DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Harmony on May 07, 2021, 08:52:44 AM
-
I've been having lots of very good conversations with my kids - who are in fact adults now - about (for lack of a better word) cancel culture and judging past decades by today's standards.
I know you are sensing that this thread belongs in P/R but it doesn't have to be. This isn't about any one thing. But I'm going to give a couple of examples.
I finished the documentary on Hemingway and it is easy to judge the man using the lens of today. Judging him by the standards of today I would call him a womanizer. Some of his writings were nothing less than overtly racist. He was a bully in every sense of the word. And he was also alcoholic, mentally ill, and likely suffered from what we now know of as CTE. It is hard for me to imagine that if we transplanted this man into 2021, his behavior and his work would simply not be tolerated and he certainly would not be celebrated.
I just learned today that the US had a plan to nuke the moon (Project A119) and that one of my heroes, Carl Sagan, was in favor of it. I know I'm probably late to this party but my brain is stunned. How could anyone think detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon is something good? How does this knowledge change my thinking of one of my heroes? Should it? He was a man of his time and times were very different.
My kids are very passionate as many young adults are. As I once was. They are energized to make the world a better place and they tend to look down on the generations that came before them as very unenlightened. And I've had to ask them what the generation of the 2070s and 2080s think of their generation? I mean, we have people - children - dying of hunger in a world that has the capacity to feed every human in need and yet we do not do that. Collectively we see the problems that we have and we can't stop arguing with one another long enough to fix them. Maybe the question isn't what those who came before us got wrong. Maybe the question is how will we be judged by those who come after?
-
I find that this current form of "cancel culture" we are seeing throughout society, while some may not think this, is a form of Marxism, and needs to be eradicated.
It is not much different than "Me Too". The intentions might be well-meaning, but that doesn't mean it isn't a cancer on society.
No man is perfect.
-
I find that this current form of "cancel culture" we are seeing throughout society, while some may not think this, is a form of Marxism, and needs to be eradicated.
It is not much different than "Me Too". The intentions might be well-meaning, but that doesn't mean it isn't a cancer on society.
No man is perfect.
Eradicating is a form of cancel culture.
-
I guess we will be judged mainly on:
- Climate change. We'll be those suckers who could have stopped it and didn't care to implement solutions and technologies that in 70-80 years will be availaible, more widespread, or looking easy in retrospect.
- The digital era. Whatever the situation will be with the digitalization of the world, social media, internet and the likes, our shortcomings in this sense will be frowned upon. But then again Black Mirror might be right and we might elect Mickey Mouse as planet overlord so who knows.
- Attitude towards gay people. We're slooooooowly and finally going towards a society that finally realized that what you do with your own genitals is your own business, so probably just like we "Lolwut" about people owning slaves, probably people will consider us turn-of-the-millennium folks as a bunch of homophobic people.
- I'm also a bit curious about religious issues will be seen, at least christianity might be on the decline and once the previous generation of older people will be gone, we might expect a significant drop of religious people. The political debate in too many countries is often dominated by the views of religious people, once a bunch of them will die of old age and politicians will no longer have to pander to them, who knows how we might be viewed.
-
I think we will be judge as a time period where we were still learning to work with each other.
We are still learning to work with technology, and how to properly use it. socially, we are on a good path of learning to work with each other. It doesn't seem like it at times, but I am a bit optimistic of the next 15-20 years and where we go. There will be setbacks (like 2020), but overall we are on a good path. We will see, but I am of the mindset that as dark as times seem now, they are (undoubtedly?) better than previous generations. Just my opinion.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
-
It's a phenomenal question, and I think it's cool that you are having what I call "strategic" (that's to say, long term) conversations with your kids. I'm trying to do the same with my three oldest (two stepkids, for whom this kind of thinking is almost completely foreign, and my natural daughter, who's a chip off the old Stadler block in this case).
I struggle though; the world goes in cycles. Advancements are made, and yet at times we backslide. I think this moment in time will ultimately be judged in terms of the reaction and the backlash to it. I think it's easy to look at a month, a year, a Presidential term, and think it's going to resonate in all it's glory independent of what happened before and after, and that's a mistake. Was Bush, Jr. a good or bad President? In the context of Bill Clinton, probably not good. In the context of Obama and Trump, the answer is possibly not the same.
I would like to think this age - characterized by an unprecedented leap in technology - will be seen for what I think it actually was: objective, scientific advances that far out-paced our psychological capacity to keep up. We are the teenager that just got their driver's license, and doesn't quite know what to do with it yet. I think along with your nuclear example (and you can use the industrial revolution here as well), our social media will be seen as an advancement that we didn't react to fast enough. I would hope that the future is kind to us; kinder, perhaps, than we are to our past, and would recognize that many of us - not all, but many, even those we don't agree with - did the best we could with the tools we had. I know for me, I would hope that in 30 years, mental health wellness will be as common as treadmills and diet books, and we will be generally more equipped to handle these changes that I would imagine are still coming at a rapid fire pace. That in and of itself will color the assessment of our current state, much like advancements in virology and bacteriology color our assessment of, say the late 19th century, or the early 20th century.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Sadly, I fear this is most accurate. Once all the old rich white people/nations die off, the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Sadly, I fear this is most accurate. Once all the old rich white people/nations die off, the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.
It all depends though. We don't know where the road is heading. World War I was, in it's time, "The Great War" or "The War To End All Wars", and yet, it didn't. World War II - which actually had it's origins IN WWI - dwarfed it in size, scope, and consequences. I think the odds are better than 50-50 that there is someone in the next 15 years that will make Trump look like Nixon in comparison.
EDIT: And of course, all of this assumes measured progress on the China Ascendancy.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
This.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on. So yeah...
-
How do selfish people having kids dumb down society?
How do we know which people having kids are selfish pricks and which aren’t?
-
As society advances, certain things that were once seen as harmless it turns out were harmful to groups of people who were afraid to speak up about their pain. As long as you acknowledge your past ignorance and grow with the times, the future generations should trust you as an ally. If you stay stuck in your ways, stuck in the past, then the future generations have every right to judge you. There seems to be this romanticizing of preserving tradition, but if that tradition doesn’t work in modern society, it’s better for the entire world to let it go.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on. So yeah...
I really wish more people realised Idiocracy was in fact a comedy film, and not a documentary.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on. So yeah...
(https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020.jpg)
-
the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.
you're placing entirely too much faith and credibility onto the 'woke' generation. That pendulum won't come to rest anywhere near the center.
-
I feel like there's a subtle, implicit "well not ME, of course" in this entire dialogue, and that's part of the problem for me. The future isn't going to see the "us and them" as clearly as we feel it, and as such they are going to have a perspective we don't have. That perspective is going to be the deciding factor as to how they ultimately see us, not anything that's actually happening now.
I'm getting the sense that there's more than one person here that sort of views the current "us" versus "them" as a war in which there will be one winner (the "them", unless I'm misreading you all and you think YOU'RE one of the idiots) and that fact will be lamented. Except in the most rare of cases, that's not how history plays out. I can only think of one really glaring example over the last 120 years where it has, in fact. History has a way of tamping down the emotions; JFK is far more human and real than he was perceived then, and the notion of "Camelot" seems almost quaint in today's terms. That is not to say, however, that the affairs, the drug use, the physical limitations have tarnished his reputation, or diminished those things he did accomplish. History has a way of lurching to the middle of the road, too; there is another JFK in our future, and likely another Trump. When they come and in what order will have a lot of say in how that "war" ultimately pans out, and while I can't tell which direction we're going to go in, I can tell you, with some certainty, that we aren't staying stagnant, at least not in the moment we're in. it's unsustainable.
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, when nearly half of the people around us are willingly engaging in self-delusion at the behest of a known scam artist we are one step away from fucking doom.
So how will be be judged? Pretty fucking harshly, I reckon.
-
Learning about our history and the history of humanity in general is a great start to this discussion.
There's a lot of psychology that plays into our history and our past generations problems and issues, and how Society and Life was.
What I noticed is that the past generations had to work for things, if people wanted something, it requires putting in work and effort, and that work was physically and mentally demanding. People didn't just sit in an office, people were actually outside in nature, doing the work that needed to be done.
That is the mindset of the people of the past.
Nowadays, that mindset has shifted. And this is what I consider the Generational Shift. Where the mindset of the past no longer applies to the present. And where these issues and disagreements of the new mindset and old mindset collides. This is where the old mindset has to learn, and accept the change, and hand over the reigns to the upcoming mindset. If they're gonna be greedy about it, and not hand over that reign, then issues begin where Life shows that the old, just won't and can't work, because The Peoples mindsets are changing and shifting from that old mindset.
What I myself see is exactly this. The old mindset not wanting to hand over the reigns, they're being greedy and stingy with that power, and they need to accept that fact, that their mindset isn't where the current mindset is heading to.
But, this doesn't mean the current mindset can't learn from the old. The old mindset should hand over that reign, but also, be there to guide the new, so these issues of the past don't end up being repeated.
These issues of today are still the same issues of the past. Only in the present, what we have is how it evolved and became in the now. This is our generations turn to actually realize these things and actually come together to solve it.
The new mindset and new generation needs to understand, they need the knowledge and wisdom of the old, because the old has the experience and actually lived it. There is nothing that can replace that wisdom that is earned from living and experiencing it.
That's how traditions and knowledge is passed down orally, from the experiences of the old. Listening to the stories and experiences of the old tells a lot.
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting. To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest". "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth. To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way. There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke". For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.
History will see through that. History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus. It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them. Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.
-
Is "wokeness" really new? It just seems like a rebrand of ideas that have been around since the 60s, and actually, a watered down version of it a that (which might explain why Corporate America is so eager to be woke).
-
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/bSdkuLDnrYheE/200.gif)
-
the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.
you're placing entirely too much faith and credibility onto the 'woke' generation. That pendulum won't come to rest anywhere near the center.
I was being mildly facetious in using the term "woke". I don't mean the FAR woke people, but the generation that includes the jingle.kids, the little millers, the Stads and TAC Jr's etc... Also, I didn't say which side of center the pendulum would settle towards. ;)
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/bSdkuLDnrYheE/200.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/3f56c1b1b96045e95e94d94a4d0ab293/tenor.gif?itemid=7991943)
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting. To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest". "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth. To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way. There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke". For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.
History will see through that. History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus. It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them. Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.
Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
Why is that a problem for you? I'm pretty comfortable. No check that. I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.
Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.
-
Is "wokeness" really new? It just seems like a rebrand of ideas that have been around since the 60s, and actually, a watered down version of it a that (which might explain why Corporate America is so eager to be woke).
Being socially aware isn't new; that is a rebranding. It seems to me to be more exclusive and militant.
Corporations are going to sell their awareness any way they can. It's almost funny to watch commercials up here (Connecticut) for things like cable TV and cell phones. The vast majority of couples in the commercials are mixed race or same sex. No problem; that's just being inclusive. That to me isn't woke. That's reflecting our society (even if the numbers are misleading).
I wasn't being critical of Barry in my response, it's not about him. I was trying to highlight that the two poles aren't capable of co-existing. I consider myself tolerant, in the true sense of the word; whether I like or agree with a social position isn't important, only that I understand that others might disagree and they have every right to do so. And it's funny; that breakthrough actually made me more ACCEPTING and less likely to actually disagree with a social position. There's room for you, and you, and you, and you and me in that world (quoting Ronnie Dio). The "woke" world? That's not inclusive; there's only room in that world for those that 'believe', those that pass the test. I don't know how that's supposed to work, and I don't understand why those on the "outside" should accept it any more than the special interests that have fought for decades for inclusion should have. In an open, free society of equals, there should be no moral criteria, or moral minimum cover for inclusion on a fundamental level, and for my money, that's the line at which we start talking about "woke".
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting. To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest". "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth. To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way. There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke". For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.
History will see through that. History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus. It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them. Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.
Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
Why is that a problem for you? I'm pretty comfortable. No check that. I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.
Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.
Not all PoC agree with "Wokeness", not all Homosexuals agree with "Wokeness". Not all people in Poverty agree with "Wokeness"....
As a matter of fact not many Gay people agree with the LTGBQ movement itself. The same that Black people don't agree with BLM....so are they traitors of their people? No.
And the future will determine whether you are on the right side of history or not. And you may never know...
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting. To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest". "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth. To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way. There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke". For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.
History will see through that. History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus. It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them. Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.
Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
Why is that a problem for you? I'm pretty comfortable. No check that. I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.
Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.
It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance. I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious). I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history". Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong. Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered. It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".
Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-psychology-of-racism-5070459) and this (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201801/the-psychology-racism).) So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem. They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups. To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.
-
Hubris? :rollin
So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.
Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me. I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.
-
We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.
But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting. To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest". "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth. To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way. There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke". For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.
History will see through that. History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus. It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them. Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.
Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
Why is that a problem for you? I'm pretty comfortable. No check that. I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.
Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.
It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance. I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious). I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history". Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong. Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered. It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".
Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-psychology-of-racism-5070459) and this (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201801/the-psychology-racism).) So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem. They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups. To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.
What I am seeing is some of these "woke" people actually are turning into the very thing they're fighting against. It's the same shoe worn on a different side.
-
It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance. I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious). I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history". Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong. Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered. It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".
Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-psychology-of-racism-5070459) and this (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201801/the-psychology-racism).) So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem. They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups. To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.
Great post!! :tup :tup
-
Hubris? :rollin
So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.
Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me. I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.
No, and please do not put words in my mouth. The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period. It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not. I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there.
I have no idea what your last sentence means, but it's not about me, and you REALLY don't understand me if you think I'm speaking for you. EVERYTHING I've been writing here is about exactly NOT that. I am actively saying that not only do I not speak for you, but I CANNOT speak for you. And vice versa. What I did was give credible, defensible scientific sources regarding the tactics that are prevalent in today's cultural/social debate. You make of them what you will, or will not. I'm just saying there is evidence that contradicts the chosen strategy of many on the "woke" side, and therefore it's not a slam-dunk that 50 years from now that all the "marginalizing" and "intolerance of intolerance" that we're seeing is going to be so highly regarded.
-
There's no way to know or predict. All we can do, as individuals, is be the change we wish to see in the world. Nobody can see into the future. We are flawed creatures who seem intent on killing each other and destroying our habitat. Our collective patience with each other decreases with each passing year. Tribalism reigns and opposition at all costs is our mantra. To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.
-
To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.
...And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom... :lol (Cheesy Simpsons Joke)
There's no way to know or predict. All we can do, as individuals, is be the change we wish to see in the world. Nobody can see into the future. We are flawed creatures who seem intent on killing each other and destroying our habitat. Our collective patience with each other decreases with each passing year. Tribalism reigns and opposition at all costs is our mantra. To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.
Oh yeah, these flaws are what make us Human. Without these flaws, we wouldn't be the humans we are now.
The issue is recognizing these flaws and finding ways to fix them. To make them work in ways that are beneficial for us as Humans, and for our habitat we share with the Plants, Animals, Creatures, Organisms, Microbes, Etc... Everything involved within this Earth works together as one, and what one does affects the other. We humans do so much to the world, without realizing our actions affect everything within this Earth.
Because, if we realized this, obviously, things would be anything but this...
