And just so we're clear on the implications of that post, in fairness you're not in the first group, but evidently obliged to personally sacrifice to provide cover for them with each incremental step, and somehow blame the democrats.
Once you humanize the enemy, you run the risk of understanding and perhaps even relating to them.Keep in mind that was a time when most americans supported segregation & such anyway, so let's not pretend as if the conservatives then were all about helping out lower status groups any more than they are now (if not sympathetic to the euro right), and the political alignment of those who didn't care for it. The other essential difference between progress vs. tradition is one learns lessons from history and other doesn't want to, by definition. That's basically the story of modern politics in a nutshell.
Once you humanize the enemy, you run the risk of understanding and perhaps even relating to them.
In WW2, contrast the brutality of the eastern front to the relatively humane western front, all things considered. Explains why Americans in turn demonized the Japanese. Could you ever imagine America going to war with the UK or Germany or even Japan again?
It happened again in Korea and Vietnam in terms of dehumanizing the enemy.
Now its the Muslim world. Islamic terrorism is certainly nothing new, but 9/11 elevated that reality to a whole other level. Fighting an ideology is infinitely more complex than fighting a sovereign nation.
What is adding fuel to the fire is this incredible humanitarian crisis of entire populations of people fleeing violence and war.
I don't have an answer. I know keeping them all out isn't the answer. Neither is letting everyone in who wants to come. That Trump is forcing the conversation to happen is not necessarily a bad thing even if I don't agree with his means and methods.
I read the OP's rather biased source article, then read the linked Psychology Today article on Ms. Hylton. In spite of the bias of the OP's source, I don't find her credible in the least. It's pretty clear that she has downplayed her role the crime she was convicted of, and it's about as heinous a crime as one can imagine.
I'm reading a lot of comments here about her history of being abused. I would remind you all that she has repeatedly lied about her involvement in the crime, including statements she originally made to the police. As to to the abuse: she claims she was first abused by her biological parents in Jamaica, then her adopted father in the US, then her babysitter, then her math teacher, then her boyfriend. All this is being offered by her as mitigation of a crime she committed, a crime she has lied about many times. Bear in mind that there is no evidence of this abuse except her statements.
It was extremely poor judgment to permit her to speak at the women's march.
She has been elevated and recognized as a leader by the organizers of the Women's March, is being generally rabidly defended here as the true victim by the usual suspects, and the left wants to make a movie about her life. Sure seems like hero status to me, and you can bet your last dollar there were damned few Republican voters and NRA members at that march.I don't even know what you're talking about, unless logical progression constitutes mental gymnastics for you. I do note that your non-response saved you from having to explain why the war criminal is a-ok but she isn't.
You know, for a good few seconds I thought you meant Hillary and was going to respond incredulously to your description? I will take issue with your claiming that "the left" made this woman a "hero", since neither of those things is accurate.
Good to know, but unfortunately your comrades have done that for you.Hey man, I ain't about to elevate this crazy lady.
lol Amidst all the angst about what mean old Trump MIGHT do to gays and lesbians, your side has elevated as spokeswoman a woman who kidnapped a gay man, sodomized him with a steel pipe (her defense - he was a homo anyway), and generally tortured him to death over a period of days. You have zero room to cast stones at anyone for morals OR intelligence.Let's take a moment to consider what the sort of people who look to make the most of this opportunity will do in similar ones. There's little doubt Trump/Bannon/etc are looking to antagonize/subjugate muslims or other low status groups, so it's certainly possible they're going to get their 9-11/Reichstag moment sooner or later. In that golden opportunity, just looking at the members here, we all know which are going to be on point to support/advocate rounding people up, the secondary actors obligated to protect their peers, and the tertiary ones looking the other way trying to pin it all on the leftards. That's just how the conservative/fascist ecosystem works, per traditionalist/loyalist mentality.
The only question here is which of those category/roles various conservatives see fit for themselves, though these threads give us all a pretty good idea.
Well said, and thank you for proving that Trump's election did not mentally unbalance everyone on the left. Sometimes nowadays that can be very difficult to know.I read the OP's rather biased source article, then read the linked Psychology Today article on Ms. Hylton. In spite of the bias of the OP's source, I don't find her credible in the least. It's pretty clear that she has downplayed her role the crime she was convicted of, and it's about as heinous a crime as one can imagine.
I'm reading a lot of comments here about her history of being abused. I would remind you all that she has repeatedly lied about her involvement in the crime, including statements she originally made to the police. As to to the abuse: she claims she was first abused by her biological parents in Jamaica, then her adopted father in the US, then her babysitter, then her math teacher, then her boyfriend. All this is being offered by her as mitigation of a crime she committed, a crime she has lied about many times. Bear in mind that there is no evidence of this abuse except her statements.
It was extremely poor judgment to permit her to speak at the women's march.
lol Amidst all the angst about what mean old Trump MIGHT do to gays and lesbians, your side has elevated as spokeswoman a woman who kidnapped a gay man, sodomized him with a steel pipe (her defense - he was a homo anyway), and generally tortured him to death over a period of days. You have zero room to cast stones at anyone for morals OR intelligence.
You're literally claiming that the people who chose to elevate as a moral leader a woman who kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death a gay man are the people who really care about gay rights. Even you cannot honestly be that stupid.First, it's pretty telling who you choose to rant about given conservatism's general stance on homosexuality. Per morality, let's not pretend you give a shit about such issues or people effected by them except when convenient. As mentioned, this is what these opportunistic moments are about.
Second, let's consider which side of the enlightenment you're on: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...d-a-man-to-death.2498037/page-6#post-38708612. No great surprise given what conservatism/traditionalism implies.
You're literally claiming that the people who chose to elevate as a moral leader a woman who kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death a gay man are the people who really care about gay rights. Even you cannot honestly be that stupid.
I know longer believe that you are Red Dawn. Nobody who was ever remotely reasonable can be this badly broken. Even most troll accounts draw the line considerably before this point.
You're literally claiming that the people who chose to elevate as a moral leader a woman who kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death a gay man are the people who really care about gay rights. Even you cannot honestly be that stupid.
I know longer believe that you are Red Dawn. Nobody who was ever remotely reasonable can be this badly broken. Even most troll accounts draw the line considerably before this point.
I'm literally claiming some people are on one side of western enlightenment values and many are on the other. I suspect not even you are too stupid to grasp the implications of this, which explains this lack of integrity in ignoring the reality that she served her time for said crimes as deemed appropriate by our post-enlightenment judicial system. OTOH there are quite the few conservatives actively hating on them gays, where your obligatory silence speaks volumes.
You're essentially correct about where the two sides are when it comes to questions of policy and the direction of the country. Unfortunately, the right is much better at politics than the left. The left is inept when it comes to politics as evidenced by what happened in November, and hundreds of other things. The unfortunate decision to permit this woman to speak at such a highly publicized event is just another small example.
Agreed. Personally I don't think anyone taking any part in something so heinous should EVER get out of prison, but assuming she does, she should be considered forever toxic at least when choosing spokewomen, speakers, etc. It's like someone being in the Klan - I'm glad that you've changed your ways, but you no longer qualify for any position of trust or leadership.To be fair, the people who asked her to speak probably believe her when she says her involvement in the crime was peripheral. They probably also believe her claims of abuse. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have touched her with a 10' pole had I been an organizer of that March. Even if her story seemed more credible than it does, she's obviously toxic.
Agreed. These kinds of criminals should not ever receive parole.Im still of the opinion this chick needs to be in the slammer.
No sacrifice on my part and I don't feel obliged to cover anything. I have spent time in the circles of Trump supporters, and despite your belief that the lowest common demoninator is race, I will tell you that it is a myriad of socio economic issues, and I blame Democrats for being tone deaf to those issues.And just so we're clear on the implications of that post, in fairness you're not in the first group, but evidently obliged to personally sacrifice to provide cover for them with each incremental step, and somehow blame the democrats.
No sacrifice on my part and I don't feel obliged to cover anything. I have spent time in the circles of Trump supporters, and despite your belief that the lowest common demoninator is race, I will tell you that it is a myriad of socio economic issues, and I blame Democrats for being tone deaf to those issues.
