Trump just won the election

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

If I made a joke and people misinterpreted it as rapey, I would either delete my joke or clarify in the absolute clearest of terms. Jon apparently is okay with women thinking he's a rapist (and that has been the overwhelming response, contrary to your personal interpretation). Perception matters as much as intention, or at least it should. The fact that he knows what the perception is and apparently is embracing it is disgusting. 

The bolded part above is the crux of the problem. In Jon Miller's mind (and in mine), no reasonable person would honestly misinterpret the joke in that way. Therefore, those who do misinterpret the joke in that way are (1) not reasonable or (2) not honest or (3) both.

If this were an honest, civilized discussion, Miller would immediately have clarified his intent. But then, if this were an honest, civilized discussion, no one would have responded to his joke as your side did. Had there been questions about his meaning, those questions would have been asked in a polite and civilized manner. But the discussion has never been honest and civilized; your side has seen to that. So Miller instead responds in a sarcastic, antisocial way, as befitting those who cry out in absurd objection to his words.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

What influence? The left just got shellacked. They lost pretty much everything. 
 

Conservatives are about to have an existential crisis. They can no longer play the victim because they are clearly in the majority. So that means no more whining about “the liberal media influence.” It doesn’t exist anymore and this election shows it.  60+ years of conservative whining just ended.   

FWIW, I don't think this is really true. This election only shows one thing. The economy needs to be strong or the swing-voting middle will vote for the other person. It doesn't really speak to conservative strength or liberal weakness. I mean, yes...the democrats made some bad moves this time around. (Kamala? Really?) And that certainly played into this election.

I have no doubt that the liberal media influence will affect next election however. The economy will likely improve. The border will be secured. Wars in the world will probably diminish. But squishes in the middle don't tend to look at good things in their decision paradigm. The liberal media will keep at it with the "kids in cages" and other similar negative press  commentary, ramped up, perhaps, even more than in Trump's first go round. And....I wouldn't be surprised if in 2026 the house or Senate swing back the other way, and wouldn't be surprised if the 2028 presidential vote swings back.

The simple fact is that the nation is still divided pretty evenly. The squishy middle swings back and forth and changes who's in power every now and then.

And the fact that the people saw through the liberal media's crap this time around is because it was directly in front of them. The media says there was no recession, the economy was strong, and inflation wasn't that bad. But people were living a different reality and so didn't buy it. But when the media starts telling them (with pictures) that Trump's throwing kids in cages and whipping immigrants from horseback and etc., etc., they won't have the direct experience to believe otherwise.... and they're the squishy middle for a reason. So they'll probably swing back the other way.

None of that means it's fair that the mainstream media, Hollywood, higher (and lower) education, and other institutions are all run by the left, or that conservatives have no right to complain about that fact. Or that conservatives holding political power means they hold cultural power. (Not saying they don't hold any cultural power...but that power is clearly more leftist.) 

Mainstream media is diminishing. Yes. But it's not dead.

Honestly, I wish you were right. But I don't think things are as straight-forward as you suggest here.

That's how I see it. Could be wrong.

[Phoenix_person]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

If this were an honest, civilized discussion, Miller would immediately have clarified his intent.

Do I need to put up more screenshots? This guy is not interested in civilized, honest discussion any more than the people screaming at him are, and he doesn't seem to have been for some time. Yes, there's been some real nastiness on my side too, and yes, I've been trying to call it out where I see it.

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

But then, if this were an honest, civilized discussion, no one would have responded to his joke as your side did. Had there been questions about his meaning, those questions would have been asked in a polite and civilized manner.

People looked at his page and drew conclusions. If his viewpoints outside of the joke he made don't bother you, then I don't think you and I should waste any more energy trying to debate it. Even a lot of the "Free Palestine" folks would never say some of the things he does about Jewish people. 

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

But the discussion has never been honest and civilized; your side has seen to that. So Miller instead responds in a sarcastic, antisocial way, as befitting those who cry out in absurd objection to his words.

Just like Jesus would do, eh?

Edited November 8, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

People will make "harmess" jokes like that then wonder why the women in their lives don't talk to them.

