posted
I'm under no obligation to accept your definition of inappropriate, nor to accept your demands that I stop.
Nevertheless, I'm tapping out. I'm just a big meanie and you're just a victim. Whatever gets you through the day.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and for the record, the phrase was oversensitive, passive aggressive manchild.
You are oversensitive.
You are passive aggressive.
To me, at least, these characterisitics are childish.
And whatever problems you might have don't buy you a pass from people pointing that out when you bring those traits to a public message board.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang. You're rather more active now when it's time to lecture others about how unfair they're being than you were actually addressing arguments (or even making them, which you didn't do much of at all).
I am sorry things are bad for you. Which sounds like an understatement. And without a context, I wouldn't say things like the first paragraph. Except that it's consistent. You've always had more to say about people being 'mean' to you (such as Dogbreath, for pity's sake) than you do to defend your arguments or criticize others. And no, pointing out that you feel super nice towards everyone isn't actually an argument.
If I were to ask you 'please stop ignoring challenges and actually address them with rebuttals, or else admit up front that you don't know much about subject x', somehow I don't think you'd be receptive. Even to this point, after 'connection to the infinite', after Irish and African-Americans, after 'gay rights wouldn't be where it was it not for people like me' it's a nonsense non-admission of 'I'm not perfect'.
You don't treat people with respect, and so in a surprise to no one you aren't getting it in return. Except that you are, actually, from at least two of the people whom you've maligned as 'combative' and 'dark and angry'. You appear to think that your own self-perceived good intentions are all that's required for your position to be above reproach.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: I'm under no obligation to accept your definition of inappropriate, nor to accept your demands that I stop.
Nevertheless, I'm tapping out. I'm just a big meanie and you're just a victim. Whatever gets you through the day.
Just FYI...you are obligated...or at least...in violation of the tos. I could ask BB to step in and ask you to stop. I haven't...but I could. But as you say you are tapping out..all of that is unnecessary...
I'm not a victim. Worked hard to become not one.
Stay topical & not personal & you won't have a problem with me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I really am not obligated, as you will no doubt find out the next time I feel inclined to point out you shitting all over a good discussion.
Although I'm guessing by that point you'll be able to clarify for us that what you MEANT to say was that I should FEEL obligated, and so you were never incorrect.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not a threat to leave...trying not to be bossy...if I were you.
Do you have a habit of calling women bossy when they happen to be right, or just kmbboots?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As to my voting...since our previous conversation I have registered to vote and will be participating (not in presidential ).
If you're being honest now, then good for you. Seriously. Being politically active and informed is a big step forward.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You can be right.
I'll be happy...over here.
You do not seem very happy.
But ignoring that for a second, do you think that choosing to remain willfully ignorant about how damaging and destructive your views about marriage are - and the deleterious repercussions thereof - is justified because it maximizes your personal happiness? Because if so, then that's contemptible.
posted
Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro-family would do it, but again, things that are regarded as universally good or nearly so are pretty much never described as 'pro-x'.
And when they are, there is almost always an agenda involved that is less direct. 'Pro-life' for example. It's not as though there are many death cults operating in American politics, for example, and so pro-life while technically accurate is also an attempt to brand the opposition. Not unlike 'pro-choice'. 'Pro-freedom' is the sort of thing people say when they're drumming up support for something that could be considered controversial.
Consider times when 'pro-x' is used when there *isn't* a political agenda that is geared against *something*, and see if you can think of one as used in American politics today. Not idiosyncratic usage that is more or less useless when discussing with others.
Also consider how strange it sounds to describe something universally approved of that way. 'I am anti-murder' or 'pro-cures for disease' or 'anti-fair trials' or 'pro-literacy for children' or 'anti-clean air'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also? In the United States, 'traditional family' has a pretty well-defined set of meanings and it's silly at best and disingenuous at worst to say that and be surprised when other people identify the commonly used meaning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what the hell, I'll try again: in a context where a word or phrase has an accepted meaning-such as 'pro-family' in the United States*-then it's not unreasonable to think that using a few extra words to clarify might be appropriate.
Then again, that's coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that doing nothing-not even voting-and thinking nice thoughts means one should get some credit for gay rights in this country.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nothing to say (again) on usage of pro- and anti-in the context of American discussions about culture and politics, eh?
Oh! Sorry, I misread the name. Hello, Stone_Wolf.
I acknowledge your apparent opinion that to be "pro" obviously good things is redundant, childish or stupid. I still feel that way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But what the hell, I'll try again: in a context where a word or phrase has an accepted meaning-such as 'pro-family' in the United States*-then it's not unreasonable to think that using a few extra words to clarify might be appropriate.
Then again, that's coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that doing nothing-not even voting-and thinking nice thoughts means one should get some credit for gay rights in this country.
A few extra words such as?
I acknowledge your apparent opinion that I am lazy or privileged or in general a bad person.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I acknowledge your apparent opinion that to be "pro" obviously good things is redundant...
Imagine it in this context:
A: "Motorcycles should be considered vehicles, even though they have two wheels." B: "No, they shouldn't. Only four-wheeled contraptions are vehicles. In fact, two-wheeled whatsoevers are blatantly unstable and shouldn't be allowed on the roads." A: "God, that's narrow-minded. Hundreds of thousands of people own motorcycles and use them for transportation. They're clearly vehicles." C: "I am a fan of traditional vehicles because I like hauling lots of cargo in my truck. My daddy owned a truck, and so did my granddaddy. Someday, I hope my son will own a four-wheeled vehicle. Also, calling people who like traditional vehicles narrow-minded hurts my feelings, because everyone in my family loves traditional vehicles."
You are C. Your statements -- taken in complete isolation -- are non-controversial. In context, however, it is very difficult to read them as anything but support for B's position, unless you take care to explicitly support A's position while doing so.
You can ignore context here because it genuinely doesn't matter to you; since Hypothetical You owns a truck, you don't care one way or another whether a motorcycle is considered a vehicle. But to people who have learned the hard way that voiced support for "traditional" vehicles -- especially when that support is based on tradition itself -- is usually dog-whistle for opposition to motorcycles, your phrasing is problematic at best.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're like someone who calls themselves pro-life because they enjoy being alive and is shocked, simply shocked, that anyone would assume that meant you had a particular position on abortion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
got it in one
"protecting traditional marriage" is the vapor-thin front of legitimacy combed over people's bigoted quest to hamper gays because they are people who think gay people are gross and weird and they do not want them to have equal legitimacy to heterosexuals in our civilization
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're like someone who calls themselves pro-life because they enjoy being alive and is shocked, simply shocked, that anyone would assume that meant you had a particular position on abortion.
I'm pro human...since I made that up...there is no way (that I'm aware of) to mistake that stance w...anything else.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
Yeah man, it reminds me of how after that "support marriage equality" equals sign thing became a trend on Facebook, a bunch of folks began sharing equal signs made out of a figure of a man and woman (hilariously enough, the same ones you would see on bathroom doors) with things like "share this if you support traditional marriage!" or "support straight marriage" and so on.
Anyways, there was a lot of this horseshit going on back then, too. People would get called on it and say things like "why is it ok to support gay marriage but not traditional marriage?" or "if you can support gay marriage, why can't I support straight marriage?" All while pretty transparently ripping off a symbol of marriage equality to express their disagreement with it.
It reminds me of how for a while after people started saying "black lives matter", some white people in response started saying "all lives matter" and were shocked, just shocked, that anyone would find that offensive.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree..."protecting traditional marrage" & similar catch phrases are a thin sham when what they really mean is either (but not both) "I'm straight & am REALLY into it" (and do not understand that by gathering behind a pacific flag, we are being shepherded by bigots) or "I am against SSM & want to actually oppress them but not feel like a bigot."
But "All Lives Matter." is hardly offensive...in and of itself...because all life does.
So please explain (nicely) where the rub is...as I'm not seeing it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All lives of course matter. No one disputes that. But the purpose of BLM is that we have a criminal justice system, and a lot of other systems, that behaves as if white lives matter more than black lives. There was a good analogy I think I read either here or Sakeriver that goes:
A boy sits down to eat dinner with his family. The father proceeds to serve food to everyone except for him. As the family begins to eat, the boy exclaims, "I need food!" The father corrects him, "Everyone needs food," and proceeds to eat dinner.
I probably butchered the story but I think it gets the point across.
Basically, it goes back to the whole context thing that's been repeatedly explained here.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been explained, nicely and crossly, more than once. The answer is that it's *not* 'in and of itself'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can agree..."protecting traditional marrage" & similar catch phrases are a thin sham when what they really mean is either (but not both) "I'm straight & am REALLY into it" (and do not understand that by gathering behind a pacific flag, we are being shepherded by bigots) or "I am against SSM & want to actually oppress them but not feel like a bigot."
But "All Lives Matter." is hardly offensive...in and of itself...because all life does.
So please explain (nicely) where the rub is...as I'm not seeing it.
Ok, let's try the Socratic method here, Stone Wolf.