There are solutions, but the power in Greed, Lust, Authority, is so strong that humans end up being consumed by these, and use their power for their own benefit, gain, and interests, disregarding everything else within the Earth, and in turn destroy things that are beneficial for us Humans and the Earth. This has happened throughout history, since the dawn of time. The Greed for more, The Lust for control, and the Authority to justify.
-
This has got to be the only place on earth (except perhaps the southern part of the US) where "nobody knows" if being against racism will put one on the right side of history. Holy fucking shit :eek
contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is like pissing into the wind and saying you're taking a shower
-
Hubris? :rollin
So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.
Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me. I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.
No, and please do not put words in my mouth. The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period. It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not. I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there.
Generally? Are you implying there are/can be circumstances where you are not against any of these things?
-
contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is like pissing into the wind and saying you're taking a shower
Wow I love this quote.
-
They may wonder why it was legal for people to make billions of dollars selling a product they know killed people by the millions (tobacco/cigarettes).
-
They may wonder why it was legal for people to make billions of dollars selling a product they know killed people by the millions (tobacco/cigarettes).
Eh, not so sure about this. Ok, we all know that smoking is bad and unhealthy, and is being banned in indoor places and many other ones, but I still don't see any kind of stigma. People look down (thankfully, I might add) on racist and homophobic people, but smoking is still "cool". Employees ask for a quick cigarette breaks, at parties people take their coat and go outside smoking, kids still start to smoke etc.... smoking is absolutely accepted, even if just tolerated, and it won't go away anytime soon.
-
They may wonder why it was legal for people to make billions of dollars selling a product they know killed people by the millions (tobacco/cigarettes).
Eh, not so sure about this. Ok, we all know that smoking is bad and unhealthy, and is being banned in indoor places and many other ones, but I still don't see any kind of stigma. People look down (thankfully, I might add) on racist and homophobic people, but smoking is still "cool". Employees ask for a quick cigarette breaks, at parties people take their coat and go outside smoking, kids still start to smoke etc.... smoking is absolutely accepted, even if just tolerated, and it won't go away anytime soon.
Maybe in Europe, but I don't think many people see smoking as "cool" in North America (or maybe just Canada).
-
Genuine question then, how's the attitude there towards smokers? I was never in a social situation when someone was looked down or chastized for wanting to smoke. Generally smoking people are also respectful, so they will stay away from smoking, asking permission to do it in your car, make sure the smoke doesn't blow in your face and apologize if it happens by accident and the likes, so the point is not that smoking people are assholes, they do take their precautions to not inconvenience you. But I don't remember having ever been in a situation where people announcing they go outside to smoke is sighed upon with a look of contempt on the face, or people are politely called out on it, never seen or heard about a boss saying "well, maybe if you didn't take up the bad habit of smoking, you wouldn't need to have a cigarette break, frankly I don't see why a smoker deserves an additional break and a non-smoker doesn't".
I mean, it's a live and let live situation - smokers try to not inconvenience other people, and non smokers don't chastise them for smoking or don't bring up "hey, how about quitting?". I never got the perception that smokers feel ashamed of their habit and try to do it in "secret" for the fear of being looked the way you would look at a meth addict.
-
Genuine question then, how's the attitude there towards smokers? I was never in a social situation when someone was looked down or chastized for wanting to smoke. Generally smoking people are also respectful, so they will stay away from smoking, asking permission to do it in your car, make sure the smoke doesn't blow in your face and apologize if it happens by accident and the likes, so the point is not that smoking people are assholes, they do take their precautions to not inconvenience you. But I don't remember having ever been in a situation where people announcing they go outside to smoke is sighed upon with a look of contempt on the face, or people are politely called out on it, never seen or heard about a boss saying "well, maybe if you didn't take up the bad habit of smoking, you wouldn't need to have a cigarette break, frankly I don't see why a smoker deserves an additional break and a non-smoker doesn't".
I mean, it's a live and let live situation - smokers try to not inconvenience other people, and non smokers don't chastise them for smoking or don't bring up "hey, how about quitting?". I never got the perception that smokers feel ashamed of their habit and try to do it in "secret" for the fear of being looked the way you would look at a meth addict.
I honestly only know one person (my contractor) that smokes. Personally, I don't think of smokers with contempt or would ever shame them, but more of a sadness - they know they are investing their money towards something that is extremely detrimental to their health. Frankly, why anyone starts smoking nowadays (or even 10-20 years ago) is beyond my comprehension. Don't get me wrong, I smoked in my teenage years cuz I thought it was cool and badass, but I quit when I was 20.
-
Frankly, why anyone starts smoking nowadays (or even 10-20 years ago) is beyond my comprehension
Beats me as well. You're being taught it's bad. You notice it's expensive. You notice how it's forbidden everywhere, you see people in the middle of winter getting their coats and go outside to smoke and freeze in the process. Why? is peer pressure still that strong among young kids? do they see other kids smoking and think it's cool and they're dared to try it? they have parents who smoke and think that if dad and mom do it, it can't be that bad?
-
Frankly, why anyone starts smoking nowadays (or even 10-20 years ago) is beyond my comprehension
Beats me as well. You're being taught it's bad. You notice it's expensive. You notice how it's forbidden everywhere, you see people in the middle of winter getting their coats and go outside to smoke and freeze in the process. Why? is peer pressure still that strong among young kids? do they see other kids smoking and think it's cool and they're dared to try it? they have parents who smoke and think that if dad and mom do it, it can't be that bad?
I personally think it’s the anti-smoking commercials which I feel do more harm than good. Those tv ads are super preachy and talk down to their audience, and kids don’t like being made to feel like they’re stupid by adults nor do they like being made to feel like they don’t have a choice in life, so if someone makes them feel inferior while telling them what to do, they’ve very likely to do the opposite.
-
Genuine question then, how's the attitude there towards smokers? I was never in a social situation when someone was looked down or chastized for wanting to smoke. Generally smoking people are also respectful, so they will stay away from smoking, asking permission to do it in your car, make sure the smoke doesn't blow in your face and apologize if it happens by accident and the likes, so the point is not that smoking people are assholes, they do take their precautions to not inconvenience you. But I don't remember having ever been in a situation where people announcing they go outside to smoke is sighed upon with a look of contempt on the face, or people are politely called out on it, never seen or heard about a boss saying "well, maybe if you didn't take up the bad habit of smoking, you wouldn't need to have a cigarette break, frankly I don't see why a smoker deserves an additional break and a non-smoker doesn't".
I mean, it's a live and let live situation - smokers try to not inconvenience other people, and non smokers don't chastise them for smoking or don't bring up "hey, how about quitting?". I never got the perception that smokers feel ashamed of their habit and try to do it in "secret" for the fear of being looked the way you would look at a meth addict.
There's Casinos that allow indoor smoking and nobody complains about this. But also, they're highly ventilated and are buildings that allow more open space. The smoke still lingers as is there, but people don't complain, as long as they're not smoking in the buffet or restaurant. And that's not even including the pretty laughable Non-Smoking sections that are not enclosed.
But, not all casinos are the same, structure wise. But I do find it interesting how they can get away with indoor smoking because of Ventilation and the amount of space that is Open and more Air can pass through, so the smoke wont be collecting.
Doesn't stop the person from smoking right next to you, which is where I have seen some people wear masks, while they have an oxygen tank playing the machine, sitting next to someone smoking and the air conditioner blows the smoke from the cig right by their face... :biggrin:
Frankly, why anyone starts smoking nowadays (or even 10-20 years ago) is beyond my comprehension
Beats me as well. You're being taught it's bad. You notice it's expensive. You notice how it's forbidden everywhere, you see people in the middle of winter getting their coats and go outside to smoke and freeze in the process. Why? is peer pressure still that strong among young kids? do they see other kids smoking and think it's cool and they're dared to try it? they have parents who smoke and think that if dad and mom do it, it can't be that bad?
I see it because people can and will do stuff regardless of the consequences and risks involved.
Think about this too, what did they invent that is now a concern because those "Cool kids" whom used to smoke cigs, now turned to the new trend and invention....E-cigs, which were marketed the exact same way Cigarettes were, they're a "less risky" alternative to cigarette smoke, and have nice tasty flavors, and your blowing vapor not smoke into the atmosphere.
The only way to smoke, before the commercialization and mass production of cigarettes, was to roll your own. It's easy to figure out how more people started to smoke due to the manufacturing of cigarettes, without having to grow your own tobacco. It became convenient to now sit back and enjoy a relaxing afternoon with your moonshine and the Marlboro brand cigarette...Kool...
I tried and do not like Vape pens, it's not the same feeling you get from the process that involves smoke entering your lungs, some people actually like that feeling from smoking, and don't enjoy any other form of using tobacco or any product that requires smoking, like Cannabis. CBD Cannabis, which doesn't have THC and thus doesn't get you high, is still smoked from the flower.
My main issue with cigarettes isn't the tobacco or cigarette itself. It's the chemicals they put into these products, to either make them last longer, have more flavor, to get you addicted so you buy more cigarettes. And these chemicals are what is bad for the atmosphere. They put these chemicals in the paper itself, and also on the tobacco. Sometimes I don't even think that it's tobacco in the cigarette anymore, and it's highly synthetic, and laced, with like one flake of real tobacco. I emptied one out to use for a joint, and examined the tobacco and it didn't look like Tobacco, it looked like color-dyed paper.
-
They may wonder why it was legal for people to make billions of dollars selling a product they know killed people by the millions (tobacco/cigarettes).
Insert any product that depleted our Earth, and its resources which causes problems within the communities they get them from. How these companies did all these things to the Earth and Humans, all for a product that is more convenient and easy for the masses to live in their comfort.
I think people will judge this more in the future, as they begin to experience the consequences to our decisions. Which we are doing now to our elders' and the old ones before us decisions, we are living their consequences.
-
Hubris? :rollin
So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.
Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me. I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.
No, and please do not put words in my mouth. The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period. It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not. I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there.
Generally? Are you implying there are/can be circumstances where you are not against any of these things?
This conversation is now the shining example of the point I'm trying to make all along. I've been pretty crystal clear about my views on this (and it's WHACK that I even have to say this): I'm against racism. I think it's wrong scientifically, morally, intellectually, practically, economically. But that's not to say that I agree with every RESPONSE to racism, and that's not license to ignore all the other tenets of our society. Being of a certain mind on racism - or anything, for that matter - doesn't give any of us some automatic exalted position in the universe. I'm not even sure what "being on the right side of history" means, and even if it did, living here, in a eye-blink of time compared to REAL history, I don't feel it's my place to make that call. I'm going to keep my head down, make the best decisions I can make with the (limited) information I have, and tend my own garden.
To your question specifically, Jingle, I wouldn't say that there's a situation that I wouldn't be "against" those things. But being of a certain mind on racism doesn't allow us to trample other people's rights, for example. It doesn't mean I have to support all means and measures taken in response to racism. It doesn't mean I have to assume that everything IS racist until proven otherwise. There's a LOT that follows from that where the line of truth and absolutism veers off pretty quickly, and too often today - like in this thread - that thread is blurred irreparably. I say this gently, but you even asking the question tells me you're doing it right now.
There are a lot of people that are pretty darn vocal in the COVID thread about "SCIENCE!", some going so far as to mock others for not following "science" (in the form of CDC guidance). Yet, when I present science here that contrasts with the accepted, and unsubstantiated, knee jerk reaction to racism - the reaction that really just seems to serve to announce to the world one's bona fides on the subject - I'm metaphorically "pissing on myself" as a contrarian.
Life isn't a one-question test: "where do you fall on racism?" with everything else taking a back seat. I feel like the REACTION to racism is as important as the underlying belief, and that's where the rubber meets the road. That's where I am in this conversation, not the simplistic reduction of "is racism wrong?". It's a fair assumption that rounding up all racists - perceived or actual - and putting a bullet in their heads will put you on the WRONG side of history just as fast as the initial belief on racism. No, no one suggested that, and I'm not saying they did, so understand the allegory. But we need not go so far to the extreme; there are people - here and elsewhere - that would absolutely deny racists - perceived or actual - other rights preserved for them under the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of liberty, freedom to vote. Anyone up for the idea that racism ought to be a crime? I know there are. And yet, like the bullet to the head, there's no indication that these measures serve to REDUCE the amount of racism.
I want to KNOW who the racists are. I don't want to bully them into quiet submission, until the pressure builds, the moment comes and the dam breaks and we get riots and death. I want to KNOW who they are so we can educate, we can integrate, we can remove those environmental factors that led them to that path to begin with. They may be morally lacking under the current standards of our society, but like anyone else that hasn't been perfect and made all the right decisions in life, I don't want to write these people off. I want them to see the light, so that they can teach their kids - and their kids' kids - a better way. The prevailing wisdom is now that racism is learned behavior (one of the links I gave talked about how historical hunter/gatherer societies didn't have a lot of racism/bigotry, even amongst competing societal units); what can be learned can be unlearned. Anyone slap their kid to get them to act straight? Call them dumb? Marginalize them to the bedroom in order to teach them the right way to behave? Of course not; not if they are a good, compassionate parent who cares about the results of their parenting. So why - other than vengeance and this need to be "right" - do we do that when it comes to one of the most critical issues of our day? I don't believe in the concept of "right side of history", but even if I did, just being "against" racism is just one brick in the wall. What are we doing to make sure that in pure numbers there are less racists tomorrow than today? If the science is telling us something, and we reject that because it's "contrarian" or "doesn't punish enough" or "doesn't make sense to me" or any of a 100 rationalizations that people use every day to reject that which is right in front of them, how can that not factor in to one's place in the cosmos?
-
Life isn't a one-question test: "where do you fall on racism?" with everything else taking a back seat. I feel like the REACTION to racism is as important as the underlying belief, and that's where the rubber meets the road. That's where I am in this conversation, not the simplistic reduction of "is racism wrong?". It's a fair assumption that rounding up all racists - perceived or actual - and putting a bullet in their heads will put you on the WRONG side of history just as fast as the initial belief on racism. No, no one suggested that, and I'm not saying they did, so understand the allegory. But we need not go so far to the extreme; there are people - here and elsewhere - that would absolutely deny racists - perceived or actual - other rights preserved for them under the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of liberty, freedom to vote. Anyone up for the idea that racism ought to be a crime? I know there are. And yet, like the bullet to the head, there's no indication that these measures serve to REDUCE the amount of racism.
The bolded part says a lot that I agree with. People do, take things to the extreme, because their emotions are riling up their thoughts, and are putting those emotions into action, without sitting down, setting those emotions aside, and looking at these issues, not while in the mindset of Anger and Vengeance, but in a Calm and Happy state of mind.
Those people need to realize and understand, that those Racists are first and most importantly also Human, with the same human thoughts and feelings as them. And in our current governmental system we all abide by because we are born into it, we are all guaranteed these rights. Like it or not, you can't go and use the philosophy of "Do unto others, what has been done unto you."
The idea that is presented in the Constitution is a very great idea, and it's one that wasn't made by the "Founding Fathers". In fact, it's based off an already established system called "The Great Law of Peace" from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. In reality, the Founding Fathers never discovered or came up with The Constitution. They just plagiarized another system, whitewashed it, and put their name on it. These are things that are not taught or said in the History Books. They're said and shown by the Tribes in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and in some books by Historians.
