"Ok, Boomer"

[Terminal Blue]

It also doesn't deserve to be overblown.

Well obviously the systematic dehumanisation of large sections of society and the problems of addiction, crime, suicide and social decay which follow on from such can't hope to compare with the societal impact of a random vegan thinking their neighbours are bullying them by having too many barbecues. But hey, just because one is of supreme and critical importance doesn't mean we can't care about the other, right?

No, it's an example of what's being talked about, not an outrage post of 'YOU GOTTA SEE THIS', so you continually trying to reframe it isn't meaningful.

It's not an outrage post, and yet you're literally only aware of it because of outrage..

And the fact that you think it's any way equivalent to what is being talked about, let alone an example thereof, would be tragic were it not exactly the kind of calculated indifference to human suffering I have come to expect.

 

[tstorm823]

Trump generally doubles down on sinfulness.

Does he? He doesn't apologize for the media, that's for certain. (Nor should he, the media can go to hell.) But does he not reconsider and improve his behavior?

When he was campaigning, he'd say things like "they aren't sending their best, they're sending rapists and murderers". Which is the kind of moment I see racism in Trump. Not because he thinks all migrants are rapists and murderers (that's a deliberate misreading that contradicts Trump's words in the same paragraph), but rather the "they send" part is problematic, treating our southern neighbors as an enemy and taking agency away from the migrant's deciding themselves to make the journey. That's bad, looks pretty racist. (Reminder, in case you are unaware, I did not vote for Trump. Things like this are why.) Fast forward just a little, we can look at his statements about Charlottesville. This time his statement wasn't actually problematic, he condemned all white supremacists in no uncertain terms, but he made a statement that let people pretend he called neo-nazis "fine people" (again, egregious and deliberate misreading). Still not great, but he upgraded from "you have to squint to think that isn't racist" to "you have to squint to think that's racist". And since then, what? Charlottesville was half a year into his term. Has he made any statement worse than that since? I can't think of anything. The rhetoric has changed. The man has cleaned up his act a lot (not that it was a high bar). There was a new Trump tweet controversy literally every day for a year or two, and now they're struggling to fill the news cycle even with an impeachment investigation going on. Because he's not saying things like he was in 2016. That's not doubling down.

6. America got rich off slaves and murdering natives. BUT it doesn't matter because the outcome is the only thing that is important.
It's circular logic at best, malicious self-deception at worst. If the outcome is the only thing that's important, then who cares if people die.

You're doing this backwards. People dying is an outcome. Europeans didn't come to America (especially to what is now the US) because they were vicious racists dying to slaughter innocents from another land. They wanted prosperity for themselves. That isn't bad intent. The outcome was the suffering and death of natives, and that is a bad thing that happened. Most of the natives the died were from disease that nobody planned. The intent wasn't there for murdering, but they died anyway. If you want to maintain that it was a bad thing for Europeans to come to America, you have to take the "outcome over intent" view.

If that is the case, why pick the candidate that is, even by your words, racist?

I did not pick Trump in 2016, but only because I was allowed the choice of neither. Hillary Clinton had almost all of Trump's flaws 3x over, I pick Trump out of the two every time.

I would pick him now because a) it's not the case of all other things being equal, the Democratic candidates all have issues I find at least as problematic as racism. And b) Trump is behaving less racist over time, he condemns racism, he is aware racism is a bad thing, where the bad elements of the Democratic candidates are things they think are actually moral imperatives. Trump might keep improving. The Democrats won't even try to.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It also doesn't deserve to be overblown.

Well obviously the systematic dehumanisation of large sections of society and the problems of addiction, crime, suicide and social decay which follow on from such can't hope to compare with the societal impact of a random vegan thinking their neighbours are bullying them by having too many barbecues. But hey, just because one is of supreme and critical importance doesn't mean we can't care about the other, right?

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure that exact sentiment is used very often for the absolutely valid point that the existence of major problems doesn't negate the care for other problems. The same reason we can care about corrupt cops when our military commits war crimes.

So yes, your facetious statement is actually correct when played straight.

No, it's an example of what's being talked about, not an outrage post of 'YOU GOTTA SEE THIS', so you continually trying to reframe it isn't meaningful.

It's not an outrage post, and yet you're literally only aware of it because of outrage..

And the fact that you think it's any way equivalent to what is being talked about, let alone an example thereof, would be tragic were it not exactly the kind of calculated indifference to human suffering I have come to expect.

That's a lot of words and guilt tripping over nothing. You want to see a snowflake? Here you are. Is this person's point defensible? She thought so, some other did too. For now, enough people didn't. And this is a prime example of someone people would point to as being a snowflake in a derogatory way.

 

[Silvanus]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure that exact sentiment is used very often for the absolutely valid point that the existence of major problems doesn't negate the care for other problems. The same reason we can care about corrupt cops when our military commits war crimes.

All very true.

The difference, of course, is that corrupt cops are actually a problem.

You want me to accept that a vegan who is sueing her neighbours for having too many barbecues is deserving of special ridicule, despite the fact, again, that that was never my problem and not the subject of the original discussion at all.

But hey, let's roll with that, because really, her feelings don't seem particularly unreasonable, at least in the sense that this could be impacting her life. To her, it clearly is a real problem, and if indeed it could be evidenced that her neighbours were doing it specifically to harass her because she is vegan (as she claims) she might actually have a case that it deserves action. Again, people have successfully sued over similarly trivial behaviours because they were found to be targeted harassment, or because the level of disruption caused to their neighbours was excessive. In short, what you've pointed to is not a problem, it is an isolated case which is entirely within the abilities of the existing legal system to resolve, and which has in fact been comprehensively resolved.

That should have been the end of it, but it is not. I'm frankly curious about why that is, and what that says about the character of the many thousands of people who seem genuinely upset by the ability of vegans to utilise the court system despite it having no impact on their lives and comprehensively not being a problem, than I am about the character of one person who doesn't like their neighbours barbecuing.

You want to see a snowflake? Here you are.

Oh yes. I can certainly see the fragility in this case.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure that exact sentiment is used very often for the absolutely valid point that the existence of major problems doesn't negate the care for other problems. The same reason we can care about corrupt cops when our military commits war crimes.

All very true.

The difference, of course, is that corrupt cops are actually a problem.

You want me to accept that a vegan who is sueing her neighbours for having too many barbecues is deserving of special ridicule, despite the fact, again, that that was never my problem and not the subject of the original discussion at all.

But hey, let's roll with that, because really, her feelings don't seem particularly unreasonable, at least in the sense that this could be impacting her life. To her, it clearly is a real problem, and if indeed it could be evidenced that her neighbours were doing it specifically to harass her because she is vegan (as she claims) she might actually have a case that it deserves action. Again, people have successfully sued over similarly trivial behaviours because they were found to be targeted harassment, or because the level of disruption caused to their neighbours was excessive. In short, what you've pointed to is not a problem, it is an isolated case which is entirely within the abilities of the existing legal system to resolve, and which has in fact been comprehensively resolved.

That should have been the end of it, but it is not. I'm frankly curious about why that is, and what that says about the character of the many thousands of people who seem genuinely upset by the ability of vegans to utilise the court system despite it having no impact on their lives and comprehensively not being a problem, than I am about the character of one person who doesn't like their neighbours barbecuing.

You want to see a snowflake? Here you are.

Oh yes. I can certainly see the fragility in this case.

Her using the courts on her neighbors is clearly not something that doesn't impact their lives. It is in fact the opposite of that. Which is why this woman is the perfect example of a snowflake. She can't handle society or interacting with others, so she tries to make unreasonable demands of others, like not letting kids play outside. This is not a reasonable person making a reasonable point, this is ridiculous person with a ridiculous position trying (and luckily failing) to strong-arm others.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Her using the courts on her neighbors is clearly not something that doesn't impact their lives.

Not really though. The case was thrown out before reaching court, because the redress being sought was deemed too restrictive of normal use of the neighbour's property. So yeah, how did it affect them? Were they emotionally damaged? Did they need a safe space with a barbecue in order to recover? Did they need years of intensive therapy to overcome their crippling fear of vegan meat substitutes?

There are thousands of cases every year of neighbours taking legal action against each other to resolve disputes, and the idea that neighbours shouldn't be able to seek legal redress for disputes, even if those disputes seem trivial to an outsider, is a direct violation of their legal rights.

So why are you offended? How does it in any way affect you? Do you have a recognised psychological issue which would justify any kind of personal investment in this case, or does it just offend some arbitrary sensibility? Are you just upset because someone whose lifestyle you don't share or disprove of is demanding that they be given a degree of respect to which you don't think they're entitled? Because that certainly seems to be a lot of the motivation behind the outrage in this case.

I mean, I know this is a derailment and I shouldn't be feeding it. We should be talking about why you seem to think that asking people to exercise basic care or concern for people with serious medical conditions is equivalent to trying to ban all barbecues. But while we're here, I'm going to point out how insane it is that the very real and measurable psychological impact of discrimination is "overblown" while this is apparently something worthy of caring about because it affects people's lives.

But again, I have come to expect no less. None of this is a surprise to me any more.

 

[CaitSeith]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

Spoiler

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

It's a bad day today and I have nothing to do. I'll carry this burden.

Trump's severely cut the department of Justice Civil Rights branch [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-administration-guts-federal-agencies-ability_b_592f1f63e4b0d80e3a8a32ba]. The very watchdog Minorities depend on to help enforce equal justice for them. Funnily enough, DeVos (Trump's lackey) did a similar thing by cutting an Obama Policy which made sure minority students weren't unfairly punished via suspensions [https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/12/21/its-official-devos-scraps-obama-discipline-rules-meant-to-reduce-suspensions-of-students-of-color/].

This is a sentiment that's carried by people interviewed who feel due to Trump's policies, their satisfaction of how Minorities are Treated in this Country has fell remarkably across the board [https://news.gallup.com/poll/246866/americans-less-satisfied-treatment-minority-groups.aspx].

Trump picked a lot of Judges who are for Voter Suppression [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2017/11/08/442390/senate-rushing-confirm-trump-judges-back-voter-suppression/], and the Senate couldn't wait to vote them in. Which makes sense, because Trump is very vocal about Voter IDs [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/17/donald-trump-voter-id-laws-must-part-election-security-measures/2030487001/].

Trump's Tax Cuts has done nothing but widen the wealth gap between Whites and Blacks. Even Between Rich Whites and Rich Blacks [https://prospect.org/civil-rights/think-gop-tax-cut-rich-actually-white-rich./]

Trump hasn't met a cut to education that he hasn't liked [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/12/white-house-wants-12-percent-cut-education-spending], and given that the minority student has been shown to do even worse than the poor white student, that means minority education is going to get another big hit.

In looking at Trump's plans for Mortgages, most specialists agree that said plan will make it harder for African Americans to buy homes [https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/10/trump-harder-african-americans-buy-homs.html]. And speaking about that, Trump has been going at HUD with a Hatchet, doing seemingly everything possible to cut aid to low income housing that a lot of Minorities depend on [https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-plan-to-raise-minimum-rents-would-put-nearly-a-million-children-at-risk-of-homelessness]

Former Trump Lackey, Jeff Sessions, did all he could to limit Consent Decrees [https://www.propublica.org/article/why-jeff-sessions-final-act-could-have-more-impact-than-expected], hindering the Federal Government's ability to combat Police Abuse on the state level.

Not officially a policy, but Trump Adminstration is backing a Lawsuit in the Supreme Court that could easily lessen the potency of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 [https://fortune.com/2019/11/13/supreme-court-comcast-byron-allen/] due to... reasons? This really isn't a fight that involves Trump at all, but he's in it for some reason. Money over minorities, I guess.

And Generally, Trump's policies hurt all people. And especially Children. As 400,000 children are going uninsured due to Trump's polices [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/us-children-health-insurance/index.html]. Not to mention repealing the Clean Power Plan [https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/the-trump-epa-strategy-to-undo-the-clean-power-plan/] and Clean Water Act [https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-october/what-the-trump-administration-is-doing-to-your-water]

I do understand why you probably didn't want to do it. Nothing will be good enough unless it's from 'trusted' resources. But the leg work is done. You can use as you like.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

Spoiler

Don't be that person. The current line of conversation stems all the way back to:

I will take the lack of rebuttal as an answer.

