at all in this context. We don't destroy racist people, but we try to not give them free platforms to make things worse.

Well, you're assuming that "better world = world without racism".  I disagree with that, pragmatically, if not conceptually.  Not the "racism" part, but the focusing on racism as the variable.   I believe the world is a better place when we tolerate.  Not the PC "we really mean ACCEPTANCE, not TOLERANCE" tolerance, but true, "I take you as you are, for better or worse" tolerance.   Think about it; even if you ARE a racist, you can be TOLERANT.   We don't need people to "not be racist", we need them to tolerate those around them.  I agree that "racism" is a bad thing, but it causes harm by marginalizing a group, and creating divisiveness.   SO DOES FORCED TOLERANCE.   You're not changing minds, you're just amping up the war.  I believe that there will ALWAYS be some percentage - I don't know what it is (my guess is around 4% - that will be "racist" or "bigoted" simply as an act of contrarianism.  So with that, how do we all get along and still make the world a "better place"?

Quote
I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.

Well, you're conflating "ideology" with "action".   That's where we disagree.   As a pure idea, no, "hate" and "love" aren't "better" or "worse" in an absolute sense.  But they do have relative worth.  What I'm talking about is judging someone - and acting on that judgment - because you disagree with the way they value that relative worth. 

It's not that I think "hatred" is no worse than "being a liberal"; I think that's a false equivalency.   You're essentially saying "being happy" is no worse than "building a bridge".   I believe there are holistic benefits to love over hate; I get that there are societal benefits to defaulting to love over hate.  I know for me, I FEEL BETTER when I choose love over hate (or at least, choose to reject hate).    Where I'm talking about, though, is in the influence of others, and judging the valuation of others.  Judging them based on their selection, not on their action.  In the assigning of subjective valuations of relative 'hates'.   Ask 100 people.  "Is it okay to "hate" homosexuals?" and "Is it okay to "hate" adults that molest infants and toddlers?"   The numbers will not likely be the same, even though at heart, both of those subgroups likely have no choice in the matter.   We can probably rationalize why those numbers aren't the same, but why is one hate better than another, given what I said about choice?   It's all a subjective judgment; which is fine, but don't suppose to make that judgment for everyone else.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: portnoy311 on July 23, 2018, 02:07:47 PM
I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.

I guess I should just shut up and let Stadler speak for himself.  But I'm in complete disbelief that you could think Stadler thinks anything remotely similar to what you just posted.  Honestly, sometimes I think you intentionally misstate people just to have something to argue against.

I believe you owe Adami an apology in light of Stadler's post.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 02:34:13 PM
I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.

I guess I should just shut up and let Stadler speak for himself.  But I'm in complete disbelief that you could think Stadler thinks anything remotely similar to what you just posted.  Honestly, sometimes I think you intentionally misstate people just to have something to argue against.

I barely post on here because I strongly dislike arguing, which I've stated many many times. Sometimes I make the mistake of posting when I see something that just seems odd to me.

I am actually pretty offended that you think what you said, but I can't do anything about that. Such is life.

I dunno. Maybe I'm an idiot. I know I'm not as smart as most of the other posters on this thread. I know I can't put great 4 paragraph posts to perfectly defend and explain my position. I apparently also can't read certain posts very well. So, I dunno, maybe I'm not smart enough to post in P/R, but I can unequivocally say that I don't intentionally misstate anything. My goal is simply to make things better, that doesn't accomplish it. Sadly I just seem to make things worse.

I guess I'll stick to posting about The Middle East or psychology, since those are what my degrees are in.

Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 23, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
I'm not saying you "need" to stick to one topic or the other, or that you aren't intelligent enough to post here.  But stop mischaracterizing people's posts to the point of absurdity.  It's incredibly offensive and counterproductive.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on July 23, 2018, 03:20:58 PM
Just my two cents but I didn't at all get that from Adami's post(s) and I think that's a much more offensive characterization of the points he was trying to make... I'm offended that you offended Adami by claiming to be offended!  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 03:24:40 PM
Just my two cents but I didn't at all get that from Adami's post(s) and I think that's a much more offensive characterization of the points he was trying to make... I'm offended that you offended Adami by claiming to be offended!  :biggrin:

It’s fine. Clearly if my posts are getting reported, then I’m doing something wrong. I’ll do my best to incorporate Bosks feedback to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.

If nothing else, it’s been a good lesson in assuming the other persons intentions. Which I’m more than guilty of at times.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: portnoy311 on July 23, 2018, 03:48:07 PM
But Adami wasn't that far off at all from Stadler's view. Stadler clarified what they were, and he really wasn't that far off. Notice how Stadler wasn't offended and wrote a clarification. I know Stadler well enough to say he knows not everyone shares his worldview. His response was meaty and on topic because of that.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 23, 2018, 03:53:47 PM
But Adami wasn't that far off at all from Stadler's view. Stadler clarified what they were, and he really wasn't that far off. Notice how Stadler wasn't offended and wrote a clarification. I know Stadler well enough to say he knows not everyone shares his worldview. His response was meaty and on topic because of that. O

It’s fine. Re-reading my post, I did a piss poor job getting my point across. It’s my bad.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 23, 2018, 04:07:07 PM
I dunno, maybe I did a piss poor job of understanding where you were placing your emphasis, and thus misunderstood your main point.  But "Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever" just jumped out at me as being such a blatant misunderstanding of Stadler's point of view that I just didn't see how you could possibly really think that.  I guess I just missed the point and failed to see the forest for the trees.  I think Stadler put the focus back on where he thought it should be, so if he wasn't bothered by the details, I shouldn't be either.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Carry on.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on July 24, 2018, 04:42:20 AM
I'll jump on the defense of Adami wagon here.  Perhaps he did mischaracterize Stadler with a couple of his points - to which Stads beautifully clarified in his response - but I think it was completely unfair to state that he sometimes "intentionally misstates people just to have something to argue against" ... or "past the point of absurdity".  I didn't see anything in his post that was completely absurd.  Stadler has often stated things along the line of it being ok (or at least, understandable) for some to have and express hate or racism... which is the crux of what I interpreted Adami commenting around.

She has said to me "Dad, why doesn't this feel right to me?" and rather than say "because they're ridiculous libtards who don't know shit and just want a welfare state!" I ask her to dig in and figure it out.  I may give her a source to look at - JFK has come up; Thomas Friedman has come up; I suggested she read "The Audacity of Hope" at some point - but I won't tell her what to think. 

Seems to me like your guiding her to further explore her thoughts and viewpoints ... exactly what Adami was saying.  Perhaps in a different way, but you're still guiding her.  Just because YOU refuse to rely on substantiated opinions that can or usually are based on fact (I'm not saying to rely on them OVER facts... just to have them as part of the equation), doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or that others can't / shouldn't.

To me, it seems tantamount to exactly what you've posted recently

To some, if "racism" rears it's ugly head, it's a dealbreaker, no questions asked.   For others, "racism" is a factor to be weighed against all others.   There has to be mutual respect for these different standards, otherwise, it's like telling a guy "Hey, you shouldn't think your wife is hot; her eyes are too close together."  Not your call, bro.

Replace "racism" with "opinions", and do you feel that paragraph still holds up?
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: eric42434224 on July 24, 2018, 07:54:57 AM
I think our main disagreement is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you see ideologies and beliefs as black and white, as in none are better or worse than any others. Racism is no different than loving your neighbor. Hatred is no worse than being a liberal or whatever. We're going to continue to disagree about that, and I doubt this conversation will go much further if the crux is a mutual disagreement that shows no sign of changing.

I guess I should just shut up and let Stadler speak for himself.  But I'm in complete disbelief that you could think Stadler thinks anything remotely similar to what you just posted.  Honestly, sometimes I think you intentionally misstate people just to have something to argue against.

As a moderator, you must know that you are going to be held to a higher standard.  You are right to question adami’s post, but that last sentence is not only not necessary to get your point across, it is actually inflammatory and does exactly what you accuse adami of. 
The situation worked itself out in a matter of a few posts.  It was clarified and ended up being inoffensive and not far off.
Just my two cents
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 24, 2018, 08:03:35 AM
Seems to me like your guiding her to further explore her thoughts and viewpoints ... exactly what Adami was saying.  Perhaps in a different way, but you're still guiding her.  Just because YOU refuse to rely on substantiated opinions that can or usually are based on fact (I'm not saying to rely on them OVER facts... just to have them as part of the equation), doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or that others can't / shouldn't.

To me, it seems tantamount to exactly what you've posted recently

Well, to some degree, this is a semantics game, since every interaction with your child is "guiding" in some form or fashion.  I meant it in the specific sense, here, in that I am not telling her any of the conclusions to have. Sure, I'm "guiding" her in the context of teaching her research skills and analytical skills and patience skills, but at the end of the day, if she goes through all that and comes back and says "yep, dad, n*****s are inferior." I am not going to tell her to change her mind, I'm not going to throw her out of the house, I'm not going to deny her food and water... it is what it is.  I don't - or wouldn't - hate her, any more than I would "hate" someone who drew a (to me) equally unsupported conclusion like "guns bans work" or "taxing the 1% is the solution to our financial woes".  There's no emotion in that.

I forget if I mentioned it here or not, but I've recently been sucked into the vortex that is "Quora".  It's a fascinating, and sometimes enlightening platform, but it's just as often MADDENING.   Questions like "Why is Donald Trump so afraid of Robert Mueller?" and "Is there any doubt that Donald Trump loses the election in 2020?"   And I spend a decent amount of time telling people that insist on calling Trump "Drumpf" (one woman calls him "Yuck", and I've taken to starting every reply with "Who is 'Yuck'?").   None of this is meaningful dialogue.  None of this is intellectual discourse. This is PURE EMOTION, and yet people continue to try to rationalize it, justify it, and QUANTIFY it.  "Yuck" woman was trying to tell me her opinions - I think we were talking about her in-depth analysis that "Yuck disgusted her" - are "well informed" and based on "years of research".   And I point blank asked her: "You needed 'years of research' to realize you were 'disgusted'?"  She then accused me of "mansplaining" and that's when I lost interest.    But do you see the point here?  An EMOTIONAL reaction doesn't qualify as "FACT", and doesn't in and of itself indicate FACT.   


Quote
To some, if "racism" rears it's ugly head, it's a dealbreaker, no questions asked.   For others, "racism" is a factor to be weighed against all others.   There has to be mutual respect for these different standards, otherwise, it's like telling a guy "Hey, you shouldn't think your wife is hot; her eyes are too close together."  Not your call, bro.

Replace "racism" with "opinions", and do you feel that paragraph still holds up?

Absolutely, since to some degree I consider "racism" to BE an opinion. That's the whole point of this discussion right there.    When it comes to "racism", we are not talking about "2+2=4", except in the most egregious examples, and even then not, since we can rarely agree on what IS an egregious example (Ferguson, for example). 

I've been thinking about this for the past 12 hours or so, first and foremost because I respect Adami, and I don't want bad blood here.  I bear some responsibility in not articulating a very complex idea in a simple enough manner.  But what we have here is really the confluence of two things:   emotion (subjective) and fact (objective). I'm not arguing the objective.  It is what it is.  What I'm saying is that I don't feel we can objectively quantify the EMOTIONAL side of this, and that goes double when it applies to other people.   We've gotten to the point here in America where even the MENTION of race becomes "racism", and largely because someone had an EMOTIONAL reaction to that mention (I put Sarasota in this category).   I don't believe we can or should prioritize one persons' emotional reaction over that of another person, whether it involves race or not.   SO in that sense, no, "racism" isn't more or less important - or different, I think is the word that caused the problem - than love. 
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on July 24, 2018, 08:15:53 AM
Quote
To some, if "racism" rears it's ugly head, it's a dealbreaker, no questions asked.   For others, "racism" is a factor to be weighed against all others.   There has to be mutual respect for these different standards, otherwise, it's like telling a guy "Hey, you shouldn't think your wife is hot; her eyes are too close together."  Not your call, bro.

