Freedom of speech means freedom from repercussions?

[Perfection]

It's pretty weird to fire someone for posting disgusting things that degrade human dignity when the president-elect routinely does it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess you haven't tried addressing your concerns with street gangs. That's a pretty extreme example, though. How about garden variety psychotic abusers and sociopaths?

And the disconnect with reality continues to rear its ugly head.

OF COURSE we need to shoot everyone who comes within range, since psychotic abusers and sociopaths are "garden variety" and sprouting like weeds.

Okay, reached "the bottom," and as expected it is as unpleasant as a septic tank. Now what?

 

[metalhead]

I don't agree, at all. They need to be curbed with better judgement from rationality, but they're not some unnecessary obsolete aspect. I can just as easily say a given person's lack of such instinct is damage from too much societal insulation, and he'll be far more likely the victim of someone trying to take advantage.

Very few snake oil salesman encounters end as pleasantly as "The Music Man".

I think we may be talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about the impulses we have to feel afraid of people different from us, particularly that look different. You seem to be talking more about a generic impulse not to trust people we don't know. The latter, I would agree is useful exactly as you describe. It's the former which is not.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I think we may be talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about the impulses we have to feel afraid of people different from us, particularly that look different. You seem to be talking more about a generic impulse not to trust people we don't know. The latter, I would agree is useful exactly as you describe. It's the former which is not.

How different are they? Where does this difference you're pointing to begin? I don't think it's different at all, it's all part of stranger danger, and amplified by previous experience with those matching similar appearance and mannerism. This is how these things begin, generally. The other way is that a person represents something within the self which, for whatever reason, disgusts us, so we deny "it" as we deny what's in the self.

 

[Senethro]

I imagine it's a personal position, but I can cite examples "being against feminism" is moderate liberal, too.

Watched a couple of minutes, way too much memery, heavy handed video editing so you know when to laugh, and attacking style over substance.

Do you have anything that isn't so cringey?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

And the disconnect with reality continues to rear its ugly head.

OF COURSE we need to shoot everyone who comes within range, since psychotic abusers and sociopaths are "garden variety" and sprouting like weeds.

Okay, reached "the bottom," and as expected it is as unpleasant as a septic tank. Now what?

Yes, your disconnect with reality often rears its head. I don't think it's always ugly. Sometimes it kind of adorable.

Moderator Action: This is trolling. FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Watched a couple of minutes, way too much memery, heavy handed video editing so you know when to laugh, and attacking style over substance.

Do you have anything that isn't so cringey?

Aww, you don't like her? I think she's great, even though she's liberal and I'm conservative. She's fun and poignant.

I guess you could google "liberals against feminism".

You know, my point wasn't that "isms" are inherently bad. My point is to explain we all have prejudice, I admit to my prejudice, and here is the reason I have such a prejudice. You're categorically not going to convince me to not be prejudiced against feminism. It's impossible. I will, though, stop and help them fix a tire, if they're not going to clown me for being a typical man over it... or even if they do, I'd still stop.

 

[Senethro]

It just doesn't come across that way to me. Anti-feminists always claim secret knowledge that feminists are actually anti-male fascists despite any evidence to the contrary.

If you sub in approximately similar movements into the statement such as "I am prejudiced against native rights activists", "I am prejudiced against gay rights activists" then it sounds very obviously weird.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, your disconnect with reality often rears its head. I don't think it's always ugly. Sometimes it kind of adorable.

LOL...the old "you are, but what am I" works so well on Breitbart I'll bet you wonder why it just gets you laughed at here, eh? Hint: look for a safe space.

Moderator Action: Since we're talking about playground maxims, two wrongs do not make a right. Please do not respond to trolling posts.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

LOL...the old "you are, but what am I" works so well on Breitbart I'll bet you wonder why it just gets you laughed at here, eh? Hint: look for a safe space.

K. When you see me link Breitbart here, you can discuss that. You're attributing qualities to me which are unsubstantiated. I don't like media that is more commentary than news, as Infowars, Fox, etc. Your accusations are hollow, you're swinging at air, you don't recognize sense when you're slapped with it, you're bad at this and I'm about done with you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This just exemplifies most of what I read from you. You have no idea why I'm laughing right now.

Let me guess: It's because you read a relative few of my posts out of all 14,000+ over the more than 10 years I've been here and you think you know me. Oh, and you also can't recognize sarcasm or realize when you've used an utterly ridiculous analogy.

I "think" you're a female chauvinist. Males have been treated just as poorly as females in history. Females have enjoyed periods of equality and even supremacy at times. Right now there is equality, you can vote, you can own property, you can be in charge. Mission accomplished. Rest on your laurels, don't try to spoon feed me your continued resentment. You're not going to somehow make men loathe themselves for the way they're born.

Okay, so female soldiers have gone around systematically raping male civilians during wartime, women have often bartered male offspring for business deals and pretended it was a "marriage", and women have made repressive laws regarding men's reproductive rights? Wow. I did not know that. All my history instructors should be fired for not telling us that.

BTW, when my parents divorced, my dad got custody. Thank goodness, too, or I might have turned out as hateful and bigoted as my mother.

I'm not trying to make men loathe themselves for having been born male. But the ones who deliberately and systematically put down women just because they're women should damn well loathe themselves.

I imagine it's a personal position, but I can cite examples "being against feminism" is moderate liberal, too.

Oh, look. Obnoxious kid who looks like she dumped half the world's supply of mascara and black hair dye on her head screeches and rolls her eyes and fails to act like a grownup.

Just stop tarring everyone with the same brush, okay? I've got valid reasons for my perspective, and if I hated men in general, would I spend a significant portion of my online time on a forum mostly populated by males?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

It just doesn't come across that way to me. Anti-feminists always claim secret knowledge that feminists are actually anti-male fascists despite any evidence to the contrary.

If you sub in approximately similar movements into the statement such as "I am prejudiced against native rights activists", "I am prejudiced against gay rights activists" then it sounds very obviously weird.

I actually am a bit prejudiced against "gay rights activists", but it's because of my views on human sexuality, that it shouldn't matter, that all people are on a continuum, that people "identify" as gay, who may or may not be gay, while people who are gay may not identify as gay, and the whole thing leaves the matter a bit up in the air. What "is" true is that people are victimized, people are victimized for expressing gay behavior, and whatever form those victimized take, they deserve representation. I wish it was, somehow, "sexuality in general rights", instead of specifically gay ones.

Now I'm sure someone's going to argue with that. Carry on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

K. When you see me link Breitbart here, you can discuss that. You're attributing qualities to me which are unsubstantiated. I don't like media that is more commentary than news, as Infowars, Fox, etc. Your accusations are hollow, you're swinging at air, you don't recognize sense when you're slapped with it, you're bad at this and I'm about done with you.

LOL...so, let's see...Senethro is a petty inane pleb, Valka is laughable, and you can always just shrug your shoulders and put Metalhead out of your field of view...and of course you are clearly superior to little ol' me in every mental capacity...

Why are you here again?

 

[JollyRoger]

How about just rights? Well, except for the bigots of course.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

LOL...so, let's see...Senethro is a petty inane pleb, Valka is laughable, and you can always just shrug your shoulders and put Metalhead out of your field of view...and of course you are clearly superior to little ol' me in every mental capacity...

Why are you here again?

You could have just said, "I want you to put me on ignore".

Moderator Action: Using the ignore list is fine, but broadcasting that you are using it is considered trolling. FP

 

[metalhead]

How different are they? Where does this difference you're pointing to begin? I don't think it's different at all, it's all part of stranger danger, and amplified by previous experience with those matching similar appearance and mannerism. This is how these things begin, generally. The other way is that a person represents something within the self which, for whatever reason, disgusts us, so we deny "it" as we deny what's in the self.

The difference as I see it is that one involves a physical, "That person is different and that scares me" response, where the other is an, "I don't know you and therefore don't trust you" response. One involves fear, the other involves trust. One might cause you (not you specifically) to cross to the other side of the street if a black person is coming the other way, where the other might cause you not to give your banking information to the Nigerian prince who emails you.

The response involving fear is the one that politicians use to their advantage. It's inherently irrational, because there is no use for such fear these days. Being suspicious of strangers isn't the same thing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How about just rights? Well, except for the bigots of course.

But it's so much more convenient to stand up for the rights of people who are exercising them without challenge.

Go ahead Dumpling, make your defense for those poor put upon angry white men.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

The difference as I see it is that one involves a physical, "That person is different and that scares me" response, where the other is an, "I don't know you and therefore don't trust you" response. One involves fear, the other involves trust. One might cause you (not you specifically) to cross to the other side of the street if a black person is coming the other way, where the other might cause you not to give your banking information to the Nigerian prince who emails you.

The response involving fear is the one that politicians use to their advantage. It's inherently irrational, because there is no use for such fear these days. Being suspicious of strangers isn't the same thing.

What about fear of people in red hats that read "Make America Great Again"?

I don't think there's a difference in that mechanism. Fear and hatred are both respect for adverse effects that someone or something can have on you. If you want to argue "stranger danger" is inherently more "fear of the unknown", I could "kinda" run with that, but it's still a person, which isn't an unknown thing like an alien or a demon, and you're still considered fearful of what unknown, adverse effect that person can have on you.

 

[metalhead]

I don't think "stranger danger" involves fear at all. I don't think there are people out there who are fearful of every stranger they encounter that aren't suffering from some sort of crippling mental illness. Racial fear is, however, a very common phenomenon. Think of the store owner who follows a black customer around their store, or the aforementioned person who crosses to the other side of the street when a black person is coming the other way. Stuff like that. It's borne out of social conditioning that for many folks amplifies that fear of the "other" who looks different. Few people the same kind of instinctual, gut-level fear as it pertains to all strangers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What about fear of people in red hats that read "Make America Great Again"?

I don't think there's a difference in that mechanism. Fear and hatred are both respect for adverse effects that someone or something can have on you. If you want to argue "stranger danger" is inherently more "fear of the unknown", I could "kinda" run with that, but it's still a person, which isn't an unknown thing like an alien or a demon, and you're still considered fearful of what unknown, adverse effect that person can have on you.

Well, y'know, they could easily be one of those psychotic abusers or sociopaths that someone seems to believe are lurking in every garden.