So, something about me - I'm very rarely political. In fact, I'm rather apolitical. It's not that I don't have political views - we all do whether we want to have them or not - but I tend to try and come from a place that's compassionate and fair.
I'm not always successful.
This election cycle has been a rather tough one - one of the most polarizing we've ever seen. People are hurt, confused, offended, angry, and downright hostile.
And that's both sides.
It's natural to be angry. It's good to get it out.
But we also need to be considerate of HOW we get it out. We need to think about the words we say as a means of doing so --
-- Because we may be hurting the ones we love.
Take a breath and a step back, and allow me to share with you how I think we can avoid that by both acknowledging and extending the proximity of family.
After reading, I would love for you to share your thoughts!
Best Ender
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Extend that proximity. Get to know more people. Get to know more hearts
Yeah sorry after this election I'm going to be too busy extending my compassion to victims of bigotry who are now targets of a shitty bigoted president elected by bigots to waste my time trying to be friends with bigots. I am not going to waste my time reaching out because my hands will be full with the actually moral task of protecting people from real harm.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
You do realize that that's probably one of the most bigoted things I've heard/seen someone say since the election, right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it is then you probably haven't really been paying attention. Having said that you appear to be on the side of 'don't be intolerant of the intolerant' in regards to that old question about prejudice against prejudice.
It's an oversimplification to claim that Trump won due to racism, nationalism, and sexism. I think. But I also think it's unquestionable that those factors played a substantial role in his victory. He appealed, openly, to racists, nationalists, and sexists at many points during his campaign. Both the general and the primary. To expect people to simply overlook that or forgive it seems to be asking a lot.
I'll also point out that your response to Parkour appears to be guilty of exactly the same offense that you criticized progressives for* in your link.
*'on social media' is a tricky measuring stick. We can talk about social media, certainly, but you're only focusing on one part of it. And if we're going to talk about social media generally, well then we're simply going to have to discuss the 'alt-right' and Trump's new chief strategist. And if we discuss that?
Well, if we discuss that and you're still concerned with progressives being too angry and hurtful we can have a different discussion.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: You do realize that that's probably one of the most bigoted things I've heard/seen someone say since the election, right?
Then you use a useless definition of bigotry and/or ignore a lot of bigotry. Why is this the most bigoted thing you've seen recently?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: You do realize that that's probably one of the most bigoted things I've heard/seen someone say since the election, right?
Start with these. The tip of the iceberg.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When I see you sign "Ender" I just think of my dead cat
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: You do realize that that's probably one of the most bigoted things I've heard/seen someone say since the election, right?
These are good points and I apologize - I was obviously over-exaggerating.
My point was that the term "bigotry" is used far too often and quite typically in regard to a group of people whose individual reasoning no one really knows. They essentially get hated on as a group based on nothing more than an association with someone or something else. That is, in itself, a form of bigotry. It's not about whether those people are wrong or right, it's about whether or not we are throwing them in a bin or actually taking their reasoning into consideration.
And, just to be clear, whether you're the "good guy" or not, bigotry is bigotry.
The whole intent of the article is that I believe we need to get past that. Is it natural that we HAVE that "bigoted" reaction? Sure. But we don't have to perpetuate it.
And as rightly pointed out, I'm guilty of it too. I don't write these articles because I think I'm better than everyone - I write them because I need to learn, too. I don't know all the answers. And I'm more interested in understanding peoples' reasoning than I am pushing them to the side.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If it is then you probably haven't really been paying attention. Having said that you appear to be on the side of 'don't be intolerant of the intolerant' in regards to that old question about prejudice against prejudice.
It's an oversimplification to claim that Trump won due to racism, nationalism, and sexism. I think. But I also think it's unquestionable that those factors played a substantial role in his victory. He appealed, openly, to racists, nationalists, and sexists at many points during his campaign. Both the general and the primary. To expect people to simply overlook that or forgive it seems to be asking a lot.
I'll also point out that your response to Parkour appears to be guilty of exactly the same offense that you criticized progressives for* in your link.
*'on social media' is a tricky measuring stick. We can talk about social media, certainly, but you're only focusing on one part of it. And if we're going to talk about social media generally, well then we're simply going to have to discuss the 'alt-right' and Trump's new chief strategist. And if we discuss that?
Well, if we discuss that and you're still concerned with progressives being too angry and hurtful we can have a different discussion.
I understand where you're coming from on this, however, I just want to make it clear this was not an attack on Progressives. I did actually note that mean-spirited attacks from either side hurt people who identify with those sides, so the intent was to be non-aligned in my reasoning.
I DID use a Trump voter as an example of someone being judged a bigot, racist, etc without due course, but again, you could go the other way around and suggest that a family member was a "traitor" for voting Hillary. I just used the example I used because that's what I felt like using. It also wasn't meant as a defense of Trump voters, per se. I'd have to know every one of them and their reasoning to be able to do that.
Nonetheless, the idea of extending the proximity would work either way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At the very least, Trump voters were willing to have the civil rights of their neighbors taken away and hate crimes spike. They were willing for the bigots to be emboldened. At the least they are on the side of the bigots.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Hate crimes happen on both sides. This is not exclusive to Trump followers. That isn't a defense against that comment, simply pointing it out.
"At the least they are on the side of the bigots." ... Okay, let's play Devil's advocate...
At the least, Hillary voters are on the side of baby murderers (particularly in the case of partial-birth abortions); the public shaming, ridicule, and bullying of women; the abuse of power; and the destruction of our own national security.
To be clear, I'm not saying these things are true, nor that I believe them - simply stating an opposing view. One that Hillary supporters by and large simply don't buy.
And by the same token you must also understand that MOST Trump voters don't buy that he's a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, etc... MOST of that is considered by many Trump followers to be designed by the media to make him look evil, and they were tired of being told what to think and feel.
