Look - here’s an example of why you’re wrong. Do you think free public education just *happened*? It did not. Once the decision was made to have a democracy, free public education for all became a requirement. It was a deliberate decision by the people who wrote the Constitution to provide it. It was NOT welfare or charity; it was strictly a matter of ensuring the survival of a functioning democracy. It’s more in keeping with the Constitution’s intent to consider projects that keep democracy functioning, than it will ever be to shut that type of consideration down.
Limiting the government to strictly administrative matters as you suggest is not the way it was initially envisioned. Such thinking also oversimplifies how government interacts with daily life at this time.

Attempts to change and grow versus attempts to keep people from doing that.

I wasn’t meaning you were being threatening just that on second reading they might be reacting to me as if this was something they were mindful of, because they don’t know where it’s coming from and might think there’s more (so push back hard).No stress, as you say, and you rock!

@guest_ It was honorable and awesome of you to step in, of course! Mad props to you for that and in general. You always have lovely things to say.

It’s an affirmation of your humanity, not an attack on it. I apologize if someone felt threatened as if they might have to leave. That didn’t occur to me as a feeling someone might have.
That doesn’t change my point, and doesn’t make me responsible for or responsive to your reaction. Still, I did want to stop by to say any threat against access you may have felt was entirely unintentional.

But it’s consistent with my intellectual philosophy that I do not believe calling out shortfalls in thinking requires me to hope you accept what I say. It’s not incumbent on me to say it *just right* and with enough emotional pleading. If it’s a true point, take it and move on. I cannot be responsible for saying just the right thing to help you see things. I can only be responsible for seeing the world as clearly as possible and speaking for that.
In responses, I haven’t argued about whether my thinking is correct in this case. I haven’t and won’t argue here about anyone continuing with thinking I consider lazy.
I argue for my thoughts because I think they are accurate and life-giving. I didn’t feel attacked initially. I don’t feel attacked now. I feel exactly what I said: I believe anyone who thinks through or reads about how using this word is problematic will logically stop using it. From my perspective, this is work you should already have done. (Cont)

Just dropping in to say this: I do not feel targeted. If I did, I would say so. Words are the only thing we have to bridge the vast and dark chasm surrounding each of us.
(I am annoyed about a putdown I think people should realize somewhere between age 14 - 27 is deliberately exclusionary/dismissive and stop using. That’s it.)
I don’t want and wouldn’t suggest anyone have privileges on this site revoked or censured based on this. It’s not fair to hold that threat over someone. It didn’t occur to me someone might feel that. I’m sorry if you did.
I do think y’all were lazy in your previous thinking and now are being lazy in your response to being called on it. But! That assumes you are NOT evil, bad or mean. You’re upset because you see yourself as a good person. That’s lovely. Same.
In response to a belief that I need to politely and gently request better thinking: no. If I were making a request to ‘be nice’, yes, I would have been much more gentle. (Cont)

Either you get something is problematic or you don’t. Your refusal to think is definitely a YOU problem. You might have a “snowflake” issue, although I think that’s a little rough, since I see you as lazy instead of helplessly fragile. Nonetheless, your inability to think is not a cause for me to stop doing so. Deal with it.

@unklethan If the term is derogatory to one gender, avoid it. It doesn’t have to do with characterizing people as you describe, it has to do with gendered name calling. It’s dismissive to only one particular group. Not good. Saying someone is ‘a riot’ (funny) or ‘a chip off the ole block’ (similar to a parent, almost always used for a son about their father, but not specifically gendered and also not derogatory in intent) is not dismissive. It’s not making someone non-human and part of a group that’s less than. I’m a woman. I’m proud to be a woman. I’m proud to be human. I don’t like gendered namecalling, which I know because I’ve had several chances to consider it. Thus, I have a specific response to it.
However, ethnic or any group namecalling is not cool either. Any shoving of someone into a box to be dismissed is an opportunity for them to be treated poorly and more especially to feel shut down or shut out! It’s not great. It’s not necessary. Don’t.

@thatguyyouknow “She” is not a putdown. “Bitch” is a putdown. It’s dehumanizing (literally, it’s not a term for humans) and specifically gendered as a putdown for women. Stop using it.

Don’t use gendered put-downs. It’s 2019

Ah, thanks!