Damn, your worldview is bleak. What percentage of people in America do you think are basically good, and don’t want to either exploit immigrants or genocide them?
Whereas it reads to me as stating that seeking empathy with those who have none is a pointless endeavor.
Unless you think there are only “literal saints” and “people who lack all empathy”, and no one in-between?
Which part of:
led you to that conclusion?
It’s you and @crowmanyclouds who appear to subscribe to a worldview where people are either oppressed and deserving of empathy, or evil Nazis who are incapable of it.
“It didn’t happen and it’s good that it did.”
Are you seriously claiming Biden’s border policies were no better than Trumps? You’re saying Biden didn’t cancel building a border wall, end family separations and the Remain in Mexico policy, and greatly increase the number of asylum seekers who were paroled rather than held in detention centres?
What the heck is the psychology behind denying things you support and voted for are actually happening?
I’m sorry - are you responding to what I wrote? Because pretty much all of that is a non sequitur.
Biden didn’t reduce border enforcement. None of the things you mention constitute “reducing border enforcement”. My statement stands, despite your deliberate mischaracterization of it.
What is it that you think I “support and voted for”? What the heck is the psychology behind building such a blatant strawman?
This:
combined with this
led me to and confirms my conclusion.
Once again you are deliberately mischaracterizing other people’s arguments.
What on earth do you think border enforcement is if those things don’t count?
What do you call this??
The only way to get from this…
…to this…
…to this…
…is if this is true of you:
Because nothing either @crowmanyclouds or I have said disagrees with this idea:
Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
Please read for comprehension. I said those things don’t represent a reduction in border enforcement. And they don’t.
Are you sure about that?
From unedited clips on the local news and ads that Trump endorsed at the end-
Haitians (who are here legally) are eating cats and dogs
Puerto Rico is “a floating island of garbage”
Mexico, and countries further south are sending drug dealers, murderers, rapists and criminals.
Kamala Harris supports the government paying for sex changes for prisoners. “Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you!”
“There are good people on both sides”
That’s the point though- who decided that it’s dehumanizing, and what authority do they have to push that on everyone else?
I’ve found that the vast majority of people aren’t as hateful as some think. But the vast majority of people also don’t like being told they’re doing something wrong/hateful when in their minds, they’re not. And that’s exactly what changing the euphemism out from under the public is- subtly implying that they’re calling something by the wrong name, and that it’s wrong to do so. And it’s not that people don’t like being forced to think about it, it’s that they’re being forcibly told they’re wrong.
So why would you be surprised that anyone would react poorly to that? Doesn’t matter what euphemism really.
Some just sort of naturally change over time (crippled vs. handicapped, for example), but others seem to be forced, and the forced nature is, I feel, a large part of the backlash against Woke stuff, whether it’s euphemisms, gay culture, or whatever.
I see what you’re saying, but a lot of people perceive it as being pushed from without. I kind of did with the Oriental/Asian thing- it irritated me that I was being corrected about it - after all, wasn’t I using the terms that those people chose?
Multiply that by millions of people, some of which just hole up in their own heads when this happens, and don’t reconsider things, and you get a societal backlash. That’s what I’m saying.
You assume that most people care about calling others what they want to be called; most people don’t give a shit; they just want to use whatever the word in common usage is, and go about their business. And that doesn’t make them hateful, just indifferent at worst. There is a middle ground here, and that’s part of the problem with this thread- it’s been painted as a black or white issue.
I mean, I’d say that if a 75 year old man from segregation era Texas was using the term “Black” by the time he died, that’s a victory, even if African-American was a euphemism too far. But you guys don’t see it that way, and that’s unfortunate.
Can you clarify what this “middle ground” is? I’m also not sure what you are casting as the two extremes.
What exactly and precisely is that? If I were gay, the vast collection of porn on my computer would feature men instead of women. I would view men instead of women as romantic/sexual partners. I do not go to bars or clubs now. So, I would not go to gay bars or gay clubs. I would dress just as I do now. So again, what exactly and precisely is “gay culture”?
You have a cite that is changed “naturally” rather than the change being made by ‘woke’ disabled people and their advocates?
No one is merely good or bad. Only, humans need parents, families, and larger communities to teach them how to be good as best they are able, and support them through word and example throughout their lives. This has historically been one of the overt functions of churches (imperfect, corruptible, but frankly the best structures we ever had for this purpose). Most people are incurious followers, who just do what everyone else is doing without thinking about it.
When the whole culture around you thinks and behaves immorally, only saints withstand the pressure to do likewise, or at least keep your head down. That is the condition we find ourselves in right now.
Culture is one of those things that are a little fuzzy when it comes to definition. Is there an American culture? I’d say yes. Black culture? We’re in a thread discussing wokeness which is a word that arose among the African American community, so yeah, there’s a Black culture. People within a culture usually have shared experiences, practices, values, language, etc., etc. That isn’t to imply they’re a monolithic block, in lockstep on all these shared experiences or values, but it’s there.
First, I quoted Bump and asked them to define a term they used. While I welcome your imput, you are not Bump.
Second
What specific “shared experiences”?
What specific “practices”?
What specific “values?” I am especially curiou to see the answer to this one. What do the many out and proud, left leaning, liberal gay folks I have known have in common with a Log Cabin Republican?
What specific"language"?
I noticed that too.
My entire point is a mirror of the Golden Rule,
Treat other people as they treat other people.
There’s no way to get only “people are either oppressed and deserving of empathy, or evil Nazis who are incapable of it” from my, actual, words.
Best as I can tell, it happened a long time ago- certainly not within my lifetime. I somehow doubt it was the result of some sort of proto-SJWs driving the switch from crippled to handicapped back in the early-mid 20th century.
What is your point? Are you really trying to claim there’s not a gay culture out there? Simple googling shows that it’s definitely a thing.
Why do you doubt that? What mechanism do you think was responsible for the change? Do you think that, sometime in the early 20th, everyone just spontaneously decided to change terminology, with no outside prompting at all?
Or do you think it happened because some people started saying, “Hey, we don’t use that word anymore, we use this word instead”?