There are more of us than there are of them

[Farm Boy]

discrepancy

Weird.

@El-Mac Oh good lord, sometimes the temptation.

 

[Synobun]

I'll be honest, Hygro, I don't see why the responsibility is on us to prove there is the slightest modicum of merit to "maybe don't support oppressing minorities." I don't see why this responsibility entails us adopting their values, either. The gun fetish of the far right is directly connected to their intent of violence, so we need to go shooting guns with them in order to maybe have them hate gay people or Mexicans a little less?

Why not just have them, I don't know, volunteer at a soup kitchen in a diverse neighbourhood? If it's all the same to you. They can contribute to society while having their values challenged, instead of having us pretend their values are fine when they aren't.

 

[Gorbles]

But he was President and people supported him in spite of a rape accusation

And you're asking people now about accountability of something that happened roughly twenty years ago. Presumably to catch people in some kind of justification of Clinton so you can use it as a gotcha.

I have to ask you: what relevance is there to who supported Clinton? It's 2019. People could've changed their minds since then (various victims did, and you don't see me casting doubt on them just because they took time to come forwards). It has nothing to do with the people now who support Trump (the overlap for which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is virtually nonexistent).

Weird.

Nah.

 

[Yeekim]

Anyone who still believes the GOP and their voters can be swayed over are being incredibly naive

So, just out of curiosity, what is your strategy then? I recall you saying you would never hurt anyone, so I guess you are not preparing for armed revolution either.

 

[Synobun]

And you're asking people now about accountability of something that happened roughly twenty years ago. Presumably to catch people in some kind of justification of Clinton so you can use it as a gotcha.

I have to ask you: what relevance is there to who supported Clinton? It's 2019. People could've changed their minds since then (various victims did, and you don't see me casting doubt on them just because they took time to come forwards). It has nothing to do with the people now who support Trump (the overlap for which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is virtually nonexistent).

You'll quickly learn that Berzerker's go-to in any discussion about politics is "What about the Clintons?"

There is no crime being perpetuated today that is worse than the potential crime of a Clinton in a hypothetical mirror universe, or an assumed crime of the past 20 years ago.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nah.

o i c

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll be honest, Hygro, I don't see why the responsibility is on us to prove there is the slightest modicum of merit to "maybe don't support oppressing minorities."

Because you'll lose if you don't. And you have a distinct obligation to not lose. Because if you lose, there are evil people that will do evil things while other people stand by, feeling helpless.

I'm not sure what people are arguing.

"It's not possible for person X to help us out-number conservatives"?
"It's a waste of time trying to morally sway conservatives to help preserve democracy functions"?
"It's not fair to ask Person X to contribute"?
"I have a better use of my skill-set"?
"Something else will prevent the problem"?

Hygro's suggestion is a lot like my 'eat less meat' suggestion for climate change. If it would harm you, then don't do it. But if you have an ounce of privilege, then you should be pondering ways to help, because there's a need.

 

[Ironsided]

So, just out of curiosity, what is your strategy then? I recall you saying you would never hurt anyone, so I guess you are not preparing for armed revolution either.

With a turnout in 2016 of about 54% the non-voting 46% should really be a consideration.

 

[Synobun]

Because if you lose, there are evil people that will do evil things while other people stand by, feeling helpless.

They're doing that anyways. Supporting them expedites the process.

 

[Hygro]

If you understand that people have to put themselves in dangerous suggestions to even have a chance of making this work, I'd say that's even more worrying. People are meant to have compassion for each other, we're meant to be a society. Sending marginalised people at people most likely to hurt said marginalised people is irresponsible at best.

Are you proposing that democrats are mostly marginalized and interpersonally violent racists are mostly not? That sounds unreasonable, so I think you aren't.

But then you're nitpicking this idea. Okay, if your transgendered maybe just friend the safe moderate who has trouble understanding you. I'll go to the redmeat whackjobs and jiggle them a little because I'm safe and people like me. You can find someone in between. And the FBI can go "make friends" with the domestic terrorists.

As your post didn't have the edit when I quoted it, I really think you shouldn't generalise. Violent behaviour is an incredibly complicated topic to the extent that there are mass murderers in popular culture who have people who defend them - their family, even. Because they saw nothing wrong.

Those are people are fringe. They are exciting, and this is the internet, so it reaches you quickly. They are fringe. The world isn't full of them. There are many, but remember, in the summer of shark attacks, there weren't many shark attacks.