Why the scare quotes around "harmless"? Are you suggesting I used that word? For the record, I did not.

Women don't talk to men who make jokes like that to them because such jokes are antisocial, and the women don't want to engage in social intercourse (or apparently other types) with antisocial men. But this is an incomplete, and thus intrinsically dishonest, line of argument. Such online conversations are not discussions, but verbal donnybrooks. It is naive at best to expect reasoned discourse in such a setting. In "Kate"'s case, it's not naivete, it's simple dishonesty. She wants to lob her grenades and then stare in wide-eyed horror and confusion when the other side does the same.

Edited November 8, 2024 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

49 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Correct, I said it. Simply put, if it was just cheating that won in 2020, why didn’t they just do it again if that was it?

Two thoughts:

1. There was no Kamala Harris's son's laptop story to suppress...and even if there had been...Elon Musk pretty well changed the game on that side of things.

2. There was no pandemic. Hence, no justifiable excuse to illegally change rules in swing states.

I mean there are certainly other reasons.

But...yeah...I thought for sure they'd do it again. And I'm a bit surprised they didn't. But the fact that they didn't doesn't mean they didn't try. But even if they didn't try (maybe they were overly confident in Kamala or something), that doesn't mean they didn't before. But there was a LOT of flack from 2020. A lot.

That being said, I expect there was an awful lot of cheating. Kamala was just that bad of a candidate.

My opinion. Could be wrong.

Edited November 8, 2024 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Do I need to put up more screenshots? This guy is not interested in civilized, honest discussion any more than the people screaming at him are, and he doesn't seem to have been for some time.

Um. That was my point.

21 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

If his viewpoints outside of the joke he made don't bother you, then I don't think you and I should waste any more energy trying to debate it.

I know nothing about Miller or his jokes. I was responding to the argument immediately before me.

21 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Just like Jesus would do, eh?

Now you're bringing Christlike actions into it? Why didn't you question the non-Christlike actions of your side, such as Kate's false charge of Trump being a rapist? Why do you only holler when your opposition acts in a non-Christlike manner?

Btw, I'm pretty sure that Andrew Tate considers himself Muslim, not Christian. I don't have any idea about Miller. But your "Just like Jesus would do" comment probably doesn't apply to those in the conversation. It sure as heck doesn't apply to "Kate".

Edited November 8, 2024 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

@LDSGator, lest you think I'm bias only one way... one of my friends pointed out how 2012, 2016, and 2024 all showed similar vote numbers for Dems, but in 2020 they got something like 10+ million more votes. My friend sited this as evidence that 2020 was fraudulent.

That's no proof at all though.

Ridiculous, "this is proof!" claims on either side are ridiculous.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

People will make "harmess" jokes like that then wonder why the women in their lives don't talk to them.

A joke's not funny if it doesn't make women mad at you.

I mean that's literally how I gauge if what I said was funny or not. If my mother-in-law gasps in shock then it was a good joke!

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Mainstream media is diminishing. Yes. But it's not dead.

Honestly, I wish you were right. But I don't think things are as straight-forward as you suggest here.

You make fine points, as always. 

I do think the MSM is pretty much cooked though. All you have to do is look at the viewership of the nightly news (circa 6 million) and compare it to the Joe Rogan podcast (about 11 million). 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

You make fine points, as always. 

I do think the MSM is pretty much cooked though. All you have to do is look at the viewership of the nightly news (circa 6 million) and compare it to the Joe Rogan podcast (about 11 million). 

Yeah. Conservatives have more sway in independent media, which is growing. And traditional media, where liberals have more, is dying. That much seems to be the case.

[Phoenix_person]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why the scare quotes around "harmless"? Are you suggesting I used that word? For the record, I did not.

And yet you seem determined to defend the joke as if it was.

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Women don't talk to men who make jokes like that to them because such jokes are antisocial, and the women don't want to engage in social intercourse (or apparently other types) with antisocial men. But this is an incomplete (and therefore intrinsicually dishonest) line of argument. Such online conversations are not discussions, but verbal donnybrooks. It is naive at best to expect reasoned discourse in such a setting. In "Kate"'s case, it's not naivete, it's simple dishonesty. She wants to lob her grenades and then stare in wide-eyed horror and confusion when the other side does the same.