I want to KNOW who the racists are. I don't want to bully them into quiet submission, until the pressure builds, the moment comes and the dam breaks and we get riots and death. I want to KNOW who they are so we can educate, we can integrate, we can remove those environmental factors that led them to that path to begin with. They may be morally lacking under the current standards of our society, but like anyone else that hasn't been perfect and made all the right decisions in life, I don't want to write these people off. I want them to see the light, so that they can teach their kids - and their kids' kids - a better way. The prevailing wisdom is now that racism is learned behavior (one of the links I gave talked about how historical hunter/gatherer societies didn't have a lot of racism/bigotry, even amongst competing societal units); what can be learned can be unlearned. Anyone slap their kid to get them to act straight? Call them dumb? Marginalize them to the bedroom in order to teach them the right way to behave? Of course not; not if they are a good, compassionate parent who cares about the results of their parenting. So why - other than vengeance and this need to be "right" - do we do that when it comes to one of the most critical issues of our day? I don't believe in the concept of "right side of history", but even if I did, just being "against" racism is just one brick in the wall. What are we doing to make sure that in pure numbers there are less racists tomorrow than today? If the science is telling us something, and we reject that because it's "contrarian" or "doesn't punish enough" or "doesn't make sense to me" or any of a 100 rationalizations that people use every day to reject that which is right in front of them, how can that not factor in to one's place in the cosmos?
Don't have the time to get into this part now, so I will type it up when I can. Good points made here as well.
-
I don't have time to write 2600 word posts in every thread on the entire board so I'm out. Some of us work.
-
Hubris? :rollin
So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty
If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.
Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me. I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.
No, and please do not put words in my mouth. The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period. It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not. I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there.
Generally? Are you implying there are/can be circumstances where you are not against any of these things?
This conversation is now the shining example of the point I'm trying to make all along. I've been pretty crystal clear about my views on this (and it's WHACK that I even have to say this): I'm against racism.
Then don't say (type) things that dig yourself into a hole of questionability. Your exact words ... "I'm generally against institutional racism". Your use of the word "generally" is confounding. I don't know what you're (gently) saying I'm doing... all I think I'm doing is trying to clarify what you're saying, with what you're meaning to say - because I don't for one second believe that you would be 'for' racism et al, but for someone who is so precise with his words, it seems to me you got a little sloppy in this instance. Surely you don't take issue with me holding you to account for what you post here so there is no disconnect between what you say/type, and what you mean?
I don't take issue with the rest of your post, but I'll just say this ... your view of the world is not the *only* or *most right* view (nor is Barry's). The views of others have just as much validity as yours - I think you're even saying as such - just in the opposite direction. IE, you don't get to trample on Barry's rights and beliefs as to how he handles these topics. You (Stadler) may not believe in the notion of "the right side of history"; others might. Doesn't make either more or less right/wrong. IMO, "the right side of history" is just a catchphrase to align with the morals/morality of what is generally viewed by the masses as acceptable. That's just my interpretation of the phrase.
I don't have time to write 2600 word posts in every thread on the entire board so I'm out. Some of us work.
Haha... took me a few hours to find the 20 minutes of spare time just to READ Stadler's post, let alone offer my thoughts. :lol :lol
-
Let's be clear, though. I cited:
institutional racism
homophobia
transphobia
islamophobia
xenophobia
police brutality
poverty
As social behaviors and conditions that I think any rational person would have to agree are things that most generally decent people would stand against. Nobody that I know or would want to be associated with stands FOR any of that stuff. So why is it presumptuous to say I believe I'm on the right side of history in taking a stand against these things?
It's like I said, I see a LOT of contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism on this board and it's maddening.
Sometimes a fucking cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes being against the things on that list is just an expression of support and solidarity with the unfortunate folks who are subjected to such things, THAT'S IT. It's a personal policy statement, not an indictment of everyone reading it. And just because you have the time to come on here and repeat yourself with 4000 word post after 4000 word post doesn't mean you are the arbiter of all that's good and bad in the world. For fuck's sake, who in their right mind thinks ANYTHING on that list above is OK or not a problem? Is your name Vladimir Putin? I didn't think so. So why does it apparently pop someone's cork because I said I think I'm on the right side of history being against a list of serious societal problems like that? Is my presence here a threat to someone's ego? Let me help: I don't know about anyone else but I am absolutely sure that I am NOT the smartest person here. Straight up. And when I'm wrong about something I admit it.
-
If there was a Like button on the forum, I'd tap it right now.
-
So would I, because Stadler's post was spot-on. :tup :tup
-
There's no call to discuss my professional status (yes, I work too; I can also walk and chew gum at the same time), my self-worth, my ego, my decency, or my erudition. If you don't like the word count, don't read it. If you're so comfortable about your place in history, certainly nothing I'm going to say is going to impact that.
-
Then don't say (type) things that dig yourself into a hole of questionability. Your exact words ... "I'm generally against institutional racism". Your use of the word "generally" is confounding. I don't know what you're (gently) saying I'm doing... all I think I'm doing is trying to clarify what you're saying, with what you're meaning to say - because I don't for one second believe that you would be 'for' racism et al, but for someone who is so precise with his words, it seems to me you got a little sloppy in this instance. Surely you don't take issue with me holding you to account for what you post here so there is no disconnect between what you say/type, and what you mean?
Or maybe YOU can read what I wrote in it's entirety instead of mocking me for a word count. This shit is not bumper sticker stuff. Yeah, I said "generally" and I stand by that. "Generally", as in "in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." In today's society, you know full well it's not enough to just be against something. "Silence is consent". "If you're not with us, you're against us". I'm against racism; I can't say that enough. Does it mean that everything else takes a back seat to that? No, and I've given examples to back that up. I don't think people should be in jail because they do or say or think something that someone else unilaterally thinks is "racist". The Constitution doesn't apply to "We the appropriately non-racist, non-transphobic, non-homophobic people".
I don't take issue with the rest of your post, but I'll just say this ... your view of the world is not the *only* or *most right* view (nor is Barry's). The views of others have just as much validity as yours - I think you're even saying as such - just in the opposite direction. IE, you don't get to trample on Barry's rights and beliefs as to how he handles these topics. You (Stadler) may not believe in the notion of "the right side of history"; others might. Doesn't make either more or less right/wrong. IMO, "the right side of history" is just a catchphrase to align with the morals/morality of what is generally viewed by the masses as acceptable. That's just my interpretation of the phrase.
Find me even one post, anywhere on this forum, where I've ever said my view is the only view. That is SUCH a fundamental misreading of EVERYTHING I stand for it's almost ludicrous. My whole being is predicated on the idea that we can all decide for OURSELVES. I'm not the one foisting my views on other people; Barry can - and most likely WILL - believe whatever he wants; I don't expect him to change because of what I'm saying. Having said that, we owe it to ourselves to at least acknowledge those facts that disrupt our worldview. This all started when I posted the links to the psychological articles that showed that racism was rooted in insecurity and isolation, and that marginalizing and rejecting those who hold racist views was likely counter-productive. To some, even the idea of actually dealing with someone who is intolerant is abhorrent. I myself, here, have been accused of being a racist not because of overt racist views, but simply being too "tolerant" or understanding of those that haven't seen the light yet. The very nature of "on the right side of history" is "us versus them". There's no inclusion in there; there's no possibility of being "wrong" with that kind of statement. If you want to believe you can decide the "righteousness" of the cosmos, have fucking at it, I'm not here to tell you otherwise. I am, though, going to point out the ways that that line of thinking MIGHT BE contrary to the end goals we're nominally all trying to reach.
As I said above, there's room for everyone, even the deplorables, in my world. I know first hand that the opposite isn't always the case.
