Anonymity, Trump supporters, the right-wing media, and the gman account

I think one difference between “The Andrea Doria” and Gman is that Gman is not just saying the equivalent of “your head is large”. Rather, he is saying that “your loved ones and their children are not fully human, not fully citizens, and they need to be some combination of oppressed/exiled/killed.”

This is an honest question. Would you be so tolerant of having Gman in your house if he thought that way about your child? Or is it maybe easier to be tolerant of him, since it is not your kid that is under direct threat from his beliefs?

These are the sort of asides, in this sub-forum, that make these discussions toxic. Not meaning to single you out, Rothda (its common place here in P & R), but why must the assumption be made, immediately that anyone who would desire to defend a particular iissue (in this case the presence of Gman, before his being revealed as a charlatan) must therefore hold a whole series of backstoried belief systems to include being a callous empathy-free android/monster? I currently only read three threads here: This one (soon to be muted) Gman’s sock puppet Phd Thread (soon to be muted) and The Korea Thread. And this is why I stay out of here.

I thought the question was non-toxic and excellent and I look forward to @ChristienMurawski’s response, which I expect will be thoughtful. And perhaps his response will convince me that, in fact, the question was toxic.

I don’t understand your objection at all. If you want to clarify, please know that I will read your response with care and thanks.

I know it will be thoughtful. I make the baseline assumption that everyone at Qt3 is approaching every issue from an honest, good hearted standpoint, until I am proven wrong.

Sorry, my question was kind of pointed but it wasn’t meant to be toxic or hostile. I think it’s fine if Christien answers that he does practice a kind of radical acceptance and thinks the effort of building bridges is still worthwhile even if the person he is tolerating is prejudiced against Christien’s own kid. And if that’s not the case, and if Christien wouldn’t be so tolerant in that situation, then I hope to help him understand why other people get so het up about this issue.

Even if justified in the specific case of gman, this whole argumentative style of appeal to emotion - “he wants to kill my children” is extremely tiresome and makes productive discourse nigh-impossible. This was one of the things people tried to address in the “problems with liberalism” thread before scott thoroughly shitted it up.

Now, in the case of gman productive discourse was impossible anyway, and he supported causes significantly to the right of the typical moderate or conservative QT3 poster. But @ChristienMurawski isn’t gman. So maybe if people could not immediately introduce the maximum emotional weight to the discussion that would be great.

I hear you and understand. I have many friends, good close ones, who I completely disagree with about politics. I have also maintained relationships (or kept an open door) to some who considered me an agent of the devil (or at the very least, a heretic) both Muslim and Christian. Often it led nowhere. Sometimes it led to epiphanies for both of us. In my life, I have found the interpersonal to be far more powerful than the political. No rally or slogan ever changed a mind.

That sounds fair and in a normal political climate, it would be. However, this is not 2008, 2000 or even 1984. The people who have chosen Trump as their standard-bearer do not simply have different views, they want to watch our society crumble into ruins. Look at the Brexit shit-show, they got what they wanted so where’s the grand plan? Where’s the vision they loudly preached for years? Putin broke Ukraine in three and he sent his online troll army to break the West apart as well. And for what? The sanctions are still up, Russia’s economy is still in the gutter. Trump is barking at his allies and dealing with Russia and NK. Again, to what purpose?

The only thing these events have in common is the chaos they caused. These people don’t care about the social contract, they don’t care about the rules, be them written or unspoken, all they care about is getting a reset, a new world. It’s the only chance for the racists and xenophobes to freely hate without that pesky PC culture, the only chance for the evangelicals to bring God back in schools, courts, and hospitals, the only chance for the Incels to become Chads, the only chance for the authoritarians to rule the world once again.

So excuse me for not giving a damn about these deplorables, as Clinton perfectly put it. Gman was a propagandist, plain and simple, there’s at least one in many forums and I for one am glad he’s gone.

I’m just… not to single you out in particular, but I’ve heard so much of, “we have to be civil”, and “it’s good to have discussions with people who disagree with you” and so on. But, here’s the thing.

The Holocaust is a thing that happened. It happened to my family. And not that long ago. It started with people saying that Judaism is a bad religion and Jews are bad and our country would be better if we got rid of them.

So when I hear people saying that Islam is a bad religion and Muslims are bad and our country would be better if we got rid of them, my radar goes off to a million percent. Or replace “Muslims” with “Immigrants”. I’ve seen this movie before and I know how it ends. You can try to say I’m being hyperbolic, but this is how it starts. It can happen here. It can happen in the 21st century.

And preventing Holocausts is more important than being civil, to me. Never again.

Though I’m not Jewish my paternal ancestors fled the pogroms of the early 1900s.

I know a lot of people with political views JUST LIKE YOURS. Do you know what happens when they hear allegations of antisemitism? THEY DISMISS THEM AS SMEARS. Why? Because the antisemites ARE ON THEIR SIDE.

But I think these people are nevertheless well intentioned. The occasional use of symbols of mass murder and oppression is just a way to stick it to the man and express their desire for radical change. They defend the antisemites because they believe the media that agrees with them about most things. Importantly, I don’t believe they’d actually back any kind of discrimination. They’re otherwise nice people and I associate with them. Sometime you have to leave politics to one side.

Christien, I think you nail it. It also why I viewed Gman’s argument differently. Gman would response with say Republican/Trumpian talking point #27 on immigration. It would appear disingenuous, and probably bad faith, because someone response with Democratic talking point #14 and Gman would ignore it. Here is the thing, there is generally a lot of truth in both Republican and Democrat talking points, there are also a lot of 1/2 truths and deceptions in both sides talking points. But we are conditioned to believe our sides talking points and think the other sides are lies. It takes a lot of time and effort, and I’d argue a certain maturity to make a critical examination of the 1/2 truths of your side. I’m pretty sure that Gman was unaware of the 1/2 truth of Republican talking point #27, even if the rest of the forum was well aware.

In the first place, I don’t always understand the term ‘tolerance’ anymore, because I think it has been perverted. Let me be clear, I am not saying you are doing that, Rothda, rather that it’s kind of been weaponized, in much the way ‘liberal’ is used with derision. I don’t use ‘conservative’ that way. This is part of the reason liberal-leaning people started to switch to ‘progressive’ instead, because some people turned ‘liberal’ into a dirty word. I think ‘tolerance’ as a term has taken a similar turn.

That said, it’s hard to answer your question, and I’ve been thinking about it as I’ve run a few errands. One such errand, if you must know, was getting a live pinkie rat to feed my son’s pet snake. This isn’t germane to my answer, I’m just putting in a little color.

It is difficult to answer your question because I am not a minority. The very worst things I had to deal with was having my name made fun of in elementary school because it looks like a girl’s name, and being told a lot of Polish jokes, because, you know, Polish people are so stupid. That and being called a fag by the jocks in high school when I was in theater in high school.

Them’s small potatoes compared to your question, so I feel kind of presumptuous answering it, but I’ll try.

Even given the power difference between us–a dude who does a movie podcast and a guy who works for a huge media company–I still believe that getting somebody to know you, in person, helps. I know this sounds naive. I know it sounds, to use a word @Sharpe used, Pollyanna-ish, but I’ve seen it work. So if I were in the position you suggest, with a son in the minority excluded by travel or fences, or yelled at to get out of the country, I would invite an otherwise reasonable person into my home because getting to know me, and my son, might move the needle. Granted, it might not, but ignoring it isn’t helping.

Here’s an example from my own life that I’ve shared here before. My mother and stepfather are very conservative, and also Evangelical Christians. We had many debates, years ago, about gay marriage. They would cite verses from the Bible. And I would too, because I know the Bible. This would usually lead to an impasse.

However, upon meeting the couple we chose as godfathers for my son, a gay couple whose relationship has well outlasted any I’ve had, and indeed my mother’s first marriage, my folks began to change. They met these two loving men. Men who valued their grandson. Men who would do anything for him, and indeed for me. Men who were clearly committed to each other, and just freaking great human beings.

At some point my mom said to me, “I can’t do this anymore. If I say people should be in a committed relationship, how can I deny them marriage? It’s hypocritical.” And she changed.

Now, she still goes to a church with a lot of people who are against that view. But she changed. By meeting two actual people who were real, and good, and decent, and she realized they deserved the same rights she had.

I know this is a long-winded response to a quick question, it’s just that I want to think that meeting one’s baba yaga makes that person a person to you. And so, that’s what I’d try to do.

This isn’t to say I haven’t made mistakes and dismissed certain people out of hand, even here, it’s just to say that in imagining your scenario, that’s what I’d hope to do.

Thank you for your question, Rothda.

-xtien

Oh come on. P&R has a rich history of dickish behavior.

Most members here don’t care because they agree with it. One Trump supporter comes along, won’t be shouted down, and all hell breaks loose, and must be banned.

I’m gonna stick my hand up and say I was really disappointed that this happened. I do not follow internet forum threads that deeply - I limit my time to an hour or two a day in non-work related web surfing. I was disturbed by wumpus’ post, though by Tom’s account, it was for the best for both parties. I was really interested to see if Tom would succumb to the pressure and ban one non-liberal member who was distressing all the others.

Really, you all should just come out and post in the rules: Liberals only. And non-liberals who agree with us.

You seem to have missed the part where it was because he was here to sow discord and troll. Not because of any real beliefs. If you didn’t actually read the threads he hijacked or attempt to talk to him you might believe that though.

And that is bullshit of the finest quality.

I think that this is true, especially given the final acts he preformed.

However, that being said, a lot of folks made a big deal if him making arguments in bad faith, or moving the goal posts, or refusing to acknowledge errors, etc.

And he did.

But he’s not the only person to have done that in these forums. And sometimes, folks give that behavior a pass when it’s something they agree with.

So I’d just ask that the same scrutiny be applied across the board.

I dunno, this is not really fair.

The real world is about relationships. People need to understand how they work. If you spend time with someone and get to know them, you build a rapport. Spend more time and find common interests and you become friends. And everyone treats their friends differently than they do a random person on the street.

I have friends who I disagree with for many different reasons, including politics. But because we have spent time together, and have built rapport, I let some things slide. I wouldn’t do this for someone I had just met.

So if you roll into this forum and start shit that pretty much anyone in the world would find annoying like arguing in bad faith, why should I give this stranger the benefit of the doubt? Why wasn’t he smart enough to understand that in order to get away with that nonsense he at least has to try to build bonds with at least some of us first?

I don’t find the saga of gman an indictment of us in any way. It is 100% on him to have enough intelligence to understand how to come at a community like ours. Instead, he barged in, started farting up the place, acting like a martyr, and then makes half of us wonder what we did wrong.

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still think of Qt3 like a dinner party. You can have a wide array of opinions at a dinner party, and you can even have intelligent discussions about very difficult topics like religion and politics. But not if you have some asshole who makes the whole party about himself and is just playing the room for his own amusement. That guy should get asked to leave, and when that happens, it’s not because people disagreed with his politics, it was because he was an asshole at a dinner party.

Good riddance.

Totally agree with Menzo here. And thanks to @ChristienMurawski for the reply and the tale.

I’d like to think that I do that. OTOH earlier in my time here I was a very angry atheist. I had to take time off to rethink my approach. While there were some people that agreed with me, there were others that I just attacked. I think that I said ban worthy shit back then. Now I would cringe if someone brought it up.

+1234