[hagbard_c]

Only one response to make sure I'm correct in who I'm conversing with:

> > ask your latest supreme court justice

> Ah. I do not posses a Supreme Court justice.

I have been assuming you're an American all the time and made my remarks based on those assumptions. If you are an American this latest supreme court justice is 'yours', if not she isn't.

Assuming that you are indeed an American I can only conclude you assume I meant 'your (...) supreme court justice' in an ideological way - why? Is that a normal way to talk about justices in your circles? It is not in mine.

[suzdude]

> Is that a normal way to talk about justices in your circles?

It is _extremely_ common to speak that way about government officials in conservative circles in the United States. Not centrist, liberal or progressive ones, because such language is reductive and problematic.

It is also _extremely_ common to use the dog whistle[1] of "define a woman" in American Conservative circles. American conservatives often use such bigotry to justify political violence against those they see as less than themselves[2].

If you want to say, "your Supreme Court's latest Justice", or "your nation's newest Justice", feel free.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

[2]https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

[hagbard_c]

> It is _extremely_ common to speak that way about government officials in conservative circles in the United States

I was asking you whether this was normal in your circles, not whether you think it to be common outside of your circles. For that information I would not ask you but others.

Notice the following:

* You automatically assumed that I was a conservative.

* You assumed that I was using the term 'your justice' as a reference to ideological instead of national identification.

* You have now listed a long list of things which according to you apply to those other people who you do not agree with (conservatives, republicans, etc.).

* When I asked a direct question on whether something applied to your circles you again deflected by claiming this thing applied to others without actually answering the question.

* You tried to imply 'racist' motives by referring to the mentioned supreme court justice's race as 'african american' as if this factor were in any way related to the discussion.

* When called out on this you bring up the tired old trope of 'dog whistles' - the secret signs which supposedly are used by those very same other - but not by you - to further their nefarious goals but which you somehow know how to recognise even though you are most definitely not part of the groups which would use them, fittingly illustrated (given the context of this thread) using a severely biased Wikipedia link.

If your approach to these issues is common in the USA it is no wonder that American politics is so polarised.

[suzdude]

> abide to the 'progressive' narrative

You 'othered' people from the get-go. Why are you so upset about others doing it?

> You automatically assumed that I was a conservative.

Where did anyone call you a conservative? Referring to conservatives in the 3rd person is not referring to you?

Why are you taking things personally?

> You assumed that I was using the term 'your justice' as a reference to ideological instead of national identification

Because that is often how it is discussed. Having never met a person who uses the words the way you are using them, so why assume that someone is using a term in a novel way? In Dutch, are you going to assume people are using terminology to mean something, while technically correct, that no one you have met uses? Props if so, but that's sounds like a tall tale.

> You have now listed a long list of things which according to you apply to those other people who you do not agree with

They apply to many people. If you do not have personal experience, that's fine.

But, don't try to invalidate other people's lived experiences.

> When I asked a direct question on whether something applied to your circles

There was no deflection. Simply a response. If you cannot parse the response, it can be clarified to your benefit.

> You tried to imply 'racist' motives

Explaining why something is racist is not prescribing intent. Why are you prescribing intent, but while criticizing others by falsely reading into their intent?

> When called out on this you bring up the tired old trope of 'dog whistles'

Pretending something isn't a problem is a rather poor defense.

> using a severely biased Wikipedia link.

Maybe you're the one with a rather large bias? Or maybe small bias? Who knows.