[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9256

File: 1619240384918.jpg (4.69 MB, 5439x4049, 5439:4049, Russian_hacking_bear_comic….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In pondering different issues in terms of homophobia and transphobia as well as general tolerance with my personal life, something that there's no reason to go into here but that strikes me as giving me a chance for some reflection, something hit me quite strongly.

>In modern America today, showing outright hatred of somebody due to their racial identity is widely frowned upon to the point that one could reasonably be expected to be fired from one's job, kicked out of one's apartment, booted from one's social circle, and otherwise for expressing such malice. This is justified, correctly I think for the most part, by the argument that if one is causing harm to others then self-defense in the form of trying to stop them from doing that or at least to remove them from environments where victims reside is morally justified.

>In modern America today, showing outright hatred of somebody due to their immutable (or fundamental, not likely changeable as well as core to one's behind) identity is widely frowned upon as well as widely lauded, depending greatly on the particular context. In broad terms, however, expressing hatred over somebody's religious background, sexual orientation, gender identity, biological sex, mental health status, national origin, psychological status, level of disability, or such is something that won't cost your your job, won't make you lose all of your friends, won't get you kicked of your apartment, et cetera. Exceptions exist to where, in a weirdly random fashion, some instances of hatred are punished. Generally though, no. As well, instances of hatred are often rewarded depending on the group targeted (for example, being an online comedian and social commentator creating videos on YouTube and elsewhere about the terrible natures of autistic and transgender people can make you famous and well-respected as well as earn you money).

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is morally not acceptable, a question reminds: how then shall the culture be changed, especially when it comes to law and government?

I've got a glib response but one I'd like some serious consideration on. What if the government decided to make everything a race? And I mean everything, as far as fundamental identities go.

Thus, sexually assaulting somebody for being Jewish or subjecting their house to vandalism or whatever will involve the same legal sanction as that for a black person as well as for someone with autism, for someone who's bisexual, for someone who's transgender, and so on. Outside of politics, major cultural institutions from churches to private schools to sports clubs and more will come the decision that from now all fundamental identity prejudice is racial prejudice and will be treated as such.

Catholic will be a race. Transgender will be a race. Canadian will be a race. Autistic will be a race. Deaf will be a race. Bisexual will be a race. Blind will be a race. And so on.

Much like somebody can describe their ethic ancestry today as "German-Irish" or "English-Jamaican" or whatever, of course, one will be able to be "Bisexual-French-Transgender" or "Depressive-Brazilian-Lesbian" or "Deaf-Russian-Lutheran" or, well, it goes on. Perhaps the government will count it all in census data. Let analysis be more precise.

What are all of your thoughts?

P.S. This is incredibly difficult to illustrate in terms of OP images, but I mentioned Russia in passing so have something silly about Russia.

 No.9259

To answer an inevitable question before it's asked: I considered adding "Left-wing", "Moderate", and "Right-wing" to the list, but I decided not to. I don't think that could even begin to work due to definitions.

What is a "moderate"? This seems to be at a completely different level than asking what a "Baptist" or a "Frenchman" or a "Homosexual" is. There's some kind of logical coherence to most fundamental identities that doesn't exist there.

While useful in a lot of way, describing a stranger as a "moderate" person refers in a vague way to an extremely broad and diverse set of peoples who don't necessarily have any strong connection to each other whatsoever. Being described as an "moderate" person is rather like being labeled as a "happy" person or as a "beautiful" person. It goes down a rabbit hole if you think about it even a second.

I doubt that any, say, three people in the U.S. would be able to agree on a ten-point checklist criteria for what the concept of "moderate" means in practice, let alone for them to take that and apply that to real-life situations full of ambiguity and edge cases. What does a "happy" person look like? What does a "beautiful" person look like? What is "beauty"? What is "happiness"? What is "moderation"?

