Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Dimity]

39 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

RFK Jr as HHS Secretary. Good lord.

I swear he's trolling you all now.  This is absurd.  I feel like this past week has been an episode from the Twilight Zone and this is them going just that little bit too far...

Edited November 14 by Dimity

[Lantern7]

45 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

RFK Jr as HHS Secretary. Good lord.

John Oliver covered him on Last Week Tonight. Near the end, he talked about how Junior was talking to Trump, and that Trump would consider him to run HHS in he dropped out. There was an audible gasp from the audience.

See for yourself. The whole thing is informative and a nightmare.

 

[fastiller]

This seems as good a place as any to mention this.

The Onion Buys Infowars, Will Turn Misinformation Hub Into Parody Site

Edited November 14 by fastiller
formatting

[Palimelon]

Democrat to file motion specifically mentioning Trump can only serve two terms.

Dan Goldman’s initiative will reiterate two-term clause from amendment approved by US Congress in 1947.

[ebk57]

13 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Same deal with Medicare and Social security. Social security is going to go bankrupt around the time I'm set to retire.  Frankly, I think they are going to need to do some kind of means testing on it.  Does it suck that this would mean that an earned benefit is not paid out, yes.  But frankly, I'd rather forgo getting it than have the younger, still working generations have to shoulder supporting it with a smaller base than I had to do.

Maybe means testing would help.  But what would definitely help is abolishing the salary cap on paying into the system.  At the moment, if you make more than $168K, you don't pay into SS on your salary over that amount.  Everyone should pay in based on what they're earning.  

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Not just outside of the US. I live in the state formed when we seceded from Virginia who was part of the Confederacy.  There are more Confederate flags flying here now than ever before.  I have seen people who have lived here their whole lives, who's families have lived here their whole lives argue it's part of their heritage.  Ignorant doesn't begin to describe what they are. 

I've heard about people flying Confederate flags up here in northern states. Y'know, the part of the country that fought the freaking Confederacy. 

Just. The stupid, it bbggles the mind. 

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I think we should take this as a sign that karma is real, so don’t lose faith, guys! If Alex Jones can finally get his comeuppance, then maybe we aren’t all doomed after all!

I like this thought. This is a good thought. I will cling to this remiinder going forward. 

(Regarding Alex Jones, I am not a religious person by any stretch, but if hell exists...)

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Yep. My state overwhelmingly went for Trump.  All three times.

So did mine :(. I miss when Iowa wasn't a political embarrassment. 

Course, my state did also give the country Steve King, so, y'know, I feel like I need to apologize on our behalf for that idiot as well. 

[Absolom]

The rationale,valid or not, is twofold. First so that benefits can be capped and second the belief that the public would not accept uncapped payments into the system.

[Avaleigh]

6 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Also, he problem is who gets to tell us which words are offensive.

This is an interesting point. In figure skating, there was a push by a *tiny* few people to rename a couple of elements for the sake of DEI. One of these elements is a mohawk. A mohawk turn in skating is a simple move. For a right handed person you just stepforward on your right foot and turn so that you're then backward on your left foot. There isn't anything controversial about the move and I've yet to meet an Indigenous person who has felt "hurt" about figure skating moves in the field that have names like mohawk or choctaw. Nor were Indigenous people the ones behind the effort to get the names of these moves changed in the first place. 

When it first came up (when Skate Canada decided that they would be renaming the moves), the people I know who work in the sport generally laughed or had an eyeroll reaction because it came across like the silliest sort of virtue signaling. For decades these moves have had these names without controversy and then some people who are possibly feeling guilty about other issues regarding injustice and inclusivity, decide that these moves are part of the problem even though there wasn't much, if any, indication that anyone found these names to be offensive. To date, US Figure Skating hasn't decided to follow Canada by changing the names, and I suspect it's because there's no indication that people have been or are being hurt by them. 

I mention this because I think there are some people who are trying to force others into accepting that certain words are harmful when this isn't necessarily the case. I agree that it's natural for language to change and evolve. I also think there are positive changes that have successfully been integrated into every day dialogue. e.g. neurotypical instead of normal, neurodivergent instead of abnormal, etc. These sorts of changes make sense and in some cases were long overdue.

I don't care about pronouns and don't really see why they're such a hot button issue. I think people have the right to be called whatever they want to be called within reason. (By within reason, yeah, if your name has 20 letters or something you're probably going to get a nickname pdq from most people.)

I remember Brandeis University releasing a list (I think they took it down after a couple of years) about oppressive and ableist language that contained words people should no longer use. Some made sense and others were exactly the sort of silliness the left gets criticized for indulging too much. Words like picnic, wild, survivor, freshman, addict, etc. 

The unfair part is the way politicians get saddled with being associated with things that don't have anything to do with their campaigns. In the case of Harris, she was criticized over a document that used the term "birthing people" even though it's not a word that she uses and it's inaccurate to say that she's in any way trying to minimize or diminish the role of women. It's quite the opposite actually. 

[PRgal]

You know what's really weird about names?  Like people who question others who adopt another name when they move to a country.  I mean, my name is Cynthia.  If I move to Italy, I might decide to tell people they can call me Cinzia.  It's the same name, just in a different language.  My name on paper would still be Cynthia, but I may decide to use the Italian version instead.  People there won't be "why don't you USE Cynthia?  It doesn't matter."  

[ParadoxLost]

2 hours ago, ebk57 said:

Maybe means testing would help.  But what would definitely help is abolishing the salary cap on paying into the system.  At the moment, if you make more than $168K, you don't pay into SS on your salary over that amount.  Everyone should pay in based on what they're earning.  

Social security is an earned benefit and that benefit is capped at the same level the taxable salary is capped.  But look at federal tax bracket, it jumps up by 8% at roughly the same level the salary is capped.

People earning above the cap are still paying in, they just stop getting a benefit for it.  And given the level of raiding of social security by the government, they are reducing the borrowing from social security.

You can feel that higher income earners should be paying more than they already are but the idea that everyone isn't paying based on what they are earning is a semantics game. They just rerouted the same dollars.