1) Why do people say "black lives matter"? What events happened, or social or cultural factors exist, that would make someone feel like it's necessary to point out that yes, black lives do matter?
------
Now, and this is crucial for you to understand for the next part: "all lives matter" did not exist as a phrase before "black lives matter" did. That's not speculation or opinion, that's hard statistical data. The first occurrences of people saying "all lives matter" as a phrase started roughly one month after "black lives matter" came into existence.
------
2) Why do people say "all lives matter"? Consider that the saying sprung in existence as a very clear and direct corollary of "black lives matter", and as a challenge to it.
3) Have you ever been in a situation where you tell someone that you have a specific problem, and in response they reply "everyone has problems!" Do you feel that they are merely waxing philosophical about the vicissitudes of life, or do you feel that they are specifically saying that to downplay, marginalize, and/or ignore your problem?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, thanks for reiterating what you and about a half dozen other people have explained at least once each already, Dogbreath.
It's also interesting to note that *that*, it seems, is your standard for 'nice' when it comes from Dogbreath: he needs to be completely polite when offering an explanation you've repeatedly ignored-and criticized him for offering-in the past. That ain't 'nice', that's some of that unending patience Gaal was referring to. Hell, by the standards of the Internet it's goddamned saintly.
Anyway, what is still confusing? Some political groups are appropriating a term used by groups who are often their opponents and using it against them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: zlog, the difficulty here is that you consistently seem to be permitting gay rights activism to be symbolized by the most radical activists. Which if you want to do that, that's fine. But here in the United States at least and I suspect also in Brazil, gay rights far left radicals are much fewer in number and power, and generally less in awfulness, than their far right counterparts.
It makes sense, well a heavy load of sense. I have been thinking and reading about this a lot. Statistically speaking the number of gay radical activists is considerably very low, I have always known that. It feels very stupid of my part specially because I believed that tiny bits represented the actual majority of the activists.
posted
Not at all stupid, zlog. In fact it is one of the most common mistakes in politics, one I'm guilty of as well. I think I alluded to it earlier in this thread: even on issues where one only partly disagrees, it is easy for the loudest and most provocative voice to be the one you hear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: zlog, the difficulty here is that you consistently seem to be permitting gay rights activism to be symbolized by the most radical activists. Which if you want to do that, that's fine. But here in the United States at least and I suspect also in Brazil, gay rights far left radicals are much fewer in number and power, and generally less in awfulness, than their far right counterparts.
It makes sense, well a heavy load of sense. I have been thinking and reading about this a lot. Statistically speaking the number of gay radical activists is considerably very low, I have always known that. It feels very stupid of my part specially because I believed that tiny bits represented the actual majority of the activists.
Apologizes.
The ability to take in views and information that don't match your own, and to honestly consider them, is a pretty rare trait. Good on you.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the phrase had been "Black lives matter too" if there would have been all this uproar?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It would have taken a different route, but yes. Because the people who need that explained-that 'Black Lives Matter' is not implicitly or explicitly a statement of 'Black Lives Matter More'-are the ones who either didn't recognize there was a problem already, or didn't care.
Example of an easy response from someone who didn't care or wasn't informed before to 'Black Lives Matter Too': "Well yeah, no one said they didn't. Anyway I don't see color and we're more or less past racism as a problem in the United States anyway, right?"
The phrasing isn't the problem. And in any event, it was designed to cause an uproar. It was designed to be provocative. It was designed in fact with one of its goals being to startle people who believe that as long as they do not consciously hold racist thoughts in their minds, they aren't part of a problem with race in this country.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes. It would have taken a different route, but yes. Because the people who need that explained-that 'Black Lives Matter' is not implicitly or explicitly a statement of 'Black Lives Matter More'-are the ones who either didn't recognize there was a problem already, or didn't care.
Example of an easy response from someone who didn't care or wasn't informed before to 'Black Lives Matter Too': "Well yeah, no one said they didn't. Anyway I don't see color and we're more or less past racism as a problem in the United States anyway, right?"
The phrasing isn't the problem. And in any event, it was designed to cause an uproar. It was designed to be provocative. It was designed in fact with one of its goals being to startle people who believe that as long as they do not consciously hold racist thoughts in their minds, they aren't part of a problem with race in this country.
All very interesting.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...read the WP article...very enlightening on the origin & purpose of the phrase.
Two things come to mind.
