[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Lacius]

Oh boy, in many ways. Elaborate on that one though, I'm interested in what you have to say about me being intolerant.

I think that any form of intolerance is deplorable, including the intolerance towards people whom you find deplorable. Everyone has a right to live, to have an opinion and to express it.

If you think intolerance is deplorable, that makes you intolerant of intolerance, by definition. That means, according to you, you're deplorable. If you're going to argue that finding something deplorable doesn't necessarily mean you're intolerant of that thing, then the entire conversation is pointless; you just made the same statement as Hillary Clinton, and you agree with everything I said above.

 

[Foxi4]

If you think intolerance is deplorable, that makes you intolerant of intolerance, by definition. That means, according to you, you're deplorable. If you're going to argue that finding something deplorable doesn't necessarily mean you're intolerant of that thing, then the entire conversation is pointless; you just made the same statement as Hillary Clinton, and you agree with everything I said above.

"Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic" - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?

 

[Lacius]

"Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic" - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?

I think the bolded statement is generally a controversial statement, yes.

 

[Foxi4]

I think the bolded statement is generally a controversial statement, yes.

Why? There is a certain subset of muslims who blow themselves up in public and behead reporters in Internet videos, there's also a certain subset of right-wing voters who are both disappointed in the GOP and looking for other right-wing alternatives and happen to be racist. Surely this is demonstrably true.

 

[Lacius]

Why? There is a certain subset of muslims who blow themselves up in public and behead reporters in Internet videos, there's also a certain subset of right-wing voters who are both disappointed in the GOP and looking for other right-wing alternatives and happen to be racist. Surely this is demonstrably true.

I don't think you know what Islamophobia is.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't think you know what Islamophobia is.

Mansplain it to me.

 

[Lacius]

Mansplain it to me.

It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.

 

[vayanui8]

It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.

Just about anyone who brings up issues within Islam is labelled Islamophobic

 

[Foxi4]

It's when one has a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Acknowledging the existence of terrorism isn't Islamophobic.

Oh. So if Trump wants to temporarily ban muslim immigration in order to re-evaluate the country's strategy against islamic terrorists, it's not islamophobic because it's aimed at terrorism, not the religion? Because that's not the memo I got - what I was told was that he's being islamophobic.

 

[Lacius]

Oh. So if Trump wants to temporarily ban muslim immigration in order to re-evaluate the country's strategy against islamic terrorists, it's not islamophobic because it's aimed at terrorism, not the religion? Because that's not the memo I got - what I was told was that he's being islamophobic.

Banning all Muslims is a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Again, it's like you don't read my posts. Using terrorism as a scapegoat for Islamophobia doesn't make it any less Islamophobic.

 

[Foxi4]

Banning all Muslims is a prejudice against Muslims on the basis of religion, by definition. Again, it's like you don't read my posts. Using terrorism as a scapegoat for Islamophobia doesn't make it any less Islamophobic.

Okay. I was just making sure that I understand the definition correctly. Not that there was any danger of me not understanding it, considering the term consists of "Islam" in reference to religion and "phobia" in reference to fear. I absolutely agree with you, not all muslims are terrorists, so demonizing them all would be indeed islamophobic. Now that we have that issue covered, can we get back to the alt-right and how "every single person who identifies with the alt-right movement is necessarily a racist, white supremacist and overall scumbag"? Because that sounds... like a gross generalisation to me. I wish we had a term that could describe that kind of behaviour.

 

[Lacius]

Okay. I was just making sure that I understand the definition correctly. Not that there was any danger of me not understanding it, considering the term consists of "Islam" in reference to religion and "phobia" in reference to fear. I absolutely agree with you, not all muslims are terrorists, so demonizing them all would be indeed islamophobic. Now that we have that issue covered, can we get back to the alt-right and how "every single person who identifies with the alt-right movement is necessarily a racist, white supremacist and overall scumbag"? Because that sounds... like a gross generalisation to me. I wish we had a term that could describe that kind of behaviour.

I never made that claim, nor did Clinton. I'm not going to sit here and argue against your strawmen.

