Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

i see safespaces as the nascent beginnings of feedback loop nuerosis of fear and paranoia of otherness. the very thing that causes violence to gay people. it isnt that i see gaay people as violent NOW, i see it heading that way, and want it stopped.

... so what you're saying. Is you're considering the possible violence in a future you're imagining the existence of. And saying it's equivalent in consideration to the actual violence that has occurred in the past and present, in reality. Because that's what you're saying, intentionally or not.

You're also equating the actions of religious fundamentalists. People who kill other people, pretty easily as those things go, and in this specific incidences wants to torture homosexuals. With whatever freakish strawman you're considering general sjws to be. Not because of what they've done. But something you're imagining they could do, at some unspecified point in the future.

This. Is literally incomprehensible to me. Just... throwing that out there.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

There's an obvious difference between a Jew and a Nazi.

Jews:
1. Defined by religion or race.
2. Aren't intolerant and hateful.
3. Minority with discrimination against them, as well as being on the receiving the usual racist stuff. Big-nosed bankers and shit.
4. History of being exterminated by Nazis by the millions.

Nazis:

1. Defined by belief in a political ideology that supports fascism, nationalism, and racism.
2. Intolerant and hateful.
3. Have discriminated against Jews.
4. Have exterminated Jews by the millions.

And what "discrimination" against a Nazi would exist? Perhaps the Nazi wouldn't get a job if they wore their swastikas on their sleeves? That's acceptable - it's a hate symbol. If I walk around tooting a horn and shouting "Down with the Evil Jews," it's okay if nobody hires me (though it's not okay if I am censored). That's completely different from discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc.

[Antioch]

There's an obvious difference between a Jew and a Nazi.

Jews:
1. Defined by religion or race.
2. Aren't intolerant and hateful.
3. Minority with discrimination against them, as well as being on the receiving the usual racist stuff. Big-nosed bankers and shit.
4. History of being exterminated by Nazis by the millions.

Nazis:

1. Defined by belief in a political ideology that supports fascism, nationalism, and racism.
2. Intolerant and hateful.
3. Have discriminated against Jews.
4. Have exterminated Jews by the millions.

And what "discrimination" against a Nazi would exist? Perhaps the Nazi wouldn't get a job if they wore their swastikas on their sleeves? That's acceptable - it's a hate symbol. If I walk around tooting a horn and shouting "Down with the Evil Jews," it's okay if nobody hires me (though it's not okay if I am censored). That's completely different from discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc.

What if nazism was defined as a religion? (it actually shares a lot of characteristics with religion)

[wierd]

pttg:

Equal employment opportunity was further enhanced when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 on September 24, 1965, created to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin.

from wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_employment_opportunity

nazism is a CREED. it is one of the 5 protected classes. deal with it, its the law.

Frumple:

gay people are not magical. the progression of paranoia and fear to violence happens everywhere.
not my imagination. psychology, and science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201312/paranoia-and-violence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.718/full

[EnigmaticHat]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

This is moving away from my point, which was a specific response to weird's point.

I was specifically and exclusively talking about people that are trying to shut down the conversation.  Specifically the many variants of "why can't we just all get along", "we're all human", ect. ect.  My point is that those people are not "taking the third path", they're just arguing in favor of whichever side is status quo and being chickenshit about it.  Even if they themselves don't realize it.

Actual third paths like neutrality, or genuinely different perspectives, that's fine.  I have no issue with that, and was not trying to argue all arguments must have exactly two sides.  Calls for civility is a weird line versus trying to shut down the conversation but yes, if it actually is genuinely just a call for civility that's OK too.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

...right.  Because prior to this moment, there has never, ever been anyone like Pence in this history of US politics.  It reminds me of the famous phrase "Gods, guns, getting along with gays."  Pity the LGBT community had to come along and give the GOP a reason to hate them.

Look, "in regards to the debate over gay rights, gay rights activists and religious fundamentalists have been equivalent levels of harmful, rude, and generally uncivil."  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?  Because a huge amount of what we're arguing hinges on this point and you keep dodging it.

make it general sjws, then strongly agree.

i see safespaces as the nascent beginnings of feedback loop nuerosis of fear and paranoia of otherness. the very thing that causes violence to gay people. it isnt that i see gaay people as violent NOW, i see it heading that way, and want it stopped.

Alright then.

Prejudice and violence against gay people predates the internet.  It predates Trump and Pence.  It predates SJWs.  Its predates you, and me, and every living human being on this planet (although its also not THAT old but that's another conversation).

You want to tell me that denying people marriage as a legal institution, calling them by slurs like "faggot", telling them they're going to hell, huge amounts of abuses from authority figures towards gay children and teens... that's all equivalent to safe spaces?  Did glitter bombing make the suicide rate amount 50 year old republican politicians skyrocket?  Did "unfollow me if you're voting for Trump" sterilize and lobotomize and electroshock Trump supporters?  Did someone calling you homophobic cause your parents to disown you, break your shit, send you to a creepy camp where you're tortured under the guise of conversion therapy?  Did safe spaces deny you a legal marriage and the benefits that come with it?