Situations where, say, a hardcore progressive Democrat refuses to hire somebody for a job because they're a conservative (or even just not of the general left-wing) or maybe somebody at a laundromat is harassed to the point of tears for wearing a Trump hat... this is incredibly stupid behavior that makes me feel ill when I see it reported on in the news, I get it, but I think that there's not really a solution (other than, I guess, "shitty people should not be that").

If someone wants to go off on a tangent about that because they've got an idea, I'm really all ears.

 No.9263

>>9256
> What if the government decided to make everything a race? And I mean everything, as far as fundamental identities go.
A race is a group of persons related by common descent (heredity).  The government does not the ability to make something a race when it is not already a race.  The most that the government can do is to treat it (for purposes of law) the same as race.  And in fact a lot of anti-discrimination laws already treat things like national origin and veteran status on par with race.

>>9259
>Situations where, say, a hardcore progressive Democrat refuses to hire somebody for a job because they're a conservative
As a slightly different example, in California, it's already illegal (with certain exceptions) to fire an employee due to his political affiliation.  (I'm not sure if it also covers refusing to hire, though.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101

Also in California: "it is against the law for any person to threaten or commit acts of violence against a person or property based on race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, disability, sex/gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute"
https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/09/DFEH_DiscriminationIsAgainstTheLaw_ENG.pdf

 No.9270

>>9256
I'd rather not expand identitarianism, as I believe this is the problem, not the solution.
Especially as it pertains to law. Law should not care what you are in the slightest. That should not matter. The punishment for burning down someone's house should be the same regardless of what race that they are.

The big problem with identitarianism is its imprecisety.
It tells you little to nothing about the individual. It doesn't tell you their history, their circumstances, their ways of thinking, their ideals, their interests, anything useful for dealing with them as a person.
All it gives you is sweeping averages of a massive group, which while accurate on a statistical level, is never accurate individually.
This is why stereotyping is bad. Not because it's inaccurate to the whole of a group, as many stereotypes are statistically common, but because it's inaccurate on the individual level.

 No.9273

>>9270
You distinguish between a)people having identities that are important to them expressing themselves such that it's a core part of their life versus b)people who are hung up on identity to where they actively must mistreat others due to their prejudices versus c)people who are the victims of mistreatment due to prejudices and thus would like social change such that they can actually express themselves, right?

All three sets of people are quite distinct, but I tend to see them lazily assumed to all be the same by those that use the terms "identitarianism" and "identity politics" a lot.

It seems morally clear to me that the law should very much care who you are to a great degree... not just because out in the real world people should be able to choose, if they see fit, to make identities an important part of their lives but also because common sense realities show that large number of people are being victimized due to their identity to where this ought to be made to stop.

In specific terms, if something like, say, arson against African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, LGBT-Americans, and others represent a distinct social problem disproportionate to both arson more generally and crime itself even more generally, then targeted actions are rational... much the same thing as how if cancer disproportionately affects victims worse than other health maladies more generally then the government ought to treat it distinctly from the others.

 No.9274

>>9263
I'm well are that fundamental identities aren't racially related, for the most part. I'm proposing that a general social fiction be created that we as Americans pretend that they're races. To make it easier to improve society.

We already label corporations such as Disney and Walmart to be human beings, in the legal and moral sense, don't we? People even refer in colloquial language to corporations as if they were exactly that, i.e. "I think Amazon hates me" or "Disney has been trying hard to make me feel welcome".

Hell, people will sometimes even name their boats, cars, and other large possessions, even to the point of "he"/"she" terminology as well as people expressing physical pain at their possession's mistreatment.

Language is malleable. So is the law. Perhaps this reform would help a lot?

 No.9275

>>9273
While they are each different, each I have issue with.
Your identity does not matter, as it has no bearing on who you are.
You should not be hung up on your identity, and hurt others because of it.
Nor should you be hurt because of your identity.
All of these are negative.

