AOC cruises to primary win, looks set to waltz to reelection

Page 4 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,601
Location: Oz

26 Jun 2020, 4:06 am

aghogday wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Wot a "Hotsie Totsie" that one is. 8O
Ahh, chuch chuch chuch chuch. <woof!> :mrgreen:





I'm convinced the release of this video was a "False Flag" operation.
It was said to be a right-wing activist who leaked it,
To discredit her.
What BS.
It was a lefty.
I'm totally convinced of that.
How could this video do anything else but endear her to us? :roll:


_________________
I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;)

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,745

26 Jun 2020, 10:07 am

Pepe wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Wot a "Hotsie Totsie" that one is. 8O
Ahh, chuch chuch chuch chuch. <woof!> :mrgreen:





I'm convinced the release of this video was a "False Flag" operation.
It was said to be a right-wing activist who leaked it,
To discredit her.
What BS.
It was a lefty.
I'm totally convinced of that.
How could this video do anything else but endear her to us? :roll:




Smiles Pepe, there is a Difference Between an 'Atheist Conservative'
And A 'Christian Conservative'; You May Not not have Been 'Soul' Washed (SCRUBBED)
To Believe that Expressing Human Sensuality Freely; Listening to Music that
Makes Ya Wanna Move Your Hips; and doing anything but Males working For
Money And 'Stuff'; and Females Working to Raise Children is of the Devil's Make as such.

Yes, Some Folks Don't Understand that An Open Mind And Body, Hell No, Heaven
Yes, Leads to Greater Overall Joy as Extroversion Can And Will too in Heights that
'Closed Minded Introversion' May Never Experience in Life. It's a Fact in Science
That the Ecstasy of 'Frission' otherwise known; yes, Better Put as an Aesthetic
Skin Orgasm of the Experience of Sublime Beauty from Head toe, is a Real
Divine Feeling and Sense of Life that is totally out of reach for many closed minded folks.

They Just don't have the Neurochemistry of Loving Living to reach Peak Experiences of Aesthetic Beauty in Life.

When One Experiences Life this way; Money AND 'STUFF' is of no consequence at all unless one Needs it for Basic Subsistence.

It's worth noting that 'Frission'; Yes, a Real Human Intelligence Experience term for Essence, can and will be beyond
Measure As More Ecstatically Pleasurable than a Reproductive Leaning Orgasm; It's More of a Creative Orgasm;
What Makes Life Truly Magic; and Indeed Brings one to the Real Life Experience Understanding of what the
Divine really is when truly felt from head to toe; Yes By God, it is the Truth and Light And Wisdom of Beauty
that is so much more than words when actually experienced. And Here, i am, on an Internet Site where very
Few People Likely have ever experienced it; because of Basic Personality Traits; Namely the Big 5, Specifically,
Openness And Extroversion that i Happen to Score 100 Percent on that is a great predictor of the Potential
Experience of Frission in Divine Ecstasy of Gratitude for the Aesthetic Beauty, i Feel and Sense of Life in so many ways.

Wisdom of LoVE iN Beauty; Truth of Gratitude; Flame For Life Divinely Experienced Eternally FOR REAL NOW.

Obviously that line is Word Salad for Folks who Have ACTUALLY NEVER EXPERIENCED THE FEELING AND SENSE OF IT NOW;

OBVIOUSLY; to me; one who has the Affective Empathy to See it; Yes FeeL it; in the Non-Verbal Expressions
of 'AOC' in the Video; i Can And Will And DO Appreciate it beyond any Base Animal Instinct of Desiring to 'Procreate'.

Haha; People (Young Dudes) at the Dance Hall always Ask me how much i 'score' with all the Female attention i get.
i come in and leave with the same Grade 'A PLUS' E for ALL Natural Ecstasy; The Divine of Frission;
the Ecstasy Orgasm of Love as an 'Aesthete' from Head to toe; The 'Good Old Boy' Who Posted
that Video and Called 'AOC' a 'Clueless Idiot', the way 'some folks' treat my communication
on this Internet Site Having no Idea of even the Possibility of What 'AOC' is Experiencing in
Her moment of Divine Dance; Smiles, my FRiEnD, some Folks 'Feel this Dance' When they Read
me; Other Folks Only See Empty Shells that reflect their own Actual Existence now; Not all Filled Up in Bliss.

Just that one Dance in 2010, of 'AOC' is a great predictor that one day she would consider herself in the realm
of 'Democratic Socialism' not confined to the 'Protestant Work Ethic' that really Means that 'God' Is Money
And Human Cultural Clothes; Like Bigger Homes, Bigger Four Wheel Drives, And Guns That Hold More
Bullets to Protect folks From the Tendency of Neuroticism in Fear of Different. It's True, Protestant Work
Ethic Folks are often Very Conscientious too but that's what Neuroticism will do too; Make one Afraid
of making any mistake; And if one does; Never taking Personal Responsibility; can you spell 'Trump' with
No Conscience too; as i hope We Can Agree He is a 'Horrible Human Being', overall, With no Breath of Love;
Likely as a Result of Genetics and Environment that is beyond His control of Bliss, i alternatively Experience All Free;
For this Reason i have Sympathy for 'Real Devils'; too; i understand WHY in part at least For lack of 'This Intelligence'.

Smiles, my Friend There are Different 'Venn Diagram Humans'
And 'Venn Diagram Gods'; It's No Surprise that the Most Extreme
of Different doesn't Bother me and it is very seldom that i don't understand
someone else; as i've been open minded enough to Develop the Cognitive Empathy that says
People are Very Different than me; But Anchors Serve Purposes For Boats on Rough Seas; Just
Like the Sail of me that Ventures Much further from the Harbor than an Anchor Will ever 'See'.
And Honestly, Experiencing almost all of Life in this Divine Ecstasy of Intelligence i have mastered,
As Well in
Autotelic
FLoW ETerNaLLY
Water, Wave
Ocean Whole
Now; God Yes
It Is No
Wonder
For me
at Least
Now that i
see God as
All as ALL Feels
And Senses Divine to me;
Very Rarely Will one 'See', if they can and even will; A Truly
Creative Artist Who does not 'See', Feel, And Actually Literally
Feel the Divine Frission of Life, no Longer Needing to Trap 'God' in 'Words Or Definitions'
As 'God' Becomes The Verb of Loving Life ACTuaLLY Doing Experiencing Life As Aesthetic Ecstasy Now;

The Experience of Agape Love, More than Just Empty Chalices
of 'God' In Church With No Real Divine Essence Within US Now.

Smiles, Meh; my Wife is still the Sexiest Woman on Earth to me.
And She Knows it through and through; that's why right now there
is a Very Beautiful Indian Woman Friend on my Internet Site right next
to her Beauty; Same picture i shared here; and she is not threatened at all.

She knows How Deep i am;
And She Shares my Appreciation
for Aesthetic Beauty; 'Hot' Was the last
Thing that came to my mind seeing 'AOC' Dance;
Aesthetic Appreciation of the Wisdom and the Beauty of Her Freedom
was almost to the Measure of What i Experience Life Everyday in a Frission
of Divine Ecstasy in Gratitude for Just the Breath of Life Every Day; Smiles, my
Friend; My Experience of Life is beyond belief for most folks for the simple
reason they've never
experienced
the
Real
Divine
of Life;
What fuels Just
Another 46 Thousand Word
Long Form Poem Free Yesterday
to Publish as i Experience Life in
Peaks of Ecstasy as a Plateau of Life Everyday;
This is indeed a Kind of Natural Human Existential
Intelligence That Will Be Enhanced as A Real Religion of Life That is a Real Eternal Heaven Within, NOW.

But Unless a person is open minded; the 'eye of the Needle' will always be too small to get through.

Smiles, Science is finally getting to the point of Understanding the Parables of the New Testament
Written by People experiencing Life the way i do still now at 60 Years-Old, Where at 244 Pounds
of Muscle; for People like me who Can/Will Sense/Feel the Frission When i spin An Aesthetic Floating
Dance on Solid Ground; they are similarly elated as the 'AOC Dancing Faces' of Ecstasy show on their
Faces in Divine Joy Dancing a Communion of Real 'God' with me; Smiles, what they'll never ever forget;
but only
for those
who See it;
Sense it; FeeL iT for Real now.

Indeed, there are also Substantial
Numbers of Autistic Folks Who Are
Highly Tuned as i am for Heaven now too;
it's no surprise we are hard to understand from 'the other side'.
Meh; in this Case, Artistic is really A better metaphor for
Misunderstood Aesthetes 'We' aRe.

We Deserve to be Here too; God Yes,
Lives of People in Heaven NOW Matter too.

If We are too Big to See; Just Scroll By 'Us'
And continue to Believe We don't exist;
No need to 'crucify' Us after 'They' Scroll by...

Smiles, obviously, Your 'Saving Grace' is that You are An Atheist Conservative my Friend.

At Least You are Willing to Tolerate Folks who Experience Life Much Differently than You.

In this way You are surely not totally closed minded; as that is often what Traditional Religion does;
just
taking
folks
further
away from
the Potential of
Experiencing Heaven,
Like me and 'AOC' too, Within;
Trust me We would be Dancing
at the Dance Hall and all would
be Just Heaven no matter what Her Age is;
As Heaven is no Age but Heaven Now within.
Or do i need to Provide Thousands of Photos
Including More so-called Beautiful Women than 'AOC'... FOR REAL LIFE EViDENCE...

It doesn't matter what my Age or Looks are; Heaven is this Eternal Flame within, now;
that some folks are able to actually Affectively Feel whenever i enter Any Room in 'Real Life' without A Word.

References for that on demand too; Smiles, There is much more to life than Material Reductionism my Friend;
but until one experiences it; 'Heaven' is Just 'Word Salad' for them; Truly it is ironic, unless folks are willing to listen;
the eye of the needle will always be very small; and even totally closed in Depths of Little Feeling or Sense of
Heaven
now
at all;
Trust me or
Not 'AOC' is
going places to
make a difference
for she has Magic; Real Magic Within;
No Different Than Obama For Real 'This Flame' Is Inexhaustible.

Smiles, Don't 'Hate me' but go ahead; try to Sue me (Not You) As
My Special Interest is Heaven FOR REAL AS GOD AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF 'Stuff';
And yes, i am
A 'Savant of Love';
Do NOT discriminate
Against US either; YOU
Might even get to Heaven too.... that's up to You...
i for one Get Excited to See Another Human in 'This Place'...
Thanks Again for bringing 'AOC' to my Attention for further research..:)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sensory-revolution/202002/have-you-ever-had-skin-orgasm


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,554
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Jun 2020, 10:45 am

[MOD]

I meant to post this earlier, but I had things to take care of regarding my mother.

I want to take this opportunity to address the community on the topic of insinuating (or outright accusing) members of holding sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic views. For one, there has been an increase in the sentiment that those holding the aforementioned views are worthy of a punch to the face, and I'm sure you can figure out why that would make many posters uncomfortable. And there have been comments to the effect that all conservative/right wing members are inherently bigoted, and I can't stress enough how unacceptable that it. We value the contribution of our conservative/right wing posters and want them to feel welcome.

Also, it creates an atmosphere that encourages "witch hunts" and "dogpiles." Instead of just jumping to the conclusion that someone is coming from the position of racism/sexism/homophobia, take a minute and try to understand why they hold the opinions they do, and engage in a meaningful discussion.

I understand that these are tense time, especially for those of us in the U.S., but we should all strive to be better going forward.

Thank you.

[/MOD]


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,244
Location: Long Island, New York

27 Jun 2020, 10:51 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
[MOD]

I meant to post this earlier, but I had things to take care of regarding my mother.

I want to take this opportunity to address the community on the topic of insinuating (or outright accusing) members of holding sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic views. For one, there has been an increase in the sentiment that those holding the aforementioned views are worthy of a punch to the face, and I'm sure you can figure out why that would make many posters uncomfortable. And there have been comments to the effect that all conservative/right wing members are inherently bigoted, and I can't stress enough how unacceptable that it. We value the contribution of our conservative/right wing posters and want them to feel welcome.

Also, it creates an atmosphere that encourages "witch hunts" and "dogpiles." Instead of just jumping to the conclusion that someone is coming from the position of racism/sexism/homophobia, take a minute and try to understand why they hold the opinions they do, and engage in a meaningful discussion.

I understand that these are tense time, especially for those of us in the U.S., but we should all strive to be better going forward.

Thank you.

[/MOD]

Thank you
I hope things are better with mom.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,127
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

27 Jun 2020, 10:53 am

She appears to have some great dance moves



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,925
Location: Brisbane, Australia

27 Jun 2020, 12:02 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
I want to take this opportunity to address the community on the topic of insinuating (or outright accusing) members of holding sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic views.


So, are no members possible of holding such views, or are we banned from talking about these subjects because someone may have a belief.

