|
On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable
I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though.
1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic"?
On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote: I share the feeling that the Squad should be:
-marginalized
-humiliated
-disrespected I missed this, but it seems bold. I don't find it any more bold than saying that Donald Trump should be marginalized, humiliated, and disrespected. I gave my reasons for feeling that way. I think the country would be better off if large proportions of the caucuses of both parties were marginalized, humiliated, disrespected, and ultimately kicked out of office by an indignant public The president included in that, although he's not actually a part of any caucus
I appreciate the argument (more than most really), I just meant it's bold considering the circumstances (and in that way more so than your comparison is)
|
On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult On July 22 2019 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Would you call someone that advocates racist positions (let's imagine whether they are racist is not in dispute) racist? Personally I've taken the position that people aren't racist, actions, beliefs, policy, etc... are. So I wouldn't say xDaunt "is a racist" but I would absolutely say he advocates racist policy and believes racist ideas. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground On July 22 2019 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
1. Are we supposed to pretend that Trump (or whoever wrote trump's twitter) just wrote a racist post, and xdaunt wrote that he agrees with it?
2. Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt connected anti-american with immigrant? Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt argued that elected American politicians aren't Americans and they hate America and are anti-American and should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized?
3. Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt wrote that the election of an anti-American immigrant to congress is ludicrous and the importance of Trump's twitter message is to regain their sense of pride, dignity, and conviction?
4. It's a shame that due to successive accusations of "bias" the mod team have to wrap their language around reasons that seem contrived, when in actuality it is because that poster has been promoting white supremacism, to the point it cannot be denied anymore?
5. We all know that when xdaunt says that "send her back" is quite principled, but won't say how that is, it is because she isn't white. We know that when xdaunt says a politician is anti-american, but wouldn't say why, it is because they aren't white enough. We know that when xdaunt says an American elected politician hates America, but wouldn't say how, the hatred is that she is not white.
6. Are we supposed to pretend that xdaunt hasn't wrapped his arguments in so much dog-whistles over the years that we have to pretend that we cannot hear it when it is simply a whistle?
7. Are we supposed to ignore that at one point xdaunt openly defended the words of a white supremacist terrorist?
8. xdaunt is a white supremacist. I don't see why I should not write so, when after Trump's message, xdaunt is not afraid of proclaiming it so either.
9. You can write that you disagree with immigration in general. But when you write that immigrant politicians are anti-american; should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized, you are a racist, it is descriptive, and yes deepelmblues you are not supposed to feel good about their character and judgement.
Go keep the promotion of white supremacism out of TL. I think this is an excellent example of the kind of toxic post that is not conducive to worthwhile discussion 1. "Just"? That is quite a lot, to be using the word "just." Accepting your description, further declarations would seem to be superfluous 2. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying what I bolded, save for the part that they are not American. They are American, and it is a disappointment that America produces such people, just as it is a disappointment that America produces white supremacists 3. I think you have unintentionally touched upon something that is quite complex and important. There is a sense, among conservatives, that conservatives have been Two Minutes Hated on unceasingly since Bush beat Gore, and have restrained themselves to some degree in response. I am not here to argue the validity, or lack thereof, of that sense. What is important is that it exists. What people believe makes up a very large part of political motivation and reality. You can see the same phenomenon in any political group. Then Donald Trump comes along and in effect tells them, "When you get slandered, when I get slandered and that is slandering you by proxy, by God I will rear back and let loose on those people who hate you and slander you." I am sure that you are aware of the studies where left-wingers and right-wingers diverge on feeling able to voice their political opinions in social interactions, right-wingers feeling that they must keep their mouths shut far more often than left-wingers because of a fear of social retribution. Well, such things breed resentment. Contempt. And eventually hate. I believe that in large part - considering other information including the consistent public polling showing that traditionally racist markers like opposition to miscegenation have almost completely disappeared from society - this antipathy towards politicians like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not racial in nature in terms of their race, but is still an issue of identity. These conservatives believe that they are hated, and they hate back. They hate Nancy Pelosi. They hate Bernie Sanders. They hate all of the left. They even hate Joe Biden, who is about the most authentic and unhateable politician of national prominence around. Which