We could go back and forth about these kinds of things all day. At the end of said day, there are a plethora of reasons that one would vote for any given candidate. Each has their own and can't be fairly thrown into a pile with other people simply by virtue of having voted that way.
By extension, it's notable that people aren't often voting for a particular candidate for the same reason that you wouldn't or didn't.
There are obviously some unfortunate personalities on either side of ANY particular debate or issue. But there are also very admirable people on each, as well.
But we'd never know that without getting to know them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At what point, if any, does it start mattering less if someone doesn't feel uneasy about Trump's stance on LGBT rights after picking Pence for VP? The man's record with respect to such rights is profoundly ugly and frankly bigoted. But if a person doesn't feel like they are homophobic for supporting the choice of Pence, what does that mean?
If someone doesn't feel like they don't support the Constitutution because they cheer when Trump suggested protestors should be roughed up or flag burners be exiled, what does that mean?
If someone didn't *feel* like a sexist for laughing when Trump sneered at Clinton's appearance and its appeal to him sexually, how much weight should their own evaluation get?
And by the way who ever, even racists, thinks 'I support this person or policy because I, I am a racist!' Using this as the standard to question whether someone has done something for a racist reason is absurd. Though it does give generous cover.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Well of course it's absurd!
But, again, you're lumping a bunch of people into a certain group and judging them based on things YOU feel about what THEY MUST think and feel for making the decision they did. You're putting a thought and feeling and intent behind people you don't know, based on conclusions you've made about yourself.
Again, as a Devil's advocate, what does it mean that one doesn't FEEL like they're killing a baby when they snap its neck or crush its skull halfway through birth? People that BELIEVE that Hillary is for this don't care what Trump thinks about Hillary's appearance.
I'm not debating the wrong or right of either of those stances, because that's not the point. I'm also not debating the truthfulness of anything that either Trump or Hillary has said or done, or has been reported to have said or done.
What I'm pointing out is that, when it comes to voting, what any given person decides is important, has very little to do with what the other side thinks is important and therefore is often irrelevant to the conclusion that side makes about the other candidate or side - they aren't making the choice based on the same conclusion the other side has made.
Some people are only interested in whether or not they can get health care. They aren't concerned with whether or not someone halfway across the country will have their right to own a gun restricted.
Some people are only interested in whether or not they will be able to get a job by next week. They aren't concerned with whether or not a gay couple halfway across the country can marry.
In a lot of ways, drawing the conclusions we're otherwise drawing is like saying anyone who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman must ALSO be a homophobe. Or that anyone who believes Black Lives Matter must ALSO believe that white lives do not.
Everyone's situation, upbringing, experience, lifestyle, etc... is unique. They draw their own conclusions based on these things. When YOU (I'm using this generally, not you specifically) draw conclusions about other people's voting decisions you're doing it based on YOUR situation, upbringing, experience, lifestyle, etc... It's irrelevant (with regard to that other person's conclusion).
Trump supporters hate Hillary supporters because they think those people want to let illegal immigrants in to take their jobs, kill babies and upend their way of life. Hillary supporters hate Trump supporters because they think those people want to imprison Muslims, tie women down and make them have their babies, and let Big Business run rampant all over them.
But, really, how much truth is behind any of that? And is it worth alienating whole swaths of people off-hand?
Are there some bad people in the mix? Yeah, totally. But why lump the good ones in with them? Ultimately, they're likely to be more on your side than you think.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The difference between the devil's advocate view of Hillary supporters and the view of Trump voters, is that the anti-Trump position is way more grounded in reality than the anti-Hillary position.
And a lot of the Trump positions are just flat-out not true, and based on fear and misinformation. Let's take "partial birth abortion".
Partial birth abortion has been illegal for a very long time, and I wasn't aware that Hillary supporters were advocating for that becoming legal, versus standard, early abortions that have been under threat. (which are best prevented by sex education and universal, no-cost contraceptives, which Obamacare provides)
Late term abortion is very very very rare. So rare that there is one guy in the entire United States who does it at all (and he's in his 70s). There used to be two guys, but one of them was murdered. It costs four figures, cash only (not including the cost of a trip to sunny Colorado). Most late term abortions are done because the fetus is incompatible with life, and the parents have decided that this situation is preferable to waiting 1-2 months more for a still birth, or a death very shortly after. The first-person account I read was from a woman who waited so long because she wanted to be 100% sure that her child was truly not going to make it-- people who merely procrastinate are turned away because they jeopardize the doctor's license to perform the procedure of people who truly need it.
Nobody involved with that procedure does it lightly, or frivolously, and Trump's characterization of the procedure during the third debate was flat-out enraging, not the least because it preyed on ignorance.
[ December 01, 2016, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
I didn't note any facts regarding Partial Birth Abortions because they weren't necessary - I was talking about what detractors BELIEVE. Hillary has previously noted support for it, or has otherwise been reported to have done so. People hear that, they latch on, they think she's for killing babies. Like, as if she's going to get into office and start wrangling them up.
And obviously, that's nonsensical. But there's a deeper reason WHY they determine she would do that. I don't know what that is. But that's my point. I have no idea what their experience has been in their own lives or their community to know how or why they would go so far with that conclusion.
By the same token, do we really believe Trump is going to go rounding up Muslims and throwing them in prisons haphazardly? Like most Americans who even voted for him would be okay with that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen:
In a lot of ways, drawing the conclusions we're otherwise drawing is like saying anyone who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman must ALSO be a homophobe.
And that would be wrong because...? For instance.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Because people who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman aren't necessarily ALSO homophobes. In fact gays may not come anywhere into consideration when they draw that conclusion.
There are some who think marriage should be between a man and a woman and STILL say "oh well let them marry, how does that have anything to do with me?"
...And others who think it should be between a man and a woman but STILL say "no one asked me why my wife and I loved or were attracted to each other when we applied for our license"...
And others who say "you can't give me extra bonus rights for marrying and deny them from someone else because of who they love".
The fact that any of those people exist at all suggests that there's probably a GREAT deal of those people in existence.
