IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Is is okay to insult opponents on their views?
Not just okay, but a duty! 8 10.53%
Yes, it is okay to insult opponents. 15 19.74%
No, it is not effective. 27 35.53%
No, it is dehumanizing. 18 23.68%
I don't have an opinion on this. 2 2.63%
XXXX you, snowflake! 6 7.89%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 23rd January 2021, 10:52 AM   #201
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,421
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The proportion of violent protests is much greater if you exclude all the peaceful protests.
Exactly. Why, we don't get all worked up about several hundred mass shooting sprees when we have all those perfectly not-shot citizens in the country.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 11:00 AM   #202
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,397
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The issue is never, ever, ever "oh I wring my hands over where to draw the line".

The issue is always, always, always that the line will be immediately erased. Or more accurately, intentionally put in the wrong place.

The Jogger thread showed this beautifully. A certain poster outright called another a racist after the second made an obvious satirical joke. These two had interacted for like a decade, and there should have been no reasonable pretext for misunderstanding.

But the first drew the line at a comically unreasonable point, basically at "anyone who does not parrot me or backslap my every word". IIRC, no apology or retraction was given when other posters pointed out that the first was being a horse's ass.

And that's where the pissy name-calling invariably goes. (G)you judge wrong, and think that you are clear to insult whoever you please that dares to disagree on any point, under the faux banner of being a right-minded poster.

This is akin to 'scientists have been wrong before, so we can't trust them now' argument.

Your assertion only matters when it's a close call and the people grouped together aren't similar. Neither is the case with the Capitol insurrectionists.

Also, in so many of these cases it just isn't a close call. Arguing exactly where the line could be, and who might get caught behind that line, when the people you are talking about can't even see the line from where they are, is a deflection.

And let's be honest here, one end of the political divide in the US has never and will never actually apply this standard to their own. Any standards will only be meaningfully applied by the left to their own. Racists aren't going to stop other racists from calling people names. Conservatives aren't going to stop other conservatives from calling everyone else socialists and communists and libtards and traitors and shooting them and sending bombs...oh wait, look at me bringing in actions that actually matter and not focusing on the real issues; if people using RadFem ideology to exclude trans people are actually Radical Feminists or just cynically using their reasoning.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 11:00 AM   #203
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,421
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
For someone arguing against sweeping "pissy" name calling of groups to dismiss them, you sure did chose to use "suburban mommies" twice in a very civilized fact based description of smaller protest events.
Sorry, that was a personal one. My beach town had a little protest march (entirely peaceful) last summer. Before it came, I had customers contracting me to board up their shop windows in the business district. I reminded them one and all that our town has the same crew of suburban mommies that peacefully demonstrates at any opportunity, and that antifa was prob not coming to rape their puppies. I forget sometimes that personal expressions don't always come across in posting.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 11:12 AM   #204
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,730
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I just find it odd that people can't see a differentiation between the idiots who stormed the building and those just standing outside holding dumbo Trump flags, yet suddenly can between BLM protesters and looters and rioters.
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I can think of at least one very obvious difference: All the Trump fans on Jan. 6 responded to invitations to Stop the Steal! by participating in The Storm. The BLM protesters didn't respond to invitations to loot and riot. On the contrary, many of them tried to stop the looting, not just in the case of the umbrella man.
Is that difference so hard for you to acknowledge?

cullennz does not realize, either deliberately, or through his own lack of understanding, that the two "sides" of the coin here are not equivalent-opposites. The reason for BLM protests is that they are protesting against over 200 years of oppression and discrimination, against the fact that too often, black people are killed by cops, and racist vigilantes for no other reason than just being black.

However, the reason for the insurrectionists, seditionists, white supremacist's, fascists, neo-Nazis and other assorted deplorables protests is because the participants are terrified they are going to lose their white privilege... their ability to BE the oppressor, the discriminator.

