I realize that, while my post was heartfelt, I kinda skated around the OP, without responding to this.
As you can tell by my post, I disagree. In fact, those are specifically the type of people who are trash.
Basic human dignity is about their rights. It’s not about what they are called. When you do something bad, you deserve at the very least to be called bad names for it. At least, unless you repent.
The reason I said not to call people trash in the past was that I thought that everyone had some good in them. Even if they had a lot of garbage in them, there was still good inside. Rather than calling them trash, we should try to help them clean themselves up, or at least convince them they needed to clean up.
But I think we all need to take a step back and acknowledge there are truly garbage people. you may disagree where the line is. Maybe you, like Spice Weasel, see some good in people the rest of us have written off a lost cause. Great!
But I think it is naive to pretend there aren’t some people who are garbage, and I think telling people to not call them on it is only making things worse. It’s perpetuating the paradox of tolerance.
With those particular examples, at least, I think the problem is that you aren’t asking the important questions. I don’t need to know about grand juries to think the legal system is letting cops get away with killing people. I don’t need to know anything about percentages to know that gun control exists in other countries and that results in fewer mass killings. I don’t need to know what legislation Clinton supported to know I support the platform she made during the election and didn’t support the platform of her opposition. And I don’t need to have read the entire TPP to know that it was a document made in secret that allowed in businesses to discuss what they needed but not the ordinary people, and that it slipped in some SOPA-style language.
I think what needs to be asked is simply “why do you [not] support this?” That’s where you can find out if they have any sort of a rational reason for their beliefs, or are just doing it because that’s what their side says, or maybe something else.
Plus you’d be wasting your time arguing these other things if you haven’t zeroed in on what is actually important to them.
And, yes, I’m aware this may seem to contradict my earlier posts. I assure you it does not, even if the people were saying the opposites of the above. These are not the “trash” I am talking about. People with political opinions I do not agree with are not the same thing as “trash.” There is a pattern of trying to paint actual bad things as mere political disagreements, so that can get a bit confused. (I do not, for example, merely disagree politically with the KKK.)
I’m still all for talking and getting to the bottom of things and all that. I still genuinely believe the majority of people aren’t horrible. What I don’t agree with is the extreme that there is no trash out there. I used to would consider the person calling people trash as bad as the the trashy person. I no longer do.
Yeah. I’m not open with my politics, but I can see what you mean. I’ve got a buddy who likes referring to stuff, usually food, as garbage. It irritates the hell out of me.
I haven’t noticed “trash” references being especially linked to the Left, but it’s probably more common among the better educated (or those who think they are), which weights somewhat towards more liberal politics, but anyway it’s a trashy tactic.
Sorry, but while yours was the first response in the thread, it came 17 minutes after the OP and so misses the tu quoque record by a wide margin.
His main argument was that he felt the whole situation was unfair and indicative of racial injustice because the case was not put before a jury. This was factually, undisputably untrue. Using a false premise for an argument due to not having correct information is literally being uninformed about an issue. That is what I’m talking about.
Most of the examples I gave above are stances I agree with, so I’m not giving those examples because they are stances that I feel are wrong. The thing I have an issue with is the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the situation. The personal bar a lot of people I’m around have for claiming they are an expert on an issue is astoundingly low in my opinion. It bothers me, but at the same time I really don’t care. I more focused on the micro level of existence these days, I also haves piles.
…hey Richard! Is Damon Young the sort of “American left” you were talking about in the OP?
From the article:
I don’t disagree with Damon. I don’t feel that he is infringing on any basic human dignity. Far from it: I feel he is demonstrating an enormous amount of empathy. So is this the context that so offends you Richard? Or did you have some other examples in mind?
For anyone who wants to delve into the subject deeply, I’d recommend White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg. She notes the term has been used in print since the 1820’s and was fairly common by the Civil War.
The term always referred to just white people, but the “white” was supposedly a reference to the unusual skin pallor the stereotypical uncivilized backwoods dwellers were afflicted with.
The first time I heard this phrase, I was a kid reading a YA book set in the south before the Civil War. The young girl has a rude encounter with some white people while walking with one of the household’s slaves (a housemaid or possibly her nanny). The slavewoman tells her not to worry about what those people said as they’re not respectable like the girl and her family. Then she tells the girl something along the lines of how she would rather be a slave on her father’s plantation than to be poor white trash like that. I was so shocked.
Richard Parker, it seems apparent that the answer to the question in your OP is no. Does anyone happen to know offhand if using a male 3.5 mm splitter with 2 female ends on a Simmons drum kit with one going to a Logitec subwoofer using a P9 male to 3.5 mm male adapter, and another going through a Boston speaker system would work? I don’t want to waste $6 on a chord if it’s not even gonna work, I’m on a bit of a tight budget at the moment.
For those who see nothing at all wrong with calling people trash, is it because you believe that dehumanizing people via language is irrelevant? Or is it because you believe that it’s relevant but some people just really deserve it?
…what is inherently bad about the word trash that can’t be applied to other bad words? I’ve asked the OP for examples but they have chosen not to do so.
The context of the usage of the word from the examples posted in this thread seems pretty clear. The word is being used by people of colour, feminists, and people that could be described as “social justice warriors” to express a sentiment that IMHO is not an unfair one. Getting angry at the word “trash” is like getting angry at the hashtag #blacklivesmatters. It appears to be disproportionate, and as I said before, targeted at a specific sub-set of the “American left” that people are reluctant to call out. Calling it “dehumanizing” is a cop-out. It is no more dehumanizing than any other dehumanizing word.
So for me its option 3. Nobody has made the case that “trash” is worse than any other word. It is no more dehumanizing than any other dehumanizing word. And if you object to the word “trash” on the basis of it being “dehumanizing” or you think that “some people don’t deserve it” then you must also object and reject every single other “bad word” as well.
