[SomeStupidPoint]

I quoted the part of your comment that exemplifies the behavior I was calling out.

Perhaps I read it wrong: feel free to provide another interpretation of the quoted text. I'd genuinely like to be wrong here, but it reads like you're engaged in culturally approved oppression of the invisibly disabled.

Ed: In particular, you identify a group of developmentally stalled people who didnt receive the help they needed to be properly socialized, and then immediately call them "deplorables" because they acted out.

I think that says it all: these are people you willingly other instead of embrace because they offend your cultured sebsibilities, and the culture you're in tells you to revile rather than help. That's the definition of culturally sanctioned oppression.

[labster]

I really wish that I could flag replies to my own comments :[

Sorry to burst your bubble, but openly racist and sexist people are deplorable.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I'm not sure why you'd flag my reply for disagreeing with you sharply. I don't think I've done anything inappropriate, as opposed to discussing a sensitive topic and not agreeing with you. (The reason you can't is precisely that: because you'd flag appropriately expressed views that disagree with you in ways that make you feel uncomfortable.)

> openly racist and sexist people are deplorable

I mean, I obviously disagree. I think it matters a lot why they're doing those things, as opposed to that they're doing them. If it's because they're mentally disabled and we've failed to teach them socially appropriate behaviors as they matured, how is that their failing rather than ours?

Your lack of concern for that possibility -- that we're just discarding the disabled because they didn't develop under their own power in to normal adults -- is what troubles me about your stance.

[labster]

No, I would flag you because of the personal attacks, which are a violation of board rules. I don't really care about your views now, because you're obviously a lost cause.

[SomeStupidPoint]

Which personal attacks would those be?

I've claimed that I think you're acting a certain way, but that's not a personal attack: it's a specific claim about how you're acting (and how it impacts others) based on specific and cited things you've said. Calling you out for your behavior isn't "attacking" you, even if it's uncomfortable for you or violates your social expectations.

> I don't really care about your views now, because you're obviously a lost cause.

Yes, I suspected that you would refuse to engage with someone who disagreed with your view and called you out on your behavior, because it would force you to confront the reality of how your actions impact people rather than the social fable you tell yourself about them. Notice how you call me a "lost cause", but clearly never even talked to me in this exchange. You just said the socially approved phrases at me. I think the reason you haven't actually addressed my specific points is because at some level, you know you can't. That what you're doing really is oppression targeted at a disabled group you've been socialized to find "deplorable" rather than "unfortunate".

It's just much easier to deny your bad behavior and fit in.

[labster]

Nah, it's much easier to git commit something useful than try to argue against a strawman version of oneself constructed by an SJW.

[SomeStupidPoint]

Im sure you'll tell yourself you chose not to respond but could have.

But I sincerely hope you'll at least try for your own benefit. I think having to explain why poorly raised mentally disabled people saying racist things are deplorable rather than unfortunate, without merely assuming your conclusion is right would teach you a lot about yourself. You don't even have to show me: just spend 5 minutes typing it out for yourself. Why not be sure you're right instead of merely assuming Im wrong?

Good luck on your commit. (: