Labeling ideas you dont agree with as "stupid racist bigotry", is in fact stupid racist bigotry!

a reply to: maria_stardust

As a rule, I seldom comment on stupid people doing stupid things or even saying stupid things.

Because it doesn't impact me.

But when stupid people do stupid things that DO impact me, I feel that it is my duty to point out how freaking stupid they are.

Bigots?
Don't care.
Racists?
Don't care.
Marxist weenies?
Don't care.

But when any or more of these idiots push for or vote for or enact laws for idiotic ideas that do impact me, I have to comment.

a reply to: eletheia

Omg, lofl...bigots ARE special snowflakes sometimes,

a reply to: maria_stardust

I posted a ridiculous photoshop of him. You really think I'm the snowflake?
O_o
There's some truth to the idea. There are very few pasty balding men in positions of authority in the modern western world. We've moved to a totally superficial crapbag in which a guy like Chruchill couldn't get elected dog catcher without his opponents mocking his hairline, obesity, pastiness, cigar addiction, etc... none of which have any bearing on his qualifications to lead.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But when any or more of these idiots push for or vote for or enact laws for idiotic ideas that do impact me, I have to comment.

As you should. Kudos!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

All photos of him are ridiculous. Not to mention that he lacks that certain John Wayne swagger and stilted speech pattern that marks a man's man. (I wish there was a clever way I could mention his current Pocahontas fixation and a bit about "The Searchers," however that would leave most people under 30 scratching their heads.)

But that's neither here or there.

No, my special little snowflake. Label-shaming is just flat out wrong no matter what side of any given spectrum we may swing.

It's one thing to call a racist a racist or a bigot a bigot. They actually exist.(Rick Tyler, anyone?)

It's quite another to collectively assign a mocking label on a group of people (ex. SJW/snowflakes) because they share a set of beliefs and values that differ from your own. Label-shaming is easy to do because it's generally stereotypical and essentially low hanging fruit.

Shillary, Drumph, snowflakes, libertards, etc...

What does this kind of trollery accomplish? Simple: Not a damn thing.

They are words meant to do nothing other than insult, conquer and divide.

It all goes back to my original premise that labels aside, we're all just human.

originally posted by: maria_stardust

It's quite another to collectively assign a mocking label on a group of people (ex. SJW/snowflakes) because they share a set of beliefs and values that differ from your own. Label-shaming is easy to do because generally stereotypical and essentially low hanging fruit.

You have a point.

instead of SJW or snow flake, the next time these individuals press to infringe on rights and liberties, I will simply refer to them as authoritarian scumbags.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: maria_stardust

I posted a ridiculous photoshop of him. You really think I'm the snowflake?
O_o
There's some truth to the idea. There are very few pasty balding men in positions of authority in the modern western world. We've moved to a totally superficial crapbag in which a guy like Chruchill couldn't get elected dog catcher without his opponents mocking his hairline, obesity, pastiness, cigar addiction, etc... none of which have any bearing on his qualifications to lead.

You forgot his propensity to say what he thought in a blunt manner which is today considered to be bigotry.

a reply to: maria_stardust

What should I call the kids at Yale who blew their tops and hounded a set of faculty advisors out of their positions because on of them responded to an email on culturally appropriative Halloween costumes being hurtful by reminding people that not all costumes worn on Halloween are worn specifically to try to hurt or mock others, in fact, most people are just out to have fun and that maybe some leeway should be given for that?

Did you see the shameful display those kids put on in public?

What kind of description fits that?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I will simply refer to them as authoritarian scumbags.

*SNIP* (Removed shameful label-shaming remark.)

My bad.

Tut-tut. So naughty of you to label shame!

a reply to: ketsuko

It's easier to couch that in terms of "hatred of others" than it is to acknowledge that the issues and needs of a person living in the British Isles are very different than the issues and needs of someone who lives in Sub-Saharan Africa or even the French Riviera.

Food, water, shelter, work, respect, compassion, tolerance

Our issues and needs are all the same

It's not complicated

never mind.

a reply to: maria_stardust

What adjective would you use to describe individuals who want to infringe on freedoms, liberties and rights?

a reply to: ketsuko

How about kids? Or, just kids who lack any meaningful life experience? The same holds true for those young people who hold opposing viewpoints.

That's what being young is all about. Gaining life experiences and learning tough lessons the hard way. Everyone's views evolve over time, it's just an inherent part of the process.

Just out of curiousity, why would you feel the need to call them anything in the first place?

Aaaaaand ... then complaining about people who complain about bigotry is also being bigoted

So ...

That means everyone is bigoted?

Okay, got it.

Maybe if we spent less time pointing fingers and working to improve ourselves this world would be a cooler place to inhabit. Just a thought.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

It's easier to couch that in terms of "hatred of others" than it is to acknowledge that the issues and needs of a person living in the British Isles are very different than the issues and needs of someone who lives in Sub-Saharan Africa or even the French Riviera.

Food, water, shelter, work, respect, compassion, tolerance

Our issues and needs are all the same

It's not complicated

No they aren't.

If tolerance was something we all had in common, then we wouldn't have this thread and an incessant need to bicker about who is or isn't a bigot and what that does or does not mean. Such arguments also signal bad things about a common need to have compassion for each other too. And of course, it does without saying that if we cannot tolerate each other or feel compassion for one another then we aren't exactly showing respect either.

And the root of this is human tribalism and need to define ourselves. Some lucky few are able to define ourselves internally. Since we know who we are without needing to define ourselves through those around us, who surrounds us and what they do or don't do is less important. Those who don't define themselves internally tend to externalize. They therefore seek others of like mind and opinion, a tribe or herd. We called them cliques in high school.

The clique tolerates itself and others like it. It feels compassion for those inside its bounds. But it needs to define itself by the method of having the "other" in order to define what it is and they are not. And there is no compassion or tolerance or even respect for that "other." There can't be because the definition of self relies on the definition of tribe and to accept the "other" is to have to redefine self and be adrift as to who you are.

a reply to: DBCowboy

People with differing points of view.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Only if you have intolerance for other points of view and races and religions. So do you?

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: ketsuko

How about kids? Or, just kids who lack any meaningful life experience? The same holds true for those young people who hold opposing viewpoints.

That's what being young is all about. Gaining life experiences and learning tough lessons the hard way. Everyone's views evolve over time, it's just an inherent part of the process.

Just out of curiousity, why would you feel the need to call them anything in the first place?

There is a point at which learning should no longer take the form of a screaming temper tantrum in which only the aggrieved person is the one talking/screaming, and the talking screaming is only an emotional rant with no substance except how dare you tell me I may be wrong and point out that there may be another point of view!

Then proceed to hound those elders out of their job for doing so.

And if my 5-year-old were to pull a screaming fit like that ... I'd tan his hide. He's old enough to know better. This was a college kid.

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: DBCowboy

People with differing points of view.

I guess I'm just not as nice.

a reply to: ketsuko

They therefore seek others of like mind and opinion, a tribe or herd. We called them cliques in high school.

You are free to define yourself how you want - and to determine your personal needs

When we decide what other people do or don't need for them, or then whether or not they deserve those same things? We can call that something else

Nice rationalization - but, no