An article that contains a phrase like "'snowflake' student demands" in its title would probably fit well in a playful discussion among middle school kids. I don't see why it should be taken seriously in an adult discussion about any topic, however.
-
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!
Is feminism off track?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
An article that contains a phrase like "'snowflake' student demands" in its title would probably fit well in a playful discussion among middle school kids. I don't see why it should be taken seriously in an adult discussion about any topic, however.
Titles are made to grab an audience's attention.
And this one isn't mine.
One must read the article to find the relevant info.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Yes, especially when someone like this is considered a leader in the feminist movement:
Like it or not, "snowflake" has become a common term for folks who behave and think this way. And IMO, it's a VERY SERIOUS issue.
Can you list a few of your concerns with the video and speaker? It wasn't Faulkner, but it seemed more cogent than what our politicians spew...
buddhist
Well-Known Member
"Among the speakers at the Women’s March on Washington was feminist activist Donna Hylton. In 1985, Hylton was convicted in a New York court for her participation in the violent abduction, torture, and murder of Thomas Vigliarolo, a 60-year-old real estate broker ... Her website states that she is a 'women's rights activist and criminal justice reform advocate' ... Hylton was part of a gang hired by victim Vigliarolo’s former partner, Louis Miranda. The gang lured Vigliarolo to an apartment where, for as long as two weeks, they tortured him. One of Hylton’s accomplices, Rita Peters, would later explain why she shoved a yard-long metal rod up his rectum ... squeezed the victim's testicles with a pair of pliers, beat him, burned him ... After Vigliarolo died, they stuffed his body in a trunk and left it to rot ... She would spend 27 years in prison." (source)
Aha! Why didn't you say so?
I just listened to the video.But seriously, I think I could plausibly argue the position that what many of our politicians do could be considered guilty of treason or genocide. E.g. any politician who is in the pocket of big oil and hence denies climate change, is committing a crime potentially more damaging than what Hitler pulled off. Any politician who's in the pocket of big finance and hence allows bankers to rob thousands of citizens of their homes is doing widespread damage to the country. At what point should we consider such acts to be treasonous?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Any (left or right) authoritarian act is often treasonous to the other side. The vast majority of authoritarian acts from both the left and right are treasonous to libertarians.
It seems like the libertarian stuff could make a good separate thread?
But if we take the stuff gov. is already doing, like subsidizing big oil, we can ask whether - within the current purview - they are serving their monied interests or serving the country.
Wow...she should never have been released from prison.
It's interesting that there's no Wikipedia entry for Donna Hylton.
they risk being hoist by their own petard. Their differences with Trump are
often less than their differences with me, which would make them.....you know.
It's interesting that there's no Wikipedia entry for Donna Hylton.
Aye, if some posters can rationalize viewing the opposition as Hitler,
they risk being hoist by their own petard. Their differences with Trump are
often less than their differences with me, which would make them.....you know.
The media and "truth" are so wonky these days that it's easy for us to lose the bigger perspective. But there are LOTS of credible scientists who think ignoring climate change will be catastrophic on a global level. How is a comparison to Hitler out of line?
Skeptics have a difference of opinion about extent & effects of climate change.
Hitler wanted to murder, torture, conquer, cheat & oppress.
There is a vast difference in motives here.
As for effects, the climate models are immature, & you (not
even a climatologist) don't know how things will play out.
Now, tell me how you're not like Hitler for disagreeing with
me when I'm so obviously more progressive & correct.
(Anyone who isn't a card carrying Libertarian is just like Hitler,
you know.)
The math isn't that hard, if all the ice on the planet that is currently above sea level melts, sea level will go up about 200 feet. We have mountains of evidence that glaciers, Antarctica's ice and Greenland's ice are all melting.
To fail to act is a choice that greedy politicians and greedy energy corporations are making and re-making every day. I have no doubt that not many decades from now these choices will be viewed as crimes against humanity.
Here's an interesting National Geographic article:
What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted
Of course I understand the Hitler-esque implications I take on when disagreeing with the more progressive amongst us.
Math is a wonderful thing.
But it's only useful when the premises are meaningful.
There are many variables, many causes, & many conflicting predictions.
If you are so certain that those who disagree are Hitler, then the trouble
lies in premature certainty....and Hitlerhistrionia.
And the snowflakes of the future will possibly consider burgers & leather belts to be murder.
We should nonetheless try to address the issues.
That's more productive than calling millions of people "Hitler!", who then won't be inclined to listen to you.
I've already read the article.Here's an interesting National Geographic article:
What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted
Of course I understand the Hitler-esque implications I take on when disagreeing with the more progressive amongst us.
(Big fan of the magazine.)
But ferver fueled fulmination won't get us anywhere.
Agreed! thanks goodness I never did that!
I did however, compare the inaction of politicians and oil executives to Godwin's target.
Hmmm, what part of having most of the planet's ice melt is not meaningful? If that's not meaningful, I'd hate to hear what you think is consequential
Even this reduced number won't be inclined to give credibility to any crying "Hitler!".
Go ahead & advocate for reducing GW.Hmmm, what part of having most of the planet's ice melt is not meaningful? If that's not meaningful, I'd hate to hear what you think is consequential
But this Hitler stuff is just a tantrum.
Perhaps not. But what do you advocate? I can't imagine you think we've been too mean to politicians and oil execs. And really, the point here is for folks to take this stuff seriously - sometimes a little hyperbole is just what the doctor ordered. (Although in this case, I honestly think that such Hitler-esque comparisons might well be made (and rightly so), in just a few short decades.
You're an engineer, is it your opinion that a modest sea level rise of say - 10 ft. - is of little consequence?
If we disagreed on an issue, which do you think would sway you to my side.....
1) To call you "Hitler", or
2) To make a civil & reasoned argument?
It's huge.
I compared politicians to Hitler, I didn't compare you or anyone on RF to Hitler. Of course, in a one on one conversation civility is usually the most effective approach. But I'm not talking about a one on one situation. I'm talking about politicians and execs that are putting their personal greed above the well being of the planet.
I'll ask again, do you think that the reason they act this way is because we've been too mean to them?
Is real life so different from RF that tagging someone as
Hitler will enable them to see the light (as you see it)?
And this technique works on them?
To some extent, yes.
If one behaves badly, one is despised, & loses credibility for the entire side.
Hmmm.....this would mean that you're actually harming solutions to AGW,
thereby making you dangerous....as dangerous as.....well....you know.
But you didn't hear that from me.
Last edited: