There are more of us than there are of them

[Hygro]

There's some hard core believers here that they can create unlimited money. Doesn't work that way in the real world, leads to hyperinflation.

Who?

 

[Berzerker]

Even without military support though, a rebellion does actually have a decent shot of inflicting enough casualties to force a government surrender. There are around 1.3 million total active duty military personnel in the US. There are an estimated 62.7 million gun owners in the US. So if just roughly 2% of all gun owners manage to get just a single kill shot on a soldier, that's the entire US military wiped out.

I dont know where I heard this but I think some Swiss politician said if the Germans invaded during wwii, they'd have to shoot twice.

Except they're not, because they still exist. As usual, this is a key example as to why analogies suck. You're literally comparing the taming of a wild species (by another, for the benefit of the latter) to diluting a dangerous ideology within a particular species.

How racist was this country 100-200 years ago? The bees aren't 2 different species but people are taming racists, doing it peacefully just works better by producing a more genuine conversion.

That isn't "integrating" racism. It is, fairly explicitly, repressing racism. What you seem to be calling for is not making space for racist ideas, but for racist people, with the intention of convincing, pressuring, or shaming them into masking or abandoning their racist ideas. This still assumes a strict intolerance of racist remarks and behaviour, only that people committing this behaviour will not be immediately ostracised.

I'm not pretending that your analogy made sense.

The racist is integrated, the racism is diluted as a result. Not by shaming or strict intolerance, just by peaceful interaction. I guess it comes down to which approach is better at reducing hate, more hate or turning the other cheek. Which has the greatest positive effect on racism?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How racist was this country 100-200 years ago? The bees aren't 2 different species but people are taming racists, doing it peacefully just works better by producing a more genuine conversion.

I gotta say that no matter how few generations it takes to breed the aggression out of killer bees it is still a lot less efficient than insecticide.

 

[Patine]

I gotta say that no matter how few generations it takes to breed the aggression out of killer bees it is still a lot less efficient than insecticide.

Sounds like a Hitler or Stalin idea, there...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sounds like a Hitler or Stalin idea, there...

No doubt. Just a difference of selection criteria.

 

[Berzerker]

I gotta say that no matter how few generations it takes to breed the aggression out of killer bees it is still a lot less efficient than insecticide.

So murder the racists to get rid of aggressive human beings?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So murder the racists to get rid of aggressive human beings?

Weren't we talking about bees? It's always so hard to keep up with your blathering...

 

[Berzerker]

Killer bees were an analogy for racists

How racist was this country 100-200 years ago? The bees aren't 2 different species but people are taming racists, doing it peacefully just works better by producing a more genuine conversion.

Your solution was to kill them instead

 

[Gorbles]

No, I believe that was a comment on bees.

 

[El_Machinae]

We call that "plausible deniability" or "schrodinger's call to action"

 

[Traitorfish]

The racist is integrated, the racism is diluted as a result. Not by shaming or strict intolerance, just by peaceful interaction. I guess it comes down to which approach is better at reducing hate, more hate or turning the other cheek. Which has the greatest positive effect on racism?

In your hypothetical, shame and intolerance are explicitly mobilised to moderate the racist. He is placed under an authority which disapproves of racism. He is placed in a position where expressing or acting upon racist views would create tension and a backlash- implicitly, a backlash with official approval. He is forced into a position where his racism behaviour has direct and negative consequences for him. If these consequences do not exist, there is no reason to believe that his racist views or behaviour will be "diluted". You are just blithely assuming that exposing racists to non-racists will turn racists into non-racists- and at the same time that this dynamic only works in one direction, that exposure to racists does turn non-racists into racists. This assumption has no clear basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In your hypothetical, shame and intolerance are explicitly mobilised to moderate the racist. He is placed under an authority which disapproves of racism. He is placed in a position where expressing or acting upon racist views would create tension and a backlash- implicitly, a backlash with official approval. He is forced into a position where his racism behaviour has direct and negative consequences for him. If these consequences do not exist, there is no reason to believe that his racist views or behaviour will be "diluted". You are just blithely assuming that exposing racists to non-racists will turn racists into non-racists- and at the same time that this dynamic only works in one direction, that exposure to racists does turn non-racists into racists. This assumption has no clear basis.

Especially in situations where the authority structures tend to support the racists more than the opposition.

 

[Patine]

In your hypothetical, shame and intolerance are explicitly mobilised to moderate the racist. He is placed under an authority which disapproves of racism. He is placed in a position where expressing or acting upon racist views would create tension and a backlash- implicitly, a backlash with official approval. He is forced into a position where his racism behaviour has direct and negative consequences for him. If these consequences do not exist, there is no reason to believe that his racist views or behaviour will be "diluted". You are just blithely assuming that exposing racists to non-racists will turn racists into non-racists- and at the same time that this dynamic only works in one direction, that exposure to racists does turn non-racists into racists. This assumption has no clear basis.