 

[osaka35]

Excuse me while I shoot your entire argument down with a volley of torpedoes because I'm a linguist and I know exactly what a symbol is. In order for something to classify as a symbol (in a linguistic sense, which is what we're talking about) it has to be recognised by an entirety of a given group, the group has to identify with it and it has to carry intrinsic meaning. The bald eagle is a symbol for Americans - it symbolises freedom - it soars through the air unrestricted, strength - it's a predator etc. The cross is a symbol for Christians - it symbolises Jesus' sacrifice, death for our sins, it's a symbol of absolution. Pepe the frog symbolises jack sh*t - it's being used because it looks funny. A symbol works very much like a sign - there's the signifier, the physical representation, and the signified, a mental idea. Pepe does not qualify as a symbol in any shape or form - it's a stupid picture. A mascot would be more appropriate, and even that is a stretch. For something to classify as a symbol it has to have the quality of symbolism which Pepe lacks because it's a stupid meme that doesn't mean anything.

As for "similarities" between people who consider themselves the alt right, turn that judgemental eye inward - you have a lot in common with a communist, but you are not a communist. It's a loose group of people with *similar* ideas, which doesn't mean that they're white supremacists, racists or bigots - some of them very well may be, others not so much. If you're going to put all of them into one "basket of deplorables", I might as well start calling you a commie - you share some of their beliefs after all, we might as well just generalise because the political scene has suddenly turned into a sandbox.

As to why I'm rising a stink over this, it's because a presidential candidate and his/her cohorts should spend exactly 0 seconds on addressing stupid Internet memes. This is an article that's supposed to support someone who might run the country, don't they have bigger things to worry about? Someone spent time writing that piece, then someone read it, approved it, they patted each other's backs, said "good job", posted it unironically and got paid. This is an article about an Internet joke written in earnest, that's the big deal.

yay linguist! I like you.

I agree. Just because a large-ish amount of people have co-opted a relatively popular meme(well, at some point) in a similar way, that doesn't mean some group then gains ownership of that meme. Ownership of a meme seems a bit antithetical to what a meme is.

 

[Lacius]

yay linguist! I like you.

I agree. Just because a large-ish amount of people have co-opted a relatively popular meme(well, at some point) in a similar way, that doesn't mean some group then gains ownership of that meme. Ownership of a meme seems a bit antithetical to what a meme is.

Nobody's arguing that the group has gained ownership of the meme.

 

[Foxi4]

I never made that claim, nor did Clinton. I'm not going to sit here and argue against your strawmen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just asking questions.

Spoiler

 

[osaka35]

"Intolerance" itself is not a person, the statements you bolded are not contradictory. What I said was that intolerance is deplorable, no matter who it's directed at. Someone who's islamophobic is no better or worse than someone who's "alt-right-phobic" - not every muslim is a terrorist, not every right-wing voter is a white supremacist. Is that a controversial statement?

sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions?

Nobody's arguing that the group has gained ownership of the meme.

so, no ownership, but it represents a grouping of people? it's their symbol, as you say?

I mean, the US doesn't own bald eagles, but they own the idea of bald eagles as representative of their own ideals. Not exclusively, but they are recognized as that being their symbol. So, to clarify, I was referring to them having ownership of what they think the ideal of pepe is (lol), rather than the actual meme itself.

 

[Lacius]

sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions?

As I explained, the latter.

so, no ownership, but it represents a grouping of people? it's their symbol, as you say?

I mean, the US doesn't own bald eagles, but they own the idea of bald eagles as representative of their own ideals. Not exclusively, but they are recognized as that being their symbol. So, to clarify, I was referring to them having ownership of what they think the ideal of pepe is (lol), rather than the actual meme itself.

They've adopted pepe as a symbol, yes. That doesn't mean they own it, nor does it mean they have exclusive rights to it.

 

[Foxi4]

sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Did you mean intolerance in general, or intolerance as it refers to stereotyping and mis-attributions?

I was replying in context. Intolerance as defined by Lacius, meaning "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group" can only refer to persons of a different social or minority group by definition. As such, I cannot be "intolerant towards intolerance" because intolerance has no personhood.

 

[Viri]

In other amusing news!
https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/776851299417620480

He just did the rapes the Americans didn't want to do!

 

[osaka35]

I was replying in context. Intolerance as defined by Lacius, meaning "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group" can only refer to persons of a different social or minority group by definition. As such, I cannot be "intolerant towards intolerance" because intolerance has no personhood.

What an interesting definition. Though i would argue our definition in american English has expanded that meaning and it might confuse native american English speakers if using a specialized definition. I mean, i figured your intent was something close to that, but i try not to assume intent.