It should not be forgotten that a vast majority of the looters at BLM protests were there only for the opportunity to loot, and had nothing to do with the BLM movement. They were simply using the protests as cover, while the Capitol rioters were all at the Capitol to participate in "Stop the Steal" and "The Storm", that is for the express, stated purpose of reversing the result of free and fair elections because they didn't like the result, and for the express, stated purpose of detaining and murdering members of congress, particularly Democrats.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd January 2021 at 11:29 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 11:26 AM   #205
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,804
Well put.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 12:06 PM   #206
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,349
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Tbf, thousands of those demonstrations were small town affairs with suburban mommies and hipster kids. The party was in the several hundred large, violent and destructive demonstrations. Several hundred major riots is a pretty serious problem that is not minimized by comparing with thousands of 50-marching-suburban-mommies breifly walking down small town main streets.
I’ll need some time to pore over the exhaustive amount of data you provided in support of your claim.

In the mean time, no one said that the fact that 93% of the demonstrations over the summer were peaceful minimizes the violence of the other 7%. It was brought up in the context of apologists for right wing terrorists making the disingenuous argument that there was no discernible difference between peaceful protesters and rioters.

There clearly was on a very large scale, and the data supports that.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 01:58 PM   #207
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
cullennz does not realize, either deliberately, or through his own lack of understanding, that the two "sides" of the coin here are not equivalent-opposites. The reason for BLM protests is that they are protesting against over 200 years of oppression and discrimination, against the fact that too often, black people are killed by cops, and racist vigilantes for no other reason than just being black.

However, the reason for the insurrectionists, seditionists, white supremacist's, fascists, neo-Nazis and other assorted deplorables protests is because the participants are terrified they are going to lose their white privilege... their ability to BE the oppressor, the discriminator.

It should not be forgotten that a vast majority of the looters at BLM protests were there only for the opportunity to loot, and had nothing to do with the BLM movement. They were simply using the protests as cover, while the Capitol rioters were all at the Capitol to participate in "Stop the Steal" and "The Storm", that is for the express, stated purpose of reversing the result of free and fair elections because they didn't like the result, and for the express, stated purpose of detaining and murdering members of congress, particularly Democrats.

I am not talking about the BLM protesters. There was nothing wrong with them and the have a massive point.


I was talking about the people on the weirdo scale looting and setting fires to buildings in the case of the BLM compared to the weirdos storming the Capitol.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 02:45 PM   #208
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,349
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I am not talking about the BLM protesters. There was nothing wrong with them and the have a massive point.


I was talking about the people on the weirdo scale looting and setting fires to buildings in the case of the BLM compared to the weirdos storming the Capitol.
It’s a poor comparison for several reasons as several of us have already explained to you.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 07:33 AM   #209
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Confused* Then what is the topic of the thread?
Whether insulting someone of a different political bent is in any way constructive.

Although I have been riding the runaway train, I still must concede that it derailed several posts ago
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 09:30 AM   #210
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,730
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The calculus of defenders of Trump's crap really apalls me.

Covid wasn't a big deal when it first came here because only a dozen people had it and no one died. Compare that to any other disease!

Then it started to spread and it's only a few hundred deaths, much less than people drowning in swimming pools, you gonna ban swimming pools.

Every risk or danger that doesn't fit their politics is disingenuously framed as though current outcome is the only way to measure future risk. Which means you can never take any action. Either something hasn't happened yet, in which case there's no problem and the minimize minimize mock any evaluation of the risk. Or it already has happened, in which case it's too late to prevent and it's either not that bad, or it's really the democrats fault. (The democrats who were warning about it and trying to take action over your objections).

And then when bad things do happen, they're minimized or lied away.
We can't trust those covid numbers, hospitals are faking them for money.
And anyway, they're mostly old people. Old people die anyway.
And what's death, every life ends sometime right? Why are you liberals so hung up on death, it's natural.

Same thing for these rioters. Minimize and make it seem like outcome is the same as risk.

But god forbid one brown person crosses a border! Who knows what they might do! Suddenly unrealized risk is a big deal again. And negative outcomes are real too! Maybe some of the people who died this year starved to death because illegals took their jobs!

I don't know how to watch this and view this kind of widespread BS as simply a different opinion or different values and try to have discussions and share a government. It's too far gone, it's too detached from reality.
This.

I rather tire of the same old people defending the racism dog-whistlers, using debate tactics that are little more than disingenuous jaqing off masquerading as civil discourse.


These people need to be called out (and so do their defenders) and then exposed for what they are, and if that means calling them CHUDS, TERFS, SJW's or whatever, then so be it!
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th January 2021 at 09:32 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 10:08 AM   #211
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,535
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Whether insulting someone of a different political bent is in any way constructive.
Well if every other way of explaining to them they are wrong doesn't work because they are just trolling, the yeah sure why not.

That's always the game you and yours are playing. Faux pearl-clutching over people being mean as you simultaneously just completely ignore the fact that you also equally didn't listen when people calmly explained stuff to you either.

You jump right from "not listening to basic facts" to "pitching a fit because someone got tired of talking to a brick wall and got snippy" and never land anywhere near "actually capable of being talked to."

It's the same trick being played across the entire anti-intellectual, post-fact trolling spectrum. You and people like you divide all discourse into either sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and "Someone got frustrated with my trolling antics and got snippy, now I want to talk about their reaction AND NOTHING ELSE" and never land anywhere near "actual discourse" by pretending it doesn't exist.

I'll stop being vaguely snarky and sarcastic (which I guess is what we are calling "insulting" and "uncivil" today) when I can get an honest, or indeed any, response of the troll army any other way.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th January 2021 at 10:18 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 10:13 AM   #212
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,349
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This.

I rather tire of the same old people defending the racism dog-whistlers, using debate tactics that are little more than disingenuous jaqing off masquerading as civil discourse.


These people need to be called out (and so do their defenders) and then exposed for what they are, and if that means calling them CHUDS, TERFS, SJW's or whatever, then so be it!
I think a compromise can be made.

Agree to argue in good faith, and you won’t be insulted.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 10:28 AM   #213
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,730
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I think a compromise can be made.

Agree to argue in good faith, and you won’t be insulted.
Yeah, good luck with that approach.

The problem is that those you would ask to debate in "good faith" wouldn't know "good faith" if it fell out of the sky, crashed through their roof, landed on the seat in front of their harpsichord and started playing "Good Faith is Here Again!"
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 12:16 PM   #214
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,349
Another good example of this is the ongoing Twitter feud between Ted Cruz and Seth Rogen.

In a nutshell, Texas senator Ted Cruz tweets blatant lies and misrepresentations and comedic actor Seth Rogen gives him both barrels with profane insults.

Is this constructive? Probably not. But there is no constructive way to deal with the likes of Ted Cruz. His whole agenda is to derail constructive discussion. So you might as well have some fun at his expense.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 05:49 PM   #215
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Kind of why 9 times out of 10 I agree with them.
But that tenth time though......

In a way, that is meta for this thread.

Being called a name that you know is outlandish because you are not accepting a particular argument or judgment call as gospel regardless of the earnestness of the poster making the claim led to being insulted.

Did the insult lend more or less credibility to the assertions being made by the poster doing the name calling?
Do you suppose that a lurker who was truly undecided about the discussion, upon reading the back and forth and the insults, would give more or less weight to the argument of the one doing the insulting?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:07 PM   #216
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,186
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
But that tenth time though......

In a way, that is meta for this thread.

Being called a name that you know is outlandish because you are not accepting a particular argument or judgment call as gospel regardless of the earnestness of the poster making the claim led to being insulted.

