I’m not. It will always be possible to deliberately lie and mischaracterize what I say.
And here’s a newsflash: I’m not that important. I doubt more than a dozen non Dopers, if that many, will ever read my posts about whiteness.
Some of us, perhaps.
I don’t confirm it either. I simply ignore it because I think it’s stupid and off-topic and not worth entertaining your attempt at derailing the thread.
This post is a great example of ignoring it.
You found the dictionary definition to be just fine previously, when it provided your preferred usage.
That’s the exact asymmetry argument I directly mentioned.
As I already said, I agree that there’s an asymmetry. (Obviously. A biggun.) It does absolutely, and significantly, lessen the seriousness of the offense in one direction, compared to the other. There’s a huge difference between mild racial pejoratives, and history-laden slurs. But somehow, according to a process that I have never seen spelled out, the offense of the mild pejorative gets hand-waved into non-existence. Rounded to zero.
No.
Even if your moral sense has become bent enough to decide that it’s okay to treat different groups of people differently, because history, there are even more basic reasons not to use this kind of language. One of the chief of these is: Don’t call people by terms they dislike. Or: It’s wrong to group people arbitrarily by their identity, without reference to their individuality, when you’re talking to an individual. These are not tough concepts. Grade schoolers could understand it. Even given the extreme asymmetry, it’s not at all a hard thing to say “This is a mild wrong, but it’s still wrong.” The position of holding on to an explicit double standard, because history, is a wrong one.
“Treat us fairly, when we will not treat you by the same rules, because history” is just not going to fly. Politics is difficult to understand, but there’s at least an outside plausibility that these sorts of explicit double standards have already contributed to political damage.
I think I would have casually dismissed that hypothesis in November 2016. But I am utterly perplexed that I have just had to write: “Don’t use explicit double standards against people you might disagree with, especially if you’re trying to convince them of your ideas.” You are explicitly advocating a double standard, because you think history has licensed you to do so. I can’t even. I think I’m done arguing in this thread. I don’t want to have to argue “It’s wrong to hit people, even if they have bad BO”, or “Even though the kid is too young to describe you accurately to their parents, you still shouldn’t take that lollipop.”
Hipster moment: I’ve been reading Scott Alexander since the transfer from Livejournal to his own site. I’ve never bought his ideas on this.
So my response to you here was going to be similar to iiandyiiii’s. Haters gonna hate. Whatevs to that. But this is an interesting point:
I’ll think about this.
Especially since I’ve just had to argue the position “Aim for the ideal of treating people the same, even if the rest of the world is shitty about it, and you will inevitably fall short yourself” as if that’s a controversial concept.
I’ll keep reading. I’ll try to acknowledge any well-thought out argument that’s a little meatier than “History licenses me to say things that other people aren’t allowed to say.”
This post encapsulates the problem with white liberals and why, eventually, you’ll demographically lose the party. Republicans deliberately gaslight white liberals: sending liberals careening from Republican-manufactured crisis to Republican-manufactured crisis. White folks screaming about some evil chick being thrown out of a restaurant yet minorities are being thrown and chased out of public establishments all of the fucking time. Where are the congressional hearings?This happened two(!) days ago:
The robbers? A family including their children ages 8, 12, 13, and 19.
All the while, the Republicans burn the republic to the ground. It is infuriating; and why we are - district by district - kicking you out of the party. Auntie Maxine has more principle in her left ovary than all of the white males on Congress - put together. Stop allowing the Republicans to equivocate and gaslight you into submission. Republicans are like an abusive stepfather: You’ll never be good enough; Republicans have trapped white liberals on the mouse wheel of perfection (i.e. “Better not say nothing that offends us or we will use it against you”). White liberals should leave the party, anyway. Flee and swim toward the mist-shrouded, white harbor of GOP and the Libertarian party. This is for your protection. I repeat. This is for your protection. Leave soon because after Republicans finish feasting on the tears and screams of minorities, their political opponents are next. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
^cool story bro
Nice rebuttal, bruh.
No, what you are saying is that even if iiandyiiii never again says anything bout whiteness,m it won’t matter, because all it takes is one insignificant person anywhere on the internet to say anything that a conservative can whip up into something to be upset about, and that is what they will be talking about.
The reason that you heard of that one teen magazine editor is because they are scouring for anything and everything to try to build a false equivalence. They claim that an editor for a teen magazine is equivalent to trump himself, and get people like you to start fighting against your own party with the tone policing.
You will never, ever stop every single person on your side from saying something that the conservatives cannot take out of context and trumpet to the rafters.
If you do do the impossible, and manage to police every single person on your side in proper language, then they will just make shit up, and take outrage to that.
You know that they are not actually offended by iiandyiiii using a term on a message board. But, they know that if they claim offense, then they can get their political enemies fighting among themselves, which is their goal when they fake offense to such things.
