Edit: Right now, I feel as though someone is trying to "rape" me into their ideals.
This is the quote I was referring to with the "rape joke" line. Now, when I read that it seemed obvious that you were trying to make a play on words between the word "rape" and the phrase "roped in". If that wasn't the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but the fact remains that it was an extremely poor choice of words. First of all, rape is an extremely loaded word in society, it is almost always used to refer to sexual assault (or is metaphorically used to compare an event to such an assault), and this very thread has argued repeatedly about the significance of it. Between that, the awkward phrasing that suggests the word was shoehorned in, and the quotes you used, it's entirely reasonable to assume that you used the word for no other reason than to elicit an emotional response and to guilt your opponents into apologizing. Maybe you didn't. Maybe it was an honest mistake, but given the context that's the best it could have been. You certainly can't blame readers for choosing the likeliest possible interpretation, instead of remembering the literal translation of the Latin root and then recognizing that even though the sentence makes no logical sense if that definition is inserted, your intentions were innocent. So let's say it's a mistake; people generally apologize for mistakes, or should. There are always people who try to backpedal, but that doesn't make it the right course.
But even more than that, I don't get how you can make this claim and, at the same time, argue that since you've only posted words, you can't have hurt anyone. If words are harmless and people should just deal with them, then it's safe to ignore your complains about being stifled or "raped".
But let's move on to the way you've been treating Nadaka's posts.
Damn right I am categorizing everyone in a sect that actively endorses rape and child abuse as evil.
His words, not mine: "I am categorizing everyone in a sect that actively endorses rape and child abuse as evil."
This is the most masterful example of willful ignorance I have ever seen. You stop reading, but not quoting, at the
exact point where he makes clear that he qualifies people as evil who endorse rape and child abuse. He's made clear that a Pentecostal who doesn't endorse the ridiculous shit his family did is
not evil, because why they may use the same word to describe their sect, they are
not part of a Pentecostal group that endorses rape and child abuse.
As for this Hitler nonsense. Your very first post in this thread (well, on this discussion; I haven't checked before it) started by suggesting that he wants to lock people away. He's never said that. He has, on other occasions, said very explicitly that while he does not like religion, he agrees that it would be a far worse evil to imprison people for it. Maybe you've not seen that, but you started by drawing an unwarranted conclusion and criticizing him for it as though it were his own. Later, you said that you were just offering suggestions, but that leads us to an interesting situation. Because apparently you
do think that locking people up in camps is a valid strategy and were suggesting it in an attempt to be helpful, or you are an idiot and introduced an idea for no other reason than to shoot it down despite the fact that nobody had endorsed it, or you
were trying to pin it on Nadaka and are lying now in an attempt to backpedal your way out of saying, "Okay, yeah, that was kind of silly of me, my bad." This whole thing reeks of a failed attempt at sabotage, and maybe that's not what happened, but again, I don't think it is unreasonable to draw that conclusion at this point. You're not wrong
because it was a Hitler comparison, and if Nadaka
had suggested camps, then I'd probably be right beside you arguing against people falsely accusing you of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
And this whole victim bullshit. Yeah, people disagree with you. You're offering a dissenting opinion, after all. But seriously, most of the anger here, as far as I can tell (and certainly all the anger on my part) is because of the way in which you consistently come off as trying to pull off dishonest arguments, emotional appeals, preposterous backpedaling, and equivocation to avoid ever having to argue about the real issue. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Show me some posts where people have told you that you're a bad person, or that you should leave the thread because you're wrong. But I want you to hold to the same standard you hold the rest of us to; please use only quotes where you are explicitly attacked because of what you argued. For instance, Nadaka's post to the effect of "Why are you supporting these evil people" doesn't count, because he's not calling you evil, nor is he saying you should leave the thread or are a bad person. He's simply saying that you are, perhaps unknowingly, helping out someone
else who is evil. Were he not, he would have asked "Why are you one of these evil people". I'll be happy to debate with you whether these are genuine examples, and I'll be happy to apologize for whichever I've committed (or ask that those responsible apologize) if you can make a convincing argument.
Now, let's get on to your responses to my posts, specifically. To start with, I mentioned how misleading some of my above statements were. This ties back into your argument about solutions, because I realize shortly after my last post that talking about it
is a solution, and may well be the only ethical one. Obviously, locking people in a camp is unethical, as would attempting to brainwash the world to agree. Whatever ills might be solved, the solution is worse that the problem here. "Awareness" is the only thing you really can do, and what you expect "aware" people to do is try and make other people aware as opportunities arise in their lives. At the point where opportunities almost never come up, well, I'd say the job is basically done. But I will say that it's incredibly arrogant to jump into a thread, tell people that they're doing the thread wrong, and then act like
you're the one being victimized when they tell you that you're being a jackass. Certainly, it isn't as though you've offered any solution (other than the Hitler one). And characterizing this thread as "sitting around the campfire and sharing feelings and hugging" is both needlessly offensive and completely missing the point. When the problem is with how people act, talking about how people act in an attempt to get them to act differently is very much a plausible solution.
Finally, a few specific problems that I'm going to actually quote for efficiency.
even though it's a ridiculous extrapolation from what they actually said. If you say that you're a fiscal conservative, and I ask why you want to exterminate the poor, you'd be perfectly within your rights to take offense.
I never assumed anyone was talking about extermination... only re-education.
What the fuck does that have to do with what I said? Here I drew a ridiculous extrapolation by taking "fiscal conservative" to a stereotypical extreme where I assume you find the poor to be a lazy drain on society and would therefore endorse a plan to murder them. The specifics don't actually matter. The point was to illustrate that drawing parallels between Hitler and Nadaka is obnoxiously idiotic, because the Nadaka you're talking about doesn't exist. You're attacking an argument nobody was making, a person who isn't really there. Like a scarecrow, or something. A straw man, if you will.
And furthermore, you keep missing that the word "always" is important. Nadaka's experience in being able to break away is not representative of everyone else's.
Damnit... back to the old denial of solutions. This is when I would ask how you identify and inform those people that are in those situations... and where everyone jumps on me for trying to advance the conversation.
Again, what? What does this have to do with the post you quoted. I said that you're drawing a ridiculous generalization: "You did it, so everyone can!" I made no statement, whatsoever, about solutions, and trying to attack me for failing to do so is, again, attacking something that I never said, because it was not at all relevant to my point.
What I said earlier about the thread not being about solutions? That was wrong. But it's a complete non-sequitur to bring up solutions when someone criticizes a philosophical argument you made. HOORAY, SOMEBODY DIDN'T ADDRESS A POINT YOU NEVER MENTIONED. Now, maybe we should be talking about solving these problems in a concrete way. But you never said that. Apparently, you simply assumed everyone would know what you meant. Or, more likely, you are backpedaling.
To conclude, yes, I'm angry at you. No, I don't think you are inherently a bad person because of your beliefs. Right now I'm beginning to
suspect that you may be a bad person from the way in which you're trying to convince people to agree with those beliefs. I make an effort not to conflate a person with the arguments they make, and I don't want to chase off people who disagree with me. I
like most of the conservatives on this board, as an example, despite the fact that I'm typically pretty liberal both socially and economically. Even though these people disagree with me, I like them because they typically understand why they believe what they do, and are capable of making honest arguments to support those beliefs. Even if I don't agree with those arguments. Please, prove my suspicion wrong. Continue to disagree with the posters in this thread, but don't be a giant annoying douche about it, no matter how right you think you are.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 883100 times)