Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
You may be right in assuming that. I have no reason to hate you personally. Don’t you believe that there are levels to it though? For example, if I say “I hate Trump for implementing tariffs that hurt our economy”, isn’t that different from saying “I think Trump should be killed for his involvement with Epstein”? One is actively calling for violence against an individual, the other is expressing a difference of opinion about how the economy should be ran.
It can, yes. Only when the nice thing is said in the context of a person being usually nice.
But what if I add the context of a person being usually toxic. Let's say a sociopath who say tnice things to his wife to trap her into an abusive relationship ? Well.. then the nice things are not necessarily nice. You need to look at the contextual information to understand the sentence.
This is why I'm saying that I did not call you an ableist and that I quickly told you that I didn't mind too much. I was simply making you a remark that we shall not use ableism (in this case saying that people should go into institution) as a tool of political attack because at the end of the day, this is people under the ableist system of domination that will pay the price.
No, you are not ableist. You just made an ableist remark. It's okay. Noone is mad about it. We can move on as long as you understand why I make the remark and you do not repeat what you said.
Is there anything patronizing or disrespectfull in what I'm saying here?
But what if I add the context of a person being usually toxic. Let's say a sociopath who say tnice things to his wife to trap her into an abusive relationship ? Well.. then the nice things are not necessarily nice. You need to look at the contextual information to understand the sentence.
This is why I'm saying that I did not call you an ableist and that I quickly told you that I didn't mind too much. I was simply making you a remark that we shall not use ableism (in this case saying that people should go into institution) as a tool of political attack because at the end of the day, this is people under the ableist system of domination that will pay the price.
No, you are not ableist. You just made an ableist remark. It's okay. Noone is mad about it. We can move on as long as you understand why I make the remark and you do not repeat what you said.
Is there anything patronizing or disrespectfull in what I'm saying here?
Here's the thing, saying something bigoted almost always AUTOMATICALLY makes you bigoted.
You wouldn't try to argue someone down about how saying trans people are invalid isn't transphobic, because it definitely is, and saying it automatically makes you transphobic.
You can't just say "Oh but I said one thing and I said that once", that ain't how this works.
You wouldn't try to argue someone down about how saying trans people are invalid isn't transphobic, because it definitely is, and saying it automatically makes you transphobic.
You can't just say "Oh but I said one thing and I said that once", that ain't how this works.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/2589601_Mailb_Mailbox_Apple_Pie_003-da802ff7a8984b2fa9aa0535997ab246.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/MSL-1511079-pumpkin-pie-hero-3x2-11511-c9c4b6f36f6544578ea9166ae998b1af.jpeg)
Not necessarily as I explained in this thread:
>>>
There are nuances mate.
If I say "trans are mentally ill and should not exist" it's absolutely not the same thing as if I say "people who says that trans are mentally ill are retards and are mentally ill"
On both side there is ableism indeed (and transphobia on the first sentence) but it's not the same dangerosity or even the same oppressive power of destruction. On top of that, you defended someone, so it's really not as bad as someone else saying the same thing to hurt people under oppression.
It's just that the domination used to attack is the same. And in our context, we should avoid it at all costs.
Someone saying "retard" to attack random people is absolutely not as destructive as someone using my mental condition to attack me and negate my agentivity.
What you said was not horrible. People. Read carefully what I write. Because it's FULL of nuances.
@NAMELESS this is what real cancel culture looks like.
>>>
There are nuances mate.
If I say "trans are mentally ill and should not exist" it's absolutely not the same thing as if I say "people who says that trans are mentally ill are retards and are mentally ill"
On both side there is ableism indeed (and transphobia on the first sentence) but it's not the same dangerosity or even the same oppressive power of destruction. On top of that, you defended someone, so it's really not as bad as someone else saying the same thing to hurt people under oppression.
It's just that the domination used to attack is the same. And in our context, we should avoid it at all costs.
Someone saying "retard" to attack random people is absolutely not as destructive as someone using my mental condition to attack me and negate my agentivity.
What you said was not horrible. People. Read carefully what I write. Because it's FULL of nuances.
@NAMELESS this is what real cancel culture looks like.
People are free to do their choices. As long governament doesn't impose such thing like that.
It's a minority of people that will celebrate Kirk's death. No matter what your political side. So it is obvious that people wouldn't like to be associate with people that celebrates other deaths.
If I knew for example that Coca-cola employees celebrated that death and they still working there I'd stop buying Coca-cola. So it is only natural if the company fires them.
And this is not only about death celebration but political views as a whole too. Company usually like to remain neutral.
If I have to explain the joke than it won't be funny
It's a minority of people that will celebrate Kirk's death. No matter what your political side. So it is obvious that people wouldn't like to be associate with people that celebrates other deaths.
If I knew for example that Coca-cola employees celebrated that death and they still working there I'd stop buying Coca-cola. So it is only natural if the company fires them.
And this is not only about death celebration but political views as a whole too. Company usually like to remain neutral.
Post automatically merged:
If I have to explain the joke than it won't be funny