The Hypocrisy of Bashing "Snowflake", "Crybabies", etc. (speech, abortion)

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

any annoyance we feel toward people in blatant error, weakness, etc. is trivial compared to the level of emotional hurt felt by such people when getting harsh treatment hurled at them for those traits. Same for any inconvenience or disruption that comes to be on account of the error, weakness, etc.

So in other worlds, it is better to be annoyed and disrupted by idiots than to say anything that might make the idiots feel bad about their idiocy. Thanks Phil, your posts are really helping me understand the essence and philosophical underpinnings of snowflakiness.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

LOL! Your town hall "meeting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2qraZKD4hI

I take it the video below is your town hall meeting as well? If you're gonna start showing / shaming "triggered" liberals, I can show videos about the <a-HEM> alt-right types calling for genocide against liberals and deporting Jews (which is a triggering against liberals and Jews. There's just no way around that one).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9AgVQXM4k

3:14 - A woman almost tearfully praising the Arizona Recon Militia. Her tone suggests she IS the type who would get triggered hysterically at "the left".

The event emcee speaking
4:00 film narrator speaks of the emcee speaking of a Communist takeover (trigger against liberals)
4:27 - the Democratic party being the socialist party. They're anti-American, they're not pro-American.
They're liars and misleaders. They want to wipe us out. We need to wipe them out. It starts by putting people in prison that deserve to be there, and freeing people that don't. (How else do you interpret this but "imprison, perhaps execute, people who don't agree with us"? Also note well he says "It starts with", implying that other things are in store for liberals besides imprisonment).

5:00 McCain works at Hanoi Hilton, admits he's probably a "secret Communist"
5:31 A Vietnam vet basically says the 60s antiwar and other protests were a communist (and undoubtedly KGB) attempt to destroy America by destroying its values base.
6:27 One attendee calls for genocide against liberals (not imprisonment, genocide)

So if anything, these type of Trump supporters (not all, but these type) of Trump supporters are much more deserving of disrespect than the hysterical woman in the video you posted. At least she isn't calling for imprisoning and killing opponents, and neither were the other demonstators in the crowd. So don't wast your time with me posting videos of one, or even several, people going into hysterics when I can just as easily find videos of hard core Trump supporters doing even worse stuff.

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

So in other worlds, it is better to be annoyed and disrupted by idiots than to say anything that might make the idiots feel bad about their idiocy. Thanks Phil, your posts are really helping me understand the essence and philosophical underpinnings of snowflakiness.

Way to selectively quote my post there - especially given these parts you left out, much less actually address.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Basic misunderstanding shaming’s proper role.

It delivers inferior results in the long term

See my Post 140 for more.

And yes, it IS better to be annoyed than to be demeaned (said nothing about letting disruptive people take over a meeting). You also left out the part of Post 140 where I said that demeaning people is not necessary to make your point. Hell, you didn't even address one thing in that post. So after all this, why should I take you seriously?

[godofthunder9010]

OP you're seriously overthinking things. If you're bashing special snowflakes, that's just fine. That's freedom of speech, plain and simple. If the special snowflakes wanna return fire and make fun of their detractors, that's still freedom of speech and is just fine. Be as insulting, obnoxious and rude as you want. It's still free speech. The only reason I can see for crying, "Hypocrisy!" is if the return-fire attack leaves somebody curled up in the fetal position, hiding in their closet, crying your poor little eyes out, unable to deal with reality for days and days. If you can dish it but you can't take it then sure. You're a hypocrite.

And no I don't personally engage in such infantile pursuits. Other people do. I will happily defend their
Constitutional right to so.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

I take it the video below is your town hall meeting as well? If you're gonna start showing / shaming "triggered" liberals, I can show videos about the <a-HEM> alt-right types calling for genocide against liberals and deporting Jews (which is a triggering against liberals and Jews. There's just no way around that one).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9AgVQXM4k

3:14 - A woman almost tearfully praising the Arizona Recon Militia. Her tone suggests she IS the type who would get triggered hysterically at "the left".

The event emcee speaking
4:00 film narrator speaks of the emcee speaking of a Communist takeover (trigger against liberals)
4:27 - the Democratic party being the socialist party. They're anti-American, they're not pro-American.
They're liars and misleaders. They want to wipe us out. We need to wipe them out. It starts by putting people in prison that deserve to be there, and freeing people that don't. (How else do you interpret this but "imprison, perhaps execute, people who don't agree with us"? Also note well he says "It starts with", implying that other things are in store for liberals besides imprisonment).

