Jump to content
Troy

Revisiting My Positon on Trump Followers

Recommended Posts

Troy
8 hours ago, Philip Wittmeyer said:

Because I am not a member of an oppressed or marginalized class, and have therefore not been victimized as a member of a class, and have therefore not developed the sensitivities and filters and tendency to some kind or other of reactivity that such an experience would typically provide, I might be unequipped to evaluate if the following referenced socio-cultural phenomenon has any actual relevance to this particular discussion, although it seems to me to be in the same general ballpark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics

 

Yeah, "oppression olympics" is yet another tactic to add noise, diminish the existence of others, and derail real dialog. It's a dismissive phrase that let's those who are not marginalized mock those who are marginalized. So please be mindful. Propagating stuff like this will not help repair the negative moniker of "straight white male."

  • LIKE/LOVE 8
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ckaricai

 @JeanneS

 

Michael has stated that it would be easier for us as a species to learn through joy. Yet, more often than not we learn through suffering. They have stated before that suffering isn’t planned in between incarnations. Moreover, they have stated that suffering on the astral is of a different quality and it’s easy to forget what suffering is like on the physical plane from there. So given that it doesn’t make sense that anyone would plan to negatively affect millions of people while still on the astral. Doing that would mean they are planning to create thousands or millions of karma ribbons. Why do that? We’re over here trying to burn off karma ribbons.

 

One of the things i’ve taken away from this teaching is to give up the idea that “everything happens for a reason.” Things happen because the physical plane is chaotic and messy. I’ve also given up the idea that bad things happen for us specifically to learn from them. Things just happen and how we deal with those things is for us to choose. We learn from our choices. 

 

45 and co are making bad choices, not to teach us lessons but because they suck at making choices. It’s more likely they planned less destructive lives and will spend a good bit of time reviewing their lives when they leave the physical plane. 

Edited by ckaricai
  • LIKE/LOVE 11
  • THANK YOU! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
4 hours ago, Leela Corman said:

I would like to encourage people to look up Intersectionality, and replace "oppression olympics" with that. The discourse around intersectionality is rich and helpful.

 

Thank you for suggesting this, Leela! Thank you. 

 

Quote

 

@Christian WROTE: 

....as straight white American dude, it can seem easier to say it's all bullshit and just a stupid competition.

That's privilege speaking.

 

Because it is a thing that exists, that the society that we live in has ingrained into us from birth, it is very easy to misuse and abuse without even consciously realizing it. As has been demonstrated in this post.

 

 

Thank you for noting this and pointing this out. Thank you for using your privilege and perspective to help point this out. When a gay person or person of color points stuff like this out we are often dismissed, diminished, mocked, ignored, or worse...  So we need our straight, white, American male allies very much for many reasons.  One of those reasons is that some straight white people will only listen to other straight white people.

 

Somehow, my pleading and detailed explanations and compassionate patience and raw vulnerability are not enough to be considered seriously. 

 

There is only one drawback to your stepping up as an ally. You might start to find they also dismiss you now.

 

1 hour ago, Juni said:

The boys perceived equality as a loss.  But the girls were simply being given room to speak for a change.

 

As you stated in your post, this is demonstrated over and over again in a society where the privileged are asked to listen to the marginalized and share power. 

 

4 hours ago, Leela Corman said:

@Troy I just want to thank you for every single thing you wrote. It's so well-said and so detailed and I am so tired and so unhappy about other things that I can't respond specifically but DAMN, yes.

 

Leela, thank you for saying that. Having to constantly explain ourselves to people who actively deny the reality of our existence is exhausting and depressing. It is made worse by good people with good intentions revealing their blind spots and refusing to reconsider. It breaks my heart and wears me down.

 

4 hours ago, JeanneS said:

My original reply to this topic was to express my desire to not ban those who might be open to differing ideas (I probably didn't read your post as closely as I should have).  It wasn't to say we need to welcome White Supremacists here and let them run riot over the conversations.  If someone wants to come here and spew hate, then I am all for banning them.

 

Thank you, Jeanne, for clarifying that! We are on the same page, indeed then. Yeah, I never said I would ban anyone for having different ideas. This would not be a place where I would want to work and play if it were run like that. If their "different ideas" are to promote a hateful and harmful ideology, then a ban is definitely a possibility.

 

Just so you know, banning is my last resort for even the worst of behaviors. We have banned, literally, 5 people in 12 years. Half of those were fake spam accounts, so... I'm not big on banning and I don't use that function whimsically.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

@JeanneS, what @ckaricai has said. 

 

I believe that some people are unsalvageably awful. Trump is one of those people. He is the voice of hatred, on loud, at all times of the day. To think that we are being given some lesson from Trump and his henchpeople doing their dirty work,  dirty work just happens. There is no message in it, and I don't expect there to be a meaning that I can or would want, to take from it, other than he is here sharing oxygen and space, and he will harm as many of us as he can in his term. 

 

Trump is here to serve his own agenda, not anyone elses. I think it is a bit of an extension trying to find some deeper or more expansive message in his acts. He is committing whatever crimes he can get away with, he lacks fundamental integrity. 

 

To assign any deeper ideal to him other than screwing around as many as he can and get away with it, is not seeing him for who he is, a Nazi who is commanding the world. There is nothing redemptive about Trump until he is out of the presidential office. I mean good luck finding a return on something redemptive about him... it is not something I would invest my time or energy in.

  • LIKE/LOVE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sam K

I don't really think whether there's anything redeemable about Trump is even that relevant at the moment.  I mean sure, who he is in Essence is a different story, and I suppose it's always possible he'll have a near-death experience tomorrow and suddenly realize what a heel he's been, but as things are?  Nah.  He does tons of harm, precious little good, and when he does do good it's almost always a way of working around to doing more harm.  He shows no amenability to change, and has very little time left in his life to correct course even if he wanted to.

 

I'm as much a believer in the possibility of redemption as anyone, but there comes a point when you have to accept the fact that a person has chosen to be monstrous in this lifetime, and that they're highly unlikely to change before this lifetime ends.

  • LIKE/LOVE 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour

.

I repeat here that I am not a trump supporter and that I don’t think you should make white supremicists welcome in this forum. I’d also like to say that I am very fortunate that my essence decided it was appropriate for me to be born to the parents and in the society that I live in. I am very privileged and I acknowledge that my life is easier than the lives of those less privileged. 

I maintain that TLE would do well to be open to differing points of view and that reasoned debate is the best way to come to the understanding of complex topics. 

 

Candice Owens is a trump supporter. She’s also African American. The  conversation below is of relevance to this discussion. 

This conversation is long and requires some patience as it gets heated at times. In this discussion the reason for including differing points of view is illustrated. 

Hawk Newsome, the Chairman of Black Lives Matter NY joins Candace Owens for an in-depth conversation discussing the issues facing the black community, Voter ID laws, police brutality, Donald Trump and much more. https://overcast.fm/+Q8Ofb70ec

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • EYEROLL/MEH 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
2 hours ago, Troubadour said:

I maintain that TLE would do well to be open to differing points of view and that reasoned debate is the best way to come to the understanding of complex topics. 

 

My rights and existence are not up for debate. There is no “reasonable” debate about whether people have a right to equality and protection. 

 

And parading Black women as token examples for your cause is pretty disgusting. This is very ugly. 

There are gay people who support Trump, too. And women. 

These are some very broken people who have decided it’s safer to cozy up to their oppressor.

It’s a classic response to abuse.

 

I don’t think you have a clue how obnoxiously (and embarrassingly, stereotypically) offensive you are being when you roll out all of these canned responses that seem to be on the ready checklist for straight white men to deflect and avoid any effort to listen and learn. If you don’t have clue, you have one now. Please take it seriously and rethink your next words very carefully, please. 

 

And TLE does just fine in welcoming and hosting reasonable debate, inviting differing views, and finding common ground in complex topics. To suggest otherwise just because we don’t want to debate with White Supremacists is just... really disconnected. 

 

Some things are just NOT up for debate, like our rights, our existence, and our protection (and I include non-humans in that). Those topics are settled. No one will ever win an argument or debate that opposes compassion and opposes our right to exist and opposes our rights to protection and equality. Sorry. Not sorry. And Trump followers are fully on board as opposition to the very existence of anyone not aligned with White Supremacy. 

 

SO FOR THE LAST TIME:

WE ARE NOT DEBATING OUR RIGHTS AND EXISTENCE WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS AKA TRUMP FOLLOWERS OR WELCOMING THEM INTO THIS COMMUNITY.

