Some examples: "I really don't feel like marching around with signs is what changed things. But what do I know?"
This is a figure of speech. It means "I could be wrong".
"Yeah. That's why gay marriage was banned. It wasn't that a lot of people simply don't agree with it to begin with. It was because it would be taught in schools."
This is sarcasm, but I don't think it's condescending.
"I think some people need to get a thicker skin and think about stuff like this in context. I find it difficult to believe that truly intelligent and rational people would get personally offended by something so obviously wrong and ignorant." [Message: if someone gets personally offended, they must not be truly intelligent or rational -- if they disagree with you on this, you don't really believe they are intelligent
This is my opinion that people get rattled too easily by things that have nothing to do with them. You assuming I would assume they're unintelligent is an assumption, and an incorrect one.
I tend to say what I mean and mean what I say. In this particular passage, I literally meant that I find it hard to believe that truly intelligent and rational people would be personally offended by such a ridiculous statement or action. It is something I do not understand. Intelligent people reacting adversely to things they know to be incorrect, simply because someone has the gall to say something wrong or insensitive
There is some definite light sarcasm in my statements, and I am very much challenging your opinion. That's disagreeing though, not being condescending. Condescension (is that a real word?) has an element of superiority, and of "lowering oneself" to another's level. I don't see that anywhere in my statements or responses.
You may not have meant these types of statements to seem condescending, but it seems like it's meant sarcastically and trying to be witty while casting my statements in a dismissive manner. That looks condescending, even if you didn't mean for it to seem so. Certainly my own responses that were sarcastic etc were taken that way by you, but I felt I was simply matching tone and style. I don't necessarily take it personally, but if that seems to be the way the back-and-forth is accepted as transpiring, I'll play along. It just seems unfair to do it but then to get offended if the other person does the same thing.
TRYING to be witty? TRYING?
I agree that it would be unfair to do it and then get offended if the other person does the same thing. But I'm not offended. I very rarely get offended. I have no problem if people use sarcasm. I have a problem when people start mistaking things like light sarcasm and disagreeing for "talking down", "being condescending", and questioning the nature of something as "being obtuse".
Also, there's the repeatedly asking "define [insert word]", "again, define [insert word]", "define [insert different word]". It's hard to have a discussion if I have to keep defining words when in fact the meaning should be clear from (a) the context, (b) the fact everybody here is using the same word and the meanings seem clear, (c) my actual explicit stating of the definition of the word where I'm using it. It looks like either missing what seem to be obvious points and statements, or intentionally missing the point in a sort of passive-aggressive manner. That may not be the intent, but it's just how it looks some of the time.
Reason I asked you to define your term...the only reason anyone ever disagreed with you about confronting a family member, was because, in the original context, as I recall (and I could be wrong) you made it sound like it was worth escalating a situation over to confront a lie or bigoted action. In other words, worth fighting fire with fire.
Add to that the restating of my comments. Several times, I say something like, "Confronting lies is part of confronting bigotry" but it gets replied to as if I said, "it's the ONLY way to confront bigotry".
Where have I done this again?
There's been an entire discussion and debate for three and a half pages prior to your entry into the discussion, and the context and meaning of words like "confrontation" were apparently obvious to the rest of us who kept using it. But it feels like you're presenting it now as if I've been using some confusing mixture of the term that's stifling discussion. That's not really an accurate depiction of what's gone on, though.
When Majic Walrus asked about defining "great", it was a valid question since it had been used several times by different people who seemingly each may have meant something a bit different (or possibly radically different in some cases). Clarifying which one I was referring to -- especially since I created confusion due to actually mixing the references, intentionally, to make another point, and thus I was responsible for the misunderstanding of what I said and of my motives -- was necessary and worthwhile.
But here, for "confrontation", it's been used since page one by several people, and I don't think it's particularly confusing or hard to understand from the context what we are talking about. Add to this the explicit remarks that in fact DID define exactly what I meant -- describing exactly how I'd "confront" the father-in-law, or the examples of the exact types of "confrontations" from the Civil Rights Movement -- and I don't see why I'm asked repeatedly to define confrontation, or treated as if there's confusion due to me relying on some random or uncommon usage of the word
When it seems so obvious, but someone acts as if they don't understand what I mean and ask me repeatedly to clarify even AFTER I clarified it, it is hard not to feel it's obtuse -- either actually not getting what seems so clear, or intentionally missing the point. You may not have meant it to come off like that, but it's just how it feels in the context of what's been said up to this point that should make the definitions obvious, in my opinion.
There are two uses of "confront", yes? One is to engage in actual, conflict-causing confrontation. The other is to address an issue, often through peaceful means.
I asked you to define "confrontation" during the Civil Rights debate, because I am interested in seeing whether you believe it is the open, conflict-driven confrontations that made things better during the Civil Rights period, or "confronting an issue", in terms of addressing the issue through other means. Because when you said "Confrontation is the right and rational response", and I wanted you to clarify which type of confrontation you were referring to. I know the definitions of the word, but the word, in that context, and in many others, has multiple possible meanings. I wanted to see which one you were using.
I feel like we weren't quite on the same page, because earlier, you made it pretty clear that you think the conflict-driven confrontations were a big part of why the movement succeeded, so when you used the term confrontation again, I'm sitting there going "Is Rainbow saying that it's a good idea to always fight fire with fire?".
We're on the same page as far as sometimes it's neccessary to confront, and that it's situational.
I understand your point about people being swayed by falsehoods, such as the ads suggesting gay marriage would be taught in schools (whatever that means). But I don't believe that a sizeable enough percentage of people was swayed that, had those ads not existed in that form, the ban still wouldn't have passed because of people's prexisting feelings about the issue.
I just don't. A few people interviewed outside polling places doesn't lead me to believe that a majority was swayed by a single element element.
Anyway. I get it. There have been times that lies swayed people, or helped to convince people of a certain thing. And I never, ever, argued that people don't do stupid things over a lie they believe to be true. Our original discussion, the original context of it, was whether lies spready enough to where they become laws that propagate hatred.
I've argued that now, in the modern day, we don't see too many lies that, as you said, lead to laws that propogate hatred. At least here in the US.
Lou Dobbs convincing some dumbass of a lie is not a law being put into effect.
The crazy guy who attacked a guard at the Holocaust Memorial? Also not a law that propagates hatred. It was an individual decision.
Sure, some lies are more harmful than others (in a particular context), and can, over time, affect various people. But I can't bring myself to worry about whether some nutjob somewhere will inevitably act like a nutjob over something ridiculous, ignorant, or bigoted.
Because I feel that people are responsible for their own actions.