If I said the belief that sex and gender is the same thing and is decided by chromosomes is a transphobic belief, would that be crossing a line?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

27 Jun 2020, 12:21 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I want to take this opportunity to address the community on the topic of insinuating (or outright accusing) members of holding sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic views.


So, are no members possible of holding such views, or are we banned from talking about these subjects because someone may have a belief.

If I said the belief that sex and gender is the same thing and is decided by chromosomes is a transphobic belief, would that be crossing a line?


At first glance, I can't quite see where the "extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" (phobia) part appears in "the belief that sex and gender is the same thing and is decided by chromosomes".

They may have a different understanding of sex/gender to you, but that does not appear to have any phobia attached to it...I could be mistaken, though.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,925
Location: Brisbane, Australia

27 Jun 2020, 12:35 pm

Brictoria wrote:
At first glance, I can't quite see where the "extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" (phobia) part appears in "the belief that sex and gender is the same thing and is decided by chromosomes".

They may have a different understanding of sex/gender to you, but that does not appear to have any phobia attached to it...I could be mistaken, though.


"Transphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to social gender expectations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

Transphobia does not just mean an extreme or irrational fear of trans people, if you don't like that definition, then find me a definition from a current that fits your idea and is widely accepted. If someone does not like the idea of transgender people, they are transphobic.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,089
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

27 Jun 2020, 1:24 pm

The thing about forum rules we have to remember is that while they can be suggested or pronounced as official position pretty much everyone who can needs to both adhere to and defend them and, wherever possible, engage people who are stepping across the line to politely remind them that they are stepping over it and do whatever we can, simultaneously, to do this without humiliation or any sign that they've crossed some sacred line and committed a mortal sin - just to note the behavior and, at a minimum, if beliefs are over one of these lines then we have to really nuance discussion about those issues so that some kind of actual understanding can be reached between parties. When dealing with really hot topics, especially in the way of politics even much more so than overt religion these days, the only way to escalate a conversation is into nuance - without that we're really letting the survival-of-the-fittest Darwinian tool set run the tables, and if I understand the point of rules it's precisely to prevent that from happening.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

27 Jun 2020, 10:52 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
At first glance, I can't quite see where the "extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something" (phobia) part appears in "the belief that sex and gender is the same thing and is decided by chromosomes".

They may have a different understanding of sex/gender to you, but that does not appear to have any phobia attached to it...I could be mistaken, though.


"Transphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to social gender expectations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

Transphobia does not just mean an extreme or irrational fear of trans people, if you don't like that definition, then find me a definition from a current that fits your idea and is widely accepted. If someone does not like the idea of transgender people, they are transphobic.


Again: I cannot see where the expression of a different understanding of "sex/gender" to you automatically equates to a person having "fear", "aversion", "hatred", "violence", "anger", or "discomfort" that they are expressing or feeling regarding a given group.

Should you believe that someone has this attitude, the burden of proof would be on you to articulate (with specificity) the way in which they appear to be displaying it: Having a different belief than you do does not automatically indicate tranphobia and neither does sharing the same understanding of "sex/gender" as you do automatically absolve someone of having it:
A person may have a different belief to you, find nothing wrong with trans people, yet under the argument you have put forward would still be "transphobic"
Whereas, presumably, based on the argument presented
A person may share the same understanding of "Sex/gender", yet dislike\fear those people, but would be absolved of the claim of transphobia merely through having the correct beliefs.

Throwing claims such as "transphobia" around at people who don't share a given view of "sex\gender", purely for having the wrong belief\understanding, will do much more harm for the trans cause than even simply ignoring those people. Making a good-faith effort to explain your belief\understanding, listen to others who you may not agree with so that YOU can understand why\how they came to that belief, then make an effort to convince them of the "correctness" of your belief, using exmaples of how your belief is correct\better when compared to theirs, with examples to support this, however, is the best way to gain support for the cause.

I would note that the more invested in a belief a person is, the harder it can be to look at another person's view\opinions objectively should they differ from their own. In those cases, it may be better to state a non-accusatory statement such as "I believe ABC because DEF", rather than "you are wrong because you believe GHI" and hope that someone else can pick up your argument on your "sides" behalf who is less invested in it, and therefore wil not feel disagreement with themselves to be a personal affront\attack... The more forcefully\judgementally you attack a person for a belief, rather than the belief itself, the less likely that person (or other people witnessing the conversation), are likely to be swayed to your "side", as it would appear you lack the ability to defend your position, hence the attack on the person. To convince people, you need to keep the focus on the topic of dicussion, not the person with whom you are discussing it, or who's opinions\beliefs you want supressed.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,925
Location: Brisbane, Australia

27 Jun 2020, 11:28 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Again: I cannot see where the expression of a different understanding of "sex/gender" to you automatically equates to a person having "fear", "aversion", "hatred", "violence", "anger", or "discomfort" that they are expressing or feeling regarding a given group.

Should you believe that someone has this attitude, the burden of proof would be on you to articulate (with specificity) the way in which they appear to be displaying it: Having a different belief than you do does not automatically indicate tranphobia and neither does sharing the same understanding of "sex/gender" as you do automatically absolve someone of having it:
A person may have a different belief to you, find nothing wrong with trans people, yet under the argument you have put forward would still be "transphobic"
Whereas, presumably, based on the argument presented
A person may share the same understanding of "Sex/gender", yet dislike\fear those people, but would be absolved of the claim of transphobia merely through having the correct beliefs.

Throwing claims such as "transphobia" around at people who don't share a given view of "sex\gender", purely for having the wrong belief\understanding, will do much more harm for the trans cause than even simply ignoring those people. Making a good-faith effort to explain your belief\understanding, listen to others who you may not agree with so that YOU can understand why\how they came to that belief, then make an effort to convince them of the "correctness" of your belief, using exmaples of how your belief is correct\better when compared to theirs, with examples to support this, however, is the best way to gain support for the cause.

I would note that the more invested in a belief a person is, the harder it can be to look at another person's view\opinions objectively should they differ from their own. In those cases, it may be better to state a non-accusatory statement such as "I believe ABC because DEF", rather than "you are wrong because you believe GHI" and hope that someone else can pick up your argument on your "sides" behalf who is less invested in it, and therefore wil not feel disagreement with themselves to be a personal affront\attack... The more forcefully\judgementally you attack a person for a belief, rather than the belief itself, the less likely that person (or other people witnessing the conversation), are likely to be swayed to your "side", as it would appear you lack the ability to defend your position, hence the attack on the person. To convince people, you need to keep the focus on the topic of dicussion, not the person with whom you are discussing it, or who's opinions\beliefs you want supressed.


This is like saying "I am not racist, I just have a different definition of race than you, which says that people of different races have different intelligence and aggression levels". That is still a racist belief.

Or saying "I am not homophobic, I just have a different definition of love to you that two men cannot love each other". Still a homophobic belief.

Or saying "I am not sexist, I just have a different definition of sex to you, that equality for women is having a man that can look after her while she cooks and cleans for him". Still sexist.

I don't give an F if it hurts your feelings, but if you say that trans men are actually women and trans women are actually men, then you are transphobic, I am not going to stand here and let someone discriminate. Ignorance is not an excuse for bigotry. You will also note I did not say that someone was a transphobe for having the wrong beliefs, I said the belief itself is transphobic, it is one that ignores the existence transgender people as instead being mentally ill.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Jun 2020, 12:02 am

Bradleigh wrote:
You will also note I did not say that someone was a transphobe for having the wrong beliefs, I said the belief itself is transphobic, it is one that ignores the existence transgender people as instead being mentally ill.

Would you care to explain how a belief can be labelled as something, yet the person holding this belief does not merit the same label?

Similarly, using your example, it is possible for a person to see another as having sex/gender related to their genetics, yet still understand that certain people may feel that this does not match how they feel as a person. Making judgemental claims about a person's beliefs, rather than taking the time\effort to demonstrate how those beliefs are incorrect, is only likely to reinforce thise beliefs through the appearance that you cannot justify your own belief and so had to resort to "name calling" or bullying.

Changing attitudes\beliefs takes time - Trying to force this change through runs the high possibility of a backlash from those you wish to "convert" to your belief, whereas gentle nudging will ease it through with much less resistance.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,925
Location: Brisbane, Australia

28 Jun 2020, 12:57 am

Brictoria wrote:
Would you care to explain how a belief can be labelled as something, yet the person holding this belief does not merit the same label?


Because beliefs can change, it can be something that someone may unknowingly hold until another tells them that the belief is problematic and incorrect. You don't say a person is a sexist just because they were told that girls can't do math but are biologically wired for cleaning. You point out that they are a bit behind on the times with that belief and encourage them to take a better one. But now days when you think someone being called sexist you think of a person who has already been told their beliefs are wrong and should have the evidence to know better, but refuse to change. I think the distinction is valid, perhaps on the base that they don't want to give people the satisfaction.