>It seems morally clear to me that the law should very much care who you are to a great degree.
I disagree.
The role of the government is to facilitate justice, first and foremost.
A significant chunk of justice is that it applies equally to all. Regardless of who you are.
A government that gives special treatment to a set group, regardless of intent or reasons, is unjust. It fails at the first primary pillar of governance. It loses its moral justification, as a result.

> common sense realities show that large number of people are being victimized due to their identity to where this ought to be made to stop.
And why would creating more identities, and separate people based on these arbitrary categories help?
It sounds to me as it'd cause more issues.

>and others represent a distinct social problem disproportionate to both arson more generally and crime itself even more generally,
I disagree.
I see no reason arson is worse because it happens to someone who has an arbitrary characteristic about them.

>much the same thing as how if cancer disproportionately affects victims worse than other health maladies more generally then the government ought to treat it distinctly from the others.
Law is not the same as simple healthcare.
For one thing, there's no concern for justice in healthcare, anyway.
There's no moral requirement for it, nor does healthcare pretend to value it.

Health is a purely pragmatic matter, not a moral one.

 No.9276

>>9270
>>9273
To be specific, suppose I'm watching a news program and seeing in rapid succession, first, an attendee at an LGBT pride march holding a political sign promoting self-love, second, a Klansman at a journalist's interview in a town's square, and, third, a homeowner testifying at a government hearing about how their lawn had a cross burned on it and asking for help.

My personal definition of the term "identarian" are such that only the middle person would qualify. I keep seeing people use the term though such that all three do. I can't quite get my head around what's happening, then.

"Identity politics" is fuzzier. I guess I'd say that all three would be doing that. However, I'd personally define the term "identity politics" as "politics that involve peoples' identities" in a neutral fashion and the term doesn't refer to an inherently bad thing to me. Perhaps I'm very unique?

 No.9277

>>9276
All three are the result of identitarianism, and I find unideal.
There is no cause to have pride for arbitrary characteristics. Unearned pride is not a good thing. It's downright harmful, I'd say.

Same goes to the Klansman, and his consideration of identity as a 'team', to which other 'teams' must be crushed is clearly a problem.

The third is attacked for identity, and so I fail to see how adding more identity solves his issue. And as to the law of it, I do not care if it is a black man who's had a cross burned on his lawn, or a white man.
it's still a problem either way.

 No.9278

>>9275
>While they are each different, each I have issue with. Your identity does not matter, as it has no bearing on who you are. You should not be hung up on your identity, and hurt others because of it. Nor should you be hurt because of your identity. All of these are negative.

Discussion between the two of us here is likely going to be incredibly difficult from here on out, then, probably to the point that it may not even be productive in the first place.

I'd say that in terms of self-expression and self-worth as well as just the general sense of freedom that in America you should be able to be the person that you need to be in order to achieve your inner potential... this may well mean certain identities having a gigantic role in your life.

Your claim that "who you are" is disconnected to identity to the point that you inherently think that other people choosing to be what they need to be is negative... this is a psychological mindset that I honestly can't quite even begin to relate to.

From my point of view, it boils down to "be yourself". "Don't let other people make you into what they want you to be." "Be who you are."

Your moral equivalence created between someone who wakes up just trying to be happy and psychologically breathe, freely, with somebody who wakes up determined to mistreat someone else due to indecent attitudes about that someone else... I can't begin to get into the framework in which that would make sense.

A man who shoves an elderly woman into the path of a bus and a man who shoves an elderly woman out of the path of a bus shouldn't be sloppily both labeled as "men who shove women."

 No.9279

>>9277
I see. Thanks for the clarification.

There's likely no point to additional discussion if you're this much of an extremist, to be honest, and have an ethical code this fundamentally detached from that of most people.

I realize that this likely will come across as quite the personal attack, and I regret the negativity, but this appears to be such a black-versus-white opposition in terms of viewing the world that I don't know if the two of us could really be able to coexist if we had to, say, live in the same neighborhood.

 No.9280

>>9278
>I'd say that in terms of self-expression and self-worth as well as just the general sense of freedom that in America you should be able to be the person that you need to be in order to achieve your inner potential.
Sure.
Striving for your ideals is a good thing.
Doesn't require pride in or focus on arbitrary characteristics.

>this may well mean certain identities having a gigantic role in your life.
Why?
They determine nothing of you. Nothing significant, anyway.
Orientation might change who you're attracted to, sex might change what sort of physical limitations you have, but race is pretty much entirely useless outside of appearance.

I guess religion is different, but I see religion in similar ways as I do politics, and don't really draw much distinction to them. They both appear to me as ideologies.
I tend to skip them in such conversations as a result, as ideology of course influences thinking to an extent.
Still doesn't guarantee anything, even then, however.

>you inherently think that other people choosing to be what they need to be is negative
Not at all. I never said you shouldn't be free to choose whatever you wish to be.
Just that pride in something arbitrary is meaningless.
I am not 'proud' my sexual attraction is more towards 'furry' things. It just is how I am. I don't have any shame for it, but neither do I feel inclined to consider myself better because of it.
Albeit, I sometimes jokingly make some comments towards it. But, those are jests more intending to espouse the reasons for it, than serious statements.

>From my point of view, it boils down to "be yourself". "Don't let other people make you into what they want you to be." "Be who you are."
Sure. I agree.
And don't get attached to labels that don't have any influence on who you actually are.

>Your moral equivalence created between someone who wakes up just trying to be happy and psychologically breathe, freely, with somebody who wakes up determined to mistreat someone else due to indecent attitudes about that someone else.
I do not think I ever suggested they were equal.
I do not think they are equal.
I'm afraid I do not know where that idea came from.

These are all inequal, but still negative. In much the same way slapping someone is negative, as is punching them, as is stabbing them.
Slapping is lesser than punching, which is lesser than stabbing.
This does not mean these items are not negative.

>A man who shoves an elderly woman into the path of a bus and a man who shoves an elderly woman out of the path of a bus shouldn't be sloppily both labeled as "men who shove women."
I do not understand your meaning.

I agree, a single man who shoves a single woman should not be extrapolated onto the whole.

 No.9281

>>9279
> and have an ethical code this fundamentally detached from that of most people.
I am not convinced this is a code most people disagree with.
Certainly most people I've spoken to think everyone ought to be treated equally, regardless of race, sex, or orientation.
That seems to be a common belief. The idea of colorblindness seems to be a common one.

> but this appears to be such a black-versus-white opposition in terms of viewing the world that I don't know if the two of us could really be able to coexist if we had to, say, live in the same neighborhood.
I don't know what you mean by black and white like that, but why would we not be able to coexist?

Is it that I am somehow a threat to what you believe in, the goals you'd seek, and so must be removed as an obstetrical?
Or is it that you are for whatever reason afraid of me?
Or is it some other thing I am not understanding?

 No.9284

>>9280
>>9281
Most people believe that everybody should be treated equally.

Most people also believe that you should be allowed to fundamentally be who are you are and express yourself as you need to be, your beliefs, hobbies, heritages, interests, and everything else that connects you to other people being something that you should be happy about and naturally seek to develop as you try to both make a better world as well as make yourself better.

To be honest, you apparently appear to be engaging in psychological projection to a point to which you can't even begin to try to understand how most people view the world.

To be honest a second time, I'm at least somewhat afraid of you, yes.

I would like to think that somebody who sees me walking out of a synagogue with a big smile on my face and hears me talking about some public religious event coming up in which there will be good food, lots of hugs, cool music, and a nice time had by all (or perhaps it's an LGBT resource center doing such a thing or something else as such)... and then a neo-Nazi walks by on the sidewalk and waves an AR-15 in the air, threateningly, for me to delicately slink away from the situation... I would like to think that the stranger witnessing this would at a base ethical level not just emphasize with me and not him but also in fundamental terms understand that my happiness and spreading of compassion undertook in full understanding of my developing identities and full expression what I'm meant to be exists in complete separation to that of the neo-Nazi and his goals.

We are not both "identarian". We are not both engaged in "identity politics". We are not both to be condemned for getting hung up on categories and labels.

You're the same poster who's a gun owner assembling a stockpile at the moment, correct? The one interested in segregation so that he doesn't have to live next to political opponents, yes? The one who's very gun ownership has come about not due to your fear of criminals but due to your fear that those to whom you perceive as ideological enemies are out to get you, yes?

I frankly am afraid. If you and I met in public, you might take one look at my appearance and see that it's not to your liking or otherwise spend one second in hearing me saying something, really anything, that isn't of your liking... you'll then decide that I'm, I don't know, a part of antifa and thus reach for your sidearm.

I mean, fuck me, if I'm out to get you, well, why not act in self-defense? Eye for an eye. That's life.

 No.9285

>>9284
>Most people also believe that you should be allowed to fundamentally be who are you are and express yourself as you need to be, your beliefs, hobbies, heritages, interests, and everything else that connects you to other people being something that you should be happy about and naturally seek to develop as you try to both make a better world as well as make yourself better.
I've literally stated nothing contrary to this, and your presumption that I have seems to be getting in the way of productive conversation.
I would suggest reexamining exactly what I have written, instead of coming up with your own interpretations.
I try to be as specific as possible with my words for good reason. I do not believe I've said anything to suggest anyone should be prevented from doing what makes them personally happy, at any point throughout this thread.

>To be honest, you apparently appear to be engaging in psychological projection to a point to which you can't even begin to try to understand how most people view the world.
Considering above, I find that absurd.
You are, after all, the one who is pinning an argument to me I have never once made.

I'm going to place this separate from further dialogue, as I'm afraid this horrific misstep will get bogged down in the rest of the text. But, suffice to say, I feel like you're actively ignoring what I am telling you, in favor of your own creations here.

 No.9286

>>9284
>I would like to think that somebody who sees me walking out of a synagogue with a big smile on my face and hears me talking about some public religious event coming up in which there will be good food, lots of hugs, cool music, and a nice time had by all (or perhaps it's an LGBT resource center doing such a thing or something else as such)... and then a neo-Nazi walks by on the sidewalk and waves an AR-15 in the air, threateningly, for me to delicately slink away from the situation... I would like to think that the stranger witnessing this would at a base ethical level not just emphasize with me and not him but also in fundamental terms understand that my happiness and spreading of compassion undertook in full understanding of my developing identities and full expression what I'm meant to be exists in complete separation to that of the neo-Nazi and his goals.
Why do you assume I wouldn't?

Because, as far as I can tell, I've not said anything to suggest I would not.
You seem to have created a narrative that does not exist.
You've got presumptions of me because I said something you disagree with, that you've now extrapolated to mean I cannot empathize with people who are afraid of those who advocate harm to people like yourself.
I do not believe I've once suggested anything of the sort.

>You're the same poster who's a gun owner assembling a stockpile at the moment, correct?
No?
I mean, I have myself a few guns, but I'd hardly call it a stockpile. Not as though I've got dozens of the same thing, just a modest group of different items for different reasons.

>The one interested in segregation so that he doesn't have to live next to political opponents, yes?
I don't think so?
If you're referring to me agreeing with >>8964 , as an idea of creating states with different ideologies in their creation, where the communists can go live their communist utopia, the anarchists can live their anarchistic utopia, the capitalist their capitalist dream, ect., sure.
But it's not that I want segregation, it's that I want people to have the option to live in their ideal world, if that is what they want, so long as they are willing to leave me be to my ideal world.
Segregation seems a bad term for letting people freely choose where they want to go, in accordence to their own ideological view for what is the best way of running things.

But, that's obviously very different.