And yes, there ARE those who don't believe gays should get married because it's between a man and a woman but that doesn't mean they hate or fear gays - they just have a particular view of the institution of marriage. That doesn't make it "right", but that also doesn't make them homophobes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen:
Some people are only interested in whether or not they can get health care. They aren't concerned with whether or not someone halfway across the country will have their right to own a gun restricted.
Okay, where you wrong here is that some people are interested on whether lots of people can get health care and who are also concerned with whether an unstable person halfway across the country will have his (and I pretty much do mean his) right to own a gun restricted.
quote:
Some people are only interested in whether or not they will be able to get a job by next week. They aren't concerned with whether or not a gay couple halfway across the country can marry.
So...selfish?
quote: Trump supporters hate Hillary supporters because they think those people want to let illegal immigrants in to take their jobs, kill babies and upend their way of life. Hillary supporters hate Trump supporters because they think those people want to imprison Muslims, tie women down and make them have their babies, and let Big Business run rampant all over them.
But, really, how much truth is behind any of that?
Which side are you asking about? The answer is very different.
quote: And is it worth alienating whole swaths of people off-hand?
I am more and more convinced that it is.
quote:
Are there some bad people in the mix? Yeah, totally. But why lump the good ones in with them? Ultimately, they're likely to be more on your side than you think.
Nope. The "good ones" lumped themselves in with the "bad ones". They showed whose side they were on and it isn't mine.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen:
Some people are only interested in whether or not they can get health care. They aren\'t concerned with whether or not someone halfway across the country will have their right to own a gun restricted.
Okay, where you wrong here is that some people are interested on whether lots of people can get health care and who are also concerned with whether an unstable person halfway across the country will have his (and I pretty much do mean his) right to own a gun restricted.
quote:
People who want access to healthcare for many people don\'t necessarily ALSO want to take gun rights away from people. The two are unrelated to each other beyond a particular candidate running under a platform that is for both things.
Some people are only interested in whether or not they will be able to get a job by next week. They aren\'t concerned with whether or not a gay couple halfway across the country can marry.
quote:So...selfish?
No... my point is that some people are just trying to get through the day. Whether or not gays can get married has nothing to do with their life. Some people are not concerned with global matters - they just want to be able to pay the bills and provide for their family.
[ December 01, 2016, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Ender Bowen ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bowen, you have to understand that we have NO idea what a Trump presidency looks like, and it (rightfully) scares the fruit into our looms, bc we can only base our views of what he is going to do on; A. What he has already done. B. What he says he will do.
I get that righties do not trust Hillary, but she has held three positions of power (first lady, senator & SoS) w/o the "house burning down".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is not being concerned with things unless it has something directly to do with their lives not selfish?
Now, it is perfectly ordinary selfishness. Most people are selfish to some degree or another. But not to care about something because it doesn't impact them is pretty selfish.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To prioritize caring about things that directly effect you is, surely, a component of sanity, or at minimum, responsible parenting.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Stone, I understand that. I'm not saying you can't, or that you're wrong to, feel that way and I get why you feel that way.
Look, I understand that if one believes Trump to be all the things the media says he is (and, hey, may end up being, to be fair to your point...), and then sees all that red on the map... yeah... believe me... I get why people would be freaked. I get why they would think everything's just been turned upside down. I really do. I have a lot of friends who cried themselves to sleep that night. I have others who think Trump is going to put them on trains. I don't like that thought.
Conversely, I also understand why many people who voted for Trump think the house already burned down and why they believed a vote for Hillary would perpetuate this. There's a laundry list of things they perceive. Not the least of which is the continuation of PC culture and an establishment government that doesn't know anything about them. Trump spoke to that. He hit the right buttons for them.
I also understand that I could sit here all day and try to be middle about it but passions are passions. That's fine. And good. I'm just more interested in getting to know more about why, and knowing more people in doing so.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How is not being concerned with things unless it has something directly to do with their lives not selfish?
Now, it is perfectly ordinary selfishness. Most people are selfish to some degree or another. But not to care about something because it doesn't impact them is pretty selfish.
You're assuming that everyone has the time in their day to be concerned about larger events and issues. Take a farmer, for instance. Sun-up to sun-down... not likely to have a lot of time for all that extra stuff. That's not to imply all farmers are like that - just a for instance. His job is to get through the day and make sure he can pay his bills.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They'll have time to watch dozens of hours of television a week as most Americans do, though, for example. Your gentle, permissive picture paints a frankly much harsher image than is the reality for most Americans-and this includes most Trump supporters.
But even if it were accurate that the American small farmer-that dying and incredibly rare breed-really *were* so crushed by toil and worry as to be unable to think about anything outside his immediate awareness, what the heck would that have to do with thinking gays shouldn't marry or that protestors should be roughed up or that cops should be allowed to ask a brown person to prove their citizenship on sight?
Nothing. It would have nothing to do with those things.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and for calling for people to not condemn others simply for casting their vote...that being said, Adolph Hitler was voted in too...and he didn't run on the plank of murder camps...one had to read between the lines to call that one, and quite honestly, Trump is spouting alarmingly similar rhetoric to ze Fuhrer himself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: Conversely, I also understand why many people who voted for Trump think the house already burned down and why they believed a vote for Hillary would perpetuate this. There's a laundry list of things they perceive. Not the least of which is the continuation of PC culture and an establishment government that doesn't know anything about them. Trump spoke to that. He hit the right buttons for them.
What exactly do you mean by "PC culture"?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wanting to burn it down, I can see that. Thinking Trump would do that, I also see that. Rejecting an establishment government that doesn't care about them by electing a billionaire from NYC who was born rich and flies around in a goddamned gold plated jet?
Well no, turns out that's not actually a sign of voters who want a government that really understands them.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: .. my point is that some people are just trying to get through the day. Whether or not gays can get married has nothing to do with their life.
You could say this about slavery. Oh some people are just trying to get through the day, so this giant institutional wrong thug has nothing to do with their life.
Doesn't matter if they're still voting in support of the giant institutional wrong.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I can't believe the sheer quantity of whining that can be generated by people upset when someone says they will be too busy helping people who really need it to waste time going out of their way to sympathize with and try to be friends with bigots
Oh no pc culture! piss off with everything about that, ok!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT POLITE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO OPENLY PROMOTE DELIBERATE OPPRESSION AGAINST MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
this is still as relevant now as it was before the election
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
More.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ender,
quote:You're assuming that everyone has the time in their day to be concerned about larger events and issues. Take a farmer, for instance. Sun-up to sun-down... not likely to have a lot of time for all that extra stuff. That's not to imply all farmers are like that - just a for instance. His job is to get through the day and make sure he can pay his bills.
Another problem with this sort of analysis as others have observed is that it only ever seems to be used in an excusing way. They're too busy/worn down by fatigue/worried to care about those things outside their immediate life.
But they're not too worn down to support discrimination and bigotry outside their own world.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Okay. I think we've gone off track a little bit from what this was really about.
I didn't say you need to be friends with bigots. Or heck, even sympathize with them really. What I HAVE been saying is that not everyone you call a bigot is actually so (surely, you must know some people who voted for Trump and you're friends with them). Just the same as not every liberal is a "crazy Communist".
I haven't even said you have to LIKE certain people. If you don't like a person, you have every right not to. As "optimistic" about other people as I tend to be, I will cut negative energy from my life. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
But at the same time, there are millions of people on either side of the debate who are grossly misunderstood by people who identify with the opposing side, and it's disheartening to me that so many of us seem unwilling to even ask why, REALLY, would someone vote a certain way (for instance). I feel like we're more interested in arguing for why we should just throw people to the side and not care who they are or what they really want, on an individual basis, than we are about going "well... wait... what the heck? Why in the blue Hell would you vote for THAT guy (or gal)?"
On one side you have people who want others to understand why they feel their religious freedom is being attacked and marginalized but at the same time they don't want to try and understand why someone would be gay or why they should have equal rights.
On the other side you have people who want others to understand why it's important to them that a man can identify as a woman or vice versa yet they don't want to even consider why someone might genuinely see abortion as murder.
Neither side has any interest in getting to know anyone from the other side, and I'm sorry, but that sucks.
For crying out loud I'm not saying act polite to assholes - I'm saying find out why they're assholes.
No, I don't believe that just because you get to know people from "the other side" that you will magically agree with each other or like each other. I'm not THAT naive ;P but I DO believe out of 100 you might find 1 or 2 that you can actually have some respect for (and vice versa) and that, to me, is a win. For BOTH. And maybe out of that come to get to understand a little bit more about where the other side is coming from - even if you still vehemently disagree with it. (And, again, I'm not saying you have to agree with ANYTHING).
I actually believe (and you can laugh at me because, yes, this is practically straight from one of the morals of Ender's Game) that the more you get to know someone, the more likely you are to love them and want for them (even if what they want is completely counter to what YOU want). (And, no, I'm not saying "Oh I love you so I want to take away LGBT rights too!" -- look a little deeper than that). I think this is the heart of true compromise.
I have many friends on both sides, of all races and sexualities (is that a word?) and I have to tell you, what one of my liberal friends really wants isn't the same as what another does. Same with my conservative friends - what's important to one is not necessarily important to another and I even have liberal AND conservative friends who want the exact same thing, believe it or not.
Though I fail at it constantly, I try to lead with Compassion. And if I expect people to be Compassionate toward me, to try and give me a chance or to understand where I'm coming from, then I need to ensure I'm doing the same with others. Or else why should I expect it back?
It saddens me that either side is convinced the other side is just a bunch of invading Buggers and doesn't even want to communicate with them; that they think the worst of them. Where do you think that will ultimately lead?
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ender,
quote:You're assuming that everyone has the time in their day to be concerned about larger events and issues. Take a farmer, for instance. Sun-up to sun-down... not likely to have a lot of time for all that extra stuff. That's not to imply all farmers are like that - just a for instance. His job is to get through the day and make sure he can pay his bills.
Another problem with this sort of analysis as others have observed is that it only ever seems to be used in an excusing way. They're too busy/worn down by fatigue/worried to care about those things outside their immediate life.
But they're not too worn down to support discrimination and bigotry outside their own world.
I completely see your point. From your point of view, that makes complete sense. I get that.
But what I'm saying is that just because they voted a certain way, that doesn't necessarily mean they ALSO support discrimination and bigotry.
Again, I'm playing Devil's advocate here but let's look at it this way...
If one candidate represents an establishment that's for more regulations that negatively affect farming businesses (including the tools used to do the job), etc, and another candidate is against that, and a Farmer needs to ensure that they can keep their farm going so that they can raise their family, send their kids to college, etc, who do you think they're going to vote for?
I realize I'm GROSSLY generalizing here... but the whole point is whether or not someone may be a bigot, or that bigots ALSO support the latter candidate, is irrelevant. They have to keep their farm going.
Now... does the farmer I describe exist? I don't know. But that's also my point.
If you want to argue that "well that's still not okay" that's fine. I'm not saying it IS okay. I'm saying what you may see as outright bigotry may not always be. And that's worth knowing and finding.
And, as an aside, do you not want to help that farmer? Is his plight not relevant? You can't say "well he doesn't care about the outside world" and then turn around and not care about him, if the standard by which you are judging him is that very aspect of his character.
And what if he WERE a bigot? Does he deserve to have his farming business collapse? Does he deserve to have his family put out on the street? What does any of THAT have to do with it? I'm definitely NOT okay with racism, but I'm not going to watch a family's business collapse just because he's ideologically different from me. I'm sorry, I just think that would be wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Everybody has asked "why". Seriously. Have you not been paying attention to the zillions of articles asking why Trump voters vote against their own interest? Honestly, how have you avoided this? Maybe take the plank out of your oh-so-humbly-compassionate eye and look around.