 

END.

OF.

STORY. 

AGAIN. 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CurvyWords
2 hours ago, Troubadour said:

.

I repeat here that I am not a trump supporter and that I don’t think you should make white supremicists welcome in this forum. I’d also like to say that I am very fortunate that my essence decided it was appropriate for me to be born to the parents and in the society that I live in. I am very privileged and I acknowledge that my life is easier than the lives of those less privileged. 

I maintain that TLE would do well to be open to differing points of view and that reasoned debate is the best way to come to the understanding of complex topics. 

 

Candice Owens is a trump supporter. She’s also African American. The  conversation below is of relevance to this discussion. 

This conversation is long and requires some patience as it gets heated at times. In this discussion the reason for including differing points of view is illustrated. 

Hawk Newsome, the Chairman of Black Lives Matter NY joins Candace Owens for an in-depth conversation discussing the issues facing the black community, Voter ID laws, police brutality, Donald Trump and much more. https://overcast.fm/+Q8Ofb70ec

 

Of all the Black republicans one can find to present a "balance" of perspective, you choose Candace "Hitler-Was-Right" Owens? Come on, dude. When Candace first popped up on the scene, I went to check out her work, because people like you insist that we need to leave our echo chambers and cry about confirmation bias and not "giving the other side a chance."

 

I gave her a chance. I watched some of her Youtube content.

 

In the first video I clicked on, she essentially tried to liken Trump to T'Challa from Black Panther. Telling Black people that if we were so excited to see Black Panther, we essentially had a Black Panther President in Trump. Someone who shared T'Challa's insular and nationalistic perspective. Who ruled the United States as The Black Panther rules Wakanda.

 

And she was dead serious.

 

That's only a small percentage of some of the lunatic leaps in logic this woman takes to try to guilt Black people into voting red. Forget my personal opinion on it, it's absolutely illogical. Like many right-wing talking points. And people like Candace are actually bartering on her being a token in order to get into certain spaces.

 

She was actually a liberal opinion writer only a few short years ago, but after being consistently passed up for sharper, smarter black female voices in the sphere, she overnight became conservative and only then truly began getting traction.

 

Why?

 

So white people like you can have someone to prop up as an example. All of her hard work, being illogical and offensive and ridiculous, culminates in this moment. When someone with more conservative views gets to tout her out as a "gotcha!" card.

 

She's the diversity hire from hell. 

 

I've stayed out of this debate for the most part because my days of fighting online with white men are long behind me. At the end of the day when you log out of here, regardless of how attacked and silenced you may feel, you get to return to a world that values you. I cannot say the same. So I must value myself and protect my energy by not engaging.

 

However, next time you're going to tokenize a black woman for an ideological point, please pick a better one for the love of God. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 9
  • THANK YOU! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
35 minutes ago, CurvyWords said:

However, next time you're going to tokenize a black woman for an ideological point, please pick a better one for the love of God. 

The point is that two people with ideological differences discuss their outlook and despite it getting heated manage to be civil to each other. Their colour is irrelevant. They disagree on some things and agree on others. Reasoned discussion sees the understanding of the issue increased on both sides. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • EYEROLL/MEH 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
1 hour ago, Troy said:

SO FOR THE LAST TIME:

WE ARE NOT DEBATING OUR RIGHTS AND EXISTENCE WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS AKA TRUMP FOLLOWERS OR WELCOMING THEM INTO THIS COMMUNITY.

Um. I think you might have made that pretty clear once or twice in this thread. In the quote at the top of this post I addressed this. Perhaps you got so angry you didn’t read what I wrote.

Do you need to shout? I can hear you just fine. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • EYEROLL/MEH 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CurvyWords
3 minutes ago, Troubadour said:

The point is that two people with ideological differences discuss their outlook and despite it getting heated manage to be civil to each other. Their colour is irrelevant. They disagree on some things and agree on others. Reasoned discussion sees the understanding of the issue increased on both sides. 

What is the point of having reasonable discourse with an unreasonable person? Did you even listen to their conversation? I gave it a good, solid 20 minutes and Candace was spouting alternative facts and logical fallacies the entire time. She's antithetical to history, and reality.

 

If you saw someone outside ranting that the sky was green, would you take time out of your day to debate with them on the actual color of the sky? That's the problem with this concept of "the marketplace of ideas". When people refuse to agree on facts there cannot be any healthy debate.

 

We cannot willingly debate the humanity of black people, we cannot willingly debate racism. You think you're being shut down because people here don't want to hear the "other side". And that's not what's happening.

 

You're being shut down because the only way anyone should listen to anybody is if you're going to build on a foundation of agreeable facts. If we cannot do that, leave me alone! I'm uninterested in having debates about whether Black people face racial discrimination in corporate America. The numbers are there, personal experience is there, the facts show we do.

 

What business do I have sitting down with someone to have an ideological discussion when they can't even agree with me on that? For the sake of what? Do you even know?

 

I'm glad this dude went on her show but he didn't even have to do that. It was clickbait for Candace and hopefully got him some more engagement with BLM NYC. Otherwise, this conversation isn't something that should be touted as a good thing. He lowered himself.

 

That's why people like Candace, like she said in that episode, scream "just debate me! if you believe what you believe why can't you have a conversation!" They want to have these antithetical debates with the "other side". 

 

Instead of turning inward and talking to her white male counterparts about racial discrimination that she herself faces as a black woman (her speaking engagement fees are dismally low compared to other conservative pundits) within the conservative political sphere, she's instead arguing with other black people about whether racism is real.

 

If it wasn't so obscene and ridiculous it'd be funny.

 

And yet, this is the person you think is anyone's intellectual equal; someone willing to deny facts, mold reality to fit an agenda, and say incendiary things about race and religion to maintain her status as a token.

 

Unbelievable.

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 9
  • THANK YOU! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~K~

@Troubadour

 

From the content and tone of your posts (and yes, this is written conversation on the Internet, so don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to believe that people here are either angry or close-minded/dismissive at anyone expressing a different opinion and suggesting different points of view. I believe this is not the case. Participants in this thread are being super open-minded by willingly taking the time to discuss with you, writing very thorough replies and actively engaging in the conversation. Reasoned discussion from both sides is literally what is happening here. You interpret Troy's use of bold and caps as shouting and being angry, but from the context of the thread I think this is simply his way to emphasize a point he is passionate about.

 

You seem to believe being open-minded means being willing to change one's opinion and maybe eventually agree with the other side. I think this is not necessarily the case. I believe what is happening here is that many people in this thread have been experiencing enmity for as long as they have lived because the general culture of, well, the entire world encourages prioritizing certain traits over others, and since humanity as a whole still has a ways to go to get in touch with and grow its kindness, when you're different you're often on the receiving end of name calling, denigration, exclusion and, in worst-case scenarios that still happen today, actual physical violence.

 

They see how many other people are in the same situation as well, and they are tired of it, so they are speaking up against the denigration when they see it happening, all in hope of making the world a nice place to live for everyone.

 

Troubadour, have there been times when you have yourself been unfairly treated because of who you were/are? How did you feel then? How did you respond? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one, and I'm genuinely interested in knowing your answer.

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy

I am making the call to lock down this thread.

 

I have never done that before in my 12 years of hosting TLE.

 

Why now?

  • Because this conversation has disintegrated into a tedious and futile effort to explain and justify ourselves (ad nauseum) to one or two people who insist on our accepting what they have decided is best for everyone else.
  • Because this is no longer a healthy discussion about practicing healthy boundaries in a world where our fake U.S. president is the inspiration for his followers to commit mass murder.
  • Because we shouldn’t have to explain and justify our right to healthy boundaries.
  • Because there are now people crossing well over the line of healthy discussion and acting as mouthpieces for very hateful and harmful racist and bigoted rhetoric.
  • Because shutting down a conversation that has devolved into pitting us against racist and bigoted rhetoric is an example of clarifying healthy boundaries. 
  • Because our community is better than this and we have better things to do than this.
  • Because this is a shared classroom and this conversation has moved from being instructive to being disruptive. 
  • Because this conversation was done a long time ago and has become noise. 

 

And if you disagree with my call, that’s ok. Please express your approval or disapproval using the Emoticon/Like button options.

Differences of opinion and perspective are welcome here.*

 

*Hateful ideologies or defending those with hateful ideologies are not welcome here. 

 

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 13
  • THANK YOU! 8
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...