Those people get talked about in that way ALL THE TIME here and the reason there’s not a 50 post derail is because nobody sparks debate by saying that’s bigoted
2 Likes
I’m sure I have personally participated in a number of discussions of how unnatural Zuckerberg looks in various photos (maybe not baby photos specifically, but possibly). That dude looks unnatural AF and the internet abounds with discussions of how unnatural he looks in nearly any photographed setting.
I think it’s ableism. It fits better. And it’s just as bad.
Gonna slit my wrists with Occams razor reading yet another UP post misusing it.
Sorry, forgot this is a place for accusing others of being ignorant bigots. Carry on keeping the thread pure.
Hanlon’s Razor would lead to the conclusion that your posts in this thread weren’t made out of malice.
Exactly. Phew.
Oh cool suicide jokes! From the person supposedly upset about someone being a “divisive asshole”
1 Like
Partisanship (even of the forum team variety) is a helluva drug.
1 Like
Personally, I see a difference between joking about Occams razor, and accusing my fellow posters of being ignorant bigots because I am assigning motivations to their actions that they expressly deny.
It’s weird on this forum that the forum gets your panties in a bunch, and the latter is par for the course with others piling on. Seems clear to me which is ultimately more divisive.
But sure, you and others aren’t trolling. That’s only something bad people do. And by definition you’re not bad and others are.
Having a subconscious bias does not make you an “ignorant bigot.” You are only an ignorant bigot if you are unable to self-reflect on the possibility that you might have an unconscious bias. Otherwise, you’re just human.
dude this is 100% ignorant bigotry. That doesn’t mean someone is automatically a terrible person. It’s a gap that clearly very few people have thought about. It’s also a situation that I take personally because of my experiences. You, otoh, never contribute to this forum except to fling shit and delete your posts a few days later. You are the troll.
Also, panties in a bunch… hey look it’s more ignorant bigotry.
5 Likes
And looping it back tot he original point of this entire derail, the fact that a number of people even on this very forum appear to have an unconscious bias does not bode well for Pete’s chances in the general.
1 Like
I’m not sure ableism is going to do Pete in, but I strongly agree that homophobia is going to sink Pete in a general. That conclusion has nothing to do with unstuck, of course.
Hypocrisy detected, internet won
2 Likes
Good thing no one mentioned Mayor Pete’s gender reveal photos.
1 Like
If they did gender reveal bullshit it’s straight to jail
I think this whole brouhaha is a perfect demonstration of how we all rush to confirm our own biases without getting all the facts. I’m talking about the initial one, and not just on here.
Pete got a lot of shit for that because people just assumed things and didn’t bother or care to actually know the facts.
The babies were adopted. So any attacks based on “renting the mother” or anything else involving surrogacy automatically flag the one using them as uninformed at best, and bigoted at worst.
I’ve seen it all in these mean internet streets, having been involved in the campaign. It’s unrecognized bias (yes, homophobia, even from those on the left) and it’s pretty difficult to accept, especially from people who are supposed to be “enlightened.” And yet, we have people who hate Pete because he dared to challenge their candidate in a primary 3 years ago posting trash takes about his husband and family based on their implicit bias, which is nice to be able to hide behind other trash takes based on their so-called politics.
Of course they didn’t, because it was an adoption.
3 Likes
/thread imo.
Cool thread, is it bigoted to find all baby pictures and actually all staged family photos fairly lame?