Replace "racism" with "opinions", and do you feel that paragraph still holds up?

Absolutely, since to some degree I consider "racism" to BE an opinion.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm having trouble reconciling things here.  You routinely challenge/discredit/disqualify statements that are made based on opinion/emotion, yet you agree that there needs to be mutual respect for different standards (eg, decisions/statements/conclusions based on opinion vs decisions/statements/conclusions based on fact).
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 24, 2018, 08:33:23 AM
Thanks for the input above, but I really don't need a thread of junior moderators offering their two cents on every moderator decision.  Keep the threads on topic, please.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on July 24, 2018, 09:57:47 AM
"Junior moderators"... wow  :lol

Stadler, for your health, for your sanity, stay off Quora. Between that and Twitter you're going to give yourself palpitations.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on July 24, 2018, 10:25:51 AM
Thanks for the input above, but I really don't need a thread of junior moderators offering their two cents on every moderator decision.  Keep the threads on topic, please.

For starters, it was your post that started to take this off topic, firing a salvo at Adami.  Second, as the global moderator, one would think you'd be above above personal attacks to those that differ with your viewpoint.  The responses you refer to had nothing to do with a "moderator decision".  Show me where you made a decision in this thread, and we questioned you as moderator.  We were hardly moderating this thread, but offering different perspective and interpretation regarding Adami's post.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 24, 2018, 10:45:13 AM
And it is my last post that reminded people to get back on topic, not stray from it even farther.  This thread is not about arguing with me or parsing my words.  Either get on topic or don't post.  No offense, but if your name isn't Adami, you don't really have any business commenting on the situation.  And if your name actually IS Adami, then you would know that you handled the situation 100% appropriately by taking it to PM and helping me resolve it.  That does not need to be a further topic of discussion in this thread.  And it won't be.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: axeman90210 on July 24, 2018, 11:10:15 AM
And as a further reminder, to the best of my knowledge I'm the only duly elected Junior Moderator in DTF history, so I'll kindly ask you all to keep from encroaching on my turf :lol
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Kattelox on July 24, 2018, 11:28:26 AM
Ya'll need a hug or ten.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 24, 2018, 01:39:59 PM
I love hugs.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Adami on July 24, 2018, 02:02:46 PM
I love hugs.
:hug:
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: bosk1 on July 24, 2018, 02:05:01 PM
:D
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 24, 2018, 02:09:45 PM
Quote
To some, if "racism" rears it's ugly head, it's a dealbreaker, no questions asked.   For others, "racism" is a factor to be weighed against all others.   There has to be mutual respect for these different standards, otherwise, it's like telling a guy "Hey, you shouldn't think your wife is hot; her eyes are too close together."  Not your call, bro.

Replace "racism" with "opinions", and do you feel that paragraph still holds up?

Absolutely, since to some degree I consider "racism" to BE an opinion.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm having trouble reconciling things here.  You routinely challenge/discredit/disqualify statements that are made based on opinion/emotion, yet you agree that there needs to be mutual respect for different standards (eg, decisions/statements/conclusions based on opinion vs decisions/statements/conclusions based on fact).

I do and I do. The former part is about forcing others to live by your opinions.  The latter is showing respect for those opinions.  The two are not mutually exclusive.    If you think that abortion is a crime against humanity, I respect your opinion.  BUT, don't make every woman in the U.S. live by it.   

That's where (I believe) this country has gone off the rails.  We've elevated "opinions" beyond what is good (i.e. an idea for others to consider) and into the realm of bad (i.e. gospel that others should live by at the risk of enduring bullying, shaming and other "consequences" for failing to adhere).   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 24, 2018, 02:20:55 PM
"Junior moderators"... wow  :lol

Stadler, for your health, for your sanity, stay off Quora. Between that and Twitter you're going to give yourself palpitations.

Holy crap, you're right.

Quick twitter story:  I have 16 people I follow, and 6 followers.  I was sitting with my wife and daughter the other night and I told them about how I made a post that day.  I was reading a tweet on @Sternshow (Howard Stern) about this guy "Bobo" who tries like hell to get on the air continually.  And I wrote "What Howard doesn't get yet is that with satellite you can skip dipshits like Bobo.  he's not funny, he's a troll.   He comes on?  Boom! "Hair Nation" here I come!"

I actually got a DM from Bobo, telling me to "Go back to my 6 followers".  I was so proud. I tried to reply, but he blocked me!   Plus, Hugh Jackman is one of my followers! 

Turns out I included Bobo's hashtag in the reply.  Who knew?   It also turns out that it isn't the REAL Hugh Jackman, just some boner that retweets everything from the REAL Hugh Jackman.

I gave about 30 minutes of gut-busting laughter to my wife and daughter.  I felt so old.   :)   
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: cramx3 on July 24, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
If you reply to a tweet that mentioned someone, your reply also mentions them by default.

But that's funny, and I'm a Howard fan but I don't have satelite so it's only in rentals that I get to listen but I am aware of Bobo and just seems like in character for him to do that on twitter  :lol
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: jingle.boy on July 24, 2018, 04:04:31 PM
Quote
To some, if "racism" rears it's ugly head, it's a dealbreaker, no questions asked.   For others, "racism" is a factor to be weighed against all others.   There has to be mutual respect for these different standards, otherwise, it's like telling a guy "Hey, you shouldn't think your wife is hot; her eyes are too close together."  Not your call, bro.

Replace "racism" with "opinions", and do you feel that paragraph still holds up?

Absolutely, since to some degree I consider "racism" to BE an opinion.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm having trouble reconciling things here.  You routinely challenge/discredit/disqualify statements that are made based on opinion/emotion, yet you agree that there needs to be mutual respect for different standards (eg, decisions/statements/conclusions based on opinion vs decisions/statements/conclusions based on fact).

I do and I do. The former part is about forcing others to live by your opinions.  The latter is showing respect for those opinions.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty sure I see you're point, and it's a valid one.  None-the-less, just be aware that, for the average person, using opinion/emotion as the primary basis for their viewpoint isn't necessarily wrong or bad - if using opinion/emotion as the standard for one's viewpoint, then they are still owed respect for that standard, even if it's different than your own.  I'm not trying to say you're disrespectful (you're quite the opposite.... most times  ;)), but your counterpoints sometimes do suggest the 'opinion/emotion' standard is irrelevant/illogical.  Example... your constant scorn of "common sense".  For many, common sense IS a good enough standard; for you it isn't.  That doesn't mean either is more right or more wrong than the other.

Also, not everyone is trying to force their opinion on others.  Some do, like 'yuck lady' most likely is, but I think a lot of the discourse around here doesn't necessarily go down that path.
Title: Re: Can we just stop, please?
Post by: Stadler on July 24, 2018, 04:24:53 PM
Point taken, but I'm going to chalk that up to "drafting error".   It's "illogical" when used to apply to everyone as a rule.    I don't say it this way, but the problem with "common sense" is the idea that it's "common".  That it applies to everyone.   

The funny thing is, if you ask my family, I'M the emotional one.  My daughter, step-daughter and step-son had a side bet at our wedding WHEN I would cry.  Not "IF", but "WHEN".    Fuckers.   My heart bleeds for those kids in Mexico.  I believe that now that I'm 50 and with four kids, I literally have one obligation in this world:  give them as much runway as I can.   Everything else comes second. If that's not an emotional position to take, I don't know what is.   The difference is, I would never in a million years force YOU to make that same prioritization.    It's why the Democrats moralizing is so problematic to me.  I actually agree with their positions almost 100% (guns is really the only exception); I just don't want to force it on everyone else.