Are you still grieving? You are not alone.

[Amarok]

 
nope a prime example of calling something it is and some people crying your being childish for doing it

I didn't say anything childish.  I was talking having a discussion then you started babbling baby talk.

Come up with a relevant argument concerning why I was wrong about people sometimes using intimidation in the form of  claims of racism to stop people excersising their freedom of expression.  Try that.

That's how a logical adult has a conversation about a topic.

1.reading comprehension you need it I never said you said anything childish

2. your wrong because your wrong what more is there to say if bigots are to thin skinned to handle the fact there going to be called bigots because they support bigoted ideas that's not my problem really

is that adult enough for your high and mighty standards your majesty

---

It's also a prime example of that free speech the right wingers love so much. Oh right, you only like it on your terms.

And I'm just calling out childish talk I'm not stopping freedom of expression.  Just like how you left wingers always say.

yup and were calling out bullshit that thinned skin trumpians  don't like because it's "childish " to call bigots what they are

[Catholic_Lady]

Paul is not a bigot.

[SteelCurtain]

yup and were calling out bullshit that thinned skin trumpians  don't like because it's "childish " to call bigots what they are

You are not 'we.' Speak for yourself.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

---

This is what the catch-22 is. If your (global you) thought or belief is that 1. gays shouldn't have the same rights, or that 2. police killing black people without consequence is tolerable, or that 3. women and poor people should be deprived of reproductive choice, or that 4. we should round up and deport 11 million people, or that 5. white nationalism is a position worth legitimizing and supporting, then your opinion is deleterious to a free and open society.

I will support anyone's right to have those opinions, but I will be vocal in my dissent and my attempts to delegitimize those opinions. If that makes me intolerant, so be it. I am, by the same token, intolerant of attempts to evangelize any beliefs in schools or science denial.

My bold. 

Here's the thing though. 

Many people wouldn't put those things that way because that's not how they view them at all. If you stop and talk to some of these people, you may find that to them: 

1. ...it isn't about "gays not having rights." It's about keeping the definition of the word "marriage" to mean not just 2 people, but 1 man and 1 woman.

2. ...it isn't about "police killing black ppl without consequence." It's about them believing that more often than not, it's done in a case of legitimate self defense. 

3. ...it isn't about "poor people or women being deprived of reproductive choices." It's about believing that all people, no matter how small, have an inherent right to life above any other right. 

4. ...it isn't about "deporting 11 million people." It's about regulating our boarders and following the law. 

5. ...is isn't about "supporting white nationalism." It's about voting for whom they genuinely believed was the lesser of 2 evils, Trump. 

Now, before I get accused of falling into all 5 of those categories just because I'm seeing things through their point of view, let me say the only one that would apply to me is #3. Maybe #2 in certain cases.

But I'd like to think I'm able to understand that people think differently from myself. And just because someone voted for Trump, doesn't mean they are supporting white nationalism, for example. That's tolerance. 

And if Trump voters want to discuss it, I'll voice my opinion and disagreement for their candidate of choice. But I'm not going to bash them, or think the absolute worse of their motives, or stop being their friend. It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt and understanding that they may not be seeing things in the same way you're seeing them. And that doesn't make them bad people. 

As a Catholic in an atheist forum, I practice this type of tolerance of thought all the time with all of you. I'm not perfect and I screw up all the time. But I do try.

---

Thank you for that CL.

gays not having rights

Makes it sound like conservatives want to put gays in chains. Talk about sensationalism. No wonder why many of the left wingers are so hysteric over the election results.

[SteelCurtain]

gays not having rights

Makes it sound like conservatives want to put gays in chains. Talk about sensationalism. No wonder why many of the left wingers are so hysteric over the election results.

Did you just quote someone who paraphrased my statement, but responded to me?

Read what I actually wrote, pool. Then we'll talk about why your statement is wrong.

[Jesster]

---

My bold. 

Here's the thing though. 

Many people wouldn't put those things that way because that's not how they view them at all. If you stop and talk to some of these people, you may find that to them: 

1. ...it isn't about "gays not having rights." It's about keeping the definition of the word "marriage" to mean not just 2 people, but 1 man and 1 woman.

2. ...it isn't about "police killing black ppl without consequence." It's about them believing that more often than not, it's done in a case of legitimate self defense. 

3. ...it isn't about "poor people or women being deprived of reproductive choices." It's about believing that all people, no matter how small, have an inherent right to life above any other right. 

4. ...it isn't about "deporting 11 million people." It's about regulating our boarders and following the law. 

5. ...is isn't about "supporting white nationalism." It's about voting for whom they genuinely believed was the lesser of 2 evils, Trump. 

Now, before I get accused of falling into all 5 of those categories just because I'm seeing things through their point of view, let me say the only one that would apply to me is #3. Maybe #2 in certain cases.

But I'd like to think I'm able to understand that people think differently from myself. And just because someone voted for Trump, doesn't mean they are supporting white nationalism, for example. That's tolerance. 

And if Trump voters want to discuss it, I'll voice my opinion and disagreement for their candidate of choice. But I'm not going to bash them, or think the absolute worse of their motives, or stop being their friend. It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt and understanding that they may not be seeing things in the same way you're seeing them. And that doesn't make them bad people. 

As a Catholic in an atheist forum, I practice this type of tolerance of thought all the time with all of you. I'm not perfect and I screw up all the time. But I do try.

Thank you for that CL.  

---

gays not having rights

Makes it sound like conservatives want to put gays in chains. Talk about sensationalism. No wonder why many of the left wingers are so hysteric over the election results.

Put gays in chains? What? Literally nobody believes that. Quite a few conservative politicians are trying to deny rights to gay people, though. That's not sensationalism. It's pretty well-known at this point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Calling out bigotry and racism isn't shutting down free speech.

Exactly. They have every opportunity to clear up any misapprehensions over their stance; instead, in a pique of irony, they prefer to complain about verbiage.

[Amarok]

yup and were calling out bullshit that thinned skin trumpians  don't like because it's "childish " to call bigots what they are

You are not 'we.' Speak for yourself.

I stand corrected

---

Paul is not a bigot.

I don't remember explicitly saying he was

---

---

My bold. 

Here's the thing though. 

Many people wouldn't put those things that way because that's not how they view them at all. If you stop and talk to some of these people, you may find that to them: 

1. ...it isn't about "gays not having rights." It's about keeping the definition of the word "marriage" to mean not just 2 people, but 1 man and 1 woman.

2. ...it isn't about "police killing black ppl without consequence." It's about them believing that more often than not, it's done in a case of legitimate self defense. 

3. ...it isn't about "poor people or women being deprived of reproductive choices." It's about believing that all people, no matter how small, have an inherent right to life above any other right. 

4. ...it isn't about "deporting 11 million people." It's about regulating our boarders and following the law. 

5. ...is isn't about "supporting white nationalism." It's about voting for whom they genuinely believed was the lesser of 2 evils, Trump. 

Now, before I get accused of falling into all 5 of those categories just because I'm seeing things through their point of view, let me say the only one that would apply to me is #3. Maybe #2 in certain cases.

But I'd like to think I'm able to understand that people think differently from myself. And just because someone voted for Trump, doesn't mean they are supporting white nationalism, for example. That's tolerance. 

And if Trump voters want to discuss it, I'll voice my opinion and disagreement for their candidate of choice. But I'm not going to bash them, or think the absolute worse of their motives, or stop being their friend. It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt and understanding that they may not be seeing things in the same way you're seeing them. And that doesn't make them bad people. 

As a Catholic in an atheist forum, I practice this type of tolerance of thought all the time with all of you. I'm not perfect and I screw up all the time. But I do try.

---

Thank you for that CL.

gays not having rights

Makes it sound like conservatives want to put gays in chains. Talk about sensationalism. No wonder why many of the left wingers are so hysteric over the election results.

So Scalia didn't oppose the decriminalization of homosexuality and right-wingers don't constantly compare it to murder or sex with animals or try and link it to pedophilia and no you don't have to put people in chains to deny them rights

[Aroura]

Well, this thread devolved pretty badly (yet, unsurprisingly).

I think I'll just take AT's advice, and not look at news and discussions such as this one. It gets everyone exactly nowhere.
As I have unfriended exactly 0 people, I have no issues there.

But let me end by saying, well intentioned as it may be, it's condescending as hell to tell people to go live in an echo chamber, as that isn't what I want. Looking away doesn't make the problem go away. It's also pretty harsh to continue to suggest that he's just a president and has limited power, as that seems to be ignoring, well, pretty much all of the concerns people like me have.

I still love you all, but nothing is going to fix this, because what it did was reveal a truth to me. Kind of like when I became an atheist, it is turning out to be a painful realization. A bit of an epiphany, if you will. I guess I should not be angry at other people who haven't had the same experience, or perhaps some here who had it a long time ago so are not surprised.

I will, yet again, try and stay out of political areas. Thanks for listening. Peace.

[Catholic_Lady]

I am sorry my comment offended you.

I sincerely hope you find a way to cope with this.