Anti-Transgendered murders are at the USA average which is super misleading as most murders are crazy husbands/stalkers/boyfriends and gang related, which means the stranger danger to transgendered people is really high right now in a first world context. So be smart.

Or, if I'm going to run with this and see the best faith version of this proposal possible, at the very least, I'd expect an concerted and equal defend of left-wing folks. Unfortunately, in threads where left-wing activists are raised as a topic, I literally never see it. So forgive me for assuming that you might not have all the answers here. You're telling left-leaning folks they have to kiss and make up with right-leaning folks, but you don't ever (nor do you even in this thread) propose the opposite. Which is all the more revealing of some other posters in here who from their written posts prize equality and fairness, because there's been literally no comment on that discrepancy.

You will never make friends appeasing people. I'm literally saying we should own guns so that they fear us. And like us!

But really, if I'm talking to a crowd of people, do I need to give equal airtime to addressing people who aren't here?

You are literally asking me to virtue signal to you.

Ganging up on someone a) never rules out any party getting hurt and besides, b) guns (or even knives) made that naive supposition irrelevant a long time ago.

What kind of making friends is ganging up on people? What are you imagining.

Okay, everyone who is uncomfortable at my idea: how easily do you make and keep friends? I might have underestimated our starting position.

 

[El_Machinae]

They're doing that anyways. Supporting them expedites the process.

No one is suggesting supporting. Alienating people, especially by actively encouraging a lack of dialogue, will also expedite the process. There are only so many times you can hostilely misrepresent what someone is saying before they think that your opinion isn't worth engaging.

Please answer my proposed "what are you actually saying?". I cannot figure out this objection.

What do you think Hygro is proposing? Can you paraphrase it?

 

[Gorbles]

You are literally asking me to virtue signal to you.

Ah, right. The mask slips.

You have no business inferring you're progressive when you unironically post solidly conservative catchphrases. Nevermind your disturbing belief that guns will make people both fear and like you. That's a dangerous ideology that I want no business with, and hopefully highlighting this will show others the same. For posterity:

I'm literally saying we should own guns so that they fear us. And like us!

Because you'll lose if you don't. And you have a distinct obligation to not lose. Because if you lose, there are evil people that will do evil things while other people stand by, feeling helpless.

I'm not sure what people are arguing.

"It's not possible for person X to help us out-number conservatives"?
"It's a waste of time trying to morally sway conservatives to help preserve democracy functions"?
"It's not fair to ask Person X to contribute"?
"I have a better use of my skill-set"?
"Something else will prevent the problem"?

Hygro's suggestion is a lot like my 'eat less meat' suggestion for climate change. If it would harm you, then don't do it. But if you have an ounce of privilege, then you should be pondering ways to help, because there's a need.

Your assumption is, therefore, that people aren't already doing that pondering. That's why this thread is kinda futile. It's vastly generalising a bunch of people, a lot of which Hygro is unlikely to know.

Besides, blaming the people being victimised by said *insert narrowing of demographic to satisfy other posters who'll invariably use this as pretext to quibble* conservatives isn't the best look. Why not put pressure on said demographic to change yourself? Why put a moral responsibility on others when you don't know their lives, or their actions? People don't have to be friends with conservative to support improving frameworks and systems that rectify the existince imbalances. Framing the argument as having to reach out to these conservatives makes this apparent future solution contigent on their friendship, which is a rather risky base considering how well humans tend to handle the evening out of imbalanced power structures.

EDIT

I sure hope the last couple of posts illuminate for you exactly what Hygro is suggesting!

 

[Hygro]

They're doing that anyways. Supporting them expedites the process.

This is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge twist on the meaning.

Again, if you think people aren't affected by their familiars, you are wrong.

If you think superior numbers in familiars isn't inherently powerful, you are wrong.

If you think including conservatives into your friend group, where the aforementioned pulling mechanisms happen, means support their politics, you are super crazy.



Rephrasing this as "supporting them" means you believe they are powerful, unmovable, default, and must be subverted. This is weakness, paranoia, and definitely surrenders the fight before you begin. You think they will change you before you change them? Good thing your more numerous members of your "side" will keep you from changing while you change them.

 

[Gorbles]

If you think including conservatives into your friend group, where the aforementioned pulling mechanisms happen, means support their politics, you are super crazy.

Some of us attach real meaning to the word "friendship", instead of faking it in order to do something about someone elses' politics. Also, r.e. basic psychology (like, basic in-group out-group stuff), publicly befriending problematic people signifies that you think they're okay enough to be friends with.