>The one who's very gun ownership has come about not due to your fear of criminals but due to your fear that those to whom you perceive as ideological enemies are out to get you, yes?
Uh, no?
My first firearm was an archaic boltgun, bought more as hobbyist interest than anything else.
I do own some for self defense, but that's hardly just "ideological enemies" as you seem to want to frame it.
It's for general defense.
Whether that's against a regular criminal, an ideologue, or the government.

>I frankly am afraid. If you and I met in public, you might take one look at my appearance and see that it's not to your liking or otherwise spend one second in hearing me saying something, really anything, that isn't of your liking... you'll then decide that I'm, I don't know, a part of antifa and thus reach for your sidearm.
Dude what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
I never said anything to suggest the sort. I have absolutely no reason to suggest anything of the sort. I of course do not think anything of the sort.

Why would you even say something so absolutely batshit insane?
Like, I get you apparently have some major beef with me, for whatever reason, but holy hell, man.
Maybe ease up on accusing people of such psychopathy? Fuck's sake.

>I mean, fuck me, if I'm out to get you, well, why not act in self-defense? Eye for an eye. That's life.
Because that's obviously, blatantly not self defense?
Again, what the hell is wrong with you?
Why would you accuse someone of shit like that, out of the blue, with literally nothing ever said to suggest anything of the sort?

Like where the actual fuck did you get any of that dude?
Calm the hell down.

 No.9287

File: 1619257581704.png (1.78 MB, 2600x2300, 26:23, 1398744682011.png) ImgOps Google

Let me clarify some things, since evidently in your absolutely insane paranoia for the horrific crime of disagreeing with you politically, you've assumed I'm seriously some kind of psychotic terroristic monster;

>1.
I believe in human rights, to apply to ALL humans, regardless of race, sex, religion, orientation, gender identity, political affiliation, sanity, or absolutely anything else.
It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what you believe.
EVERYONE gets human rights.
That includes the black man down the street.
That includes the MTF woman in the office.
That includes the imam on the corner.
That includes the fascist at the store.
EVERYONE gets basic human rights.

As I see rights, to put it simplistically as possible, people should be left alone so long as they are not DIRECTLY harming anyone else.
I don't consider saying a mean word harmful. I don't consider kissing your partner in public to be harmful. I don't consider spouting your ideology to be harmful. I don't consider going through transition surgery harmful.
As long as you are not directly hurting me, I do not care.
You can do you.

>2.
I believe people should be free to do absolutely whatever they desire to, so long as it doesn't interfere directly with others. It doesn't matter who you are. EVERYONE gets this right. If it makes you happy, you should be allowed to do it.
I'm a bit of an extremist in this regard, as I am to the point where I think suicide is your choice completely.
Do I think it's healthy? Obviously not.
But that doesn't matter, that's your right, and there is no moral question whatsoever to me. You own yourself in much the same way you own a vase you bought with your money. If you want to smash that, I have no right to say anything otherwise.

If someone wants to do what makes them happy, that is their right to do, absolutely.
It doesn't matter what it is. As long as it isn't directly harming anyone else, they should be free to do it.

>3.
Empathy and understanding is not restricted to people I agree with. Nor is it restricted to people whom I consider morally good.
I can empathize with people I find morally repugnant.

I certainly have no issue empathizing with someone afraid of another person who advocates harm to those of that someone's group, whatever that may be.
There is nothing at all blocking this.

>4.
My stance on identity is that it should not matter.
Not that people should be prevented from doing what they desire to do, what makes them happy, or what they choose to do.
Just that it should not matter.
That's it.
That's all.
Nothing extra.

I just, simply, believe that identity doesn't do anything to determine who you are. That's it.
I think you shouldn't be judged in any capacity for your identity.
I think that pride in something that doesn't matter and doesn't change you and is neutral in every way is dumb.
That's.
It.

>5.
This is more because I think you're the guy from >>8964 who's evidently still held a major grudge, but...

I do not believe anyone who disagrees with me is a monster just because they disagree with me.
Disagreement holds no bearing on that matter.
Disagreement is irrelevant to that matter.
The standard for someone to be a 'monster' in my mind is specific to a violation of rights, while being well aware of it, and not caring.
Frankly, I tend to limit it to actions taken in the real, rather than even advocates of such things, as I find people talk a lot online about things they wouldn't actually do in reality, not just due to social consequences, but because morality is often easy said, harder done, when it comes to actually doing it without empathizing with the pain you cause.
I do not tend to bandy around claims of people being monstrous or evil or such sweeping things. I rarely have enough information to make such a claim.

I do not believe anyone is subhuman, either.
As stated, I put no value in identity, as a whole. No group of people is better than another due to such arbitrary characteristics.
Nobody is inferior to me, or the rest of humanity, by virtue of anything like that.
And given how large a scope humanity is, and what all the past holds, I frankly do not see merit in ascribing humanity by morality, either. A murderer's just as human as any of the rest of us.
Moreover, I find such statements to be rather excusive. As if to say "The depravity of humanity does not matter, because I've defined away the problem".
Humanity has flaws. Defining them away is dumb. Just accept it, so that we can fix it.
Nobody is subhuman, as a result. I do not use such terminology, as I do not believe in such terminology.


>0.
I hope that explains things.
You've seemed to assume a lot about me that just plain is not true.
I have no idea why. And it's altogether unpleasant when someone accuses you of such horrible things as you seem to pin to me, without a single citation or quote to justify it.
I feel as though you looked at my "side" and said "Well, he's in X group, so he's guilty of all the crimes I ascribe to X".
This is obviously a terrible way to conduct yourself, actively harmful to others, shuts down dialogue, and, ironically, proves my point as it pertains to identity and its uselessness.
I would ask that you please judge me by what I actually say rather than the things you assume I believe. I have tried to extend that courtesy to you, but you do not appear to have even attempted to do so with me.

In the off chance the thread ends up deleted as you had requested, for the sake of clarity, here's an archive link to it.
https://archive.is/9hVSo
It was brought up by you, so I think it only fair I make sure to preserve the relevant evidence of that particular matter, as I'm sure you have a different perspective of what occurred than I do.

 No.9288

>>9256
>What are all of your thoughts?
In general you want more protection for protected status/identities.  It might work a bit -- something of an attempt to graft the work of those who have fought for racial equality onto equality more generally.  I do think there's a limit to the power of semantics, and, of course, what is now only race will need a word.  It is an interesting idea.

 No.9292

File: 1619328178828.jpg (40.64 KB, 712x712, 1:1, 1485428441941.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9284
>I frankly am afraid. If you and I met in public, you might take one look at my appearance and see that it's not to your liking or otherwise spend one second in hearing me saying something, really anything, that isn't of your liking... you'll then decide that I'm, I don't know, a part of antifa and thus reach for your sidearm.
>
>I mean, fuck me, if I'm out to get you, well, why not act in self-defense? ...
Um, I'm guessing that you don't carry and aren't involved in 'gun culture' at all?  I ask because I wonder if you recognize just how offensive what you said is to a responsible gun owner.

 No.9293

>>9292
Offensive enough to feel threatened?

 No.9294

>>9293
That's not really how offense works.
A threat could be offensive, I suppose, but it's not a threat because it's offensive.
Offense has nothing to do with threat.

 No.9295


 No.9296

>>9294
I can't account for how other people cognate. People are weird in how they feel offended or threatened.

 No.9297

>>9296
Has anyone here done anything like that?
Or for that matter done anything to suggest they might?

It seems to have come from absolutely nowhere to me.

 No.9299

>>9297
Man you just described 90% of this damn board. I don't think I've followed a single logical leap anybody has made and the urgent societal issues seem like they've been assembled by a game of madlibs.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]