A couple of things that tend to float to the top of those thousands of articles that you might have come across had your head been somewhere with better visibility:
Trump voters tended to be less educated. They also tend to have a much higher level of racial resentment. They tend to be more authoritarian.
If you really are interested in learning rather than whining about how mean elitist liberals are disrespecting you and your friends, take a look at this.
And, you know, shut up about the damn farmers. Why the heck should I care more about a farmer than about a teacher or a janitor or a store clerk? Do they deserve to have their family put out on the street? Are their plights not just as relevant? Farmers are not the only people who work long hard hours. Here's a clue. Small family farming has not been economically sustainable (for the number of people who want to be family farmers) for generations. If ever. Deal with it.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
KMBBOOTS:
You're missing that I'm talking about BOTH sides here. So I'm not whining about "mean elitist liberals" - I'm asking questions about who we are in general as regards people on "the other side". And, again, I have friends on both sides.
I'm appearing to defend "the Trump supporter side" because that is the side being addressed in most of these thread comments. I'd appear to defend the other side too were that the side being addressed.
I'm not interested in what articles think (says the guy who initiated this thread with an article LOL). I'm interested in what people think, on a one-to-one basis. I want to get to know people, not what other people tell me I should know about people.
I understand we may disagree on this but articles and blogs and all that are just going to tell me either A) what I want to hear/read or B) what THEY want me to hear/read. That's not to suggest there's no truth to them but that's not the same as getting to know other people. It's getting to know what others want you to know about other people. I haven't missed these articles anymore than I've missed the ones about Hillary supporters, but truthfully, neither tells me much of anything.
Again, I think we've gotten off course in that we've turned this into a discussion about Trump and his supporters. And perhaps my article skewed it that direction, which was unintentional (that was supposed to be an extreme example). This is really supposed to be about getting to know anyone of the other side of any issue or debate or disagreement at all. Or just trying to understand people in general.
I appreciate your passion for this. And I will, nonetheless, read those articles. Thank you for sharing them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"I really want to know things but don't want to pay attention to the people who have studied and found out about these things".
Yeah. That is just stupid.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, you know, shut up about the damn farmers. Why the heck should I care more about a farmer than about a teacher or a janitor or a store clerk? Do they deserve to have their family put out on the street? Are their plights not just as relevant? Farmers are not the only people who work long hard hours. Here's a clue. Small family farming has not been economically sustainable (for the number of people who want to be family farmers) for generations. If ever. Deal with it.
It was an example, a very loose one at that. My wife is a teacher, and it's HARD. I also know several store clerks who are close personal friends of mine.
That being said, I'll shut up now.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you really are interested in learning rather than whining about how mean elitist liberals are disrespecting you and your friends, take a look at this.
Here is a great example of someone hearing what they want to hear... ignoring the op and then putting words in their mouth... welcome to Hatrack Bowen, you can't officially be in til boots yells at you inappropriatly
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you really are interested in learning rather than whining about how mean elitist liberals are disrespecting you and your friends, take a look at this.
Here is a great example of someone hearing what they want to hear... ignoring the op and then putting words in their mouth... welcome to Hatrack Bowen, you can't officially be in til boots yells at you inappropriatly
Wait... does that mean I'm in?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You're in!
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
Hahaha fantastic!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ender Bowen, you never did explain what you mean by "PC culture".
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "I really want to know things but don't want to pay attention to the people who have studied and found out about these things".
Yeah. That is just stupid.
Yes, it would be. You know that's not where I'm coming from here.
That being said, if I insulted you by suggesting that reading articles like this had no merit at all I apologize. That wasn't my intention. Far from it.
Speaking entirely for myself, and I know this sounds cheesy as all get-out (but, hey, I'm a pretentious artist) I want to try and know peoples' hearts. Even the ugly ones. I just don't ever feel like I can get that from an article.
As an aside, read the first article you linked. I genuinely laughed out loud at the "China's 'Pillowcase Belt'" line. Great read, and a great piece of satire! Thank you!
[ December 02, 2016, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Ender Bowen ]
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ender Bowen, you never did explain what you mean by "PC culture".
As generally discerned in such a way as to say "think this way, talk this way, act this way, do not use these words, do not think these thoughts, do not have an opinion counter to THIS opinion" etc.
I think that's a greatly exaggerated (and generalized) version of it but I know a lot of folks on that side who see it that way, would define it that way. As in, they feel if they don't follow those ground rules they do not count as part of society.
To be fair, depending on your view or side of it, it can be defined a plethora of ways I'm sure. So, I merely offer one of many potential definitions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There are posters here who advocate public shaming of those they view as bigoted...as a public service
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which words? Which thoughts? Come on. Be specific.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was informed recently, here, that "female" is now seen as derogatory
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It sounds like you failed to understand what was being communicated to you, SW.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Which words? Which thoughts? Come on. Be specific.
I think it's most often situational and within particular contexts. And perhaps certain people.
I have a college friend who still lives up north whom, I'm pretty sure, thinks I'm a bigot because I am religious, live in Tennessee, and read Orson Scott Card. He flipped and all but called me a homophobe when he found out I was going to see "Ender's Game", which he had boycotted. Come to think of it we haven't really talked much if at all since then. I'm partly to blame for that as well.
I don't know as that's a good example either. Although, it does fall in line with the discussion we had above about thinking globally. Ender's Game, the book, had such a profound effect on me as a teenager (to the extent that I was even nicknamed Ender) that there was no way I wasn't going to see the film adaptation of it. And, as it is, what I take from the messages of that book are NOT what my friend focused on as regards the author (that's a different debate which I'm sure has been had on here ad nauseum). Plus, I work in the film industry... so it's not as simple as saying "seeing this movie supports the author of the book it was adapted from". It ALSO (or entirely apart from) supports MANY MANY MANY other hardworking folk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You keep sidling away from it but I know you can get there.
Which situation? Which people? What kinds of words and thoughts?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It sounds like you failed to understand what was being communicated to you, SW.
Wouldn't be the first time
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You keep sidling away from it but I know you can get there.
Which situation? Which people? What kinds of words and thoughts?
Hmmm...
Well... I can't speak for other peoples' definition of it. And I'm not sure how to properly define it.
But here's a for-instance experience. We'll see if it's anywhere near what we're talking about.
I have gay friends and black friends, and as part of how we talk to each other, we dig into each other - we tell racial jokes back and forth. I'll make gay jokes or black jokes and, believe it or not, my gay friends will make straight jokes (very clever ones at that) and my black friends will make white jokes. I consider myself not "PC" in that way. I'm not looking to insult anyone (and I apologize when I do) - I just have a particular sense of humor. Usually racy, usually dark, definitely absurd.
Within our group, that's fine. I would suspect because we know each others' intents and our hearts. We know who we are and where we're coming from.
Were I to say something like that in public, I'd be branded a racist and probably be held accountable for even THINKING like that. My friends MIGHT be held accountable if they did the same thing, but I doubt it. I'm white. They're either not white or they're gay. There's a double standard aspect to it.
To be clear, I'm NOT suggesting everyone must like my sense of humor, and I'm also NOT AT ALL saying people must not be offended by it just because it's a joke. But by the same token, I would hope that if I'm expected to apologize for offending someone (as I should) then the offended person might take a second to look past what offended them rather than just cast me off. I don't want to offend people, I want to make people feel good.
Though, to be honest, I didn't start feeling good about myself until people started taking the piss out of me. Made me start to get comfortable in my skin. I get not everyone is that way and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It sounds like you failed to understand what was being communicated to you, SW.
Wouldn't be the first time
^ Me all the time. Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
"Forget about all that. Forget about grace and graciousness. Forget about niceness. Forget about kindness, civility and charity. It’d be great if those could come along later, but they’ll have to wait. None of those matters a bit right now because none of those is what’s missing right now. What’s missing right now is the bare minimum, the essential first-step starting point of simple legal equality — simple human equality. I don’t care if Scott grants it churlishly, spitefully or reluctantly, but until she grants that then all her talk of graciousness, kindness and civility is empty talk and clanging cymbals."
The concern trolling is real.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is a good definition of "PC Culture". "PC Culture" is when you can no longer demean or disrespect people out loud because of their race, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, and so forth without other people disapproving of it. When people complain about "PC Culture" what they really mean is that they want to be able to insult other people yet still be considered nice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not always, I wouldn't say. But quite often.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here is a good definition of "PC Culture". "PC Culture" is when you can no longer demean or disrespect people out loud because of their race, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, and so forth without other people disapproving of it. When people complain about "PC Culture" what they really mean is that they want to be able to insult other people yet still be considered nice.
Okay, this is a fair definition of how people should act. I mean I think we all would agree with that.
Though, I would argue, the true definition should be that it's not okay to demean or disrespect ANYONE out loud because of ANYTHING. Otherwise you leave room open to be able to choose who it's okay to demean or disrespect and for what reason you get to do so. Who gets to decide that? In those circumstances, why is it okay to demean one person and not another?
Beyond that my experience with PC Culture has extended beyond simply disapproving of out-loud disrespect of the above-described people.
In some cases it's not enough that you don't say it, you can't think it either.
In some cases your intent doesn't matter, you're still demonized and branded as a racist.
I'm a Christian. I get branded a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron and all kinds of demeaning things simply because I believe in Christ, by the same people who would otherwise back up your definition. When you say you can't demean someone because of their religion, I wholeheartedly agree, but even then it appears that in many cases it depends on what religion you are.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are likely people out there not happy with the PC thing because they don't GET to be demeaning. And I do think people should be held accountable for demeaning acts. But there is still a hypocrisy in the behavior of many people who stand behind Political Correctness, and in fact, I would argue, a group of people who use this as an excuse to demean and disrespect other people THEY don't like. While that would otherwise be considered a generalization I would note again that I've actually experienced it. Is that fair to say?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I get branded a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron and all kinds of demeaning things simply because I believe in Christ...
I doubt that. Are there things you believe that ARE bigoted and backward, that you blame on your belief in Christ?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But there is still a hypocrisy in the behavior of many people who stand behind Political Correctness, and in fact, I would argue, a group of people who use this as an excuse to demean and disrespect other people THEY don't like.
QFT
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would agree that it should extend to everyone, but the "PC Culture" that people generally decry is mostly concerned with not being able to be as racist, sexist, anti-gay...and so forth.
How do people know what you are thinking? And why do you want to be thinking those things?
Why should intent matter? The insult is the same. The damage is the same. If the insult is unintentional, the remedy is to learn rather than defend your right to remain ignorant and insulting.
I am Christian, too. People do not brand me a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron. At least not because I am a Christian. Where do you think the difference might be?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:But there is still a hypocrisy in the behavior of many people who stand behind Political Correctness, and in fact, I would argue, a group of people who use this as an excuse to demean and disrespect other people THEY don't like.
QFT
Do they not like those people because those people are racist, sexist, or generally insulting? If not, how are they applying "PC"?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But but but we hate and demean and ostracize and disenfranchise for a GOOD reason!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do they not like those people because those people are racist, sexist, or generally insulting? If not, how are they applying "PC"?
I said for a good reason boots...I said that part...after you posted, sorry, got confused Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I get branded a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron and all kinds of demeaning things simply because I believe in Christ...
I doubt that. Are there things you believe that ARE bigoted and backward, that you blame on your belief in Christ?
No not at all. Not that I observe anyway. I believe in Love, Compassion and Joy. I get that from my take on Christ (and I understand not everyone's take is going to be the same... but that's also part of the point). And, to be clear, this is before I've even opened my mouth about anything apart from believing in Christ.
