faithful_servant
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,533
- Reaction score
- 5,660
- Location
- Beautiful Central Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So it is more important to you to deny that some groups of people are targeted than it is to concede that I may have had a point? Congratulations, you just made my point for me.
And for the record, don't even think of trying to patronize me as an "SJW" at least until I get my first threat of death, rape, or other form of violence. Which I haven't yet.
2. The specific people in the democrat party who engage in divisiveness are generally no-name left-wing loons who not even democrats respect, with a few exceptions. On the other hand, the specific people engaging in divisiveness in the republican party are some of the most influential people in the GOP. Highly influential pundits and media outlets with tens of millions of followers who live on their every word, officials elected to high office, etc. In my opinion, you cannot compare the 2 and remain honest.
Is it OK to show contempt or hatred to people outside of " people who are systematically discriminated against"?? Based on your post, I would come to the conclusion that's what you would believe... If I'm wrong, then would you mind clarifying why it was that were so specific about limiting your comment to "people who are systematically discriminated against" and not applying that standard to everyone???
I never denied anything.
Why did you limit your comment to just "people who are systematically discriminated against", instead of everyone. Is it OK to show contempt or hatred to people outside of " people who are systematically discriminated against"?? Based on your post, I would come to the conclusion that's what you would believe... If I'm wrong, then would you mind clarifying why it was that were so specific about limiting your comment to "people who are systematically discriminated against" and not applying that standard to everyone???
Actually, some groups of people have to realize that while everyone is equal, they are less equal then others. In http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/253513-hate-speech.html , Phys251 explains that some hate speech is just satire and anyone who objects is angry/emotional/etc.
If you and faithful servant want to make this thread about me instead of the topic at hand, I would not object in the slightest. Of course, not everyone may hold the same opinion as that.
One of my major points of contention with President Obama has been how divisive he has been, starting on the campaign trail in 2008 and only gaining momentum every year. Republicans surely share some of the blame for the political climate of the last eight years, but President Obama is hardly blameless. Quite to the contrary, in fact, so much so that I don't remember who shot first anymore. I don't see it as a name-brand problem in the GOP only, not when the holder of the highest office engages in the worst sort of divisive rhetoric at seemingly every chance he has. In fact, it seems that all of the power players in the Democratic Party have been on a brutal political offensive since around 2006. And I'm not excusing the Republicans by any stretch with that observation, but I'm not going to say they're worse at it when the Democrats are swinging just as hard, just as often, and just as far below the belt.
It's kind of like observing bias in the media and claiming "yeah, they're all bad, but [x] is worse," when they are all pretty terrible on the same level.
If you are reasonable, I don't care about your politics. If you are a nut job- right wing or left wing- I will hold it against you.
Absolutely, especially if they are rabid pro-life or intolerably Politically Correct... stuff like that.
I think this is a little more complicated than it looks in the current climate, where things that have been considered moral and not political issues for 100 years are suddenly back in the "political" camp.
I definitely judge people for some of the positively Victorian things that are coming back into vogue. You will never be able to convince me that people who want segregation back and to put into place government-funded torture of minors just have a "difference of politics." They have a difference of fundamental morality.
Just because we call it "political" doesn't mean it is. Political is economics, military, internal spending -- infrastructure, healthcare, what level of government gets to govern X? But the sorts of things above are not political, and I refuse to lend them more validity than they deserve by pretending otherwise.
It is very en vogue to prove that you're cool by being ok with anything and everything, as long as it's someone's opinion, moral compass be damned. Can't have someone thinking you're a square with actual convictions, who thinks protecting vulnerable questioning 13-year-olds is more important than getting brownie points from some stranger. Well, I have standards. Proud to be an un-cool, judgy asshole with a moral compass.
Poll incoming.
:roll:
Carry on, X.
Eh, just a joke. I notice you mention morals which, I think, is interesting. We all pretty much want our morals made into laws that force others to adhere to them, don't we? Those who would be all, "I'd never try to force my morals on someone else" are full of it.
Not necessarily. Most things we have considered to be political in most of the last century, which is the era where we stopped thinking it's ok to treat others are non-human, is not so much a question of morals as it is a question of theory. We debate morals in terms of what we should be like as a culture and a society, but not so much in terms of what should be law.
In the last 10 years or so, after decades of reasonably steady improvement, we have slowly been seeing a revival of the school of morality that believes some people -- most people, in fact -- are lesser humans. These are people who literally believe in the stuff I named.
But as an overall culture, we are very post-modern and raised to be polite of people's political opinions specifically BECAUSE we assume that even if they have a different idea of what to do, we AGREE morally in the reason why something needs addressing. We take it for granted that almost everyone will AT LEAST agree that all people are people, and that leaves us ill-equip to call out this **** for what it is: draconian lunacy.
They brand themselves as a political movement, and we, ill-equipped post modernists with no experience with this sort of mentality, allow them to do so, and thereby bar ourselves for calling them out for what they are, because politics are to be respected.
Well, I'm calling it what it is. Draconian lunacy.
Yes, I'll totally force my morals on others when the "others" in question are trying to subjugate, hurt, or even kill people. And so should anyone who claims to love what America purports itself to be, not politically, but culturally and morally: a place for all kinds of different people.
Unless they're in the womb of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?