The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 10:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Well, no. I see the country divided by two cultures who have embraced different solutions in different environments to different problems. Each seems certain enough that its own solutions are correct to attempt to force their culture on the other. This is unfortunate and problematic.

It is also a problem in Rule of Law. The Constitution means something. One should not throw it away lightly.

Of course, gun policy is a complex question. You can't bring up the above without leaving the door wide open for class and partisanship. You can try somewhat, but people's values are focused on different things. You have got to expect different arguments reflecting that. At one level I have no problems with a different angle and approach, while at another I regret how the problem gets more difficult.

But the key here is worlds being put into my mouth. Kinser's values are as good as any extreme partisan's, but they do not mesh well with mine. I see this as a general problem. Kinser projects values on others freely, often as universals. He just assumed the above must be true. It is just clearer in this case as the values are being projected on mine. Kinser's statement is just wrong and clearly so.

I suppose I should clarify more about the distinction between generalization and vile stereotype. Again, any forum dedicated to the behavior of large amounts of people is going to have to generalize somewhat. We might become boomers, blue leaning or aging hippies. A vile stereotype is something uglier. The target is generally being demeaned and insulted. The generalizations made are generally insulting and often inaccurate. I have also often seen partisans use vile stereotypes to build a straw man attack. If the extreme partisan is having problems defending his values, he will ignore what is said in favor of attacking an often beat up straw man.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for the Obamas. I have less, of course, for Carson and Kinser, not for their skin pigmentation, but for their world views. Somehow, some can't seem to avoid identity politics, and keep bringing it back to skin pigmentation. I'd rather not, but some are quite obsessed with it. Anyway, all of them are real enough and specific enough people that it seems a shame to lump them into a common generalization, let alone a vile stereotype.

Is it an insult to say the Obamas are a little different? I hope not. They are mighty fine people, with skin pigmentation not playing a part of anything. Some people can't seem to move off it being a vile stereotype. Where did that come from? How does any of their beliefs or actions fit in the ugliness of a vile stereotype?