A. Drug & prostitution laws are some BULLSHIT!
B. My father instructed me on how to act when pulled over...in his words "here's what you do to not get shot..." Open all windows, turn off your car, put your keys on the dashboard, keep your hands in plain sight at all times, no sudden movements, keep your hands on the wheel or atop your head, never reach for anything w/o asking permission, always be up front about what you got/did, be respectful & call them "sir" "deputy" "officer" etc. He told me this at age 15...in MN...we had one black person in our county...he was a preacher...not in our town...he lived in the county seat...30 min away.
Anyway. Cops are dangerous...always have been...likely to always be.
I really love the use of tazers & pepperspray. Had those cops in that article been too quick w non lethal weapons then such catch phrases would not be nessecary. Maybe like..."black eyes matter" from the exessive mace in the face.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
Here in Brazil you need to follow B instructions when you are under a gun pointed by a criminal. You have then 50% chance of not being killed if you do that.
Unless you are a cop, criminals kill policemen without asking anything even in front of his family.
Usually the criminal does not need to worry if he/she is under 17 because not matter what crime was committedeven the president will come in his/her defense.
If the criminal is above 18 and if he is caught he/she can be free in less than 5 years on parole for good behavior.
If the criminal has family, every family member receives around 500 dollars per member while he/she is jail.
posted
Thanks for taking the time to get a little caught up on context.
The drug laws we have were put in place pretty much to keep black people and hippies in jail and not voting.
I'm glad that your father gave you some instruction but these weren't all traffic stops. Even for those that were, you have to bear in mind that the urban black population is accustomed to different treatment from the police. Being meek is not a guarantee of safety. And sometimes people just have their fill of having to be meek in the face of injustice and aggression.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Okay...read the WP article...very enlightening on the origin & purpose of the phrase.
Two things come to mind.
A. Drug & prostitution laws are some BULLSHIT!
B. My father instructed me on how to act when pulled over...in his words "here's what you do to not get shot..." Open all windows, turn off your car, put your keys on the dashboard, keep your hands in plain sight at all times, no sudden movements, keep your hands on the wheel or atop your head, never reach for anything w/o asking permission, always be up front about what you got/did, be respectful & call them "sir" "deputy" "officer" etc. He told me this at age 15...in MN...we had one black person in our county...he was a preacher...not in our town...he lived in the county seat...30 min away.
Anyway. Cops are dangerous...always have been...likely to always be.
I really love the use of tazers & pepperspray. Had those cops in that article been too quick w non lethal weapons then such catch phrases would not be nessecary. Maybe like..."black eyes matter" from the exessive mace in the face.
Being rude to a police officer should not result in being beaten or thrown in detention.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
quote:]Being rude to a police officer should not result in being beaten or thrown in detention.
posted
The cops in the UK are tremendous. I actually feel comfortable walking up to one on the street and asking them for help/directions.
The way I describe US police to people here is like this. Anytime you meet a cop, pretend like you're meeting a strange dog. Most dogs are lovely, but there's a small amount that are just dangerous to anyone they meet, and you can't tell the difference by looking at them.
Make no sudden moves and try not to startle them. Even a nice dog will bite out of reflex I'd they're scared.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to live in a world where police in the US don't need to carry guns, but if you take them away then they might as well be mall security guards. There are just too many firearms in the hands of citizens, criminal and otherwise.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
And yes Elison...I agree...however keep in mind a cop has no idea what he is walking up on. Their soft vests are SO EASY to overcome...any medium power rifle round & some hand gun rounds go through their vests like butter...
The danger to them is real...but I still agree that any used of lethal weapons/beating are just stupid.
Tazers & mace & sufficient for most things & it just boggles my mind that cops are willing to shoot first and ask questions latter in this day and age!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: I would like to live in a world where police in the US don't need to carry guns, but if you take them away then they might as well be mall security guards. There are just too many firearms in the hands of citizens, criminal and otherwise.
Perhaps a steel plate & a helmet but only oc & tazers on their belts...guns are in the car...easy to get to...but not used on first contact. Same w night sticks. Just like they do w the long guns now (shotgun & ar15 are pretty standard equipment where I am I CA.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So recently, a cop sees a man walking down the highway and stops to see what's up. The man let's him get close, then pulls out the knife he had hidden (which police suspect had already been used to murder someone) and goes for the cop. Cop pulls his weapon and shoots the guy center mass. Guy goes down, and then almost immediately stands back up and keeps coming.
To the cop's credit, he backed up and tried to calm him down. But I don't have any problems with the first shot fired, and wouldn't have had any if he had finished the guy when he kept coming.
The police need more oversight. They need better training and a high level of accountability for the times that they feel justified using force.
What they do not need is to be made more vulnerable. Police already die. Like, a lot of them.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
