Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Abomination:
Tactical civility is far more likely to create a positive outcome than calling people pro-rape/nazi/racism and any other social ill under the sun. Civility might convince some people, the other will cause others to dig their heels in.

What you're advocating isn't tactical civility, it's blanket civility in the vain hope of eliciting positive reactions or changing people's minds. That's not what I mean, and it absolutely does not work.

Gethsemani:
So what happens if you are an ardent proponent of state's rights, less federal involvement and a free market, but you also want same sex marriage, transgender rights and more immigration?

You decide which of these things is important to you.

And then you get held to account for your choice, just as everyone is.

The idea that it has to be "fair" assumes we live in an otherwise fair society, and we don't. Why should those who vote for unfairness be treated fairly? Why should they be safe from consequences other people will literally suffer and die over? Is that really "civility", or is it civility only for those with the social capital to afford it?

I think if this thread has evidenced one thing, it's that the mere possibility of a lack of civility terrifies people. It gives consequences to otherwise inconsequential choices, and I think that is broadly a good thing..

To a large extent, I think Saelune is right in that people only invoke "civility" when they feel they have the upper hand, when they want to protect themselves from people they have harmed (people who are not treated civilly) wanting to harm them in turn.

Gethsemani:
...the way the US political system is constructed makes any individual voter compromise to the extreme if they aren't the archtypical party member. I mean, you get a binary choice...

There are primaries, and they're unpopular enough that the individual voter actually has quite a bit more of a say in them.

Gethsemani:
So what happens if you are an ardent proponent of state's rights, less federal involvement...

Well, you're hosed from the get-go right there. Our parties only espouse state rights when (and because) they're not in control of the Federal government.

evilthecat:

The idea that it has to be "fair" assumes we live in an otherwise fair society, and we don't. Why should those who vote for unfairness be treated fairly? Why should they be safe from consequences other people will literally suffer and die over? Is that really "civility", or is it civility only for those with the social capital to afford it?

I am not saying they should be safe from consequences. My contention is rather that we shouldn't lump in swing voters with a poor sense of empathy with the hardcore bigots in the Tea Party or alt-right base. One of them are making the choice because they hate gays, muslims and women, the other is making it because they are first and foremost looking out for themselves. They are both definitely worthy of criticism, don't get me wrong on that, but not the same kind of criticism.

And then there's the smaller, third group, like the coal miners in the 2016 election. People who saw their own livelihood and the well-being of their families threatened and who had one candidate who promised them safety. Can we really (and I mean this honestly because I don't know what to think about it) fault them for essentially doing the same tactical voting that I and Saelune are doing? I mean, a significant reason as to why I keep voting for left progressive parties is because they are the ones that ensure I can remain married to my wife and that we can keep our son. In an election about the rights of GLBTQ-people, I'd be voting for any party that ensures our future as a family, even if that means I have to give up my ideals of lower class segregation, immigrants rights and anti-racism.

To me this isn't so much a question of civility as one of understanding. Because as I've said repeatedly in this thread: Civility doesn't mean you can't be vocal and hard in your criticism of people and their actions, but it does mean we need to show them the respect of not actively insulting them and giving them a chance to respond.

Gethsemani:

evilthecat:

The idea that it has to be "fair" assumes we live in an otherwise fair society, and we don't. Why should those who vote for unfairness be treated fairly? Why should they be safe from consequences other people will literally suffer and die over? Is that really "civility", or is it civility only for those with the social capital to afford it?

I am not saying they should be safe from consequences. My contention is rather that we shouldn't lump in swing voters with a poor sense of empathy with the hardcore bigots in the Tea Party or alt-right base. One of them are making the choice because they hate gays, muslims and women, the other is making it because they are first and foremost looking out for themselves. They are both definitely worthy of criticism, don't get me wrong on that, but not the same kind of criticism.

And then there's the smaller, third group, like the coal miners in the 2016 election. People who saw their own livelihood and the well-being of their families threatened and who had one candidate who promised them safety. Can we really (and I mean this honestly because I don't know what to think about it) fault them for essentially doing the same tactical voting that I and Saelune are doing? I mean, a significant reason as to why I keep voting for left progressive parties is because they are the ones that ensure I can remain married to my wife and that we can keep our son. In an election about the rights of GLBTQ-people, I'd be voting for any party that ensures our future as a family, even if that means I have to give up my ideals of lower class segregation, immigrants rights and anti-racism.

To me this isn't so much a question of civility as one of understanding. Because as I've said repeatedly in this thread: Civility doesn't mean you can't be vocal and hard in your criticism of people and their actions, but it does mean we need to show them the respect of not actively insulting them and giving them a chance to respond.

Why the fuck should I feel bad for people who wont feel bad for other people?

Saelune:
Why the fuck should I feel bad for people who wont feel bad for other people?

I am not telling you to feel bad for them. What it is about is in the first sentence of the last paragraph: Understanding. You don't need to like them, care for them or pity them, but it behooves us all to at least consider why another person would act the way they do. Because maybe it isn't as black and white as being able to call every Republican voter a Literal Nazi or every Sanders supporter a Good Guy. Because some people will vote for bad things for good reasons and others will vote for good things for bad reasons. Understanding why people hate us or disagree with us is the first step to changing their mind. And it does a lot more good then just hurling insults at them for temporary catharsis.

Pyrian:
Our parties only espouse state rights when (and because) they're not in control of the Federal government.

Not really true. Only one party is routinely about state's rights: the one that controlled both parts of Congress and the Presidency and was still braying about abortion being a state issue because they knew they couldn't overturn it. Same with same-sex marriage.

Which is why this hypothetical is such a farce. The states' rights argument exists in modern American politics almost exclusively as a way to restrict LGBT individuals, the rights of women, etc. It allows conservative states to overturn rights they don't want to afford people. I mean, arguably that's why the founding fathers compromised anyway.

Supporting state rights is ultimately opposition to same-sex marriage or any rights of LGBT individuals in over half the country, as well as abortion rights, immigration and so on. The party of state's rights is the party that uses it to justify slavery and the civil war.

I can't imagine why people would have an issue with that.

Something Amyss:
[lThe party of state's rights is the party that uses it to justify slavery and the civil war.

Funnily enough, the conferderacy wasn't even for states rights

Since they forbid individual states from excerising those rights to end slavery

Saelune:
Why the fuck should I feel bad for people who wont feel bad for other people?

...

It would be funny if it wasn't so endemic in modern political discourse.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Why the fuck should I feel bad for people who wont feel bad for other people?

...

It would be funny if it wasn't so endemic in modern political discourse.

Caring is for liberal pussies

That's why we're a Christian nation

Jesus didn't care about anyone

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Why the fuck should I feel bad for people who wont feel bad for other people?

...

It would be funny if it wasn't so endemic in modern political discourse.

Bullies acting like the victim because the victims punching back when they attacked first.

Something Amyss:

Pyrian:
Our parties only espouse state rights when (and because) they're not in control of the Federal government.

Not really true. Only one party is routinely about state's rights: the one that controlled both parts of Congress and the Presidency and was still braying about abortion being a state issue because they knew they couldn't overturn it.

That seems 100% congruent with what I said. They're for state rights in that narrow area because they're not able to do it federally. Meanwhile, they want to prevent states like California from slapping regulations on business, which Democrats support. None of them actually give a rats tush about the underlying principles of state (or local) rights at all.

Saelune:
If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

"If you didn't want to be hit, you should have stopped talking back to me!"

How telling your answer to why you are wrong to act that way is to act like a domestic abuser in order to justify your behavior.

You are the one who seems to be acting like Nazis, since you are demonizing a group of people based on a singular categorization that in no way defined their individual actions, behaviors, or even greatly demonstrats their wider beliefs. That you do so solely because it is easy to pretend they are all evil people, and thereby justify viewing them as less than equal, seems to be so you can commit horrible behavior towards them without the guilt that should come along with things like dehumanizing people, or justifying violence against people because of political opinion?

Because quite frankly, as you are the person so eager to justify no longer being civil because of imagined slights not committed by the vast, vast majority of those they demonize, you come off as the irrational aggressor, and one that actively makes the problem worse in doing so.

Seanchaidh:
So what you're saying is that we have the green light to violently depose Trump?

I do not see how you got that from what I said, unless you are you are an american suggesting trump invaded america. I think that would have made the news.

trunkage:

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division.

In response to someone being openly uncivil, attempting to justify their incivility morally, and actively contributing to and supporting the mindset that justifies actual violence against innocent people, I am not being very civil according to how I defined it?

I agree. I am a far cry from being truly very uncivil in how I view the word in general, but in being passionate in my rejection of their behavior and in my criticism of their arguments, I am less civil than I could be according to how I defined it, yes.

I suppose I could point out that I view being uncivil as something more than just calling out someone's crappy behavior, poor arguments, and worthless justifications. That it represents a more malicious attitude and mindset of someone as a legitimate enemy to be crushed or beaten rather than someone just disagreed with, even passionately disagreed with. That it is tied almost more toward action and further away from words as discussion and conversation can be heated but still intended in good faith. As I said before, civility is just a means to engage with others in a manner without hostility, and in the spirit of engaging in good faith conversation, discussion, or simple interaction.

Despite my passionate rejection of their justification of demonization and generalization, I did enter this conversation with intent to engage in good faith, and I remain here with that intention, even if I see that such a mindset is clearly not shared.

That said though, since you seem to wish to call hypocrite, I do point out to my previous post.

You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil

They weren't being civil to start with, and it is clearly established my thoughts about not being civil to someone who is not being civil is sort of the expected, actually. I don't personally think I was very uncivil myself, since I wasn't posting worthless snide snipes or one-sentence gotcha posts that contribute nothing and exist solely to antagonize, but rather I was engaging into the discussion fully with argument and conversation meant in good faith. But I will concede I worded my view on what civility itself is poorly so if you wish to call me uncivil to someone who called conservatives "nazi" in complete seriousness, I will understand and accept that just fine.

I will try to adjust the way I define civility in the future so there is less confusion that I don't think disagreements, even if passionate or heated are uncivil.

Making sure further comprise impossible.

I don't see compromise as impossible. Otherwise why would I bother engaging? I think terrible opinions need to be called out as such though, provided they are well supported criticisms of them. I fail to see how that makes compromise impossible though, unless you are saying that saelune is incapable of changing their mind when challenged, which, well, I wouldn't know but as someone far closer to being their friend than me, I suppose you would know better than I so I will leave that assessment to you.

Over... Saelune criticizing you?

Explain? What is being done over them being critical?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

This... is not making a lot of sense.
I replied to someone being very uncivil with an earnest attempt to engage in conversation pointing out why they were wrong and what the flaws in their justification was. While I expected, and was proven right in that expectation, they had no intention of engaging in good faith with the topic of the conversation they created, that does not mean my intention was any less earnest to begin with. Nor, even, does my criticism of their justification through conversation and debate ceases to be done in good faith just because they dislike hearing such criticisms. While I will accept such criticism could be labeled "hostile" if you wish to do so (I think that renders the word itself nearly meaningless), and thus be called "uncivil" by extension according to my own used definition, I think the stretch to apply "hostile" makes that claim a stretch by extension, and not in accordance with my previously established opinions on what is or is not civil beyond that initial definition but rather throughout the entirety of my previous replies. I still do not get what you are talking about permabaning people and hate speech laws.

Saelune:
'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

So a question, is it ok for you to be uncivil to people you dislike, even if they have done nothing to you personally and just are part of a group you have demonized, but it is not ok for them to be uncivil to you and your group?

I'd point at this as a "pot calling kettle" moment, but considering the attempt to call me hypocrite was poor to begin with, so it is you, making yourself look foolish.

Gethsemani:

evilthecat:

The idea that it has to be "fair" assumes we live in an otherwise fair society, and we don't. Why should those who vote for unfairness be treated fairly? Why should they be safe from consequences other people will literally suffer and die over? Is that really "civility", or is it civility only for those with the social capital to afford it?

I am not saying they should be safe from consequences. My contention is rather that we shouldn't lump in swing voters with a poor sense of empathy with the hardcore bigots in the Tea Party or alt-right base. One of them are making the choice because they hate gays, muslims and women, the other is making it because they are first and foremost looking out for themselves. They are both definitely worthy of criticism, don't get me wrong on that, but not the same kind of criticism.

And then there's the smaller, third group, like the coal miners in the 2016 election. People who saw their own livelihood and the well-being of their families threatened and who had one candidate who promised them safety. Can we really (and I mean this honestly because I don't know what to think about it) fault them for essentially doing the same tactical voting that I and Saelune are doing? I mean, a significant reason as to why I keep voting for left progressive parties is because they are the ones that ensure I can remain married to my wife and that we can keep our son. In an election about the rights of GLBTQ-people, I'd be voting for any party that ensures our future as a family, even if that means I have to give up my ideals of lower class segregation, immigrants rights and anti-racism.

To me this isn't so much a question of civility as one of understanding. Because as I've said repeatedly in this thread: Civility doesn't mean you can't be vocal and hard in your criticism of people and their actions, but it does mean we need to show them the respect of not actively insulting them and giving them a chance to respond.

I agree with this.

A lot of people prioritize their families and livelihood first, over the fights of other people, regardless how important those fights may be to those other people. It is a very foolish thing to call someone evil for voting for a politician that promises to help their family survive, rather than the one who is campaigning on an issue unrelated to them. It is essentially expecting people to vote against their own perceived best interest for the name of a cause they likely have no stake in at best, or in the name of a cause tied to a politician who's other policies actively oppose their own self interest at worst.

Demonizing someone who daring to vote opposed to one issue, with zero regard to how that vote would have affected their own issue is nothing but childish entitlement, and it is sad that people are judged as outright evil for not satisfying the interests of strangers over their own. To someone worried about providing for their kids, telling them they are evil and wrong and a nazi for not voting for the candidate who was openly seen as working to harm the industry they work in is just going to drive people away from your party. It is literally telling them that their kids don't matter, only that person's pet issue does.

I personally don't think that makes them evil at all, and that by understanding that people will view topics that way, there is a way to appeal to them and convince them by targeting how the issue either directly relates to them, or more likely, how other avenues can be done to help their self interests. Convincing people to vote for an overall goal because how it helps everyone, rather than trying to scare people into voting against someone, or they are demonized as monsters.

I think failure to do this is why Trump won, and the doubling down on this rejection will only hurt dem chances going forward. I can't imagine how it would be if the dems had an actually competent candidate they were against with the current mindset so close to the heart of the party currently.

runic knight:

Saelune:
If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

"If you didn't want to be hit, you should have stopped talking back to me!"

How telling your answer to why you are wrong to act that way is to act like a domestic abuser in order to justify your behavior.

You are the one who seems to be acting like Nazis, since you are demonizing a group of people based on a singular categorization that in no way defined their individual actions, behaviors, or even greatly demonstrats their wider beliefs. That you do so solely because it is easy to pretend they are all evil people, and thereby justify viewing them as less than equal, seems to be so you can commit horrible behavior towards them without the guilt that should come along with things like dehumanizing people, or justifying violence against people because of political opinion?