Do you want to go down that road, where what other people do is imputed to you? I don't think you do.Good to know, but unfortunately your comrades have done that for you.
I don't think he was gay, given that he was kidnapped by 3 women who said they were prostitutes and promised him sex. He was also a criminal who was killed by his partner who thought he cheated him. They didn't pick up some random guy, not that it matters much, but if we're gonna get real, sympathy for a criminal who gets killed by his criminal buddies is going to be limited.Amidst all the angst about what mean old Trump MIGHT do to gays and lesbians, your side has elevated as spokeswoman a woman who kidnapped a gay man, sodomized him with a steel pipe (her defense - he was a homo anyway), and generally tortured him to death over a period of days. You have zero room to cast stones at anyone for morals OR intelligence.
Agreed. These kinds of criminals should not ever receive parole.
Sigh. Forget it. It's pointless. But the amazing work she has done and lives she has saved speak for themselves. She has never made excuses for her crime. She has only worked to make sure others don't do the same.
That's a hell of a lot more than either of you have done.
And I'd pick her to counsel an abused and troubled kid over either of you anyday. You're too busy judging to help anyone.
"He was going to die anyway...." sure as hell sounds like an excuse and that's only after she was tripped up after a few days of lying.
Good point. I'll limit that to only those who participated in the Women's March and were (or are now) aware of this woman's past, or who defend her now.Do you want to go down that road, where what other people do is imputed to you? I don't think you do.
I'm going solely by her defense: "He was a homo anyway." As for sympathy for a criminal who gets killed by his criminal buddies being limited, sympathy for a much, much worse criminal is apparently unlimited.I don't think he was gay, given that he was kidnapped by 3 women who said they were prostitutes and promised him sex. He was also a criminal who was killed by his partner who thought he cheated him. They didn't pick up some random guy, not that it matters much, but if we're gonna get real, sympathy for a criminal who gets killed by his criminal buddies is going to be limited.
Good point. If however as I suspect this is a movie about her victimhood and her redemption, then I've already watched the last Rosario Dawson movie I'll ever see. I like her, but this is a total dealbreaker for me.Finally, we haven't seen the movie so we don't know what its take is. "Monster" didn't make Aileen Wournos a hero. People could walk out of this thing thinking exactly what you think about her, that there is no redemption and her history of trauma doesn't matter.
A 9 year old girl who was raped and tortured for years based solely on her own claims, with zero evidence. Claiming to have been abused as a child is not only instant gravitas on the left, it's also literally the first step in criminal defense when defending the indefensible. The only way to be even partially successful in defending a monster is to make her a victim of even worse monsters - who coincidentally have zero chance to defend themselves.Again, a 9 year old girl who was raped and tortured for years and lost her humanity, committed an awful crime. Spent almost 30 years in a box. She got out and has clearly reformed her life. Either you believe in rehabilitation or you don't, which is fine. I think shes learned and does more good outside of prison. I don't think speaking about her life makes her a hero.
Do you want to go down that road, where what other people do is imputed to you? I don't think you do.
I don't think he was gay, given that he was kidnapped by 3 women who said they were prostitutes and promised him sex. He was also a criminal who was killed by his partner who thought he cheated him. They didn't pick up some random guy, not that it matters much, but if we're gonna get real, sympathy for a criminal who gets killed by his criminal buddies is going to be limited.
Finally, we haven't seen the movie so we don't know what its take is. "Monster" didn't make Aileen Wournos a hero. People could walk out of this thing thinking exactly what you think about her, that there is no redemption and her history of trauma doesn't matter.
Again, a 9 year old girl who was raped and tortured for years and lost her humanity, committed an awful crime. Spent almost 30 years in a box. She got out and has clearly reformed her life. Either you believe in rehabilitation or you don't, which is fine. I think shes learned and does more good outside of prison. I don't think speaking about her life makes her a hero.
And yet if a man talks about how he likes to sexually assault women and shows his only possible sign of remorse by just blowing it off as locker room talk, we elect him to the highest office in our nation. Which am I more concerned about?