The same hypothetical situation could be applied, from another perspective to tell a merry meant for the edification of those such as @Cloud_Strife where such a "positive workplace," through shaming and intolerance, causes a transwoman to go through detransition, find God, and become a family man. The vehicle of the "moral tale" is insidiously flexible in it's application of pushing to a Mr. Rogers social norm.

 

[MaryKB]

The same hypothetical situation could be applied, from another perspective to tell a merry meant for the edification of those such as @Cloud_Strife where such a "positive workplace," through shaming and intolerance, causes a transwoman to go through detransition, find God, and become a family man. The vehicle of the "moral tale" is insidiously flexible in it's application of pushing to a Mr. Rogers social norm.

Absolutely dusgusting. You're now comparing being transgender to being racist?

I don't even know where ti begin ... like you do realize you can do this with literally anything, right?

Like you could compare arresting, convicting, and imprisoning a criminal for rehabilitation to doing the same to a book reader to get them to stop reading books. You sound that ridiculous.

You do know people use arguments such as yours to deny social services, because "You might en up aiding and enabling a drug addict" or other such nonsense.

Your worldview seems to be something like "You shouldn't ever do anything because everything can be misused."

 

[cardgame]

We shouldn't make things better because the same exact tactics could make things worse, if they were applied oppositely. The status quo is the only thing that matters.

I understand that you think some tactics go too far, Patine, but this is basically the summary of hundreds of your posts for me.

TLDR

 

[Patine]

Absolutely dusgusting. You're now comparing being transgender to being racist?

I don't even know where ti begin ... like you do realize you can do this with literally anything, right?

Like you could compare arresting, convicting, and imprisoning a criminal for rehabilitation to doing the same to a book reader to get them to stop reading books. You sound that ridiculous.

You do know people use arguments such as yours to deny social services, because "You might en up aiding and enabling a drug addict" or other such nonsense.

Your worldview seems to be something like "You shouldn't ever do anything because everything can be misused."

Of course, you obviously didn't read it carefully. I was condemning the whole tactic @Berzerker was praising and the highly flawed social and psychological idea that does not work except in such clinical dystopian "fairy tale" portrayals. The fact that you came to the conclusion you did shows your in a state of mind that is psychologically observed quite often - you disagree highly with many early ideas I had, and thus everything I say thereafter is AUTOMATICALLY twisted and distorted in your mind to be bad, maligned, negative, or feeding further into the mentality of animosity and antipathy, and rational and analytical evaluation of what's said thereafter is often cast aside, or at least highly compromised. This is why piled up slander campaigns of lies (like the one I was unjustly suffering, and you had an active hand in promoting) tend to convince people so. This psychological flaw is a basic HUMAN flaw - it is not endemic to one, or a number of demographics, to the exclusion of all others. So please, either read carefully my posts and understand what I'm saying, or don't respond with more disingenuous, slanderous, personal attacks based on just lies and garbage. How can you both attack Donald Trump as this big monster of a horrid President, but, at the same time, shamelessly use the exact same tactics he uses to attack his political opponents or people he doesn't like? When you asked some months "why have you changed from the person I once admired," the thing is, I haven't changed, but I would ask that very question of you.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course, you obviously didn't read it carefully. I was condemning the whole tactic @Berzerker was praising and the highly flawed social and psychological idea that does not work except in such clinical dystopian "fairy tale" portrayals. The fact that you came to the conclusion you did shows your in a state of mind that is psychologically observed quite often - you disagree highly with many early ideas I had, and thus everything I say thereafter is AUTOMATICALLY twisted and distorted in your mind to be bad, maligned, negative, or feeding further into the mentality of animosity and antipathy, and rational and analytical evaluation of what's said thereafter is often cast aside, or at least highly compromised. This is why piled up slander campaigns of lies (like the one I was unjustly suffering, and you had an active hand in promoting) tend to convince people so. This psychological flaw is a basic HUMAN flaw - it is not endemic to one, or a number of demographics, to the exclusion of all others. So please, either read carefully my posts and understand what I'm saying, or don't respond with more disingenuous, slanderous, personal attacks based on just lies and garbage. How can you both attack Donald Trump as this big monster of a horrid President, but, at the same time, shamelessly use the exact same tactics he uses to attack his political opponents or people he doesn't like? When you asked some months "why have you changed from the person I once admired," the thing is, I haven't changed, but I would ask that very question of you.

Perhaps, when you repeatedly, and with increasing repetition, have to keep telling people to read your posts more carefully, you should perhaps consider how you're wording them in the first place? There was no overt condemnation of anything in your post that Mary quoted, and there are many ways the English language can be read.

There absolutely was a parallel drawn between being a racist, and being a trans person. The fact that people didn't read it in the way you wanted isn't necessarily a flaw with everybody else. It could be, but that's not an absolute and you're doing yourself a disservice if that's what you assume.

Even read positively, you're still - as a cis person - hijacking a theoretical trans person's existence to claim how deradicalising racist people doesn't work. And not even because it simply might not work (for reasons already discussed), but because someone could use the same process against a marginalised minority. There are better ways to expose Berzerker's problematic arguments than to use "what about trans folk" as some kind of cautionary tale, not least because stuff like conversion therapy already exists, and has existed for some time.

 

[Synobun]

Of course, you obviously didn't read it carefully. I was condemning the whole tactic @Berzerker was praising and the highly flawed social and psychological idea that does not work except in such clinical dystopian "fairy tale" portrayals. The fact that you came to the conclusion you did shows your in a state of mind that is psychologically observed quite often - you disagree highly with many early ideas I had, and thus everything I say thereafter is AUTOMATICALLY twisted and distorted in your mind to be bad, maligned, negative, or feeding further into the mentality of animosity and antipathy, and rational and analytical evaluation of what's said thereafter is often cast aside, or at least highly compromised. This is why piled up slander campaigns of lies (like the one I was unjustly suffering, and you had an active hand in promoting) tend to convince people so. This psychological flaw is a basic HUMAN flaw - it is not endemic to one, or a number of demographics, to the exclusion of all others. So please, either read carefully my posts and understand what I'm saying, or don't respond with more disingenuous, slanderous, personal attacks based on just lies and garbage. How can you both attack Donald Trump as this big monster of a horrid President, but, at the same time, shamelessly use the exact same tactics he uses to attack his political opponents or people he doesn't like? When you asked some months "why have you changed from the person I once admired," the thing is, I haven't changed, but I would ask that very question of you.

The narcissistic paranoia is a weird flex. Even if you adhere to the idea that Mary just mindlessly attacks certain people (lol), she's agreed with those people on at least one thing here. What's so special about you that she would singularly target you? Why are you important enough to be victim of an organized character assassination? Why isn't it possible that people just disagree with you and are comfortable voicing that?

I'll also repeat Gorbles here. If everyone misunderstands you, it's likely not everyone else that's the issue.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The vehicle of the "moral tale" is insidiously flexible in it's application of pushing to a Mr. Rogers social norm.

I don't know exactly what this means, but I think the world would be a better place if everyone acted a bit more like Mr. Rogers.

 

[Patine]

Perhaps, when you repeatedly, and with increasing repetition, have to keep telling people to read your posts more carefully, you should perhaps consider how you're wording them in the first place? There was no overt condemnation of anything in your post that Mary quoted, and there are many ways the English language can be read.

There absolutely was a parallel drawn between being a racist, and being a trans person. The fact that people didn't read it in the way you wanted isn't necessarily a flaw with everybody else. It could be, but that's not an absolute and you're doing yourself a disservice if that's what you assume.

Even read positively, you're still - as a cis person - hijacking a theoretical trans person's existence to claim how deradicalising racist people doesn't work. And not even because it simply might not work (for reasons already discussed), but because someone could use the same process against a marginalised minority. There are better ways to expose Berzerker's problematic arguments than to use "what about trans folk" as some kind of cautionary tale, not least because stuff like conversion therapy already exists, and has existed for some time.

The condemnation of @Berzerker's post was worded in a somewhat sarcastic format - I'm not sure how many people nowadays use "merry tale," or "Mr. Rogers," social norms in terms of sincere praise and support nowadays. And I used the term, "insidiously flexible," not a term of grand accolade either. Obviously there are many, many ways to read the English language that are over your head (or perhaps you did see, but deliberately ignored and played done for ulterior motives of advancing your narrative, which is growing old and has already shown you and others for the disingenuous smear campaigners and liars you are - how many more times do you have to display these repugnant traits, and then claim you're the righteous ones).

The narcissistic paranoia is a weird flex. Even if you adhere to the idea that Mary just mindlessly attacks certain people (lol), she's agreed with those people on at least one thing here. What's so special about you that she would singularly target you? Why are you important enough to be victim of an organized character assassination? Why isn't it possible that people just disagree with you and are comfortable voicing that?

I'll also repeat Gorbles here. If everyone misunderstands you, it's likely not everyone else that's the issue.

That's not necessarily the case. I explained the reason smear campaigns, slander, character assassinations, blacklisting, cancelation, gets started and how the ball gets rolling in my last post. It's an observed and verified psychological and sociological phenomenon, and saying it "must be the attacked one, because they're the common dominator" is not usually a truth as a further tool relying on this psychological flaw to actually work. Being "correct" or "wrong" in issues is not a matter of democracy.