Maybe one day, you'll get to the point where you assume other people can be reasonable when they are pointing out behaviors, instead of assuming they are being unreasonable, and treat it like a problem to be fixed instead of a crime.
Maybe one day you will get to the point where you stop looking for problems in other people and pointing them for them to fix, and pushing and pushing when they politely disagree with your assessment.
I have heard your points, and politely disagree wholeheartedly with your reasoning skills and perspective. Thank you for your input.
I live in a world where where it's important to me to understand other people, my effect upon them, and treat them like they are reasonable adults. Why do you think that is negative?
According to your definition you are a bigot. According to my understanding of what you think about bigotry, you see me as a bigot and yet fail to see yourself in your mirror as a bigot as well.
From my perspective I have not seen much in the way of understanding my perspective other than the token... yea go ahead and say your piece so we can get to the part where I start attacking it. Your actions have in no way shown me that understanding other people is important to you, nor your effect on them, and I fail to see you treating people as reasonable adults I see you as playing with words an pushing your position. I get the feeling you have on your facade of politeness and fairness but that's all it seems to be because your actions don't back it up.
I see you as Buffy the Bigot slayer, and you will stop at nothing until you have killed all of the people you think are bigots and railroad anyone in your way. You have done or said nothing to prove otherwise to me.
Funny, that's just the type of thing my wife says (except, she'll use a milder word than "abuse", but that's a difference of magnitude, not type).
There wasn't anything coy about my answer. You were just surprised at my standard. As I said, I think you are a typically reasonable person. I think that if you feel a particular behavior is child abuse (even if it is refusing to buy a candy bar), than at least I should consider why you might think so. I might ultimately reject your reasoning, but if I think you are generally reasonable, then it in my own best interest to hear you out first.
What do you think it says about you that you seem to have presumed my reaction would be to immediately dismiss such a claim?
As to your last line, you have dismissed everything I have said to you and about you so why would you not immediately dismiss such a claim? Does a leopard change his spots?
As to the being coy, oh yes you were. I was not “surprised at your standard”, but knew you were intentionally avoiding the point again.
Who are you trying to kid? We're in the middle of a discussion about how people interpret words and actions towards disadvantages groups, you come up with an analogy of someone interpreting words and actions towards children, and then claim the analogy has nothing to do with the topic under discussion? I believe you when you says you did not intended to compare disadvantaged people to children. You still did.
We are in the middle of a discussion about how you screw around with words to try to gain an advantage in an argument, and you throw in a line about my "trying to kid" in a negative way? I trust you did not intend to compare my negatively perceived actions to a child, but you did. I did not ask you to bring children into your attack on my character, but you did. It came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate my negatively perceived actions to a child as opposed to something else.
I didn't ask you to create an analogy. I certainly didn't ask you to use children in it. That came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate people in disadvantaged groups with children, as opposed to some other type of people.
Seriously dude... grow up. (like the child reference) Drop your lame attempt at a smokescreen. You know you would have already decided before you told your child no to the candy bar that it is not abuse in your eyes. If somebody accused you of it you would state your reasons why it is not abuse in your opinion, which is a defense of your actions. The main point of the example is in your natural defense of something you feel is right when being attacked on that point. You can stop the horse manure act that you would never defend your words or actions and would simply think about it, accept or reject it, then move on without saying anything if you rejected it.
Actually, he is lumping all comments that express misogyny and racism, and saying that if you are told that your expressing racism and misogyny, you should deal with why your comments came across that way.
And yet again you incorrectly assume you understand what I am saying, or intentionally change your focus. The question is not about if the bigot label comes and goes as the actions seen as bigot actions come and go. The question and point is what you see as actions that make someone a bigot, I see differently. The line actions cross to define them as bigotry, is in a much different place for me versus where you have them, and I don’t know from the blog where Ian has his line. So if you actually read what I was saying you would realize he did not define his line enough to clearly see which actions qualify as bigotry for him and which ones do not.
Cromwell does not define or label people in this fashion to begin with, as the post made clear. There is no such thing as a "true racist" or 'true misogynist" that is completely separate from non-racists and non-misogynists. That's dodge that people who entertain infrequent or mild racist/misogynistic thoughts use to separate themselves from the problem, instead of admitting that, sometimes, they are part of the problem.
If only Cromwell had devoted some time in that post to making clear what he means by therm. Maybe it would have read something like this:
So, seriously, what do you find so confusing about that definition? I mean, it's fairly plain English. One might almost think that, as you read it, you did not even seriously consider the meaning of the sentences, that you don't really tolerate words being used in a way you're not used to, that your refusal to take this passage as written borders on being obstinate. I only wish there was a good word in the English language for that sort of devotion to one's own opinions.
Read above. Could have saved yourself some time if you took the time to understand what I was saying.
Sure. It's not that you hold them in contempt, you just naturally equate them to your children when you make analogies about them in your mind. Honestly, who needs you to admit, or even be aware of, to hatred or contempt in such circumstances?
What’s wrong with children? Do you have some sort of fear/hatred/contempt of children to view this in a negative light? I actually hold my children in very high regard, so you would think this would be one of the highest compliments.
Who you hate, or acknowledge hating, isn't even relevant to anyone but you.
So who I truly hate does not matter, all that really matters is that you claim I am showing hatred for someone or something. My perspective does not matter, it is only yours that is important. Got it.
I've said many times that I think you are by disposition kind, fair and compassionate. That's why I think you are worth all this discussion.
Thank you?