Edited November 15 by ParadoxLost

[fairffaxx]

4 hours ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

RFK Jr as HHS Secretary. Good lord.

I'm still waiting for the pillow guy.

[annzeepark914]

59 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

I'm still waiting for the pillow guy.

Has Secretary of Commerce been taken yet? 

This would be so funny...if it weren't so dangerous.

[tearknee]

4 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

This is an interesting point. In figure skating, there was a push by a *tiny* few people to rename a couple of elements for the sake of DEI. One of these elements is a mohawk. A mohawk turn in skating is a simple move. For a right handed person you just stepforward on your right foot and turn so that you're then backward on your left foot. There isn't anything controversial about the move and I've yet to meet an Indigenous person who has felt "hurt" about figure skating moves in the field that have names like mohawk or choctaw. Nor were Indigenous people the ones behind the effort to get the names of these moves changed in the first place. 

When it first came up (when Skate Canada decided that they would be renaming the moves), the people I know who work in the sport generally laughed or had an eyeroll reaction because it came across like the silliest sort of virtue signaling. For decades these moves have had these names without controversy and then some people who are possibly feeling guilty about other issues regarding injustice and inclusivity, decide that these moves are part of the problem even though there wasn't much, if any, indication that anyone found these names to be offensive. To date, US Figure Skating hasn't decided to follow Canada by changing the names, and I suspect it's because there's no indication that people have been or are being hurt by them. 

I mention this because I think there are some people who are trying to force others into accepting that certain words are harmful when this isn't necessarily the case. I agree that it's natural for language to change and evolve. I also think there are positive changes that have successfully been integrated into every day dialogue. e.g. neurotypical instead of normal, neurodivergent instead of abnormal, etc. These sorts of changes make sense and in some cases were long overdue.

I don't care about pronouns and don't really see why they're such a hot button issue. I think people have the right to be called whatever they want to be called within reason. (By within reason, yeah, if your name has 20 letters or something you're probably going to get a nickname pdq from most people.)

I remember Brandeis University releasing a list (I think they took it down after a couple of years) about oppressive and ableist language that contained words people should no longer use. Some made sense and others were exactly the sort of silliness the left gets criticized for indulging too much. Words like picnic, wild, survivor, freshman, addict, etc. 

The unfair part is the way politicians get saddled with being associated with things that don't have anything to do with their campaigns. In the case of Harris, she was criticized over a document that used the term "birthing people" even though it's not a word that she uses and it's inaccurate to say that she's in any way trying to minimize or diminish the role of women. It's quite the opposite actually. 

Not to mention, that, despite what poli-social activists say, most trans boys/trans men are raised as girls as children (and vice-versa) as those who identify as "left" politically in a meaningful way is very small -- and the same applies to their counterparts on the right -- most voters will always be in the "broad center" -- as borne out by how few votes that overtly leftist parties get in elections with secret ballots -- where people can vote as they think.

 

[Yeah No]

11 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Then you were lucky you never heard it on your visits. Others who lived there weren't so lucky. Since you like anecdotal evidence, here is one: in the early 2000s, I heard someone call my uncle a sand-n-word in Columbia, SC.

Oh I never said it didn't happen, it's just not that rampant, common nor as acceptable to say in public even down South, even years ago as you're implying. That doesn't mean I think they don't think it or say it privately more often. It's was more under wraps in the 20th century. I don't know about now, I haven't been down South except Florida and the airport in Charlotte in decades.

Quote

And that's all lovely. But just as you say the whole US wasn't like the south when it came to race relations, the NYC bubble of tolerance didn't represent all the country at the time either. And even then New York City was having race riots in the mid 1960s.

It wasn't just a NYC bubble, it was in much of the Northeast, especially in New England, maybe not as common as in NYC, but it still applied to a lot of people. The race riot in 1964 was related to a specific police incident and the one in '68 was in reaction to the assassination of MLK and that happened in other cities as well. We did not have constant race riots.

Quote

They may have been legal but that doesn't make them accepted. In many parts of the US, they still aren't accepted. The first pride parade happened in 1970 and it was welcome by all nor was it something people didn't have to fight for.

Thanks but you don't have to tell me about that. I was there and I lived through it, I know.

Quote

Nobody is saying everyone over a certain age is racist, sexist, misogynist, or anti-LGBTQ. However the proportion of people who are like that does increase with each age demographic as it gets older.

I don't know, I sure feel like that's the message being sent here. And I know I'm not alone in feeling that way when I read people's feelings on this online in other forums. I personally don't know anyone whose opinions on these issues has gone more right in recent years as they age. That includes friends, relatives, online acquaintances, etc. We haven't changed. We think the left keeps going left and thinks we're going right when we haven't gone anywhere. The people I know that are on the right have always been on the right.

And I personally refuse to be made to feel like I'm never liberal enough. It's like either you're left of Lenin or you're a Nazi and there's no in-between in some people's minds. That's been my whole beef here. And then I find out I'm far from alone and then we have the result of this election and I wonder just how many of these people that voted for Trump feel like the Democratic party has been hijacked by such an ultra-liberal agenda that they feel like they can't even be Democrats anymore. That's not me, I will always be a Democrat because nobody defines me but me. I would never abandon my ideals for any reason but I can fully understand why they might even if I don't agree with it.

I feel like a lot of presumptions are being made about me and I'm not being heard. My experiences are patronized as "lovely" but I don't get credit for them. No, instead I feel like I'm being picked apart just to find something wrong with me, but I get to define what I am, not anyone else. And I think I am pretty socially liberal. And I've been that way all my life. And at times I feel like I'm under attack despite that. I can never please some people. And then I'll be told I'm mistaken about THAT too! I can't win.

This is not the way we Democrats ever were to each other until recently. If only I could explain it to younger people. I don't have the time nor the energy to do that right now but it was not like this, I can tell you that. But we really were the party of tolerance inclusion and the left was like "come and join us, fight for equality and freedom", not, "you are not one of us and you are wrong because you used the wrong pronoun". I feel like everyone on the left wants me to walk on eggshells lest I might say something offensive to them but then they do anything but return the favor to me. This is anything but tolerance and inclusion. My father would say it's being taken out on the wrong people. And in light of that it's no wonder people have become alienated from their own party and its candidates.

