politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's cool; I'll just ramble at you awhile. : ) I really want to say some things that I didn't say in the thread.
To anyone reading this, there was a comment more or less assigning negative things to "all mental illness and bigots". The author edited the comment after push back, but I didn't think that was really sufficient. In this essay.... (not memeing, gere we go)
What I wanted: I don't have a copy of what was said. It's gone and I should be happy. BUT, I'm not. I want some acknowledgement that it is understood why that wording was awful and some assurance that attention will paid in the future. I'm basically describing an apology. It's not, apologies have an acceptance stage that I'm willing to skip. I do not think it's reasonable to hope all those with a mental illness accept the apology.
I did not explicitly ask for what I wanted. Honestly saying my piece and getting silence was expected.
What I got:
Ok, but you did not discuss it. You made a sweeping statement. It was worthless at best. Not a discussion. Why even say this to me.
The post continues by adding extraneous groups to the discussion. So now we have bigots, trumpers, the mentally ill, people exposed to lead, drug addicts, people with genetic conditions.
Now, I have no idea what to expect. I made a fuss about making sweeping statements about general groups, and now we have more people to vilify. I genuinely cannot tell if they simply not reading what I said, or are they listing people to line up against a wall? Only the author knows. I strongly suspected it's the former. I still do, but less so.
But I did get confirmation, that no, they do not see my point. They do not realize how easily they are vilifying those with mental illness. Here's what was said:
Is it wrong for a group to have a high concentration of people with mental disorders? I don't think so. In fact, do you know what group has quite a high percentage? Therapy groups. Are they evil? What is that quote saying about Republicans that can't logically similarly apply to therapy groups?
My Goal:
The real issue here that I did not realize how subtly I was referring to a rhetorical trick that was at the root of my complaint. It's very similar to the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Say a hate preacher wants to convince their flock that gays are evil. (I'm going to switch to saying "homosexuals" because that's how you are likely to hear this in the wild.) So instead, he just decries horrible acts of molesters. But the preacher never simply says "child molesters"; they sub in the phrase "homosexuals and child molesters". That way, the audience will connect them. They won't realize it, but their brain will wire a connection anyway.
This is the language I was fighting. My goal was to get this person to see that they were (unwittingly?) committing this rhetorical trick. I heard complaints that should be made of bigots instead made of "mental illness and bigots". Don't lump innocent motte in with a horrible bailey.
It is pretty likely that the author didn't read my post. It seems they picked words to respond to instead of any ideas. Like I wasn't really talking about guns or gay rights, but those words are kicked off the typing. The gun tangent was understandable, but I said nothing about homosexuality per se, and they say
Which again, true and ick. I tried to stick an implied parenthetical "or implicitly either" in there to kinda fix the ick, but what does it mean for something to be implicitly wrong? But I knew better than to bring this up. Not the fight to have.
The Conclusion:
I simply wanted them to avow or disavow the paraphased comment: "It is nice that I can now identify all mental illness and bigots". I expected them to see vilification now. And I think they did. In fact, they added some more calling them "people who proudly broadcast their own ignorance and lack of appeal to reason and moral standards".
So I guess that is where they are comfortable leaving it. I really think there is something about the mental illness label that makes them afraid of people. It's sad.
But who knows. They claim they "wrote very, very clearly: Trump supporters" when I asked what group they were talking about. Obviously, they didn't mean people with mental illness, but again, they did bring up bigots, trumpers, the mentally ill, people exposed to lead, drug addicts, people with genetic conditions. So writing isn't their strong suit. You did not "write" that. It was not clear. It was not very clear. And it surely wasn't very, very clear. But keep writing "very" in there. I might be fooled that it was clear eventually. Maybe they genuinely don't see my point. But I doubt it. There is clear resentment of the mentally ill.
I can see your point, and for my part understand your grievance, however I think you are asking too much and expect to much. This is a stranger on the Internet talking to a stranger on the Internet exactly like you and I. You have absolutely no reason to care about my opinion about this, and likely won't.
I want you to know I understand, I really do and I would have the same type of reaction on other days. For some reason my wound isn't so raw today. I hated seeing that statement it was painful, just like when someone in my family uses the r word at me. I don't know if maybe the fight in me has just started to die on this one.
I am autistic and homosexual with a list of mental health conditions that come from a lifetime of masking both of them plus trauma and som other shit, wanting dignity is exhausting, I don't know your situation but I am guessing you fully understand the stress of looking over your should for fear of the consequences of someone noticing something you can't turn off.
I hope you don't think I have been trying to argue, I am more just wanting someone to talk to, if I added to your frustrations I am sorry! Truly!
Lol, that's the best part. I'm not even mad. I'm just writing words for readers. I know that my expectations wouldn't be met. Of course not. "Expecting" was the wrong word to use. It was more hope.
I just saw a transgression (hopefully a micro one), and thought, "hey, I got time and feel like writing." I just looped you in because I thought it might benefit both of our headspaces. Hope I was right.
You were very right, if only because I needed the conversation, but honestly having such a slight difference of opinions and not letting it blow way out of proportion felt good too. I don't get to really talk often.
I gained a lot today, and out of anything I hope you got something, I take heart in knowing you were not realistically expecting a whole change from them. I hope a seed was planted and perhaps a heart was softened.
Thanks for the engagement today.