When they actually do anything about policing the hateful and corrosive language of the people that they vote for, that they support, that they put into positions of power, then they can have a leg to stand on to claim offense to some random guy using a term in a way they don’t like on a random message board. As long as they continue to excuse the sexual assault and harassment of the people in their party that actually have power and influence, any offense that they claim to words that make them uncomfortable is simple gaslighting. Don’t play into their hands.
You used the hypnosis analogy earlier, and said that you would want to police other hypnotists to keep them from making you look bad. If the enemies of hypnotists claimed offense to the very idea of communicating with the subconscious mind, would you tell your fellow hypnotists to stop talking about how hypnotism communicates with the subconscious mind? This is the same thing. You are not only allowing your political enemies, who have absolutely no desire to see your goals advanced, to control the conversation, but you are even assisting them in enforcing their edicts.
Meh, there are some crazy people on both sides. Do you remember either of these incidents:
WaPo: Gay pastor admits he faked homophobic slur on Whole Foods cake
NYT: Rolling Stone to Pay $1.65 Million to Fraternity Over Discredited Rape Story
How are either of those relevant?
In the first, not only did he apologize publicly about it to not just the store but to everyone who heard about the story, the story didn’t make all that much rounds until after he apologized. This would be a bit different from the case that I cited, where when caught up in it, the perpetrators said that they did it in the spirit of what they thought that SJW’s would have said, and it was a warning that that is what they are actually thinking. I still see people make references to that incident as if it were a real incident.
The second is not political, but was simply the case of a magazine getting a story wrong. I am not sure how that equates to “both sides”.
And, there is the fact that there really are real people in the republican party that really do say and do things that are utterly reprehensible, and that is ignored and defended, but then will fake massive outrage over the fact that they heard that someone used the term “whiteness” on a message board.
They are examples of times when the Left “just ma[d]e shit up, and t[ook] outrage to that.”
Since the “just made shit up” part can’t possibly be in doubt at this point, you must be wanting some examples of leftists taking outrage at them, is that it?
Meh, there are real people in the Democratic Party that really do say and do things that are utterly reprehensible too, and they get ignored / defended too.
Very seriously HD, while your examples are crap ones the whataboutist point is not completely invalid. The difference is that it occurs as a matter of exception on the D side and it has become increasingly the normative case on the R side.
It is not great that a pastor lied or that Rolling Stones did an irresponsibly poor job at basic journalism. It is a bit different when lies and other made up shit is the normal expectation we have from a party from our president down.
In general making up shit is frowned upon on the liberal side and is called out when it occasionally happens. Making up shit is just what the current GOP does as a matter of course and the expectation it has of its leadership.
I click on some of these threads in a sincere effort to learn about “conservative” cognition.
HurricaneDitka has posted several times in the thread, but never comments on George Will. Does he think Will is just another RINO? An apologist for the Clintons? I’ll certainly believe that Hurricane knows nothing about Washington Post columnists, but Will also worked at FauxNews, no?
Was the above your “on-topic” contribution to the thread?
Republicans elect a President and House Speaker who smirk when their policies lead to deaths and child torture. But if Hurricane can find a diagnosed psychopath who pulled the D lever as an ordinary citizen, it cancels out: You’re Side Does It Too. Got it, I guess.
Paul Ryan has been pushing back forcefully against Trump, has he? True American hero, is he?
George Will, believe it or don’t, has asked Republicans generally to vote for Democratic Congresspeople in November. Did Paul Ryan do that? Did anyone on your list of other supposedly rational Republicans do that?
Do you have any metric(s) that you’re basing this on, or is it just a gut feeling?
I would not call George Will a RINO, nor a Clinton apologist. He’s certainly entitled to hold his own opinions, and advocate for them, but I’m not exactly a member of the do-whatever-George-Will-says club.
The metric is “See? Your guys do it too, just like ours.” So, are you saying that makes what your guys do/say ok? “No, no, not at all!”
Sorry, but yes, that is what you are saying. So, try again. How is what your guys do ok? In and of itself?
Nobody askd if you were “a member of the do-whatever-George-Will-says club…”
A logical null hypothesis is that those who approve of Republican thinking do so because they approve of the thinking of some Republican thinkers. Is there some particular Republican intellectual whose thinking “turns you on” more than George Will’s does? Ann Coulter? Scott Walker? Betsy DeVos? Help us out here, please.
I am reaching out to promote mutual understanding, but the snippy “not exactly a member of the do-whatever-George-Will-says club” doesn’t elucidate much.
Would you accept Thomas Sowell? I really like my Senator, Mike Lee, too. And Ted Cruz isn’t far behind. I don’t have any real animosity towards the others you named either, but it would shock me if they hadn’t made at least occasional public utterances I disagree with.
Thanks for answering my question!
You might want to start a GD or IMHO thread about the teachings of Thomas Sowell. They may present a challenge for the Board’s liberals.