Safe spaces for everyone?

Traitorfish said:
My point is, you accuse other people of being intolerant of disagreement , but you're unwilling to accept that they motivated by anything other than malice, which is itself a hallmark of totalitarian thinking.
Click to expand...

you're describing some of the left wingers around here... including yourself
 
edit: here's just one example,

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/why-yall-always-trying-to-defend-nazis.621464/page-32

I said:

Looked like your analogy was blaming the Jews. If I start a fight that erupts into a street brawl, how do I escape responsibility when someone dies? I lie to myself... I tell me I was saving lives, yeah, thats the ticket. Why are you comparing Jews to antifa btw? Why are you even bringing them into this?
Click to expand...

I was explaining antifa's potential responsibility in a woman's death and this was his response:

A neo-Nazi commits an indiscriminate attack on protesters, killing one and wounding over a dozen, and your concern is that the Nazis are going to come out of this looking bad?

You really don't have any kind of moral compass at all, do you?
Click to expand...

I didn't even mention Nazis or Jews and that BS was followed by Cakes

What has caused you to have such antisemetic views? :confused: Did a Jewish man sleep with your wife?
Click to expand...

I challenged these insults and they both ran away...

Just my observation, but I commonly see attributions of malicious motives leveled at people from some of the left wingers here.
 
Last edited:
Berzerker said:
you're describing some of the left wingers around here... including yourself
Click to expand...
I don't assume that you're motivating by malice. I assume that you think you're acting for the greater good. I just think you struggle with moral reasoning, and that leads to some warped priorities.

Remember that there's a difference between tolerating a person and pretending to respect them or the things that they say. If you think the former should entail the latter, well, safe spaces, snowflakes, etc. You know how it goes.
 
Last edited:
Traitorfish said:
I don't assume that you're motivating by malice. I assume that you think you're acting for the greater good. I just think you struggle with moral reasoning, and that leads to some warped priorities.

Remember that there's a difference between tolerating a person and pretending to respect them or the things that they say. If you think the former should entail the latter, well, safe spaces, snowflakes, etc. You know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Well of course you 'assumed' a malicious motive, you invented the malicious motive

A neo-Nazi commits an indiscriminate attack on protesters, killing one and wounding over a dozen, and your concern is that the Nazis are going to come out of this looking bad?

You really don't have any kind of moral compass at all, do you?
Click to expand...

How did you get all (or any of) that from

Looked like your analogy was blaming the Jews. If I start a fight that erupts into a street brawl, how do I escape responsibility when someone dies? I lie to myself... I tell me I was saving lives, yeah, thats the ticket. Why are you comparing Jews to antifa btw? Why are you even bringing them into this?
Click to expand...
 
Traitorfish said:
To clarify, this isn't about you. I don't care about your sense of self any more than I care about your crappy low-res avatar. All I'm saying is, if you expect people to argue in good faith, you should attempt to lead by example.
Click to expand...

Ok, if it isn't about me then why did you quote me? I am fine with letting you spout nonsense if that is what you want to do but kindly stop quoting my posts while you do it as it creates the reasonable impression that you are someone how responding to me instead of simply babbling nonsense you have pulled out of thin air.
 
Looks like a safe space is sorely needed by some people in this thread. #snowflakes
 
Traitorfish said:
If you think the former should entail the latter, well, safe spaces, snowflakes, etc.
Click to expand...

aelf said:
Looks like a safe space is sorely needed by some people in this thread. #snowflakes
Click to expand...

Weren't safe spaces and snowflakes meant as insults? But you guys are okay using the same tactics as the people you condemn as racists etc? I dont even know how somebody debating the issue qualifies as a 'snowflake' needing a safe space, I thought these were to create zones where debate didn't happen to spare historically oppressed groups further discomfort.
 
It was clear to me.
 
Berzerker said:
Weren't safe spaces and snowflakes meant as insults? But you guys are okay using the same tactics as the people you condemn as racists etc?
Click to expand...

We also breathe the same air.
 
aelf said:
We also breathe the same air.
Click to expand...

It seemed obvious to me that the use of such insults was mainly to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those using them in the first place. That's always the case when I call people snowflakes, anyway.
 
I thought "snowflake" was a reference to self-proclaimed uniqueness (hence "special snowflake"), not fragility.
 
no, both specialness and fragility, when that specialness is any way challenged.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
I thought "snowflake" was a reference to self-proclaimed uniqueness (hence "special snowflake"), not fragility.
Click to expand...

Well, when I see the term used unironically by reactionaries it seems mainly to refer to fragility.
 
aelf said:
We also breathe the same air.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people breathe that air without mimicking the insults tossed around by racists

Lexicus said:
It seemed obvious to me that the use of such insults was mainly to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those using them in the first place. That's always the case when I call people snowflakes, anyway.
Click to expand...

Oerdin and I used them first? TF and aelf dont agree with you.
 
Lexicus said:
Well, when I see the term used unironically by reactionaries it seems mainly to refer to fragility.
Click to expand...


Gori is correct.
What's the prototype for fragility? We asked 100 people.
Snowflake gets you a fat red X.
What's the prototype for uniqueness?
That's allmost proverbial.

Fragility sure matters in the polemic you are reacting to, but it is the uniqueness that is crucial, the notion - as understood by your "reactionaries" - that all manner of groups and individuals have to have things "just so" because normal standards can't possibly apply to them. That would be "oppression" because they are "different".
You know, "black mexican-chinese demi-sexual lesbian feminist otherkin in a wheelchair with no legs and [feces]" as it were.

It's curious how you managed to misunderstand this and pass on the perfectly good opportunity to make aliances with people who may be critical of your positions but value nonconformity high enough to see past that.
pffft.gif

Which ties into a larger theme about certain forces trying to enforce diversity by means of social conformity and intellectual rigidity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom