Big Guy Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Your opinion highlights how highly contentious this topic is. Many on here have complained about too much racism and bigotry, and others complain that the accusation is made against others too easily. I understand the quandary you must be in. A while ago, I started a thread attempting to get posters opinions of what makes a view left wing, middle or right wing. It appears that most have no idea or choose not to define those positions with specifics. It is more convenient to give that view a negative connotation and use it as yet another weapon with which to aggravate, goad or insult other perceived "enemy" posters. If everyone agrees to the definition and explanation of what is bigotry, racism, xenophobic and prejudice then the terms could be used without meaning of insult - but of clarity. If someone suggested that the Catholic religion teaches death and violence then it is obviously a bigoted statement - by definition. I assume what you are suggesting is that the poster be told that it is wrong to accuse all the members of one religious group of negative attributes. Keep trying. If I may use the analogy of a professional hockey game - The referees spend very little time watching those with the good skills. They watch the poorer players and goons who lack the skills and consequently push the parameters of the rules. They are the ones who need the supervision and also the ones who do most of the whining. Lots of luck! Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Posted December 8, 2015 Your opinion highlights how highly contentious this topic is. Many on here have complained about too much racism and bigotry, and others complain that the accusation is made against others too easily. The accusation is generally made either as an all purpose insult, or to shut down discussion on a topic the accuser doesn't like, or because the accuser is such an incredible politically correct zealot that almost any kind of expression of disapproval towards any aspect of a non-white, non-Christian group causes them outrage. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 The accusation is generally made either as an all purpose insult, or to shut down discussion on a topic the accuser doesn't like, or because the accuser is such an incredible politically correct zealot that almost any kind of expression of disapproval towards any aspect of a non-white, non-Christian group causes them outrage.Or because what was accused actually occurred.
Argus Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Posted December 8, 2015 Or because what was accused actually occurred. I've observed over time that the terms tend to be used BY certain people as opposed to AGAINST certain people. Certain people seem posed on a hair trigger, in a near frenzy of anticipation for anything which might offend their delicate sensibilities and have a very low threshold before their knees start jerking and they start name calling. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 I've observed over time that the terms tend to be used BY certain people as opposed to AGAINST certain people. Certain people seem posed on a hair trigger, in a near frenzy of anticipation for anything which might offend their delicate sensibilities and have a very low threshold before their knees start jerking and they start name calling. Or maybe they simply find offensive remarks, offensive....and say so.
socialist Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Your opinion highlights how highly contentious this topic is. Many on here have complained about too much racism and bigotry, and others complain that the accusation is made against others too easily.Yet another outstanding post by you, Michael Hardner. I continue to be amazed at how astute you are on a variety of topics. This forum is lucky to have you as a regular contributor. I continue to be blown away by your outstanding cognitive abilities. Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Bonam Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) If someone suggested that the Catholic religion teaches death and violence then it is obviously a bigoted statement - by definition. I don't see how such a statement would be inherently "bigoted". A certain religion, ideology, or philosophy may teach negative things like death or violence, but that doesn't mean that everyone who chooses to self-identify with said religion/ideology/philosophy necessarily believes in or acts upon that portion of its teachings. Certain religions, ideologies, and philosophies most certainly do advocate violence and it is factually correct (and therefore not bigoted) to say so. By the way, there is no practical difference between a religion, an ideology, and a philosophy. Neither is an inherent characteristic of an individual (like their race/ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation). A person chooses to believe in, or not believe in, any given religion/ideology/philosophy and chooses to what extent to follow its ideas. A religion and its followers should be no more immune to criticism than an ideology and its followers. While religious ideas and/or institutions are given special legal consideration in some countries, there is nothing inherently different about them than other sorts of ideas that should shield them from criticism. Bad ideas are bad ideas, whether or not they are religious in nature. Edited December 9, 2015 by Bonam
Argus Posted December 9, 2015 Author Report Posted December 9, 2015 IWhile religious ideas and/or institutions are given special legal consideration in some countries, there is nothing inherently different about them than other sorts of ideas that should shield them from criticism. Bad ideas are bad ideas, whether or not they are religious in nature. Excellent post, Bonam, and something so many people don't seem to get when they reflexively attack those who criticize a religion's backward beliefs. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 A quick question for our moderators. Since there are a number of posters here who agree with the Trump philosophy on Muslims and Islam, would it be considered a insult or a pat on the back or a descriptive term if they were referred to as "Trumpites"? Is it OK to describe a person who supports Donald Trump as a "Trumpite"? I do not want to break any rules for this board and am asking in anticipation of warning points. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 From the other thread: Some thoughts: - I'm not sure why it's important or adds to the discussion to create a made-up name to group people with these views - You can ask a poster via PM if they mind being called a 'Trumpite' beforehand if in doubt Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 This is where that grey, jello like area comes into moderation play. If a person is referred to as a "Harperite" or Trudeauite" or "Ambrosite" it is obvious that you are referring to someone who shares the views of that individual. If it is an accolade or a pejorative will depend on the individual. Being called a Catholic or Anglican or Muslim can also be interpreted in two different extremes. So I assume that it is questionable to refer to someone as a "Trumpite" but to state that "a person who shares a philosophy with Donald Trump" would be acceptable. Anyway, it was just an attempt to establish a parameter before posting. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 I'm not sure that we think about such things to this level of detail, nor that we should. But it makes sense on the surface. If somebody says they're voting for Trump then I guess you can call them a Trumpite. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted December 9, 2015 Author Report Posted December 9, 2015 From the other thread: Some thoughts: - I'm not sure why it's important or adds to the discussion to create a made-up name to group people with these views - You can ask a poster via PM if they mind being called a 'Trumpite' beforehand if in doubt Why don't you simply reply that if a poster is incapable of discussing issues on any kind of mature level and is desperate to find a way to actively insult other posters they might feel happier at another site? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 I am glad that the real moderator answers questions rather than any wannabe's. You know you really can be your own moderator if/when you set it up and probably "feel happier at another site". Give it a try and see how many posters follow you there. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
WestCoastRunner Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 This is where that grey, jello like area comes into moderation play. If a person is referred to as a "Harperite" or Trudeauite" or "Ambrosite" it is obvious that you are referring to someone who shares the views of that individual. If it is an accolade or a pejorative will depend on the individual. Being called a Catholic or Anglican or Muslim can also be interpreted in two different extremes. So I assume that it is questionable to refer to someone as a "Trumpite" but to state that "a person who shares a philosophy with Donald Trump" would be acceptable. Anyway, it was just an attempt to establish a parameter before posting. So what is your definition of 'a bright lights poster'? Do you consider that an accolade or a pejorative and does it only apply to posters who may disagree with your views? I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Why has cyber stopped participating? I miss your posts. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Big Guy Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 So what is your definition of 'a bright lights poster'? Do you consider that an accolade or a pejorative and does it only apply to posters who may disagree with your views? Personally I consider it an accolade. I read their posts. There are many whose I do not read - time is short. I have no problem with (and would encourage) posters who disagree with my views. That is why I post. I know what I think and how I got to that point. You learn nothing from hearing yourself talk or reading your own opinions. I would appreciate anyone who would give a logical, researched and intelligent argument against anything that I have posted. That is the only way to learn. When a dissident chooses to attack the messenger then I assume that they are incapable of attacking the message. I then write them off as self serving air heads who are not worth the time to respond to. There are a few posters here with whom I have disagreed and subsequently had a civil and informative dialogue - that is the only reason I stay here. The rest of the back biting angry and demeaning rhetoric I read as an exercise in some kind of an attempt of self therapy for those who have problems with dealing with real people and accepting the responsibility for their outrageous (and they know are outrageous since they would never add their names to them) views. Thank you for asking. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
WestCoastRunner Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Personally I consider it an accolade. I read their posts. There are many whose I do not read - time is short. I have no problem with (and would encourage) posters who disagree with my views. That is why I post. I know what I think and how I got to that point. You learn nothing from hearing yourself talk or reading your own opinions. I would appreciate anyone who would give a logical, researched and intelligent argument against anything that I have posted. That is the only way to learn. When a dissident chooses to attack the messenger then I assume that they are incapable of attacking the message. I then write them off as self serving air heads who are not worth the time to respond to. There are a few posters here with whom I have disagreed and subsequently had a civil and informative dialogue - that is the only reason I stay here. The rest of the back biting angry and demeaning rhetoric I read as an exercise in some kind of an attempt of self therapy for those who have problems with dealing with real people and accepting the responsibility for their outrageous (and they know are outrageous since they would never add their names to them) views. Thank you for asking. This contradicts the way you reference bright lights posters. It is always to make you appear as somehow superior to their way of thinking. Perhaps you should review your past posts where you refer to the label 'bright lights poster'. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Big Guy Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 This contradicts the way you reference bright lights posters. It is always to make you appear as somehow superior to their way of thinking. Perhaps you should review your past posts where you refer to the label 'bright lights poster'. Those whose posted "opinions" which are created to hurt, anger and/or bait, I consider "dim bulbs". After I establish that a poster is a dim bulb per my estimation then I no longer consider their views interesting. I do not consider my way of thinking as "superior". I have read a couple of posters here whose thinking I read as "superior" to mine, especially in specialty areas. I am comfortable in my views because they are based on experience, education, intelligent research and constant updating. When I am mistaken and the target of positive criticism I admit to mistakes and am better for the honesty of friends and colleagues. If you feel that you have been a recipient of unfounded criticism or have been hurt by anything that I have posted then I apologize. That was never my intent. I take no pleasure in the displeasure of others. I will take your advice and re-read some of my previous posts to try to understand your position. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
WestCoastRunner Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Where are Jaycee and bc chick? I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted December 10, 2015 Author Report Posted December 10, 2015 When a dissident chooses to attack the messenger then I assume that they are incapable of attacking the message. I then write them off as self serving air heads who are not worth the time to respond to. This is an interesting post given you are asking for permission to attack messengers using a made-up word. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2015 Author Report Posted December 10, 2015 Those whose posted "opinions" which are created to hurt, anger and/or bait, I consider "dim bulbs". After I establish that a poster is a dim bulb per my estimation then I no longer consider their views interesting. Some might consider the following an attempt to hurt, anger or bait. "In the past, when I have read opinions stated here that I consider as being racist or bigoted or mysogenic or xenophobic then I would post a quote from established bigots and racists like Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and other white power organizations. I was warned that this process was unacceptable so I stopped." "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 It also seems calling someone ignorant is grounds for a warning point. Kind of tame considering the crap I see that gets thrown around this place. If you dish it out, prepare to take some back in. That is all.
cybercoma Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 Why has cyber stopped participating? I miss your posts.Mostly just busy but also a little bit of not wanting to be covered in filth by rolling with pigs,
Smallc Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 Mostly just busy but also a little bit of not wanting to be covered in filth by rolling with pigs, Oh come on cyber, a little pig rolling never hurt anyone.
Recommended Posts