Because quite frankly, as you are the person so eager to justify no longer being civil because of imagined slights not committed by the vast, vast majority of those they demonize, you come off as the irrational aggressor, and one that actively makes the problem worse in doing so.

Seanchaidh:
So what you're saying is that we have the green light to violently depose Trump?

I do not see how you got that from what I said, unless you are you are an american suggesting trump invaded america. I think that would have made the news.

trunkage:

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division.

In response to someone being openly uncivil, attempting to justify their incivility morally, and actively contributing to and supporting the mindset that justifies actual violence against innocent people, I am not being very civil according to how I defined it?

I agree. I am a far cry from being truly very uncivil in how I view the word in general, but in being passionate in my rejection of their behavior and in my criticism of their arguments, I am less civil than I could be according to how I defined it, yes.

I suppose I could point out that I view being uncivil as something more than just calling out someone's crappy behavior, poor arguments, and worthless justifications. That it represents a more malicious attitude and mindset of someone as a legitimate enemy to be crushed or beaten rather than someone just disagreed with, even passionately disagreed with. That it is tied almost more toward action and further away from words as discussion and conversation can be heated but still intended in good faith. As I said before, civility is just a means to engage with others in a manner without hostility, and in the spirit of engaging in good faith conversation, discussion, or simple interaction.

Despite my passionate rejection of their justification of demonization and generalization, I did enter this conversation with intent to engage in good faith, and I remain here with that intention, even if I see that such a mindset is clearly not shared.

That said though, since you seem to wish to call hypocrite, I do point out to my previous post.

You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil

They weren't being civil to start with, and it is clearly established my thoughts about not being civil to someone who is not being civil is sort of the expected, actually. I don't personally think I was very uncivil myself, since I wasn't posting worthless snide snipes or one-sentence gotcha posts that contribute nothing and exist solely to antagonize, but rather I was engaging into the discussion fully with argument and conversation meant in good faith. But I will concede I worded my view on what civility itself is poorly so if you wish to call me uncivil to someone who called conservatives "nazi" in complete seriousness, I will understand and accept that just fine.

I will try to adjust the way I define civility in the future so there is less confusion that I don't think disagreements, even if passionate or heated are uncivil.

Making sure further comprise impossible.

I don't see compromise as impossible. Otherwise why would I bother engaging? I think terrible opinions need to be called out as such though, provided they are well supported criticisms of them. I fail to see how that makes compromise impossible though, unless you are saying that saelune is incapable of changing their mind when challenged, which, well, I wouldn't know but as someone far closer to being their friend than me, I suppose you would know better than I so I will leave that assessment to you.

Over... Saelune criticizing you?

Explain? What is being done over them being critical?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

This... is not making a lot of sense.
I replied to someone being very uncivil with an earnest attempt to engage in conversation pointing out why they were wrong and what the flaws in their justification was. While I expected, and was proven right in that expectation, they had no intention of engaging in good faith with the topic of the conversation they created, that does not mean my intention was any less earnest to begin with. Nor, even, does my criticism of their justification through conversation and debate ceases to be done in good faith just because they dislike hearing such criticisms. While I will accept such criticism could be labeled "hostile" if you wish to do so (I think that renders the word itself nearly meaningless), and thus be called "uncivil" by extension according to my own used definition, I think the stretch to apply "hostile" makes that claim a stretch by extension, and not in accordance with my previously established opinions on what is or is not civil beyond that initial definition but rather throughout the entirety of my previous replies. I still do not get what you are talking about permabaning people and hate speech laws.

Saelune:
'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

So a question, is it ok for you to be uncivil to people you dislike, even if they have done nothing to you personally and just are part of a group you have demonized, but it is not ok for them to be uncivil to you and your group?

I'd point at this as a "pot calling kettle" moment, but considering the attempt to call me hypocrite was poor to begin with, so it is you, making yourself look foolish.

Stop making strawmans.

undeadsuitor:

Something Amyss:
[lThe party of state's rights is the party that uses it to justify slavery and the civil war.

Funnily enough, the conferderacy wasn't even for states rights

Since they forbid individual states from excerising those rights to end slavery

Oh, I know. The Civil War was explicitly about slavery and we have writings to that effect. But the cowards of the GOP claim otherwise.

Pyrian:

Something Amyss:

Pyrian:
Our parties only espouse state rights when (and because) they're not in control of the Federal government.

Not really true. Only one party is routinely about state's rights: the one that controlled both parts of Congress and the Presidency and was still braying about abortion being a state issue because they knew they couldn't overturn it.

That seems 100% congruent with what I said. They're for state rights in that narrow area because they're not able to do it federally. Meanwhile, they want to prevent states like California from slapping regulations on business, which Democrats support. None of them actually give a rats tush about the underlying principles of state (or local) rights at all.

You said they supported states' rights when they weren't in control. They just had control and they still supported states' rights. It's the Republicans, not the Democrats who have been pushing states' rights, despite one having control of every branch of government.

You may have meant something else, but I can't read minds. I went with what you said, that parties (plural) only espouse states' rights when they're not in control of the feds. The GOP was running the board and they still were talking states' rights.

Pyrian:

Something Amyss:

Pyrian:
Our parties only espouse state rights when (and because) they're not in control of the Federal government.

Not really true. Only one party is routinely about state's rights: the one that controlled both parts of Congress and the Presidency and was still braying about abortion being a state issue because they knew they couldn't overturn it.

That seems 100% congruent with what I said. They're for state rights in that narrow area because they're not able to do it federally. Meanwhile, they want to prevent states like California from slapping regulations on business, which Democrats support. None of them actually give a rats tush about the underlying principles of state (or local) rights at all.

The "states rights" line is only as old as the Goldwater campaign. It was pretty explicitly created during that as a dog-whistle to racist whites who didn't like desegregation, because the republicans saw an opportunity to corner a large section of the electorate and take back some power after FDR. Like, this is a known thing.

BreakfastMan:
The "states rights" line is only as old as the Goldwater campaign. It was pretty explicitly created during that as a dog-whistle to racist whites who didn't like desegregation, because the republicans saw an opportunity to corner a large section of the electorate and take back some power after FDR. Like, this is a known thing.

And has since been used almost exclusively as a dogwhistle to take away rights from American citizens, especially minorities.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
And how does mentioning Hitler do that exactly? The point is, Hitler was not defeated by civility, and civility is why he was able to kill as many as he was. If more people were 'uncivil' to Hitler way sooner, he might have had a lower kill count.

You should apply some of that good faith you claim I lack.

Equating Hitler with modern conservatives show both a complete disregard for engaging in good faith (it basically says they are all THE DEVIL as a worthless demonizing of them), and an open hostility toward them by labeling them such in an environment where any labeled such are deemed an acceptable target to physically attack by some of the more... radical members of your political lean, which I seem to recall you openly support the actions of in that manner.

Hitler, as a leader of a violent warring faction amid a world war, was not defeated by civility, that is correct. But attempts to use civility to stop him ceased being a valid strategy when he started invading nations and waging war, you know, when he stopped being civil himself. Hell, being civil should have stopped earlier when his ACTIONS were hostile instead of trying appeasement as long as they did, leading to why appeasement itself is seen as such a negative, but civility it still seen as a good thing in the same culture (you know, because being civil and trying to appease someone are entirely different things and only through the most blatantly intentional dishonesty could they be equated in an argument). You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil. No one expect you to engage in civil conversation with someone actively being violent toward you, but in order to pretend both Hitler and conservatives are the same, you also have to pretend that is what people believe. This is sort of why the very first line I made defined civility, and why hitler is by that definition a horrible justification for not being civil to other people you dislike. Equating modern conservatives with hitler, especially as justification for not being civil, is willfully, maliciously dishonest though, and demonstrates clearly as I claimed of you before, a complete lack of willingness to engage in good faith.