People have fewer inhibitions behind the anonymity of a screen, and people like to use memes and jokes to mask (or normalize) their prejudices and other toxic mindsets. I'd say there's a zero percent chance that Jon is a guy I would want around my LDS sisters. He's using antisocial online behavior to put his IRL toxicity on full display. 

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I know nothing about Miller or his jokes. I was responding to the argument immediately before me.

I know. That's why I tried to give you extra context into the type of person he presents himself as. 

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why didn't you question the non-Christlike actions of your side, such as Kate's false charge of Trump being a rapist?

Are we so convinced it's false?

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why do you only holler when your opposition acts in a non-Christlike manner?

Because generally speaking, it's my opposition that most loudly proclaims to follow him. Lately, it's getting harder and harder to see it.

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Btw, I'm pretty sure that Andrew Tate considers himself Muslim, not Christian.

I actually didn't know that about Tate, but a lot of conservative Christian men seem to like him a lot.

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

It sure as heck doesn't apply to "Kate".

There hasn't been a conviction on rape specifically, but there are still several cases ongoing. In Carrol's case, the prosecution was able to prove sexual misconduct to the satisfaction of a jury, but actual rape is often incredibly hard to prove in court. If that's your objection to the "rapist" accusation, then that's fair. But between  the Carroll verdict and the Access Hollywood tape, Trump definitely does not strike me as a respecter of women in any capacity.

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah. Conservatives have more sway in independent media, which is growing. And traditional media, where liberals have more, is dying. That much seems to be the case.

Complete agreement. 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why the scare quotes around "harmless"? Are you suggesting I used that word? For the record, I did not.

And yet you seem determined to defend the joke as if it was.

So, then, you confirm that you are indeed suggesting that I used, or at least meant, that the comment was harmless.

You are lying.

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Are we so convinced it's false?

Yes.

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Because generally speaking, it's my opposition that most loudly proclaims to follow him. Lately, it's getting harder and harder to see it.

Andrew Tate has been loudly proclaiming that he follows Christ? Jon Miller loudly proclaims to follow Christ?

I disbelieve you. Since you have already shown your willingness to lie about me and attribute to me words and attitudes that I did not say or adopt, I do not trust your judgment of them. Please provide proof that Andrew Tate and Jon Miller loudly proclaim to follow Christ.

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I actually didn't know that about Tate, but a lot of conservative Christian men seem to like him a lot.

And therefore...?

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

There hasn't been a conviction on rape specifically, but there are still several cases ongoing. In Carrol's case, the prosecution was able to prove sexual misconduct to the satisfaction of a jury, but actual rape is often incredibly hard to prove in court. If that's your objection to the "rapist" accusation, then that's fair. But between  the Carroll verdict and the Access Hollywood tape, Trump definitely does not strike me as a respecter of women in any capacity.

Kate called him a rapist. That is a lie. Legally, at least, he is not a rapist.

Now perhaps you think he's a rapist, and so you're just, you know, giving your opinion. Okay, fine. Maybe I think you're a molester of little boys. Can I just go ahead and talk about your little boy molestation, despite your legal lack of guilt, because that's just, you know, my opinion?

(And for the record, because I'm 99.9% sure you'll be hypersensitive about this and wilfully misconstrue what I wrote above—because that seems to be par for the course for you—I do not actually believe you are a child molester. What I wrote was an example of an example.)

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

actually didn't know that about Tate, but a lot of conservative Christian men seem to like him a lot.

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

As a kickboxer, he was actually very good. 
 

As a man, the devil wouldn’t spit on him. 

[Phoenix_person]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

So, then, you confirm that you are indeed suggesting that I used, or at least meant, that the comment was harmless.

You are lying.

I apologize for assuming that you thought the joke was harmless. You're right, you never said that. I was making assumptions based on what you were defending and how you were defending it, which makes me wonder why you're so defensive about a joke if you don't actually think it's harmless? What am I missing here?

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Jon Miller loudly proclaims to follow Christ?

Jon Miller is a self-proclaimed moderate (lol) Catholic. If you want more examples from other Christians, they're out there. Try Gab, specifically. I don't go there anymore because it's pointless trying to argue with actual Nazis, but the point is that there are pockets of conservative Christianity that are extremely out of line with Christ's teachings, and every one of those "Christians" loudly and proudly voted for Trump. Additionally, because I can't say this enough, we have elected members of Congress like MTG and Paul Gosar (and other members of the Freedom Caucus) flirting with that side of your party. How about you help root out the Nazis on your side and I'll (continue to) root out the tankies (militant fasco-communists) on mine, cool? 

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Now perhaps you think he's a rapist, and so you're just, you know, giving your opinion. 

My opinion is that I don't want Trump or anyone who talks about women the way he does to come within 1000 miles of the women I care about (or any women, preferably), regardless of what legal charges have stuck. No legal case has been made against Biden for sexual misconduct, but even I'll admit he's kinda creepy. I don't think I'd want my sisters around him either, tbh. Not treating sketchy men as potential rapists tends to result in rape, more often than not. If the term bothers you that much, I'll stop describing him that way. What I won't do is tell any woman that her instincts about a man are incorrect when said man has raised plenty of suspicions.

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not actually believe you are a child molester. What I wrote was an example of an example.)

Of course you don't. I've given you no reason to suspect that about me. If you feel that there's no need for even suspicions about Trump being a sexual predator, then you're willfully ignorant of the type of man he portrays himself as, and we have nothing more to discuss.

[LDSGator]

@Vort-you and I both enjoy combat sports. Have you ever seen Tate fight?

[NeuroTypical]

Rather than pretend to give a crap about how people are beastly to each other online, maybe we could talk about crap that matters?

 

In the first week after winning the election, Trump is already starting to solve the problem of illegal immigration and the border crisis:   https://www.newsweek.com/migrant-caravans-turn-back-after-trump-election-win-1982274

 

Trump's transition office begins to float ideas for ending the war in Ukraine: https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page=1

Quote

The proposals all break from Biden’s approach of letting Kyiv dictate when peace talks should begin. Instead, they uniformly recommend freezing the war in place—cementing Russia’s seizure of roughly 20% of Ukraine—and forcing Ukraine to temporarily suspend its quest to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

One idea proposed inside Trump’s transition office, detailed by three people close to the president-elect and not previously reported, would involve Kyiv promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the U.S. would continue to pump Ukraine full of weapons to deter a future Russian attack. 

Under that plan, the front line would essentially lock in place and both sides would agree to an 800-mile demilitarized zone. 

 

More to come.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Kamala was just that bad of a candidate.

Hindsight is 20/20 with everyone, including myself. Looking back, both Harris and Walz had major problems. She thought she could win by just not being Trump. They also just assumed that Latino men would vote for her like they did for Obama. You Ma’am, are no Obama. 

Edited November 8, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Trump's transition office begins to float ideas for ending the war in Ukraine: https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page

Thank God. 

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Rather than pretend to give a crap about how people are beastly to each other online, maybe we could talk about crap that matters?

I would welcome that, and I apologize for my role in the nastiness. Today has been incredibly stressful for reasons that are mostly unrelated to US politics, but that does not excuse my combativeness.

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In the first week after winning the election, Trump is already starting to solve the problem of illegal immigration and the border crisis:   https://www.newsweek.com/migrant-caravans-turn-back-after-trump-election-win-1982274

It's understandable why that would be the case, though I'm not celebrating the situations that a lot of those people will have to face returning to, situations that have been heavily influenced by intervention from the US and its allies (including Israel). No, taking them all in here wouldn't have solved anything, but I still mourn for the people who are frequently dehumanized by all this.

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Trump's transition office begins to float ideas for ending the war in Ukraine: https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page=1

And Kamala/Biden have been saying for months that they're working tirelessly on a ceasefire in Gaza. I don't doubt they've been trying any more than I doubt that Trump's team is now working on Ukraine. But it takes two to tango, and I don't trust Trump to make a deal with Putin that is favorable to Ukraine. FWIW, I also don't trust the Biden admin to tackle Gaza in a way that ends well for Palestinian civilians.

