Is anyone else confused?!

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Do you really believe that most conservatives are Nazis or skinheads?  (I'm assuming not)  Then why on earth do you believe that whenever a conservative says some of these phrases are dog whistles of the alt-right?  Many conservatives will simply say something because it is the most efficient way to communicate something.  I'd daresay that most of us don't even know that anything we're saying could be taken to be a dog whistle of any kind -- good bad or indifferent.

As I said, there are entire online communities dedicated to "trad-life", that's the term they use. And women in these communities call themselves "trad wives". And you don't need to dig too far under the surface of these communities before you start seeing very clear racist red flags. Remember "Wife With a Purpose"? She's the LDS "trad wife" that found herself at odds with church leadership over white nationalist overtones in some of her blog posts. She's not an outlier in the trad life movement, though I'd imagine she's probably an outlier in the LDS subset of it. After all, I've never had reason to believe that any significant portion of LDS members are white nationalists. But I do know that LDS doctrine encourages preparation and self-sustainment. So no, it never crossed my mind that you would be associated with white nationalists. Telling you the term you used was a dog whistle wasn't meant as an accusation. I just want to make sure you're aware that using that term regularly online might attract the wrong sort of trad-lifers outside of the LDS community.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You have often touted outliers and anecdotal evidence.  Have you ever considered that a lot of these are also just outliers?

--- Now the correction.

I realized that my last post mixed up some of the lines from my previous post.  Let me run through it step-by-step.

I've told you about some personal experiences that I've had about this. I've got more.  But your response is:

Since this was my personal experience, and you call such people "ultra conservative hypocrites" then the take away would be I'm an ultra-conservative hypocrite.

Interestingly, I also have personal experience that supports your viewpoint more than it does mine, but ultimately fits both to some degree.

I'm the oldest of 5. My mom was 23 when she became pregnant with me, and 34 when she became pregnant with my youngest brother. She knew when she became pregnant with him that there was a higher risk of complications because of her age. Yes, that one's real. I've never seen that fact alone use to justify abortion. In my mom's case, there actually were complications, and her doctor recommended an abortion to protect her health. She declined, and almost died during the c-section. My brother stopped breathing a few minutes after he was born and had to be given CPR. He had heart surgery when he was less than a week old. He's now a very healthy 26 year-old adult. 

This experience played a huge role in shaping my views on abortion. Things happened the way they happened. My mom and brother both lived. But the odds were against them. The probability was high that we would have lost both of them, and we almost did. I love my brother very much. I'm closer to him than any of my other siblings. It's hard to imagine a reality where he didn't exist. But I've thought about the worst case scenerio where we lost both of them, the high probability scenario that we were very fortunate to avoid. Tell a 9 year-old kid that his mother is dead. Do you think he'd trade the dead brother he never met to have his mother back? It's a horrifying thing to think about, and I'm immensely grateful that it's all hypothetical. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Godless

[Vort]

14 hours ago, Godless said:

A "dog whistle" is a term that is commonly (and predominantly) used by people who wish to promote nefarious ideas without using language that is universally recognized as bigoted or hateful.

You inadvertently made a correct statement by misstating what you meant. The term "dog whistle" is predominantly, if not solely, used by the Left. Those Lefties who use the "dog whistle" accusation are in very fact people who wish to promote nefarious ideas without using language that is universally recognized as bigoted or hateful. Just as you said! In almost every case that I have seen in the media, those using the term are liars (or possibly just fools) who know perfectly well (or, in the case of fools, are too stupid to recognize) that the terms they're objecting to aren't "dog whistles" at all, but simply honest assessments. It's an attempt by the "dog whistle" accusers to poison the well.

In writing this, I do not have you personally in mind.  Perhaps you are neither liar nor fool, but one of the rare souls whose personal experience leads to a sincere, if misguided, bout of "dog whistler" name-calling.

14 hours ago, Godless said:

To revisit the example I pointed out, "trad" is often, but not exclusively, used by people who wish to create self-sustaining communities based on the Western European tradition. "Western European", in this context, typically means white. I've found that a significant number of people who espouse these views do so because they fear "white replacement", the idea that white people will be bred out of existence within the next few generations unless white people form autonomous communities off the grid.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Vort

[Vort]

11 hours ago, Godless said:

And google used to be a number (I mean, technically, I suppose it still is).