I applied good faith, you failed to demonstrate any, as you have many times before, so I concluded you lacked it here as well. The "no you" defense you attempt here really doesn't change that, merely continues to demonstrate you have no intention of engaging in the discussion in good faith and solely just want to justify being hostile and uncivil to people because you demonize them in your head and generalize them all together.

The entire first post reads like the disjointed rant against "white america" you'd see in a communist manifesto where all people you dislike are thrown at the wall as if they are all the same, where "rapist" and "conservative" is the same dirty word and evil being. And where the actions of one and the words of the other are pretended to be the same so you can feign astonishment that people would ever expect you to be civil in engaging with conservatives who aren't being violent shitheads by claiming 'they are just nazi!" through tortured reasoning and intentionally dishonest comparisons, such as you have demonstrated in that first post.

You were given an assumption of good faith when I started to read your post, as I give anyone I listen to, and you willingly shat all over it for the sake of justifying your hostility with your own blind hatred and inability to distinguish between individuals who actually commit horrible acts (thus not deserving of civility in response) and people who just hold political opinions your dislike but are not acting violently (thus being civil themselves and deserving it in response).

So in short, you are not justified in being uncivil to people who themselves are civil just because you want to be a jerk because you've demonize them.

If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

https://www.texasobserver.org/damn-right-im-a-white-nationalist-declares-texas-gop-platform-committee-member/

[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else." ]

People who say 'Anglo' like that are identifying themselves as White Nationalists. And this guy is also calling the US a White Nation. It is exactly a matter of race. If Republicans aren't the White Nationalist party, they need to kick out people like this.

Saelune:
[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else."]

Fucking hell he's literally trying to redefine white nationalism by saying it's not about race, yet if it wasn't it wouldn't have the qualifier of "white" nationalism, otherwise it'd just be regular nationalism. Jesus fucking christ Trump supporters are stupid.

Dr. Thrax:

Saelune:
[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else."]

Fucking hell he's literally trying to redefine white nationalism by saying it's not about race, yet if it wasn't it wouldn't have the qualifier of "white" nationalism, otherwise it'd just be regular nationalism. Jesus fucking christ Trump supporters are stupid.

They have been doing it atleast since back when they tried to make people believe the Civil War wasn't about slavery (spoiler, it was 100% about slavery).

Lincoln would not be happy knowing that Republicans have adopted the Confederate Flag.

Saelune:

Lincoln would not be happy knowing that Republicans have adopted the Confederate Flag.

You have to admire the utter history blindness one must possess to be in the same party as the President who lead the Union through the civil war, to a victory over the confederates, while adopting the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia as a symbol for yourself. I suppose I am looking forward to Democrats adopting old NVA flags in a decade or two, as a symbol of true American Pride.

Saelune:

If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

https://www.texasobserver.org/damn-right-im-a-white-nationalist-declares-texas-gop-platform-committee-member/

[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. ?I am Anglo and I?m very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country,? Myers said. ?And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That?s exactly what that means. That?s where the president?s at. That?s where I?m at and that?s where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn?t have anything to do with race or anything else.? ]

People who say 'Anglo' like that are identifying themselves as White Nationalists. And this guy is also calling the US a White Nation. It is exactly a matter of race. If Republicans aren't the White Nationalist party, they need to kick out people like this.

"There is nothing wrong with being labeled a 'wife beater' ...I love my wife and I am proud to be a man who is not afraid to take control through the means given to him. Just like women are proud of their gender. 'Wife beater'?' All it means is power first. It doesn't have anything to do with the sexes, violence or anything else." (Can interchange with 'sexual abuser' and other unflattering labels for yet more fun with exploration of poorly managed language manipulation).

Ugh, why did that feel all too familiar while typing, as if it has been said before?
That's not even a dog whistle, more like a brass band at a televised 'welcome home' party.

Gethsemani:

Saelune:

Lincoln would not be happy knowing that Republicans have adopted the Confederate Flag.

You have to admire the utter history blindness one must possess to be in the same party as the President who lead the Union through the civil war, to a victory over the confederates, while adopting the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia as a symbol for yourself. I suppose I am looking forward to Democrats adopting old NVA flags in a decade or two, as a symbol of true American Pride.

If communists take over the Democratic Party like old fogeys all over America are overflowing their colostomy bags about, then that (minus the "American Pride" part) would actually make sense. And be good!

Dr. Thrax:
Jesus fucking christ Trump supporters are stupid.

That would assume that they aren't aware of what they are doing...

Gethsemani:

Saelune:

Lincoln would not be happy knowing that Republicans have adopted the Confederate Flag.

You have to admire the utter history blindness one must possess to be in the same party as the President who lead the Union through the civil war, to a victory over the confederates, while adopting the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia as a symbol for yourself. I suppose I am looking forward to Democrats adopting old NVA flags in a decade or two, as a symbol of true American Pride.

Clearly you haven't been listening to PraegerU. One video goes through how the parties definitely haven't changed and its really the Democrats who are the racists still.

Saelune:
Stop making strawmans.

What was a strawman?

You aren't explaining what or how said whats was one.

I could just reply with "Stop justifying horrible behavior based on generalizations of a group of people you personally dislike, and demonization of them all to justify the bigotry against said group", but as I said before, I am trying to engage in good faith. This topic is a lot more relevant lately, so I think it is well worth discussing with more than just single dismissive remarks or unsupported or explained accusations. Which is why I explained the whats and hows there.

https://www.texasobserver.org/damn-right-im-a-white-nationalist-declares-texas-gop-platform-committee-member/

[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else." ]

People who say 'Anglo' like that are identifying themselves as White Nationalists. And this guy is also calling the US a White Nation. It is exactly a matter of race. If Republicans aren't the White Nationalist party, they need to kick out people like this.

Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Even defined nationalist as someone who is a patriot who puts his nation first.

Also compares it to black or hispanic pride in their own races.

Outside of the choice of term, nothing in that statement about himself is bad in the least to the base of the party.

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

But you are responding upset to the word he used that he defined in the very speech itself differently than you want to hear it. Your response here even shows that.

Look at your reply and what it is actually saying there.

What you have said here at the end of the day is simple: The man claimed he was a white person who loved his nation, and you think that is enough to demand he be kicked from his party.

He called himself a white nationalist, as redefined by his own words and likely with intention to redefine an overly used political slur, and you are calling for excommunication as though he defined it as you do, ignoring the context of his self-definition to solely attack based on the use of the term as though he did not explain anything at all.

All I can see is that you react like a trained dog to the term itself, and ignore what was actually said there, and in doing so, even if you presume the absolute worst that this is an outright racist trying to downplay the word, only serves to make yourself look foolish, and lets yourself be played as this response will not likely be among many others like it that will be pointed at and labeled racist itself in the same vein that people upset with the "it is ok to be white" stuff were pointed at and played for fools.

runic knight:

Saelune:
Stop making strawmans.

What was a strawman?

You aren't explaining what or how said whats was one.

I could just reply with "Stop justifying horrible behavior based on generalizations of a group of people you personally dislike, and demonization of them all to justify the bigotry against said group", but as I said before, I am trying to engage in good faith. This topic is a lot more relevant lately, so I think it is well worth discussing with more than just single dismissive remarks or unsupported or explained accusations. Which is why I explained the whats and hows there.

runic knight:

Saelune:
If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

"If you didn't want to be hit, you should have stopped talking back to me!"

How telling your answer to why you are wrong to act that way is to act like a domestic abuser in order to justify your behavior.

You are the one who seems to be acting like Nazis, since you are demonizing a group of people based on a singular categorization that in no way defined their individual actions, behaviors, or even greatly demonstrats their wider beliefs. That you do so solely because it is easy to pretend they are all evil people, and thereby justify viewing them as less than equal, seems to be so you can commit horrible behavior towards them without the guilt that should come along with things like dehumanizing people, or justifying violence against people because of political opinion?

Because quite frankly, as you are the person so eager to justify no longer being civil because of imagined slights not committed by the vast, vast majority of those they demonize, you come off as the irrational aggressor, and one that actively makes the problem worse in doing so.

Saelune:
'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

So a question, is it ok for you to be uncivil to people you dislike, even if they have done nothing to you personally and just are part of a group you have demonized, but it is not ok for them to be uncivil to you and your group?

I'd point at this as a "pot calling kettle" moment, but considering the attempt to call me hypocrite was poor to begin with, so it is you, making yourself look foolish.

Calling people who express Nazi views is not the same as your strawman about hitting people. Rather it would be 'Stop hitting me if you don't like me saying you're hitting me'.

And the second part is the stawiest of mans. 'even if they have done nothing to you'. They haven't done nothing.

Also I remember you getting so mad at me for criticizing you for defending Nazis, so here is you spending a lot of time defending White Nationalists:

runic knight:

https://www.texasobserver.org/damn-right-im-a-white-nationalist-declares-texas-gop-platform-committee-member/

[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else." ]

People who say 'Anglo' like that are identifying themselves as White Nationalists. And this guy is also calling the US a White Nation. It is exactly a matter of race. If Republicans aren't the White Nationalist party, they need to kick out people like this.

Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Even defined nationalist as someone who is a patriot who puts his nation first.

Also compares it to black or hispanic pride in their own races.

Outside of the choice of term, nothing in that statement about himself is bad in the least to the base of the party.

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

But you are responding upset to the word he used that he defined in the very speech itself differently than you want to hear it. Your response here even shows that.

Look at your reply and what it is actually saying there.

What you have said here at the end of the day is simple: The man claimed he was a white person who loved his nation, and you think that is enough to demand he be kicked from his party.

He called himself a white nationalist, as redefined by his own words and likely with intention to redefine an overly used political slur, and you are calling for excommunication as though he defined it as you do, ignoring the context of his self-definition to solely attack based on the use of the term as though he did not explain anything at all.

All I can see is that you react like a trained dog to the term itself, and ignore what was actually said there, and in doing so, even if you presume the absolute worst that this is an outright racist trying to downplay the word, only serves to make yourself look foolish, and lets yourself be played as this response will not likely be among many others like it that will be pointed at and labeled racist itself in the same vein that people upset with the "it is ok to be white" stuff were pointed at and played for fools.

You are defending White Nationalists, aka racists. That is what YOUR REPLY IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE.

Marik2:
lol, this just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7hdIIneypE

She is wearing my dress! I have that exact same dress! I was having difficulty following what she was saying while looking at her in my dress. so had to listen to it rather than watch. LOL

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
Stop making strawmans.

What was a strawman?

You aren't explaining what or how said whats was one.

I could just reply with "Stop justifying horrible behavior based on generalizations of a group of people you personally dislike, and demonization of them all to justify the bigotry against said group", but as I said before, I am trying to engage in good faith. This topic is a lot more relevant lately, so I think it is well worth discussing with more than just single dismissive remarks or unsupported or explained accusations. Which is why I explained the whats and hows there.

runic knight:

Saelune:
If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

"If you didn't want to be hit, you should have stopped talking back to me!"

How telling your answer to why you are wrong to act that way is to act like a domestic abuser in order to justify your behavior.

You are the one who seems to be acting like Nazis, since you are demonizing a group of people based on a singular categorization that in no way defined their individual actions, behaviors, or even greatly demonstrats their wider beliefs. That you do so solely because it is easy to pretend they are all evil people, and thereby justify viewing them as less than equal, seems to be so you can commit horrible behavior towards them without the guilt that should come along with things like dehumanizing people, or justifying violence against people because of political opinion?

Because quite frankly, as you are the person so eager to justify no longer being civil because of imagined slights not committed by the vast, vast majority of those they demonize, you come off as the irrational aggressor, and one that actively makes the problem worse in doing so.

Saelune:
'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

So a question, is it ok for you to be uncivil to people you dislike, even if they have done nothing to you personally and just are part of a group you have demonized, but it is not ok for them to be uncivil to you and your group?

I'd point at this as a "pot calling kettle" moment, but considering the attempt to call me hypocrite was poor to begin with, so it is you, making yourself look foolish.

Calling people who express Nazi views is not the same as your strawman about hitting people. Rather it would be 'Stop hitting me if you don't like me saying you're hitting me'.

And the second part is the stawiest of mans. 'even if they have done nothing to you'. They haven't done nothing.

Also I remember you getting so mad at me for criticizing you for defending Nazis, so here is you spending a lot of time defending White Nationalists:

runic knight:

https://www.texasobserver.org/damn-right-im-a-white-nationalist-declares-texas-gop-platform-committee-member/

[Reached by phone on Friday, Myers insisted that he saw nothing wrong with labeling himself a white nationalist. "I am Anglo and I'm very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country," Myers said. "And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That's exactly what that means. That's where the president's at. That's where I'm at and that's where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn't have anything to do with race or anything else." ]

People who say 'Anglo' like that are identifying themselves as White Nationalists. And this guy is also calling the US a White Nation. It is exactly a matter of race. If Republicans aren't the White Nationalist party, they need to kick out people like this.

Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Even defined nationalist as someone who is a patriot who puts his nation first.

Also compares it to black or hispanic pride in their own races.

Outside of the choice of term, nothing in that statement about himself is bad in the least to the base of the party.

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

But you are responding upset to the word he used that he defined in the very speech itself differently than you want to hear it. Your response here even shows that.

Look at your reply and what it is actually saying there.

What you have said here at the end of the day is simple: The man claimed he was a white person who loved his nation, and you think that is enough to demand he be kicked from his party.

He called himself a white nationalist, as redefined by his own words and likely with intention to redefine an overly used political slur, and you are calling for excommunication as though he defined it as you do, ignoring the context of his self-definition to solely attack based on the use of the term as though he did not explain anything at all.

All I can see is that you react like a trained dog to the term itself, and ignore what was actually said there, and in doing so, even if you presume the absolute worst that this is an outright racist trying to downplay the word, only serves to make yourself look foolish, and lets yourself be played as this response will not likely be among many others like it that will be pointed at and labeled racist itself in the same vein that people upset with the "it is ok to be white" stuff were pointed at and played for fools.

You are defending White Nationalists, aka racists. That is what YOUR REPLY IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE.

That guy is one of the worst of them too. He is actually trying to normalize in an attempt to make it seem trendy and mainstream by showing society finds this not only acceptable but something to be proud of and promote. Don't think for a second he doesn't know exactly what he is doing there.

runic knight:
Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Screw him, then.

"White nationalist" is a clearly understood term to pretty much anyone. If race really doesn't matter, you're just a nationalist. If you're white and a nationalist, then say you're white, and a nationalist. If you're a "white nationalist", you're saying something very distinct and should be judged accordingly. If it turns out you used it mistakenly, apologise and use the correct terminology next time round.

