Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Satinavian:

Saelune:
If Trump becomes President again in 2020, I am going to kill myself, so excuse me if I am a bit impatient.

I don't agree with you in this thread.

But just don't do that. Suicide is never an option and won't improve anything. If you really are thinking about it in earnest, please seek out help.

And if (independend of your feelings) your situation is really that shitty and you are discriminated against all the time, consider to move. Maybe you could emigrate to a more sensible country. If you are qualified, e.g. most of Europe would take you. It is not perfect here but it is probably better than on your side of the ocean.

It is only because I am privileged to live in progressive New York that I am not already dead. And moving to another country is never simple.

Agema:

If the job is important and it gets the job done, then get on and do it.

We think killing people is incredibly bad because we live in a generally very peaceful and ordered society; so removed from trauma that people in a country of 300 million could somehow present a caravan of a few thousand migrants as an existential crisis. We have in many ways a completely unbalanced and unrealistic comprehension of the occasional need to do things like water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. People can die today so others live better in the future.

It's not just a general societal thing, it's that many of us as individuals lead extremely comfortable lives where the necessity of violence - or indeed much lesser crimes - is almost mystifying. But anyone who takes some time out to look beyond their suburb must realise that's really not how it is for a lot of other people in the same society. We have to accept that some of them may have very different perceptions about use of violence, and these are explainable - sometimes even justified - by their experiences.

Damn straight. My mother's family is from the Philippines. My uncle was tortured by a U.S. puppet. Both of my maternal grandparents fought the Japanese occupation. My grandmother had a miscarriage brought on by injuries from the Manila massacre. Some of my great great grandparents fought in the successful revolution against Spanish rule, until some of them died merely two years later fighting U.S. troops who invaded and occupied the Philippines.

The family members of many revolutionaries were simply shot by U.S. troops. Including children. Children shot in the back of the head and kicked into a ditch they might have even dug themselves. And these weren't even the worst of the war crimes. Entire scores of people were simply made to die of starvation or dehydration. Women raped to death. They coralled people, shot the animals, destroyed necessary infrastructure, left to die over a period of weeks. They ethnically cleansed people from entire regions of the country. Not a man, woman or child left in entire townships.

You kill targets of opportunity when they present themselves because they will murder your loved ones just as fast and without a second thought.

People like Smith were never court-martialed. People like Smith never get court-martialed...

They bomb a wedding reception in Yemen. Anybody court martialed? No. It probably killed maybe a handful of priority targets who thought they weren't on someone's radar and probably thought they could chance going to a family member's wedding. They just give some namby pamby answer of some accidental collateral, news cycle moves on. If a high profile nation like the U.S. is not above surveilling and targeting your family members to get to you and can routinely get away with it with no one batting an eye, why does anyone think any other place else will necessarily be different?

People driven to armed resistance don't have the luxury to pretend like the enemy will be moral.

Putting aside the bitter fact that these aren't even necessarily personal stories to any singular revolutionary, but could be anyone within a band of revolutionaries who may go without any substantial top-down organization to begin with. Merely resistance cells with the explicit orders of making it painful.

The second cousin twice removed of a political elite family who stole your family's land and now makes money from it, even if not directly attached to the fact that that local politician singled out your family for detainment and execution ... Well they're likely to catch a bullet when crossing paths with a revolutionary driven to fight on those grounds alone, irrespective of whether they were deemed a legitimate target of the local resistance cell.

And you know what? Not going to begrudge them for a second for it. As chances are all of them will have stories like that and it will form the basis of why they fight to begin with.

CaitSeith:

"Same"? Reporting leftist tweets as hatespeech, DDoSing leftist websites, trying to shut down leftist's Patreons, reporting leftists and minorities to the police as terrorists, beating and murdering minorities on the street... is all that more civil than Saelune's attitude? Oh, boy!

If Saelune ever approached the level of incivility as the side she is fighting against, she'd be right now on the run from the police as suspect for physical assault and cyberterrorism.

Speaking for myself, I'd love the other side to be just as uncivil as Saelune; because they'd be way less harmful to other people.

Well, that's shifting the goalposts somewhat. The contention, as I see it, is that Saelune is saying civility doesn't matter as long as you earnestly feel aggrieved - I also note that Saelune doesn't put any kind of limit on that. And this in a thread where the prevailing rhetoric is that violent, even deadly, uprising is justified. Yikes!

So I'll ask again, does this mean Westboro Baptist Church are conducting themselves in a way that is completely acceptable from every angle you care to look at it, morally, societally, etc? Or have they crossed a line? And if so, does a "line" exist for the left? Because it would be disappointing if this boiled down to "no bad methods, just bad targets" argument.

You'll also note I'm not excusing the actions of everyone on the right, or drawing "X is just as bad as Y" comparisons, although I notice the left actually DO engage in most of the actions you list above. With the possible exception of murdering minorities, although I'm not convinced the vast majority of conservatives do (or even support) that, especially considering that many conservatives ARE minorities themselves.

Saelune:

JamesStone:

I hope you realize that you've been arguing with yourself all this time. No one ever said you were alone in your views. Only that you have a completely oversimplified, wrongly analyzed and self-important interpretation of what those views actually are.
In essence, you're going at it the wrong way. Many other posters who you have much greated consideration for than me told you so already, directly or indirectly. I hope this thread will cause you to reflect about this sometime in the future, but knowing your arrogant attitude and self-importance complex I won't hold my breath.

Hate to break it to ya, but this topic has only justified my actions to me. People who have disagreed with me here have been mostly people who always disagree with me. Others, like Gethsemani and erttheking I find to not be committed enough and mostly what they say translates to me as 'You're right, but I hate loud noises'.

...

Words cannot describe how angry this post has made me. Well Saleune. You're right. I do hate loud noises. As in, I hate it when people could do something productive and instead just make loud noises. You think you've earned the right to pull the equviliant of the white moderate card on me? When you have done nothing to earn it?

Saelune, I'm in the public school systems of my hometown, stamping down on sexism and homophobia whenever I see it, even making sure kids are called by the pronouns they prefer. I'm aiming to get my license to teach in the spring and do this full time. You only think that I'm not committed enough because I had the audacity to disagree with you and therefore I must be horrible. But hey, I said it before.

erttheking:
You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

You seemed to have missed the point I've been having from the get go. I don't think civility is a suicide pact. I think it should be discarded when it becomes more of a hindrance than an asset. My problem is that if you discard civility, you need something strong to replacement. Scathing and charismatic criticisms of the other side, civil disobedience, well thought out movements that go straight for the jugular. You? You do nothing close to any of this.

Hey, you said you were doing more than I knew. I told you what I'm doing to make the world a better place. How have you made the world a better place by constantly accusing people of being Nazis?

Specter Von Baren:
In which case you kill the forum. It already almost died because of people arguing about something.

Did it?

You know, maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure people left because, despite us being a broadly liberal community, the site's editorial stance came down explicitly on the "ethics" side of a certain public discussion, which involved things like moderators explicitly using warnings and bans to defend "ethicists" from criticism while allowing dozens of "transgendereds are a mental illness, change my mind" threads.

I think if what people have taken from that is that arguing itself was the problem, then I'm not sure that was necessarily the right takeaway. The forum became a very hostile place for anyone who wasn't onboard the "ethics" train, and naturally when the "ethics" train ran out of steam or its passengers finished basic training and went off to join the fight against (((globalism))) that didn't end well.

Specter Von Baren:
And don't talk to ME about empathy, it's people that lash out at others when they know very little about them that are lacking the empathy. I've spent my whole life with a big wall between my brain and understanding what other people mean because of my autism. I've been bullied, insulted, and frightened by other people but I do not take that as an excuse to be an ass to others and I still care about other people even if and when they hurt me.

And what about all the people who stood by and allowed you to be bullied, insulted and frightened? Do you think they showed you empathy? Do you think there was any sincere attempt on their part to understand your position, and don't you think if there was then maybe someone would have done something?

As I sort of hinted to Saelune, there are two types of persecution. There are the people who are actively malicious, and there are the people who are either incapable of understanding the suffering of others, or are indifferent to it.

Let me state something quite clearly. You might think I'm a "civil" person, but the simple fact is that if you are committed to being indifferent in the face of profound human suffering (which I'm not saying you are, for clarity, it's a hypothetical you) then we can't be friends, not even in a very basic online sense. If you value the perception of things being okay and everyone being nice to each other more than the underlying reality that there is profound inequality and injustice in this world which leads directly to immense suffering, then we can't be friends. It's not an accident that I spend most of my time here on this specific forum, it's a consequence of the fact that I can't walk away from my politics, not when people are suffering, and certainly not when I am suffering.

Saelune is the same, and you'd be the same in the same circumstances. Wanting everyone to be kind and civil is a nice idea, but if that means people having a responsibility to be nice and goodnatured in the face of injustice, then that stops being empathetic and becomes a very selfish need for "order" even if order is actively hurting people.

Saelune:
I assure you it would purely be for the selfish intent of not being in pain anymore. I have no fantasies of it changing anyone for the better or being a martyr. It is just me quitting on hope.

I see.

I guess what I'm saying then is maybe try not to pin your personal hope for a better life on the fate of an entire country. That's a huge weight for you to carry.

I get that sometimes the political situation can serve as a constant, visceral reminder of the more daily reality of life, but if nothing else there are going to be people out there who understand what you're going through and whom you can share it with. In my experience, that makes it easier.

erttheking:

Saelune:

JamesStone:

I hope you realize that you've been arguing with yourself all this time. No one ever said you were alone in your views. Only that you have a completely oversimplified, wrongly analyzed and self-important interpretation of what those views actually are.
In essence, you're going at it the wrong way. Many other posters who you have much greated consideration for than me told you so already, directly or indirectly. I hope this thread will cause you to reflect about this sometime in the future, but knowing your arrogant attitude and self-importance complex I won't hold my breath.

Hate to break it to ya, but this topic has only justified my actions to me. People who have disagreed with me here have been mostly people who always disagree with me. Others, like Gethsemani and erttheking I find to not be committed enough and mostly what they say translates to me as 'You're right, but I hate loud noises'.

...

Words cannot describe how angry this post has made me. Well Saleune. You're right. I do hate loud noises. As in, I hate it when people could do something productive and instead just make loud noises. You think you've earned the right to pull the equviliant of the white moderate card on me? When you have done nothing to earn it?

Saelune, I'm in the public school systems of my hometown, stamping down on sexism and homophobia whenever I see it, even making sure kids are called by the pronouns they prefer. I'm aiming to get my license to teach in the spring and do this full time. You only think that I'm not committed enough because I had the audacity to disagree with you and therefore I must be horrible. But hey, I said it before.

erttheking:
You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

You seemed to have missed the point I've been having from the get go. I don't think civility is a suicide pact. I think it should be discarded when it becomes more of a hindrance than an asset. My problem is that if you discard civility, you need something strong to replacement. Scathing and charismatic criticisms of the other side, civil disobedience, well thought out movements that go straight for the jugular. You? You do nothing close to any of this.

Hey, you said you were doing more than I knew. I told you what I'm doing to make the world a better place. How have you made the world a better place by constantly accusing people of being Nazis?

Would you prefer I call you a Nazi like I am claimed to call everyone who disagrees with me on anything?

I think you think I think less of you than I do. I also think you think worse of me than I do of you. I realize that is a weirdly worded sentence. I dont think you're 'horrible'. But I do think you are too dismissive of the situation we're in.

I also think you are calling the kettle black here a tad bit. If you think being angry and insulting is not a good method, maybe prove by example?

Batou667:
snip

It's not about feeling aggrieved. In fact, I don't think the security guard who was shot by the police felt aggrieved at all by the next day. The rhetoric is that if we don't get uncivil soon, later we won't have other choice but to become violent or deadly just to survive.

The ends don't justify the means; but if you care only about the means, those who don't care will decide the ends for you.

erttheking:

...

Words cannot describe how angry this post has made me. Well Saleune. You're right. I do hate loud noises. As in, I hate it when people could do something productive and instead just make loud noises. You think you've earned the right to pull the equviliant of the white moderate card on me? When you have done nothing to earn it?

I am glad one of us got angry. But then I am not certain if I've made my stance on this matter entirely clear either. I mean, I think I've shown repeatedly on this forum that I'm far from a moderate centrist in my political leanings, but at the same time I really don't think that being an asshole and advocating radical, or even violent, solutions is the way to affect meaningful political change.

erttheking:
You seemed to have missed the point I've been having from the get go. I don't think civility is a suicide pact. I think it should be discarded when it becomes more of a hindrance than an asset. My problem is that if you discard civility, you need something strong to replacement. Scathing and charismatic criticisms of the other side, civil disobedience, well thought out movements that go straight for the jugular. You? You do nothing close to any of this.

I agree with this, but I'd also argue that civility is built into civil disobedience, seeing as how it is up there in its very name. Chaining yourself to a tree to stop deforestation is disobedient and brings home the point, but you don't need to call the cop that arrests you a fucking Nazi (nor do you need to spit at them or punch them in the face). But mostly, I think Batou has it down:

Batou667:

So I'll ask again, does this mean Westboro Baptist Church are conducting themselves in a way that is completely acceptable from every angle you care to look at it, morally, societally, etc? Or have they crossed a line? And if so, does a "line" exist for the left? Because it would be disappointing if this boiled down to "no bad methods, just bad targets" argument.

Because this is essentially what I believe. If it is alright for me to be uncivil, to call people names or advocate for violent uprisings, then why is it wrong for the alt-right or Trump? Because my ideology is better? To me that sounds both pretentious and dangerously narrow-minded. Moral high ground might not win wars, but it can certainly win you political arguments.

Saelune:
Why? Honestly, I don't think you care what I do to myself. You are telling me not to do it simply because you are 'supposed' to advocate against suicide automatically

It's actually because I've struggled with suicide in the past and lost a family member semi-recently to suicide.

Gethsemani:
Moral high ground might not win wars, but it can certainly win you political arguments.

According to who? Not according the GOP, and they are the ones elected to run the country. So either moral high ground doesn't win you political arguments, or winning political arguments are worth shit when it comes to elections and governing in the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A

Saelune:
Would you prefer I call you a Nazi like I am claimed to call everyone who disagrees with me on anything?

I think you think I think less of you than I do. I also think you think worse of me than I do of you. I realize that is a weirdly worded sentence. I dont think you're 'horrible'. But I do think you are too dismissive of the situation we're in.

I also think you are calling the kettle black here a tad bit. If you think being angry and insulting is not a good method, maybe prove by example?

You see Saelune, the difference between you and I is that I don't go back to the same box of three or four insults every time and repeat them to the point where they lose all meaning. And yes, you haven't called me a Nazi yet (you have told me I can go fuck myself in the past though when I had the audacity to disagree with you, wait until I do something like that before having the gall to say this is a pot calling the kettle black situation) but you do have a tendency to throw that blanket over everyone who isn't on your side of the aisle. And you tend to have your own brand of insults for people on the same side of the aisle that voted for different people than you. And you shove away everyone that isn't 100% on board with what you're saying, which is why you said I'm dismissive of the current situation when the current situation has had me contemplating suicide more than once. Same boat as you. So. Don't. You. Dare. Imply that I'm dismissive of the current situation, just because I had the nerve to disagree with your methods.

And, also, I haven't actually insulted you. I've been highly critical of your actions, but again, that's the difference between you and I. I go after what people do and go into detail on why they're wrong. You don't. In fact, you have a bad tendency to cherry pick posts and only reply to a few points. You do that to me all the time. You just did it now. It weakens your argument.

So. Because you felt the need to ignore this question, I'll ask it again. You calling so many people Nazis. What has it done to help anything? I mean, you claimed that you were doing more than I thought you were. Well. What are you doing?

Jumping Christ on a pogo stick, I feel like I should be calling half this thread in to a domestic terrorism tipline and the other half to a mental health crisis centre.

Ravinoff:
Jumping Christ on a pogo stick, I feel like I should be calling half this thread in to a domestic terrorism tipline and the other half to a mental health crisis centre.

It's a mad mad world, man.

Satinavian:
And if (independend of your feelings) your situation is really that shitty and you are discriminated against all the time, consider to move. Maybe you could emigrate to a more sensible country. If you are qualified, e.g. most of Europe would take you. It is not perfect here but it is probably better than on your side of the ocean.

Moving to another nation isn't that easy, if it was, me and mine would be out of the US by now. It's extremely costly, takes time, and moving without a job already secure or a fast-track to a new job may as well just be a slow suicide, especially if you've got no friends/family where you're moving to. This is also ignoring that the state of the US has provoked similar groups across the pond to start being more vocal, using Trump as their example.

Ravinoff:
Jumping Christ on a pogo stick, I feel like I should be calling half this thread in to a domestic terrorism tipline and the other half to a mental health crisis centre.

That's the escapist for ya.

Dr. Thrax:
Moving to another nation isn't that easy, if it was, me and mine would be out of the US by now. It's extremely costly, takes time, and moving without a job already secure or a fast-track to a new job may as well just be a slow suicide, especially if you've got no friends/family where you're moving to. This is also ignoring that the state of the US has provoked similar groups across the pond to start being more vocal, using Trump as their example.

Yes, that is why i mentioned "qualified". You would to have a job lined up that allows for a proper visum/residence permit.
It is a time of pretty low unemployment in most of Europe in comparison to the last couple of years, though. So it is not the worst of times to try it.
The bad thing is that Britain is busy with the Brexit debacle which leaves few English-language options left.

Saelune:

trunkage:
Alright. So one thing I've noticed is that most people here think Saalune isn't being civil. Your (as in everyone) assumption is that Saelune also has the same understanding of civility. I think this is a bad assumption.

Two, if recent events haven't proven it to you, I don't know what will. Being civil make you sidelined. You are not part of the discussion. Everyone can easily ignore you. And you will lose.

Three, the current most effective way of changing society is to influence governments. I really don't like this. Like a lot. But unfortunately, that's how it is. You don't change governments through civility. You take it by manipulation or force. That's what MLK did. Manipulate people's emotions. Trump did the same. So did Ghandi and Hitler. You don't win arguments through reason.

Lastly .... has anyone read the "I Have a Dream Speech"? MLK calls white people racists. He calls, what white people thought as justice, police brutality (you know, exactly like the discussion today). He also threatens the nation with revolts until Rights are given. He calls for it to happen everyone in the States. In fact, he sounds much more like Saelune than anyone else here.

Looking at that speech and comparing it to the conversation and reality today... Nothing much has changed

I was curious of your thoughts on this topic. I am actually a bit surprised you seem to agree with me here as much as you do.

You may not think the same after I say this. We'll see.

Many people here are critical of you shaming other people into appropriate behaviour. BY LITERALLY TRYING TO SHAMING YOU INTO APPROPIRATE BEHAVIOUR. Literal actual hypocrisy. Sure, you might be more aggressive but it makes little difference. Many people here believe in "Freedom of Speech" but what that means is that they will ignore you if you are being too mean. They want to gate keep what others are allowed to say. They have no intentions of everyone having Freedom of Speech. At least you don't pretend that you're being the nice one.

How many years have people here been trying to get you to change your ways? Because I'd say at least 3. And its done nothing. Sure, they're right, you being more heavy handed hasn't changed anything. But neither has their version, being nice.

People here keep pretending that people like MLK and Ghandi were nice. They weren't. They were up in people's grills constantly, calling them out. They stoked fears. They acted just like Trump is now. It's why Trump supporters aren't budging. You can't logic your way out of this one.

One of the more frustrating things in my life hasn't been conservatives, but liberals who have decided to moderate my tone. After Trump was elected, they were the nes telling me to calm down because Trump wouldn't do anything against LGBT rights. A lot of them seem to do so to justify inaction, but certainly not all of them.

This is the main reason I sort of disagree, because luxury isn't control, it's luxury. I live in the extremely white state of Vermont, and most of the people who are all "calm down" are also straight and white. The tonal difference is almost Gwen-Stacy levels of whiplash between the LGBT population/women/people of colour and the straight/white/male population. And before I continue, I feel I must cut off any objections by saying #notallmen #notallwhites #notallstraights etc. because the one thing 2016 taught me was to fear the wrath of angry white liberals who will let me and mine burn because their poor widdwe feels are hurt.

But that's the thing. The people on the left who got angry that people like me just didn't get how it wasn't so bad and we need perspective are the same ones who see a public official get asked to leave a restaurant and clutch their pearls and ask about civility. The same leftists who try and equate cries of "Jews will not replace us" to profane language. Who look at a black man being shot for saving people and wondering why black people are so damn angry all the time. Who watch Trump undo Obama-era LGBT protections and wonder why I'm so damn angry. Who watch hate crimes on the rise and Same Thing Both Sides things. Because the left have become MLK's white moderate or the old adage's good people who do nothing.

And then we get to the people who threatened to lynch Obama, who called him all sorts of hateful things, who went after his family, who talked violent revolution, and go all huffy when someone said something mean about conservatives or Trump because the worst crime in the world is not shooting up a minority or curb stomping people, it's hurting their precious feelings. I'm freaking terrified of them, but I'm disappointed by my allies, who have that position of power to make a change, but who sit back and do nothing because they also feel the need for civility.

I'm mad as hell, but mostly I'm just tired. Tired of having to watch my every step around an uncaring minority, but especially the people who signal their support for people like me, or other disadvantaged groups who aren't like me but will be the first to tut-tut us when we're fighting for our very lives. I'd like to be in the position where I could be a logicbro on every situation, but I don't have that privilege. And all the evidence tells me if I had that position, I would be as indifferent as the rank and file.

Civility is one of those things that's great if you can afford it, but I'm tired of burying people I care about because one side is expected to be civil while the other is able to screech and throw fits and threaten to kill us and actually kill us.

Satinavian:
Yes, that is why i mentioned "qualified". You would to have a job lined up that allows for a proper visum/residence permit.
It is a time of pretty low unemployment in most of Europe in comparison to the last couple of years, though. So it is not the worst of times to try it.
The bad thing is that Britain is busy with the Brexit debacle which leaves few English-language options left.

But that still doesn't address the sheer cost of moving and time required to even get approval for a work visa, then being able to stay there long enough to apply for citizenship - if possible. "Just move" is an utterly useless suggestion because it's only available for people well enough off, or those who can sell 90% of their stuff and get enough money for the move. And if you've got a disability? Then you're just plain fucked.

Gethsemani:

Because this is essentially what I believe. If it is alright for me to be uncivil, to call people names or advocate for violent uprisings, then why is it wrong for the alt-right or Trump? Because my ideology is better? To me that sounds both pretentious and dangerously narrow-minded. Moral high ground might not win wars, but it can certainly win you political arguments.

This sounds pretentious as fuck. It is quite literally the argument for cowardice that Gandhi first and foremost spoke out against. It is quite literally the argumentation of people who are comfortable with seeing other people unjustly treated by institutionalized disenfranchisement. The point of revolution is because it guarantees that a government or occupying power will eventually fail to find reasons to continue to exist.

I advocate for civil unrest and active resistance against despotic rule, because I've had scores of my family killed by occupiers and puppet governments over the years. Yes, everyone of those people who died have had a better ideology than their oppressors. Every single one of them. They got murdered and tortured by governments and occupiers precisely because their ideology of resistance was better than the tyranny they suffered.

You cannot win 'political arguments' when someone is stepping on your throat, either.

They will be entirely uncaring whatever your sentiments may be. If your 'moral highground' allows scores of people to be killed by a system that relies on your personal refusal to fight back it's pretty fucking galling to pretend like you know the first thing of 'morality'. The person in such a situation that decides to ambush whatever incarnation of the Gestapo dragging another would be victim of the state from the home is not the problem.

It is quite literally that not enough people think like them that allows a government to get away with it.

Human rights do not survive their politicians. It is not a question of civility ... it's a question of whether how far you're going to let it happen. You personally. How far you personally would let it happen. That is all that fucking matters. Whether you personally will actually stand up and be counted to defend the rights of your fellow human being.

That is the only 'moral highground' that actually exists.

When I wasa kid I was bullied extensively for being a 'fairy' ... Three of them damn near killed me. Teachers didn't do anything. School didn't do anything. Other kids ignored it. You know what I did? Took a cricket bat to them. It was all that I had left to defend myself with. I put two of them into a hospital, because the system gave me no other options. It's fucking galling to me that someone would pretend as if that was somehow intrinsically wrong ...as if I should have just let those bullies rob me of more teeth and had me choking on my own blood.

All just so that people like you might avoid the uncomfortable of recognizing that violence can indeed be necessary.

Sorry to say it, but I made the school ground a better place that day and I regret nothing. And if that makes people uncomfortable why someone might think like that, maybe they should have stepped in before it was necessary.

CaitSeith:

Gethsemani:
Moral high ground might not win wars, but it can certainly win you political arguments.

According to who? Not according the GOP, and they are the ones elected to run the country. So either moral high ground doesn't win you political arguments, or winning political arguments are worth shit when it comes to elections and governing in the real world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A

Maybe it's not so much about the binary > or <, but also that magnitude (by how much) matters. Or to put it another way: you might get points for being better, but you don't get that many for being not much better. The nominal left party in our country has been designed to be largely worthless at counteracting the far more genuine far right party because that's exactly what the people who fund and report politics want: a strong right, and a weak, bought off left. The Kochs, in the Clintons, were able to find a family so profoundly arrogant and stupid that they actually believe that their strategy of capitulating to the right (i.e. triangulation) was both necessary to win elections when Bill was running and a good idea more generally, even today. (I can accept some amount of reasonable disagreement about the former; the latter is preposterous, though it manages to be "conventional wisdom" because "conventional wisdom" is also a function of what people who write checks want others to think.)

Around a quarter of the eligible voting population regards the Republican agenda as a good agenda, or at least find it palatable compared to the Democrats for whatever reason. Some of them, at least, are well represented by the Republicans. Another quarter think the converse. Some of them, I suppose, must be well represented by the Democrats. Affluent professionals who like women's and gay rights (as long as they won't mean higher taxes), and prefer their white supremacy to politely refrain from using racial slurs and to be conveyed primarily by economic class (anti-racists in the abstract) are in that category, I guess. And then the other half of the country doesn't see enough of a difference between the two parties to bother throwing their vote behind either at elections.

The thesis "the moral high ground is important for winning political arguments and winning political arguments is important to winning elections" hasn't really been tested in the United States in any thorough way, because the differences between the two parties are in many cases matters of optics more than substance.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

This sounds pretentious as fuck. It is quite literally the argument for cowardice that Gandhi first and foremost spoke out against.

No, it really isn't, in fact it is the complete opposite. It is an argument of ethics first and foremost: Why should I be allowed to do something that I don't want others to do (compare Kant's Categorical Imperative)? If the best you can come up with is "Because I am right and they are wrong", then what's stopping them from thinking the same thing?

The question of civility is not just one of realpolitik, even if this thread makes it seem like that quite often, it is equally one of ethics and moral boundaries. In the most extreme circumstances that you have advocated: Why should I be allowed to kill people, if I don't want the other side doing it? Because I am killing people for the right cause?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I advocate for civil unrest and active resistance against despotic rule, because I've had scores of my family killed by occupiers and puppet governments over the years. Yes, everyone one of those people who died have had a better ideology than their oppressors. Every single one of them. They got murdered and tortured by governments and occupiers precisely because their ideology of resistance was better than the tyranny they suffered.

Reality check: What fucking despotic rule? And what makes you think I wouldn't accept armed resistance against occupiers or tyrants? In the circumstances around which this thread centers (current US politics) where is the despotism, occupiers or puppet governments? What the USA have is a corrupt president who repeatedly fails to be a dictator, because democratic institutions are keeping him in check (last examples: The judges who repealed his immigration stop and the judge who ruled that he can be prosecuted for abusing the Trump Foundation). Is his politics potentially harmful to large swathes of the American population? Yes, but we are not there yet. So until the day that Trump abolishes elections, refuses to comply with a court order or calls out the National Guard to gun down protesters (remember when that actually happened in the US, by the way?), maybe we should not be making up hyperbole to justify our own desire to be nasty or violent.

I mean, just two weeks ago we saw several Republicans lose or be on the verge of losing traditional Republican strongholds, because people were fed up with their unbecoming conduct as politicians. That alone suggests that civility still matters and that we are not anywhere near despotic rule.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
You cannot win 'political arguments' when someone is stepping on your throat, either.

Who is, right now, stepping on your throat, my throat or Saelune's throat? There is no political repression going on in any of our countries, there is still a semblance of meaningful political opposition and a lot of people protesting the radicalization of the right wing. So who?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
They will be entirely uncaring whatever your sentiments may be. If your 'moral highground' allows scores of people to be killed by a system that relies on your personal refusal to fight back it's pretty fucking galling to pretend like you know the first thing of 'morality'. The person in such a situation that decides to ambush whatever incarnation of the Gestapo dragging another would be victim of the state from the home is not the problem.

This is all well and good, but I've never discussed the ramification of an all out political oppression or occupation. I've conducted this discussion from the situation at hand. So once again, please stop with the fucking hyperbole. Also let me be very clear about this: In the event that the USA, Australia or Sweden ever turned into a fascist ethnostate, got overtaken by a despot or tyrant or suffered an invasion from a hostile foreign country, I think we'd all do right to resist in any matter we saw fit, including lethal violence. But we are not there yet, we are not even close to there yet, and right now the democratic system in all three countries is still functional (not getting into a discussion about the weird democracy of the US, anyway) and freedom of speech has not been infringed, which means that civility and democratic process is the way to go. Because using violence against your opponents is literally the anti-thesis of democratic process.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Human rights do not survive their politicians. It is not a question of civility ... it's a question of whether how far you're going to let it happen. You personally. How far you personally would let it happen. That is all that fucking matters. Whether you personally will actually stand up and be counted to defend the rights of your fellow human being.

That is the only 'moral highground' that actually exists.

This is a cool movie speech. Too bad it is shitty ethics.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
All just so that people like you might avoid the uncomfortable of recognizing that violence can indeed be necessary.

Sweet ad hominem. Especially since I have never said that violence is never necessary. I mean, this is preposterous, seeing as how I regularly have to use violence against others in my line of work. I have also served in the military specifically because I think that sometimes violence is necessary to defend what you believe in and at those times it is my personal duty to be ready to exercise that violence (and potentially get hurt or killed while fighting), even if I'd rather not.

But hey, let's just pretend as if I am the cowardly moderate centrist and that this discussion is about rising up against actual tyrants instead of how to be oppose the rise of the alt-right and the presidency of Donald Trump.

Gethsemani:
Because this is essentially what I believe. If it is alright for me to be uncivil, to call people names or advocate for violent uprisings, then why is it wrong for the alt-right or Trump? Because my ideology is better? To me that sounds both pretentious and dangerously narrow-minded. Moral high ground might not win wars, but it can certainly win you political arguments.

Yes and no. On one hand, yes, the same rules should, in theory apply to everyone.

On the other, well, there's people in the US that call for police that murder black people to be kicked out of the force, and there's people that call for black people to be kicked out of the force. In one sense, they are equivalent, they are calling for people they don't approve of to be kicked out of the police, in another, there's quite a difference.

Secondly, whether or not you decide that it's wrong or not for people (including yourself and the alt-right) to call for violence, the alt-right isn't going to listen.

Thaluikhain:

Secondly, whether or not you decide that it's wrong or not for people (including yourself and the alt-right) to call for violence, the alt-right isn't going to listen.

This is absolutely true. I think my point of contention is that in a functional democratic state, the right thing to do if your political opponents start instigating violence is to use the systems in place (police, courts etc.) to make sure those that use violence are brought to justice for breaking the law. As I said in my first post, I am totally fine with people leveraging those systems by being vocal and disruptive (ie. civil disobedience or repeated protest rallies), but there's a distinct and important line at using vigilante violence, because at that point we are also disregarding the democratic system and the civil institutions that enable it.

If/When the system fails and the violent people go without justice and start making political headway through violence, that's also when violent resistance might be necessary. However, as I said in my previous post, we are not there yet. We might get there, especially if Trump starts going unopposed, but right now we are still in a situation when the democratic systems in all of the Western World are doing fairly well at holding the alt-right at bay. Jumping to violence early is the quickest way to bury democracy, that's why the confederates had to fire the first shots of the civil war or Germany had to invade Poland before the UK and France intervened. Because you can't proclaim to be about democracy and equal rights while simultaneously beating up people who don't agree with you (unless they initiated it, obviously).

Thread about civility, quickly becomes uncivil.

...makes sense. 0_0

Gethsemani:
This is absolutely true. I think my point of contention is that in a functional democratic state, the right thing to do if your political opponents start instigating violence is to use the systems in place (police, courts etc.) to make sure those that use violence are brought to justice for breaking the law. As I said in my first post, I am totally fine with people leveraging those systems by being vocal and disruptive (ie. civil disobedience or repeated protest rallies), but there's a distinct and important line at using vigilante violence, because at that point we are also disregarding the democratic system and the civil institutions that enable it.