This is getting all kinds of worrying. At least I know what I'm getting when it comes to other posters. These views came out of nowhere (at least to me) and they're really problematic.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You cannot ask me to tolerate people who think my existence is doing damage to society and not expect me to be skeptical at the very least.

Im not interested in letting my guard down and becoming the next transperson to be killed.

 

[MaryKB]

You cannot ask me to tolerate people who think my existence is doing damage to society and not expect me to be skeptical at the very least.

Im not interested in letting my guard down and becoming the next transperson to be killed.

Oh but he assures you that you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Berzerker]

And you're asking people now about accountability of something that happened roughly twenty years ago. Presumably to catch people in some kind of justification of Clinton so you can use it as a gotcha.

I have to ask you: what relevance is there to who supported Clinton? It's 2019. People could've changed their minds since then (various victims did, and you don't see me casting doubt on them just because they took time to come forwards). It has nothing to do with the people now who support Trump (the overlap for which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is virtually nonexistent).

I'm highlighting one of the reasons the relationship between liberals and conservatives is problematic while alienating the rest of us. People who supported Clinton or Trump have no business looking down their noses at each other because of rape accusations, the hypocrisy is not lost in translation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Your assumption is, therefore, that people aren't already doing that pondering.

I'm not the one who asked "why should we battle harmful conservative beliefs?"!

Why not put pressure on said demographic to change yourself?

Wait, wait, wait. You think I should be having different conversations elsewhere!?! Isn't that literally the suggestion?
Gorbles, obviously the conversation will be different elsewhere than here.

Do you think I should just be posting on CFC "oh, please open your mind about LGBT issues" over and over? Or do you think that too would be a waste of time? Because it would be.

Hygro is asking for help on that front. You're saying "no". Some people are saying "no" for good reasons. Why are you? Is the answer "why's it my job to convince conservatives to change their beliefs?". Then we're back full circle. If it would hurt you, don't do it. If you think it's someone else's job, then say so.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh but he assures you that you've got nothing to worry about.

This is an unfair mischaracterization. Why don't you already know that? What could Hygro have said differently?

 

[Gorbles]

I'm highlighting one of the reasons the relationship between liberals and conservatives is problematic while alienating the rest of us. People who supported Clinton or Trump have no business looking down their noses at each other because of rape accusations, the hypocrisy is not lost in translation.

So to recap:

1. You're completely ignoring the people that didn't, or don't, support either.
2. People having changed their minds over time are apparently also irrelevant.

This is basically "nobody can ever have supported anyone problematic ever in order to judge someone being problematic", which sounds pretty dumb. I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, and:

3. You're a cultural conservative, lol. I have no idea where you sit economically or on other axes, but pretending that you're some "other" group compared to "liberals" and "conservatives" is funny

I'm not the one who asked "why should we battle harmful conservative beliefs?"!

Wait, wait, wait. You think I should be having different conversations elsewhere!?! Isn't that literally the suggestion?
Gorbles, obviously the conversation will be different elsewhere than here.

Do you think I should just be posting on CFC "oh, please open your mind about LGBT issues" over and over? Or do you think that too would be a waste of time? Because it would be.

Hygro is asking for help on that front. You're saying "no". Some people are saying "no" for good reasons. Why are you? Is the answer "why's it my job to convince conservatives to change their beliefs?". Then we're back full circle. If it would hurt you, don't do it. If you think it's someone else's job, then say so.

1. I'm someone who answered it, and I haven't seen you give a counterargument as to why people should put their personal safety at risk. You talk about privilege, but your position is from privilege. People like Cloud are telling you exactly how dangerous it can be - why doesn't that seem to count?

2. No, you're putting the pressure on (say) me to go and convince other people (which I try to do, pretty much all the time, but nevermind) . . . and not putting the pressure on these other people that you're expecting me to convince. Why not?

As for "Hygro asking for help", I'm kinda weirded out that their direct admittance of wanting to own guns to make people like and fear them just kinda completely skipped you by. You did read that part of their post, right?

Instead, you're questioning people for saying no instead of assuming they have good reasons (I mean, some have actually given reasons relating to personal safety, but they seem to be ignored). You generalise by saying people with privilege should use that, but you're talking to people who don't, and judging them at the same time. They're a part of the group you've already written as not needing to, but you're here, quoting them and challenging them. That's contradictory!