Rebuttal? That Trump sometimes thinks less of people who are different? Why would I rebut that?

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

I'm not moving the goalposts here. Me saying Trump has done or said racist things at times was seen as proof that criticisms of Trump and his supporters are right. That other people are making up boxes to try and shove me into doesn't change that.

 

[Batou667]

Boomers are silent/invisible/disenfranchised? Are we seriously really going to argue that?

No. Evidently I worded that poorly.

Honestly, I cannot in any way bring myself to accept an argument that age should protect a person from criticism.

Should age be a shield against criticism? No. But should it act like a magnet? Arguably no again. Or do you think ageism is acceptable?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Her using the courts on her neighbors is clearly not something that doesn't impact their lives.

Not really though. The case was thrown out before reaching court, because the redress being sought was deemed too restrictive of normal use of the neighbour's property. So yeah, how did it affect them? Were they emotionally damaged? Did they need a safe space with a barbecue in order to recover? Did they need years of intensive therapy to overcome their crippling fear of vegan meat substitutes?

There are thousands of cases every year of neighbours taking legal action against each other to resolve disputes, and the idea that neighbours shouldn't be able to seek legal redress for disputes, even if those disputes seem trivial to an outsider, is a direct violation of their legal rights.

So why are you offended? How does it in any way affect you? Do you have a recognised psychological issue which would justify any kind of personal investment in this case, or does it just offend some arbitrary sensibility? Are you just upset because someone whose lifestyle you don't share or disprove of is demanding that they be given a degree of respect to which you don't think they're entitled? Because that certainly seems to be a lot of the motivation behind the outrage in this case.

I mean, I know this is a derailment and I shouldn't be feeding it. We should be talking about why you seem to think that asking people to exercise basic care or concern for people with serious medical conditions is equivalent to trying to ban all barbecues. But while we're here, I'm going to point out how insane it is that the very real and measurable psychological impact of discrimination is "overblown" while this is apparently something worthy of caring about because it affects people's lives.

But again, I have come to expect no less. None of this is a surprise to me any more.

She then brought it to the supreme court. And nobody said she couldn't, and you're stuffing a lot of words in my mouth. It helps when you cut out my argument.

So here.

She can't handle society or interacting with others, so she tries to make unreasonable demands of others, like not letting kids play outside. This is not a reasonable person making a reasonable point, this is ridiculous person with a ridiculous position trying (and luckily failing) to strong-arm others.

If you aren't going to address my actual points, you can just drop this argument. There's no point if there's no argument in good faith.

 

[CaitSeith]

Boomers are silent/invisible/disenfranchised? Are we seriously really going to argue that?

No. Evidently I worded that poorly.

Honestly, I cannot in any way bring myself to accept an argument that age should protect a person from criticism.

Should age be a shield against criticism? No. But should it act like a magnet? Arguably no again. Or do you think ageism is acceptable?

Spoiler: Fair questions, too bad they weren't made earlier...

Fair questions, too bad they weren't made earlier...

I love the one that says "Millennials are killing America: Part One"; I can't tell if the rambling will be hilariously long, or if there will be a plot twist for part two or three.

 

[Trunkage]

snip

I going to assume you think Trump as ACTED less racist since he took office?

 

[Saelune]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

Spoiler

Don't be that person. The current line of conversation stems all the way back to:

I will take the lack of rebuttal as an answer.

Rebuttal? That Trump sometimes thinks less of people who are different? Why would I rebut that?

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

I'm not moving the goalposts here. Me saying Trump has done or said racist things at times was seen as proof that criticisms of Trump and his supporters are right. That other people are making up boxes to try and shove me into doesn't change that.

Do you support Donald Trump? Will you vote for him next election?

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

You came into this argument with an irrelevant, bad faith point that failed to address anything I said. I am indulging you at this point purely because it's entertaining.

In my building, there are a lot of complaints about kids playing outside. I've never made one, but as someone who works from home a lot of the time I sympathise. Kids playing outside can mean a lot of things, it can mean they're kicking a ball around or chasing each other and laughing, or it can mean hours of continuous screaming or kids throwing things at neighbours windows. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold parents responsible if their children are negatively impacting other people's ability to use their own property.

I think, even if we leave aside the whole question of trauma (and I do have a friend who is actually "triggered" by children playing outside) if you hadn't preemptively decided that vegan woman bad, then you'd be capable of a far more nuanced understanding of the very case you've brought up. I think trying to label this person as a "snowflake" has actually demonstrably worsened your own capacity to either understand or empathise with them.

And I wouldn't care, except I continuously see people who have very real problems and very real forms of suffering treated exactly the same way. Heck, your presence in this thread strongly implies that you can't even tell the difference between, for example, someone "freaking out" because they carry the traumatic legacy of child sex abuse and some eye-rolling outrage story about a vegan woman who supposedly wants to ban all barbecues. And again, none of this is a surprise.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

You came into this argument with an irrelevant, bad faith point that failed to address anything I said. I am indulging you at this point purely because it's entertaining.

In my building, there are a lot of complaints about kids playing outside. I've never made one, but as someone who works from home a lot of the time I sympathise. Kids playing outside can mean a lot of things, it can mean they're kicking a ball around or chasing each other and laughing, or it can mean hours of continuous screaming or kids throwing things at neighbours windows. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold parents responsible if their children are negatively impacting other people's ability to use their own property.

I think, even if we leave aside the whole question of trauma (and I do have a friend who is actually "triggered" by children playing outside) if you hadn't preemptively decided that vegan woman bad, then you'd be capable of a far more nuanced understanding of the very case you've brought up. I think trying to label this person as a "snowflake" has actually demonstrably worsened your own capacity to either understand or empathise with them.

And I wouldn't care, except I continuously see people who have very real problems and very real forms of suffering treated exactly the same way. Heck, your presence in this thread strongly implies that you can't even tell the difference between, for example, someone "freaking out" because they carry the traumatic legacy of child sex abuse and some eye-rolling outrage story about a vegan woman who supposedly wants to ban all barbecues. And again, none of this is a surprise.

I brought it up because it was exactly what was talked about. I brought up the bbq part first because it even directly tied to the hypothetical point being made. Now if you want to say a woman mad about neighbors pet birds might be a reasonable person, fair enough, and that's clearly where this conversation is going to go. But as one final reference to what a snowflake here is, at least one of her neighbors actually listened to her and got rid of their bbq and their kid's basketball hoop and all to appease her. She still tried to sue them.

 

[Silvanus]

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

Bast above, the lengths people will go to.

Look, in your own damn words;

Let me put it this way: I don't care about this question. Not even a little bit. Declaring him a racist doesn't matter. There is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor is there a bad tree that bears good fruit. All that matters is the outcome.

People act like they can read Trump's thoughts and know he's really a hateful bigot. But the man's thoughts don't matter, the outcome matters. Minorities are doing better economically. The pay gap is continuing to close. We actually have more resources dedicated to handling asylum claims. Why should I care if he's prejudiced deep down if the fruits are good.

Now, as far as I can tell, there is only one reading of this which make any structural sense. That would be that you are putting forward these positive indicators as "fruits" and "outcomes" of Trump's administration or his actions. The entire context is about the impact of his administration; if you weren't making that connection, then it would be a ridiculous non-sequitur.

If you actually believe that Trump's actions had any positive impact regarding the above, then have the courage of your convictions.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I brought it up because it was exactly what was talked about.

It literally was not.

I brought up the bbq part first because it even directly tied to the hypothetical point being made.

You picked an arbitrary example of an unpopular hate figure and nasty mean vegan whose story just happened to have barbecues in it, and I'm assuming you didn't think that much further than that. Because if you had actually thought the example you gave was the same thing as what I was talking about, then that would be a kind of overt ableism that I don't think even you could tolerate in yourself.

Now if you want to say a woman mad about neighbors pet birds might be a reasonable person, fair enough, and that's clearly where this conversation is going to go.

That might be a reasonable response, yes. It kind of depends on what the birds are doing, doesn't it? If we don't know what problems the birds have or have not caused, then it's actually quite hard to tell whether getting mad about it is reasonable.

What I do know is that getting mad about someone being mad without actually knowing why they're mad in the first place seems rather unreasonable.