If someone wants to step into the political arena and attempt to alter the public understanding of a term, it behoves us to very carefully think why. The obvious and only likely reason in such a case is obfuscation. Once sufficient confusion about what "white nationalist" means is created, it means every white nationalist (i.e. racist) suddenly gains plausible cover to help advance their racist agenda.

Never mind that we've been sitting through years and years of these arseholes deliberately planning and rolling out these wheezes designed specifically to help them spread their odious shit in the mainstream by deflecting criticism. It's all about superficial reasonability and appeals to positive aspects of liberal society, like the scam artists who play on people's charitable nature to swindle money they neither need or deserve. We just make utter, fucking idiots of ourselves to not look beneath that veneer and miss the odious turd it's plainly attempting to conceal.

Hey, guys. I'm a Black Militant.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I'm a black guy who believes in the Military. Did you know that the word Militant came from Latin? It just means to serve as a Soldier. So Yeah, I'm serving as a soldier... in spreading the good word about the Military, baby!

Also, I'm a Blood. No, not like crips and Bloods. How can you think that? I'm a Blood Brother to a couple of guys. We're proud of our bond.

All hyperbole aside... why hide it any more? It's now ok to be racist in America. Why bullshit?

runic knight:
Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Even defined nationalist as someone who is a patriot who puts his nation first.

Also compares it to black or hispanic pride in their own races.

Outside of the choice of term, nothing in that statement about himself is bad in the least to the base of the party.

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

Eh...at first I was willing to give him the benefit of being an idiot who couldn't be bothered to verify the term's meaning, but let's look at a few other things stated in that article:

"the pivotal political moment came when Obama came on the scene. I knew immediately that America was in trouble"

Myers was also part of an effort from the party's right wing in 2010 to replace House Speaker Joe Straus, who is Jewish, sending out an email about to his tea party group announcing that "we finally found a Christian Conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs"

The 2018 platform includes numerous planks that espouse a nationalistic view, including a demand for using "English, and only English" voting ballots; "the reasonable use of profiling" to defeat radical Islamic terrorists; a condemnation of participation in the United Nations as a threat to U.S. sovereignty; an abolition of the refugee resettlement program; the prohibition of any sort of immigration amnesty; a constitutional amendment defining citizenship "as those born to a citizen of the United States or through naturalization," among many others.

Of those the only one that doesn't seem to directly contribute to a pattern of racism is the citizenship clause, and given the other points, I suspect that might be due to me not understanding what exactly it's trying to change. Despite his insistence that he is just a white who is also a nationalist, he's coming off an awful lot like a white nationalist in the sense of someone who identifies with and is attached to the concept of a white nation.

Saelune:
Calling people who express Nazi views is not the same as your strawman about hitting people. Rather it would be 'Stop hitting me if you don't like me saying you're hitting me'.

You call conservatives in general "nazi", and defend the claim by saying they should not act like nazi, despite the fact that the vast majority do not. Thus you are justifying a horrible action you are willfully committing by blaming the target of that horrible action. The horrible action is you labeling people that when such a label carries risk of both physical and financial damage.

This is akin to a domestic abuser justifying their horrible action by blaming the target of their abuse, with claims about the actions their victim has done justly warranting their abusive response.

Not everyone who you demonize as "nazi" is a nazi, or supports nazi ideology. You demonizing so many with such blanket accusations, as you have, and using that to justify not being civil to people is wrong. And it is wrong for the same reason as any abuser is wrong in blaming the target of their abuse for the actions they themselves have full control over but choose to commit anyways.

That is not a strawman at any rate, that is not saying your argument is some weaker position it is not for the sake of addressing that weaker position, that is just a direct comparison for the sake of making the point about their similarities. Please refrain from calling things "strawman" when they are not.

And the second part is the stawiest of mans. 'even if they have done nothing to you'. They haven't done nothing.

Most conservatives have done nothing to you. You still generalize them and demonize the group you generalize.

Also, that is not a strawman argument either. You broadly generalize a group of people and demonize them all as "nazi". This by the very nature of the act includes people who have not acted directly against you at all, thereby making the claim inherently true.

If you do not know what a strawman argument is, you should refrain from trying to slap that label onto things it does not fit.

Though, I suppose, your habit of doing so is the crux of this debate itself, isn't it? Trying to justify being uncivil because of who you label as acceptable to treat so.

Also I remember you getting so mad at me for criticizing you for defending Nazis, so here is you spending a lot of time defending White Nationalists:

No, I call you out for your terrible arguments and horrible behavior. Terrible arguments and horrible behavior that you try to justify because "nazi".

Just because you try to excuse your terrible arguments and horrible behavior by claiming it is against acceptable targets does not make it any less terrible argument or horrible behavior.

Nor does demonizing those you direct that horrible behavior towards. Nor does relying on generalizing a loose group of people.

I am not mad at you here for criticizing me as defending nazi, despite how sickening leveling such accusations as someone is, and how worthless it is at convincing anyone. I am not defending nazism in the first place, so you are wrong and your claims carry as much weight as claiming I defend meatloaf in taco shells.

I am, however; disappointed in your constant attempts to pretend that being critical of your methods, your behavior, and your justifications is "defending nazi" solely because you try to hide behind demonzing people to excuse your actions and justify your arguments. And that includes demonizing those critical of you as well. It is not the same thing and I will always call it out for what it is despite your constant attempt to ad hom instead of addressing the glaring and blatant flaws in your arguments and justification.

Such as here where you claim I am "defending white supremacists" for pointing out how your argument is wrong yet again and how your response to this make you look like you don't have a clue what you are talking about, instead reacting solely based on buzz-words, which may even have been the entire intent behind his use of them in the first place to make people like you look like fools.

You are defending White Nationalists, aka racists. That is what YOUR REPLY IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE.

Except, I am not.

Again, you want to pretend that calling out your horrible behavior or terrible arguments that you direct toward people you claim are one thing, is a defense of that thing itself. It is not, it doesn't work that way, and being critical of the myriad of failures in your reasoning, your justification, and your morality itself is not a defense of your enemies. This is not a binary choice, and it is not "with me or against me" despite your entire position and world-view seeming to rely on that.

I am critical of YOU because YOUR arguments are terrible and flawed. If you want to openly lie and claim that is a defense of someone else, I will call it out for what it is as well. But you are not the opposite of nazi, and being critical of you is not support of them, no matter how much you want to believe that lie or convince others it is the case.

If you wish to prove me wrong, go back to reread what I actually say there and point out to me the defense of racism, white supremacy, nazism, or any other use horrible ideal. Show me amid that criticism of your foolishness and your laughable interpretation of his words where I defended white nationalism as acceptable or good, or him as morally good for using the term. At best, I point out the possible motives being less malicious than you did, and at worst I openly admit the possibility that he is exactly as you claim, but that you are still a fool for playing into his hands exactly as he would be intending if he was.

But lets cover that a little more

Agema:

runic knight:
Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Screw him, then.

"White nationalist" is a clearly understood term to pretty much anyone. If race really doesn't matter, you're just a nationalist. If you're white and a nationalist, then say you're white, and a nationalist. If you're a "white nationalist", you're saying something very distinct and should be judged accordingly. If it turns out you used it mistakenly, apologise and use the correct terminology next time round.

If someone wants to step into the political arena and attempt to alter the public understanding of a term, it behoves us to very carefully think why. The obvious and only likely reason in such a case is obfuscation. Once sufficient confusion about what "white nationalist" means is created, it means every white nationalist (i.e. racist) suddenly gains plausible cover to help advance their racist agenda.

Never mind that we've been sitting through years and years of these arseholes deliberately planning and rolling out these wheezes designed specifically to help them spread their odious shit in the mainstream by deflecting criticism. It's all about superficial reasonability and appeals to positive aspects of liberal society, like the scam artists who play on people's charitable nature to swindle money they neither need or deserve. We just make utter, fucking idiots of ourselves to not look beneath that veneer and miss the odious turd it's plainly attempting to conceal.

I agree.

Much like "racist", "misogyny", "unamerican", "unpatriotic", "feminism", "islamophobic", "globalist" and countless other word attempted to be re-defined my those who politicize them and utilize them, the intention to do so is often very intentional, and if so, usually done to change how the narrative works, how people interpret it, and to change how it relates to their opponents.

A bad word carries a horrible stigma, so it is changed to apply to an opponent solely so the stigma harms them.
A good word carries a positive social memory, so it is controlled to apply to yourself exclusively, or in support of your position more than an opponent.
A bad word carries a horrible stigma but is embraced by an ally, so it is changed to be less harmful or to muddy the water.
A good word carries a positive cultural view and is embraced by an opponent, so it is changed to be seen as more harmful than it was before.

In this case, it seems an attempt to redefine an overly-used slanderous label in a way that requires careful addressing, or else those responding to it fall into the trap of looking like they hate white people and nationalism individually, as the way it was defined in how it was used made clear that, not the standard definition, was the intention behind its use. People jumping on that, calling the guy a true racist and support of a white nation fall into that trap and are easily pointed to as examples of the unreasonably of the opponent's position for opposing reasonable things (being white, being nationalistic) because they knee-jerked to the use of the term itself.

That said, I don't know the intent is there fully, or if it is just my presumption about his intent to do so. But that doesn't matter even if it is. He played his cards well, he defined it himself and came off with enough plausibility deniability, so to speak, to retain a reasonable position (being white and being a nationalist is ok), at expense of seeming either out or touch for not "knowing" what the term means, or not caring enough what the term means when used by others. Either would be a valid interpretation of the little speech by his target audience, but neither is being addressed right when someone instead just calls them a "true" white supremacist and supporter of racism themselves with only that example to go "look, see! he said it himself!". That instead just allows him to go "I didn't mean that, I said as much" and both deflects criticism that may be valid amid that smokescreen of knee-jerk reactions, and as a way to play his opponent for fools by associating with those knee-jerking or for looking like they hate white people and american nationalism.

Here, a good example of the same idea.

ObsidianJones:
Hey, guys. I'm a Black Militant.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I'm a black guy who believes in the Military. Did you know that the word Militant came from Latin? It just means to serve as a Soldier. So Yeah, I'm serving as a soldier... in spreading the good word about the Military, baby!

Ok, you are a black guy who believes in the military and uses a controversial term to describe it as such.

You clarified it wasn't the standard definition there, so we have all the context we need to know what you actually intended to be meant there. So, because you did that, you just look like someone who either doesn't fully understand or just doesn't care about how other people define it. Neither of those look like you are a violently radical support of blacks though, so anyone accusing you of that would be right to be called out for doing so.

This is the heart of the problem with relying on labels to define people instead of pointing at their own actions and behavior, as the reliance on labels leaves it up to other people to steal those labels and try to re-define them.

Asita:

Eh...at first I was willing to give him the benefit of being an idiot who couldn't be bothered to verify the term's meaning, but let's look at a few other things stated in that article:

"the pivotal political moment came when Obama came on the scene. I knew immediately that America was in trouble"

Myers was also part of an effort from the party's right wing in 2010 to replace House Speaker Joe Straus, who is Jewish, sending out an email about to his tea party group announcing that "we finally found a Christian Conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs"

The 2018 platform includes numerous planks that espouse a nationalistic view, including a demand for using "English, and only English" voting ballots; "the reasonable use of profiling" to defeat radical Islamic terrorists; a condemnation of participation in the United Nations as a threat to U.S. sovereignty; an abolition of the refugee resettlement program; the prohibition of any sort of immigration amnesty; a constitutional amendment defining citizenship "as those born to a citizen of the United States or through naturalization," among many others.

Of those the only one that doesn't seem to directly contribute to a pattern of racism is the citizenship clause, and given the other points, I suspect that might be due to me not understanding what exactly it's trying to change. Despite his insistence that he is just a white who is also a nationalist, he's coming off an awful lot like a white nationalist in the sense of someone who identifies with and is attached to the concept of a white nation.

And that is fine for an assessment as you are supporting the claim not with his use of a redefined term, but rather his other actions. (well more so a justifiable argument, but my argument was never he was not one, just problems with the justification of the claim being used as it had, so that is not the focus). The difference being though, you could use just the other examples and make an ok case for the claim, but the use of a redefined term can't be used on its own to make that case, and the inclusion of it amid actively detracts.

It is like saying A + B > C
Where A is already greater than C
And we know B is a negative
But trying to argue that
B > C
because of the first conclusion. It just doesn't work that way.

runic knight:

Saelune:
Calling people who express Nazi views is not the same as your strawman about hitting people. Rather it would be 'Stop hitting me if you don't like me saying you're hitting me'.

You call conservatives in general "nazi", and defend the claim by saying they should not act like nazi, despite the fact that the vast majority do not. Thus you are justifying a horrible action you are willfully committing by blaming the target of that horrible action. The horrible action is you labeling people that when such a label carries risk of both physical and financial damage.

This is akin to a domestic abuser justifying their horrible action by blaming the target of their abuse, with claims about the actions their victim has done justly warranting their abusive response.

Not everyone who you demonize as "nazi" is a nazi, or supports nazi ideology. You demonizing so many with such blanket accusations, as you have, and using that to justify not being civil to people is wrong. And it is wrong for the same reason as any abuser is wrong in blaming the target of their abuse for the actions they themselves have full control over but choose to commit anyways.

That is not a strawman at any rate, that is not saying your argument is some weaker position it is not for the sake of addressing that weaker position, that is just a direct comparison for the sake of making the point about their similarities. Please refrain from calling things "strawman" when they are not.

And the second part is the stawiest of mans. 'even if they have done nothing to you'. They haven't done nothing.

Most conservatives have done nothing to you. You still generalize them and demonize the group you generalize.

Also, that is not a strawman argument either. You broadly generalize a group of people and demonize them all as "nazi". This by the very nature of the act includes people who have not acted directly against you at all, thereby making the claim inherently true.

If you do not know what a strawman argument is, you should refrain from trying to slap that label onto things it does not fit.

Though, I suppose, your habit of doing so is the crux of this debate itself, isn't it? Trying to justify being uncivil because of who you label as acceptable to treat so.

Also I remember you getting so mad at me for criticizing you for defending Nazis, so here is you spending a lot of time defending White Nationalists:

No, I call you out for your terrible arguments and horrible behavior. Terrible arguments and horrible behavior that you try to justify because "nazi".

Just because you try to excuse your terrible arguments and horrible behavior by claiming it is against acceptable targets does not make it any less terrible argument or horrible behavior.

Nor does demonizing those you direct that horrible behavior towards. Nor does relying on generalizing a loose group of people.

I am not mad at you here for criticizing me as defending nazi, despite how sickening leveling such accusations as someone is, and how worthless it is at convincing anyone. I am not defending nazism in the first place, so you are wrong and your claims carry as much weight as claiming I defend meatloaf in taco shells.

I am, however; disappointed in your constant attempts to pretend that being critical of your methods, your behavior, and your justifications is "defending nazi" solely because you try to hide behind demonzing people to excuse your actions and justify your arguments. And that includes demonizing those critical of you as well. It is not the same thing and I will always call it out for what it is despite your constant attempt to ad hom instead of addressing the glaring and blatant flaws in your arguments and justification.

Such as here where you claim I am "defending white supremacists" for pointing out how your argument is wrong yet again and how your response to this make you look like you don't have a clue what you are talking about, instead reacting solely based on buzz-words, which may even have been the entire intent behind his use of them in the first place to make people like you look like fools.

You are defending White Nationalists, aka racists. That is what YOUR REPLY IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE.

Except, I am not.

Again, you want to pretend that calling out your horrible behavior or terrible arguments that you direct toward people you claim are one thing, is a defense of that thing itself. It is not, it doesn't work that way, and being critical of the myriad of failures in your reasoning, your justification, and your morality itself is not a defense of your enemies. This is not a binary choice, and it is not "with me or against me" despite your entire position and world-view seeming to rely on that.

I am critical of YOU because YOUR arguments are terrible and flawed. If you want to openly lie and claim that is a defense of someone else, I will call it out for what it is as well. But you are not the opposite of nazi, and being critical of you is not support of them, no matter how much you want to believe that lie or convince others it is the case.

If you wish to prove me wrong, go back to reread what I actually say there and point out to me the defense of racism, white supremacy, nazism, or any other use horrible ideal. Show me amid that criticism of your foolishness and your laughable interpretation of his words where I defended white nationalism as acceptable or good, or him as morally good for using the term. At best, I point out the possible motives being less malicious than you did, and at worst I openly admit the possibility that he is exactly as you claim, but that you are still a fool for playing into his hands exactly as he would be intending if he was.

But lets cover that a little more

Agema:

runic knight:
Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Screw him, then.

"White nationalist" is a clearly understood term to pretty much anyone. If race really doesn't matter, you're just a nationalist. If you're white and a nationalist, then say you're white, and a nationalist. If you're a "white nationalist", you're saying something very distinct and should be judged accordingly. If it turns out you used it mistakenly, apologise and use the correct terminology next time round.

If someone wants to step into the political arena and attempt to alter the public understanding of a term, it behoves us to very carefully think why. The obvious and only likely reason in such a case is obfuscation. Once sufficient confusion about what "white nationalist" means is created, it means every white nationalist (i.e. racist) suddenly gains plausible cover to help advance their racist agenda.

Never mind that we've been sitting through years and years of these arseholes deliberately planning and rolling out these wheezes designed specifically to help them spread their odious shit in the mainstream by deflecting criticism. It's all about superficial reasonability and appeals to positive aspects of liberal society, like the scam artists who play on people's charitable nature to swindle money they neither need or deserve. We just make utter, fucking idiots of ourselves to not look beneath that veneer and miss the odious turd it's plainly attempting to conceal.

I agree.

Much like "racist", "misogyny", "unamerican", "unpatriotic", "feminism", "islamophobic", "globalist" and countless other word attempted to be re-defined my those who politicize them and utilize them, the intention to do so is often very intentional, and if so, usually done to change how the narrative works, how people interpret it, and to change how it relates to their opponents.

A bad word carries a horrible stigma, so it is changed to apply to an opponent solely so the stigma harms them.
A good word carries a positive social memory, so it is controlled to apply to yourself exclusively, or in support of your position more than an opponent.
A bad word carries a horrible stigma but is embraced by an ally, so it is changed to be less harmful or to muddy the water.
A good word carries a positive cultural view and is embraced by an opponent, so it is changed to be seen as more harmful than it was before.

In this case, it seems an attempt to redefine an overly-used slanderous label in a way that requires careful addressing, or else those responding to it fall into the trap of looking like they hate white people and nationalism individually, as the way it was defined in how it was used made clear that, not the standard definition, was the intention behind its use. People jumping on that, calling the guy a true racist and support of a white nation fall into that trap and are easily pointed to as examples of the unreasonably of the opponent's position for opposing reasonable things (being white, being nationalistic) because they knee-jerked to the use of the term itself.

That said, I don't know the intent is there fully, or if it is just my presumption about his intent to do so. But that doesn't matter even if it is. He played his cards well, he defined it himself and came off with enough plausibility deniability, so to speak, to retain a reasonable position (being white and being a nationalist is ok), at expense of seeming either out or touch for not "knowing" what the term means, or not caring enough what the term means when used by others. Either would be a valid interpretation of the little speech by his target audience, but neither is being addressed right when someone instead just calls them a "true" white supremacist and supporter of racism themselves with only that example to go "look, see! he said it himself!". That instead just allows him to go "I didn't mean that, I said as much" and both deflects criticism that may be valid amid that smokescreen of knee-jerk reactions, and as a way to play his opponent for fools by associating with those knee-jerking or for looking like they hate white people and american nationalism.

Here, a good example of the same idea.

ObsidianJones:
Hey, guys. I'm a Black Militant.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I'm a black guy who believes in the Military. Did you know that the word Militant came from Latin? It just means to serve as a Soldier. So Yeah, I'm serving as a soldier... in spreading the good word about the Military, baby!

Ok, you are a black guy who believes in the military and uses a controversial term to describe it as such.

You clarified it wasn't the standard definition there, so we have all the context we need to know what you actually intended to be meant there. So, because you did that, you just look like someone who either doesn't fully understand or just doesn't care about how other people define it. Neither of those look like you are a violently radical support of blacks though, so anyone accusing you of that would be right to be called out for doing so.

This is the heart of the problem with relying on labels to define people instead of pointing at their own actions and behavior, as the reliance on labels leaves it up to other people to steal those labels and try to re-define them.

Asita:

Eh...at first I was willing to give him the benefit of being an idiot who couldn't be bothered to verify the term's meaning, but let's look at a few other things stated in that article:

"the pivotal political moment came when Obama came on the scene. I knew immediately that America was in trouble"

Myers was also part of an effort from the party's right wing in 2010 to replace House Speaker Joe Straus, who is Jewish, sending out an email about to his tea party group announcing that "we finally found a Christian Conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs"

The 2018 platform includes numerous planks that espouse a nationalistic view, including a demand for using "English, and only English" voting ballots; "the reasonable use of profiling" to defeat radical Islamic terrorists; a condemnation of participation in the United Nations as a threat to U.S. sovereignty; an abolition of the refugee resettlement program; the prohibition of any sort of immigration amnesty; a constitutional amendment defining citizenship "as those born to a citizen of the United States or through naturalization," among many others.

Of those the only one that doesn't seem to directly contribute to a pattern of racism is the citizenship clause, and given the other points, I suspect that might be due to me not understanding what exactly it's trying to change. Despite his insistence that he is just a white who is also a nationalist, he's coming off an awful lot like a white nationalist in the sense of someone who identifies with and is attached to the concept of a white nation.

And that is fine for an assessment as you are supporting the claim not with his use of a redefined term, but rather his other actions. (well more so a justifiable argument, but my argument was never he was not one, just problems with the justification of the claim being used as it had, so that is not the focus). The difference being though, you could use just the other examples and make an ok case for the claim, but the use of a redefined term can't be used on its own to make that case, and the inclusion of it amid actively detracts.

It is like saying A + B > C
Where A is already greater than C
And we know B is a negative
But trying to argue that
B > C
because of the first conclusion. It just doesn't work that way.

If you believed victim blaming is wrong, you wouldn't do it.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here