Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Isn't that what "woke" was all about? Bastardizing the English language so certain people don't get their feelings hurt?

No. Not even close. It simply means to be socially aware, to be "awake", as it were, to what's going on in the world around you. The problem came when right-wingers got a hold of the word and purposefully warped it to make it seem like it was a sign of someone being "too senstive" and made it sound like it was a bad thing to be "woke", when that's not the case at all. 

Edited Saturday at 09:14 AM by Annber03

[Blergh]

OK, I could talk about political figures who I believe contributed to how we got in this mess.

However, at this time, I'd like to talk about some who I think should be blamed rather than further lionized. Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Howard Stern. Why? Because instead of holding these up as examples of folks using speech that needed to be legally protected in spite of being vile, they got held up as some kind of free speech warriors!  I understand that there have been folks who've used profanity, ethnic slurs,etc. from Time Immemorial in their own circles  (and I don't claim that I've not let out stuff I shouldn't have in times of stress,etc)but until the mid-1960's that was considered at the very least disrespectful if not outrightly offensive to use these terms in the presence of clergy, government officials, the elderly, women and children out of respect for them (and even those who DID use those terms KNEW they were being deliberately hurtful, rude and offensive)! But instead these folks and those who followed their example got held up as some kind of heroes and now we're having to deal with politicians  and others who are LAUDED for being deliberately hurtful, rude and offensive! Can anyone imagine even 20 years ago a would-be politician not having been booed and considered finished for having used unquestionably vile terms? But after decades of 'anything goes' being celebrated in the public sphere. ..we'll here we are and we're ALL paying the price- especially the younger generations who are bereft of positive examples of civil speech!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care how technologically advanced we may get, without civility, civilization can't endure! Period.

Edited Saturday at 07:28 PM by Blergh

[Ancaster]

15 hours ago, tearknee said:

it's the narrow left sect's duplicitousness and hypocrisy that stands out.

Not just over who they supported in Indo-China or Palestine, either.

Look at CO to war compared to CO to terminating a pregnancy -- COs in the latter case are forced to refer someone to a doctor that will carry out the termination, but the left also says that those who have a CO to war shouldn't be forced to facilitate the prosecution of that war (e.g. be conscripted).

What's CO?

14 hours ago, partofme said:

“Happy Holidays “ is meant to be inclusive of all cultures because you don’t know what holiday a stranger celebrates.  I always say happy holidays except on Christmas Day.  

Just so you know, Hannukah starts on the 25th of December this year.

Edited Saturday at 08:30 AM by Ancaster

[Makai]

15 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

No. Not even close. It simply means to be socially aware, to be "awake", as it were, to what's going on in the world around you. The problem came when ight-wingers got a hold of the word and purposefully warped it to make it seem like it was a sign of someone being "too senstive" and made it sound like it was a bad thing to be "woke", when that's not the case at all. 

Exactly. It’s not a new concept or “bastardization“ of anything. It’s a phrase that was common in black culture that was more recently co-opted and twisted by mainstream culture. It evolved over time but the concept of being “awake” is very old. All the way back in 1860 there was the political organization called the Wide Awakes that was affiliated with Lincoln’s presidential campaign. 

I found this quote from Lincoln’s Secretary of State that feels very appropriate to today.

Quote

“The reason we didn’t get an honest President in 1856, was because the old men of the last generation were not Wide-Awake, and the young men of this generation hadn’t got their eyes open. Now the old men are folding their arms and going to sleep, and the young men throughout the land are Wide Awake.”

 

[Palimelon]

Quote

No, for everyone to remember what they should have been taught as children: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."

(and develop both a "thicker skin" and a sense of humor.)

Yeah, no. Words have feelings and consequences. Having a sense of humor is one thing, but nobody is required to put up with other people's BS.

Quote

Don Rickles made a living out of being "offensive". He did it with humor and nobody complained or protested. The entire country does not have to agree with what one faction thinks is offensive.

People back then didn't have the voice or platform to complain or protest (not just with Rickles but other people who were being offensive in their comedy). The entire country may not have to to agree with what one faction thinks is offensive but they should respect other people who find it offensive.

And that  is probably why there is so much push-back from the people saying offensive things. They want to keep saying it, but are now feeling a certain way about having that "right" taken away from them.

Quote

If I'm not saying anything offensive to that person's face, why should it matter what I say behind closed doors? You can't control what people say when they're not around those who are easily offended.

People can say and think what they want to behind closed doors. That is their right. Nobody cares if you* are a jerk in private, just don't be that way in public. And then whine about people exercising their right to free speech when calling them out for it.

*You referring to the general public

Quote

No. Not even close. It simply means to be socially aware, to be "awake", as it were, to what's going on in the world around you. The problem came when ight-wingers got a hold of the word and purposefully warped it to make it seem like it was a sign of someone being "too senstive" and made it sound like it was a bad thing to be "woke", when that's not the case at all. 

This. The word "woke" was co-opted by the right as a pejorative because they were feeling threatened that couldn't keep getting away with saying their nasty offensive sh*t and use it to fuel culture wars.

Quote

Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Howard Stern

You can add non-comedians like Rush Limbaugh to that list.

Edited Saturday at 08:36 AM by Palimelon

[Yeah No]

16 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Who has ever gotten canceled? Just curious, since pretty everyone who wasn't arrested for something eventually bounces back career wise.

I wonder if those consciously choosing to stay ignorant is just another form of evil?

So that's a justification to keep saying offensive things? I'm still not sure why respecting what other people find offensive (even if the person saying it doesn't find it offensive) is so triggering to people.

Oh I can think of many celebrities that have been canceled for expressing their opinions. And it's all been very recently, within the past ten years. Suddenly it became not OK just to have a non-left opinion lest you open yourself up to the PC firing squad. I don't have time to go into the list of people and I don't want to get into an argument about who deserved it or not but even very recently JK Rowling made a comment about not believing in more than 2 sexes and it was like the gestapo militants on the left came down on her, insulting her, threatening her, etc. Now mind you, I don't agree with her. If people aren't happy with their gender and want to become trans I don't have a problem with it. But that kind of behavior is reprehensible toward someone just for disagreeing and voicing their opinion. She wasn't insulting anyone, either. Now I don't think she was wise to say that publicly but that's another story. But it's a shame that she had to get bashed like that and now have to defend herself from some kind of scarlet letter on her forehead for it. She had to come out and insist that she was a left-leaning liberal her whole life. But I guess she's not allowed to call herself that if she just happens to disagree on one point. I don't think this is going to cancel her, but similar stuff has canceled others. I can think of some comedians who have made jokes that got them into trouble. Not all of them have been canceled but it has at least disrupted their careers.

16 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

But there are some things that should be universally offensive.  And that isn't the case anymore.  Growing up being thought of as a racist was a bad thing. Even people who were racist didn't want people to know.  Even the KKK wore hoods so people didn't know who they were.  But now people are proudly racist.  Or they use terms like white pride.  We now have a political party that not only looks the other way when it comes racism they embrace it. 

Even Michael Richards who used the n word at a comedy club wrote a book earlier this year and made the rounds promoting it.

Look I agree with you but you can't legislate morality, pretty much only behavior. I can find opinions and positions offensive but expecting to suppress them or wipe them out is not realistic nor is it Democratic in m opinion. And they are protected by the 1st amendment in having the right to voice their opinion without retribution. But what I'm seeing from people online is a little too much like trying to wipe out or squelch opinions they don't agree with. I may not agree with those opinions either but the first amendment is the first amendment for a reason, in my opinion. It's what makes our society a democratic one.

I get it, in the past before the internet we didn't know what everyone was thinking and people were conditioned not to voice opinions that they knew might be offensive to others (and IMO there was a lot of wisdom in that). We used to say "never discuss politics or religion" with friends, acquaintances or relatives. But now people think they should be able to advertise their racism, sexism etc., and I don't like it either but I can't be inconsistent and think it's OK to legislate them or otherwise force them into silence because what they're saying is not in line with my morality. I can always tune them out, though. We all have the freedom to change the channel, click on another article, or walk out of a room if we don't like someone's opinion. Years ago people didn't expect everyone to have their morality. We didn't like it either but we didn't think we had the right to shut people up if they talked about those things in front of us. We just left the room if it bothered us that much. A lot of people my age think younger people need to develop a thicker skin about opinions. You have to allow others their right to disagree with you and you have to deal with it without violating their right to express their opinion about it.

Now mind you, if they COMMIT acts of racism or sexism, etc. that's a completely different story, and once again why we draw big distinctions between having opinions, stating opinions and actions. Of course that does not extend to threats, but threats are not protected under free speech either. And yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which used to be one of the examples we used to use as an example of another limit of free speech. That's one instance where putting others at immediate risk is possible. While not a crime in and of itself you can still be charged with disorderly conduct or putting people at risk of injury or something like that. But just saying you don't believe in abortion, let's say, is not on that level. Or even saying that you think people who believe in something you don't "should be shot". That's not a crime in and of itself either or I think millions of people would have been arrested for that.

I hate to say this but most people I talk to over a certain age tend to think the way I do about this. I don't know why or when that changed and I'm still scratching my head over that. But you can't argue with the way the Constitution is written. I think it tends to support what I'm saying about free speech. Once we put too many limits on that we cease to be a Democracy.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Oh I can think of many celebrities that have been canceled for expressing their opinions. And it's all been very recently, within the past ten years.

And yet they have all more or less come back at some point, with many of their careers also coming back on track for the most part.

And of course they all have tons of chances to let us know again and again how they are being canceled on various platforms, all telling us how their voice has been silenced via dozens and dozens of interviews.

Quote

She wasn't insulting anyone

Saying trans women aren't real women is kind of insulting to trans women. But to each their own.

Quote

Now mind you, if they COMMIT acts of racism or sexism, etc. that's a completely different story, and once again why we draw big distinctions between having opinions, stating opinions and actions.

The problem is being allowed to say these things normalizes them which is what leads to actual discrimination and in some cases leads to violence because people see nothing wring in treating the people being marginalized that way.

 

Quote

But you can't argue with the way the Constitution is written.

No but the Constitution has been amended as society has evolved and changed.

Quote

Once we put too many limits on that we cease to be a Democracy.

At one point "Democracy" in the US meant women didn't have the right to vote. Same for Black people. Who were also considered 2/3 of a person at some point in "Democracy" as well.

[Makai]

25 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Oh I can think of many celebrities that have been canceled for expressing their opinions. And it's all been very recently, within the past ten years. Suddenly it became not OK just to have a non-left opinion lest you open yourself up to the PC firing squad. I don't have time to go into the list of people and I don't want to get into an argument about who deserved it or not but even very recently JK Rowling made a comment about not believing in more than 2 sexes and it was like the gestapo militants on the left came down on her, insulting her, threatening her, etc. Now mind you, I don't agree with her.

I don’t want to delve too far down this path but there is a long history with JK Rowling, so when she makes a posts it’s not just expressing on opinion. She has attacked specific people in extremely vile ways. Most recently the Taiwanese boxer who isn’t even trans. She, and others like her, saw a woman they perceived to be “too masculine” and who dominated her opponent in a gold medal match and started a furor with zero evidence. She was proven wrong and is being sued but continues to double down. 

And, she hasn’t been cancelled. She has a new series coming out based on her books and there are Harry Potter theme parks and video games that were built after she exposed herself as anti-trans.

Edited Saturday at 09:07 AM by Makai

[Blergh]

BTW, Don Rickles never called anyone anything worse than a 'hockey puck' onstage- and  was known to be a friendly nice person to his colleagues offstage and a devoted family man to his wife and children!

OK, as long as we're talking 'woke'. As a historian, I believe it's vital for people to know their history - good and otherwise and not plug their ears to the unpleasant parts! However, I would also stress that we need to be careful not to become SO jaded and cynical that we refuse to acknowledge the positive aspects of our (the US) nation's founding and that the intent was to establish something that would eventually give as many folks opportunities to participate and advance (even if the suffrage was initially restricted to a tiny portion of adults back then). If one doesn't believe there WERE positives that were being built up, there's little or no reason to try to strive to regain the progress that had been made.

I also get somewhat tired of the hysteria of some of the 'anti-woke' crowd who seem to think that any acknowledgement of any ills endured by those from  different ethnic groups is somehow too much for them to bear- much less want to attempt to consider any empathy for others that could lead to making positive changes.

Edited Saturday at 09:08 AM by Blergh

[Soapy Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Don Rickles never called anyone anything worse than a 'hockey puck' onstage-

Then you haven't seen any of his "roast" appearances.

[Palimelon]

Quote

we refuse to acknowledge the positive aspects of our (the US) nation's founding and that the intent was to establish something that would eventually give as many folks opportunities to participate and advance (even if the suffrage was initially restricted to a tiny portion of adults back then). If one doesn't believe there WERE positives that were being built up, there's little or no reason to try to strive to regain the progress that had been made.

The most positive thing about the US is that there is the option to change, to progress forward, to adapt and move on. The problem is there seems to be a segment of the population who want to reverse a lot of that change and regress backwards.

[Makai]

15 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I think it tends to support what I'm saying about free speech. Once we put too many limits on that we cease to be a Democracy.

I will never understand why the free speech argument is almost always used exclusively in one direction. Both side have the same freedom of speech. 

[Soapy Goddess]

13 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Saying trans women aren't real women is kind of insulting to trans women. But to each their own.

What's your definition of a real woman?

[Palimelon]

From Google:

A real woman is a living, material female human having measurable mass, volume, and location in the space-time. In contrary, a female who is not a real woman is a fictional character depicted in art, like a picture, movie, or video game.

[Blergh]

2 minutes ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Then you haven't seen any of his "roast" appearances.

A  televised 'roast' where Mr. Rickles and hiscomedic colleagues jabbed (but didn't deliberately puncture) each other was rather tame compared to what Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Howard Stern, etc. said to deliberately offend.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Many don't care what gender you (collective you) are or choose to be.

If only that were true.

Quote

However, when young kids listen and feel that all of a sudden they now identify

That's not how it works for most kids. Kids don't just "listen" and suddenly decide they are something.

Also using the example of a cat to try and disqualify why some kids are queer is just wrong.

[tearknee]

13 minutes ago, Soapy Goddess said:

What's your definition of a real woman?

The sobering (and saddening to me, given my abuse at the hands of my mother (and others)) reality is that AMAB trans and enby children are still mostly raised as boys by their parents and families as most people are apolitical and "go with the flow" of western society (look at how people vote in the privacy of a booth compared to a public exit poll) and are also largely unwilling to allow their pre-teen and teenage children to go against them.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Where do you draw the line of regression?

My point about regression was society regressing back to when women, racial minorities, queer people, etc, had less rights.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Ok, so are we deliberately avoiding the elephant in the forum?

Which would be?

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, Annber03 said:

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.

No, you can always tune them out, not attempt to squelch or "cancel" them by wielding one's popularity or power to sway public opinion against them. Of course you can do what you want but that's not the way I choose to be nor do I think it's right.

16 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

That’s not what that cartoon was depicting IMO. It very clearly shows someone on the center saying they agree with both sides and the Left acting violent with the Right as tolerant folks welcoming of everyone and all opinions. That is not reality. While there are instances of violence against people on the right, the vast majority these days is being committed by conservatives. As someone else rightly pointed out, look at Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney if you’re going to claim the Right are so welcoming of differing opinions. Look at Joe Manchin. A lot on the left dislike him intensely for his right-leaning views, but no one kicked him out of the party. They didn’t strip him of positions like conservatives did to Liz Cheney. Democrats didn’t censure him.

I think that misses the point of the cartoon. I the cartoon the point was that the right didn't actively seek that person, they were "pushed" there by the left. The right is not tolerant but they are in this case not the people responsible for that person having inadvertently perhaps "fallen" into their midst by a shift left in the Democratic party. And I think there were people in that category who voted in this election for Trump. 

15 hours ago, fastiller said:

Words are harmless until someone takes them too much to heart and turns them into action.   People with a bully pulpit can foment anger to the point where their audience goes out and hurts people. 

What's the old saying?  Democrats get along while Republicans get in line.

That's true but unless it leads to an insurrection or something akin to that they can't be held responsible for what people do on account of their statements or Trump would be up on charges every day.

And I don't think Democrats are getting along anymore but Republicans still get in line.

15 hours ago, Makai said:

No, because controlling your own behavior isn’t limited to thoughts and passive behaviors. Protesting and speaking out against something or someone is not controlling anyone's behavior. Each person gets to make a choice on how they will react. 

Expressing an opinion is not forcing anyone else to do anything. There is a 50/50 chance the opinion will increase support for the “cancelled” person. 

I think people use their popularity to gain power over others to block and censure people whose opinions they don't like online. And others are afraid to look like they're not in agreement so they shun that person lest they become shunned themselves. It's all about power and waging one's power to influence and intimidate people into canceling someone. And I believe that's wrong. There's an old Black Mirror episode about this, sort of. 

14 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

I wouldn't say so. We have just had a few exchanges between people with different opinions and those opinions were more or less respected and heard and surprise, the world didn't stop spinning because of it.

In an echo chamber, some of us would have already been sent packing.

There are different ways of feeling canceled. The crickets chirping under my posts in this thread tell me everything I need to know about how I have effectively been canceled and not respected here purely because of my opinions, which unbelievably to me are really not that different in the big picture from most here. We're arguing over nits in my opinion. And I have promoted inclusion, understanding and acceptance and it's still crickets. If that's not evidence of an echo chamber I don't know what is.

[Soapy Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Also using the example of a cat to try and disqualify why some kids are queer is just wrong.

I swear I didn't make that up. I honestly don't remember what program aired that story. I want to say "Inside Edition" but that's not their usual.

I watched "I am Jazz" right up until she went to college...just to understand what you're talking about, so believe me when I say that I have no ill will towards LGBTQ+

[Palimelon]

Quote

I swear I didn't make that up.

No, you didn't. But others did, and probably for not the best reasons.

How an urban myth about litter boxes in schools became a GOP talking point.

[Soapy Goddess]

5 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Which would be?

How the majority of people define the difference between a man and a woman.

[Palimelon]

Quote

How the majority of people define the difference between a man and a woman.

How do they define the difference?

[Annber03]

26 minutes ago, Soapy Goddess said:

That's not true. Many don't care what gender you (collective you) are or choose to be. It's a matter of identity to the collective you. However, when young kids listen and feel that all of a sudden they now identify as a "cat" (for instance) and want to be called "whiskers", we're supposed to accept and comply with their wishes. Where do you draw the line of regression?

...this is not an actual problem worth worrying about or even bringing up. It is just literally not a thing. Like, at all. This is an absurd theoretical that spread because some morons on some right wing news channel or blog site or whatever said it was a thing and now everyone assumes that kids today are all going around claiming they're cats or dogs or whatever, because god forbid anyone fact check anything nowadays. 

(And even if it were a real thing..so what?  A kid wants to say they're an animal, wow, film at eleven. Of all the things in the world to worry about, this is the hill some people want to die on? Really?)

Transgender people wanting to be referred to by the gender they are is not even close to the same thing as "Welll, what if someone calls themselves a cat, is that supposed tob e accepted now?" That "argument" is no different from the one that ran rampant during the time when the debate over same sex marriage was happening, when anti-gay marriage people were like, "Oh, so if someone wants to marry their pet dog, that's okay, then?"* It's a bullshit bit of slippery slope nonsense that has no basis in reality or logic. 

*I still remember a bit back when Joh Stewart was hosting "The Daliy Show" the first time around, when he did a segment about those who were against same sex marriage and using the dumbass "marry your pet" argument. He was like, "What is it with you people and the animal thing?!" And he's right. That's ALWAYS the first go-to argument for those who are anti-LGBTQ+ people and policies. It'd be laughable if it weren't so incredibly insulting and dehumaizing. 

Also, if people truly don't care what gender someone is, then why keep voting for politicians who are actively trying to put restrictions and bans on anything LGBTQ+ related? Ridiculous examples like this "but what if someone wants to call themselves a cat?" are not helping this discourse and only adding to the discriimination and hatred LGBTQ+ people face. and giving anti-LGBTQ+ politicans power to make that community's lives a living hell.

Honestly, I just wish the same people wringing their hands about kids' exposure to anyting LGBTQ+ related could channel that same kind of energy when it came to protecting children from getting shot at school. Y'know, the ithing that actually IS a problem that exists and something that many kids actually DO have to deal with in this country? Maybe we'd actually get somewhere on that issue for once!

Edited Saturday at 09:42 AM by Annber03

[Makai]

25 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I think people use their popularity to gain power over others to block and censure people whose opinions they don't like online

Sure they do. One of them just got elected. 

25 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

And others are afraid to look like they're not in agreement so they shun that person lest they become shunned themselves. It's all about power and waging one's power to influence and intimidate people into canceling someone. And I believe that's wrong. 

My only point is that no one is being forced to act. “Cancel culture” can be wrong. That is nothing new and is something I first remember learning with Richard Jewell and Atlanta Olympics bombing. It is also something that is wielded by both sides and is more about human behavior than any recent phenomenon. We have given a new name but it is a tale as old as time. But at the end of the day, no is being forced to act. It is always a choice. 

Edited Saturday at 09:52 AM by Makai

[Soapy Goddess]

8 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

How do they define the difference?

By gender...and we're back to square one😔

[Makai]

15 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Sure it's insulting but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to say it. This is a no-brainer for people in my age bracket and our minds boggle at the idea that insulting comments shouldn't be allowed somehow. Now some people think freedom should be limited if somebody hurts their feelings. Well people my age tend to think you should grow a thicker skin and just dismiss them if they hurt your feelings. Don't let it bother you that much. I was bullied as a kid and I had to learn that lesson.

No one is taking away the right to say it. It’s said hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day. But other people have the right to react to it. No one is limiting freedom, but if you say something in a public forum other people have the right to react. 

Too many people think freedom of speech should be freedom from consequences. 

Edited Saturday at 09:57 AM by Makai

[Annber03]

Also can't drink until you're 21. But hey, they'll happily hand you a gun and send you to fight in some war overseas when the opportunity presents itself when you're 17!

[Soapy Goddess]

5 minutes ago, Makai said:

No one is limiting freedom but if you say something in a public forum other people of the right to react. 

Of course, but there's a difference between reacting and bullying. I"M NOT SAYING this applies to you, but some "reactions" have been downright nasty or snotty, to put it mildly. 

Edited Saturday at 09:56 AM by Soapy Goddess

[tearknee]

3 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Also can't drink until you're 21. But hey, they'll happily hand you a gun and send you to fight in some war overseas when the opportunity presents itself when you're 17!

Humans are never consistant or logical.

[Makai]

Nevermind 

Edited Saturday at 10:12 AM by Makai

[Yeah No]

14 minutes ago, Makai said:

No one is taking away the right to say it. It’s said hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day. But other people have the right to react to it. No one is limiting freedom, but if you say something in a public forum other people have the right to react. 

Too many people think freedom of speech should be freedom from consequences. 

Of course, I agree with you, but I was responding to someone who indeed was saying that someone's right to say it should be limited or taken away. The "court of public opinion" is always going to be a factor and of course people have the right to react, but to take steps to ruin someone by using one's power over people's opinions to make them unpopular online is wrong in my opinion.

[Yeah No]

4 minutes ago, Makai said:

Some of the opinions we are discussing have been downright nasty or snotty. (I am referring to the larger conversations around the types of issues we are talking about.) For example, I have no qualms about saying I think the JK Rowling is a massive bully and a generally horrible human being. She gets back the same energy she puts out. 

I may disagree with JK Rowling vehemently but I think she still has a right to say downright nasty things even if I don't like it. I don't have to pay attention to her. It doesn't work only one way with me. If I want the freedom to speak my mind I have to allow others the same whether I like it or not.

I don't think fighting with them or trying to cancel them does anyone any good nor do I think it's right. Just walk away, that's my way. 

[Anela]

54 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

 

There are different ways of feeling canceled. The crickets chirping under my posts in this thread tell me everything I need to know about how I have effectively been canceled and not respected here purely because of my opinions, which unbelievably to me are really not that different in the big picture from most here. We're arguing over nits in my opinion. And I have promoted inclusion, understanding and acceptance and it's still crickets. If that's not evidence of an echo chamber I don't know what is.

I think more people are lurking, or just doing other things.  I haven’t read every single post, and I don’t have the energy or attention span to keep talking about the same things.  

[Anela]

2 hours ago, Annber03 said:

No. Not even close. It simply means to be socially aware, to be "awake", as it were, to what's going on in the world around you. The problem came when right-wingers got a hold of the word and purposefully warped it to make it seem like it was a sign of someone being "too senstive" and made it sound like it was a bad thing to be "woke", when that's not the case at all. 

Yes, this.  It’s just another example of their rage-baiting, and turning something good, into another boogeyman for those who believe their conspiracy theories.  
 

re: freedom of speech. Trump sued a television company, for interviewing Kamala Harris.  He goes after anyone who disagrees with him, or when he thinks/says they made him look bad.

[PRgal]

I find it weird that the US has age minimums for certain offices.  In Canada, you can technically be 18 years old and be Prime Minister.  Though they STILL wouldn’t be able to drink in most provinces because you have to be 19!  

[tearknee]

1 minute ago, PRgal said:

I find it weird that the US has age minimums for certain offices.  In Canada, you can technically be 18 years old and be Prime Minister.  Though they STILL wouldn’t be able to drink in most provinces because you have to be 19!  

Again, constitution written in 18th century and a 'horse and buggy' document that is now woefully out of date ("Advice and Consent" doesn't take into account what the French call "cohabitation" etc).

[Makai]

8 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I find it weird that the US has age minimums for certain offices.  In Canada, you can technically be 18 years old and be Prime Minister.  Though they STILL wouldn’t be able to drink in most provinces because you have to be 19!  

One of reasons is because they didn’t want the presidency to become a dynasty that would pass directly from father to son the way the monarchy did. 

[Spartan Girl]

13 hours ago, Dimity said:

Yes, and for a party so determined to be defined by Christian fundamentalism it's rather telling that they choose to completely ignore the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

And “love thy neighbor”

[Enigma X]

2 hours ago, Anela said:

I think more people are lurking, or just doing other things.  I haven’t read every single post, and I don’t have the energy or attention span to keep talking about the same things.  

I also think nobody has the right to demand you hold space with them. I have ignored many people on this forum and in this thread. And I am sure the same has been done to me, and I am not upset about it. This is not cancel culture but owning your personal space and peace.  Before the concept of cancel culture became a thing that has always been true. Not everyone was invited to my house.

[tearknee]

1 hour ago, Makai said:

One of reasons is because they didn’t want the presidency to become a dynasty that would pass directly from father to son the way the monarchy did. 

Didn't think that there might be one day a world without monarchs with real power (unless you are Hans-Adam II)

17 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

I also think nobody has the right to demand you hold space with them. I have ignored many people on this forum and in this thread. And I am sure the same has been done to me, and I am not upset about it. This is not cancel culture but owning your personal space and peace.  Before the concept of cancel culture became a thing that has always been true. Not everyone was invited to my house.

I understand. I have a strong sense of genuine justice given my abuse at the hands of my mother (and others that were not her and not girls or women).

[Anela]

14 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

I also think nobody has the right to demand you hold space with them. I have ignored many people on this forum and in this thread. And I am sure the same has been done to me, and I am not upset about it. This is not cancel culture but owning your personal space and peace.  Before the concept of cancel culture became a thing that has always been true. Not everyone was invited to my house.

I’m sure I’m on ignore lists, too.  

I have been really good with boundaries, in person.  I used to be good about them online, too - when my whole family was here, and I wasn’t alone so much.  I’m terrible with them now, and have been trying to do better, just because I’ve exposed myself to people who are really hateful. I didn’t remove myself from spaces that are now thriving in conspiracy theories, and MAGA. I was telling a friend that another place I was kindly invited to, early this year, was so *nice*, I would just log in, and take a breath. Nobody was insulting me, nobody called me names, or called me a baby killer. Nobody has twisted my words.  It isn’t an echo chamber, either, but nobody is mean. it’s just a really odd feeling for me, because of what I’m used to. I was trying to counter rage-bait, and conspiracies, but nobody was paying me to do it, so it was stupid of me, to try for so long. 

44 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

You are spot on.  And to let you know, the reason I called this an echo chamber was because I was appalled at how you, specifically, are being treated for having a little more moderate opinion and some level of introspection and intellectual curiosity.

I would love to have a calm conversation about why everything is so polarized to find some common ground.  I sincerely have questions.  And those who have 100% confidence that they know the Trump voter, just don't. 

And its almost comical how much the extremes of both sides sound exactly like one another.  But this place seems to be more about venting than discussing.  And I hope that helps those here.  But it means no one with a different point of view is welcome.

I don’t just see venting, and when it comes to that, it is on both sides.  I see people talking.  Still engaging with each other.  

[Enigma X]

1 minute ago, Anela said:

I’m sure I’m on ignore lists, too.  

I have been really good with boundaries, in person.  I used to be good about them online, too - when my whole family was here, and I wasn’t alone so much.  I’m terrible with them now, and have been trying to do better, just because I’ve exposed myself to people who are really hateful. I didn’t remove myself from spaces that are now thriving in conspiracy theories, and MAGA. I was telling a friend that another place I was kindly invited to, early this year, was so *nice*, I would just log in, and take a breath. Nobody was insulting me, nobody called me names, or called me a baby killer. Nobody has twisted my words.  It isn’t an echo chamber, either, but nobody is mean. it’s just a really odd feeling for me, because of what I’m used to. I was trying to counter rage-bait, and conspiracies, but nobody was paying me to do it, so it was stupid of me, to try for so long. 

I don't think it was stupid of you, but I do think it is okay for ALL people to curate their space the way they want. Sure, someone will have an opinion about it, and that's fine. At the end of the day, it is your space. This is not a judgment call (it can be used to foster good, bad, or indifferent agendas), but it is our right. No one online can make us do anything.

[Palimelon]

Quote

No one is limiting freedom, but if you say something in a public forum other people have the right to react. 

Yes. And if some choose to react by boycotting someone, that is fine too.

Quote

I think she still has a right to say downright nasty things even if I don't like it.

And people should also have a right to react to it.

Quote

I don't think fighting with them or trying to cancel them does anyone any good nor do I think it's right. Just walk away, that's my way. 

If we all acted like that, people would still be saying the n and f-words in public.

[lookeyloo]

I am reading on here and not commenting.  It is an interesting discussion. I think sometimes people can choose to change their behavior, as in not saying what they truly think or believe, but, don't change their minds/thoughts, etc.  The part that they don't say.  So someone can say all the right things out loud and still harbor and act on the other thoughts.  And sometimes people change their minds/thoughts, and then their behavior change is genuine.  

[CM-BlueButterfly]

Hi everyone,

how’s everyone doing?

As the subject has come up, I’d like to provide some information on the difference between sex, gender, gender identity and gender expression.

Sex refers to the anatomical classification of an individual as male, female or intersex. Sex is usually assigned at birth.

Gender refers to how a society believes boys, girls, men and women should behave within that society's social norms.

Gender identity refers to our own sense of self and the sex we see ourselves as. Research has shown that children can have a sense of who they are – including what sex they are – as early as the age of 3.
Gender identity may or may not match the sex assigned at birth.

Gender expression refers to how we express our gender identity, for example, through clothes.

(The GLAAD Media Reference Guide are a good resource of respectful LGBTQ+ terminology and also provides context.

These links address the difference between gender and sex specifically: 01, 02, 03 )

As a few posts have been removed, kindly keep in mind that communication is in writing and that interpretation of what is posted is up to the reader. Interpretation as well as impact can therefore differ from the poster’s intent and misunderstandings can easily ensue – especially when we’re personally invested.

Before you post, it can be helpful to take a moment and consider how the post might affect other members of the community. How would it feel if I were the reader or individual addressed? Does my post reflect how I would like someone else to express their disagreement with me? What is it that I’m saying and might the message that I’m sending differ from my intent?

Please remember also that focus should be on facts and actions and not the individual we disagree with as facts and actions can be criticized, even condemned, while still acknowledging and validating someone’s else’s opinion. Here, "I" statement can come in handy to help shift the focus.
Further, focusing on facts and actions allows us to express disapproval while being mindful of our post’s impact on members of the community. Action-based commenting can hold individuals responsible without shaming their identity and helps us be critical without making community members feel judged.

Thank you. 

[Eri]

5 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I get it, in the past before the internet we didn't know what everyone was thinking and people were conditioned not to voice opinions that they knew might be offensive to others (and IMO there was a lot of wisdom in that). We used to say "never discuss politics or religion" with friends, acquaintances or relatives. But now people think they should be able to advertise their racism, sexism etc., and I don't like it either but I can't be inconsistent and think it's OK to legislate them or otherwise force them into silence because what they're saying is not in line with my morality.

Hmm, I don't think this is a new phenomenon at all, this has always been the case throughout US history - during the Civil Rights Movement, while folks were fighting for equality, churches were being bombed, white mobs were rioting all over the place because of desegregation, black children needed military escorts just to get the same education as white children. It wasn't "okay" to legislate back then either, but society's morality was that [white] institutional rule be the norm because inclusivity was a concern even during that time and so discrimination continued. Where was the "thick skin" back then?

Now these same legislations that offered at least SOME protections are currently being rolled back or are expected to be. It's why some individuals feel more apprehensive than others.

(i.e. Some examples include states that want to ban the word "climate change" or "vaccine" in their legislation, the book banning, banning non-white history to be taught in schools, among other things).

5 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Now mind you, if they COMMIT acts of racism or sexism, etc. that's a completely different story, and once again why we draw big distinctions between having opinions, stating opinions and actions. Of course that does not extend to threats, but threats are not protected under free speech either. And yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which used to be one of the examples we used to use as an example of another limit of free speech. That's one instance where putting others at immediate risk is possible. While not a crime in and of itself you can still be charged with disorderly conduct or putting people at risk of injury or something like that. But just saying you don't believe in abortion, let's say, is not on that level. Or even saying that you think people who believe in something you don't "should be shot". That's not a crime in and of itself either or I think millions of people would have been arrested for that.

Yes exactly, and society made that abundantly clear with communities getting death threats, burnt crosses on lawns, intimidation tactics, voter restriction laws - a LOT of violence was happening even 60-70-80 years ago that went unchecked, unchallenged and brushed aside because of the "opinion" to be recognized as a human being in the eyes of the government, the law and society. So this new resurgence of who should be allowed to say what, how, when by whom doesn't surprise me at all - the government wants this bickering to happen (see the Rainbow Coalition of 1969).

5 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I hate to say this but most people I talk to over a certain age tend to think the way I do about this. I don't know why or when that changed and I'm still scratching my head over that. But you can't argue with the way the Constitution is written. I think it tends to support what I'm saying about free speech. Once we put too many limits on that we cease to be a Democracy.

I can understand why they think that way. In the "good ol days," men dominated the workforce, women remained in the home/kitchen and marginalized groups "knew their place" even during the rough economic periods. The Civil Rights Movement happened to be the turning point in my opinion.

You are right, we can't argue with the way the Constitution was written, but keep in mind this was crafted from the perspective of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants holding a dominant role in the governance of the country for the foreseeable future (no women, no Catholics, no minorities, etc.).

And in this country's 248 yr history, there has always been "limits." I think we (as a society) should be able to agree by now that democracy can't exist without equality - I'm not here to change your mind on that, just sharing a perspective.

Edited Saturday at 02:24 PM by Eri

[Dimity]

Anyone who thinks cancel culture is new and somehow a phenomenon of hypersensitive leftists might want to Google McCarthyism.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Anyone who thinks cancel culture is new and somehow a phenomenon of hypersensitive leftists might want to Google McCarthyism.

Shhhhh, you'll ruin the narrative...

Also, was Meghan McCain alive during McCarthyism?