[FrontierPsych]

>This is a comment that originates in privilege.

This sounds like a comment about privilege that originates in privilege.

The person just expressed his or her opinion, and bandying words like "privilege" shuts down communication by route of shaming someone.

Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority.

If someone was to offer someone $20 million per year to do a job in Kansas, I guess many people would turn it down to make a point, but no reason to crap over someone who wants to make that $20 million.

The fact of the matter is that in most red states, there are blue cities.

Texas - Austin (Travis County) - 72.8% voted for Joe Biden Georgia - Atlanta (Fulton County) - 72.6% voted for Joe Biden Arizona - Phoenix (Maricopa County) - 50.3% voted for Joe Biden North Carolina - Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) - 67.5% voted for Joe Biden Tennessee - Nashville (Davidson County) - 61.7% voted for Joe Biden Florida - Miami (Miami-Dade County) - 53.3% voted for Joe Biden Ohio - Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) - 68.1% voted for Joe Biden Indiana - Indianapolis (Marion County) - 60.2% voted for Joe Biden Missouri - Kansas City (Jackson County) - 60.7% voted for Joe Biden Utah - Salt Lake City (Salt Lake County) - 62.9% voted for Joe Biden

And remember, geographically, California is MAJORLY red. Look at the last election map. What happens if someone moves there. Sure, you get abortion in California, but your neighbors are going to still be hard-core MAGA Republicans.

I must say, it is extremely disheartening when people throw around words like "privilege" just as an easy way to shut down communication by shame. I know you'll most likely deny it, what else can you do, but it is what it is. So I'd appreciate it if people would argue their case without these types of coded words. Just my opinion, don't tell me I'm privileged or misogynist or transphobic or fat-shaming or the million other words designed to immediately shut down a conversation by name-calling. I mean, I know that's the game these days - continual virtue signalling, de-platforming, gotchas for showing the world how virtuous one is and tallying up one's "I'm good" checkmarks. And if you say you aren't or that isn't the purpose...right, ok, sure. If you say so. Whatever you say. I believe you. Right.

[ImPostingOnHN]

can you elaborate why you think the comment about privilege is wrong, rather than emphasizing that you don't like that the word was used?

> Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority

yes, but some are, and ignoring concerns which apply to them because you're not personally affected by the concerns is, well, privileged - you literally have the privilege of not having to worry about right-wingers driving a car into you only because you're the wrong ethnicity or nationality, like one just did in Texas

if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

[iinnPP]

The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

People don't have to do what anyone believes is best for them. They don't need anyone pressuring them to behave a certain way. They don't need that from society, or anybody. What they wear is their's to choose. What they spend time on is their own. They can do whatever and be whoever and nobody else is in any way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than themselves.

Edit: I changed single person wording to reflect the actual purpose of the message.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

this is an assumption you made, if anybody did, as I did not

> People don't have to do what you believe is best for them.

I didn't claim otherwise here, either

you seem extremely confused at what I said, so please re-read it, because I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

[iinnPP]

My comment wasn't really meant for you. It wasn't a criticism of you. It was a message indicating that everyone should be free to make their own decisions and shouldn't feel pressured based on how anyone else perceives them. Perhaps it was poorly worded.

You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> My comment wasn't really meant for you.

In the future, to avoid such misunderstandings, it would be best if post replies were replies to posts.

> You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.

Not sure what imaginary "are you mad?" you're referring to, but nobody can force you to respond to the actual points in the posts you reply to, so go ahead and don't.

[FrontierPsych]

>I didn't claim otherwise here, either

You implied it, you didn't say it.

>I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

To him and to me, you didn't literally say it, but you implied it. You don't have to say something explicitly to have people know what you meant. Certainly Donald Trump didn't explicitly say for people to attempt an insurrection, but every one of those cretins knew exactly what he was saying.

>perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

On the other hand, the poster you are replying to did not say nor imply anything of the sort of thing that you are saying.

>we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

You are using emotionally laden wording here, rather than just having a healthy dialogue where you disagree.

>BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

Because the person you responded to above didn't use the word privilege. I did in another comment, which I just explained in my response to you on the other thread. I just logged back on right now and answered your other statement to me.

If you are going to respond, perhaps respond to only the other one as it is difficult to have two separate conversations happening at the same time.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You implied it

> you didn't literally say it, but you implied it.

Did I? It doesn't seem like I did, perhaps you wrongly inferred it.

> You are using emotionally laden wording here, rather than just having a healthy dialogue where you disagree

Am I? It seems like I'm just stating the facts, your emotionality in response to them is on you (and totally normal, given these facts)

[FrontierPsych]

whatever you say, dude.

[FrontierPsych]

Because "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation. Words can have more than one meaning, they can be nuanced, and they can mean something else entirely to the "in-crowd."

>like one just did in Texas

This could have happened in any state, including New York City or San Francisco or Seatle or any other liberal city and you know it. You are arguing unfairly.

>if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

I didn't say that I felt that way. This is yet again another way that you are using ad hominem attacks by saying that I feel shame.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have to try to use shame to shut down dialogue.

And you seem to indicate that I am privileged. How do you know I am not a black lesbian trans woman? You have no idea.

All I am asking of you is to have a dialogue without using loaded language.

.

As it says in wikipedia:

*Loaded Language:*

"Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, strong emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning."

And read again the last sentence.

*Ad hominem attacks*

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

Dog whistle language

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences.

Choosing broadly appealing words such as "family values", which has extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters. Same with many words on the left.

Code words

A code word is a word or a phrase designed to convey a predetermined meaning to an audience who know the phrase, while remaining inconspicuous to the uninitiated.

.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not familiar with these terms, but now that you are, maybe you will use discussions to the fairness of both sides of the discussion.

And to repeat, I'm not really taking sides in the actual argument. I'm saying that your language usage is unfair, both to the original person you responded to, and to me in response to my last comment.

If you have more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't use the automatic words of things like "privilege," "white supremacy," "transphobic," "toxic masculinity," "patriarchy," and all those types of language.

But it is a free world, we have free speech, you can do as you wish. I'm just asking this as one rational person to hopefully another.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation.

I'm not convinced this is the case, or that it is indeed "loaded language" as claimed, as the only evidence behind such claims is you, a random person on the internet, claiming them

in fact, it's beginning to seem like maybe you don't know what privilege is at all. Perhaps you could illustrate that you do, and get back on topic at the same time, by explaining the privilege shown by the post at the beginning of this thread (rather than repeatedly trying to shut down rational conversation with your tone policing)?

[FrontierPsych]

whatever you say, dude.