The slippery slope of self identifying rears it ugly head in Pedophilia

[Jedidiah]

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

But deaths no less, just as I stated in my post. So far the only difference I have found is that there are a lot more of one than the other.

[Mountain Man]

Your perception of yourself as someone who knows something about anything does not align with reality.

That insult was almost coherent. Your therapist would be proud.

[Starlight]

I could tell you stories about those two. They have interesting personal histories, in the sense used to describe a meal that should never be served again.

I am in no way surprised. I would actually be interested in hearing D.E.'s history as he regularly posts here in civics and often confuses me with regard to exactly what angle he's coming at things from.

This was within weeks of the slaughter at the Pulse nightclub, less than four hours up from the road from me, and part of a consistent pattern, I was informed. I didn't merely report him, I asked for him to be banned, something I've never done before in over a decade of posting here. And then I documented it all.

The FBI would probably have been interested in receiving all that information in an email.

And stopped posting here for months when the site chose to take the risk of allowing him to continue.

Well that doesn't surprise me because I think many of the conservatives posting on this site aren't actually that fundamentally different on the issue.

There's ones like Obsidian and DE who are very open about their views, then there's a few who would nod along in agreement when reading those posts but who have enough self-awareness to know they shouldn't actually write posts openly calling for people to be killed, then there's there ones who personally wouldn't go that far themselves and don't want people to be killed but who are well-aware that it's in the bible and so accept the extremists who want to follow the literal teaching of Leviticus as fellow believers... etc. and there's a continuum all the way down to those who merely (!) cheer-lead for banning millions of people from being able to marry. The people at each part of the continuum happily give cover to those slightly more extreme on the issue than they personally are.

Hillary's hit squad was out there, but the pan-standard for him is folksy bee-keeper, which is how he should be seen. That's his real life, this is a hobby. Similarly, Sparko is a graphic designer, and pretty good at it. The preacher is, at heart, a small businessman, and relatively successful at that, too.

I fundamentally disagree. Maybe 15 years ago, pre-internet, that is how it would have been valid to describe them. I am totally ready to grant passes to people who don't know about issues and haven't thought about them and are just plain folks.

But the the conservatives in this forum have been actively discussing these issues for ~10 years with people from all parts of the political spectrum. At this point they have been well-informed about issues, they have thought through them and argued through them dozens of times. They've lost the ability to claim any sort of 'gee shucks' naivete, and become willful adherents of all kinds of awful views.

And the kinds of values they consistently express in their posts horrify me on a human level.

You mention the preacher is at heart a small businessman - I would agree. But there are different types of businessmen. So let's take an example of a recent post here on TWeb by a businessman that impressed me greatly:

And your statement about plentiful labor and lower wages is understood - but reflects a business world that has one metric: money. I do not subscribe to that view for the same reason that I do not subscribe to the view that my only priority in life is my family. They are my highest priority, but there are times that I have asked my family to sacrifice, sometimes even painfully, because someone with a greater need than ours, who was not able to meet that need themselves, needed our help. Like people, a business occupies a social niche, and I subscribe to the philosophy that businesses have both financial and social obligations.

When a business drops wages below a "living wage" because labor is plentiful and they CAN, they are ignoring the impact on the people that are working for them, who are now receiving less than they need to survive, but are still working full time. They are forcing parents to get multiple jobs, compromising their ability to be present to their family. The impact is significant. They are, in effect, putting money above people. It is not the way I believe an ethical business should operate. It is not the way I have ever run my business. If I used that ethic, I could have been a millionaire several times over by now. I have always worked b the ethic that I will not make my fortunes on the backs of others. I pay people who do the same things I do the same amount I get paid, less only a modest amount to cover my costs for coordinating the activity, maintaining the client accounts, etc. The lowest paid people in my organization are paid at least a living wage, and I have repeatedly reduced my own salary (which is generous) before I will reduce theirs.

I cannot justify CEOs/COOs/CIOs that walk away with tens and hundreds of millions when the lowest paid members of their organization are struggling to put food on the table, clothe themselves and their children, maintain shelter, and ensure adequate healthcare. If everyone is being paid a living wage, then I don't CARE how much the owners pocket. I do not have a negative opinion of rich people; I have a negative opinion of rich people who made their money at the unjust expense of others. I recognize that businesses sometimes have to make hard decisions. I have lived through that. Sometimes, the decision is "cut people, cut wages, or die." I am simply saying, if the decision is to cut wages, the philosophy I outlined above should (ethically) govern.

Consider the values demonstrated in this post: A concern for people and their families; a rejection of greed for money; a concern for justice; compassion and empathy; a concern for poor people; a concern that workers get paid their due; a concern about exploitation; a concern that people can 'put food on the table, clothe themselves and their children, maintain shelter, and ensure adequate healthcare'; a concern for business leaders to follow ethical rules; selflessness - a willingness to sacrifice to help others, etc.

I read through that post and I think "wow, that person is a Nice Guy, he has a real heart to help others, he is selfless, kind, caring and compassionate, and those values come through in his posting in spades."

Guess what... that's not CP writing that (I doubt you're at all surprised), he has never come remotely close to exemplifying those kind of values in his posting. That post packed more selflessness and genuine concern for one's fellow humans into one post than I have seen from all CP's posts across the years combined. It's an orders of magnitude different in character and moral virtue. And I think that obscured when you simply describe him as a successful small businessman.

but they're not demons, and it's a mistake to portray them as such. Because when everyone is demonized, no one is demonized, and the real demons walk scathelessly.

I don't agree with this. As should be clear from the above, I don't agree that the conservatives who have been posting here for years, and who have learned the various positions and willfully adopted the ones they hold and defend, and who have been exemplifying over and over again really negative and anti-human values, are 'just folks'. No, they are actively bad people. They actively push really really negative and hateful values and exist on a continuum with people like Obsidian, they are not fundamentally different to him.

[mossrose]

So, Starlight, what do you think about the person that is the subject of the op?

[Jedidiah]

But the the conservatives in this forum have been actively discussing these issues for ~10 years with people from all parts of the political spectrum. At this point they have been well-informed about issues, they have thought through them and argued through them dozens of times. They've lost the ability to claim any sort of 'gee shucks' naivete, and become willful adherents of all kinds of awful views.

And because we have come to quite different conclusions than you have, we are demons. Keep in mind that "Hatred, anger, outrage, war-mongering, racism, fear, judgementalism, authoritarianism, hypocrisy, condemnation, homophobia, nationalism, xenophobia, islamophobia, conspiracy theorism, adulation the wealthy, a hatred of the poor, and a complete lack of empathy and compassion blah blah blah blah blah" does not even come close to describing the values of virtually all of the conservatives here. Hatred, anger, racism, hypocrisy, and condemnation seem to me to reflect your values, and those of some of the liberals here (though not most).

[Leonhard]

I'm curious how you think Starlight is a racist?

[Darth Executor]

There's ones like Obsidian and DE who are very open about their views, then there's a few who would nod along in agreement when reading those posts but who have enough self-awareness to know they shouldn't actually write posts openly calling for people to be killed

I don't remember writing posts openly calling for people to be killed, but if I did I wouldn't target children (up to 2 years old was it?) like you have (pretty much exclusively).

[Starlight]

And because we have come to quite different conclusions than you have, we are demons.

When it's questions about whether one treats one's fellow humans with kindness, compassion, and love, versus with hatred, fear, and anger, then consistently favoring the second group and consistently rejecting the first group does make you 'demons', yes. It's not an 'ooopsy, my bad' like adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5 would be, it's consistently choosing inhumane positions when given the options.

Keep in mind that "Hatred, anger, outrage, war-mongering, racism, fear, judgementalism, authoritarianism, hypocrisy, condemnation, homophobia, nationalism, xenophobia, islamophobia, conspiracy theorism, adulation the wealthy, a hatred of the poor, and a complete lack of empathy and compassion blah blah blah blah blah" does not even come close to describing the values of virtually all of the conservatives here.

I would say it absolutely does. I see those values expressed repeatedly and daily here to an extent I have never seen anywhere else in my life.

Hatred, anger, racism, hypocrisy, and condemnation seem to me to reflect your values, and those of some of the liberals here (though not most).

I'll grant that I tend to get quite passionate in my defense of the downtrodden and in critiquing those who seek to harm others. But I don't have much time for bullies who respond to being told to cut it out by whining "you can't do that, you're bullying me! It's my right to bully other people and if you tell me to stop, it's you that's being bad!" That kind of pathetic response is what you've displayed in this thread when you're quite happy to label a hundred million or so people globally as insane and be a brave keyboard bully of millions of people struggling with transgender issues, but you cry foul when I stand up for all those people and say that you're a jerk and a bully and insane for doing that. In doing so you show you're not just a bully but also a snowflake because waaah I hurt your feelings by dishing out to you a tiny fraction of the abuse you dish out to others and waaaah isn't it so unfair and aren't I really the nasty one by calling you out on your horrible abuse of millions of people.

So, Starlight, what do you think about the person that is the subject of the op?

I answered that in the final paragraph of my earlier post.

I'm curious how you think Starlight is a racist?

That one puzzles me slightly too. I'm actually quite a centrist on race and culture issues and don't tend to agree with activists on the left on those issues, so even to accuse me of being a 'reverse racist' would be strange.

[Teallaura]

I shall never capitulate to a capitalization nazi.

No, you just renege on your concession to allow the use of capitalization.

Taoist broke his promise!!!!

[Teallaura]

I'm curious how you think Starlight is a racist?

He judges people by their race.

[Juvenal]

No, you just renege on your concession to allow the use of capitalization.

Taoist broke his promise!!!!

wlgrumpycat.jpg

[Teallaura]

SEEE!!!!! he's being mean again!

[rogue06]

SEEE!!!!! he's being mean again!

Maybe you should call him a big meanie, steal his motorcycle and pee in his shoes

[Jedidiah]

When it's questions about whether one treats one's fellow humans with kindness, compassion, and love, versus with hatred, fear, and anger, then consistently favoring the second group and consistently rejecting the first group does make you 'demons', yes. It's not an 'ooopsy, my bad' like adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5 would be, it's consistently choosing inhumane positions when given the options.

I would say it absolutely does. I see those values expressed repeatedly and daily here to an extent I have never seen anywhere else in my life.

I'll grant that I tend to get quite passionate in my defense of the downtrodden and in critiquing those who seek to harm others. But I don't have much time for bullies who respond to being told to cut it out by whining "you can't do that, you're bullying me! It's my right to bully other people and if you tell me to stop, it's you that's being bad!" That kind of pathetic response is what you've displayed in this thread when you're quite happy to label a hundred million or so people globally as insane and be a brave keyboard bully of millions of people struggling with transgender issues, but you cry foul when I stand up for all those people and say that you're a jerk and a bully and insane for doing that. In doing so you show you're not just a bully but also a snowflake because waaah I hurt your feelings by dishing out to you a tiny fraction of the abuse you dish out to others and waaaah isn't it so unfair and aren't I really the nasty one by calling you out on your horrible abuse of millions of people.


I answered that in the final paragraph of my earlier post.


That one puzzles me slightly too. I'm actually quite a centrist on race and culture issues and don't tend to agree with activists on the left on those issues, so even to accuse me of being a 'reverse racist' would be strange.

This whole response is dishonest and would require a book to respond. I believe in treating all people with equal "kindness, compassion, and love" but you twist things so badly out of true that it is my clear opinion that you are the real hater here.

[Starlight]

He judges people by their race.

I do? Seems a weird claim.

Claims you've been making about race recently have been going over my head. Earlier this week you had a weird rant on the subject that I couldn't make any sense of.