If/When the system fails and the violent people go without justice and start making political headway through violence, that's also when violent resistance might be necessary. However, as I said in my previous post, we are not there yet. We might get there, especially if Trump starts going unopposed, but right now we are still in a situation when the democratic systems in all of the Western World are doing fairly well at holding the alt-right at bay. Jumping to violence early is the quickest way to bury democracy, that's why the confederates had to fire the first shots of the civil war or Germany had to invade Poland before the UK and France intervened. Because you can't proclaim to be about democracy and equal rights while simultaneously beating up people who don't agree with you (unless they initiated it, obviously).

Well, personally I don't feel that the West is doing that well at holding the right at bay (we aren't seeing too many Nazi rallies, but there's plenty of other forms of violence that's become normalised and unchecked), and I'm worried about leaving meaningful opposition too late. But, generally, I agree with you, if it comes down to open and outright violence, then we've lost.

But that sounds a lot like saying "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action". Trump is little or no direct threat to me personally. If someone who is directly threatened by Trump feels differently, I don't know if I should be criticising them.

Thaluikhain:

But that sounds a lot like saying "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action". Trump is little or no direct threat to me personally. If someone who is directly threatened by Trump feels differently, I don't know if I should be criticising them.

Why shouldn't we? I keep coming back to the old gem of: "What would you do if your friend suddenly became a Neo-Nazi/Drug addict/Gang Member?" Should we sit silent and let people we care about, people whom we think have good motives, commit acts that we can't condone, because they are afraid? Or should we intervene and try to help them see that there might be other ways they can deal with the source of their fear?

I mean, let me be really, really provocative here: The people of Germany in 1930 felt really threatened by the US, UK and France (not to mention the USSR and communists). These three countries were seen as being the reason why Germany was way in the red economically (not that it was true), why German people went without jobs and why German companies couldn't compete, because all three had import restrictions from Germany. If they felt so threatened, can we really say it was wrong of them to vote in the Nazis, who were ready to get really, really dirty to make sure that good, honest Germans didn't have to live in fear of some politicians or bankers in Washington fucking them over? Or even worse, that Bolshevik infiltrators would force all Germans to become communists? If they felt so afraid and felt they had to get radical, can we criticize them?

Obviously, we can. The Holocaust and World War 2 were not reasonable reactions to losing World War 1, shafting the German economy to get out of war reparations and the fear of a communist government. As someone who works everyday with emotions and people's reaction, a huge part of my job is to ask the question: "Is that reaction valid?". Being afraid of Trump and the alt-right is a valid emotion, but is the correct reaction to become nasty or violent just because you are afraid?

Good friends makes sure their friends don't go over the edge. In this case, I might not be right in saying we should remain civil (nor might Saelune be right in going nasty), but we owe it to each other to at least hash this out, to discuss what the appropriate reaction is. And we need to see that while fear is a valid emotional reaction to what's going on in politics right now, it is important to make sure we don't overreact to said fear.

Okay, let's do this.

Saelune:
And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...
And now they want civility?

A good, a nebulous "they" to blur the lines between people you disagree with and irrational arseholes everyone disagrees with.

Civility is a tool of oppression. Civility is what those in power demand of those not in power, for civility helps them stay in power. Civility keeps people from calling out others for their misdeads. Civility worse yet, being used to oppress by people who neglect their own civility.

Being massively impolite is the tool of oppression, by that definition. Krystalnacht wasn't very civil, for instance.

The Stonewall Riots were not civil, but they were effective.

Do you know what else was effective? Working together with people you might have historical grievances against. The problem with burning your bridges at a drop of a hat is, people stop having any incentive to care about you.

Gethsemani:
No, it really isn't, in fact it is the complete opposite. It is an argument of ethics first and foremost: Why should I be allowed to do something that I don't want others to do (compare Kant's Categorical Imperative)? If the best you can come up with is "Because I am right and they are wrong", then what's stopping them from thinking the same thing?

Because Kant has never solved governments targeting people for slaughter. Insurrection can and does, whether in termsof immediate relief of a people or whether in terms of a longterm solution. Repeatedly. Seriously, you're going to start arguing The Metaphysics of Morals all while pretending there aren't empirical examples in history and basic psychological phenomena where the diffusion of responsibility allows someone like a Kitty Genovese to be slaughtered in front of multitudes of people who simply ignored it happening.

No, the metric of heroism is precisely as Gandhi wrote of. That heroism was taking personal responsibility for the horrors you see. That it never gets better simply by pretending as if reason will prevail without people making a stand against the banality of the evils they are capable of. Whether by apathy, whether by impotent whimper, whether by direct mnachination to commit said horrors on the basis of prejudice.

Kitty Genovese needed just one person to intercede. Regardless of whatever means were required, intercession was the moral high ground. A government requires people to intercede in a direct and observable fashion. Many Germans felt the Kristallnacht was 'unbecoming'. Fat load of good those impotent sentiments contributing to circumventing the inevitable by that point.

The fact of the matter is there are shitloads of people suffering at the hands of bigots. They are currently being killed by police, they are driven to suicide by purposeful legislation targeting them for stigmatization and abuse. Kant has already failed to account for the behaviour of these people. People are dying, the dead can no longer turn any other cheeks. They are not magically going to come back to life. They're dead.

Once again, these are the sentiments of the untouched.

The question of civility is not just one of realpolitik, even if this thread makes it seem like that quite often, it is equally one of ethics and moral boundaries. In the most extreme circumstances that you have advocated: Why should I be allowed to kill people, if I don't want the other side doing it? Because I am killing people for the right cause?

Because they are literally killing your loved ones. That they will target you or your friends or your family members, if not already done so, if you decide to take a stand. That is not some hypothetical war game. It happens anywhere. As I was saying before ... human rights do not survive their politicians. Time and again, it relies simply on how far the public is willing to accept the excesses of a ego-centric narcissism of a government which speaks only in crass superficialities to entertain only the infantile preconceptions of the prejudiced and commodify its own consumption of in groups and out groups.

It literally comes down to whether the average people can even afford that weight of that, in truth, political inaction.

Reality check: What fucking despotic rule? And what makes you think I wouldn't accept armed resistance against occupiers or tyrants? In the circumstances around which this thread centers (current US politics) where is the despotism, occupiers or puppet governments? What the USA have is a corrupt president who repeatedly fails to be a dictator, because democratic institutions are keeping him in check (last examples: The judges who repealed his immigration stop and the judge who ruled that he can be prosecuted for abusing the Trump Foundation). Is his politics potentially harmful to large swathes of the American population? Yes, but we are not there yet. So until the day that Trump abolishes elections, refuses to comply with a court order or calls out the National Guard to gun down protesters (remember when that actually happened in the US, by the way?), maybe we should not be making up hyperbole to justify our own desire to be nasty or violent.

Reality check. It was the U.S. responsible for a lot of my family members dying. It comes down to the optics that we wish to pursue. About a potential future where such things will be considered inconceivable by one's government, not about how close it is to one's own home.

