Ban all of the alt-right incels who demand that peaches be frozen

[Heitor Villa-Lobos]

Call me combative, I don't care.

Why so many threads by whiny people who aren't decent to others on the forum?

Its not okay to be racist, fascist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobic, or misogynist.

Steam® Community is privately owned, not a public squre.
And even on public squres, attacking other people's liberties is unlawful. Your liberty does not supercede those of others.

Things a real Right Wing would understand...

[TWPanda77]

Who would demand that peaches are frozen? It should be optional, but for best results I would recommend that you slice them before freezing.

[Heitor Villa-Lobos]

TWPanda77 lähetti viestin:

Who would demand that peaches are frozen? It should be optional, but for best results I would recommend that you slice them before freezing.

I like my peaches straight from the tree, and without any white/US-supremacism on them.

[👾]

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

lankaras lähetti viestin:

Oh yeah? Do it right now then, realize something you hadn't realized until now.

Pretty hard isn't it? Everyone's lives would become incredibly easy if this were possible, you would be able to solve anything by just deciding to realize what the solution is. But that's not how it works, is it?

Empathy means that you understand that there are REASONS for someone to be the way they are. And those reasons are always valid TO THEM. If you don't think they are valid, then you are projecting your ways of seeing onto them.

And that is exactly what you are doing right now, by judging them for their behaviour and saying that they should change, without even knowing anything at all about their reasons. It doesn't get much less empathetic than that.

Never said it was easy.

Said it was possible. There are no valid reasons to have ideals that treat women like lesser beings. It's still very easy to understand why they have those ideals while not condoning them or validating them.

You're mixing empathy with validation.

So you somehow think that you can invalidate them while still being empathetic? That's where you're wrong. You don't have to *agree* with them, but you *do* have to realize that their perspective is valid FOR THEM. What YOU think about it does not matter in the slightest.

The point where you say: "I understand it BUT IT IS STILL WRONG" is where your empathy ends. It means that you do not actually understand them, you fail to fully take the other's perspective because it is impossible for you to come off your moral high horse.

That is not empathy, just the most superficial semblance of it. If you are still going to judge them all the same, your "empathy" is completely meaningless.

[Sixtyfivekills]

Very original and thought provoking thread, haven't seen it million times in replies already, changed my life, I rate 7.8/10 too many labels - IGN

[Boblin the Goblin]

lankaras lähetti viestin:

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

Never said it was easy.

Said it was possible. There are no valid reasons to have ideals that treat women like lesser beings. It's still very easy to understand why they have those ideals while not condoning them or validating them.

You're mixing empathy with validation.

So you somehow think that you can invalidate them while still being empathetic? That's where you're wrong. You don't have to *agree* with them, but you *do* have to realize that their perspective is valid FOR THEM. What YOU think about it does not matter in the slightest.

The point where you say: "I understand it BUT IT IS STILL WRONG" is where your empathy ends. It means that you do not actually understand them, you fail to fully take the other's perspective because it is impossible for you to come off your moral high horse.

That is not empathy, just the most superficial semblance of it. If you are still going to judge them all the same, your "empathy" is completely meaningless.

Their perspective can be valid for them. Still don't have to externally validate it.

I do understand them. Understanding doesn't mean validating them. They can have their internal validations. External validation is not required to understand or empathize.

I can understand an empathize with a racist who became that way due to personal experiences. Doesn't mean I need to externally validate their beliefs or not judge them for being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Peoples feelings are valid. The response to those feelings are not always valid.

[GloriousZote]

>It's not okay to be fascist, but we should totally ban people for their political opinion.

[👾]

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

Their perspective can be valid for them. Still don't have to externally validate it.

I do understand them. Understanding doesn't mean validating them. They can have their internal validations. External validation is not required to understand or empathize.

I can understand an empathize with a racist who became that way due to personal experiences. Doesn't mean I need to externally validate their beliefs or not judge them for being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Peoples feelings are valid. The response to those feelings are not always valid.

I never said anything about externally validating them.

[AD]

ṼṏẌṏḭḊ lähetti viestin:

Ban everyone.

Thanos was only half right.

[Boblin the Goblin]

lankaras lähetti viestin:

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

Their perspective can be valid for them. Still don't have to externally validate it.

I do understand them. Understanding doesn't mean validating them. They can have their internal validations. External validation is not required to understand or empathize.

I can understand an empathize with a racist who became that way due to personal experiences. Doesn't mean I need to externally validate their beliefs or not judge them for being an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Peoples feelings are valid. The response to those feelings are not always valid.

I never said anything about externally validating them.

That's the only type of validation that can come from anyone else to them. Saying 'I don't have to validate them' refers to external validation.

[👾]

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

lankaras lähetti viestin:

I never said anything about externally validating them.

That's the only type of validation that can come from anyone else to them. Saying 'I don't have to validate them' refers to external validation.

This is just about semantics at this point. I don't know where you got the "validation" thing from, because I never said anything like that. I said that their reasons are valid for THEM no matter what you might think about it.

[Goose]

AD lähetti viestin:

ṼṏẌṏḭḊ lähetti viestin:

Ban everyone.

Thanos was only half right.

end the human race.

[Acetyl]

Ban.

[Boblin the Goblin]

lankaras lähetti viestin:

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

That's the only type of validation that can come from anyone else to them. Saying 'I don't have to validate them' refers to external validation.

This is just about semantics at this point. I don't know where you got the "validation" thing from, because I never said anything like that. I said that their reasons are valid for THEM no matter what you might think about it.

It isn't semantics.

I mentioned excusing behavior very early on. Excusing the behavior is a form of validation.

[👾]

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

lankaras lähetti viestin:

This is just about semantics at this point. I don't know where you got the "validation" thing from, because I never said anything like that. I said that their reasons are valid for THEM no matter what you might think about it.

It isn't semantics.

I mentioned excusing behavior very early on. Excusing the behavior is a form of validation.

Before you would need to "excuse" anything, you would have to condemn it first, in other words, you would have to judge them. And I already commented on that: judgment is incompatible with empathy how I see it.

It's interesting how you jumped over the part where you condemn their behaviour and instantly talk about "excusing". That again shows that your "IT IS BAD" belief is really set in stone and you are practically blind to it.

[Boblin the Goblin]

lankaras lähetti viestin:

SlowMango lähetti viestin:

It isn't semantics.

I mentioned excusing behavior very early on. Excusing the behavior is a form of validation.

Before you would need to "excuse" anything, you would have to condemn it first, in other words, you would have to judge them. And I already commented on that: judgment is incompatible with empathy how I see it.

It's interesting how you jumped over the part where you condemn their behaviour and instantly talk about "excusing". That again shows that your "IT IS BAD" belief is really set in stone and you are practically blind to it.

You don't have to condemn to excuse it.

Someone's kid can ignore their school work, disrupt class, or just be a general nuisance in the school. A parent can then excuse the behavior without ever condemning it.

I've literally seen it happen.

The general incel mindset is bad. I made no attempt to hide it. Hence why I was literally saying that mindset shouldn't be validated or condoned.