There are more of us than there are of them

[Dekker]

He has character? I thought he left that behind when he attended that weird alt-right boot camp where he learned about Neo-Manicheism.

Or at least when he labelled others mentally unwell based on a few posts he disagreed with.

And of course he later goes to defend his extreme nonsense after the fact by claiming sarcasm or being taken out of context. Silly Patine, he tries.

 

[MaryKB]

NI'm just not a "demographically restricted" thinker.

That's easy to do when you're a straight white cisgender man.

It's like people who say "I don't see color" ... saying so is incredibly insulting.

You're defending the status quo because it benefits you to do so.

 

[Dekker]

No you don't get it. I am bone sick of your distorted view of the world and twisted rhetoric for one significant reason - a reason shared, in a broad sense, by groups like the Nazis, the KKK, the South African National, and the Rhodesian Front. Because it's all based, obsessively and sickly, around "solid demographics." The things is, I'm not at all a bigot. I'm just not a "demographically restricted" thinker. I believe in raw human potential, and achievement of all by merit and accomplishment, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream. Demographic politics and thinking is the big reason why I attack both hard Social Conservatives and hard Social Progressives equally. It is destructive and detrimental. And this why I never agree, because you will not see past "the script."

If you have to repeatedly say you're not something...

 

[Patine]

He has character? I thought he left that behind when he attended that weird alt-right boot camp where he learned about Neo-Manicheism.

I have never been to an Alt-Right boot camp. More slander? And very blatant. And I learned about Neo-Manichaeanism before most of those "Mamma's Basement," Alt-Right punks were even born. And considering they're currently the "other side of the equation," I'm not sure why it's word they'd use for attack or slander.

That's easy to do when you're a straight white cisgender man.

It's like people who say "I don't see color" ... saying so is incredibly insulting.

You're defending the status quo because it benefits you to do so.

Did you ever consider (of course not?) that I see solutions that are more holistic and more productive in the long-term than your short-sighted, ill-thought-out, reactionary ideals?

 

[Dekker]

Did you ever consider (of course not?) that I see solutions that are more holistic and more productive in the long-term than your short-sighted, ill-thought-out, reactionary ideals?

Why would she consider that based on your paranoid ranting and ravings?

 

[MaryKB]

Did you ever consider (of course not?) that I see solutions that are more holistic and more productive in the long-term than your short-sighted, ill-thought-out, reactionary ideals?

What solution do you have to solve institutional sexism?

I've never seen you offer any solutions, I've just seen you ranting like a complete lunatic and frothing at the mouth when people suggest the white male powerhouse be held accountable.

Then I see you try to deny such problems even exist, or somehow that women and minorities are just as bad or worse.

So please, Oh Holy Font of all Eternal Wisdom, what is your solution? I've asked you to do that before, and all you said is you don't have any, while maniacally opposing anyone who does.

Or do you feel us mere mortals won't be able to understand?

 

[Zardnaar]

You did, more or less, several months ago, on a different thread.

*sigh*

You still don't get it. Of course any kind of hate and violence is bad. However ...

- Minority immigrants don't have the power to deny me promotions and raises at work
- They aren't the reason women aren't respected professionally
- They're not controlling gateways and taking advantage of women wanting careers
- They don't have the power to systematically strip me of my rights to my own body

You're doing your "whataboutism" again ... I'm talking about the systematic institutional oppression that white men have and still do to women and minorities, and you're coming back saying "But what about this little threat that's never going to personally affect you???" to deflect from that.

Then consider carefully who you vote for and support for the Democratic nomination.

For example are Sanders and Warren really the best candidates to defeat Trump in states that matter.

What candidate will give you the best chance of getting the Senate.

And assuming you win what candidate won't provoke a tea party 2.0 moment where you lose control of the house and gave a lane duck president.

You're the type to support Hilary because she's a women but she's cancer electorally.

I voted for a women but she has charisma/x factor and was largely immune to the usual political attacks.

 

[Patine]

What solution do you have to solve institutional sexism?

I've never seen you offer any solutions, I've just seen you ranting like a complete lunatic and frothing at the mouth when people suggest the white male powerhouse be held accountable.

Then I see you try to deny such problems even exist, or somehow that women and minorities are just as bad or worse.

So please, Oh Holy Font of all Eternal Wisdom, what is your solution? I've asked you to do that before, and all you said is you don't have any, while maniacally opposing anyone who does.

Or do you feel us mere mortals won't be able to understand?

That's another thing. You, @Cloud_Strife, and @Lexicus speak of holding the "White male powerhouse," or "all Republican voters," and other demographically defined term. What do mean by that? To me, that sounds like setting up for Stalin-esque "collective punishment," which is a frightening mentality (especially because it almost never stops at the initially targeted demographics). Why don't you clarify that ominous-sounding term for me?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That's another thing. You, @Cloud_Strife, and @Lexicus speak of holding the "White male powerhouse," or "all Republican voters," and other demographically defined term. What do mean by that? To me, that sounds like setting up for Stalin-esque "collective punishment," which is a frightening mentality (especially because it almost never stops at the initially targeted demographics). Why don't you clarify that ominous-sounding term for me?

I think you are trying to change the subject.

 

[Patine]

I think you are trying to change the subject.

I don't think any progress will come of the previous line of thought. I don't think @MaryKB and me are going to convince each other to abandon our own points of view and adopt the other's, because we obviously find far too many flaws and shortcomings in each other's ideals on the issue for our own reasons and perspectives, which, at the end of the day, we do not require the other to validate.

 

[Dekker]

I don't think any progress will come of the previous line of thought. I don't think @MaryKB and me are going to convince each other abandon our own points of view and adopt the other's, because we obviously find far too many flaws and shortcomings in each other's ideals on the issue for our own reasons and perspectives, which, at the end of the day, we do not require the other to validate.

Which answers the question that no, no one would seriously consider that you have any reasonable perspectives, just frightened, angry, resentful, self-righteous and irrational viewpoints.

 

[MaryKB]

I think you are trying to change the subject.

He lives on whataboutism, lol!

 

[Patine]

He lives on whataboutism, lol!

Whataboutism is not real "term" of any merit, value, or productiveness. It is, along with "strawman," and a few others, a cowardly and despicable shielding attempt by certain people on the Internet who say something bolder, ill-thought-out, more controversial, more self-sabotaging, or more trouble for themselves than they initially intended, and then, when called on what they have said, use that term as craven ploy to avoid answering or fessing up to what they really meant. It means nothing else of any value, really, and I'm well aware of that, so save yourself some time and energy and stop using such terms with me - I see right through them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I see right through them.

Sure man, you're a regular x-ray vision blasting Kryptonian. Can we move along now?

 

[Patine]

Sure man, you're a regular x-ray vision blasting Kryptonian. Can we move along now?

Move along to what? Having to endure more lies, slander, having my motives and believes decided (completely falsely) for me, having words put in my mouth that I have never said and then used as disingenuous ammunition for fallacious personal attacks? No, I've had enough. None of you who have been part of this loathsome and shameful (at least you SHOULD be ashamed) behaviour - Donald Trump-style behaviour - are worth my time anymore. Go pick apart someone else like vultures to a desecated marmot. I'm through with all who have participated in this campaign of lies - for no appreciable gain, other than maybe malicious entertainment.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Nobody is making you post here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nobody is making you post here.

We don't know that. Maybe he's in one of those Russian bot farms?

 

[Patine]

Nobody is making you post here.

Well, it doesn't matter now. With a simple magic click each, they've all gone off to Never Never Land - as far as I'm concerned.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That seems to defeats the point of arguing with them in the first place.

 

[Zardnaar]

There's an ignore button?