What I glean from this is that the people that call me the above things believe that people who believe in Christ are bigots, backwards, etc... And since I claim to associate with Christ they in turn associate me with those people.
To the extent that, yeah, there are some pretty not-cool Christians out there, I understand it. It's easy to say that "if you are a Christian you must also hate gays like these other Christians do." It hurts that someone isn't willing to hear out that that might be who THEY are but that's not who _I_ am.
And in the same breath an atheist acquaintance will basically insult my intelligence for my belief in a God but turn around and say "hey have some respect and leave this Muslim alone." (to be clear, they aren't talking to me... I have respect for all beliefs).
My experience has been bad enough that it took me years before I had the courage to write my God Jots blog. EVEN here in Tennessee I don't often talk about my faith unless I'm in the right room. (to be fair though, the latter is not just because of attacks from atheists but also because of people who don't think I'm "religious enough").
Mind you, I understand that these are outliers. I think the general PC populace genuinely just wants to defend whom they see as the downtrodden or marginalized and that's great! I mean, shit... isn't that what Jesus did?
But to ignore that there are people WITHIN the PC populace who use it to hate isn't any better than ignoring true bigotry within, say, even Christiandom. And, trust me, I don't ignore that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you understand the difference between disliking a person because of their own actions and demeaning a person because they belong to a particular racial or religious group, gender, sexuality, or have a particular disability?
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would agree that it should extend to everyone, but the "PC Culture" that people generally decry is mostly concerned with not being able to be as racist, sexist, anti-gay...and so forth.
How do people know what you are thinking? And why do you want to be thinking those things?
Why should intent matter? The insult is the same. The damage is the same. If the insult is unintentional, the remedy is to learn rather than defend your right to remain ignorant and insulting.
I am Christian, too. People do not brand me a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron. At least not because I am a Christian. Where do you think the difference might be?
I agree that the offender should learn why what they said was offensive, however, I also believe Compassion is a two-way street. This is not to say that the offended must necessarily learn why the offender is a racist or bigot or-what-have-you, but to the extent that perhaps they should determine whether or not the offense was intentional or meant in the way it was heard is worth exploring.
And as an aside, what if the offender genuinely didn't know something was offensive? It's entirely plausible someone from, say, Florida, could say something completely offensive to someone in Alaska and have no idea it would be so. Once that's made clear shouldn't there be a reciprocation of understanding?
Offense - not always, and probably not even most often - can potentially be a matter of perception. Not everyone is going to know everything that could be offensive to any given person. I think a little bit of leeway should be given there (depending on the voracity of the insult, of course).
As for the difference (in terms of you not being called those things and me being called them)? Beats me. I can only tell you my experience. And unfortunately, I don't get enough face time with those people to be able to figure out why. I mean, again, I can be a pretentious prick sometimes but... that's not a Christ thing ;P
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you understand the difference between disliking a person because of their own actions and demeaning a person because they belong to a particular racial or religious group, gender, sexuality, or have a particular disability?
Of course I do. I don't understand what, within anything I've said, implies anything contrary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When you are not the one insulted, you are not the one who gets to set the terms for "leeway". When you insult someone unintentionally, the correct response is to apologize and not do it again, not double-down and make it the problem of the person you offended.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But but but we hate and demean and ostracize and disenfranchise for a GOOD reason!
Was that not meant as sarcasm?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That question might have been aimed at me?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm pointing out that the end behaviors have similarities between bigots and PC right fighters, although I acknowledge the motivations are literally opposed.
So...um...no, not sarcasm at all
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When you are not the one insulted, you are not the one who gets to set the terms for "leeway". When you insult someone unintentionally, the correct response is to apologize and not do it again, not double-down and make it the problem of the person you offended.
I... said pretty much the same thing. Where in the world did I say anything about the offender making anything the problem of the offended person? Or to "double-down"?
I mean... do you think I'm suggesting that once the offender apologizes they say to the offended "okay now it's your turn"? That would be silly.
It's up to the offended what they do next. And no one says they have to do ANYTHING.
In MY case, depending on the severity of the insult, I would want to make sure I know exactly what was said or the intent behind it before I turn it into something it's not. For me, if nothing else, a lot of that comes from the fact that I don't want to be mischaracterized, thus I'm willing to give someone the same benefit of the doubt that I would hope someone would give me. I just can't expect someone to give that to me if I'm not going to give it to someone else. But that's me. That's not everyone and I didn't say it had to be.
And, by the way (had to edit this, sorry) I imagine I would fail at all of this miserably in the moment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why should intent matter? The insult is the same. The damage is the same. If the insult is unintentional, the remedy is to learn rather than defend your right to remain ignorant and insulting.
I disagree w/ this strongly...intent always matters, and ignorance of other's culture is not a sin nor is the damage "the same". Some people are impossible not to offend. It seems like your views are so black & white
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Everybody judges others by their actions and themselves by their intentions, that's just how the world works.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Everybody judges others by their actions and themselves by their intentions, that's just how the world works.
Pretty spot on!
But does it HAVE to be that way? I suppose that's kind of a major root of what I'm getting at here. I mean, is there anything that can be done about it?
I take a very CS Lewis-ian approach to the concept of "love thy neighbor". It's not "do unto those as you would have done to you" it's more "do unto those as if they WERE you".
So, in other words, when I do something stupid, or say something stupid, sure I chastise myself for saying that stupid thing, but I also ultimately forgive myself because I know my intent. Thus, if I'm to love my neighbor as if they were me (or I were them) then I must get at the intent.
Yes, easier said than done. I fail miserably. And thus we are back to square one, with your above quote.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
I'm in the mood for a Guinness. I need a Guinness break. Anyone else?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Better still, do unto others as they would have you do unto them - or leave them alone. For example, I do not like Guinness (unlike the vast majority of my friends) but I do like cider. So if someone gives me a Guinness once, I appreciate the gesture but explain I prefer cider. No harm. If he persists in getting me Guinness or, say, mocks people who don't drink Guinness, or lobbies for the pub to only carry Guinness - well, at some point I will consider him a jerk. That is a reflection on his behavior, not on the fact that he is a Guinness drinker.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course it's ok to disrespect a given person for some actions.
quote:I'm a Christian. I get branded a bigot, an idiot, a backwards moron and all kinds of demeaning things simply because I believe in Christ, by the same people who would otherwise back up your definition. When you say you can't demean someone because of their religion, I wholeheartedly agree, but even then it appears that in many cases it depends on what religion you are.
Those I don't doubt this has happened to you I'll be blunt: that is not a thorough review of what 'being a Christian' has meant to you, in the United States, with respect to 'how I am treated by others'. How many Christian presidents have there been? Members of the House and Senate? Governors, mayors, city councilors, etc. How much of an onus are we *really* meant to believe saying 'I'm a member of the biggest religion on the continent'? Much Iess *Tennessee*?
So no. Unless you happened to grow up in some sort of radical communist commune, while I don't doubt that from time to time you experience negativity related to your faith-particularly given your approach if this thread is a judge-overall it's been a plus. Unless we're talking about sectarian disapproval in which case guess what? PC liberals ain't the problem.
For example: that atheist who says 'lay off the Muslim'? Smart money says he thinks you're just as dumb as that Muslim, and what was the context when she told you to lay off the Muslim anyway?
You're pretending to an objectivity and disinterest in taking a side that you're simply not exhibiting. I don't mind you picking a side, but the part where you lecture as though you had the moral authority of distance and objectivity can grate over time.
And as for not saying 'the offended' need to do anything? Cmon man sure you are. They need to be more compassionate, right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Everybody judges others by their actions and themselves by their intentions, that's just how the world works.
Quotable!...is this original?
quote:Originally posted by Ender Bowen: I'm in the mood for a Guinness. I need a Guinness break. Anyone else?
I'll toke a (fully legal) bong in your honor.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Better still, do unto others as they would have you do unto them - or leave them alone. For example, I do not like Guinness (unlike the vast majority of my friends) but I do like cider. So if someone gives me a Guinness once, I appreciate the gesture but explain I prefer cider. No harm. If he persists in getting me Guinness or, say, mocks people who don't drink Guinness, or lobbies for the pub to only carry Guinness - well, at some point I will consider him a jerk. That is a reflection on his behavior, not on the fact that he is a Guinness drinker.
This is an awesome allegory! Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: [qb] Everybody judges others by their actions and themselves by their intentions, that's just how the world works.
Quotable!...is this original?
Absolutely not. It's been going around the internet for a while in my usual circles.
It's a good line
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Better still, do unto others as they would have you do unto them - or leave them alone. For example, I do not like Guinness (unlike the vast majority of my friends) but I do like cider. So if someone gives me a Guinness once, I appreciate the gesture but explain I prefer cider. No harm. If he persists in getting me Guinness or, say, mocks people who don't drink Guinness, or lobbies for the pub to only carry Guinness - well, at some point I will consider him a jerk. That is a reflection on his behavior, not on the fact that he is a Guinness drinker.
This is an awesome allegory!
Now I want Guinness *and* cider. Though not at the same time. And preferably with a palate cleanser between them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I like both too!
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Ender, welcome to the board. I like the cut of your jib. You've done a much more eloquent job of explaining this viewpoint then I've managed to do these last few weeks.I agree with pretty much all you've said.
As an aside, I think it's silly to mock people for voting Trump because he's like them/represents them and he's a billionaire. (Supposedly.)
He wasn't supposed to represent them on a basis of socioeconomic status. He was supposed to represent them because he wasn't a politician. Had never been one. These people, rightly or wrongly, blame their ills on the government, and have very strong dislike and distrust for anyone connected to it. The longer they've been in, the greater the dislike.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except you only take it one step, and neglect the part that makes this supposed reason less credible. One of the chief reasons Washington is messed up, it is widely accepted, is that politicians are bought by special interests.
Donald Trump spent his life as a special interest. So why should anyone credit the claim 'he'll punish Washington in the nose!' as a reason for supporting him if he represented one of the exact reasons people want to punch Washington in the nose?
Yes, anger with Washington is a big part of it, no doubt. But if the supposed solution to Washington corruption chosen by many voters is one of the crassest epitomes of the ones doing the corrupting, then I start to wonder how many other reasons there are. Especially if he campaigned on them for over a year.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cutting out the middle man?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I dunno. People talking like that kind of sound like those who criticize Warren Buffet because he says that rich people should pay more taxes, whilst he doesn't pay much tax because of the insanely low tax rates on the rich.
Going from a devils advocate position, if the game rules are rigged, you can't blame the player for doing what it takes to stay competitive with others playing the game.
Trump flat out said that he had taken advantage of the loopholes, that they were wrong, and that they needed to be stopped. Again, compare to Buffet.
Whether it was wise to take him at his word or not is another matter.
Posted by Ender Bowen (Member # 13481) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Better still, do unto others as they would have you do unto them - or leave them alone. For example, I do not like Guinness (unlike the vast majority of my friends) but I do like cider. So if someone gives me a Guinness once, I appreciate the gesture but explain I prefer cider. No harm. If he persists in getting me Guinness or, say, mocks people who don't drink Guinness, or lobbies for the pub to only carry Guinness - well, at some point I will consider him a jerk. That is a reflection on his behavior, not on the fact that he is a Guinness drinker.
This is an awesome allegory!
Now I want Guinness *and* cider. Though not at the same time. And preferably with a palate cleanser between them.
Have you ever done them both together like a Black and Tan? I think in some places it's called a Black Velvet. It doesn't seem like it should work but it's surprisingly good!
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." -Retired General James Mattis (possibly our next Secretary of Defense)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Where do you think the difference might be?