I mean, just two weeks ago we saw several Republicans lose or be on the verge of losing traditional Republican strongholds, because people were fed up with their unbecoming conduct as politicians. That alone suggests that civility still matters and that we are not anywhere near despotic rule.

And no one is saying launch a full scale insurrection. But then again, I'm not going to blame people in the years to come if I start seeing more riots, either. Try to be metaphysically consistent here. First you're talking of the categorical imperative, then you're telling me civil unrest is hypothetically fine. Which is it? And as if a handful of Democrat nominations will at all change anything. Trump is not the problem, Trump is merely a manifesting symptom that we've been seeing across the Western world.

Trump does not exist as if in a vacuum. We're seeing Trumps everywhere. We're talking about systemic problems caused by nothing but unbridled capitalism for 60 years... Well guess what? The dream of a world of plenty is dead. Our planet is literally being destroyed in front of our eyes, there exists no economic frameworks for meaningful change, and 30 years of Reaganesque ultra-consumerism has done nothing but further solidify artificial class constructs seeking to further disempower people on a global scale.

There is an entirely non-hyperbolic civil unrest that will manifest itself because of that regardless whether it is specifically a Trump or not because we're seeing it across the world.

Who is, right now, stepping on your throat, my throat or Saelune's throat? There is no political repression going on in any of our countries, there is still a semblance of meaningful political opposition and a lot of people protesting the radicalization of the right wing. So who?

IDK, how about the institutionalized stigmatization that creates inflated rates of suicide if not outright targeting (political and personal) of LGBTQ+ people? Or the fact that regardless of a Democrat or a Republican, you're going to get the same meaningless economic frameworks which will continue to engulf swathes of the planet in proxy wars in never-ending energy conflicts? Or say the arms manufacturing lobbyists allowing Salafist brigades to run rampant across the Middle East and Africa through a massive arms build up in developing countries that seeks to supply materiel to fight various governments that might take exception to petrochemical interest coercion and things like OPEC?

There is no meaningful opposition to the right wing beyond more right wing. The answer to French nationalists was a Macron. On the flipside, the answer to Cameron's 'unity' anda Johnson's populism, was a May's union with the various religious crazies of Northern Ireland. Do you honestly expect the political situation to get any better across the West, if not the planet, rather than all the more likely far worse?

This is all well and good, but I've never discussed the ramification of an all out political oppression or occupation. I've conducted this discussion from the situation at hand. So once again, please stop with the fucking hyperbole. Also let me be very clear about this: In the event that the USA, Australia or Sweden ever turned into a fascist ethnostate, got overtaken by a despot or tyrant or suffered an invasion from a hostile foreign country, I think we'd all do right to resist in any matter we saw fit, including lethal violence. But we are not there yet, we are not even close to there yet, and right now the democratic system in all three countries is still functional (not getting into a discussion about the weird democracy of the US, anyway) and freedom of speech has not been infringed, which means that civility and democratic process is the way to go. Because using violence against your opponents is literally the anti-thesis of democratic process.

Absolutely, and we've never actually had a democratic process. Trump did not secure the popular vote, and most people didn't even bother to vote. Congress has been so gerrymandered to hell that even with a growing number of people voting Democrat in these elections Democrats lost seats in their Upper House. Democracy is dead. Arguably it never really existed ...because no one can tell you just what the fuck it is supposed to ideally look like.

It's an ephemeral idea. A thought. A persistent experiment of which there is no control specimen and no uniformity of methodology. Any country, despotic or otherwise, can pretend to be a democracy. The U.S. is no exception. By other models we use to determine democratic processes, the U.S. is utterly broken by comparison. Assuming we mean 'democracy' as to be the system by which better engages the body-politic with the political mechanics of governance.

Trump literally does not have the consent of the people. Still president. The legislature does not have the consent of the people. It's arguably stronger Republican now, despite lesser support, than six years ago. There is no hypothetical lowest possible limit with how the system is rigged that can change that. Republicans lost total Senate seat support by 12 million votes. Somehow gained more seats. And this is at all assuming voting Democrat fucking means something. Means something tangible beyond 'I don't like (specifically) Donald Trump.'

A state like Wyoming still gets two senators regardless of being a million times smaller than a California.

And this is ignoring the blatant voter suppression that was transpiring.

But the only persistently viable means of change is violence. That is empirically observable. In the end human bloodshed changes history. And it is no more or less a tool of democratic governments than despotic ones. What's the point of a democratic U.S. that blows up your family home with drones in comparison to a despotic U.S. that still blows up your family home with a drone? Did democracy suddenly end wars or the reason to stage insurrections? Fuck no. The time to fight the Nazi SA was during the Weimar Republic, not afterwards.

Just because it's not immediately clear when a democracy has failed or whether even the moral metrics by which a society should pretend as if should even exist as it is doesn't somehow refute the idea that violence changes history.

This is a cool movie speech. Too bad it is shitty ethics.

What...? As opposed to some garbage stance on the categorical imperative? Tell me, what would Kant say to food rioters in the face of a global capitalist system of artificial volatility born by profiteering and speculation rather than the specifics of total grain production?

Oh that's right, he was born in the 18th century ...

Sweet ad hominem. Especially since I have never said that violence is never necessary. I mean, this is preposterous, seeing as how I regularly have to use violence against others in my line of work. I have also served in the military specifically because I think that sometimes violence is necessary to defend what you believe in and at those times it is my personal duty to be ready to exercise that violence (and potentially get hurt or killed while fighting), even if I'd rather not.

But hey, let's just pretend as if I am the cowardly moderate centrist and that this discussion is about rising up against actual tyrants instead of how to be oppose the rise of the alt-right and the presidency of Donald Trump.

You know, when I enlisted we had a Chief in the form of Sir Peter Cosgrove. A humanist, and a powerful character for global peace. A master tactician, strategist and diplomat. Australia had recently begun handing over the reins of the most successful intervention in history to the UN proper. A conflict we should have waged decades prior, but regardless--being a soldier was something to be proud of. We helped end the hostile occupation of a new country to be, and many soldiers were lifting a hammer to build temporary shelters as much as keeping the streets safe, and trying to locate people (or their remains) to reunite them with loved ones or give them a suitable burial.

There was more than a little predatory politics involved (East Timor oil platforms) but on the whole the idea of the soldiery itself was an uplifting ideal and we were living it. And if that was that, that would be fine.

And if that continued to be the job it would have been fine. But it wasn't. If you would ask me what the virtue of being a soldier was in my youth, I would have pointed to East Timor as legitimately being at our best. The 21st century would not turn out to be kind to my ideals. Capitalist driven, manipulated violence is inherently not what I'm arguing.

All violence is not equal in deserving to be.

Catnip1024:
Do you know what else was effective? Working together with people you might have historical grievances against. The problem with burning your bridges at a drop of a hat is, people stop having any incentive to care about you.

And what exactly do minorities have to gain by trying to work with people who refuse to acknowledge them as people? Because that's the point we're at right now. A significant enough portion of the population simply wants to treat gay, trans, and non-white people as less than human that we - the LGBT+ community - are currently having to deal with the prospect of losing the progress we've made recently.

How exactly are we supposed to reason with people who simply won't see reason? It's like trying to convince an anti-vaxxer they're wrong. Either they'll just dig in and continue to ignore the facts, or maybe - and that's a big maybe - they might change after something happens to a loved one, but that's not guaranteed. I am not going to waste my time and breath trying to "work with" people who will never change.

Dr. Thrax:

Catnip1024:
Do you know what else was effective? Working together with people you might have historical grievances against. The problem with burning your bridges at a drop of a hat is, people stop having any incentive to care about you.

And what exactly do minorities have to gain by trying to work with people who refuse to acknowledge them as people?

The old mining villages were about as unaccepting of LGBT as the UK gets. There's a reason I posted that link. It shows that a bit of common respect is often reciprocated, and somebody has to make the first move. I mean, you complain about other people digging in, but it seems pretty apparent you've dug some ditches of your own...

Catnip1024:
Okay, let's do this.

Saelune:
And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...
And now they want civility?

A good, a nebulous "they" to blur the lines between people you disagree with and irrational arseholes everyone disagrees with.

Civility is a tool of oppression. Civility is what those in power demand of those not in power, for civility helps them stay in power. Civility keeps people from calling out others for their misdeads. Civility worse yet, being used to oppress by people who neglect their own civility.

Being massively impolite is the tool of oppression, by that definition. Krystalnacht wasn't very civil, for instance.

The Stonewall Riots were not civil, but they were effective.

Do you know what else was effective? Working together with people you might have historical grievances against. The problem with burning your bridges at a drop of a hat is, people stop having any incentive to care about you.

'You should try working with those you disagree with' said people who refuse to work with people they disagree with.

You want me to do something you wont do. That is textbook hypocrisy.

erttheking:

Saelune:
Would you prefer I call you a Nazi like I am claimed to call everyone who disagrees with me on anything?

I think you think I think less of you than I do. I also think you think worse of me than I do of you. I realize that is a weirdly worded sentence. I dont think you're 'horrible'. But I do think you are too dismissive of the situation we're in.

I also think you are calling the kettle black here a tad bit. If you think being angry and insulting is not a good method, maybe prove by example?

You see Saelune, the difference between you and I is that I don't go back to the same box of three or four insults every time and repeat them to the point where they lose all meaning. And yes, you haven't called me a Nazi yet (you have told me I can go fuck myself in the past though when I had the audacity to disagree with you, wait until I do something like that before having the gall to say this is a pot calling the kettle black situation) but you do have a tendency to throw that blanket over everyone who isn't on your side of the aisle. And you tend to have your own brand of insults for people on the same side of the aisle that voted for different people than you. And you shove away everyone that isn't 100% on board with what you're saying, which is why you said I'm dismissive of the current situation when the current situation has had me contemplating suicide more than once. Same boat as you. So. Don't. You. Dare. Imply that I'm dismissive of the current situation, just because I had the nerve to disagree with your methods.

And, also, I haven't actually insulted you. I've been highly critical of your actions, but again, that's the difference between you and I. I go after what people do and go into detail on why they're wrong. You don't. In fact, you have a bad tendency to cherry pick posts and only reply to a few points. You do that to me all the time. You just did it now. It weakens your argument.

So. Because you felt the need to ignore this question, I'll ask it again. You calling so many people Nazis. What has it done to help anything? I mean, you claimed that you were doing more than I thought you were. Well. What are you doing?

trunkage:

Many people here are critical of you shaming other people into appropriate behaviour. BY LITERALLY TRYING TO SHAMING YOU INTO APPROPIRATE BEHAVIOUR.

I dont let people hide behind a false shield of 'moderate'. A notably high number of people want to go 'I dont support Trump, but...'. It is sickening. People do this because they know they are wrong, but dont want to be right. I do also think this very topic has been beneficial, atleast as much as anything on this site can be. Maybe I am wrong, but we can never truly know the far-reaching effects of our actions.

And for the record, being a teacher doesnt make you a saint. Being a good teacher does, but that is easier said than done. I do hope you're a good one.

Catnip1024:
The old mining villages were about as unaccepting of LGBT as the UK gets. There's a reason I posted that link. It shows that a bit of common respect is often reciprocated, and somebody has to make the first move. I mean, you complain about other people digging in, but it seems pretty apparent you've dug some ditches of your own...

In a better world this would work, but we're past "a little common respect" now because this does nothing to remove the institutions - e.g. religious groups and numerous politicians - and rampant anti-intellectualism which are the prime culprits of bigotry. We have no common cause to rally behind, we have nothing to offer sympathy for - which is what the LGBT community did for the mining village, rallied behind an injustice being committed against the miners. You're asking us to extend an olive branch to the same people who are trying to make life difficult or impossible for us.

Yes, I've dug my own trench - in response to the various other people who have already dug their own trenches squarely on the opposing side. If they're just going to fight me and ignore everything I have to say, then there is no reason for me to waste my time and effort trying to pull them out of their trench or convince them that their location isn't the best place for a trench. You cannot educate people who will not listen. Your words will fall on deaf ears.

The only way they want to engage us is to either shout at us for being deviants/perverts, or to try and "convert" us - both out of our own sexualities and gender identities and into their religion.

Catnip1024:
There's a reason I posted that link.

And while that sounds great, the fact that you're posting something from fifteen years after Stonewall to counter an argument including Stonewall in what was literally a different era in LGBT rights both for better and for worse is kind of a problem in itself, because we didn't get into the eighties without actions where we were mad as hell and we weren't going to take it anymore.

We generally don't get to one without the other. It is somewhat naive of anyone to look at any solution as one size fits all, however, so take that as an indictment ow whoever you choose. From my side of the pond, however, even groups like "atheists helping the homeless" get negative flak and ANY LGBT visibility is reacted to negatively by conservatives (particularly the religious right). It's interesting to be told to reach out to people who are actively slapping us away, but that's the reality I live in.

Dr. Thrax:
The only way they want to engage us is to either shout at us for being deviants/perverts, or to try and "convert" us - both out of our own sexualities and gender identities and into their religion.

Or to try and define and legislate us out of existence. This shit is literally Orwellian in that we have governing bodies seeking to eliminate the language by which we can receive equal treatment or justice for grievances. And it's frustrating because as we face this, those who claim to be moderates are slapping us on the wrist and policing our tone rather than offering any help.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 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