Just Politics

[jbsliverer]

Ok, this might be a little long, but I felt the need to respond and you didn't give me much to work with.

You need to kick up the quality of your argument and answers a few notches. Not trying to disrespect you or your theories, but you didn't address the two questions I asked.

Your quote;

Yep the repubs are dangerous, its dangerous times,,,,,,All the more reason to look at the ridiculousness and denial of the left........

I asked this ([] added text);

What exactly or specifically are the facts or evident truths [both plural] that the left is ridiculously denying that are the added reasons [for dems to look at]] to combat, change, or protect from all the dangers to our society, false conspiracies and lies, and massive disinformation wars from the right? Also, how will those specific ideals that you talk about looking at, solve any of the dangers and damages being perpetrated from the right? Again be more specific in your causes, solutions and reasons why.

You also can't rely on the tribalism factors as any main causes or solutions. Somewhat like the Venn diagram, tribalism has a much smaller part in this problems circle.


Your response:

I agree with you. Follow the thread.....Thats ridiculous

To beat tribalism someone or group has to become pragmatic...

You can't change the facts of livelihoods being destroyed for decades....You can't deny dems quit representing the working class Americans.......Telling 1/2 the population to eat cake for so long comes with
consequences.......

Can't change the past, but ask a dem to be pragmatic, Tribalism just steps up a notch.…

Which of the two statements (that weren’t questions) do you agree with?
a) you need to be specific in your causes, solutions, and reasons (all three)
b) you can’t rely on the tribalism factors as any main causes or solutions
c) both

I refer to your example from the followed thread of ridiculousness to this article;
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/stanford-slammed-for-putting-american-on-forbidden-word-list-take-that/ar-AA15uSQ0

This is where you took one statement or suggestion out of context in a myriad of aspects and ideals, got offended, fell in the trap of the disinformation campaign, and became an unwitting accessory. This to answer my questions? Or is this website to show that it is even balance of the scale to the other side of say 10’s of millions of people hearing lies, conspiracies, and Repubs talking points repeated 100’s of times a day every day on Fox network? Megaton same as a gram, ok, doesn’t do much for your argument though.

Dee Mostofi, a spokesperson for Stanford University, told Newsweek that the university's style guidelines are meant for internal use, often for individual workgroups.
"In this case, the EHLI website was specifically created by and intended for use within the university IT community," Mostofi said. "It will continue to be refined based on ongoing input from the community." [that’s darn pragmatic, if you ask me]

Without being part of Stanford, one isn’t able to view the site, lack of username and password. I guess I could contact someone I know there and view it, but I just don’t have the time to take this much further and it’s not the overall or immediate problem being dealt with here. One can access to the introduction though;

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/introducing-elimination-harmful-language-initiative-website

From there this quote;

The EHLI website is geared toward helping individuals recognize and address potentially harmful language they may be using. It focuses on terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology that can be searched for and addressed at the individual level.

What’s so ridiculous about addressing the massive problem of racism in this country and how to recognize harm that one may cause, maybe unknowingly, to other groups of our society by the speech they use. Isn’t that even a small part of dealing with the tribalism that you speak of?

I guess you don’t agree to statement b, you start out a sentence “to beat tribalism….” You don’t beat tribalism, that has been in humans since their existence and will be there to the end of time, it’s an intricate part of mankind. Doesn’t mean tribes have to be at war. Doesn’t mean one tribe should be using the differences to instigate and divide for their own power mongering over all the tribes. The overwhelmingly part of the circle is where the attention should lie. The big part of the problem circle is the fire that is on the front burner that needs to be extinguished. You went the opposite of my request.

You finished the sentence with “but ask a dem to be pragmatic, Tribalism just steps up a notch.…”. I guess you didn’t really go further than the click bait headline of “Stanford Slammed for Putting 'American' on Forbidden Word List:”

Offense was taken and attitudes were formed and you became guilty of the very thing you were complaining about of the dems.

But if you read through the article, some of the liberal side did remark and disagree and showed concern and the university stated that they are taking input from the community and critiquing the sites message. A very worthy and difficult job in the creation of the whole thing. Points were made though about how common words can inflict the wrong emotions if used in the wrong context. I get terribly offended when the US terrorists say it waving the flag and wrapping themselves in it. Or when the left say they are for America and then claim “witchhunt” for insurrections and spout off agreements with Putin and other dictatorships. It’s pretty damn offensive to me. They are abusing the term, profiting off the abuse, and damaging America as a whole.

You should of read through when Nicole Holiday, Assistant Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at Pomona University, when;

“She noted that the context of the interpretation is important, as it was not supposedly issued for broad interpretation but rather a set of internal recommendations for the school's IT department. As far as she could tell, there's no mechanism for enforcement of these standards, and so they function more like suggestions.
The controversy surrounding such guidelines comes from "two noble but possibly conflicting goals," she added. One involves "tension," in realms such as Twitter, in which inclusivity and unlimited free speech are often pitted against one another.
"In the big picture, these guidelines seem designed to make people aware of how they talk about discrimination against marginalized groups," Holliday said.
"However, both learning and growth are continuous processes, so I think it's crucial that discussions around sensitive language take into account that individuals may be at different points on their understanding of what constitutes offense and what does not," she added.”


"The challenge with creating a set of guidelines like this one is that language is democratic, and meaning is both contained in an individual's mind and in their society. While any one of these terms may or may not be offensive to me, the person I'm talking to may have a different set of experiences that cause them to interpret the word differently.
"I think this is the impetus behind the list in the first place: to make people aware of terms that may unintentionally cause offense to others. However, it does strike me as a bit heavy-handed and not necessarily understanding of the fact that meanings are contextual and continuously changing."

You already got your request, that “someone or group has to become pragmatic”. They are already there ahead of you. It’s the left.

I’ve now looked up Holiday and read some of her writings and interviews, a very pragmatic person. You should look her up too.


https://dscout.com/people-nerds/podcast-episode-7

https://events.reed.edu/event/Nicole_Holliday

And many other references.


No “you can’t change the facts of livelihoods being destroyed for decades” or “change the past”, but one can sure atone for it and change the methods that are at fault and recognize the destruction that will happen for decades in the future if you don’t.

As far as denying “dems quit representing the working class”, you going to have to get into the too long of discussions of rich vs poor gap and politics and politicians and the “working class”. That statement is just one of the bs one liners that the Repubs are trying to project off from their own violations and profiteering. Stop bsing for them and being an accessory to the crimes, that’s what “ridiculousness” is.