Did the insult lend more or less credibility to the assertions being made by the poster doing the name calling?
Do you suppose that a lurker who was truly undecided about the discussion, upon reading the back and forth and the insults, would give more or less weight to the argument of the one doing the insulting?
Personally, I find someone who argues by insult less credible. They may be on my side of the argument but they're making me wish they weren't. YMMV.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:15 PM   #217
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Personally, I find someone who argues by insult less credible. They may be on my side of the argument but they're making me wish they weren't. YMMV.
I would guess that is a commonly held opinion.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 03:07 AM   #218
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,342
Mod WarningPutting this on moderated status until it can be cleaned out.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about the topic, instead rather a lot of demonstrations of the topic and talk about topics which have their own threads.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 07:55 AM   #219
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I am imagining turning up at a dinner party where you don’t know the rest of the guests and the host saying, “this week, let’s raise the level of civility by avoiding the ‘n’ at tonight’s dinner...” I think I would worry about what kind of dinner party I had turned up to. The issue is not in the use or otherwise of the “n” word. It would be the specific opinions of the guests present.
If we use that context as the analogy... would you tolerate the general tossing about of insults and labels, and general antagonism under discussion here at your party? Or would you expect your guests to behave like adults and treat each other with respect and common courtesy?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:17 AM   #220
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's an idea. When someone does "OMG you called me a liar instead of phrasing it the approved 'Your argument is a lie' way, therefore I must now hijack the discussion to pitch a fit about it" shout them down instead of the person who didn't perform the Civility Theater.
Or, you know, basic common courtesy and the principle of charity. Perhaps you could say "I believe you are mistaken" or "That is incorrect" or something similar that allows for the possibility that the other person genuinely believes what they are saying, rather than are intentionally and maliciously being untruthful.

That's a big part of the problem with a lack of civility - it almost always ASSUMES that the other person is acting maliciously. There ends up being the implied assumption that the other person is being a jerk on purpose. Which then somehow is seen to give license to being a jerk in retaliation. Which is unproductive, pointless, and it brings the discussion down to the level of a schoolyard.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:31 AM   #221
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
When the argument is taking place in a public forum (like here, for instance) the goal is usually to make the facts a matter of record for anyone else observing.
How is calling someone a racist or a bigot or a TERF or similar slurs establishing fact? Passing judgement on others isn't establishing fact, it's simply asserting your opinion as if it were fact.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:49 AM   #222
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If someone calls me a Nazi or a racist it's pretty easy for me to prove them wrong because I don't hold any Nazi views and haven't said anything racist. My defense to the "insult" would be "show me what I've said or done that indicates that could apply to me", and they can't because I'm not. My panties remain untwisted because I know I'm in the clear.

Which leads me to believe the people who cry the loudest about being "termed" things do so because they know damn well they've said and done things that make it applicable. Dorothy L. Sayers had a great line: “Because, though nine-tenths of the mud might be thrown at random, the remaining tenth might quite easily be, as it usually was, dredged from the bottom of the well of truth, and would stick."
I rather disagree.

For example, I've been repeatedly slandered as a TERF and a transphobe (as have several other female posters on this board), despite my expressed views being nearly identical to those provided by people who get called "allies". I'm not a radical feminist, and I'm not fully trans-exclusionary. I do, however, have a very strong objection to self-identification without a diagnosis or any medical treatment being the sole arbiter of who gets to be in areas where females are vulnerable or at increased risk of harm. And I do have an objection to unaltered males competing against females in most sports, and feel that some strict guidelines are required to maintain fairness for females. That same view is held by several other who are NOT called names, but I am, as are most females in that thread who don't kowtow to the meaningless slogan of "Transwomen Are Women".

I can point to my expressed views all I want, I can even point to the views expressed by others that are indistinguishable from mine. But it doesn't stop a core few posters from repeatedly and persistently labeling me (and other females) as hateful TERFs and transphobes, and implying that we want transgender people to be harmed or to deny their existence in some way.

It is used as a method for poisoning the well, and for manipulating the emotional state of posters and lurkers. It is used, and clearly intended, to silence the views of people who disagree with a particular ideology.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:24 AM   #223
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
These people need to be called out (and so do their defenders) and then exposed for what they are, and if that means calling them CHUDS, TERFS, SJW's or whatever, then so be it!
In what way is this different than a bog-standard religious zealot feeling righteously justified in calling out and harassing infidels and heretics?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:10 PM   #224
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,342
Mod WarningA large number of posts that appeared to be discussing a completely different topic from that of this thread, as well as including a lot of bickering, have been moved to AAH. The thread is being taken off moderated status.

Please keep to the topic of the thread, and do not insult one another (the topic of the thread notwithstanding).
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:50 PM   #225
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,393
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I rather disagree.
I know.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:53 PM   #226
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,535
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Or, you know, basic common courtesy and the principle of charity.
You really do seem to be intent on misunderstanding purposes here.

If I'm breaking bread with someone who thinks 2+2=5, my end goal is him no longer thinking 2+2=5, or failing that descrediting him enough that his stupid, dangerous idea that 2+2=5 gets its legs cut out from under it as best as I can do.

Friendship is secondary.

Your pro-ignorance "The validity of the statement is not the topic" defense of wrongness does not get factored in.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 25th January 2021 at 01:55 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:58 PM   #227
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 7,883
On the question of "effectiveness", I think the framing is missing the point.

While stories of KKK members hanging up their hoods after being befriended by a black person make for interesting news stories, it's not really realistic to expect extremists to reform their ways. If "effectiveness" is the concern, it's much more realistic to worry about undecided or apathetic people rather than trying to convince die-hard bigots to change their ways.

There's no harm in calling a CHUD a CHUD because, realistically speaking, there's basically 0% chance you're going to convince that person to change their ways. The people out there that want to film an ISIS-style beheading video with Nancy Pelosi are not the people we need to convince, they are lost causes. They need to be defeated. Speaking honestly about their views is an important step is clarifying the problem to the general public.

Walking on eggshells about what these bigots are is counterproductive, and it grants them legitimacy by implying their views deserve dignity and respect, which they absolutely do not.

Reasonable people can disagree and negotiate in good faith. CHUDs are not reasonable people. They should be mocked and otherwise undermined until such time that they are non-factors in our society.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 25th January 2021 at 02:02 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:59 PM   #228
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,421
Ah. So if you break bread with someone who thinks your 2+2=5, he's clean pool to insult you? Got it.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by zooterkin; 26th January 2021 at 02:42 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:00 PM   #229
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,962
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You really do seem to be intent on misunderstanding purposes here.

If I'm breaking bread with someone who thinks 2+2=5, my end goal is him no longer thinking 2+2=5, or failing that descrediting him enough that his stupid, dangerous idea that 2+2=5 gets its legs cut out from under it as best as I can do.

Friendship is secondary.

Your pro-ignorance "The validity of the statement is not the topic" defense of wrongness does not get factored in.
I may be misunderstanding you. In addressing Emily’s Cat are you saying that her position in the transgender thread is equivalent to or similar to “2+2=5”?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:05 PM   #230
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,535
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ah. So if you break bread with someone who thinks your 2+2=5, he's clean pool to insult you? Got it.
*Very slowly* 2+2 doesn't equal 5. That's the difference.

I'm going to absolutely blow your mind here but the difference is some opinions are factually correct and some aren't.

Remember facts? Those things that exist outside of our opinions?

Again the whole "Everything is an opinion" is just one huge core of anti-intellectualism but it doesn't excuse being wrong after every single responsible way of telling you you are wrong has been exhausted.

Since I can see the chess pieces being setup let me clear. I'm not talking "Triscuits versus Wheat Thins" that is a matter of subjectivity or a question that the answer is still up for any level of reasonable debate. It's a fact. A settled fact that you either accept or be wrong.

Evolution is true. Global warming is happening. Blacks are not an inferior race. Storming the Capital is a crime and should be punished. These are not things that can reasonably be discussed anymore, lest not with people who take their wrongness as an intentional affect.

Being wrong is not some new, alternative form of being right no matter what about 40% of the population has up and decided to the otherwise in the last few years.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:09 PM   #231
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,535
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I may be misunderstanding you. In addressing Emily’s Cat are you saying that her position in the transgender thread is equivalent to or similar to “2+2=5”?
You're attempt at a gotcha is noted, laughed at, and then forgotten.

Emily Cat and I have had a long discussion in those threads. We do have major disagreements on that topic, but have also come to several moments of understand, if not agreement.

I'm confused (well not confused because I know exactly why you are doing it) as to why you think that matters here.

Again I see your sad attempt to move the goal post from "Facts exists and some things are no longer matters of civil debate to" to "Aha! So you're saying we can/should never civilly discuss anything!", acknowledge it, laugh at it, and will now forget it because it is not worth any more of my time.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:30 PM   #232
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,421
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Very slowly* 2+2 doesn't equal 5. That's the difference.

I'm going to absolutely blow your mind here but the difference is some opinions are factually correct and some aren't.

Remember facts? Those things that exist outside of our opinions?

Again the whole "Everything is an opinion" is just one huge core of anti-intellectualism but it doesn't excuse being wrong after every single responsible way of telling you you are wrong has been exhausted.

Since I can see the chess pieces being setup let me clear. I'm not talking "Triscuits versus Wheat Thins" that is a matter of subjectivity or a question that the answer is still up for any level of reasonable debate. It's a fact. A settled fact that you either accept or be wrong.

Evolution is true. Global warming is happening. Blacks are not an inferior race. Storming the Capital is a crime and should be punished. These are not things that can reasonably be discussed anymore, lest not with people who take their wrongness as an intentional affect.

Being wrong is not some new, alternative form of being right no matter what about 40% of the population has up and decided to the otherwise in the last few years.
*even more slowly* That only works at the extremes. The bulk of discourse And the flung insults are not at the indisputable Nazism or flat-earther extreme or whatever. It's with people who are just not in exact agreement with you, yet are treated with all the contempt as if they were claiming a mathematical absurdity.

Framing your argument as 2+2=5 puts you in the indisputable right. Thing is, in most discussions, it's not that clear cut. Yet the willingness to demonize an opponent And treat them like they are indisputably wrong goes on unchecked.

Say someone called you a SJW or a Great White Savior. You'd have no factual issue with that, right? Or might you think that the truth of their assertion is not as objectively demonstrable as 2+2? That's where most of the name calling tends to drop, and why adults should bag it.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:46 PM   #233
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,430
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
*even more slowly* That only works at the extremes. The bulk of discourse And the flung insults are not at the indisputable Nazism or flat-earther extreme or whatever. It's with people who are just not in exact agreement with you, yet are treated with all the contempt as if they were claiming a mathematical absurdity.

Framing your argument as 2+2=5 puts you in the indisputable right. Thing is, in most discussions, it's not that clear cut. Yet the willingness to demonize an opponent And treat them like they are indisputably wrong goes on unchecked.

Say someone called you a SJW or a Great White Savior. You'd have no factual issue with that, right? Or might you think that the truth of their assertion is not as objectively demonstrable as 2+2? That's where most of the name calling tends to drop, and why adults should bag it.
Why does "most" of the name calling matter in this discussion though? I don't believe Joe is arguing that the majority of the times anyone calls anyone else a name it's justified. So the volume of general occurances seems to be a non sequitur.

I'd say that the fact that Covid-19 is highly infectious, has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and can be minimized by keeping distance, avoiding unnecessary gatherings and wearing masks is in that 2+2 =4 territory.

"All the hospitals in the world are lying about deaths as a conspiracy against Trump" or variations thereof is in that 2+2 = banana territory.