I don't have time to write 2600 word posts in every thread on the entire board so I'm out. Some of us work.
Haha... took me a few hours to find the 20 minutes of spare time just to READ Stadler's post, let alone offer my thoughts. :lol :lol
Thanks. Appreciate it. :tdwn
-
The time commitment thing is why I had my rights to PR revoked. My job isn't super hard or anything but I do need to minimize the amount of distractions or else things can go south quick. I don't have time to give the other participants their just due, nor do I have time to participate. That said I can't help but notice all the PR-style threads showing up in general today, and it makes me wonder if things aren't getting a little incestuous inside the gated community, driving this need of the political side to branch out to the wider forum.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure all of our employers are spying on us at an unprecedented level, which is another reason to manage how much time I spend here, if any, at work. Somebody should start a thread about that.
-
And this is why we can't have nice things in General Discussion :'(
Except sandwiches and BBQ :lol
-
There's no call to discuss my professional status (yes, I work too; I can also walk and chew gum at the same time), my self-worth, my ego, my decency, or my erudition. If you don't like the word count, don't read it. If you're so comfortable about your place in history, certainly nothing I'm going to say is going to impact that.
Exactly. I know we live in a world now where the average person wants posts to be like a tweet (280 characters or less!!), but a well thought out post that makes us all think, rather than a hit and run post that is all about absolutes and discourages critical thinking, should be encouraged here, not mocked or belittled. You and El Barto are always good at those kinds of posts, IMO. :hat
-
I have literally never heard the word "erudition".
-
I have literally never heard the word "erudition".
I'll admit I had to look that one up. :lol
-
There's no call to discuss my professional status (yes, I work too; I can also walk and chew gum at the same time), my self-worth, my ego, my decency, or my erudition. If you don't like the word count, don't read it. If you're so comfortable about your place in history, certainly nothing I'm going to say is going to impact that.
Exactly. I know we live in a world now where the average person wants posts to be like a tweet (280 characters or less!!), but a well thought out post that makes us all think, rather than a hit and run post that is all about absolutes and discourages critical thinking, should be encouraged here, not mocked or belittled. You and El Barto are always good at those kinds of posts, IMO. :hat
With all due respect, the length of a post does not reflect on, or determine how well that persons thought is expressed. A well thought out post is one that not only makes us think, encourages critical thinking, etc.....but is also edited to remove fluff, and is concise. If you already made the point, you don't need to pile on with flowery language, personal anecdotes, tangents, analogies, etc. The point should be a surgical strike.....not a carpet bomb.
There is a tipping point where, regardless of the validity of the point being made, where you will lose your audience if you you can't keep it concise and on point.
That is especially important in this medium, as it can be extremely difficult to respond to a person on their points if the post you are responding to is like War & Peace LOL. JMO.
-
Are we really judging how different people write posts on a thread asking 'How Will We Be Judged?'
-
Are we really judging how different people write posts on a thread asking 'How Will We Be Judged?'
No, I do not think we are judging the person by their post length. Expressing an opinion on how post length can affect a posts effectiveness is certainly a valid topic, and if done with respect, shouldn't be a problem.
EDIT: Its like listening to THAT GUY, we all know that guy, who starts the story with "Long story short". We all know that we eventually get annoyed, and lose interest in that rambling BS after a certain point. Posts that are consistently much longer than they have to be will tend to have readers gloss over them more than others. They are also much more difficult to respond to appropriately in a debate.
-
Are we really judging how different people write posts on a thread asking 'How Will We Be Judged?'
Yes. THAT guy just used an analogy after critiquing another poster for doing the same.
-
Are we really judging how different people write posts on a thread asking 'How Will We Be Judged?'
Yes. THAT guy just used an analogy after critiquing another poster for doing the same.
Who specifically are you referring to? Are you referencing me?
Just for the record, I did not critique anyone specifically, but spoke in generalities.
That is pretty clear as I took care not mentioning anyone's name as I truly don't care enough about this specific issue here in this particular forum. I do think it is a mildly interesting topic, so I made a comment.....and my comment was short and concise.
BTW, are you the guy who got weirdly passive-aggressive with me last week?
EDIT: Yup, you are that guy. I have no clue who you are, and do not recall ever interacting with you. Yet twice in the last week you seem to come at me. Not sure why. Maybe I'm wrong here, but if you have an issue with me that you would like to discuss, just give me a shout on PM, mkay?
-
Lest things go off the rails any further between two friends, I'll take it to PM (later this morning as I have a 3 calls first thing).
-
As most of you know, I'm pretty much a 'here for the music' guy—not because I don't have thoughts on other issues, but because I have a very finite amount of time (short and sweet is nice, but some ideas do require a level of eloquence that I just can't summon in a single sentence).
That being said, this thread actually inspired a conversation with my 12-year old last night.
I asked him, "Hey, how do you think 'my' generation will be judged by yours?"
And he said (paraphrasing), "I think we're going to be ashamed of the constant fighting, but appreciate the tolerance that some people were fighting for." (smart kid:)
He then wen't on to talk about slavery (he loves history), and how it was such a divisive issue in the immediate years following the Civil War, and how he can't even imagine why anyone would have to think twice about it. Like, he was genuinley dumbstruck at imagining how human beings could've thought that chaining hundreds of people to ship and sailing them across the Atlantic against their will was a 'debate.'
Sometimes, there is no debate. And sometimes, it takes a little hindsight for the majority to underderstand what only a few initially see.
Now, my kid wasn't just talking about racisim—he also mentioned LGBQT rights, and a load of other things. Compared to when I was 12, this kid (who goes to a very diverse school) is light years ahead of me...and I do consider myself to be a progressive person.
So...I don't know how we will be judged, but in the wake of last night's conversation, I do feel a sense of hope.
It's hard, when you have so many people justifying so many obviously messed up things, but I sincerely (hope) think that in a hundred years, these 'debates' will be rendered useless (just as a debate of slavery is useless), replaced by an understanding that there is only one obvious right answer. (like, slavery is wrong....not 'generally,' not 'sometimes,' not 'occasionally,' ....ALWAYS). Hopefully, someday soon, we can insert a whole mess of other words in there and everyone (well, almost everyone) will agree.
Re-reading what I wrote, I want to add the following disclaimer: This post is NOT meant as a dig at anyone in particular (especially you, Stadler...I get your point, and while I kinda cringed when I read it, you're a good man and I'm not going to hold your semantics against you).
-
The problem is that sometimes the picture is not clear only until after decades, or centuries.
If social media were around during slavery, I am sure there would be people of "moderate" views who, while not being racist and not considering slaves sub-human, would advocate for the usefulness of slavery, maybe treating well and just their own slaves and never beating them or the likes. I don't believe that back then the world was divided between righteous people who saw the idiocy of slavery, and bad brute racist guys who would beat slaves for fun and revel in their suffering, there must have been some people who just went along with the times and considered slavery acceptable, while never going out of their way to mistreat slaves.
Now it's obvious that slavery is bad, that racial segregation is bad, that forbidding interracial marriage is silly. Who cares today about interracial marriage? no one. But it was outlawed not such a long time ago.
The point is that it takes A LOT for mankind to learn and to understand what's right and what's wrong. We talked about smoking before - Did it really take THAT LONG to figure out that smoking in closed spaces was wrong? that it was not normal to go out on an evening and come back home with clothes completely stinking of smoke? apparently yes.
The same is going to be with LGBQT right, there will come a time when nobody will care about one's sexual preference. But it will still take a loooong time.
-
The problem is that sometimes the picture is not clear only until after decades, or centuries.
If social media were around during slavery, I am sure there would be people of "moderate" views who, while not being racist and not considering slaves sub-human, would advocate for the usefulness of slavery, maybe treating well and just their own slaves and never beating them or the likes. I don't believe that back then the world was divided between righteous people who saw the idiocy of slavery, and bad brute racist guys who would beat slaves for fun and revel in their suffering, there must have been some people who just went along with the times and considered slavery acceptable, while never going out of their way to mistreat slaves.
Now it's obvious that slavery is bad, that racial segregation is bad, that forbidding interracial marriage is silly. Who cares today about interracial marriage? no one. But it was outlawed not such a long time ago.
The point is that it takes A LOT for mankind to learn and to understand what's right and what's wrong. We talked about smoking before - Did it really take THAT LONG to figure out that smoking in closed spaces was wrong? that it was not normal to go out on an evening and come back home with clothes completely stinking of smoke? apparently yes.
The same is going to be with LGBQT right, there will come a time when nobody will care about one's sexual preference. But it will still take a loooong time.
Like I said, "but I sincerely (hope) think that in a hundred years, these 'debates' will be rendered useless (just as a debate of slavery is useless)"
Sure...it might take a looooong time, but that's how progress typically works—slow and steady...a little backsliding here and there, but ultimately, you (hopefully) wind up with a more tolerant, less hateful world.
-
Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.
Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on. So yeah...
I really wish more people realised Idiocracy was in fact a comedy film, and not a documentary.
Yeah, it was a comedy about where our culture is headed. The documentaries will come later... :rollin
-
As most of you know, I'm pretty much a 'here for the music' guy—not because I don't have thoughts on other issues, but because I have a very finite amount of time (short and sweet is nice, but some ideas do require a level of eloquence that I just can't summon in a single sentence).
That being said, this thread actually inspired a conversation with my 12-year old last night.
I asked him, "Hey, how do you think 'my' generation will be judged by yours?"
And he said (paraphrasing), "I think we're going to be ashamed of the constant fighting, but appreciate the tolerance that some people were fighting for." (smart kid:)
He then wen't on to talk about slavery (he loves history), and how it was such a divisive issue in the immediate years following the Civil War, and how he can't even imagine why anyone would have to think twice about it. Like, he was genuinley dumbstruck at imagining how human beings could've thought that chaining hundreds of people to ship and sailing them across the Atlantic against their will was a 'debate.'
Sometimes, there is no debate. And sometimes, it takes a little hindsight for the majority to underderstand what only a few initially see.
Now, my kid wasn't just talking about racisim—he also mentioned LGBQT rights, and a load of other things. Compared to when I was 12, this kid (who goes to a very diverse school) is light years ahead of me...and I do consider myself to be a progressive person.
So...I don't know how we will be judged, but in the wake of last night's conversation, I do feel a sense of hope.
It's hard, when you have so many people justifying so many obviously messed up things, but I sincerely (hope) think that in a hundred years, these 'debates' will be rendered useless (just as a debate of slavery is useless), replaced by an understanding that there is only one obvious right answer. (like, slavery is wrong....not 'generally,' not 'sometimes,' not 'occasionally,' ....ALWAYS). Hopefully, someday soon, we can insert a whole mess of other words in there and everyone (well, almost everyone) will agree.
Re-reading what I wrote, I want to add the following disclaimer: This post is NOT meant as a dig at anyone in particular (especially you, Stadler...I get your point, and while I kinda cringed when I read it, you're a good man and I'm not going to hold your semantics against you).
I love this post.
I've thought about this a lot, by the way, how much easier would this stuff be if we'd just let it be that way? I personally would be as supportive as I could if my son told me he was LGBTQ. Would I have questions? Sure. Would I want to make sure my son had all the information he needed to make sure he wasn't just confusing himself even more? Absolutely. But it would always stem from a place of love an acceptance. I have a cousin who has totally excepted his child's exploration of this stuff - entertaining the fact that his teenage child does not want to be called by female pronouns or associated with "girly" things anymore. You know what they do? They just support her, and they get along... just fine.
That's not to say there aren't real concerns. Support isn't enough, and sometimes supporting someone to do the wrong thing can be damaging. But it just struck me as amazing how much easier these LGBTQ conversations go when all the stakeholders in the conversation are coming from a place of genuine concern and support, rather than judgement.
I get that it seems like this big controversial topic, but honestly? No. LGBTQ stuff is nothing new. The way we discuss it and talk about it is new. People have been doing all sorts of weird sex stuff since the beginning of time. And how do I know this? Because I am a student of history, but also because I come from a Catholic background and the Catholic Church has been warning about the (sic) "unprecedented rise in homosexuality" for over two millennia now.
-
What still baffles me is the total and complete ignorance about it and basic understanding of human biology. How many people think that homosexuality is a choice. I am heterosexual and I did not spend some days while I was a prepubescent teen looking at porn or whatever and then going "mh, let's say that for now I like girls, not sure, maybe I'm gonna change my mind". Liking girls was the most natural thing for me.
At the same time, if a person is attracted by a person of the same sex, that's not a choice or an act or rebellion, it's what they are and feel. It's mind boggling how people still don't get it. I don't even remember how I learnt about gay people - at a certain time I realized and accepted that some people liked people of the same sex. How people can fixate so hard on something is disheartening to say the least.
Just yesterday I saw an online episode of an italian journalist that has in depths reportages about towns, first I watched the episode of my town, and then one about London. He touched upon a number of subjects and persons and one of them was Alan Turing, and once again I was reminded of how this genius, father of the modern computers as we know them, cracked the Enigma code and helped to win World War II. Estimates are that he saved England two years of war, and 14 millions of lives. What was his reward? chemical castration because he was homosexual, which led him to commit suicide. It's infuriating every time I think of that.
I would like to deprive homophobic people of all the contributions of gay people to the world. Forbid them to listen to music made by gay people, to read books written by them, to watch movies where gay people worked. Even take away their computers because Alan Turing is basically one of the fathers of modern informatic system. Force them to live without any contribution, be it political, social, scientific or artistic, from gay people, see how it goes.
-
I see this has gained a lot more traction than my mention of millions of people being killed for others’ profit. Not surprised.
-
Not sure why this has crossed so heavily over into P/R territory when I thought Harmony was pretty clear that that isn't what she wanted. Do we need to move this?
-
I would like to deprive homophobic people of all the contributions of gay people to the world. Forbid them to listen to music made by gay people, to read books written by them, to watch movies where gay people worked. Even take away their computers because Alan Turing is basically one of the fathers of modern informatic system. Force them to live without any contribution, be it political, social, scientific or artistic, from gay people, see how it goes.
Notwithstanding that if you get even 2 out of 10 that even know who Alan Turing is, let alone what his sexual preferences were, I'd be amazed, do you think that will effect any change? Do you think they are going to just say "oh, wow, I miss that song; homosexuality must NOT be a choice or an abomination!" (And since I have to for some of you: I 100% believe that homosexuality is simply one of many points on the natural continuum of sexuality and is no more a choice than tomorrow is going to be Thursday.) That's not how the human psyche works, and is the underlying point for my "generally" comment, which some seem to have big problems with.
There are now at least three specific posts here (and countless more in the P/R forum) that point to "marginalization" and "rejection", in some form or fashion, as a path forward in our fight against bigotry and "-phobias". That's where this all went off the rails: me pointing out - in links provided above - that the science is (starting to) point in a different direction, and that marginalization and rejection may be making the problem worse. To solve the problem of -phobias, the answer may be about the inclusion those that we find "repulsive" (for lack of a better word) for their beliefs, thus reducing the isolation and marginalization that ultimately led to the bigotry to begin with. That doesn't mean you AGREE or PROMOTE the world-view of those you oppose, but instead of militantly driving them into their trenches, maybe extend a bridge from which we can teach and they can be welcomed into the world of tolerance. Some will take that, some won't, and it certainly won't happen overnight, but it will be better than where we are now, because what we're doing isn't working.
For whatever reason, I don't have a strong "vengeance" gene. I just don't. Maybe if I ever find myself in Liam Neeson's shoes, that will change, but for now... So for me, if we can just actually treat people fairly and equitably, I don't have any desire to require retribution from those who took longer to see the light. I understand that others might, and I can even understand how some might be entitled to that in a perfect world. But with research pointing where it's pointing, we may be faced with a hard choice: would we place that "need" higher than getting rid of the very thing that triggered that need?
tl;dr for those that don't like the text: The "intolerance of intolerance" point of view may actually be making the problem WORSE (this thread is proof of that; god forbid I wasn't unequivocal enough for you all!). I think there are a lot of people - not referring to anyone here - for whom the war on bigotry requires an element of vengeance, retribution, and affirmation, and I'm pointing out that some science seems to indicate that component may actually stand between us and winning the war on bigotry.
-
Not sure why this has crossed so heavily over into P/R territory when I thought Harmony was pretty clear that that isn't what she wanted. Do we need to move this?
Well, it's almost unavoidable, since we have gotten to a place - at least in America, if not the world - where "judgement" for P/R stuff is not just welcome, but required. They are almost inseparable. Just look at the last page or so: I used "generally" in one instance of stating my position against "racism" and it got almost as much press as the original question, almost all of it unrelated to how I REALLY feel. I might even have lost a friendship over it.
-
I think there are a lot of people - not referring to anyone here - for whom the war on bigotry requires an element of vengeance, retribution, and affirmation, and I'm pointing out that some science seems to indicate that component may actually stand between us and winning the war on bigotry.
No need to shy away from the fact that it absolutely is present in people here on this forum, and on full display. :lol But I appreciate the attempted diplomacy. I always find it ironic that folks who think that way seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in it. It is just another form of intolerance and marginalization.
-
Not sure why this has crossed so heavily over into P/R territory when I thought Harmony was pretty clear that that isn't what she wanted. Do we need to move this?
Well, it's almost unavoidable, since we have gotten to a place - at least in America, if not the world - where "judgement" for P/R stuff is not just welcome, but required. They are almost inseparable.
Well, yeah, I get that. But I am trying to avoid having to move the thread if we don't have to.
-
I see this has gained a lot more traction than my mention of millions of people being killed for others’ profit. Not surprised.
Not sure why this has crossed so heavily over into P/R territory when I thought Harmony was pretty clear that that isn't what she wanted. Do we need to move this?
Well, it's almost unavoidable, since we have gotten to a place - at least in America, if not the world - where "judgement" for P/R stuff is not just welcome, but required. They are almost inseparable. Just look at the last page or so: I used "generally" in one instance of stating my position against "racism" and it got almost as much press as the original question, almost all of it unrelated to how I REALLY feel. I might even have lost a friendship over it.
I think there are a lot of people - not referring to anyone here - for whom the war on bigotry requires an element of vengeance, retribution, and affirmation, and I'm pointing out that some science seems to indicate that component may actually stand between us and winning the war on bigotry.
No need to shy away from the fact that it absolutely is present in people here on this forum, and on full display. :lol But I appreciate the attempted diplomacy. I always find it ironic that folks who think that way seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in it. It is just another form of intolerance and marginalization.
Not sure what's going on here, but here's a lot of passive-aggression in these last few points. Not sure why that is, or if anything in any of my posts has led to people thinking it'd be a pointless to address anything I've said here directly, but if so, I find that very regrettable.
-
I think there are a lot of people - not referring to anyone here - for whom the war on bigotry requires an element of vengeance, retribution, and affirmation, and I'm pointing out that some science seems to indicate that component may actually stand between us and winning the war on bigotry.
No need to shy away from the fact that it absolutely is present in people here on this forum, and on full display. :lol But I appreciate the attempted diplomacy. I always find it ironic that folks who think that way seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in it. It is just another form of intolerance and marginalization.
Agreed. Generally speaking (oh no, there is that word!! Someone call the "Generally" Police!! :lol), I find it maddening that some who preach tolerance are so intolerant of any opinions or point of views that do not line up with their own. Take the Covid thread where anyone who has the nerve to express hesitancy to get the vaccine (I do not agree with them either) is talked to down to like they are stupidest person in the world. There are ways of disagreeing with others, and it just feels like too many now are more concerned about being right than doing what it takes to find a middle ground, which I think sort of speaks to Stadler's POV.
-
I think there are a lot of people - not referring to anyone here - for whom the war on bigotry requires an element of vengeance, retribution, and affirmation, and I'm pointing out that some science seems to indicate that component may actually stand between us and winning the war on bigotry.
No need to shy away from the fact that it absolutely is present in people here on this forum, and on full display. :lol But I appreciate the attempted diplomacy. I always find it ironic that folks who think that way seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in it. It is just another form of intolerance and marginalization.
Agreed. Generally speaking (oh no, there is that word!! Someone call the "Generally" Police!! :lol), I find it maddening that some who preach tolerance are so intolerant of any opinions or point of views that do not line up with their own. Take the Covid thread where anyone who has the nerve to express hesitancy to get the vaccine (I do not agree with them either) is talked to down to like they are stupidest person in the world. There are ways of disagreeing with others, and it just feels like too many now are more concerned about being right than doing what it takes to find a middle ground, which I think sort of speaks to Stadler's POV.
Well I personally don't appreciate the passive aggressive call out if it applies to me. It's one thing to take things to PM with somebody, or to call out somebody directly in the thread, but half a page of people saying "oh SOME people here are just awful" is pretty lame, far more lame than aggressively calling out someone's post directly, and thus I have lost complete interest in this discussion. And this is why I don't do P/R.
-
Well I personally don't appreciate the passive aggressive call out if it applies to me. It's one thing to take things to PM with somebody, or to call out somebody directly in the thread, but half a page of people saying "oh SOME people here are just awful" is pretty lame, far more lame than aggressively calling out someone's post directly, and thus I have lost complete interest in this discussion. And this is why I don't do P/R.
Well, considering this thread has had no less than three people calling out a poster for his posts being too long, I would submit that this discussion has been off the rails for a while now, which is a shame, cause I think Harmony had good intentions and a good starter post in this thread.
-
There's nothing "passive aggressive" about it. If you are intolerant of certain views, then what I said applies to you. If you aren't, then it doesn't. Simple as that. It isn't to call out anyone specifically. But my views on the hypocrisy of "tolerance at all costs...unless of course I disagree with you, in which case I absolve myself of the obligation to be tolerant" are not a secret. It is prevalent everywhere, and this place is not an exception. And that is applicable to what was being discussed. Now are we really going to further derail the thread because you subjectively felt slighted by a more general post in response to Stadler? If so, I don't get it, but you are certainly welcome to PM me about it.
-
For Kevshmev- I agree that calling somebody out for having long posts is out of line. Asking someone if they have a real job on the forum is kind of like telling somebody who beat you at a video game that they "have no life". Sure it might be true but the playing field being what it is it's kind of a pot meets kettle moment.
For Bosk - As for me derailing the thread, I'm not doing that. I've made a few posts here. For the sake of discussion, I've asked people to be specific of any of the general complaints about the way people are acting here apply to me or anything I've said. Because I will gladly address those points if they are made. Obviously I cannot do that if the post-directed toward me is not clear about what I have said or which part has offended. That is all.
-
Yep, this was a mistake. Adios
-
For Kevshmev- I agree that calling somebody out for having long posts is out of line. Asking someone if they have a real job on the forum is kind of like telling somebody who beat you at a video game that they "have no life". Sure it might be true but the playing field being what it is it's kind of a pot meets kettle moment.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Learn to pronounce[/size][/color]
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"