Am I? news to me
The restrictions on what we can call people in P&M have been....heavily relaxed over recent years. Accusing someone of being racist is probably as mild as mild can get around here, these days. If you aren't hurt buy it, then you actually wouldn't even be commenting about what you perceive as an accusation, but clearly this bothers you.
Anyway, on to that: I haven't accused you of this. I've simply explained how, today, one's unsubstantiated support of Trump (you still haven't put into detail "those good things" that you like) will lead to them earning the racist merit badge in most people's eyes. It's just where we are today: it is the universal trait that binds all of today's current Trump supporters. I simply defined that reality for you, and requested, then, that you provide further details to explain why you don't deserve that label.
I didn't accuse you of anything, but if you wish to continue believing this, which appears to be a projection on your part, maybe, then by all means.
Perhaps you are out of practice, and so unfamiliar with how to properly navigate the rules of ..."conduct" in the current P&N.
Of course there are some posters: boomerang, glenn, compuwiz: objectionably, unapologetically, indefensibly racist. They know it and they want you to know it. This is part of our common set of facts that we get to use with our discussions. I don't know if you are confusing our common responses to their comments as our responses to yours, but that probably isn't the case. At least not yet. But I offer this guide simply that you might better understand that it is pretty easy to get lumped into that category, perhaps unfairly, when one makes similar, common arguments.
The vague proclamation "I like some good things!" without any actual detail as to those "good things," let alone understanding the framework of "those good things" is a bit of a red flag. Treat this as a PSA, then? One reasonably assumes that the person who likes "some good things" is unwilling to go into detail about those "good things," because that person reasonably understands that those "good things" really can be considered objectionable in modern, advanced societies.
It is also common practice among supporters to play the victim, as if "being assaulted" by reasonable requests to provide details and defense of one's claims, and using the same set of universal, inarguable set of facts that humanity supports, is somehow an attack on "freedom of opinion!" or whatever. The refusal to meet these reasonable requests becomes, itself, a statement of "pride" and proof of "heroism," in the unending battle against the "illiberal liberals" of the world, assaulting our freedom to believe objectionably horrendous things, and support the public implementation of objectionably horrendous things, if only because 1 or 2 of our personal goals in life are met (for example: freedom to go shooty shooty whenever and wherever I want, and freedom to govern one's bedroom activities, wherever and whenever I want. Conservative big government staples)
basically: when, in the mind of the conservative or, uh "independent but really totally right wing I just don't want to believe it" did reasonable requests to explain a position from a common basis of facts get redefined as an assault on personal freedom? Further: when did it become honorable to reject such requests and, in the same breath, declare that your opponent is "not treating you fairly" or "Respecting your opinion?"
How did this become a thing? Getting to the root of this toxicity at the core of what today is called Trumptardia, is the primary path to explaining and fixing the gap that exists in our common American culture.
Facebook
Twitter