Brictoria wrote:
Similarly, using your example, it is possible for a person to see another as having sex/gender related to their genetics, yet still understand that certain people may feel that this does not match how they feel as a person. Making judgemental claims about a person's beliefs, rather than taking the time\effort to demonstrate how those beliefs are incorrect, is only likely to reinforce thise beliefs through the appearance that you cannot justify your own belief and so had to resort to "name calling" or bullying.


But the thing is that under modern language, gender is actually how someone "feels", gender and sex are not the same thing. The first step of discussion getting people to accept the same definitions of words, otherwise we are just playing out the Chinese Room Argument thought experiment where the meanings of words mean nothing. Correcting someone every time they equate sex and gender as the same thing is the time and effort put into demonstrating how the beliefs are incorrect, that I have to tell people to go look up the definitions themselves, and also have to put forward incredibly dense and complex studies that make up the current scientific consensus that say transgender people are valid for being what they are.

But still people refuse to expand their beliefs beyond the simple things they were told in the past, because the idea of changing them is uncomfortable and would rather just believe that transgender people are confused and would push for policies that actually hurt transgender people. At that point what do you call them? People who's stance around gender is so wrapped up in old transphobic opinions that they refuse to change anything and will purposefully misgender them, something that is proven to cause harm to transgender individuals.


Brictoria wrote:
Changing attitudes\beliefs takes time - Trying to force this change through runs the high possibility of a backlash from those you wish to "convert" to your belief, whereas gentle nudging will ease it through with much less resistance.


I know it takes time, but it only does harm to refuse to call out problematic beliefs for what they are. I am a strong believer that people can change and grow out of old offensive or dangerous beliefs and be better. But there seems to be this weird counter movement that says whenever a person is called out as having a belief that is problematic, they are actually being told they are a problematic person that can never change. It is ridiculous and a narrow minded attempt to demonise any attempt to think they were wrong on a subject because they only want to think of themselves as pure, without the nuance that not everything is unforgivable and maybe the other people are not judging them as a sinner but someone who can do better.

For the so called anti-politically correct crowd it becomes politically incorrect to ever say that something is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or similar. Those words are not dirty, there is nothing factually incorrect to say that the movie Ace Ventura is transphobic, nor say that certain things of the past may be problematic now. I can understand not just outright calling people any of those things based on what they say where they land on the political spectrum, but there is a point in time where certain beliefs that people refuse to change should not be tolerated anymore. I am sure you have plenty, like you would not tolerate people who believe a 30 year old man can take a 10 year old girl as his wife, you would probably say that someone who refused to budge on that would be a pedophile.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,601
Location: Oz

28 Jun 2020, 1:01 am

VegetableMan wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Not really...I've known some decent politicains who talk to people as equals, rather than as though they were "better" than those to who they speak with. I tend to notice that there seems more like that (treating people as their equal) on the right than on the left, but it isn't split along any particular divide (although the further left the politician is, the less likely it is that they would speak to the public as an "equal", and the more likely they would be inclined to talk down to people).

Looking at our recent Prime Ministers, for example, Bob Hawke [1], John Howard, Tony Abbot, and Scott Morrison haven't been too bad (The first from the left, the others from the right of the "political spectrum") in that they appear(ed) to treat people as their equals, whereas Malcolm Turnbull and Julia Gillard (first from the "right", second from the left) were more inclined to talk down to people...I'm not sure where Kevin Rudd (left) and Paul Keating (left) fitted, but I'd probably add them to the list who "talk down" to people. The current opposition leader (Anthony Albanese - from the left) also seems like someone who would be inclined to treat people as his equal, but I haven't seen too much of him. (of course, this is all subjective, and based on memory, which can be fallible...Other Aussies may see (or remember) them differently.)

[1] It would be hard to imagine a Prime Minister, with a world record such as he held, to be someone who would not talk to people as their equal...




Also, calling women politicians as abrasive is not exactly a good look, since it is like a specific part of a gender bias of the word used by people who see women as such.


So what word would be appropriate for someone who truly believes she's "abrasive?" Please consult your volume of PC terms. I want to keep up with this s**t, I really do!


:mrgreen:


_________________
I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;)

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Jun 2020, 1:51 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Would you care to explain how a belief can be labelled as something, yet the person holding this belief does not merit the same label?


Because beliefs can change, it can be something that someone may unknowingly hold until another tells them that the belief is problematic and incorrect. You don't say a person is a sexist just because they were told that girls can't do math but are biologically wired for cleaning. You point out that they are a bit behind on the times with that belief and encourage them to take a better one. But now days when you think someone being called sexist you think of a person who has already been told their beliefs are wrong and should have the evidence to know better, but refuse to change. I think the distinction is valid, perhaps on the base that they don't want to give people the satisfaction.


And how many years did it take (and how much work on behalf of those affected (plus their supporters)) before equality between males and females became "mainstream", and what % of the population required convincing of the need\reason for this change? Now compare this to what you are wanting changed...Do you honestly believe that a proportionate amount of time has passed since this movement for change commenced, bearing in mind the % of the population who need to be convinced of this need?

Similarly, there is a very important difference between "telling them THAT the belief is problematic and incorrect", being the standard approach taken, and "telling them HOW the belief is problematic and incorrect". In the first, you are forcing an opinion on another, who will likely reject this through lack of your ability to support the claim, whilst the latter, which may be repetetive and require you to make a significant amount of effort is more likely to swing another person to your view, but even this will take some time to achieve.

Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Similarly, using your example, it is possible for a person to see another as having sex/gender related to their genetics, yet still understand that certain people may feel that this does not match how they feel as a person. Making judgemental claims about a person's beliefs, rather than taking the time\effort to demonstrate how those beliefs are incorrect, is only likely to reinforce thise beliefs through the appearance that you cannot justify your own belief and so had to resort to "name calling" or bullying.


But the thing is that under modern language, gender is actually how someone "feels", gender and sex are not the same thing. The first step of discussion getting people to accept the same definitions of words, otherwise we are just playing out the Chinese Room Argument thought experiment where the meanings of words mean nothing. Correcting someone every time they equate sex and gender as the same thing is the time and effort put into demonstrating how the beliefs are incorrect, that I have to tell people to go look up the definitions themselves, and also have to put forward incredibly dense and complex studies that make up the current scientific consensus that say transgender people are valid for being what they are.

But still people refuse to expand their beliefs beyond the simple things they were told in the past, because the idea of changing them is uncomfortable and would rather just believe that transgender people are confused and would push for policies that actually hurt transgender people. At that point what do you call them? People who's stance around gender is so wrapped up in old transphobic opinions that they refuse to change anything and will purposefully misgender them, something that is proven to cause harm to transgender individuals.


So, did you expect that taking a relatively new belief/opinion, which contradicts that which has been held as correct by civilization for centuries, would be EASY? Or that such a large change would happen QUICKLY?

Just because something isn't happening in the timeframe you wish it to, doesn't give you the right to decide to shame or bully people for not meeting your desires. Look, for example, at the rights\accomodations made in the community for those on the spectrum...Do we have the same level of respect as NT's do? Has society changed in ways that allow for those of us with sensitivities to go shopping, eat out, see a movie, get a job, etc. Has society moved beyond the assumption that "autisitic" doesn't only refer to those at level 3 on the spectrum. Has society done anything to stop people using "autistic" as a slur. And yet, do we go around shaming those who do not understand, or do we instead try to educate them?

Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Changing attitudes\beliefs takes time - Trying to force this change through runs the high possibility of a backlash from those you wish to "convert" to your belief, whereas gentle nudging will ease it through with much less resistance.


I know it takes time, but it only does harm to refuse to call out problematic beliefs for what they are. I am a strong believer that people can change and grow out of old offensive or dangerous beliefs and be better. But there seems to be this weird counter movement that says whenever a person is called out as having a belief that is problematic, they are actually being told they are a problematic person that can never change. It is ridiculous and a narrow minded attempt to demonise any attempt to think they were wrong on a subject because they only want to think of themselves as pure, without the nuance that not everything is unforgivable and maybe the other people are not judging them as a sinner but someone who can do better.

For the so called anti-politically correct crowd it becomes politically incorrect to ever say that something is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or similar. Those words are not dirty, there is nothing factually incorrect to say that the movie Ace Ventura is transphobic, nor say that certain things of the past may be problematic now. I can understand not just outright calling people any of those things based on what they say where they land on the political spectrum, but there is a point in time where certain beliefs that people refuse to change should not be tolerated anymore. I am sure you have plenty, like you would not tolerate people who believe a 30 year old man can take a 10 year old girl as his wife, you would probably say that someone who refused to budge on that would be a pedophile.


