I guess we should all be wearing black armbands for the tens of millions of innocent people murdered by Russia during the past century too. Or Olympics should be devoid of politics altogether.
Past century != present-day struggles
You do realize that Canada boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics for basically that reason (the invasion of Afghanistan), right?
Along with 63 other nations, including the US.
Right wingers are a limitless font of empathy. And unicorn tears.
Yes, an embarrassing ridiculous decision that did nothing other than hurt athletes who trained for years and highlight the impotence and lack of will of the west to more meaningfully to the horrors of the Soviet Union, which was my point. The last thing the Olympics need is more impotent political mewing to just feel good about yourself without actually being willing to incur any cost to stand up for freedom and human rights
anyone who tries to dehumanize anyone they disagree with by using ridiculous terms like “right wingers” is certainly devoid of empathy, that’s true. And the ability to discern.
So instead, they flew a flag.
But apparently THAT’S also a travesty somehow.
Given at this stage…China and Russia…it’s already entirely impotent political mewing. And costly to put on. I’d rather see cash spent on useful things like normal sports facilities.
Who thought that? Even fatass crackhead Ford came around. Fly it all the time. Fly one for all the oppressed people in the world year round. Fly one for every country where people are oppressed, denied fundamental freedoms or criminalized for their sexuality, sex, race, religion, or political beliefs if you can find the room anywhere. Or just choose one instance of oppression in one place in the world and fly a flag for that once in a while, so you can bask in the glow of your moral superiority without having to actually do anything like stop buying products and sending money to dictators who tyrannize.
But it would be nice if the Olympics were an occasion that focused solely on athleticism. Where the world set aside its differences and focused on the shared joy of athletic achievement and sportmanship, and built collective bonds instead of highlighting differences and antagonizing each other.
Instead we have the most ridiculous Olympic spectacle since 1936 Berlin, with Hammer & Sickles being paraded (I guess it’s therefore ok for the next German Olympics to have an opening ceremony with Nazi flags) while western countries think they’re meaningfully confronting tyranny and feeling good about themselves by wearing rainbow colored parkas.
Really seems like this guy is still getting drugged up good: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/new-reports-emerge-of-rob-fords-night-out-in-vancouver/article16763774/
Protip: it’s only dehumanizing if you’re comparing them to something that isn’t human, such as racists’ favorite comparisons to apes, cockroaches, rats, or whatever. Considering that “right-winger” is pretty much defined as “a person with conservative views,” not really seeing the dehumanization there.
Now if it had been “wingnut” you would have been technically correct, although unlike the more traditional examples, it wouldn’t be an argument for a particular type of treatment. What do you do with an ape? Return it to the forest or lock it in a zoo. What do you do with a rat or a cockroach? Find the central nest and exterminate them. What do you do with a wingnut? Hand…tighten it?
Because it’s a great idea for an alcoholic to go to bars. Then spend an hour on the toilet doing drugs or dropping an epic load.
Wow. Uh, no.
Dehumanizing or not, it’s stereotyping. But that’s OK, because no conservative can possibly feel empathy, right? And if you believe that free markets do a better job of raising the standard of living than central planning, you’re just a greedy bloodsucker who doesn’t give a shit about anyone else, right? Sheesh.
It is the dictionary definition of dehumanizing. His post belongs in the “that word does not mean what you think it means” thread.
to deprive of human qualities or attributes; divest of individuality:
So how does using an accurate, if somewhat unflattering, descriptor of a person’s politics dehumanize them? I’m pretty sure forming political opinions is a uniquely human quality. I’m guessing you’re going for “divest of individuality” but categorizing someone based on opinions they voluntarily hold doesn’t qualify, sorry. By that standard, calling someone a socialist, a goth, or a Coen Brothers fan would dehumanize them.
Exactly. It can be stereotyping or political correctness (I routinely come across right wingers who call everyone not on the right a “socialist”, which is PC personified), but…