Edited November 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I apologize for assuming that you thought the joke was harmless. You're right, you never said that. I was making assumptions based on what you were defending and how you were defending it, which makes me wonder why you're so defensive about a joke if you don't actually think it's harmless? What am I missing here?

I am willing to answer your question honestly. But this will take me some time and effort, which I am essentially gifting to you, a man I don't know except for brief online interactions, I man I will almost certainly never meet. So if you are not willing to read and consider what I'm about to write, but just plan to wave it off or ignore it altogether, then seriously, please let me know so that I never again waste time answering an insincere question from you.

Let's start with a simple example. Consider the following X (actually Twitter; this is from five years ago) exchange:

Consider for a moment the sheer idiocy of "saira rao" and her claim. "White people have done everything to make my life miserable." Not "some white people", not "some things", not "to make my life uncomfortable". This woman is literally accusing white people as a group of doing everything they can for the intended purpose of making her life miserable. That is how she justifies hating "white people"—meaning you personally, @Phoenix_person. She hates you because you are white and have done all you can to make her life miserable. You horrific waste of human flesh, you.

Okay, so it's hyperbole. We hear it all the time. We should just ignore it. Right?

But no. Your side has convinced us that "microaggressions" (in this case, really a more macroaggression) should be identified, called out, and refuted. That's your side's philosophy. But what happens if someone calls her absurd hyperbole out? Does she acknowledge that she cannot morally justify hating you personally because you're white?

Of course not. And your side, again, backs her up on that, claiming that the institutionalized hatred that this poor darling has experienced in her life explains and even justifies her poisonous hatred.

So it's your side that has set the tone of these exchanges. Your side apparently believes that the group being criticized (in this case, white people) is overprivileged, and thus should just keep quiet, bow their heads, and accept the unjust condemnation, because you see, it's really not unjust at all. Just because you personally didn't oppress her, you enjoy the spoils of her oppression because you're a hated white guy. "Microaggressions" and hateful behavior in general need be pointed out and refuted ONLY when directed against a protected class of "minorities", which does not include white people (<50% of the population) or men (<50% of the population).

You don't have to be a white guy to see how the math doesn't add up.

So how does one appropriately respond to the hateful screed above? Clearly, refuting it point by point is meaningless, because the whole premise of the statement is a lie. The woman herself, "saira rao", is a liar. Honest communication with her is not possible. An effective response, therefore, would be to lampoon her lie so that its poisonous edge is blunted by demonstrating its absurdity; that is to say, respond like John Hawkins responded to saira rao.

Now, in reading the response, did you truly believe that John Hawkins was at "the white people's meeting", or that saira rao's "name came up", or that "they were discussing [their] plans to make [her] life miserable"? Or did you manage somehow to sense the irony? Did you figure out that when John Hawkins expressed his happiness at "making a difference" in relief that saira rao didn't blame herself for her own failings, he was actually just being sarcastic?

Yes. Of course you did. Since you're culturally American and your IQ is some number north of 85, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'd figure that out all on your own.

Now consider the Jon Miller exchange:

The whole foolishness of the supposed, mostly fictitious or at least vastly overblown South Korean 4B movement is in play here, wherein women deny sex to men who are not sufficiently woke. This is the idea of the "sex strike". Miller's response is to point out that the women do not even have a say. Here, Miller is clearly doing what John Hawkins did to sarai rao; mocking her idiotic premise to highlight why her statement is not even sincere, much less rational.

So let's examine Miller's response. Why don't the women have a say? One possible reason is that the men will come and take sex from the women whenever they (the men) want, and there's nothing those pathetic women can do about it. This would of course be a reference to forcible rape. And that is exactly the sort of conclusion which feminism would inexorably drive one to.

But is there another possible explanation, one that does not refer jokingly (or not) to forcible rape?

Can you think of anything? Anything?

Any normal, moderately intelligent non-feminist would immediately see the obvious alternative: These women don't have a say because they are so immensely unattractive that no man would have them. They can't go on a "sex strike", because no man would ever willingly have sex with them. Maybe they're too hideously ugly, or maybe their breath smells like a sewer, or maybe they're horribly diseased, or maybe their personalities are so grotesque and horrific that no man could stand to be around them, much less gain carnal knowledge of them (DINGDINGDINGDING).

Now let us consider the question, Is Jon Miller's comment harmless? In the sense that the feminists want to pretend, that Jon Miller is literally calling for the forcible rape of women, whether or not he's serious about it—yes. Clearly it's harmless. Only a fool or a feminist would interpret what he said that ridiculous way.

But if we do away with the stupid feminist interpretation and leave behind the interpretation of a normal and intelligent human being—that the women being referred to are simply too repulsive to merit sexual consideration—is that harmless?

Well, that would depend on what you consider to be harmful. It's certainly not a call to forcible rape, either in jest or in earnest. But it indeed does violence to possibility of reasonable and civilized discussion. Of course, the whole statement which Jon Miller was mocking is itself a statement that does violence to civilized discussion. So to blame Jon Miller for doing violence to the discussion is, in your side's terminology, blaming the victim. Jon Miller responded in kind to the absurd claims of the "sex strikers".

So no, I don't believe that Jon Miller said anything harmful in the sense that oversensitive and underintelligent feminists wish to pretend: That he was encouraging or laughing at or in any way referencing forcible rape. But he was certainly responding in a way that was harmful to the possibility of civilized discussion, even though that possibility was already almost nonexistent based on the original "sex strike" nonsense to which he was responding. I recognize Jon Miller's perhaps tasteless joke as perfectly suited to the context in which the utterly tasteless original claim was being discussed. That doesn't mean I considered it "harmless", only "harmless" in the idiotic sense that he was supposedly talking about forcible rape.

I have taken twenty thousand words to explain what should be immediately obvious to any intelligent and unbiased Westerner. I have done this to avoid giving you any wiggle room to continue to plead justified ignorance. And also, if I'm being honest, in the tiny hope that maybe you really, sincerely just could not figure out what Jon Miller very obviously meant, but if I explained it to you in clear and unambiguous terms, somewhere a tiny light bulb might go off in your head, and you might say to yourself, "Ooooooooooooooh. I get it. Yeah, that does make more sense than the rape thing."

Always naively hoping for honest conversation. I'm stupid that way.

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Not treating sketchy men as potential rapists tends to result in rape, more often than not.

This is absurd. If it were true, then literally 80% of women would be victims of forcible rape by the time they reached puberty. When my daughter was younger, in her early teens, I think, she would have same-aged friends over. I did not always remember all of her friends' names at the moment I wanted to talk to them, so at the time I continued the habit I had from her earlier childhood of calling her friends "sweetheart" when talking to them about something or other. One of her twelve-year-old friends was over one day, whom I called "sweetheart", and she looked at my daughter and whispered something about me being "creepy".

So you are saying that when dealing with adult middle-aged men who use terms such as "sweetheart" to refer to girls and young women, treating them as sincere human beings rather than as rapists will result in forcible rape more than half the time.

I think you are wrong.

(After that incident, I quit calling girls "sweetheart". A pity; in my day, old men often referred to girls kindly and affectionately in such terms. But apparently, your side's attitude has infected the minds of even our children. We are much worse off for it, in my estimation.)

Edited November 9, 2024 by Vort

[Phoenix_person]

@Vort I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response. As it turns out, I'm familiar with Saira. She's to the left what people like Nick Fuentes are to the right. Influential enough to be dangerous, but not taken seriously by anyone outside of fringe race-baiters and the brand of white guilt liberals that kept Shaun "Talcum X" King relevant WAY longer than he deserved (which is basically the entirety of the time he's been grifting). 

And hey, Jon's probably in that same boat, which is why I'm done talking about internet nutjobs after this post (and I'm only doing this post because I truly appreciate and respect the time you put into your response).

3 hours ago, Vort said:

So you are saying that when dealing with adult middle-aged men who use terms such as "sweetheart" to refer to girls and young women, treating them as sincere human beings rather than as rapists will result in forcible rape more than half the time.

It's inevitable that our vocabularies will evolve as we age. Mine has. My teachers in grade school had us sit "Indian style" (which now goes by the far cooler name "criss-cross applesauce"). There's an ableist slur that starts with R that wasn't widely considered a slur 25-30 years ago. A lot of people my age and older, myself included, didn't see the harm of it, but did the work to remove it from our vocabularies. I'm ashamed of it, but not proud enough to say I wasn't in the wrong.

This is the reason I don't like it when people get canceled over ancient internet content. People grow.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

After that incident, I quit calling girls "sweetheart".

That's because you're a good and thoughtful person, even if you resent the change a bit (and I get it). The people I worry about are those who get corrected and continue out of spite. If I learn that I'm using a word that makes someone I care about uncomfortable, that word is dead to me. I get that it's not always easy. People aren't robots. 

On a far more somber note, I was recently in a discussion IRL about the maturity rates of boys and girls. A woman who was part of the discussion said, very casually and without missing a beat, "We're forced to mature faster because grown men start hitting on us when we're 12". So those girls probably appreciate your change of behavior more than you realize. And if they don't yet, then they probably will when they're older. 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

So how does one appropriately respond to the hateful screed above?

You're right to be concerned about it, but at the end of the day it's a grift. Saira, like Shaun, guilt-trips white people out of their money. A good rule of thumb when you see outrageously incendiary stuff online is to ask yourself if the person is selling something. The hate speech is a sales tactic. That's why I try not to give Twitter activists (the accounts that do nothing but amplify their side's propaganda) the time of day. Today I fell into the trap, and I'm not too proud to admit it. I regret bringing Twitter personalities into this discussion. It created a lot of nastiness in a conversation that didn't need to get nasty, and for that I'm sorry. Like @NeuroTypical, I think I'm ready to talk about real issues. Online harassment of queer folks is incredibly bad this week, and I need to spend more time supporting them and less time wading through the filth to try to prove a point to an internet stranger. 

Edited November 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

 

Congratulations, @Phoenix_person! You have shamed me with your graceful and polite response. Though we may disagree on a great many social and political topics, you have taught this old man some important truths today. I will try to follow your more mature and Christlike—how about that!—example from this exchange in the future, on this forum and in my life generally.

(I said I'll try. No promises.)

[Phoenix_person]

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

Congratulations, @Phoenix_person! You have shamed me with your graceful and polite response. Though we may disagree on a great many social and political topics, you have taught this old man some important truths today. I will try to follow your more mature and Christlike—how about that!—example from this exchange in the future, on this forum and in my life generally.

(I said I'll try. No promises.)

FWIW, I was in a very rough place earlier today for reasons unrelated to politics or internet trolls. There were about 10 different times I should put my phone down and smoked a bowl or something.

Believe it not, I do try to live my life by Christ's teachings, to the extent that they can be adopted by secularists (which is a lot more than people generally realize).  There are great lessons in the Bible (until Paul comes along, but we don't need to open that can of worms). There are also great lessons in the Torah, the Quran, the Vedas, the teachings of Buddha, etc that don't require supernatural belief to validate them. People wonder where we get our morality from as atheists. The most accurate answer is: kinda everywhere. We seek out truth wherever it can be found. We don't believe that any dogma has gotten it completely right, and most haven't gotten it completely wrong.

Edited November 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

Deportation news:

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-mass-deportation-immigrants-plan-348eaa91?mod=hp_lead_pos1

Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump are drawing up plans to carry out his mass deportation pledge, including discussing how to pay for it and weighing a national emergency declaration that would allow the incoming administration to repurpose military assets to detain and remove migrants.

The behind-the-scenes discussions, which started months before the election and have picked up in the days since Trump’s victory, include policy changes required to increase deportations, according to people working on the presidential transition, members of Congress and others close to the president-elect.

Among the changes: revoking a Biden administration policy directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to pursue immigrants in the country illegally who haven’t committed other crimes, and making changes to the immigration court system to speed up cases. Trump’s allies have said they are planning first to focus on immigrants in the country illegally who have received final orders of deportation from an immigration court, of which there are about 1.3 million, as well as those with other criminal convictions or charges.