International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347945)

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409900)
Of course.
If I call someone "ugly", and they respond with "you are not attractive"- it was not a response "in kind" because the words used were not identical.
I shall take that under advisement.

If you fly a flag that supports MIA and fallen vets because a relative of yours died as a soldier and they put up a sign that says "He's not a war hero. I like people who didn't get captured." then I would not find that as a response in kind, no matter what is said via twitter.

wareyin 26th February 2021 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409913)
A flag has a gender identity??

You don't realize that flags are symbols?

Distracted1 26th February 2021 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13409985)
If you fly a flag that supports MIA and fallen vets because a relative of yours died as a soldier and they put up a sign that says "He's not a war hero. I like people who didn't get captured." then I would not find that as a response in kind, no matter what is said via twitter.

Nor would I.
Of course, if I publicly proclaimed before I hung that flag that I was doing so in an attempt to "trigger" someone, it would be.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13409991)
You don't realize that flags are symbols?

You took objection to my characterizing the flag as "vague" in meaning.

What specifically does the flag symbolize if that is the case?
Is it possible that flags are only vague symbols- and until/unless I speak up to give it context flying one can mean almost anything?

smartcooky 26th February 2021 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409699)
The Rep across the hall from Greene displays a symbol of a political position human decency with the expressed intent of making a political rival "look at it every time she opens her door". showing support for her own child who has to suffer indignity and discrimination thanks to the vile, inhuman attitudes people like Greene.

FTFY

Darat 26th February 2021 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409806)
Clearly, that bastion of unbiased reporting CNN does not think so.

They choose to label the response ( a response in kind, no less) as "antagonizing" before going on to describe how the response was provoked by deliberate, clearly stated trolling.

.....llinois Rep. Marie Newman, whose daughter is transgender, posted a video on Twitter of her hanging the pink and blue transgender pride flag outside her office Wednesday afternoon, captioning that Greene tried to block the act "because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is 'disgusting, immoral, and evil,'" adding, "thought we'd put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door" with winking and transgender flag emojis.

Somehow, that was not "antagonizing".

I can read the content of both, they are not ethically nor morally equal.

Steve 26th February 2021 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409699)
Disgusting?
The Rep across the hall from Greene displays a symbol of a political position with the expressed intent of making a political rival "look at it every time she opens her door".

Responding to that by displaying an opposing viewpoint on her own door (not a viewpoint promoting genocide, persecution, or discrimination- just an opposing one) is described as "disgusting" behavior.
That about sums up a lot of "our" politics thes days, I guess.

One person displays a symbol that expresses support for the inclusion of some marginalized Americans. The other person responds by displaying a symbol of hatred for those same marginalized Americans. And one or more posters on an internet forum try to argue that those two symbols are equally acceptable in the current American society and political system. No one should be left with any doubt of one of the main problems afflicting the USA today.

Steve 26th February 2021 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409913)
A flag has a gender identity??

Oooh, clever! ................Nah.

wareyin 26th February 2021 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410019)
You took objection to my characterizing the flag as "vague" in meaning.

What specifically does the flag symbolize if that is the case?
Is it possible that flags are only vague symbols- and until/unless I speak up to give it context flying one can mean almost anything?

Specifically, a flag symbolizes support for the thing the flag represents. In the case of a trans flag, it specifically represents support for trans people and trans rights. In the case of a sports team, it represents support for that team.

It does not represent the gender of the flag, or that the flag is a member of the sports team, or that the flag representing a country is either a citizen of that country or that the flag is that country.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13410020)
FTFY

A pity it has taken this long for her to support her own daughter.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410029)
One person displays a symbol that expresses support for the inclusion of some marginalized Americans. The other person responds by displaying a symbol of hatred for those same marginalized Americans. And one or more posters on an internet forum try to argue that those two symbols are equally acceptable in the current American society and political system. No one should be left with any doubt of one of the main problems afflicting the USA today.

Of course.
Because believing that Men and Women are terms with consistent meanings is a form of hatred.
No hyperbole there.

And, is a sign a "symbol"...did you even read the link?

Steve 26th February 2021 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410067)
A pity it has taken this long for her to support her own daughter.

Choosing to add a particular symbol of support at a certain time says absolutely nothing about support prior to that time.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410073)
Choosing to add a particular symbol of support at a certain time says absolutely nothing about support prior to that time.

Unless, of course, one publicly states! why they are doing it at that time and place.

smartcooky 26th February 2021 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410067)
A pity it has taken this long for her to support her own daughter.


And you know this because.....?

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409839)
Actually, One person trolls another- announcing their intent to troll.
The trolled individual responds in kind.

Instead of taking a lesson on the corrosive nature of trolling (a favorite technique of that recently departed "he who's name shall remain unspoken") Useful idiots line up to attack based upon which "side" the participants seem to be on- taking as much liberty with how they choose to hyperbolise the incident as they desire.

DP

Steve 26th February 2021 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410068)
Of course.
Because believing that Men and Women are terms with consistent meanings is a form of hatred.
No hyperbole there.

Are you suggesting that there is some question whether Greene is considering the implied nuances in gender identity? She has likely given that topic no thought at all. Greene has made her hatred obvious, put it on display, and is proud of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410068)
And, is a sign a "symbol"...did you even read the link?

Yes, a sign is also a symbol. Semantics like this are merely a feeble attempt at distraction from the issue.

Steve 26th February 2021 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410074)
Unless, of course, one publicly states! why they are doing it at that time and place.

Simply wrong. Support for her daughter did not start with that public statement, time, and place.

Steve 26th February 2021 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13410080)
And you know this because.....?

Distracted1 does not know this.

Deflection and distraction are not an uncommon tactic when attempts at logical argument are failing.

MRC_Hans 26th February 2021 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13409863)
Had she hung the flag without announcing that she was doing it to troll her office-mate, the response would not have been appropriate.
The flag is a pretty vague symbol, after all, and could have meant anything.
She chose to give it a more specific meaning when she flat out stated that she was hanging it there to troll Greene.

Greene responded in an exactly appropriate way. In kind, and directly towards the antagonizer (labelled thus, again, because she specifically stated that hanging it there was an attempt to antagonize Greene).

Calling that act "disgusting" contributes nothing, and if anyone should face our ire, it is those who are doing so.

It was trolling and counter-troling. Both successful. The reason most here reject the reaction of Greene is that the other part were promoting freedom from interference, while she called for suppression.

Most of us dislike suppression.

Hans

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13410109)
It was trolling and counter-troling. Both successful. The reason most here reject the reaction of Greene is that the other part were promoting freedom from interference, while she called for suppression.

Most of us dislike suppression.

Hans

I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Steve 26th February 2021 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410122)
I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Neither does Greene and her supporters. That really is the issue.

MRC_Hans 26th February 2021 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410122)
I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Equal rights regardless of gender, creed or political affiliation. You may have heard about it.

Hans

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410102)
Simply wrong. Support for her daughter did not start with that public statement, time, and place.

You know this how?

Steve 26th February 2021 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410137)
You know this how?

Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410143)
Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

great. you have answered both of our questions :)

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13409985)
If you fly a flag that supports MIA and fallen vets because a relative of yours died as a soldier and they put up a sign that says "He's not a war hero. I like people who didn't get captured." then I would not find that as a response in kind, no matter what is said via twitter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410016)
Nor would I.
Of course, if I publicly proclaimed before I hung that flag that I was doing so in an attempt to "trigger" someone, it would be.

No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

Steve 26th February 2021 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410159)
great. you have answered both of our questions :)

I do not seem to have asked a question related to this.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410160)
No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

Steve 26th February 2021 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410175)
I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410198)
I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410244)
Thanks for saving me the typing.

"I cannot" is not much to type.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410249)
"I cannot" is not much to type.

More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410253)
More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Steve 26th February 2021 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410256)
I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410256)
I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

You simply aren't getting the point: a response in kind is possible, but I don't think she is capable of it.

I would respond in kind by posting a rainbow flag, because I have LGBTQ loved ones I care about.

I could post a BLM flag because I have been inspired by what their movement has done in a short time.

I could post a vet flag because I have loved ones who are vets who I think do not get treated as well as they should.

Or is your contention that I need to find a response in kind that fits with MTG's message of bigotry and exclusion? Sorry, not happening.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410293)
Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

RecoveringYuppy 26th February 2021 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).

wareyin 26th February 2021 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

For someone who is putting so much effort into defending Greene's position, you seem remarkably ignorant of that position. She's done more than just put up a sign that gets the science wrong.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410325)
It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).


LOL. you do you.
There is a whole thread devoted to it, which already has substantial spread, so I will forgo discussing it further here.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

Is there a reason you are not being honest about what the sign said?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.