So? She *was pushing back against the Pride flag*...hence you just named the politically incorrect thought crime that you believe she should be punished for---by slanders and dishonest insults--- by the VERY SAME judgmental, better-than-thou phonies like YOU, hun, lol....Self-awareness can be your friend, if you let it. You are literally proving Peterson's hypothesis!
So? She *was pushing back against the Pride flag*...hence you just named the politically incorrect thought crime that you believe she should be punished for---by slanders and dishonest insults--- by the VERY SAME judgmental, better-than-thou phonies like YOU, hun, lol....Self-awareness can be your friend, if you let it. You are literally proving Peterson's hypothesis!
Mindless insults will get you nowhere. I may not share anything with those who wave the Pride flag but I support their right to wave it. This is the USA, not some fantasy version where only those who agree with you avoid condemnation. It's called accepting other human beings as equals.
Yet you hurl mindless insults and slurs with respect to Mrs. Alito's choice to raise her own flag...because she dared to not honor the message of a flag that broadcasts that an amalgam of particular sexual orientations and depravity, in some cases, as indicated by the *trans* and *intersex* colors, that must be celebrated, forcibly, by all. You, so very comically and ironically, are NOT *accepting* her as an *equal human being*, and are...sigh...imposing the very politically correct authoritarianism that Peterson speaks of, by slandering her---fallaciously, of course---as *uneducated*, when she is factually well-educated. Of course...you don't mean *education* in the academic sense...you mean it as one you view as having to be *re-educated* into...let's all say it together, now...politically correct authoritarianism.
You don't even bother to read what I write. I never called Mrs Alito uneducated, quite the opposite. That's the whole point of John's article, that it's the educated who agree with him. As for the Pride flag, it includes all sexual orientations, yes, but as for depravity, that unfortunately is found among humans of all persuasions. I don't care what flag Mrs Alito flies. But the Christian nationalism she seems to represent is bad news for all of us
Clears throat, ahem...you: "You mean uneducated like Mrs. Samuel Alito, the wife of the Supreme Court justice?" So...uh...yeah, ya did explicitly call her uneducated. Not even a point of argument....there it is in black and white.
And you *don't care* what flag Mrs Alito flies, but you then categorize her choice of flag as the...uh...politically correct authoritarian term, *Christian nationalism*, which you decry as *bad news*. No...your rigid zealotry for politically correct authoritarianism is bad news for *all of us*. And that's the point of the whole piece, lol, for which you have singlehandedly proved the validity of.
thank you, She Has Invisible Friends. unfortunately this Tori is obtuse. Also, I didn't categorize her flag as one way or another, as I said I don't care what flag she flies. Christian nationalism is a separate topic, something which I guess this person is not sharp enough to grasp. The end
Not being obtuse. You lied. Got that, hun...YOU lied. Period. Objectively provable that you lied. But not content to say *oops*, you elaborated on the *sins* of Mrs. Alito, in this case, that *she didn't show proper respect for the pride flag*, as if obeisance to the pride flag is mandatory. You specifically tied her flag to Christian nationalism---verbatim. I have no idea why you are exerting to wiggle out of your own words, but it's an exercise in futility and one would hope that you would have the sense to not double down, hun.
Peace to all of you! Come, let us reason together.
Making friends is always more fun than making enemies. Listen to the voice of experience. I've made far more enemies than friends, in my time. That my friend, is a sad legacy.
I was not reading Christians as wrong. I salute faith of any kind. But calling oneself a Christian does not always absolve one from being narrow-minded and judgmental of others. That's my response to her moralistic condemnation of the Pride flag. I don't give a hoot what flag she herself flies.
Aaaaaand...just like that, you devolved into judgement of those whom you fallaciously suggest are *Christian nationalists*, on the basis that they reject the pride flag and exercise THEIR right to hoist their own flag. You also quite literally stated as a declarative fact that she was 'uneducated'. Verbatim. You, not me. If you did not care what flag she flies, you would not have whined that she 'was condemning the pride flag', in the context of her refusing...say it out loud, hun...to appropriate the mandate of politically correct authoritarianism.
That is true, for sure! We are human. And have to suffer with one anotherтАЩs slowness and dumbness.
But we need to distinguish between narrow-minded poor Christians, and the tenets and principles and doctrines of Christianity (and I mean Catholicism, for the most serious-minded Christian).
All humans are depraved in one way or another. Look at the industry of pornography. It isn't confined to homosexuals. Jesus promoted inclusivity of love, it is about accepting the sinner, not the sin.
Come now Tori, is rebutting in such a condescending manner really going to get you anywhere? Like with the "hun" stuff.
If you just want to insult someone, surly you can come up with better than that.
I believe that for now, we still have the right to have our own opinions and to express them, except of course on platforms which engage in censorship.
Perhaps less snideness and more reason would be more productive and less polarizing.
Matthias Desmet did a great article recently; it was about the difference between groups falling for propaganda versus those who do not. Something like that. But somewhere in the article I caught an understanding that I had been missing, regarding the occasional bullying retorts I receive to my comments that differ. I came away seeing that hostility is due to a narcissistic type of anger, when the hostile responder's 'superior' view is not reflected in an oppositional comment.
I've been guilty of some hostility in some of my past post. I cannot justify that. There is no legitimate excuse. I've been angry and written unkind comments. I've just been a jerk - and I may have come across as promoting my view as "superior". Frankly, when I engage some folks - leftists trolls on Revolver for example, who offer nothing of substance and only spout anti-Trump hatred or absurd support for our criminal regime, I do believe my views are superior to theirs. However, that does not excuse the unkindness. I'm sorry I've been the way. I'm trying to reform.
I think the anger is a knee jerk reaction, and it feels justified, even though most often it is not in a commentary section. I experienced a phase of anger when schools mandated the covid shots. The compliance of adults put innocent children at risk of severe harm. Everyone is really entitled to their opinion, no matter how dull or ignorant as long as the opinion does not lead to group support of totalitarian control over everyone. I don't know of Revolver. I always identified as a democrat, but I think they have lost their compass. I was flummoxed by those who lauded Trump in such glowing terms. I also was as perplexed by the 'hatred' toward him. It would be much more productive if we had civil debate without ad hominem attacks, it would increase clarity on issues. It would take restraint and discipline to engage like that but would also become a good habit and is very doable. If someone whose first impulse is to 'kick the dog' in frustration believes they could not exercise such restraint, it is helpful to point out all the areas in life where they already do. Frustrated people don't usually lash out at bosses, high paying customers or anyone where it is self-beneficial not to. I find the easiest way to not get defensive or hostile is to commit to not taking anything someone else writes or says personally. The self-benefit is low blood pressure and not contributing to a warring world.
Right on! and I must plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, concerning much of what you say here. At the risk of sounding like I'm just making excuses, I believe I have not coped well with the cumulative happenings since the turn of the century. I think the phony pandemic was the proverbial last straw and for just the past couple of years I've been angry at most everyone and everything beyond my front door. I'm one of those silly people who have "The Imaginary Friend in the Sky", so I'm prayerful I've turned a corner and will continue to regain a degree of civility and perhaps will experience increased reason, as a byproduct.
FYI, Revolver is a news website I use some. They certainly lean right and are pro-Trump, but they often include links to news articles from liberal/left leaning publications, so it can be helpful. It's like any other news outlet, you need to carefully filter it.
I also have been angry at most over the covid lies, although I was not lashing out. I wasted my time trying to warn others, and only became a target. Once I saw that most people did not want to hear about the shot dangers, I shut my mouth. I reserved my fight to stop the school mandate at our school. CHD took the school to court and won.
I evidently wasted my time too. I have an older sibling who gave me her attention, and listened to my point of view, based on actual science, then turned around and got the first poison jab; says she didn't get the boosters. Frustrating.
I was watching ex-CIA agent Andrew Bustamente youtube video today. The CIA teach their agents psyche strategies that are practical (some are manipulative though). He did discuss the ineffectiveness of trying to get someone to change their viewpoint if at the outset you can see they really do not want to.
Where do you surmise that I would be wanting to go, hun? No one needs the Gladys Kravitz's of the world to censure and direct the *correct* course of discourse. Do you not find it *condescending*, amusingly, to chide and pompously lecture about *proper discourse*? If he's Exhibit A in proving Peterson's hypothesis, then you are Exhibit B, lol. Peterson's very point is being proven by those who object to...unapproved language and failure to abide to groupthink.
So? She *was pushing back against the Pride flag*...hence you just named the politically incorrect thought crime that you believe she should be punished for---by slanders and dishonest insults--- by the VERY SAME judgmental, better-than-thou phonies like YOU, hun, lol....Self-awareness can be your friend, if you let it. You are literally proving Peterson's hypothesis!
Mindless insults will get you nowhere. I may not share anything with those who wave the Pride flag but I support their right to wave it. This is the USA, not some fantasy version where only those who agree with you avoid condemnation. It's called accepting other human beings as equals.
Yet you hurl mindless insults and slurs with respect to Mrs. Alito's choice to raise her own flag...because she dared to not honor the message of a flag that broadcasts that an amalgam of particular sexual orientations and depravity, in some cases, as indicated by the *trans* and *intersex* colors, that must be celebrated, forcibly, by all. You, so very comically and ironically, are NOT *accepting* her as an *equal human being*, and are...sigh...imposing the very politically correct authoritarianism that Peterson speaks of, by slandering her---fallaciously, of course---as *uneducated*, when she is factually well-educated. Of course...you don't mean *education* in the academic sense...you mean it as one you view as having to be *re-educated* into...let's all say it together, now...politically correct authoritarianism.
You don't even bother to read what I write. I never called Mrs Alito uneducated, quite the opposite. That's the whole point of John's article, that it's the educated who agree with him. As for the Pride flag, it includes all sexual orientations, yes, but as for depravity, that unfortunately is found among humans of all persuasions. I don't care what flag Mrs Alito flies. But the Christian nationalism she seems to represent is bad news for all of us
Clears throat, ahem...you: "You mean uneducated like Mrs. Samuel Alito, the wife of the Supreme Court justice?" So...uh...yeah, ya did explicitly call her uneducated. Not even a point of argument....there it is in black and white.
And you *don't care* what flag Mrs Alito flies, but you then categorize her choice of flag as the...uh...politically correct authoritarian term, *Christian nationalism*, which you decry as *bad news*. No...your rigid zealotry for politically correct authoritarianism is bad news for *all of us*. And that's the point of the whole piece, lol, for which you have singlehandedly proved the validity of.
I thought he was being ironic about Mrs. Alito!!!
thank you, She Has Invisible Friends. unfortunately this Tori is obtuse. Also, I didn't categorize her flag as one way or another, as I said I don't care what flag she flies. Christian nationalism is a separate topic, something which I guess this person is not sharp enough to grasp. The end
Not being obtuse. You lied. Got that, hun...YOU lied. Period. Objectively provable that you lied. But not content to say *oops*, you elaborated on the *sins* of Mrs. Alito, in this case, that *she didn't show proper respect for the pride flag*, as if obeisance to the pride flag is mandatory. You specifically tied her flag to Christian nationalism---verbatim. I have no idea why you are exerting to wiggle out of your own words, but it's an exercise in futility and one would hope that you would have the sense to not double down, hun.
Peace to all of you! Come, let us reason together.
Making friends is always more fun than making enemies. Listen to the voice of experience. I've made far more enemies than friends, in my time. That my friend, is a sad legacy.
REALLY?? Wait a minute, I read you wrong, or you are reading Christians like Mrs. Alito wrong. I retract my support for you.
I was not reading Christians as wrong. I salute faith of any kind. But calling oneself a Christian does not always absolve one from being narrow-minded and judgmental of others. That's my response to her moralistic condemnation of the Pride flag. I don't give a hoot what flag she herself flies.
Aaaaaand...just like that, you devolved into judgement of those whom you fallaciously suggest are *Christian nationalists*, on the basis that they reject the pride flag and exercise THEIR right to hoist their own flag. You also quite literally stated as a declarative fact that she was 'uneducated'. Verbatim. You, not me. If you did not care what flag she flies, you would not have whined that she 'was condemning the pride flag', in the context of her refusing...say it out loud, hun...to appropriate the mandate of politically correct authoritarianism.
Sadly, I find so many Christians, hard of heart.
I canтАЩt put any likes down, unfortunately; i donтАЩt know why.
That is true, for sure! We are human. And have to suffer with one anotherтАЩs slowness and dumbness.
But we need to distinguish between narrow-minded poor Christians, and the tenets and principles and doctrines of Christianity (and I mean Catholicism, for the most serious-minded Christian).
All humans are depraved in one way or another. Look at the industry of pornography. It isn't confined to homosexuals. Jesus promoted inclusivity of love, it is about accepting the sinner, not the sin.
Come now Tori, is rebutting in such a condescending manner really going to get you anywhere? Like with the "hun" stuff.
If you just want to insult someone, surly you can come up with better than that.
I believe that for now, we still have the right to have our own opinions and to express them, except of course on platforms which engage in censorship.
Perhaps less snideness and more reason would be more productive and less polarizing.
Peace!
Matthias Desmet did a great article recently; it was about the difference between groups falling for propaganda versus those who do not. Something like that. But somewhere in the article I caught an understanding that I had been missing, regarding the occasional bullying retorts I receive to my comments that differ. I came away seeing that hostility is due to a narcissistic type of anger, when the hostile responder's 'superior' view is not reflected in an oppositional comment.
Thanks! I'll see if I can find the article.
I've been guilty of some hostility in some of my past post. I cannot justify that. There is no legitimate excuse. I've been angry and written unkind comments. I've just been a jerk - and I may have come across as promoting my view as "superior". Frankly, when I engage some folks - leftists trolls on Revolver for example, who offer nothing of substance and only spout anti-Trump hatred or absurd support for our criminal regime, I do believe my views are superior to theirs. However, that does not excuse the unkindness. I'm sorry I've been the way. I'm trying to reform.
Peace!
I think the anger is a knee jerk reaction, and it feels justified, even though most often it is not in a commentary section. I experienced a phase of anger when schools mandated the covid shots. The compliance of adults put innocent children at risk of severe harm. Everyone is really entitled to their opinion, no matter how dull or ignorant as long as the opinion does not lead to group support of totalitarian control over everyone. I don't know of Revolver. I always identified as a democrat, but I think they have lost their compass. I was flummoxed by those who lauded Trump in such glowing terms. I also was as perplexed by the 'hatred' toward him. It would be much more productive if we had civil debate without ad hominem attacks, it would increase clarity on issues. It would take restraint and discipline to engage like that but would also become a good habit and is very doable. If someone whose first impulse is to 'kick the dog' in frustration believes they could not exercise such restraint, it is helpful to point out all the areas in life where they already do. Frustrated people don't usually lash out at bosses, high paying customers or anyone where it is self-beneficial not to. I find the easiest way to not get defensive or hostile is to commit to not taking anything someone else writes or says personally. The self-benefit is low blood pressure and not contributing to a warring world.
Right on! and I must plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, concerning much of what you say here. At the risk of sounding like I'm just making excuses, I believe I have not coped well with the cumulative happenings since the turn of the century. I think the phony pandemic was the proverbial last straw and for just the past couple of years I've been angry at most everyone and everything beyond my front door. I'm one of those silly people who have "The Imaginary Friend in the Sky", so I'm prayerful I've turned a corner and will continue to regain a degree of civility and perhaps will experience increased reason, as a byproduct.
FYI, Revolver is a news website I use some. They certainly lean right and are pro-Trump, but they often include links to news articles from liberal/left leaning publications, so it can be helpful. It's like any other news outlet, you need to carefully filter it.
Thanks for the comment!
Peace!
I also have been angry at most over the covid lies, although I was not lashing out. I wasted my time trying to warn others, and only became a target. Once I saw that most people did not want to hear about the shot dangers, I shut my mouth. I reserved my fight to stop the school mandate at our school. CHD took the school to court and won.
I evidently wasted my time too. I have an older sibling who gave me her attention, and listened to my point of view, based on actual science, then turned around and got the first poison jab; says she didn't get the boosters. Frustrating.
Congratulations on the school victory!
I was watching ex-CIA agent Andrew Bustamente youtube video today. The CIA teach their agents psyche strategies that are practical (some are manipulative though). He did discuss the ineffectiveness of trying to get someone to change their viewpoint if at the outset you can see they really do not want to.
Thanks for that info!
I'll check it out.
Where do you surmise that I would be wanting to go, hun? No one needs the Gladys Kravitz's of the world to censure and direct the *correct* course of discourse. Do you not find it *condescending*, amusingly, to chide and pompously lecture about *proper discourse*? If he's Exhibit A in proving Peterson's hypothesis, then you are Exhibit B, lol. Peterson's very point is being proven by those who object to...unapproved language and failure to abide to groupthink.