Look, safe spaces is like, what.  It can't be more than a decade old right?  And you honestly want to sit here and tell me that in the whole long history of gay rights movements and counter movements, this thing.  This one thing, this one culture on the internet.  SJW seeking safe spaces.  That's the crux of this issue.  That's the bad guy.  That's the hill you want to die on.

[wierd]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

This is moving away from my point, which was a specific response to weird's point.

I was specifically and exclusively talking about people that are trying to shut down the conversation.  Specifically the many variants of "why can't we just all get along", "we're all human", ect. ect.  My point is that those people are not "taking the third path", they're just arguing in favor of whichever side is status quo and being chickenshit about it.  Even if they themselves don't realize it.

Actual third paths like neutrality, or genuinely different perspectives, that's fine.  I have no issue with that, and was not trying to argue all arguments must have exactly two sides.  Calls for civility is a weird line versus trying to shut down the conversation but yes, if it actually is genuinely just a call for civility that's OK too.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

...right.  Because prior to this moment, there has never, ever been anyone like Pence in this history of US politics.  It reminds me of the famous phrase "Gods, guns, getting along with gays."  Pity the LGBT community had to come along and give the GOP a reason to hate them.

Look, "in regards to the debate over gay rights, gay rights activists and religious fundamentalists have been equivalent levels of harmful, rude, and generally uncivil."  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?  Because a huge amount of what we're arguing hinges on this point and you keep dodging it.

make it general sjws, then strongly agree.

i see safespaces as the nascent beginnings of feedback loop nuerosis of fear and paranoia of otherness. the very thing that causes violence to gay people. it isnt that i see gaay people as violent NOW, i see it heading that way, and want it stopped.

Alright then.

Prejudice and violence against gay people predates the internet.  It predates Trump and Pence.  It predates SJWs.  Its predates you, and me, and every living human being on this planet (although its also not THAT old but that's another conversation).

You want to tell me that denying people marriage as a legal institution, calling them by slurs like "faggot", telling them they're going to hell, huge amounts of abuses from authority figures towards gay children and teens... that's all equivalent to safe spaces?  Did glitter bombing make the suicide rate amount 50 year old republican politicians skyrocket?  Did "unfollow me if you're voting for Trump" sterilize and lobotomize and electroshock Trump supporters?  Did someone calling you homophobic cause your parents to disown you, break your shit, send you to a creepy camp where you're tortured under the guise of conversion therapy?  Did safe spaces deny you a legal marriage and the benefits that come with it?

Look, safe spaces is like, what.  It can't be more than a decade old right?  And you honestly want to sit here and tell me that in the whole long history of gay rights movements and counter movements, this thing.  This one thing, this one culture on the internet.  SJW seeking safe spaces.  That's the crux of this issue.  That's the bad guy.  That's the hill you want to die on.

like many, you presume I give two shits who gets married to what. I dont. you can marry a dolphin for all I care. (in fact, i very much resent the implication, and ask you to stop being presumptive in this manner.)

what I care about, is the downward slide into the twilight zone seen in the pas 20 years, caused by paranoia, fear, and dvisiveness.

it must end.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Well I have some good news for you! It never existed!

What exactly should be done in order to stop this BIG PROBLEM? And what is causing this BIG PROBLEM?

(And also apparently SJW are the new Other.)

[wierd]

Well I have some good news for you! It never existed!

What exactly should be done in order to stop this BIG PROBLEM? And what is causing this BIG PROBLEM?

(And also apparently SJW are the new Other.)

was this directed at me? i dont follow. what never existed?

as for SJWs, they are the poster children of what haens when you embrace divisive tactics.

[Frumple]

Been the new other since it was coined, silly. One of the more versatile ones, too.

[Neonivek]

Been the new other since it was coined, silly. One of the more versatile ones, too.

Yep! SJW can mean anything you want it to at this point.

Are you an advocate of social issues? Your a SJW
Are you a troll who uses social issues to harass others? Your a SJW
Are you an intolerant moron who uses Social issues as a way to beat people down? Your a SJW
Do you care about social issues? Your a SJW

[Reelya]

on the subject of the electoral system how exactly do you think it stops the "tyranny of the majority" because i don't see how it does. all it does is give arbitrary power to high population states!

It doesn't do that at all, compared to a direct election. Smaller states get more EC votes per capita than large ones. High-population states get more votes because they have more people. The Electoral College skews things in favor of low-population states.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Well I have some good news for you! It never existed!

What exactly should be done in order to stop this BIG PROBLEM? And what is causing this BIG PROBLEM?

(And also apparently SJW are the new Other.)

was this directed at me? i dont follow. what never existed?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

This is moving away from my point, which was a specific response to weird's point.

I was specifically and exclusively talking about people that are trying to shut down the conversation.  Specifically the many variants of "why can't we just all get along", "we're all human", ect. ect.  My point is that those people are not "taking the third path", they're just arguing in favor of whichever side is status quo and being chickenshit about it.  Even if they themselves don't realize it.

Actual third paths like neutrality, or genuinely different perspectives, that's fine.  I have no issue with that, and was not trying to argue all arguments must have exactly two sides.  Calls for civility is a weird line versus trying to shut down the conversation but yes, if it actually is genuinely just a call for civility that's OK too.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

...right.  Because prior to this moment, there has never, ever been anyone like Pence in this history of US politics.  It reminds me of the famous phrase "Gods, guns, getting along with gays."  Pity the LGBT community had to come along and give the GOP a reason to hate them.

Look, "in regards to the debate over gay rights, gay rights activists and religious fundamentalists have been equivalent levels of harmful, rude, and generally uncivil."  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?  Because a huge amount of what we're arguing hinges on this point and you keep dodging it.

make it general sjws, then strongly agree.

i see safespaces as the nascent beginnings of feedback loop nuerosis of fear and paranoia of otherness. the very thing that causes violence to gay people. it isnt that i see gaay people as violent NOW, i see it heading that way, and want it stopped.

Alright then.

Prejudice and violence against gay people predates the internet.  It predates Trump and Pence.  It predates SJWs.  Its predates you, and me, and every living human being on this planet (although its also not THAT old but that's another conversation).

You want to tell me that denying people marriage as a legal institution, calling them by slurs like "faggot", telling them they're going to hell, huge amounts of abuses from authority figures towards gay children and teens... that's all equivalent to safe spaces?  Did glitter bombing make the suicide rate amount 50 year old republican politicians skyrocket?  Did "unfollow me if you're voting for Trump" sterilize and lobotomize and electroshock Trump supporters?  Did someone calling you homophobic cause your parents to disown you, break your shit, send you to a creepy camp where you're tortured under the guise of conversion therapy?  Did safe spaces deny you a legal marriage and the benefits that come with it?

Look, safe spaces is like, what.  It can't be more than a decade old right?  And you honestly want to sit here and tell me that in the whole long history of gay rights movements and counter movements, this thing.  This one thing, this one culture on the internet.  SJW seeking safe spaces.  That's the crux of this issue.  That's the bad guy.  That's the hill you want to die on.

like many, you presume I give two shits who gets married to what. I dont. you can marry a dolphin for all I care. (in fact, i very much resent the implication, and ask you to stop being presumptive in this manner.)

what I care about, is the downward slide into the twilight zone seen in the pas 20 years, caused by paranoia, fear, and dvisiveness.

it must end.

That downward slide. It doesn't exist. It's not happening.

as for SJWs, they are the poster children of what haens when you embrace divisive tactics.

Not an answer. What is the problem and why is it a problem, who is the problem, and how do you propose to fix the problem. (It's here and now, so that's out, and I guess the problem is THOSE SJW ENEMIES, right?)

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Been the new other since it was coined, silly. One of the more versatile ones, too.

Yep! SJW can mean anything you want it to at this point.

Are you an advocate of social issues? Your a SJW
Are you a troll who uses social issues to harass others? Your a SJW
Are you an intolerant moron who uses Social issues as a way to beat people down? Your a SJW
Do you care about social issues? Your a SJW

Oh they're all very silly. I'm obviously a Social Justice Mage.

[wierd]

i reserve the pejorative only for the second and third of those.

working for inclusion and equality through respect and compassion precludes "war". these are not sjws, they are equal rights advocates. no problems with those.

Doze:

yes it does. emergence of safespaces is an indicator, as is the rise of offensive sjws.
the problem is that they use the weapons of hate, shame, ridicule, and fear that they denounce in thier rivals. this is symptomatic of the progression of paranoia to violence that i linked frmple to earlier.

the slide is real. it happens every time there is scapegoats and division.

[Strife26]

There's an obvious difference between a Jew and a Nazi.

Jews:
1. Defined by religion or race.
2. Aren't intolerant and hateful.
3. Minority with discrimination against them, as well as being on the receiving the usual racist stuff. Big-nosed bankers and shit.
4. History of being exterminated by Nazis by the millions.

Nazis:

1. Defined by belief in a political ideology that supports fascism, nationalism, and racism.
2. Intolerant and hateful.
3. Have discriminated against Jews.
4. Have exterminated Jews by the millions.

And what "discrimination" against a Nazi would exist? Perhaps the Nazi wouldn't get a job if they wore their swastikas on their sleeves? That's acceptable - it's a hate symbol. If I walk around tooting a horn and shouting "Down with the Evil Jews," it's okay if nobody hires me (though it's not okay if I am censored). That's completely different from discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc.

Remember folks, there's a clear and different standard between goodthink and badthink, as determined by the passions of the day.