Google is not a number and never was. Since 1998, it has been the name of a limited liability company that provides a search engine. I swear there must be 10¹⁰⁰ people who believe this about Google, but it's still false.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Godless said:

No. I don't believe that about you. As I said, "dog whistle" terms are often, but not always used to conceal nefarious ideas. Not all people who champion "trad life" are white supremacists, but I think it's important to recognize that a lot of them are. Whatever meaning may have applied to the term 40 years ago is obscure at best, and at worst has been co-opted by white nationalists.

Here's a parallel from my personal life experience. As a teen and young adult, I found myself immersed in skinhead culture as I navigated the punk/hardcore scenes in Baltimore and DC. A lot of people don't know this, but skinheads weren't always associated with Nazis. It started (I think in the 60s, maybe 70s) as a bunch of blue collar kids with shaved heads hanging out in their work boots and playing loud music. At some point, neo-nazis discovered that these working class hooligans were easy targets for xenophobic propaganda. The result is that the skinhead scenes got heavily infiltrated by Nazis. But there have always been skins who rejected the Nazi ideology, and they tend to be very vocally anti-racist because they know the assumptions that people will make about them otherwise. It's not fair to them any more than it's fair to non-racist trad-lifers that they're associated with something vile. I'm not saying that you're an ignorant bigot. I'm not even saying that you need to stop using the term "trad". I'm just pointing out that the term has some unsavory connotations attached to it that you may need to address from time to time the same way that, after ~20 years, I still have to explain to people that not all skinheads are Nazis.

I see. It will be interesting going forward to see how many of your opinions given here are actually dog whistles. I suspect the vast majority of them will be.

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

16 hours ago, Godless said:

And google used to be a number (I mean, technically, I suppose it still is).

Google is not a number and never was. Since 1998, it has been the name of a limited liability company that provides a search engine. I swear there must be 10¹⁰⁰ people who believe this about Google, but it's still false.

The guy who awed three different generations by saying "billyuns" whilst flying about in his imaginary spacecraft, spelled it differently in 1980.  But it's my understanding that this is where Google got it's name.

 

[Guest Godless]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The guy who awed three different generations by saying "billyuns" whilst flying about in his imaginary spacecraft, spelled it differently in 1980.  But it's my understanding that this is where Google got it's name.

 

The story that Sagan references for the origin of the word "googol" took place in 1920, and Google's website confirms that that's what inspired their name.

 

https://about.google/our-story/

Edited May 18, 2023 by Godless

[NeuroTypical]

@Godless, I just wanted to say that I value your contributions and efforts here, even if I often disagree.  Echo chambers where everyone shares the same purpose/beliefs/agendas are quite useful at times, but it would make for a very boring thirdhour.  I think you've helped me finally understand the term, even though I disagree with your definition.

18 hours ago, Godless said:

A "dog whistle" is a term that is commonly (and predominantly) used by people who wish to promote nefarious ideas without using language that is universally recognized as bigoted or hateful.

I cast my social media net far and wide, and I interact with democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives and dumb rightwingers, antifa and alt-right, 'eat the rich' ppl and 'unalive the commies' ppl.   I've done this for decades, and I have never, not even once, heard someone apply the term 'dog whistle' to themselves. 

"I wish to promote white supremacy but don't want to be seen as promoting white supremacy, and therefore I will use various dog whistle code phrases to push my nefarious ideas whilst maintaining plausible deniability."  - No one, ever.

No, the term is NOT used by people who wish to promote nefarious ideas.  I started hearing the term in 2020, and it has always, 100% of the time, without exception, been used as an accusation from one person, leveled against another.  As Vort mentions, the term is predominantly used by the left, when accusing folks on the right of trying push nefarious ideas without using the words.  Again, thank you for sharing the definition - you did help me figure out what the term means finally.  Again, I've collected probably a hundred or more accusations like these, directed at me personally over the last 3 years:

Quote

"Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug."
"[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]"
"Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off."