A crowd whipped into a rage by a conspiracy theory favoring a now ex-president who helped foster that theory and literally sent them to the Capitol where they muurdered a police officer and then broke in looking for politicians- the fact that that's a big deal and that ex-president is responsible, that's 2+2 =4.

The election was stolen because we saw ballots coming from under a table (and we ignored the footage of those same ballots being placed under the table in full view of observers and on the security tape) that's 2+2= pants on head.

Meanwhile there is also...

The particular numbers on how medicare for all might work out are up for some levels of debate. Personal convictions on what role the federal government should play as a safety net are at least somewhat matters of opinion. The advisability of a 15 dollar minimum wage is something we can discuss.

Those 2+2 =4 issues at the top. Those aren't rare disagreements. Millions and millions of Americans are buying into the 2+2= fish side of those discussions, and it's having huge and serious impacts on life in this country.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:57 PM   #234
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If I'm breaking bread with someone who thinks 2+2=5, my end goal is him no longer thinking 2+2=5, or failing that descrediting him enough that his stupid, dangerous idea that 2+2=5 gets its legs cut out from under it as best as I can do.
Okay fine. What if you're breaking bread with someone who thinks that there's a higher prevalence of criminality in the black population in the US and therefore believes that the protests against the police are misguided? That's based on belief, not fact. The higher prevalence of convictions in the black population is documented fact... but the reason for that conviction rate is complex and not easily understood, especially if the other person isn't well educated on the underlying drivers. At what point do you feel righteously justified in mocking and discrediting that person's viewpoint?

What if you're breaking bread with someone who believes that transwomen are women if they say so, no diagnosis or medical treatment or transition required? What if they believe that any person who claims to identify as a woman should have the right to enter sex-segregated spaces where people are naked or vulnerable, or prisons, on their say-so alone?

What if someone believes that affirmative action is inherently racist because it discriminates on the basis of race and sex?

What if someone supports stronger immigration rules and supports the deportation of undocumented persons who are in the US illegally?

What if someone supports the protests against police brutality against the black community, but very strongly opposes arson and looting?

Which of those do you feel represent a 2+2=5 situation?

You present your argument as if it is based on absolute incontrovertible fact. Most of the time, however, labels get flung at other posters on the basis of assumptions and moral judgements. And regardless of how strongly you feel about it, moral judgements are not facts.

FTR - I get annoyed by labels being applied to general populations (ie all Republicans or Democrats) but it is something I tolerate. When labels are applied to other posters, regardless of how strongly people think they are well-deserved, I really find it inappropriate.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 03:00 PM   #235
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm going to absolutely blow your mind here but the difference is some opinions are factually correct and some aren't.
Um... no. Opinions are not facts. Opinions cannot be factually correct. You seem to be conflating moral judgements with facts.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 03:04 PM   #236
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You're attempt at a gotcha is noted, laughed at, and then forgotten.

Emily Cat and I have had a long discussion in those threads. We do have major disagreements on that topic, but have also come to several moments of understand, if not agreement.

I'm confused (well not confused because I know exactly why you are doing it) as to why you think that matters here.

Again I see your sad attempt to move the goal post from "Facts exists and some things are no longer matters of civil debate to" to "Aha! So you're saying we can/should never civilly discuss anything!", acknowledge it, laugh at it, and will now forget it because it is not worth any more of my time.
I'm going to guess that it's because I've been labeled and slandered as a TERF and a transphobe repeatedly in that thread. Not by you, but by other people who use the same logic that you're suggesting here. They have decided that I am wrong, end of story, and that my wrongness justifies them applying labels to me.

If your logic holds for you, it must also hold for others. And that means that those who believe that their views are true views are justified in labelling, mocking, and dismissing me in that thread.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 03:44 PM   #237
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
On the question of "effectiveness", I think the framing is missing the point.

While stories of KKK members hanging up their hoods after being befriended by a black person make for interesting news stories, it's not really realistic to expect extremists to reform their ways. If "effectiveness" is the concern, it's much more realistic to worry about undecided or apathetic people rather than trying to convince die-hard bigots to change their ways.
I really like that you expressly articulated a goal - convincing someone - before you evaluated the effectiveness of politeness. That doesn't happen too much here, it seems to me.

However,
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
There's no harm in calling a CHUD a CHUD because, realistically speaking, there's basically 0% chance you're going to convince that person to change their ways.
If the goal is to speak to undecided or apathetic people, as you mention above, then using terms like CHUD may well turn them off.

Furthermore, what goal does it serve? Venting? What practical goal is furthered? I'm not clear that any is.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The people out there that want to film an ISIS-style beheading video with Nancy Pelosi are not the people we need to convince, they are lost causes. They need to be defeated. Speaking honestly about their views is an important step is clarifying the problem to the general public.
Absolutely, but calling them a CHUD is not speaking honestly about their views. It's not even accurately labeling what they are in reality in the way that calling someone a Nazi well might.
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Walking on eggshells about what these bigots are is counterproductive,
Whether it's walking on eggshells or not is a question about how comfortable someone might be addressing certain people in a certain way, but the fundamental issue is how they *should* be addressed given some goal.
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
and it grants them legitimacy by implying their views deserve dignity and respect, which they absolutely do not.
If you don't want to imply that their views deserve dignity or respect, then the better method is to merely say so, especially if the audience contains the undecided or the fence-sitters.
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Reasonable people can disagree and negotiate in good faith. CHUDs are not reasonable people. They should be mocked and otherwise undermined until such time that they are non-factors in our society.
The question is whether they should be mocked given a certain audience and given a certain goal. What goal do you see served by mocking them, given what audience?
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 04:15 PM   #238
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 29,283
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If we use that context as the analogy... would you tolerate the general tossing about of insults and labels, and general antagonism under discussion here at your party? Or would you expect your guests to behave like adults and treat each other with respect and common courtesy?
It's a false dilemma isn't it? I'm not going to be asking my guests not to use the "n" word at the dinner table, because I'm not going to be inviting anyone I have to politely request refraining from saying it. I won't be in the situation of worrying that Bob is going to call Steve the "n" word because Bob is a racist *******. Bob the racist ******* is not going to be invited.

According to your scenario, it would be wrong to call Bob a racist *******, and instead we should just invite him and tell both Bob and Steve that they had better be on their best behaviour. For me that sounds patently unjust. I think Bob deserves a social penalty for his racism and Steve doesn't deserve being told he better sit there and mind his language.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 04:33 PM   #239
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,077
i think this thread turning into people insulting other people over when it's ok to insult people kind of answered it's own question
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 04:50 PM   #240
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It's a false dilemma isn't it? I'm not going to be asking my guests not to use the "n" word at the dinner table, because I'm not going to be inviting anyone I have to politely request refraining from saying it. I won't be in the situation of worrying that Bob is going to call Steve the "n" word because Bob is a racist *******. Bob the racist ******* is not going to be invited.

According to your scenario, it would be wrong to call Bob a racist *******, and instead we should just invite him and tell both Bob and Steve that they had better be on their best behaviour. For me that sounds patently unjust. I think Bob deserves a social penalty for his racism and Steve doesn't deserve being told he better sit there and mind his language.
It's only a false dilemma if you falsely narrow the context to a single epithet.

Consider the variety of discussion we have here, any of which might come up at a dinner party with friends. Would you be okay with one of your guests calling another a TERF or a transphobe if they politely express disagreement about the participation of transwomen in sports? Would you be comfortable with one of your guests calling another a terrorism supporter if they commented that only a small handful of Trump supporters lost their minds? Would you tolerate one of your guest mocking another and calling them a libtard snowflake commie if they had suggested that Universal Basic Income is a good idea?

Or do you expect your adult guests to behave like adults and express their disagreement with another person's beliefs and views with the bare modicum of civility required by not name-calling?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.