5:00 McCain works at Hanoi Hilton, admits he's probably a "secret Communist"
5:31 A Vietnam vet basically says the 60s antiwar and other protests were a communist (and undoubtedly KGB) attempt to destroy America by destroying its values base.
6:27 One attendee calls for genocide against liberals (not imprisonment, genocide)

So if anything, these type of Trump supporters (not all, but these type) of Trump supporters are much more deserving of disrespect than the hysterical woman in the video you posted. At least she isn't calling for imprisoning and killing opponents, and neither were the other demonstators in the crowd. So don't wast your time with me posting videos of one, or even several, people going into hysterics when I can just as easily find videos of hard core Trump supporters doing even worse stuff.





Way to selectively quote my post there - especially given these parts you left out, much less actually address.



See my Post 140 for more.

And yes, it IS better to be annoyed than to be demeaned (said nothing about letting disruptive people take over a meeting). You also left out the part of Post 140 where I said that demeaning people is not necessary to make your point. Hell, you didn't even address one thing in that post. So after all this, why should I take you seriously?

People like the woman in the first video are terrified, justifiably, of people like those in the second. Not whining, not snowflaky, but mortally terrified. Frankly, if anyone who watched that thought it was funny, entertaining, or worthy of mockery, they are one sick *******.

I think I am finished with this thread. It's a good discussion, and a necessary one, but I'm tired of reading a lot of garbage posted by people who seem to be not only cruel, but proud of their cruelty.

I guarantee that no one who has been arguing against you is going to feel any compassion for that screaming woman. They will laugh at her. Wait and see.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

And yes, it IS better to be annoyed than to be demeaned

Maybe, but it is not better to accept "any inconvenience or disruption" rather than hurt the feelings of the one causing it. Yes, it's good policy to be polite and explain errors logically whenever possible, but if mockery is the only way to get a message across effectively, then I reserve the right to employ it.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

OP you're seriously overthinking things. If you're bashing special snowflakes, that's just fine. That's freedom of speech, plain and simple. If the special snowflakes wanna return fire and make fun of their detractors, that's still freedom of speech and is just fine. Be as insulting, obnoxious and rude as you want. It's still free speech. The only reason I can see for crying, "Hypocrisy!" is if the return-fire attack leaves somebody curled up in the fetal position, hiding in their closet, crying your poor little eyes out, unable to deal with reality for days and days. If you can dish it but you can't take it then sure. You're a hypocrite.

And no I don't personally engage in such infantile pursuits. Other people do. I will happily defend their
Constitutional right to so.

I said nothing at all about the Constitution. It's not a matter of free speech. That is completely irrelevant to the matter.

It's a matter of two, and as of late, three things:

A) Whether it's legitimate to get triggered over another's displays of weakness, timidity, sensitivity, slow-wittedness, personal oddities, etc. YET not legitimate for the targets of verbal abuse on account of those traits alone to call out their bashers; especially when the bashers themselves would never tolerate from anyone else.

B) Whether it's really appropriate for the bashers to get triggered over merely seeing or hearing about someone's weakness, timidity, sensitivity, slow-wittedness, personal oddities, etc. AND at the same time have it inappropriate for the basher's targets to react negatively to personalized degradation or harsh belittlement - which is much worse than merely feeling irritated and annoyed at another having those traits.

C) Whether bashing people for those shortcomings alone does actual constructive good, rather than being an excessive reaction that only makes the person "worse" even by the basher's own standards. More about this in Post 140

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

People like the woman in the first video are terrified, justifiably, of people like those in the second. Not whining, not snowflaky, but mortally terrified. Frankly, if anyone who watched that thought it was funny, entertaining, or worthy of mockery, they are one sick *******.

I think I am finished with this thread. It's a good discussion, and a necessary one, but I'm tired of reading a lot of garbage posted by people who seem to be not only cruel, but proud of their cruelty.

I guarantee that no one who has been arguing against you is going to feel any compassion for that screaming woman. They will laugh at her. Wait and see.

I take it that by "the first video", you meant the one Bob posted and that I referenced to? That's the first video in the post. I could be wrong, though. I know you're bowing out but I want to be sure my presumption about your post is correct.

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

Maybe, but it is not better to accept "any inconvenience or disruption" rather than hurt the feelings of the one causing it. Yes, it's good policy to be polite and explain errors logically whenever possible, but if mockery is the only way to get a message across effectively, then I reserve the right to employ it.

Ok, I see it now. In #140, I was thinking "disruption" in the sense of ordinary incompetence at a task, even those irrelevant to politics, i.e. someone botching up a job, activity - not in the sense of deliberate disruptions. I was trying to stay true to the OP, so I had in mind job and task incompetence alongside claims about political issues and challenges. So I can certainly understand the confusion.

Mockery, I don't see how it's of any actual constructive use to start with. More times than not it just shuts people's minds off and adds more "us vs them" resentment, not to mention further intensify mistrust among opposing groups. Who wants to agree with someone who refuses to show them basic dignity and respect - meaning not receiving indignity or disrespect? It's more than just signaling to others "that" person is in error - respectful speech of even the passionate type is more than enough to accomplish the task. Mockery signals that the person deserves to be harshly marginalized and basically dehumanized merely because they make the error.

Mockery also deprives two groups of people with a self-justification to refuse to listen (a) fence-sitters / undecideds, and (b) people on the other side who are finally seriously considering what you have to say. As a former conservative Republican (in my teens and early 20s - before the Internet) I can assure you that I did not change my mind due to liberals mocking and ridiculing me. It was from hearing what both sides had to say and deciding that I can agree with the "liberals" on about 60 to 70% of the issues. If you know some former "liberals" who turned conservative, ask them how much mockery from conservatives played a role in their change in views. I'm sure you'll get an answer very similar to what I just said.

That means whatever short term gains you may make in shutting up someone because of superior mockery skills and their "thin skin" (real or imagined) is more than negated by the much slower acceptance by the wider society of whatever you have to say, to the extent what you have to say is true or at least plausible. Besides, why add more bad to someone's state of mind when it's not necessary to do so? I wish there were a quick fix to correcting society's errors but there's not. The only way to convince "the other" is the long and hard way - patiently constructing your arguments, engaging with them respectfully, and holding them and ourselves to account for any disparaging acts or expressions toward others.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

I take it that by "the first video", you meant the one Bob posted and that I referenced to? That's the first video in the post. I could be wrong, though. I know you're bowing out but I want to be sure my presumption about your post is correct.

You are correct.

[godofthunder9010]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

I said nothing at all about the Constitution. It's not a matter of free speech. That is completely irrelevant to the matter.

It's a matter of two, and as of late, three things:

A) Whether it's legitimate to get triggered over another's displays of weakness, timidity, sensitivity, slow-wittedness, personal oddities, etc. YET not legitimate for the targets of verbal abuse on account of those traits alone to call out their bashers; especially when the bashers themselves would never tolerate from anyone else.

The vast majority of people claiming to be "triggered" are idiots. If you go ballistic or end up crying yourself to sleep hiding under your bed because of what somebody else says, then clearly you have been badly served by every parent and teacher you've ever had. They have failed you. They never taught you that words can't hurt you. Even those tiny few with legit PTSD issues are better served by flooding and not avoidance. In a world where firsthand and cyber bullying is a thing and where life is a huge pain in the butt across the board, if you don't learn to be thick skinned then life is going to wreck you.

You're also way off base claiming that Republicans are constantly and easily triggered. Do you realize how accustomed they have become to an endless torrent of insults and false accusations? They get called racists when only the tiniest fraction are racists and the rest hate racism. They get called names all the time. Have been for years. If they were as delicate as SJW's, they'd have left tens of thousands of dead bodies in their wake. Even though I disagree with them on most points, I have to admire the fact that they can take it. Republicans aren't fragile little snowflakes scared of being called names.

B) Whether it's really appropriate for the bashers to get triggered over merely seeing or hearing about someone's weakness, timidity, sensitivity, slow-wittedness, personal oddities, etc. AND at the same time have it inappropriate for the basher's targets to react negatively to personalized degradation or harsh belittlement - which is much worse than merely feeling irritated and annoyed at another having those traits.

C) Whether bashing people for those shortcomings alone does actual constructive good, rather than being an excessive reaction that only makes the person "worse" even by the basher's own standards. More about this in Post 140

Honestly, just go back to my post. Nobody has the right to tell another person that their right to free speech must be limited for any reason. You can go to work tomorrow, walk right up to your boss and cuss him out and call him every name in the book as angrily as you like. You won't have a job anymore, but you also haven't broken any laws. You have the right to do that.

If you're seeing cases where people on the Right lose their damn minds because of somebody else's words, then the same goes for them. They're adults. They can take it. If they don't wanna hear people saying mean words, they should just leave. If leaving is not an option, then tough. That's life. We all hear things we don't like sometimes. Grow up and get over it.

It seems to me that you're trying to excuse limiting free speech. That's more or less the whole message of SJW's and notions of "hate speech," etc. I'm not okay with that. If the KKK wants to show up at a public university and rant their toxic stupidity with big mean signs, they get to do that. It's public property. Nobody gets to set rules about whose free speech is allowed in such a spaces. And it would just reemphasize just how stupid their message is to everyone hearing them. If a group of students physically assaults said hypothetical KKK group, then the assaulters have committed a crime and the KKK guys haven't.

In general, the best way to make bad ideas go extinct is to allow them to keep speaking while the rest of the world just ignores them.

Sam Harris has been a liberal, an atheist and an outspoken opponent of conservatism for years. He has abandoned the left and here is why:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJUkCCtPZY

[Phil75230]

Limiting free speech (summary of godofthunder9010’s deeper point)

Again, this is not an issue of free speech. This is an issue of what is or is not an appropriate act or speech to take toward people in *private, non-governmental settings or entities*, particularly two types: 1) who we disagree with, and 2) who have traits highly unpopular with large segments of society: weakness, timidity, sensitivity / “thin skin”, incompetence, poor judgment, etc.

The First Amendment only says the government may not limit speech. It says nothing about private individuals in the said settings limiting it or not (as with your boss example), let alone what the wider society should deem such-and-such socially unacceptable. Individuals and societies can rightfully still place informal social sanctions on people who make socially unacceptable acts or expressions – without government support. Sure, we can argue whether X should be deemed by society “unacceptable”, but that has nothing to do with the government. I’m through with this aspect, unless you think the First Amendment should apply to private individuals in non-governmental settings and tasks.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

The vast majority of people claiming to be "triggered" are idiots.

This idea that we can choose our feelings and emotional reactions is just flat-out wrong in too many cases. Most “thick skinned” or socially skilled people don’t respond to situations with “Hmm, I can choose this feeling or that one. Which one will it be?", even about mildly annoying matters not credible and imminent threats to their essential well-being (physical or mental) or dignity. This even includes things like being around physically unattractive scenery, urban landscapes, and sometimes people. So I doubt we can choose our feelings about even trivial matters even if we try; much less about more serious matters like deliberate hurts, harms, or degradations of our dignity, committed in a malicious spirit and not in defense of self or others.

At most, we might attain partial control over our reactions (acts or expressions based on feelings), but complete control over them is highly unrealistic. The latter implies everybody has the capacity to be a “Star Trek Vulcan”, clearly an unreasonable expectation to put on a person. This is especially so regarding one’s heart-felt issues (free speech for some, bullying for others). Depending on what you call “triggered”, a lot of people, even emotionally intelligent ones, still react with strong disdain at people with traits that may be irritating but pose no immediate credible threat to others “body, mind, or soul” as the saying goes.

So if it’s acceptable to bash (or merely feel strong disdain toward) people with “thin skin”, timidity, poor judgment, etc. then why is it unacceptable for the basher’s targets to react with (or even merely have) anger or resentment toward their bashers – who bash their targets simply for having those shortcomings alone? This is especially true when merely feeling irritation at those shortcomings is trivially bad compared to being on the business end of sharp, personalized physical or social hostility directed at you [1]. So instead of shifting the burden (and certainly whole burden) onto the “snowflakes”, the “weak”, “thin-skinned”, etc., the bashers should take responsibility for their own feelings and attitudes toward those people as well.

[1] Reasons why the former feels trivial compared to the latter are at {1} at the bottom of the post.

Originally Posted by godofthunder2010

"flooding"

I haven’t researched the pros and cons of “flooding” but even this doesn’t help your case. Assuming “flooding” does work, the bashers should take responsibility for their own feelings and attitudes toward such people as well – like shoving aside their own kneejerk personal distaste of “thin skins”, “crybabies”, etc. and actually seek to understand why they believe what they believe, particularly those without a judgmental, malicious spirit toward others (i.e. “flooding” of a sort). This complete burden-shifting of toward the “weak”, “thin-skinned” while letting the “strong” and “thick-skinned” off the hook is just the "strong" and "thick skinned" trying to have their cake and eat it too.

More deeply, this assumes thin-skin is an appropriate basis for disrespect in the first place, which I don’t even agree with that much.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Do you realize how accustomed they have become to an endless torrent of insults and false accusations?

As though liberals aren’t accustomed to false accusations of wanting to destroy the nation due to different views on foreign or domestic policy (“Obamunism”, to put it succinctly, not that I’m a big fan of his)? Or trivializing the value of human life (abortion, assisted suicide)? Both sides have their nasty rhetoric toward each other. I’ll be the first to admit the vile segment of the left is like this but I assure you the vile segment of the right is at least as bad. ‘Census count’ of which side has the most d-bags doesn’t matter, it’s how much of the vile personalized rhetoric is taken seriously that does. I imply this in the OP itself.

----

{1} The reason it’s trivial is that such behavior both implicitly invites others to do the same and very often other people will take up that invitation because of their own disdain for the traits just mentioned – as opposed to the legitimate use of disdan (to socially punish those who maliciously seek to initiate hurt, harm, or degradation of others outside the scope of defense of self and others). This can severely weaken your capacity to form informal social connections on which you depend for resources, security, and “helping hands” necessary to meet your goals and even succeed in the day-to-day business of living. All this applies even with the target taking a “sticks and stones” approach.