There are more of us than there are of them

[Cloud_Strife]

Gaslighting:
Person 1) I agree with trans rights
Group of persons supporting each other 2) You’re a horrible person against trans rights
1) I just spoke in favor of trans rights, you just think I didn’t because you think that of me already
2) No, and I think that of you because you’re annoying
1) See you think I’m annoying
2) You’re paranoid for thinking this is a reaction to you


How’s that for a compression of two pages..

A strawman, I don't think he is against trans rights, I just think his beliefs on combating prejudice and tolerating degrees of bigotry and hate speech is harmful to minorities, you realize you can support something but still hold ideas/beliefs that can harm others right?

For example; you can support transpeople but also believe that bigots should be able to spread their filth and recruit. In this example the latter undercuts the former because it still allows for bigotry to happen.

It's effectively a token attempt at tolerance for transpeople that is undermined.

 

[Hygro]

As the creator of the Patine drinking game I cannot be calling for coddling.

He was misrepresented in a bad way and somehow that’s not the problem? That’s the problem. There’s no CFC OT if people aren’t at least reading what they reply to.

Your examples of who extended him grace are some wild examples. Some very nice people in the personal life threads and bullies on a team in the politics threads.

I don’t mind the fight but I do mind that there are multiple people together arguing that others are saying and being what they are neither.

 

[Zardnaar]

A strawman, I don't think he is against trans rights, I just think his beliefs on combating prejudice and tolerating degrees of bigotry and hate speech is harmful to minorities, you realize you can support something but still hold ideas/beliefs that can harm others right?

For example; you can support transpeople but also believe that bigots should be able to spread their filth and recruit. In this example the latter undercuts the former because it still allows for bigotry to happen.

It's effectively a token attempt at tolerance for transpeople that is undermined.

Not really it also cut both ways. Imagine how much worse Trump could be without the 1st amendment.

Restricting free speech is systematic to authoritarian regimes left or right. That's not a hypothetical.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Not really it also cut both ways. Imagine how much worse Trump could be without the 1st amendment.

Hate to break it to you but things still suck even with the 1st amendment existing. Ask any woman or minority in America.

Free speech doesn't undo years of actively targeted policies against either groups; restrictions on birth control and abortion or institutional discrimination that STILL exists to this day.

 

[Dekker]

As the creator of the Patine drinking game I cannot be calling for coddling.

He was misrepresented in a bad way and somehow that’s not the problem? That’s the problem. There’s no CFC OT if people aren’t at least reading what they reply to.

Your examples of who extended him grace are some wild examples. Some very nice people in the personal life threads and bullies on a team in the politics threads.

I don’t mind the fight but I do mind that there are multiple people together arguing that others are saying and being what they are neither.

You are making it out that the misrepresentation lasted more than two, if even, posts. No o e doubled down or argued that he was lying about being misrepresented, it was accepted. It was him repeating different, and previously made claims and viewpoints that were argued against after they were brought up, those points were not brought up to say, well this is why you were misunderstood boohoo.

I appreciate your goal with this thread I do, but you can't complain about one person being misrepresented when that person continues to repeatedly misrepresent others even tagging them when they are not in the discussion (I had that honor as well) and making it out like they are the victim.

 

[Hygro]

A strawman, I don't think he is against trans rights, I just think his beliefs on combating prejudice and tolerating degrees of bigotry and hate speech is harmful to minorities, you realize you can support something but still hold ideas/beliefs that can harm others right?

For example; you can support transpeople but also believe that bigots should be able to spread their filth and recruit. In this example the latter undercuts the former because it still allows for bigotry to happen.

It's effectively a token attempt at tolerance for transpeople that is undermined.

Ok I get this argument and it’s reasonable. Better suited for its own thread. But it’s not a straw man in that post patine was saying the idea that just having people go into places is sufficient can go the opposite direction of the starting place of the majority is bad. So if the majority now are against something good a no conflict society means that good thing is quelled.

That was patine’s point against Berzerker and he was excoriated for the staring the opposite and then the subsequent happened, ending in gaslighting. The gaslighting sounds like the big crime because it’s a named thing the media talked about a lot this decade but the initial part of the misrepresentation is the real issue.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hate to break it to you but things still suck even with the 1st amendment existing. Ask any woman or minority in America.

Different problems. A lot of that's cultural. USA is around 20 years behind us socially, and ahead if most of the world.

In the USA you can change the law but you need to be able to win elections.

A lot of conversations you're having now we dealt with long ago. Women got the vote here in the 19th century, your employment laws predate ours circa 1993, we banned assault rifles within a month of a mass shooting, got a female leader in the 90s, had universal welfare and healthcare in the 30s, have a functioning left wing party.

We're not perfect but no where in the world is.

 

[Dekker]

Not really it also cut both ways. Imagine how much worse Trump could be without the 1st amendment.

Restricting free speech is systematic to authoritarian regimes left or right. That's not a hypothetical.

So private entities should not be able to moderate themselves and have forum rules, censorship mechanisms, laws shouldn't protect against advocating violence, child pornography shouldn't be banned?

Way to take up this stance in the midst of a conversation about misrepresentation.

 

[Hygro]

You are making it out that the misrepresentation lasted more than two, if even, posts. No o e doubled down or argued that he was lying about being misrepresented, it was accepted. It was him repeating different, and previously made claims and viewpoints that were argued against after they were brought up, those points were not brought up to say, well this is why you were misunderstood boohoo.

I appreciate your goal with this thread I do, but you can't complain about one person being misrepresented when that person continues to repeatedly misrepresent others even tagging them when they are not in the discussion (I had that honor as well) and making it out like they are the victim.

The problem comes from the black and white, us vs them, side against side, neo manichaean, left vs right

Free speech in the other thread everyone this thread is about knowing we have more numbers so having individual power and courage en masse is going to get us to the gg

 

[Dekker]

The problem comes from the black and white, us vs them, side against side, neo manichaean, left vs right

Yes divisions are intentionally sown by all sorts of parties to advance their own interests. But that doesn't change the fact that silly viewpoints should be argued against.

...to not make it about free speech... And on topic...

The idea is a good one, befriending and kindness. However that cannot come at the cost of tolerating intolerance. And yes ha intolerance of intolerance is what I am saying, sue me. But in the befriending of all, friends call out their friends. Because they care.

 

[Hygro]

Please, don’t make me put in emoticons for clarification

 

[Zardnaar]

So private entities should not be able to moderate themselves and have forum rules, censorship mechanisms, laws shouldn't protect against advocating violence, child pornography shouldn't be banned?

Way to take up this stance in the midst of a conversation about misrepresentation.

Free speech just means you don't go to jail for unpopular opinions or insulting the government.
Which was totally a thing in the 18th century.

Child pornography violates other laws and has victims the child being abused. Freedom of expression doesn't mean do whatever the hell you want.

Nazis are a bit different. They are going to do what they do regardless of what the law says. See Germany.

NZ for example has no law whatsoever about walking down the street in a Nazi uniform. And we have a lot less problems here with Nazis vs other countries because culturally the she'll be right attitude makes it hard to get to extreme one way or another.

We never had segregation and lynchings here so white nationalism never really caught on. We do have casual racism and the odd extremist (note the shooter was a foreign terrorist).

Culturally I think America is sick IMHO. Would probably be better off as two or three countries.

 

[Hygro]

Wrong thread fool

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This thread has gone on quite long enough. Do not publicise who is on your ignore list, as that is a form of trolling. You have all been warned about discussing people's posts and not the people themselves. If someone posts one or more ill-considered posts, then by all means criticise those posts, but stop attacking their character and particularly stop doing it en masse - that is simply bullying.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889