Quote

Sorry but boomers don't get to act like victims without explaining to people why they feel like victims. It doesn't work that way.

You claiming that you have it worse than the people who are actually having it worse than you is invalidating their feelings too, one can say.

Also, perspective doesn't always equal reality.

I could say "back atcha" for all the above.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to get into a generational argument with you or anyone at this point and I don't want to continue that discussion. And I don't feel like a victim nor am I crying victim nor do I want to claim I'm a bigger victim than anyone else, that's not my way. I'm not avoiding answering because I don't have an answer, I just don't want to feel defensive. I just feel that some things are unfairly said of and presumed of older people and we don't have much clout in stopping the abuse.

[LexieLily]

5 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Democrat to file motion specifically mentioning Trump can only serve two terms.

Dan Goldman’s initiative will reiterate two-term clause from amendment approved by US Congress in 1947.

I was all set to type out something to the effect of "well, duh, isn't that a given?" but *gestures wildly to the past decade of Trump* it's good to spell things out in excruciating detail for these particular Republicans and this particular Supreme Court, apparently.

[Yeah No]

10 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Yes Gen X is also called the Sandwich generation.  Because we take care of our aging parents, our kids and sometimes are grandkids. And yes while we also have full time jobs.  

This was also said of Baby Boomers until their parents died. I have friends in my age bracket (Generation Jones) who still have kids living at home and are tending to aging parents.

11 hours ago, tearknee said:

As a follow-up, I kind of wonder why John Tyler still has so much named after him. Probably because no one has heard of him.

All I know about him is his campaign slogan, "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too".

10 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

FWIW, this locution was coined in the '80s, for the Boomers.  It's suddenly in the news as if it were something new. 

THANK YOU!

9 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Well, some of the most radical leftists who tend to call themselves progressive don't even try to hide their antisemitism nowadays and even if they might not use the same words that the far right, they certainly use the same stereotypes. Not to mention throwing around words like settlers, colonialists, some of them accusing the entire western world of being guilty for racism and colonialism of the past generations, demonizing the military, demonizing the entire police force, hell demonizing liberals who are not left enough in their eyes. Maybe they don't use words that have collectively been deemed unacceptable, but like Yeah No said, other words can hurt too. The popular phrase now seems to be telling people to kill themselves, how is that ok just because it's not one of those worst terms? So far, I have been told to kill myself on the internet for, let's see: supporting NATO, supporting Ukraine, saying that Israel has right to exist and defend themselves again terrorists and that we should support two-state solution, and most of all for calling myself a liberal centrist, because that is to some people an equivalent of being fascist now. It honestly doesn't bother me much, because I sleep perfectly fine holding those opinions and I generally think that the person on the other end is some stupid kid if not a russian troll, but it would definitely bother me if I was younger, since I used to be more sensitive and take everything to heart.

Thank you, you made my point for me perfectly!! I think some of the people chanting these things need to look in the mirror because their behavior is actually the opposite of everything they profess to stand for. And it's shockingly hypocritical.

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

This is an interesting point. In figure skating, there was a push by a *tiny* few people to rename a couple of elements for the sake of DEI. One of these elements is a mohawk. A mohawk turn in skating is a simple move. For a right handed person you just stepforward on your right foot and turn so that you're then backward on your left foot. There isn't anything controversial about the move and I've yet to meet an Indigenous person who has felt "hurt" about figure skating moves in the field that have names like mohawk or choctaw. Nor were Indigenous people the ones behind the effort to get the names of these moves changed in the first place. 

When it first came up (when Skate Canada decided that they would be renaming the moves), the people I know who work in the sport generally laughed or had an eyeroll reaction because it came across like the silliest sort of virtue signaling. For decades these moves have had these names without controversy and then some people who are possibly feeling guilty about other issues regarding injustice and inclusivity, decide that these moves are part of the problem even though there wasn't much, if any, indication that anyone found these names to be offensive. To date, US Figure Skating hasn't decided to follow Canada by changing the names, and I suspect it's because there's no indication that people have been or are being hurt by them. 

I mention this because I think there are some people who are trying to force others into accepting that certain words are harmful when this isn't necessarily the case. I agree that it's natural for language to change and evolve. I also think there are positive changes that have successfully been integrated into every day dialogue. e.g. neurotypical instead of normal, neurodivergent instead of abnormal, etc. These sorts of changes make sense and in some cases were long overdue.

I don't care about pronouns and don't really see why they're such a hot button issue. I think people have the right to be called whatever they want to be called within reason. (By within reason, yeah, if your name has 20 letters or something you're probably going to get a nickname pdq from most people.)

I remember Brandeis University releasing a list (I think they took it down after a couple of years) about oppressive and ableist language that contained words people should no longer use. Some made sense and others were exactly the sort of silliness the left gets criticized for indulging too much. Words like picnic, wild, survivor, freshman, addict, etc. 

The unfair part is the way politicians get saddled with being associated with things that don't have anything to do with their campaigns. In the case of Harris, she was criticized over a document that used the term "birthing people" even though it's not a word that she uses and it's inaccurate to say that she's in any way trying to minimize or diminish the role of women. It's quite the opposite actually. 

I couldn't agree more with your post! This stuff makes the Democratic party look like the party that's more concerned with arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than with real issues facing most Americans, like how to afford to survive. And the right loves that because if we turn on each other we do their job for them!

And thanks for that list of words, I couldn't remember any of the silliest ones offhand but it just got really out of hand after a while. I still want to know who these people are that get to choose these things and then everyone else is guilted into it lest they be called Nazi's or something.

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Thank you for articulating what many people feel. A recent comic strip addresses this issue with humor: 

[FilmTVGeek80]

35 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

LOL what a ridiculous cartoon. Like most of the people on the right would bother asking if that person was alright. And as if most on the right are so tolerant of different opinions. A more accurate cartoon would be someone on the left giving that person on the center a verbal slap while the person on the right would kick them while they were down while calling them a libtard.

[Anela]

11 hours ago, Dimity said:

What kills me is the man is 78, what does he want?  A gold lined coffin? 

He didn’t want to go to jail.  Look at what they’ve just done in France, with a woman who was going to run again.  He started up his campaign right away, thinking they couldn’t prosecute a presidential candidate. Now he’s getting his wish. 

6 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I've heard about people flying Confederate flags up here in northern states. Y'know, the part of the country that fought the freaking Confederacy. 

Just. The stupid, it bbggles the mind. 

I like this thought. This is a good thought. I will cling to this remiinder going forward. 

(Regarding Alex Jones, I am not a religious person by any stretch, but if hell exists...)

So did mine :(. I miss when Iowa wasn't a political embarrassment. 

Course, my state did also give the country Steve King, so, y'know, I feel like I need to apologize on our behalf for that idiot as well. 

I’ve seen them in Ohio, too,  the confederate flags.  

[Makai]

Once again I’m reminded of the Margaret Atwood quote that was brought up earlier, “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” 

I feel like the same concept can be applied to so many other circumstances. The stakes for each side are so wildly different. Which ultimately makes it very easy for me to choose a side. I don’t think I’ve moved left even though others probably would. My underlying beliefs have never changed, I have just become more aware of different groups to care about. 

[Palimelon]

Quote

it's just not that rampant, common nor as acceptable to say in public even down South, even years ago as you're implying

Guess we will have to disagree on that.

Quote

We did not have constant race riots.

But the fact that they were happening says something.

Quote

I was there and I lived through it, I know.

Great. I'm glad today gay people feel more comfortable in places like NYC, even if it wasn't always true back in the day (and a lot of work still needs to be done in other places).

Quote

I don't know, I sure feel like that's the message being sent here. And I know I'm not alone in feeling that way when I read people's feelings on this online in other forums. I personally don't know anyone whose opinions on these issues has gone more right in recent years as they age. That includes friends, relatives, online acquaintances, etc. We haven't changed. We think the left keeps going left and thinks we're going right when we haven't gone anywhere. The people I know that are on the right have always been on the right.

And I personally refuse to be made to feel like I'm never liberal enough. It's like either you're left of Lenin or you're a Nazi and there's no in-between in some people's minds. That's been my whole beef here. And then I find out I'm far from alone and then we have the result of this election and I wonder just how many of these people that voted for Trump feel like the Democratic party has been hijacked by such an ultra-liberal agenda that they feel like they can't even be Democrats anymore. That's not me, I will always be a Democrat because nobody defines me but me. I would never abandon my ideals for any reason but I can fully understand why they might even if I don't agree with it.

I feel like a lot of presumptions are being made about me and I'm not being heard. My experiences are patronized as "lovely" but I don't get credit for them. No, instead I feel like I'm being picked apart just to find something wrong with me, but I get to define what I am, not anyone else. And I think I am pretty socially liberal. And I've been that way all my life. And at times I feel like I'm under attack despite that. I can never please some people. And then I'll be told I'm mistaken about THAT too! I can't win.

This is not the way we Democrats ever were to each other until recently. If only I could explain it to younger people. I don't have the time nor the energy to do that right now but it was not like this, I can tell you that. But we really were the party of tolerance inclusion and the left was like "come and join us, fight for equality and freedom", not, "you are not one of us and you are wrong because you used the wrong pronoun". I feel like everyone on the left wants me to walk on eggshells lest I might say something offensive to them but then they do anything but return the favor to me. This is anything but tolerance and inclusion. My father would say it's being taken out on the wrong people. And in light of that it's no wonder people have become alienated from their own party and its candidates.

This isn't a question of being liberal or moving to the right. This is a question of being offended when people point out something to you and rather than maybe take it and learn from it, it's doubling down and acting like people are persecuting you for not being liberal enough.

Being more tolerant is a learning process and isn't something that ends at a certain point. There are mistakes I have made but I learn from it when I can. Earlier when I posted about what privilege is, I didn't bother to mention that there are privileges men have that women do not, which a few other people on here rightly pointed out to me. I didn't get defensive or offended, I listened to what they said, and I hope to do better in the future. People get angry not because people aren't respecting them, they're become angry because you are even after explained why certain terms and phrases may be offensive, people still refuse to listen to them and/or keep using offensive terms.

And the left is going to change or "move left" somewhat because there are more and more issues that people are becoming more vocal about because they are willing more and more to have their opinions heard. Transgender people have always existed but they never had a voice or didn't want to speak out for various reasons. It wasn't considered an issue for the left before but it has become one now. And as more marginalized people begin to find their voices, there are issues that will also probably become issues in the future.

The right doesn't have to change in people's eyes because why would they? Intolerance means many aren't going to want to learn or understand why certain things are offensive. For many, not learning about these issues is almost a badge of honor.

Fighting only for certain people and not all people isn't really as tolerant or inclusive as people like to think it is. The Democratic party can push for social issues as much can for economic issues, it doesn't just have to push for one.

Quote

LOL what a ridiculous cartoon

Yes, they are.

[Soapy Goddess]

40 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

And as more marginalized people begin to find their voices, there are issues that will also probably become issues in the future.

But here's the thing...everyone has been marginalized at one point or another in history. And not just because of their skin color. Red heads with freckles were called "Howdy Doody", people who wore glasses were called "4 eyes" and short people had to listen to Randy Newman's ridiculous song. 

And no, those examples are not as egregious, but they were/are still insulting. After all, we're talking about feelings here. And still, those people didn't go apeshit over it.

My point being is that everyone is offended by everything these days. To the point of being offended for others and even changing the English language. IOW, what some people don't realize is that being offended by everything actually marginalizes the very thing they were offended by in the first place. That may not make a whole lot of sense to some, but it will to others who understand where I'm coming from

Edited November 15 by Soapy Goddess

[CM-BlueButterfly]

Hi everyone,

as communication is in writing, I’d like to precede what I’m about to say by saying that I mean it sincerely: Based on what I’d heard about how politics discussions went on Primetimer when I came in, I expected this topic to be closed by now. I’m very happy that it’s not. Thank you for keeping it as respectful as you have.

As you keep discussing, kindly continue to be mindful of the other person’s perspective when disagreeing. Even if we sometimes believe someone else is wrong, opinions aren’t right or wrong. The underlying facts may be but opinions are equally valid. On that note, please challenge the facts and not the opinion or individual and “listen” not with the goal to win the argument but with the intent to understand.
(If you’re interested, here are a couple of links to articles that offer some tips on how to discuss politics constructively (some points may be moot as we’re an online community and neither family, friends nor co-workers but others maybe are not): 01, 02, 03, 04 )

Thank you and have a good weekend.

[Spartan Girl]

And so after a whole week my non-voting friend only NOW bothered to text me to ask if I’m upset about the election. Seriously.

All I texted back was a “Yes.” And they didn’t text me anything else.

Part of me wants to be more direct, but my mom thinks after all the times they ghosted me or texted me back one-word responses when I went out of my way to reach out, that this is all I should do. I have never been the one to pull back on a friendship, especially one that’s lasted so long. But I guess now I am.

Edited November 15 by Spartan Girl

[Palimelon]

Quote

But here's the thing...everyone has been marginalized at one point or another in history. And not just because of their skin color. Red heads with freckles were called "Howdy Doody", people who wore glasses were called "4 eyes" and short people had to listen to Randy Newman's ridiculous song. 

And no, those examples are not as egregious, but they were/are still insulting. After all, we're talking about feelings here. And still, those people didn't go apeshit over it.

My point being is that everyone is offended by everything these days. To the point of being offended for others and even changing the English language. IOW, what some people don't realize is that being offended by everything actually marginalizes the very thing they were offended by in the first place. That may not make a whole lot of sense to some, but it will to others who understand where I'm coming from

 

So what is the solution? For people to say whatever they want so their feelings aren't hurt?

[JustHereForFood]

14 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I'm not exactly sure what smoking gun that is supposed to be? Or how it pertains to the US election?

The context was that it's not only older and/or conservative people saying offensive and awful things. And it also relates to the election based on how many people decided to not vote because of one issue to keep an image of moral superiority while ignoring everything else that was at stake.

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Guess we will have to disagree on that.

But the fact that they were happening says something.

Great. I'm glad today gay people feel more comfortable in places like NYC, even if it wasn't always true back in the day (and a lot of work still needs to be done in other places).

This isn't a question of being liberal or moving to the right. This is a question of being offended when people point out something to you and rather than maybe take it and learn from it, it's doubling down and acting like people are persecuting you for not being liberal enough.

Being more tolerant is a learning process and isn't something that ends at a certain point. There are mistakes I have made but I learn from it when I can. Earlier when I posted about what privilege is, I didn't bother to mention that there are privileges men have that women do not, which a few other people on here rightly pointed out to me. I didn't get defensive or offended, I listened to what they said, and I hope to do better in the future. People get angry not because people aren't respecting them, they're become angry because you are even after explained why certain terms and phrases may be offensive, people still refuse to listen to them and/or keep using offensive terms.

And the left is going to change or "move left" somewhat because there are more and more issues that people are becoming more vocal about because they are willing more and more to have their opinions heard. Transgender people have always existed but they never had a voice or didn't want to speak out for various reasons. It wasn't considered an issue for the left before but it has become one now. And as more marginalized people begin to find their voices, there are issues that will also probably become issues in the future.

The right doesn't have to change in people's eyes because why would they? Intolerance means many aren't going to want to learn or understand why certain things are offensive. For many, not learning about these issues is almost a badge of honor.

Fighting only for certain people and not all people isn't really as tolerant or inclusive as people like to think it is. The Democratic party can push for social issues as much can for economic issues, it doesn't just have to push for one.

Yes, they are.

I think the difference for me is when people are obviously assuming the worst of me and reading me all wrong, then accusing me of being something I'm not it's not all in my head and I have a right to feel persecuted. But their assuming the worst of me in the first place is really not fair. I don't think I'm persecuting anyone and I try to react to people based on their behavior toward me, not any presumptions I might make about them. In fact I'm attempting to understand everyone, not villainize people, but in the minds of some people that's a heinous sin. I have mentioned hating the sin but not the sinner, which is something I try to live by. I try to understand people and forgive them for being so hurt that they want to take it out on me. But I have felt villainized for very little from ultra-liberals and that's hard to get over. In fact I have felt it very recently. 

And while you say you understand that men have certain privileges it only comes out now? I think perhaps you are feeling hurt and taking what happened in the election personally and not feeling in the mood to make that clear. I understand that which is why I haven't gotten that upset with you. But thanks for making it clear now anyway.

BTW I think I have done more than enough to make it clear that I am aware that there is such a thing as white privilege. Just because I say it has limits for certain white people doesn't negate my belief in it nor does it mean I am making excuses for racists and Trump supporters. And just because I say that I hate ridiculous words someone is telling us we can't use anymore and feel like seniors are being made to feel stupid and wrong about them isn't to say I don't think some of those words (not the ridiculous ones) are offensive and should be avoided. And just because I say that more people in general are being pulled over by the police and treated like criminals is not to negate the fact that POC are being treated even MORE like criminals than white people. I just feel like all of that is being ignored. I feel like there is no way to be a slightly left of center Democrat anymore. Either you're all the way left or you're villainized and a Nazi.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes respect and disrespect. I try to respect people's feelings but I often don't feel like mine are respected in return when having these discussions. I feel like unless I march lock-step with a certain agenda I am not respected, in fact I am insulted, ignored or even cancelled. A lot of well known people have been cancelled just for airing a slightly moderate opinion. I don't call that respectful OR tolerant.

When I was young we had a saying that we would fight for everyone's right to disagree with us and express their opinion. Now I feel like people are fighting to take away our rights and our freedom of speech just because we disagree with them. Unfortunately I see this as something that came to be after the internet. I could go on forever about my theories on why that happened but I don't want to take up that much room here (and I don't have the time). I just think some people can't take it that others might disagree with them and they want to control them. Now that we know how everyone feels because of the internet it can make us upset to find out just how horrible some of their opinions can be and the tendency is to demonize and villainize them when most of them are just regular people that have lost their way. But the more you try to control people, the more they will run somewhere where they feel more free, less judged, and more welcome. Ironically the other side, which is not really about tolerance and freedom at all seems to be more about that than what they see coming from Democrats! And that's truly sad. If we want to be the party of inclusion and tolerance we have to act like it. And introspect about why other people feel that way about us. 

I think what people mean by the left moving left is that they feel that it is becoming less democratic and more communist in its general philosophy. But not the idealistic communism that's really an unattainable utopian philosophy but the evil underside of communism where people are killed for not agreeing with them, freedom of speech is a thing of the past and it eventually devolves into fascism. I think both political extremes in the U.S. eventually devolve into some form of fascism. But that's a very nutshell opinion. I don't have time to write more on it.

Edited November 15 by Yeah No
typos, ugh.

[bluegirl147]

13 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

The unfair part is the way politicians get saddled with being associated with things that don't have anything to do with their campaigns

On the flip side it's unfair the way politicians deny having an association with things that are unpopular with voters when in fact members of their own campaign are directly involved with said unpopular things

6 hours ago, Makai said:

My underlying beliefs have never changed, I have just become more aware of different groups to care about. 

My underlying beliefs have also never changed. I have always wanted everyone treated fairly and equally.  I used to be under the assumption most people felt that way.  But after last Tuesday I think my assumption might be wrong.

4 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

My point being is that everyone is offended by everything these days.

There is a difference between being offended by something you personally don't like and being offended by something that could cause real harm.  For example being offended Beyonce released a country album is not the same as being offended Trump nominated RFK Jr for HHS secretary. 

 

 

[Palimelon]

Quote

And while you say you understand that men have certain privileges it only comes out now? I think perhaps you are feeling hurt and taking what happened in the election personally and not feeling in the mood to make that clear. I understand that which is why I haven't gotten that upset with you. But thanks for making it clear now anyway.

Um, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding me stating men having privileges? I was pointing out how I didn't mention it in a previous post when I should have.

Also for someone who is complaining about being pre-judged, isn't that what you are doing to me here? And not hitting the mark at all as well...

Quote

BTW I think I have done more than enough to make it clear that I am aware that there is such a thing as white privilege. Just because I say it has limits for certain white people doesn't negate my belief in it nor does it mean I am making excuses for racists and Trump supporters. And just because I say that I hate ridiculous words someone is telling us can't use anymore and feel like seniors are being made to feel stupid and wrong about them isn't to say I don't think some of those words (not the ridiculous ones) are offensive and should be avoided. And just because I say that more people in general are being pulled over by the police and treated like criminals is not to negate the fact that POC are being treated even MORE like criminals. I just feel like all of that is being ignored. I feel like there is no way to be a slightly left of center Democrat anymore. Either you're all the way left or you're villainized and a Nazi.

Sorry but some of that still does come across as making excuses for feeling a certain way about certain issues. Going back to the example about being pulled over, you didn't start out with that. You only added that in once it was pointed out that your husband most likely wasn't being pulled over for being white or old, but because as per you, he was driving at night in an area that seems to close up early.

It isn't about being left of center, it's about listening to why people might be offended about certain topics, words, and issues, and learning from that.

Quote

I feel like unless I march lock-step with a certain agenda I am not respected, in fact I am insulted, ignored or even cancelled.

The only agenda should be respecting other people when they point out that something which others may not find offensive just might be offensive to that person. Instead of just ignoring that.

Again, it still sounds like people want to play the victim when they are called out for not just being allowed to say certain things, but also that they have the right to offend others?

Quote

A lot of well known people have been cancelled just for airing a slightly moderate opinion. I don't call that respectful.

No, being are being cancelled for saying offensive things. People are people cancelled for ignoring people's requests to not keep saying offensive things. That is what real disrespect is.

Quote

When I was young we had a saying that we would fight for everyone's right to disagree with us and express their opinion. Now I feel like they are fighting to take away our rights and our freedom of speech just because we disagree with them.

Saying offensive things isn't a right to disagree with someone. Express your opinion all you want, but if people say offensive things, then other people are allowed to express their opinion as well by pointing out what you said is offensive.

And this is starting to sound MAGA-esque in "why can't I say what I want to say and not face repercussions for it?"

Quote

I think what people mean by the left moving left is that they are becoming less democratic and more communist in their general philosophy. But not the idealistic communism that's really an unattainable utopian philosophy but the evil underside of communism where people are killed for not agreeing with you, freedom of speech is a thing of the past and it eventually devolves into fascism. I think both political extremes in the U.S. eventually devolve into some form of fascism.

That...also sounds like something I hear from MAGA fans.

People really to stop equating calling people out for saying offensive thing with fascism. But I guess we are in the real Trump era when the feelings of people saying offensive things matters more than the feelings of those being offended.

Edited November 15 by Palimelon

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

No, being are being cancelled for saying offensive things. People are people cancelled for ignoring people's requests to not keep saying offensive things. That is what real disrespect is.

I agree with this.  For example if someone is non binary and asks to be referred to as them and someone refers to them as he or she and is corrected but then continues to call them he or she that is disrespectful.

On the And Just Like That board here when discussing the character of Che who was non binary there were posters who referred to them as she.  A note was given to please refer to Che as them.  Most posters did that. I remember a couple who did not.  Now you could say it's new they are still learning and maybe that is true but sometimes it's just someone wants to be an asshole.

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Palimelon said:

 

So what is the solution? For people to say whatever they want so their feelings aren't hurt?

There is a price to pay for freedom, including freedom of speech. People have to learn how not to react to opinions like they're being knifed in the back. They are just words. I recited the old saying we older people were raised with, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". I don't tend to identify words themselves as "evil". People can act in evil ways but opinions are not actions. I think people that were raised with the internet tend to confuse the two but there is a big difference. I think as Americans who believe in freedom of speech we should not want to penalize or control people because we don't like their opinions. My advice is to concentrate on their actions and try to ignore the BS that comes out of their mouths. And believe in their right to hold and express their opinions even as much as you disagree with them.

[bluegirl147]

9 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

And believe in their right to hold and express their opinions even as much as you disagree with them.

The problem is people having opinions that aren't based in fact but presenting it as fact.  People don't just have an opinion that vaccines cause autism.  They think it's a fact.  People have the opinion that life begins at conception.  Other people don't share that opinion.  But for those that believe it they think everyone else should have to follow what they believe.  

People are entitled to have an opinion. They are not entitled to force other people to share that opinion. 

[Yeah No]

28 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Um, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding me stating men having privileges? I was pointing out how I didn't mention it in a previous post when I should have.

Also for someone who is complaining about being pre-judged, isn't that what you are doing to me here? And not hitting the mark at all as well...

Being understanding and forgiving of someone is never to be judgmental, in fact, it's just the opposite. I feel like you tend to assume the worst of me yet again.

29 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Sorry but some of that still does come across as making excuses for feeling a certain way about certain issues. Going back to the example about being pulled over, you didn't start out with that. You only added that in once it was pointed out that your husband most likely wasn't being pulled over for being white or old, but because as per you, he was driving at night in an area that seems to close up early.

It isn't about being left of center, it's about listening to why people might be offended about certain topics, words, and issues, and learning from that.

The only agenda should be respecting other people when they point out that something which others may not find offensive just might be offensive to that person. Instead of just ignoring that.

Again, it still sounds like people want to play the victim when they are called out for not just being allowed to say certain things, but also that they have the right to offend others?

No, being are being cancelled for saying offensive things. People are people cancelled for ignoring people's requests to not keep saying offensive things. That is what real disrespect is.

Saying offensive things isn't a right to disagree with someone. Express your opinion all you want, but if people say offensive things, then other people are allowed to express their opinion as well by pointing out what you said is offensive.

And this is starting to sound MAGA-esque in "why can't I say what I want to say and not face repercussions for it?"

That...also sounds like something I hear from MAGA fans.

People really to stop equating calling people out for saying offensive thing with fascism. But I guess we are in the real Trump era when the feelings of people saying offensive things matters more than the feelings of those being offended.

I have listened and I have not ignored anyone's feelings, but I'm not getting credit for it from you. And here I am feeling like I'm being shut down and canceled maybe because I didn't make one of my points clear enough. And forget about MY feelings, they don't count. I have explained myself several times but it's never good enough. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I have listened to how people feel, I accept most of the words, what else do you expect from me? I just don't like what I see as the ridiculous excesses. But now I am made to feel like I'm a MAGA supporter just because I think the left has gone to some excesses? That's not fair. 

And when I talk about political extremes of any kind devolving into fascism it's based on a lot of study and reasoned thought. I don't make emotional accusations based on nothing but trying to insult people. That's not where I come from. I majored in Philosophy in college and take this stuff very seriously.

And P.S. I don't believe in the excesses of "cancel culture". I believe in many cases it's un-democratic and mean spirited. Of course some people deserve it but that would happen anyway in the court of public opinion. I think a lot of people from my generation feel the same but they've thrown up their hands at trying to do anything about it. People who don't share your opinions are not demons, they are people. If you want people to understand you, it is wise to start with trying to understand them.

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

People are entitled to have an opinion. They are not entitled to force other people to share that opinion. 

Yes, but that works both ways. You have to be willing not to try to force people to share or abide by your opinion as well.

[Yeah No]

Quote

But I guess we are in the real Trump era when the feelings of people saying offensive things matters more than the feelings of those being offended.

And yes, that works both ways too. If a few less million people didn't feel offended and had their feelings hurt by the radical left maybe they might have voted for Kamala.

[bluegirl147]

11 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Yes, but that works both ways. You have to be willing not to try to force people to share or abide by your opinion as well.

Using vaccines as an example again.  If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated that is their choice. I might think they are wrong but their choice.  But what  happens when you have someone who thinks vaccines are bad and nobody should get them?  From where I sit there is one side who is much more adamant about their "opinions" being respected. 

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

LOL what a ridiculous cartoon. Like most of the people on the right would bother asking if that person was alright. And as if most on the right are so tolerant of different opinions. A more accurate cartoon would be someone on the left giving that person on the center a verbal slap while the person on the right would kick them while they were down while calling them a libtard.

Actually, I don't agree with this. I think the right is more than happy to get anyone that just happens to fall into their party no matter how they got there. It's the Liberals that kick people out for those things, not Republicans. They don't care where their support comes from as long as it helps them win. This is why they are looking like the party of "inclusion", LOL. It's a fiction but there are people being duped into it. MAGA is more than happy to welcom anyone that falls for it as one of their own no matter how they got there.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

This is why they are looking like the party of "inclusion",

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would like a word.

The Republican party only wants you if you fall in line with Trump.

[Yeah No]

4 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Using vaccines as an example again.  If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated that is their choice. I might think they are wrong but their choice.  But what  happens when you have someone who thinks vaccines are bad and nobody should get them?  From where I sit there is one side who is much more adamant about their "opinions" being respected. 

That's not the kind of opinion I'm talking about. We all have opinions we want to become laws or accepted by more people, but again they are just opinions and pushing for them to be respected is OK as long as they're just lobbying for them and not going around the democratic process to make them the law of the land. It's when we try to prevent people from expressing their opinions and cancel them for having them in the first place that I draw the line.

Just now, bluegirl147 said:

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would like a word.

The Republican party only wants you if you fall in line with Trump.

Today I think for the most part if you vote for them they don't really care why and they assume you are for Trump. But even if you're not and you voted for him for whatever reason they still don't care. They'll take you anyway! Winning is the only goal for them.

[bluegirl147]

Sure everyone wants to win but I prefer people who don't sell their souls to do that.

[andromeda331]

7 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would like a word.

The Republican party only wants you if you fall in line with Trump.

Also Mitt Romney.

[Yeah No]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

Sure everyone wants to win but I prefer people who don't sell their souls to do that.

Neither do I. Did I say something to make you think I did? I have said pretty much the same as above over and over again. Again, I feel like I'm being called MAGA just because I'm trying to understand why people become MAGA. I am not agreeing with them and I have been very clear about that. Understanding people and agreeing with them are two very different things. I may understand everything about why someone did something but still disagree with their actions completely. I have a MS in Counseling psychology so I take this kind of stuff very seriously. Understanding people and condoning their actions and/or agreeing with their beliefs are very different things. I was trained to understand people and am mindful of the difference.

[Ohiopirate02]

31 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

People are entitled to have an opinion. They are not entitled to force other people to share that opinion. 

Also, when you choose to express your opinion in a public forum, you open yourself up to those opinions getting critiqued and challenged. If you cannot handle this, then maybe don't share. No one should expect any public forum to be an echo chamber that only validates their opinions. 

[Makai]

9 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would like a word.

The Republican party only wants you if you fall in line with Trump.

John McCain will always be example number one for me. I was an Apprentice fan so my expectations for Trump was very low and I was stunned at the amount of hate he spewed at McCain. I have a very hard time seeing the point in understanding MAGA voters when they simultaneously try to portray themselves as patriotic while supporting the guy who attack veterans all the damn time. 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Makai said:

John McCain will always be example number one for me. I was an Apprentice fan so my expectations for Trump was very low and I was stunned at the amount of hate he spewed at McCain. I have a very hard time seeing the point in understanding MAGA voters when they simultaneously try to portray themselves as patriotic while supporting the guy who attack veterans all the damn time. 

I honestly do not understand why veterans support Trump. The man continuously demeans them, and I shudder to think what his second administration means for the VA. 

[Makai]

10 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I have a MS in Counseling psychology so I take this kind of stuff very seriously. Understanding people and condoning their actions and/or agreeing with their beliefs are very different things. I was trained to understand people and am mindful of the difference.

I’m curious what you would say about the other side of the issue. What causes the behavior you are seeing in the left? Why do you think a people on the left drawing hard lines? 

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, Yeah No said:

Understanding people and condoning their actions and/or agreeing with their beliefs are very different things. I was trained to understand people and am mindful of the difference.

Republicans and Democrats (and when I use these terms I'm referring to politicians) aren't playing the same game.  Harris was willing to listen to Republicans because she not only wanted to win she also wanted to make things better for everyone, not just the people who voted for her.  Trump played to his base.  And the people who donated  bribed him.  

I understand why a lot of people voted for him. He appealed to something in them. Whether it was something bad like racism or something understandable like hoping he will bring grocery prices down. My problem is if he does horrific things and if his nominees for Cabinet posts are any indication he will, the people who voted for him will not acknowledge maybe just maybe they made a mistake.

[Palimelon]

Quote

There is a price to pay for freedom, including freedom of speech. People have to learn how not to react to opinions like they're being knifed in the back. They are just words. I recited the old saying we older people were raised with, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". I don't tend to identify words themselves as "evil". People can act in evil ways but opinions are not actions. I think people that were raised with the internet tend to confuse the two but there is a big difference. I think as Americans who believe in freedom of speech we should not want to penalize or control people because we don't like their opinions. My advice is to concentrate on their actions and try to ignore the BS that comes out of their mouths. And believe in their right to hold and express their opinions even as much as you disagree with them.

Actually, freedom of speech is protection to say things without facing repercussions or persecution from the government. If other people or society wants to call out people for what they say, that is THEIR right to free speech as well. And it's easy to say words don't affect you when those words aren't being addressed at you. You can have opinions but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to hear them if all they is offend people.

Also, it's getting hared to ignore the BS when some of it is coming out of the mouths of our supposed allies.

Quote

Being understanding and forgiving of someone is never to be judgmental, in fact, it's just the opposite. I feel like you tend to assume the worst of me yet again.

To me, there is a different between someone being ignorant and someone being offensive. Ignorance is some who just doesn't know but says and does certain things. Being offensive is someone who knows better but still continues to insist they say and do certain things. I tend to be more forgiving to the former than the latter.

Quote

And here I am feeling like I'm being shut down and canceled maybe because I didn't make one of my points clear enough.

Oh, you have made your point very clear.

Quote

If a few less million people didn't feel offended and had their feelings hurt by the radical left maybe they might have voted for Kamala.

So...blue MAGA then?

Quote

You have to be willing not to try to force people to share or abide by your opinion as well.

Opinions are one thing, saying offensive things is another.

Edited November 15 by Palimelon

[bluegirl147]

25 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

No one should expect any public forum to be an echo chamber that only validates their opinions. 

I'm sure if one wants to find an echo chamber there are plenty available.

20 minutes ago, Makai said:

John McCain will always be example number one for me. I was an Apprentice fan so my expectations for Trump was very low and I was stunned at the amount of hate he spewed at McCain.

I wasn't a McCain fan at all but the vitriol Trump spewed about and at him was awful.  And then after he dies the Arizona Republican party censured his widow Cindy for not bending a knee to Trump.

18 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I honestly do not understand why veterans support Trump. The man continuously demeans them, and I shudder to think what his second administration means for the VA. 

The way he spoke to that widow of the soldier killed (forgive me for not remembering where) couldn't remember his name and just acted like it was no big deal tells you what a terrible human being he is. He simply does not understand the call to serve.  And belittles and mocks those that do.

 

[Sharla]

13 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Social security is an earned benefit and that benefit is capped at the same level the taxable salary is capped.  But look at federal tax bracket, it jumps up by 8% at roughly the same level the salary is capped.

People earning above the cap are still paying in, they just stop getting a benefit for it.  And given the level of raiding of social security by the government, they are reducing the borrowing from social security.

Income tax should not be conflated with social security tax.  Income tax goes into the general fund while social security tax goes into the social security trust fund.  Is there a design element to control tax levels, yes, but not still "paying in" to social security.