| ▲ | crims0n 2 days ago |
| Remember the good ol' days when people just didn't discuss politics or religion out of decency? There was a reason for that, both bring out the worst in people. |
|
| ▲ | LetsGetTechnicl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Suddenly I'm reminded of the decent (grown) people who yelled in six year-old Ruby Bridges' face when she was merely attending elementary school. So if that was 1960, I'm just wondering when those good ol' days you're referring to where. |
| |
| ▲ | crims0n 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It is an expression, you needn’t interpret it literally. | | |
| ▲ | LetsGetTechnicl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh, okay. I guess that's a convenient excuse to not have to back up your words. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is hn not reddit, do you really expect a response to your whataboutism? | | |
| ▲ | LetsGetTechnicl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "Whataboutism" is just asking you to validate your claims, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don’t need me to validate it for you, search “never discuss politics or religion in polite company” - it was a common maxim. |
| |
| ▲ | angoragoats 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | His reply was not whataboutism; it was a legitimate and direct retort to your post that exposes that what you asserted was false. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can literally replace the first four words in their sentence with “What about when”. | | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s not what whataboutism is; it requires the “what about when” to be followed by a change of topic, to distract the other party from the original topic. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Like when I made a comment on general etiquette and someone else shifted the conversation to one of the worst moments of the civil rights movement? | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | angoragoats 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What, exactly, was the expression in your post that was not meant to be interpreted literally? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cthalupa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The problem is that living life is inherently political. Being able to ignore politics, not having to feel the need to discuss them, is a sign that you are inherently better off than a good chunk of this country. A lot of people spend most of their waking hours having to deal with or at least keep in mind the fall out from regressive politics. Asking people to not discuss politics is like asking someone living in fear for their safety to not try and improve said safety. You're asking to not have to be bothered by something that annoys you to talk about in exchange for someone not being able to advocate for their life and livelihood. |
| |
| ▲ | crims0n 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree with the sentiment. My point was more people used to have a common understanding that there was a time and place for political (and religious) discussion - and that those beliefs were deeply personal, shaped largely by experience, and not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character. Somewhere along the way we lost that idea, not all cultural changes are for the better. | | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I see, so from this reply I gather that your parent post was not “just an expression” as you claimed elsewhere, and you just got snippy when someone pushed back against your obviously out-of-touch assertion of fact. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | As stated elsewhere, “good ol’ days” is an idiom. That was the expression. The point I was making was independent of the idiom/expression. | | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Goddamn, I wish I could block users on HN. | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just some intellectual sparring mate, no ill will intended. | | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you honestly think that falsely calling out an (informal) fallacy counts as “intellectual sparring,” whatever the fuck that is? What is wrong with you? | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexeyBelov a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character Really? When was that time? 1000 BC? | | |
| ▲ | crims0n 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Was pretty common with my grandparents generation so… mid 20th century? I know it can be hard to believe post-internet. |
|
|
|
