For the nth time, YOU ARE NOT MY OUTGROUP.
Floof, that's about as convincing as "I'm not antisemitic; one of my best friends is a Jew." Over and over you treat unbelievers in your faith as not entitled to moral consideration.
How would you recognize someone who actually doesn't think like that?
I already told you one way in my first post to you: refraining from Godwinning others. I told you another way in my second: practicing what one preaches. I told you another way in my third: taking care to be truthful in ones comments about others. You flunked three tests is a row.
If you did this to everyone it would look different; but you don't come off as a sociopath. You come off as one of the most blindly tribalistic posters in the forum.
I make you uncomfortable, that's all.
You libel the people you imagine yourself to be making uncomfortable. You make up things about people you dislike, and you don't fact-check what you say about them, because you don't care about their right not to be libeled.
I call out right wing mentality and all its Nazi pitfalls. Of course you would see me as just as tribalistic as you are.
"Just as" tribalistic? On what planet am I anywhere near your level of tribalism? What test do you have for non-tribalism that I've I flunked other than membership in your religion?
What framework do you have in your own mind that would allow you to recognize someone who is not tribalistic?
(Hint: this is rhetoric. You don't have such a framework.)
Hint: that's an example of you not fact-checking the garbage you make up about others. I had already given you samples of my framework when you wrote that. But you just spew any put-down that pops into your mind whether you have a reason to think it's true or not.
You are Uncle Bomb at the Thanksgiving table. I would call him out for his vile and backward views, too, and still not kick him out of the family, still care about whether his surgery went well, or whatever.
Am I? Okay, tell me this. Would you casually tell your family at the Thanksgiving table that Uncle Bob's wife, whom you've never met and don't know anything about, is a white supremacist?
Well, that depends. What has she said and done to make me think she's a white supremacist?
She's said and done
nothing to make you think she's a white supremacist. You think she's a white supremacist
because she doesn't want men to go into the women's restroom! It's your own bigoted religious chauvinism that makes you think she's a white supremacist.
But if she says and does things that white supremacists say and do, well, if it walks like a duck.
Newsflash: even white supremacists say the sky is blue. That doesn't make saying the sky is blue adequate grounds for accusing someone of walking like a duck.
If I don't know anything she's said or done, I would not assume.
Of course you
would. You already
did! You don't need to know anything at all about what a person has said or done, or even think of her individually at all, to be assuming things about her. If you tell your family Thanksgiving table the Jews are sharp-trading moneygrubbers, then the circumstance that when you said it you didn't know that Uncle Bob's wife is Jewish doesn't change the fact that you just said Uncle Bob's wife is a sharp-trading moneygrubber. See how it works? Well, it works the same way if you tell your family Thanksgiving table that women whose psychological safety is compromised when a man goes into the women's restroom are saying and doing what white supremacists say and do, and well, if it walks like a duck. So yes, you damn well would assume.
But whether you'd
assume wasn't the question -- I already knew you'd assume. The question was whether you'd
say it. Would you tell your family Thanksgiving table that women whose psychological safety is compromised when a man goes into the women's restroom are what you find in a white supremacist group? Would you say that right to Uncle Bob's face, not knowing whether his wife's psychological safety is compromised when a man goes into women's space, but certainly having no reason to think it isn't? Would you put Uncle Bob, sitting at the family table, potentially knowing though you do not that his wife really doesn't like it when a man comes into the women's restroom, in the position of knowing though you do not that you just called his wife a white supremacist?
The world is full of women married to bigots but who are not bigots themselves.
Yeah, sure, Uncle Bob is a bigot. And you say I'm Uncle Bob. I can infer from this that your reasons for thinking Uncle Bob is a bigot are probably about as good as your reasons for thinking I'm a bigot -- about as good as the reasons you had back in post #10 when you insinuated that my wife is a white supremacist. You have many times put on full public display how little evidence you need for you to imagine someone else is a bigot.
The way white supremacists think is repugnant to me, and I would assume to Uncle Bomb's wife as well if she's not a white supremacist. If someone's not a white supremacist or not on the fringe of white supremacy pretending not to be, they would not be comfortable pretending to be one at the Thanksgiving table.
Where the bejesus did that come from? Who said anything about Uncle Bob's wife pretending to be one at the Thanksgiving table? Oh, I see, this is just you being the hero of your own narrative again and taking for granted that you could never mistakenly imply someone is a white supremacist unless she was deliberately trying to trick you into thinking she is? You appear to have an unrealistic self-image.
How is it possible that you don't know what is repugnant about white supremacy and how the actions of white supremacists reflect right wing mentality and ideology? Is this really new information for you or just information you can't deal with?
Hint: that's another example of you not fact-checking the garbage you make up about others. You are a serial libeler. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Try to be a better human being, Uncle Bomb.
Practice what you preach.
I wouldn't punish him and I'm not punishing you. Get a grip.
No, you just announce, with zero reason to believe it's true, that I have vile and backward views. And you do this
to make me as uncomfortable as possible doing so in order to help protect vulnerable groups. I don't know what word your idiolect uses for that sort of behavior, but in English, that's called punishing people.
But how would you recognize someone who is
not operating under us vs. them tribalism? How do you tell the difference between someone who is actually trying to punish you and someone who calls out the nature of right wing mentality and all its underlying fear and prejudice and hate mongered rage on an internet discussion board?
I don't think you can.
If you were merely "calling out the nature of right wing mentality and all its underlying fear and prejudice and hate mongered rage" then (a) you could perfectly well do that without repeatedly trumping up false and groundless accusations against people who didn't exhibit that sort of mentality, and (b) you wouldn't invariably give your own side a pass by tribally restricting your criticism of wing mentality and all its underlying fear and prejudice and hate mongered rage to only one of the wings.
How would you tell if your own in-group was being manipulated by a fascist con artist?
My in-group
is being manipulated by fascist con artists -- fascist con artists from both ends of the spectrum. My in-group is the whole human race.
Oh, no. Shaming is also good for shaming inhumane principles and values, or at best, humane principles take a back seat to other things
If you had humane principles and values, you would have a bit of human empathy for women so self-conscious that they find it hard enough to pee when there's another a woman waiting to use the toilet, and pretty much impossible when there's a man in the next stall who can hear them, so they just sit there with a near-bursting bladder for ten minutes struggling to get their muscles to relax. If you had humane principles and values you would not suggest that those women are "what you find in a white supremacist group".
... like party and believing whatever you're being fed by Fox Newstainment and owning teh libz. <More tedious bigoted unfounded libels in the same vein snipped>