I mean, I believe that you believe your own definition.  When I interact with the left, especially the more activist militant ends of it, they express similar perceptions about the right.  In the activist left's mind, the right knows the right is evil and nefarious.  In the activist left's mind, the right implements tactics like underhanded word smithery to advance it's evil agendas on purpose.

Full disclosure, there are endless people on my side of the fence, who believe such things about the other side.  It's a universal problem, and IMO, the greater condemnation falls on people who profess Christ because when we do it, we're ignoring the 2nd great commandment and Paul's discourse on charity.  

It's a human problem:

I would add that the two sides' printing presses would be labeled "Our persuasive discourse" and "Their nefarious dog whistles".

So when me and mine get all bent out of shape at you people rolling back 50 years of female progress by destroying the definition of 'woman', pushing marxism with terms like 'social justice', pushing racist plantation ideology with terms like 'anti-racism', many of us think you're working evil on purpose.  But we don't use the term 'dog whistle'.

 

 

 

On a side note, thank you for sharing your story about your mom and brother.  I have a similar story that informs my notions about abortion as much as church guidance and scripture does.

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

"googol"

Ah. So that's what you meant.

[zil2]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

trad-life

Am I the only one?

 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

Am I the only one?

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. 
 

If I was a rich man will be stuck in my head all day now! 

[zil2]

40 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If I was a rich man will be stuck in my head all day now! 

You're most welcome.  Of course, the only way to be rid of it is to listen to the whole thing...

 

[Vort]

54 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. 
 

If I was a rich man will be stuck in my head all day now! 

"If I Were a Rich Man", Mister English Major.

(Oh, wait. You really are a rich man. So you were probably using the simple past indicative rather than the subjunctive. Never mind.)

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Godless said:

As I said, there are entire online communities dedicated to "trad-life", that's the term they use. And women in these communities call themselves "trad wives".

Yes, I admitted as much in a previous post.  I know there are women who have youtube and tiktok channels dedicated to their promoting the Tradwife lifestyle.  What surprised me was that many of them dress and groom like in the 50s.  That really makes no sense to me.  Gave me the Stepford wives vibe.  Seriously, it was almost as bad as my reaction when I see Dylan Mulvaney.  He's a perfectly attractive gay man.  But he is one ugly looking woman.  

But my personal online experience with a lot of conservatives... we don't use that term unless we're specifically talking about this "phenomenon." But the "traditional wife" (lower case) is something

10 hours ago, Godless said:

And you don't need to dig too far under the surface of these communities before you start seeing very clear racist red flags.

It may be that I just don't get into those circles at all.  Why would I?  But just because they use them is that some reason to believe anyone who says the same things are using dog whistles?  And that is where the distinction you're making becomes hazy.

When I hear liberals use the term pejoratively, they will often call "All" conservatives nazis, and lump us all in the same category simply because we have a traditional family.

So, this is difficult for me to square in my mind.  Take you for example.

I realize that you have usually been very polite and tend not to lump everyone into the same basket.  And I don't recall you ever calling anyone a nazi. 

But in your arguments here and there, if I didn't have the history with you that I do, and the understanding of what person you are, the verbiage you use would make you indistinguishable from people who really do mean it "that way."

So, I guess I'm wondering why you brought up the dog whistle in the first place.  Here's the sequence of events that I saw.

• I made a remark using a term.
• You responded by pointing out that such a term is a dog whistle for the alt-right.

Why would you bring that up?  The likely results?

1. If I didn't know you as I do, I'd think you were accusing me of using said dog-whistle.
2. If I were more pusillanimous, I'd be falling all over myself apologizing and self-censor as a result.

What result were you expecting by bringing that up? 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were just bringing it up as a point of interest which contributes nothing to the conversation.  But it did provide a nice tangent to fill up our lives that are so boring that we have nothing better to do than write on social media al llday. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, zil2 said:

You're most welcome.  Of course, the only way to be rid of it is to listen to the whole thing...

 

... seventeen times. Always works for me, except when it doesn't. But then I get to listen to If I Were a Rich Man in my head all day, so everything's good in any case.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The guy who awed three different generations by saying "billyuns" whilst flying about in his imaginary spacecraft, spelled it differently in 1980.  But it's my understanding that this is where Google got it's name.

The subtlety is that the number is "googol" not "google".

Edited May 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The subtlety is that the number is "googol" not "google".

Yeah, I forgot about the spelling difference. 😅 

[Guest Godless]

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, I guess I'm wondering why you brought up the dog whistle in the first place.  Here's the sequence of events that I saw.

• I made a remark using a term.
• You responded by pointing out that such a term is a dog whistle for the alt-right.

Why would you bring that up?  The likely results?

As I said, I brought it up as an FYI. I was raised LDS and there are people I've known my whole life who have made lives for themselves mostly off the grid, living off the land, planting seeds and raising chickens. "Trad" isn't a term I associate with them, and I've never seen them use the term. When you used the term earlier in this thread, that was literally only the second time I've seen it used by an LDS person. The first was the aforementioned "Wife With a Purpose", who is conspicuously and unquestionably a white supremacist. Almost all other use of the term that I've seen is linked to white nationalism and white replacement theory. So yes, seeing it in this forum was cause for a raised eyebrow, and I felt the need to point it out even though I never for a split second thought that you espouse the heinous ideologies that many conservative extremists promote under the umbrella of "trad life".

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

1. If I didn't know you as I do, I'd think you were accusing me of using said dog-whistle.
2. If I were more pusillanimous, I'd be falling all over myself apologizing and self-censor as a result.

What result were you expecting by bringing that up? 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were just bringing it up as a point of interest which contributes nothing to the conversation.  But it did provide a nice tangent to fill up our lives that are so boring that we have nothing better to do than write on social media al llday. 

I knew what you meant. Our interaction on this website and the fact that this is an LDS website generally precludes me from assuming, or even suspecting, that people here are hateful bigots. I'm not dismissing the possibility that some LDS homesteaders have been infected with white nationalist ideas, but such people have a tendency to show their hand pretty quickly. You are not one of those people. I wasn't making an accusation, nor was I expecting a correction or apology. I just wanted to point out that "trad" has undesirable connotations in some circles. Similarly, some people may be taken aback by my use of the term "skinhead". I know what the connotations are, so I'm always prepared to explain further in order to ease suspicions. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Maybe I've spent too much time lurking on Gab and alt-right corners of Twitter and need to "touch grass", as the youth like to say. 

[LDSGator]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Echo chambers where everyone shares the same purpose/beliefs/agendas are quite useful at times, but it would make for a very boring thirdhour. 

I used to think that everyone should read books and have friends that they disagree with, but I kind of doubt that. I understand that some people simply can’t handle hearing opposing views and should just stay in their bubble. They’ll be much happier. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, Godless said:

As I said, there are entire online communities dedicated to "trad-life", that's the term they use. And women in these communities call themselves "trad wives". And you don't need to dig too far under the surface of these communities before you start seeing very clear racist red flags.

5 hours ago, Godless said:

When you used the term earlier in this thread, that was literally only the second time I've seen it used by an LDS person. The first was the aforementioned "Wife With a Purpose", who is conspicuously and unquestionably a white supremacist. 

Have you ever considered that maybe, possibly, the very emphasis and "FYI" notifications of these being red flags or dog whistles will actually cause political strife?  What if they never did intend to be racist or anything that you would find objectionable?  Yet, by spreading this idea that such terms are dog whistles what do you think happens to people when they are already of the mind that anyone they don't agree with are Nazis and Fascists?  Do you think it might enrage them to do something violent?

What do you think was the motivation of the Nashville Christian school mass murderer?  Was she scared?  Of Christian School children?  I wonder what could have driven her to do that.

17 hours ago, Godless said:

I've never seen that fact alone use to justify abortion.

Well you've now heard of 

• One woman giving unsolicited about it.  I believe my wife was about 34  at the time. But this woman didn't know that.  And she was asking in earnest and almost a panic. 
  • How old is she anyway?
  • Old enough to take care of herself.
  • I hope she's not over 35.
  • She's old enough to make that decision herself.
  • Don't you know the danger is she's over 35?  You could have a kid with a birth defect or Down's syndrome."
  • We're well aware of the medical conditions.
  • Well if she is, she should really consider an abortion so you don't
  • (interrupting her) We're well aware of the medical conditions.
  • Is she over 35?
  • We're well aware of the medical conditions.
  • (sniff - turns around and leaves.)
• The other woman was a midwife.  She stuck with us through our 6th child shortly after my wife turned 35.  I think she was 37 or 38.  And with our #5 and #6 she kept begging her to have one of us sterilized so we didn't have any more kids. 
  • I decided to get sterilized after she was pregnant with #6.  But the doctor said that I couldn't do that like most men.  It would be a major surgery for me.  It was serious enough that I could end up completely unable to be with my wife.  It could effect my overall hormonal balance and my mental health.  It could end up killing me.
  • The interesting thing was that we decided that whether I was going under the knife or my wife was going under the knife, it would be roughly the same danger.  But the midwives were perfectly fine with me going under the knife.  They were holding my wife going under as a last resort.
• Then we had baby #7.  In some ways he is the apple of our eye.  But we also know that he is the most mischievous.  He could become a very creative, inspiring man.  Or he could become a criminal. We love him. We're proud of him. We worry about him.

17 hours ago, Godless said:

In my mom's case, there actually were complications, and her doctor recommended an abortion to protect her health. She declined, and almost died during the c-section. My brother stopped breathing a few minutes after he was born and had to be given CPR. He had heart surgery when he was less than a week old. He's now a very healthy 26 year-old adult. 

My wife almost died from baby #1.  But it wasn't because of the baby.  The doctor did something very wrong.  Then he failed to even acknowledge it.  This left my wife bleeding for three days.  She almost died before my baby even opened his eyes.

We didn't blame the pregnancy (which was when she was in her early 20s).  We blamed the doctor.  We, of course, were not "professionals" so we didn't know exactly what he did wrong.  So, we had to just grin and bear it.

We didn't find out until baby #2. The new professional in question looked over the records from the first pregnancy and told us that this was so freaking negligent that we could sue him.  Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we had.

But even with this potential danger with any pregnancy, we did not shy away from such purported risks because we knew we wanted more children.  And when we kinda-sorta tried for #8, she miscarried.  First one we're aware of.  And she had to go to the hospital for that.

[pam]

This world has gone crazy.  

 

[pam]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:20 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Honestly, I've been trying to learn what "dog whistle" means for a year now without success.  When I'm off battling in culture wars on anonymous social media sites, I routinely get accused of blowing a dog whistle, and I really don't understand what's being said.  Usually I'm good at understanding meaning behind levels of ironic sarcastic meta-speak (like Vort is showing here), but with the term dog whistle, I'm still trying to find out what it actually means.

@Godless, can you help me?  Here are some examples of things people say to me in online arguments.  I'd love a plain English translation:

"Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug."
"[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]"
"Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off."

I'm doing things like asking someone to give me the definition of a woman, or arguing in favor of capitalism/against socialism or communism, or questioning/criticizing gender-affirming care surgical options for youth.

I mean, I don't think I'm a jackbooted alt-right nazi white nationalist, but I get comments like this directed at me at least weekly.  The recurring invitations to go drink bleach and d*e in a hole I can understand.  But there's some nuance here I'm missing.

I'm not sure that those that used it in the examples you gave actually know what it means or use it correctly.

Dog whistler is basically someone trying to frame their words to garner support from one side by not offending the other side.

Kind of like how only a dog can hear the high pitch of a dog whistle.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, pam said:

I'm not sure that those that used it in the examples you gave actually know what it means or use it correctly.

Dog whistler is basically someone trying to frame their words to garner support from one side by not offending the other side.

Kind of like how only a dog can hear the high pitch of a dog whistle.

Exactly. A dog whistle is supposedly silent to the average person, but dogs perk right up. So it's a secret signal sent out to dogs only by their trainers but that no one else hears. That's the meaning of "dog whistle": It doesn't sound like anything except to those "in the know". So it's a particularly vile accusation, used mainly by scumbags and liars, except on the relatively rare occasion when its use is actually justified. (And ironically, it's those on the Left who most often use "dog whistle" terms. But it's really rude to point out their bigotry, so everyone who hears the dog whistle is honor-bound to remain silent.)

[zil2]

My dogs responded better to their names than to the dog whistle, which got tossed in a drawer and forgotten about.  How sad that my dogs were better humans than the ones using "dog whistles" or accusing others of doing so.  I look forward to the day when everyone will be called by one name.

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, pam said:

I'm not sure that those that used it in the examples you gave actually know what it means or use it correctly.

Dog whistler is basically someone trying to frame their words to garner support from one side by not offending the other side.

Kind of like how only a dog can hear the high pitch of a dog whistle.

I'm thinking the folks agreed with you.  When they say "Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug", they are accusing me of being a nazi, trying to frame my words to garner support from my side, while not offending/alerting any non-nazis.  These comments usually come when I'm defending police.  In their minds, it's not because I'm a fan of police, it's because I'm a nazi posing as a fan of police, someone who wants the police to crush my enemies down under their, well, jackbooted boot.

When they say things like "[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]", they are accusing me of being alt-right, trying to frame my words to garner support from my side, while not offending/alerting any more moderate or reasonable conservatives or republicans.  These comments usually come when I'm defending capitalism, or trying to have a discussion about both January 6 and the BLM riots.   In their minds, it's not because I'm just someone trying to compare and contrast both things, it's because I'm an alt-right provocateur wolf-in-sheep's-clothing pushing my fascist agenda by pretending to be more reasonable and center-right.

When they say things like "Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off", they are accusing me of being a white nationalist, trying to frame my words to garner support for my side, while not offending/alerting anyone to my real motives.  These accusations usually come when I'm discussing critical race theory or Kendi's antiracism book.  In their minds, my comments aren't because I'm just someone trying to have a civil conversation about the issues I see with CRT or whatnot, it's because I'm a white nationalist who wants to use the government to do white nationalist things.

 

[LDSGator]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm thinking the folks agreed with you.  When they say "Nice dog whistle, you jackbooted nazi thug", they are accusing me of being a nazi, trying to frame my words to garner support from my side, while not offending/alerting any non-nazis.  These comments usually come when I'm defending police.  In their minds, it's not because I'm a fan of police, it's because I'm a nazi posing as a fan of police, someone who wants the police to crush my enemies down under their, well, jackbooted boot.

When they say things like "[[alt-right dogwhistler has entered the chat...]]", they are accusing me of being alt-right, trying to frame my words to garner support from my side, while not offending/alerting any more moderate or reasonable conservatives or republicans.  These comments usually come when I'm defending capitalism, or trying to have a discussion about both January 6 and the BLM riots.   In their minds, it's not because I'm just someone trying to compare and contrast both things, it's because I'm an alt-right provocateur wolf-in-sheep's-clothing pushing my fascist agenda by pretending to be more reasonable and center-right.

When they say things like "Oh hun, that's a nice yt nationalist dog whistle, but bless your heart I'm going to have to tell you to f**&^ off", they are accusing me of being a white nationalist, trying to frame my words to garner support for my side, while not offending/alerting anyone to my real motives.  These accusations usually come when I'm discussing critical race theory or Kendi's antiracism book.  In their minds, my comments aren't because I'm just someone trying to have a civil conversation about the issues I see with CRT or whatnot, it's because I'm a white nationalist who wants to use the government to do white nationalist things.

 

How often do you get accused of being a Nazi? Most of the people I “debate” with (even online, even leftists) don’t call me a “Nazi.”

Just a theory, but when debating with Trumpers you are far more likely to be called names. 

The other bitter pill is (usually, not always) when debating hardcore religious people there’s a 99% chance they’ll bring up your personal habits in an attempt to discredit you or feel better about themselves. Even if/especially if you share religious beliefs with them!  That’s just as pleasant as being called a Nazi. Maybe more so, actually.

We’re all guilty of this. 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by LDSGator