oldmanjay

Most of the very wealthy people I've met work very hard indeed, yet they are not considered to be "working folk". Why be antagonistic toward powerful people in the core jargon of the party plank? Would honesty of language, or perhaps even inclusiveness, work better than emotional resonance and tribalism?

No, you should be tolerant of people. You should also endeavor to note the distinction between saying something and doing something, because it's not even subtle and insisting it doesn't exist, for example by labeling a joke "sexual assault," does not convince reasonable people that you are on the level.

Do you know because you know Thiel or do you know because you're a Jedi and you searched your feelings?

It's a huge complaint when it confronts people who didn't learn how the system works in civics class, I guess, but it's been the way that presidential voting has worked since before we were all born, so the outcry is sort of annoying at best.

Also, as the only groups legally able to propose a change to this system are right now benefiting from it, I wouldn't hold my breath.

OP et al assert a particular motivation of a general population, which is hardly not generalizing.

Not that I'm expecting a response, but I'm curious; were you going to assert that it is impossible to be bigoted about a white male?

Hmm. This isn't twitter, and I quoted my entire post. What, exactly, are you on about?

Edit: ah wait I see, you think I'm trying to karma bump my sentiment, but to what end? It's parented under the flagged version of itself and I hardly care if I accumulate more internet points. I'm just trying to figure out why you think flogging your morals at me is worthwhile.

Ahh, now if I were a man who liked reading into things people say, I'd go with inferring that you believe I am a trump supporter. You are incorrect if that is the case.

Now, on to the point. I'm dead curious. Here are my words:

> Literally everything in my life is more important to me than any aspect of your mother

Where is the question implied in there? I endeavor to speak precisely, and I have heard it posited that it is incumbent upon the speaker to eliminate misunderstandings in the listener, so let's put it to the test. Demonstrate how that virtue signalling question you inferred from my words comes from my words and not solely your head.

My point is that you inferred a question that was not asked implicitly or otherwise, not that I needed a definition of implicit. I did not talk past you. I simply deny your arrogant assumption upon which you base your understanding of me.

Your terror is no more my responsibility than your putative mother's health. I don't consider you an enemy. In fact, I don't really consider you, because as a human being I have limited capacity for things like love and I save that capacity for the many people I actually know and deal with in my life.

Okay, let's stipulate that the notion of "white privilege" is real. The shattered people who voted for Trump, who spend their lives being called "white trash" by "coastal elites," are clamoring for a share of that privilege. How do you address them?

That's pretty much how I've lived the past year. Even close friends would descend into personal attacks they knew were completely incorrect in their zeal to deny that trump was a force they didn't understand.

I didn't use the word "prejudice" at all, in fact, so technically this is correct. You're still wrong about the word "bigotry" though.

Your lack of imagination is not a compelling explanation of the political motivations of millions of people you want to pretend don't count

Oh? What definition are you using? The one I just checked in the dictionary agrees with me.

Let's take that long hard look. What aspects of a woman I never met should be more important to me than things that are in my life, and for bonus virtue signaling, why?