Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why can't you make attacks on groups of people?

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

14 Feb 2020, 12:10 pm

Borromeo wrote:
^^This is very well said.

An example of generalization like that and its dangers can be seen in the 2016 election (along with many other fallacies) when Hillary Clinton made the speech characterizing Republican voters as an "irredeemable basket of deplorables."

Look who's president now!

I don’t really think that’s a particularly good example. For starters, it’s not what Clinton said - she criticised “half of Trump’s supporters” who could be put in the basket because they’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Given that Mr Trump was standing on a xenophobic, Islamophobic policy platform and has a long history of sexism and racism, Clinton’s remarks may not have been politically well advised (they gave a lot of ammunition to the Russians), but she wasn’t hateful, she didn’t call anyone irredeemable, she didn’t write off all Trump supporters and certainly not all Republicans. I don’t think her statement was perfect, but it wasn’t hateful and it was, unfortunately, true.

Now that sort of thing can quite easily bubble over. We must never confuse confronting bigotry with bigotry itself. But we must also remember that people who say bigoted things are not defined by that, and we must never dehumanise people over their bigotry.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,166
Location: Houston, Texas

14 Feb 2020, 3:44 pm

In this case, it's more about keeping civility on WP than it is about offending people.

As for hate speech, the problem is that it can be very narrowly or very broadly defined. For example, some laws only condemn the most egregious forms of hate speech, such as Holocaust denial. Other laws, for example, condemn religious sermons that state that homosexuality is a sin. Sweden's laws are an example of the latter, and lead some people to think that the laws mean that this or that group should be completely above criticism.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,382
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2020, 10:56 am

Borromeo wrote:
^^This is very well said.

An example of generalization like that and its dangers can be seen in the 2016 election (along with many other fallacies) when Hillary Clinton made the speech characterizing Republican voters as an "irredeemable basket of deplorables."

Look who's president now!


Ironically, that might have been the only honest thing she said throughout the entire campaign. She also didn't describe all Republican voters or all conservatives that way, she applied it to half of Trump's base. Taking the quote out of context to pretend like it's worse than it really was doesn't reflect so well on the person using that dishonest tactic.

Here's the full quote:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,382
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2020, 10:58 am

The_Walrus wrote:
I don’t really think that’s a particularly good example. For starters, it’s not what Clinton said - she criticised “half of Trump’s supporters” who could be put in the basket because they’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Given that Mr Trump was standing on a xenophobic, Islamophobic policy platform and has a long history of sexism and racism, Clinton’s remarks may not have been politically well advised (they gave a lot of ammunition to the Russians), but she wasn’t hateful, she didn’t call anyone irredeemable, she didn’t write off all Trump supporters and certainly not all Republicans. I don’t think her statement was perfect, but it wasn’t hateful and it was, unfortunately, true.


Yes she did actually. I've provided the full quote above. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable were her exact words.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,987
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2020, 1:30 pm

Persephone29 wrote:
I don't know that I completely understand what you are asking. Maybe I don't understand your use of the word 'attack.' It is pointless for me to 'attack' someone based on a personal opinion of them. For instance, "I hate all X because they are ugly and they stink." That's personal. And maybe someone else thinks they are beautiful and smell wonderful. It's a matter of opinion and only serves to hurt. It serves no logical purpose, imo.

I don't understand why it's wrong to produce irrefutable facts to substantiate a point. Other than it smashes someone else's delusion and that's apparently not okay. Even if that delusion hurts other people, we still must not defend the 'other' for fear of offending the deluded. Why? I don't know. The only truth that remains is unspoken and that you will get thrown out if you speak it. So, it's up to you to decide if speaking truth, supported by facts is more important than having an audience to speak them to. If you value truth, speak it to your walls. If you speak it to an audience, the end will ultimately be the same and you'll be left speaking it to your walls anyway, because you'll be kicked out.


Some people seem to think the more offensively they word something the more 'true' it is. One can tell the truth without being toxic...so yeah I don't get it.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,987
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2020, 1:34 pm

Borromeo wrote:
^^This is very well said.

An example of generalization like that and its dangers can be seen in the 2016 election (along with many other fallacies) when Hillary Clinton made the speech characterizing Republican voters as an "irredeemable basket of deplorables."

Look who's president now!


Just kinda weird since the Trumpers were all 'screw P.C.' 'f*ck your feelings' and yet they got so butthurt about Hillary's words. So what they didn't think they should be P.C or consider feelings but the Democrats have to consider their feelings?

Not saying I think it was wise of her to say what she said...but l lets not act like the Trump Supporters where being civil and just minding their own business then along came big bad Hillary to bully them.


_________________
We won't go back.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

15 Feb 2020, 2:22 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
and yet they got so butthurt about Hillary's words


Were they really? I got the impression that whole episode was just used for cynical politicking. Using their opponent's playbook: First force a half-hearted apology from your opponent on grounds of offense. Then you double down and say an apology wasn't enough while acting like the apology was nothing but an admission of guilt, rather than contrition. Then you demand resignations etc. When people immediately started laughing it up and memifing it later, how offended could they really have been?

Image


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,987
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2020, 2:27 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
and yet they got so butthurt about Hillary's words


Were they really? I got the impression that whole episode was just used for cynical politicking. Using their opponent's playbook: First force a half-hearted apology from your opponent on grounds of offense. Then you double down and say an apology wasn't enough while acting like the apology was nothing but an admission of guilt, rather than contrition. Then you demand resignations etc. When people immediately started laughing it up and memifing it later, how offended could they really have been?

Image


They bring it up a lot still, like they haven't gotten over it. Not here, I've seen that more on reddit and sometimes youtube comments.

Also poor Pepe the Frog, its a shame racists appropriated him into a bunch of nasty memes. I think I heard the creators of the children's cartoon he originated from had to essentially kill him off as a character because of all the racist memes circulating around.

I do kind of wonder what the deal is with the meme though, including something that is known to be used as a racist symbol...in a meme meant to make fun of someone referring to half of trump supporters as deplorables. Doesn't that just kinda prove the point? I mean there is no way the meme creator isn't aware of the association.


_________________
We won't go back.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 15 Feb 2020, 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,382
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2020, 2:32 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
and yet they got so butthurt about Hillary's words


Were they really? I got the impression that whole episode was just used for cynical politicking. Using their opponent's playbook: First force a half-hearted apology from your opponent on grounds of offense. Then you double down and say an apology wasn't enough while acting like the apology was nothing but an admission of guilt, rather than contrition. Then you demand resignations etc. When people immediately started laughing it up and memifing it later, how offended could they really have been?

Image



Spot on, and for the most part the response of 'oh, look at the butthurt hypocritical whiners' was proof that neither the centre nor the left were naive enough to fall for that. The moral majority bloc of the right could probably pull that game off, but the alt-right are far too obvious. Basically it turned into something that left and right partisans both used for politicking while a few establishment talking heads droned on about what a mistake it was.

That said, I'm curious about, of the people who would claim that it made a difference to how they voted, how many can sincerely claim that vs. how many are overstating how undecided they were. I'm certain there were some who were genuinely considering both, but I know when I started checking posting histories of people who claimed it was a game changer and that they were deeply outraged almost always were already on the record as being uninterested in Clinton. I'd suggest the people who felt most attacked already were identifying with that bloc and that the moment's importance was overblown in retrospect by people who wanted to believe it actually mattered.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,382
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2020, 2:34 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
They bring it up a lot still, like they haven't gotten over it. Not here, I've seen that more on reddit and sometimes youtube comments.


I'd question whether or not they're actually offended. Because it's viewed as such a big moment it makes a good cudgel for them to use (whether or not they actually care), especially since the mainstream media buys into the notion that it was of great importance.

That said, it could very well hurt them on one level while otherwise just being more of what they expect.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2020, 6:34 pm

Not offended, however, it was entertaining.
Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

15 Feb 2020, 7:00 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
That said, I'm curious about, of the people who would claim that it made a difference to how they voted, how many can sincerely claim that vs. how many are overstating how undecided they were. I'm certain there were some who were genuinely considering both, but I know when I started checking posting histories of people who claimed it was a game changer and that they were deeply outraged almost always were already on the record as being uninterested in Clinton. I'd suggest the people who felt most attacked already were identifying with that bloc and that the moment's importance was overblown in retrospect by people who wanted to believe it actually mattered.


It was a game changer in one sense - it kicked the nest of hornets that is the chans. Whether anyone actually changed their vote after she said it - I agree with you and I doubt it. Many "normie" right wingers struggle to articulate their real motivations for fear of being ostracised. Often any vaguely reasonable sounding argument or feeling is latched on to as a cover. So, let's decry Hillary for some sort of breach of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, it sounds justifiable at a glance. You see similar things in the Brexit debate here.

The interesting thing is, the opposing side often play along with this face saving game of "shy conservatives" and at least pretend to take these "reasons" seriously, even though it is obviously a cover if you dig a little deeper.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,382
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2020, 7:11 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
That said, I'm curious about, of the people who would claim that it made a difference to how they voted, how many can sincerely claim that vs. how many are overstating how undecided they were. I'm certain there were some who were genuinely considering both, but I know when I started checking posting histories of people who claimed it was a game changer and that they were deeply outraged almost always were already on the record as being uninterested in Clinton. I'd suggest the people who felt most attacked already were identifying with that bloc and that the moment's importance was overblown in retrospect by people who wanted to believe it actually mattered.


It was a game changer in one sense - it kicked the nest of hornets that is the chans. Whether anyone actually changed their vote after she said it - I agree with you and I doubt it. Many "normie" right wingers struggle to articulate their real motivations for fear of being ostracised. Often any vaguely reasonable sounding argument or feeling is latched on to as a cover. So, let's decry Hillary for some sort of breach of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, it sounds justifiable at a glance. You see similar things in the Brexit debate here.

The interesting thing is, the opposing side often play along with this face saving game of "shy conservatives" and at least pretend to take these "reasons" seriously, even though it is obviously a cover if you dig a little deeper.


That's probably where the left and centre disagree. Centrists in the media tend to play along, but they're also naive enough to think that anyone will agree with them if only they just listened to the reasonable establishment voices more. The left understands 'no, they're full of s**t, don't fall for it', and that's part of what has made them an increasingly vocal bloc in the US - they're tired of seeing centrists fall for the same tricks again and again.

I'm wondering how possible it is that the US might be moving towards having three irreconcilable blocs instead of two. Republicans like Romney, Scarborough and Bloomberg really aren't going to become beloved by the left just because they're critical of the folks who've taken over the GOP.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,399
Location: Everville

15 Feb 2020, 7:36 pm

This is what I've learned from my most recent 5 day ban from WP. Maybe it was longer, I don't know, I was busy. I cannot post scientific evidence to support my claim because someone, somewhere may read it and decide for themselves that it's a reason to bop someone over the head for it. After I was warned, I toned down my rhetoric. I stopped using curse words and stuck to the facts. I was to learn that the facts were the problem.

I was floored, confounded, shocked, and any number of other words used to describe 'incredulous.'

There was another group of people being harmed in my equation, but because they were not a special interest group, just regular people, it was accepted as part of what needed to happen so that the other group felt safe and included.

No where did I call for violence against anyone, I simply presented facts to show why what was being said was not accurate. Whap, boom, bam... someone is crying in a corner, sucking their thumb and I'm banned.

This is why the deplorables were born, people.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2020, 8:09 pm

Persephone29 wrote:
This is what I've learned from my most recent 5 day ban from WP. Maybe it was longer, I don't know, I was busy. I cannot post scientific evidence to support my claim because someone, somewhere may read it and decide for themselves that it's a reason to bop someone over the head for it. After I was warned, I toned down my rhetoric. I stopped using curse words and stuck to the facts. I was to learn that the facts were the problem.

I was floored, confounded, shocked, and any number of other words used to describe 'incredulous.'

It's not clear if statistical data is "attack on a group".

I once posted US government statistical data about crime rates for illegal aliens (undocumented aliens).

A mod said that I was doing wrong for using this data to point out illegal aliens can be dangerous (something TRUMP does often).


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,987
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2020, 8:19 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
This is what I've learned from my most recent 5 day ban from WP. Maybe it was longer, I don't know, I was busy. I cannot post scientific evidence to support my claim because someone, somewhere may read it and decide for themselves that it's a reason to bop someone over the head for it. After I was warned, I toned down my rhetoric. I stopped using curse words and stuck to the facts. I was to learn that the facts were the problem.

I was floored, confounded, shocked, and any number of other words used to describe 'incredulous.'

There was another group of people being harmed in my equation, but because they were not a special interest group, just regular people, it was accepted as part of what needed to happen so that the other group felt safe and included.

No where did I call for violence against anyone, I simply presented facts to show why what was being said was not accurate. Whap, boom, bam... someone is crying in a corner, sucking their thumb and I'm banned.

This is why the deplorables were born, people.

It's not clear if statistical data is "attack on a group".

I once posted US government statistical data about crime rates for illegal aliens (undocumented aliens).

A mod said that I was doing wrong for using this data to point out illegal aliens can be dangerous (something TRUMP does often).


Dangerous compared to what though? citizens born and raised here can be dangerous to. I mean not sure they were correct about you being wrong to use that data, but what was your main point? As far as I know statistics and what not do not show that illegal immigrants are collectively more dangerous than legal citizens.

Also that is the problem kind of, how often trump feels the need to point it out, like sure as an observation in itself fine...but to continue going on about it even when statistical data does not really back up illegal immigrants being more dangerous than the general population does seem to be something more meant to inflame prejudices than really address anything.


_________________
We won't go back.