How quickly do you believe these changes you want should take?
Look back at the Sufragette movement, which took decades to get a simple thing like voting rights (with other areas such as employment taking longer) for approximately 50% of the population. Now compare what you are after and what % of the population is affected: Do you think your changes will happen as fast?

Then look at your methods: Do you make claims that "ABC" is transphobic", or instead, "ABC is transphobic because...". For the most part, the "easy" option is taken, throwing out the label, with no effort put in to educating the reason why. Giving an explanation may be hard, it may be repetetive, it may need to be done frequently...But it NEEDS to be done. If you want a large portion of a population to make changes to benefit a small portion of the population, it will take a lot of time and effort. Putting them offisde by making claims and not providing context\explanation for those claims will lead to the target of the claim deciding that they needn't make an effort to respect your wishes, as you have shown a lack of respect for them by failing to provide any reasoning for your statements.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,925
Location: Brisbane, Australia

28 Jun 2020, 3:26 am

Brictoria wrote:
How quickly do you believe these changes you want should take?
Look back at the Sufragette movement, which took decades to get a simple thing like voting rights (with other areas such as employment taking longer) for approximately 50% of the population. Now compare what you are after and what % of the population is affected: Do you think your changes will happen as fast?

Then look at your methods: Do you make claims that "ABC" is transphobic", or instead, "ABC is transphobic because...". For the most part, the "easy" option is taken, throwing out the label, with no effort put in to educating the reason why. Giving an explanation may be hard, it may be repetetive, it may need to be done frequently...But it NEEDS to be done. If you want a large portion of a population to make changes to benefit a small portion of the population, it will take a lot of time and effort. Putting them offisde by making claims and not providing context\explanation for those claims will lead to the target of the claim deciding that they needn't make an effort to respect your wishes, as you have shown a lack of respect for them by failing to provide any reasoning for your statements.


Why should how long women rights took to get to this point be evidence that how long it took was right. It has been ridiculous that the rights of black people is still as bad as it has been that the BLM movement had to do what it has to try and face some systematic racism, and you still have people saying that there is no problem. In comparison to the rights of women, gay rights was a cause that went much quicker from being punishable by the law to what it has become, despite being a smaller minority, but still it took too long for marriage equality to be made a thing here in Australia.

I know that it takes time to change minds, especially older people that find things conflict with what they were taught long ago, but that does not change that people are actively being hurt by letting discrimination go unopposed. The research is incredibly clear that mental health problems such as suicidality is intricately linked to discrimination, and letting another generation grow up with that discrimination will cause an incredible amount of damage compared to a few boomers saying that they feel bad because someone called them transphobic.

I understand the good intentions you are putting forward that if I really want to change minds I should never just call people a name and should instead explain things, but I do exactly that. When I say that something is transphobic I don't just say that is someone's label now, they should figure it out themselves, I will say that there is a difference between sex and gender. That definition is so incredibly easy to get that it would be obnoxious to do:

Quote:
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.


Something you get from a quick google search of just typing the words. And right there is the definition that gender is not the biology, but if say that I am non-binary I am likely to be seen as some freak or attention seeker, I can't even put it as my gender on this site. I am not even able to live as myself because binary trans people would be seen as weird around here that as non-binary I would just make the situation harder. And it has been from bullying I received while younger and other cultural elements that I only just realised recently that some internalised homophobia I had was because I was a closeted bisexual, terrified of ostracization that has been imposed on me by heteronormativity.

I can say that I have held some homophobic anxieties and views, does that mean that I am saying that I am a homophobe? No, people are not a screenshot of beliefs that they held at any particular time. And I understand if there was a bit less of "jokes" and rhetoric in the past that demonised people that were not cis and hetero, I would be in a better place right now instead of needing to figure out parts of myself in my late 20s that most people get to do in their teens. But I am still being told not to rock the boat too much, other causes took much longer to be accepted so I should just be happy. That I should be tolerant of intolerance, because their feelings will get hurt if I say that a particular point of view might be sexist, homophobic or transphobic. They get to live their best lives, and I have my anxiety on top of my other identities that mean I can't openly just come out to everyone. Not while I don't have any confidence that society would see me as anything different from an attention seeker.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall