Looks like there are pig cops all over the country (no shocker)

[One Brow]

You argument that anger helps might be plausible here if it was genuine and aimed correctly. If you think name calling and the like is an effective tool then its no wonder you have made little progress.

That's an interesting sentence. In 15 years or so on this site, you could count the number of times I have called someone a name on one hand, and not run out of fingers (I like to think the count is zero, but that's probably not true). However, that doesn't stop people from saying that I call them names. So, I see little reason to say that people will start listening better if you just don't insult them. It has not been my experience.

There is no sonic screwdriver in social justice. No one tool does everything, and any tool has a time and a place, even the use of insults.

 

[One Brow]

Then their is no point in amplifying it by causing your own voice to be ignored.

Does it really matter why a voice is ignored?

 

[Stoked]

Does it really matter why a voice is ignored?

Actually yes it does, sometimes there are very good reasons to exclude a voice.

 

[HighlandHomie]

Actually yes it does, sometimes there are very good reasons to exclude a voice.

Gimme a break... What are you 12? You think saying you don't think I actually care deeply about these issues I comment on will discredit me? I know you feel bad now for taking the wrong-side of the issue because you don't like me as a poster. But now you're just pulling things out of your ***. I assure you I haven't spent all this time commenting on various issues under the umbrella just for the sake of attacking posters.

You still feel really guilty when you accidentally revealed your subconscious racist tendencies in a thread several months back. I get it.

Either way, just because you don't like how I post doesn't change the fact pigs are just ****ty, dumb human beings (with the exception of the good, responsible police officers) who are protected by other ****ty, dumb and greedy human beings in local/federal governments.

 

[HighlandHomie]

And aggressively insulting people helps? You are framing HH as just being emotional about the issue and I don't buy it. He attacks the posters instead trying to get them to open their eyes. Regardless of their stances on the issue. Numerous posters have called him out on this.

It leads me to believe that he doesn't give a damn about this issue and that he isn't emotional about it. He is simply here to cause drama and insult people.

You argument that anger helps might be plausible here if it was genuine and aimed correctly. If you think name calling and the like is an effective tool then its no wonder you have made little progress.

I meant to quote this cowardly, absent-of-logic, post not the other dumb one.

 

[fishonjazz]

To you and Fishonjazz - it's not just me - there are literally MILLIONS of people protesting WORLDWIDE. I'm not advocating any violence against police officers (pigs), and never have and NEVER WILL unless it's to defend your own life from a murderer (like Darren Wilson, etc.).

Spare me the vomit-inducing, "I hope you never are in a position to need a police officer's aid", will ya? Any time you take hoping those who condemn these vile pigs and the system in which incubates/perpetuates their behavior don't fall into a situation where they need the police, you should spend talking to people from different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds to learn about their life experiences.

Because I use strong language and am one of millions who is at their wit's end with the abuse and corruption from the authorities in this country, you think I will shoot up a mall? What are you ****ing stupid? Are you a child thinking that's some sort of jab at my character?

You, Fishonjazz, and any other person reading this who refuses to examine what's going with an open mind because they have their own identity and insecurity issues are just going to look dumber and dumber with each passing day. This **** isn't a fad like Kony 2012 or the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. It's real ****ing life and its' a ****ing movement that's now Worldwide because if one thing can unite humans - it's the diametric opposition to tyranny!!!!!!

**** THE POLICE

I have no problem with you feeling this way or with you protesting or whatever.

I just think you should do it somewhere else. They probably have all kinds of websites and forum for discussing racist pigs.

Go to them.

 

[One Brow]

Actually yes it does, sometimes there are very good reasons to exclude a voice.

Saying there are good reasons to ignore a voice is not a salient response to a question about whether the reason a voice is ignored makes a difference in the effectiveness of that voice.

 

[One Brow]

I have no problem with you feeling this way or with you protesting or whatever.

I just think you should do it somewhere else. They probably have all kinds of websites and forum for discussing racist pigs.

Go to them.

Because you'll be more comfortable that way? That's part of the problem. You should not be comfortable with what is happening. For example, in Texarkana another man was just killed for wielding a spoon.

 

[Siro]

Because you'll be more comfortable that way? That's part of the problem. You should not be comfortable with what is happening. For example, in Texarkana another man was just killed for wielding a spoon.

On more than one occasion, you pointed out that I'm being too aggressive in my attacks on religion, and that I should soften my tone. And I never actually came anywhere near HH's level of antagonism. I sometimes think you just argue on impulse.

 

[One Brow]

On more than one occasion, you pointed out that I'm being too aggressive in my attacks on religion, and that I should soften my tone. And I never actually came anywhere near HH's level of antagonism. I sometimes think you just argue on impulse.

Has that happened recently? Either way, I was probably wrong. I'm still adjusting to the notion that sometimes rational discussion is counter-productive.

I apologize for telling you how to express yourself. I will refrain from any such admonitions in the future.

 

[Siro]

Has that happened recently? Either way, I was probably wrong. I'm still adjusting to the notion that sometimes rational discussion is counter-productive.

I apologize for telling you how to express yourself. I will refrain from any such admonitions in the future.

Can you provide some sources to support your newfound attitude? I am interested to see the evidence that rational discussion is less effective than, um, emotional outbursts. I find that contrary to both my first hand experience and basic common sense.

 

[Stoked]

Has that happened recently? Either way, I was probably wrong. I'm still adjusting to the notion that sometimes rational discussion is counter-productive.

I apologize for telling you how to express yourself. I will refrain from any such admonitions in the future.

You are trying to merge HH's actions and posting style with all emotional arguments. One can be emotional vested in an issue wihtout personally attackign those that are not 100% in lock step. ven when one is angry or terrified it can be expressed without personally demonizing those opposed.

 

[Siro]

You are trying to merge HH's actions and posting style with all emotional arguments. One can be emotional vested in an issue wihtout personally attackign those that are not 100% in lock step. ven when one is angry or terrified it can be expressed without personally demonizing those opposed.

I am baffled by OB's argument. Most here actually agree with HH's sentiments. Yet, he receives very little support from anyone because humans aren't robots who can disregard tone and personality and just focus on the essence of the issue. If you can't even get the people who agree with you to actually express that agreement, I can't see the value of this approach at all. I look forward to see OB's actual evidence for the efficacy of HH's approach, but it better be overwhelming as it is a bizarrely counter-intuitive position.

 

[One Brow]

Can you provide some sources to support your newfound attitude? I am interested to see the evidence that rational discussion is less effective than, um, emotional outbursts. I find that contrary to both my first hand experience and basic common sense.

I offered this earlier in the thread. I've seen other stuff in a similar vein:

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Also, I'm not making a claim of less effective overall, necessarily, but rather, that we really don't know rational discussion is more productive. I suspect that it depends on the person spoken to, the circumstances, etc.

 

[One Brow]

You are trying to merge HH's actions and posting style with all emotional arguments. One can be emotional vested in an issue wihtout personally attackign those that are not 100% in lock step. ven when one is angry or terrified it can be expressed without personally demonizing those opposed.

That's a fair take on the issue. I'm not sure if HighlandHomie goes too far or not; you could be right that he does.

 

[One Brow]

I am baffled by OB's argument. Most here actually agree with HH's sentiments. Yet, he receives very little support from anyone because humans aren't robots who can disregard tone and personality and just focus on the essence of the issue. If you can't even get the people who agree with you to actually express that agreement, I can't see the value of this approach at all. I look forward to see OB's actual evidence for the efficacy of HH's approach, but it better be overwhelming as it is a bizarrely counter-intuitive position.

I know I'm not very well-liked on the forum, particularly in the discussion of these issues, but I think I have also seen movement over time which may (or may not) be in part due to my argumentation. That HighlandHomie receives little direct approval is not the same as saying he is ineffectual.

 

[Stoked]

Saying there are good reasons to ignore a voice is not a salient response to a question about whether the reason a voice is ignored makes a difference in the effectiveness of that voice.

That's not what you asked. May have been what you meant but it was not conveyed.

If the voice is ignored it clearly makes a difference in the effectiveness of that voice. It mitigates its effectiveness the more it is ignored.

 

[Stoked]

I know I'm not very well-liked on the forum, particularly in the discussion of these issues, but I think I have also seen movement over time which may (or may not) be in part due to my argumentation. That HighlandHomie receives little direct approval is not the same as saying he is ineffectual.

And you have done nothing to prove that name callinging and demonizing is effective. It is an assertion that you have done nothing to support.

His ideas are not ground breaking or new. They are shared by more on this forum than he is willing to admit, particularly by some of his targets. But his tactics make people ignore him and by default any attempt he may make to get a real message out.

 

[Siro]

I know I'm not very well-liked on the forum, particularly in the discussion of these issues, but I think I have also seen movement over time which may (or may not) be in part due to my argumentation. That HighlandHomie receives little direct approval is not the same as saying he is ineffectual.

The link you gave talks about the immediate reaction of people. If someone is presented by information that goes against their beliefs, his/her impulse will often be to reject it (that's why schools should teach children how to think instead of just piling on facts). But we're not talking about whether factual information can instantly change people's minds. We're talking about the effectiveness of rational discourse over the long haul. All the social progress we've made has practically come through rational discourse. The opposition to homosexuality eroded because people have been exposed to the rational appeals of gay activists for a long time. People aren't flocking to Westboro Baptist Church on the other hand, even though they are very visible. Same applies to decline of racism, gender equality, etc. The examples are too numerous to count.

And then you confirm this common sense observation by stating that it conforms to your own experience! And yet, you defend HH's approach using the "you never know" argument?! I mean even in the astronomically unlikely scenario that HH is actually effective in the long run, his approach remains disrespectful and downright anti-social. Why don't you just stay out of it? What is the point of grasping at straws trying to defend an inexplicable position? It's not like you've been sentenced to "correct" everyone on everything...

 

[HighlandHomie]

I mean even in the astronomically unlikely scenario that HH is actually effective in the long run, his approach remains disrespectful and downright anti-social.

Is it as disrespectful or anti-social as murdering unarmed civilians? Or as disrespectful or anti-social as spitting on the graves of the deceased saying they deserved it or they were thugs as many on here and around the world have?

My disrespect only came when I saw other posters try to spit on Brown's grave, or if they regarded Wilson a hero. Same wit Zimmerman/Martin case.

The bottom line is that you, Stoked, whoever else don't like me as a poster so you want to discredit anything I say on these topics because I don't articulate my views in the manner in which makes you most comfortable. I only resort to name-calling as a response to those who called me names.