may not be saying much, but still 4. I do not think it is a shame that your personal perceptions have not been the standard. I do not believe them to be reliable, judging from this admittedly small sample size. Those perceptions, again from this small sample size, seem to be motivated in a not inconsiderable portion by animus 5. Perhaps you are correct. I don't know. Personally, I think that Ilhan Omar has committed immigration fraud and made repeated statements that no conservative politician would ever be permitted to make and continue their political career. If she has committed immigration fraud, I would unreservedly "send her back" considering her unsavory, Jew-hating, troll character. If she was just a typical left-wing agitprop disseminator and had committed immigration fraud, I would favor her being punished but not being sent back. Most people deserve a second chance. Her, I must decline 6. I look askance at accusations and denials of dog whistles, I simply do not trust your judgment or anyone else's on that matter. I keep my own counsel and if I believe someone is dog whistling, or not, then that belief is what I will rely on. No one else's 7. I do not know which white supremacist terrorist you are referring to, what his words were, or what xD's defense of them was. I will say that if those words concerned racial matters, then I do not think I could find any value in them. If they were about more general political matters, then, well, I find value on occasion in the words of communist terrorists, even if I disagree with them entirely. So perhaps this white supremacist terrorist had something to say that was not incorrect simply because he was a white supremacist terrorist. I doubt it, but it's not impossible 8. If you say so, then you say so. But that is the end of all things. There is no more discussion to be had then. Your choices are bitter struggle, or attempts at persuasion. Persuasion is harder, less often rewarding, more frustrating, etc., so I understand your preference for simply declaring 'that person is a white supremacist/racist.' I do not myself react well when in the situation you claim to be in 9. Frankly, I disagree with your premise. I share the feeling that the Squad should be: -marginalized -humiliated -disrespected And my disdain has nothing to do with 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white. I have my reasons, which are solely based on their words and behavior Now according to your formulation, if I have understood it aright, 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white means that my feelings must come from xenophobia or racial bigotry. I do not deny that in the case of xD, you have prodigious amounts of other evidence that leads you to believe that, in his case, such a formulation is appropriate. Whether you are correct or not in your interpretation of that other evidence, is not something that can be determined without spending more time and frustration than it is worth. I tell you now, though, that it is not an appropriate formulation for me I do not know what you are and are not supposed to pretend, but from reading and considering your words, I do not believe that I could have a discussion with you that would not soon devolve into a pointless and meandering quagmire of accusations and counteraccusations that would accomplish little but stoking personal ill-will, if this is the manner of your communication to me right out of the gate And I will say that I think Trump's tweet rant about go back to where you came from and fix things there then come back and show us how it's done is the exact same thing I talked about in 8. It is a declaration there is no way to go forward from. It is the rejection of attempting persuasion in favor of bitter struggle.
I don't care about what you think is conservatism and their place in politics. i don't care for your tribal left-right dynamics and the excuses you give for courting and pandering to racists openly by those who now call themselves conservatives or the right. Advocating white supremacism is an not acceptable political discourse. Expresing racist sentiments is not acceptable. And it should not be acceptable on TL either.
|
On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. Show nested quote +1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic"
Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has.
Among other remarks, yes. Such as:
Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!
Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth
Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress:
"They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away."
I do not need to label these people anything.
On July 22 2019 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult On July 22 2019 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Would you call someone that advocates racist positions (let's imagine whether they are racist is not in dispute) racist? Personally I've taken the position that people aren't racist, actions, beliefs, policy, etc... are. So I wouldn't say xDaunt "is a racist" but I would absolutely say he advocates racist policy and believes racist ideas. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground On July 22 2019 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
1. Are we supposed to pretend that Trump (or whoever wrote trump's twitter) just wrote a racist post, and xdaunt wrote that he agrees with it?
2. Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt connected anti-american with immigrant? Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt argued that elected American politicians aren't Americans and they hate America and are anti-American and should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized?
3. Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt wrote that the election of an anti-American immigrant to congress is ludicrous and the importance of Trump's twitter message is to regain their sense of pride, dignity, and conviction?
4. It's a shame that due to successive accusations of "bias" the mod team have to wrap their language around reasons that seem contrived, when in actuality it is because that poster has been promoting white supremacism, to the point it cannot be denied anymore?
5. We all know that when xdaunt says that "send her back" is quite principled, but won't say how that is, it is because she isn't white. We know that when xdaunt says a politician is anti-american, but wouldn't say why, it is because they aren't white enough. We know that when xdaunt says an American elected politician hates America, but wouldn't say how, the hatred is that she is not white.
6. Are we supposed to pretend that xdaunt hasn't wrapped his arguments in so much dog-whistles over the years that we have to pretend that we cannot hear it when it is simply a whistle?
7. Are we supposed to ignore that at one point xdaunt openly defended the words of a white supremacist terrorist?
8. xdaunt is a white supremacist. I don't see why I should not write so, when after Trump's message, xdaunt is not afraid of proclaiming it so either.
9. You can write that you disagree with immigration in general. But when you write that immigrant politicians are anti-american; should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized, you are a racist, it is descriptive, and yes deepelmblues you are not supposed to feel good about their character and judgement.
Go keep the promotion of white supremacism out of TL. I think this is an excellent example of the kind of toxic post that is not conducive to worthwhile discussion 1. "Just"? That is quite a lot, to be using the word "just." Accepting your description, further declarations would seem to be superfluous 2. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying what I bolded, save for the part that they are not American. They are American, and it is a disappointment that America produces such people, just as it is a disappointment that America produces white supremacists 3. I think you have unintentionally touched upon something that is quite complex and important. There is a sense, among conservatives, that conservatives have been Two Minutes Hated on unceasingly since Bush beat Gore, and have restrained themselves to some degree in response. I am not here to argue the validity, or lack thereof, of that sense. What is important is that it exists. What people believe makes up a very large part of political motivation and reality. You can see the same phenomenon in any political group. Then Donald Trump comes along and in effect tells them, "When you get slandered, when I get slandered and that is slandering you by proxy, by God I will rear back and let loose on those people who hate you and slander you." I am sure that you are aware of the studies where left-wingers and right-wingers diverge on feeling able to voice their political opinions in social interactions, right-wingers feeling that they must keep their mouths shut far more often than left-wingers because of a fear of social retribution. Well, such things breed resentment. Contempt. And eventually hate. I believe that in large part - considering other information including the consistent public polling showing that traditionally racist markers like opposition to miscegenation have almost completely disappeared from society - this antipathy towards politicians like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not racial in nature in terms of their race, but is still an issue of identity. These conservatives believe that they are hated, and they hate back. They hate Nancy Pelosi. They hate Bernie Sanders. They hate all of the left. They even hate Joe Biden, who is about the most authentic and unhateable politician of national prominence around. Which may not be saying much, but still 4. I do not think it is a shame that your personal perceptions have not been the standard. I do not believe them to be reliable, judging from this admittedly small sample size. Those perceptions, again from this small sample size, seem to be motivated in a not inconsiderable portion by animus 5. Perhaps you are correct. I don't know. Personally, I think that Ilhan Omar has committed immigration fraud and made repeated statements that no conservative politician would ever be permitted to make and continue their political career. If she has committed immigration fraud, I would unreservedly "send her back" considering her unsavory, Jew-hating, troll character. If she was just a typical left-wing agitprop disseminator and had committed immigration fraud, I would favor her being punished but not being sent back. Most people deserve a second chance. Her, I must decline 6. I look askance at accusations and denials of dog whistles, I simply do not trust your judgment or anyone else's on that matter. I keep my own counsel and if I believe someone is dog whistling, or not, then that belief is what I will rely on. No one else's 7. I do not know which white supremacist terrorist you are referring to, what his words were, or what xD's defense of them was. I will say that if those words concerned racial matters, then I do not think I could find any value in them. If they were about more general political matters, then, well, I find value on occasion in the words of communist terrorists, even if I disagree with them entirely. So perhaps this white supremacist terrorist had something to say that was not incorrect simply because he was a white supremacist terrorist. I doubt it, but it's not impossible 8. If you say so, then you say so. But that is the end of all things. There is no more discussion to be had then. Your choices are bitter struggle, or attempts at persuasion. Persuasion is harder, less often rewarding, more frustrating, etc., so I understand your preference for simply declaring 'that person is a white supremacist/racist.' I do not myself react well when in the situation you claim to be in 9. Frankly, I disagree with your premise. I share the feeling that the Squad should be: -marginalized -humiliated -disrespected And my disdain has nothing to do with 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white. I have my reasons, which are solely based on their words and behavior Now according to your formulation, if I have understood it aright, 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white means that my feelings must come from xenophobia or racial bigotry. I do not deny that in the case of xD, you have prodigious amounts of other evidence that leads you to believe that, in his case, such a formulation is appropriate. Whether you are correct or not in your interpretation of that other evidence, is not something that can be determined without spending more time and frustration than it is worth. I tell you now, though, that it is not an appropriate formulation for me I do not know what you are and are not supposed to pretend, but from reading and considering your words, I do not believe that I could have a discussion with you that would not soon devolve into a pointless and meandering quagmire of accusations and counteraccusations that would accomplish little but stoking personal ill-will, if this is the manner of your communication to me right out of the gate And I will say that I think Trump's tweet rant about go back to where you came from and fix things there then come back and show us how it's done is the exact same thing I talked about in 8. It is a declaration there is no way to go forward from. It is the rejection of attempting persuasion in favor of bitter struggle. I don't care about what you think is conservatism and their place in politics. Advocating white supremacism is an not acceptable political expression. Being racist is not acceptable.
I regret that this is the way you have chosen, you are obviously intelligent and articulate. I think there are many topics, even including this one, where we could have said many interesting things to each other
Drone's post, and these last few, have illuminated me rather fully on my error of not giving enough consideration to the nature of what the staff has to deal with, if these exchanges are representative
|
On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Show nested quote +Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: Show nested quote +"They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites.
So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it?
|
On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it?
Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general
I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse, such a silly attempt at gotcha
|
On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse
What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did?
|
On July 22 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord
A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment
Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did?
Context, of course. Trump saying it to a room of Jews, many with dual citizenship, who are politically active in both countries, politically conservative, and almost to a man (and woman!) close supporters of Netanyahu, and Ilhan Omar saying it period, based on her other remarks regarding Israel and the Netanyahu government, are two vastly dissimilar contexts. Millions and millions of people hold dual citizenship in the United States and other countries, some are politically active in both, it is entirely appropriate in their cases to refer to the head government/state of the non-US country as 'their' president/prime minister/what-have-you as well. Some of them live in those other countries, some do not. Some are far more active in the politics of those other countries than they are in the politics of the United States. There is nothing wrong with any of this, or referring to it
What would not be appropriate is implying or outright declaring that their other loyalty is consciously or unconsciously maintained at the expense of the United States, though
You can ignore those contexts if you like, just as you ignored my pointing out that Trump was not calling Netanyahu their prime minister to criticize them or make negative implications about them. You understood that, of course. You just chose not to acknowledge it
|
On July 22 2019 08:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen?
Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did? Context, of course. Trump saying it to a room of Jews, many with dual citizenship, who are politically active in both countries, politically conservative, and almost to a man (and woman!) close supporters of Netanyahu, and Ilhan Omar saying it period, based on her other remarks regarding Israel and the Netanyahu government, are two vastly dissimilar contexts. Millions and millions of people hold dual citizenship in the United States and other countries, some are politically active in both, it is entirely appropriate in their cases to refer to the head government/state of the non-US country as 'their' president/prime minister/what-have-you as well. Some of them live in those other countries, some do not. Some are far more active in the politics of those other countries than they are in the politics of the United States. There is nothing wrong with any of this, or referring to it What would not be appropriate is implying or outright declaring that their other loyalty is consciously or unconsciously maintained at the expense of the United States, though You can ignore those contexts if you like, just as you ignored my pointing out that Trump was not calling Netanyahu their prime minister to criticize them or make negative implications about them. You understood that, of course. You just chose not to acknowledge it
^ This is what people are saying you and others are doing for Trump and his racism. Shifting your willingness to see nuance in context based on the speaker and your prejudices for or against them.
Someone else might want to explain why your other selected quotes are less anti-Semitic and suggestive of the bad dual loyalty instead of the good dual loyalty than what Trump goes on to say in that speech but I just wanted to succinctly demonstrate the point that's probably going to be beat to death if this goes on.
|
On July 22 2019 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 08:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did? Context, of course. Trump saying it to a room of Jews, many with dual citizenship, who are politically active in both countries, politically conservative, and almost to a man (and woman!) close supporters of Netanyahu, and Ilhan Omar saying it period, based on her other remarks regarding Israel and the Netanyahu government, are two vastly dissimilar contexts. Millions and millions of people hold dual citizenship in the United States and other countries, some are politically active in both, it is entirely appropriate in their cases to refer to the head government/state of the non-US country as 'their' president/prime minister/what-have-you as well. Some of them live in those other countries, some do not. Some are far more active in the politics of those other countries than they are in the politics of the United States. There is nothing wrong with any of this, or referring to it What would not be appropriate is implying or outright declaring that their other loyalty is consciously or unconsciously maintained at the expense of the United States, though You can ignore those contexts if you like, just as you ignored my pointing out that Trump was not calling Netanyahu their prime minister to criticize them or make negative implications about them. You understood that, of course. You just chose not to acknowledge it ^ This is what people are saying you and others are doing for Trump and his racism. Someone else might want to explain why your other selected quotes are less anti-Semitic and suggestive of the bad dual loyalty instead of the good dual loyalty than what Trump goes on to say in that speech but I just wanted to succinctly demonstrate the point that's probably going to be beat to death if this goes on.
Context is not just a shield for disingenuously defending Trump from accusations of racism, or a sword for criticizing others
For example, his repeated remarks about immigrants from south of the border during the 2016 campaign were frequently defended by saying, 'He wasn't talking about ALL immigrants! Just the bad ones, and they do exist! That is the context!' Nonsense, I say. To me, the context of those remarks was cynical manipulation, to arouse anti-immigration sentiment of a racist nature among people who did not have much experience with Hispanics. Those Mexicans and Guatemalans and what-have-you - they aren't like us, so many of them are bad hombres. The ones who aren't bad hombres, well, they're irrelevant in the light of all those ones who are bad hombres. Too bad so sad for them. Not that the president came out and said that about the not bad hombres, but that was the clear implication for me at least. Sorry but we just can't afford to make distinctions between them and the bad hombres. That refusal to make distinctions is racist to me
Shifting your willingness to see nuance in context based on the speaker and your prejudices for or against them.
Well I don't know how many times I have to make unflattering references to the president to satisfy you. I suspect the number has not yet been given a name by mathematicians. I can't get much stronger than saying he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, does not care if his remarks are unworthy of his office, and that he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, should be rejected by an indignant public. The problem is both party systems are incapable of producing decent candidates. Hillary, awful. Trump, awful. Every single one of Trump's Republican opponents in 2016, awful. Bernie and the other Democratic candidates in 2016, awful. Every single one of the current Democratic candidates, awful. To a greater or lesser degree, some only a little bit awful, some very awful. Biden is to me the least awful, but he can't win without the support of the awful portion of his party, and won't be able to govern if he wins the nomination and the general election and subsequently the awful portion of his party turns against him. I admit, there's not much nuance in that opinion. And there is not much nuance in the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. There is, in my opinion, enough nuance about Trump's tweets to take the position that they were racist, and to take the position that they were not racist. I take the latter position on those tweets. I do not take that position regarding other remarks of his
This is mostly better suited for the actual US Pol thread, in the context of this thread more on-topic is the interaction between people and the way they attempt to pigeonhole and talk past each other. Which does require some reference to the issues of course
|
On July 22 2019 09:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 08:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"?
[quote]
2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them?
There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil".
[quote]
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern 2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939 I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you 3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me.
I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist"
[quote]
But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot.
[quote]
It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate I apologize if I misunderstood you I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did? Context, of course. Trump saying it to a room of Jews, many with dual citizenship, who are politically active in both countries, politically conservative, and almost to a man (and woman!) close supporters of Netanyahu, and Ilhan Omar saying it period, based on her other remarks regarding Israel and the Netanyahu government, are two vastly dissimilar contexts. Millions and millions of people hold dual citizenship in the United States and other countries, some are politically active in both, it is entirely appropriate in their cases to refer to the head government/state of the non-US country as 'their' president/prime minister/what-have-you as well. Some of them live in those other countries, some do not. Some are far more active in the politics of those other countries than they are in the politics of the United States. There is nothing wrong with any of this, or referring to it What would not be appropriate is implying or outright declaring that their other loyalty is consciously or unconsciously maintained at the expense of the United States, though You can ignore those contexts if you like, just as you ignored my pointing out that Trump was not calling Netanyahu their prime minister to criticize them or make negative implications about them. You understood that, of course. You just chose not to acknowledge it ^ This is what people are saying you and others are doing for Trump and his racism. Someone else might want to explain why your other selected quotes are less anti-Semitic and suggestive of the bad dual loyalty instead of the good dual loyalty than what Trump goes on to say in that speech but I just wanted to succinctly demonstrate the point that's probably going to be beat to death if this goes on. Context is not just a shield for disingenuously defending Trump from accusations of racism, or a sword for criticizing others For example, his repeated remarks about immigrants from south of the border during the 2016 campaign were frequently defended by saying, 'He wasn't talking about ALL immigrants! Just the bad ones, and they do exist! That is the context!' Nonsense, I say. To me, the context of those remarks was cynical manipulation, to arouse anti-immigration sentiment of a racist nature among people who did not have much experience with Hispanics. Those Mexicans and Guatemalans and what-have-you - they aren't like us, so many of them are bad hombres. The ones who aren't bad hombres, well, they're irrelevant in the light of all those ones who are bad hombres. Too bad so sad for them. Not that the president came out and said that about the not bad hombres, but that was the clear implication for me at least. Sorry but we just can't afford to make distinctions between them and the bad hombres. That refusal to make distinctions is racist to me Show nested quote +Shifting your willingness to see nuance in context based on the speaker and your prejudices for or against them. Well I don't know how many times I have to make unflattering references to the president to satisfy you. I suspect the number has not yet been given a name by mathematicians. I can't get much stronger than saying he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, does not care if his remarks are unworthy of his office, and that he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, should be rejected by an indignant public. The problem is both party systems are incapable of producing decent candidates. Hillary, awful. Trump, awful. Every single one of Trump's Republican opponents in 2016, awful. Bernie and the other Democratic candidates in 2016, awful. Every single one of the current Democratic candidates, awful. To a greater or lesser degree, some only a little bit awful, some very awful. Biden is to me the least awful, but he can't win without the support of the awful portion of his party, and won't be able to govern if he wins the nomination and the general election and subsequently the awful portion of his party turns against him. I admit, there's not much nuance in that opinion. And there is not much nuance in the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. There is, in my opinion, enough nuance about Trump's tweets to take the position that they were racist, and to take the position that they were not racist. I take the latter position on those tweets. I do not take that position regarding other remarks of his This is mostly better suited for the actual US Pol thread, in the context of this thread more on-topic is the interaction between people and the way they attempt to pigeonhole and talk past each other. Which does require some reference to the issues of course
Fair enough, it's a fine line to tread in this thread and they're pretty severe around here. Good luck 
|
On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is illustrative. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior.
Is it really a "regular occurrence"? I think the points of view of some politicians should be ridiculed and marginalised, and I think they should be voted out of office, placed in a position where they resign, etc. at the earliest possible opportunity, but I don't wish it upon the people themselves much.
To any degree to which people say these things about Trump on a personal level I would expect it to have something to do with their belief that he is personally guilty of criminal and immoral acts, not just his politics.
I think anybody in this thread who does want to "ridicule, humiliate and marginalise" another human being based purely on the other's political beliefs (as opposed to actions the other person has taken) needs to take a good hard look at themselves.
I expect those people who have admitted to feeling this way ITT not to be summarily banned in the same way as xDaunt... because none of you have demonstrated the same dedication to actually following through on the intention.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
On July 22 2019 02:22 KadaverBB wrote:
I simply did not feel like writing several paragraphs of explanation that would then get disected over dozens of pages.
Needless to say, the mod team thinks that Xdaunt is a negative influence on the forums and the Politics thread in general.
Almost every mod action given to him resulted in a "If I am not allowed to speak my mind, you might as well nuke/perm me right now" conversation, so basically we just did what he asked of us.
The ban reason might as well read "by request".
Guys... Please don't ignore what KadaverBB posted...
|
On July 22 2019 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 09:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 08:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern
2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939
I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you
3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up
[quote]
It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me
It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate
I apologize if I misunderstood you
I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess
I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable I knew I should have made the "meth addict" part bold or I would fail to communicate my point, I'm not going to dwell on it though. 1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks
When speaking to US citizens of Jewish heritage Ilhan Omar called Netenyahu "your prime minister" is that what you would consider an implication of "dual-loyalty" and "anti-Semitic" Maybe it would make you feel better if I said that Trump has hit the "they hate you because of who and what you are!" stem when speaking to his base with great frequency as well? Because he has. Among other remarks, yes. Such as: Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that! Or her implication that members of Congress are allegedly beholden to AIPAC because of "the Benjamins." And so on and so forth Or, from the delightful Rashida Tlaib, this accusation lobbed at Israel-supporting members of Congress: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the US where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our US Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." I do not need to label these people anti-Semites. So then surely you still see it as an anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty, now that you know Trump said it? Not when there are many members of the Republican Jewish Coalition with dual citizenship. There was also no implication that their loyalty to Israel is pernicious to their loyalty to the United States, or harmful to the United States in general I am sorry that this also appears to be representative of the level of discourse What changed between when you thought Omar said it and when you learned Trump did? Context, of course. Trump saying it to a room of Jews, many with dual citizenship, who are politically active in both countries, politically conservative, and almost to a man (and woman!) close supporters of Netanyahu, and Ilhan Omar saying it period, based on her other remarks regarding Israel and the Netanyahu government, are two vastly dissimilar contexts. Millions and millions of people hold dual citizenship in the United States and other countries, some are politically active in both, it is entirely appropriate in their cases to refer to the head government/state of the non-US country as 'their' president/prime minister/what-have-you as well. Some of them live in those other countries, some do not. Some are far more active in the politics of those other countries than they are in the politics of the United States. There is nothing wrong with any of this, or referring to it What would not be appropriate is implying or outright declaring that their other loyalty is consciously or unconsciously maintained at the expense of the United States, though You can ignore those contexts if you like, just as you ignored my pointing out that Trump was not calling Netanyahu their prime minister to criticize them or make negative implications about them. You understood that, of course. You just chose not to acknowledge it ^ This is what people are saying you and others are doing for Trump and his racism. Someone else might want to explain why your other selected quotes are less anti-Semitic and suggestive of the bad dual loyalty instead of the good dual loyalty than what Trump goes on to say in that speech but I just wanted to succinctly demonstrate the point that's probably going to be beat to death if this goes on. Context is not just a shield for disingenuously defending Trump from accusations of racism, or a sword for criticizing others For example, his repeated remarks about immigrants from south of the border during the 2016 campaign were frequently defended by saying, 'He wasn't talking about ALL immigrants! Just the bad ones, and they do exist! That is the context!' Nonsense, I say. To me, the context of those remarks was cynical manipulation, to arouse anti-immigration sentiment of a racist nature among people who did not have much experience with Hispanics. Those Mexicans and Guatemalans and what-have-you - they aren't like us, so many of them are bad hombres. The ones who aren't bad hombres, well, they're irrelevant in the light of all those ones who are bad hombres. Too bad so sad for them. Not that the president came out and said that about the not bad hombres, but that was the clear implication for me at least. Sorry but we just can't afford to make distinctions between them and the bad hombres. That refusal to make distinctions is racist to me Shifting your willingness to see nuance in context based on the speaker and your prejudices for or against them. Well I don't know how many times I have to make unflattering references to the president to satisfy you. I suspect the number has not yet been given a name by mathematicians. I can't get much stronger than saying he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, does not care if his remarks are unworthy of his office, and that he, along with so many other politicians of both parties, should be rejected by an indignant public. The problem is both party systems are incapable of producing decent candidates. Hillary, awful. Trump, awful. Every single one of Trump's Republican opponents in 2016, awful. Bernie and the other Democratic candidates in 2016, awful. Every single one of the current Democratic candidates, awful. To a greater or lesser degree, some only a little bit awful, some very awful. Biden is to me the least awful, but he can't win without the support of the awful portion of his party, and won't be able to govern if he wins the nomination and the general election and subsequently the awful portion of his party turns against him. I admit, there's not much nuance in that opinion. And there is not much nuance in the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. There is, in my opinion, enough nuance about Trump's tweets to take the position that they were racist, and to take the position that they were not racist. I take the latter position on those tweets. I do not take that position regarding other remarks of his This is mostly better suited for the actual US Pol thread, in the context of this thread more on-topic is the interaction between people and the way they attempt to pigeonhole and talk past each other. Which does require some reference to the issues of course Fair enough, it's a fine line to tread in this thread and they're pretty severe around here. Good luck
To you as well! And in more ways than successfully treading fine lines.
|
Frankly, I would prefer to discuss this in the open so it doesn't become a "He said, the other person can't defend themselves" situation?
To avoid any confusion you can just post the PM you sent me, as you sent it, here.
EDIT: Is it fair to take no public response as a retraction of the contents of the PM?
EDIT2: If the mod who sent it doesn't intend to address the question (may just be preoccupied, understandably so), I would greatly appreciate another mod helping to clear up the confusion I'm experiencing related to (what I would describe as) mixed/ambiguous messages I've received from moderation.
|
+ Show Spoiler +From: [Redacted]
Message: [Redacted]
With all sincerity, I don't. JimmiC said:
I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic. I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me, I'm a believer in choice and free will
But I'm being told:
+ Show Spoiler +
Yet my last ban reason (my only action since my return) was
Please ignore JimmiC from now on. You've been doing well. Don't screw it up after coming this far.
But I'm also being told + Show Spoiler +
Surely you can see how that's confusing for me? Or perhaps someone else could help me understand what I'm misinterpreting if you allow people to see what I'm being told?
I'm sincerely trying to communicate, I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable or acting angrily, I can't read your mind though and I'm honestly not understanding what to do?
Full disclosure:
+ Show Spoiler +This is was my PM response: I really don't know what you/the "[redacted]" want. I'm sincerely trying to understand. I provided website feedback in the website feedback thread regarding this issue and have been doing my best to follow your directions in the meantime but would like to resolve this confusion.
|
Can we stop the weird interaction going on the US thread? Also i am completely baffled that someone can come, misscharacterize someone for pages, and not even a warn has been issued. I guess people have not reported it? Because the thread is in the shittiest state i had ever seen it.
|
On July 24 2019 03:42 Godwrath wrote:
Can we stop the weird interaction going on the US thread? Also i am completely baffled that someone can come, misscharacterize someone for pages, and not even a warn has been issued. I guess people have not reported it? Because the thread is in the shittiest state i had ever seen it.
I desperately want to work it out, (no one wants this but JimmiC and a particular mod as far as I can tell) and you see the responses I've gotten or lack thereof.
|
If you don't want it to happen then stop posting? He can't argue without people responding to him.
|
Norway28657 Posts
GH was actually commanded to respond. But I think it was intended to be just two direct questions/clarifications some pages ago.
|
On July 24 2019 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
GH was actually commanded to respond. But I think it was intended to be just two direct questions/clarifications some pages ago.
I honestly don't know what "direct questions" are in the opinion of my commander, because JimmiC's been harassing me like this for months with little to no consequence.
Practically everyone except the person giving me that instruction seems to recognize how problematic he's being.
On July 24 2019 05:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
If you don't want it to happen then stop posting? He can't argue without people responding to him.
yeah, I'm not saying I don't want to do it but am out of fear for funzies. As drone said, I've been given the impression if I don't respond to JimmiC to his or the mods satisfaction (to be ambiguously determined) I'm going to be permed so I'm just responding as clearly and comprehensively as I can until I'm released from this expectation (since I'm pretty sure there's no requirement to respond to specific posters just because they incessantly ask you things).
Waiting days to sort this out and refusing to do it publicly is impractical imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
