I'm difficult for other reasons too.
But I'll admit to using (mirthful) condescension when met with disrespect.
And I've already seriously addressed the OP's topic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did SJWs help create Trump?
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
But I'll admit to using (mirthful) condescension when met with disrespect.
And I've already seriously addressed the OP's topic.
Do you feel that I have been disrespectful to you? If so, I can find you a safe space to talk about it.
This is safe, & we are talking...or rather posting.
I say respect is earned and asking entertainers to sing and dance without being able to say their piece (in a play that was about politics and representation no less) is thin-skinned. You don't want notoriety that will be called upon by the public in public? Stay at home.
If respect must be earned, than some might interpret this to mean that
it's OK to abuse someone in public if they strongly disagree on an issue.
I prefer to be civil in public even to those I disagree with or even disrespect.
It's just a personal preference.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this.
You know better than setting up a strawman like this. This is beneath you.
If someone interprets this as condoning abuse, then they are as thin skinned as the Donald.
I don't see how it's a straw man.
If I infer correctly, when you say that respect must be
earned, then if not earned, one isn't entitled to respect.
If one isn't entitled, then one must endure disrespect.
Is this incorrect?
As I said, I find what the audience did (which was worse...the booing) & what the cast did was inappropriate.
It's clear that we disagree about this.
Note that I'm not decrying it as a great wrong, or as something worthy of legal sanction.
What's incorrect is equivocation lack of respect with abuse. Or anything about the cast did as abuse.
So a small minority of the audience which booed and stopped when they were asked and a cast which delivered a poignant message at the end of a play about politics and representation is inappropriate because Pence and Trump are too thin-skinned to hear disagreement if it's not in a form they can just ignore. Even though he still could (and did) leave.
Not wrong or illegal. Just inappropriate?
I ran out of new stuff to say a few posts ago.
Let's agree that Trump is too thin skinned.
And we might give Pence (who was leaving) credit for staying to hear'm out.
He left the theater. Another said he could hear it from outside but I wouldn't call that staying and listening. But I hope I'm wrong. I hope he did hear it and doesn't sweep it under the table as 'SJW whining.'
Oh well, I read that he was leaving, but stayed to hear it.
I wasn't there, so I can't be sure.
I'll withdraw that one.
Well yeah. But to be fair people misusing social media to abuse harras and get into petty fights publicly didn't exactly help matters. That goes for SJWs and the anti SJWs. People are far too complacent with their online info which is just asking for trouble. Companies want to preserve their reputation so when an employee does something online and it's known publicly that they work for said company, it's not a huge shock that online workplace behaviour is starting to become a thing. We created this beast, we allowed ourselves to become public willingly and we used social media as a platform for petty instances of tantrums, screaming matches and combative behaviour. At this point companies are doing PR control.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
PR control or invasive puppeteering? I can agree to some limits and restrictions, but unless someone is actively and explicitly calling for violence or discrimination such monitoring by companies of employees should only ever be seen as oppressive censorship.
Another problem with politicizing things as they did is retaliation.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/20/trump-supporter-disrupts-chicago-performance-of-hamilton/
This too is wrong....even wronger.
Both.
But again, people invited such invasion because they just assumed that the internet was some sort of safe place to post whatever they wanted. Even millennials, who grew up on the internet, naively use it frequently without thought of any consequences. Almost mindlessly so. As sharing information changes rapidly, so does the idea of privacy change.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's interesting. My generation, with this internet thing that was coming around, generally we didn't put our information on the Internet (and, certainly, you didn't have to/need to then like you do now). We still had paper mail and Polaroid cameras. But not only have things changed dramatically in 20 years, even in just 10 years it's now assumed and expected that you do and will have email access, and that you will give your information to use huge chunks of the Internet.
Exactly. My gen is sort of in between. We remember a time before the internet (albeit vaguely) and clunky camera technology before digital and even dial up before Broardband came along and saved us all lol. But at the same time, we thought nothing of using social media and sharing everything like it was some kind of diary of ours being published. Bebo, Myspace and later MSN messenger became our hang outs. We shared the latest gossip, the latest interests and conspired various shenanigans on these internet playgrounds. It was a free for all, it wasn't until I started to become interested in Information Technology that I realized just how much personal information I posted online. And I tend to be an exceedingly private person in real life.
People, especially Americans I've noticed, tend to be extremely wary of privacy. But have no qualms about sharing every minute specific detail of their lives to the world. Much as I sympathize with the notion of curbing Big Brother where and when we can, it is at the same time a natural consequence of our own actions.
I agree, that's too wrong. Nobody was forced to listen to the presentation for Pence, and it was done at the end of the show where people could (and did) walk out.
But I'm not for keeping quiet to keep people from doing dick stuff like this for the same reason I'm not against same-sex parenting to keep their children from getting bullied, or compromising values to Russia to keep them placated.
I disagree.
The cast turned the theater into a political forum. Nobody forced them. The audience paid for a show and not for a political attack ad. Now they don't want a free speech zone any more because they can't control the message.
No, I think what both parties did was inappropriate. But the cast much more so and they earned what happened later.
Tom
The audience didn't pay for a political attack ad, and it wasn't. It also wasn't part of the show and wasn't interrupting the thing that they payed for. Also free speech doesn't exist in a private venue. It's something that prohibits government restrictions and only government restrictions. They'd be just as much in the right to tell Pence to gtfo (and I wouldn't blame them, he's a colossal dick who supported ex gay conversion camps) but instead they used THEIR stage and THEIR time to hand down a respectful but poignant message about the concern ethnic and sexual minorities connected to the theater have.
Thus guy? This guy was just spewing hate.