Legends can be …: Never mind.
Trump is your President - as was foreseen by the folks who do take the nonsense theisms and the importance of disrespecting them seriously.
Just sayin'.
Nothing about a misogynist deriving his analysis from typal misogyny precludes a stopped-clock coincedence, especially when so comfortably tapping traditional sentiment. That is to say, something about how it takes one to know one can easily go here,
e.g., you know your birds of a fellow feather well. Still, though, you piss away your own righteous pretense with lazy bigotry, and kind of like the bit about storytelling, Iceaura, it is either significant or not that you decided to lift a finger to do your part in service of fallacy.
In the present issue, where we ought to be able to find
some common cause, you're actually part of the problem. That is:
You do nothing to help alleviate the problems religion, religious behavior, and especially religious supremacism and bigotry; the way you go about it, here, makes you part of the problem. And unlike being born black or white or red or yellow, this outcome is your choice.
The only things you achieve by your disrespect are whatever ephemeral satisfaction you find in the moment, and reinforcement of superstition.
For all you screech about Abramism and theists, your behavior, here, only makes things worse, and the mitigating pretense is the same as it is for the evangelist, that this is Sciforums and seemingly rather quite inconsequential in any larger societal effect. Considering the presupposition of stupidity about religious people inherent in the critique you present, it is hard to figure what utility the argument, if writ large unto society, would serve. Well, I suppose we could raise the question of how we define utility.
Still, when it comes to men chasing women into bathrooms to demand a public pubic peek, or even the question of why the men aren't chasing each other into public restrooms and demanding to see each other's parts, or even, say, supporting a Christianist terror organization like Operation Rescue, or putting bombs in parks in hopes of framing Muslims, no, you're not going to be winning those arguments that way, but what is even more problematic is that your vice will encourage sympathy among other Christians.
Then again, while there is already enough to say about the next part, quoted below, an aspect applies here. The first couple, or maybe few, subsequent occasions I gave you shit about that post it was because it kept coming back to haunt discussions insofar as it coincided with other behavior in related issues. But your response to your own post has become itself significant. That point aside, however, there is also a hovering question by which I want to ask how you could miss something, but, in fact, this range about misogyny we dispute so personally helps illuminate the answer.
How could you miss what? Well, it's true I didn't take certain rightist warnings seriously enough because, to borrow from a cartoon, I understimated Americans' potential for malice. The idea that this is all somehow worth it to a bunch of lulzycucks is certainly its own indictment of our society, but what of those who would claim to not be lulzycucks? You know, who would pretend there is a reason for their behavior? A societal suicide pact of this scale really did sound, as a dystopian projection, extreme; hindsight simply shrugs.
So, yeah, I can see a bit about what I missed. But, similarly, if simply not getting their way, such as in the Gay Fray, sets them off so badly, what do you think you're accomplishing by proclaiming and acting on "the importance of disrespecting them seriously"?
And how could you miss that? Well, you have exposure to a common-cause phenomenon much similar to theirs, and not without Venn overlap between otherwise seemingly disparate identity politics.
It's something I saw in the Gay Fray; women see it all the time, and people of color see it all the time. And I've described it before. In the Fray, it was the friend or ostensible fence-sitter suddenly enraged to the point of being forced to side with the anti-gay because someone called a bigoted remark by a preacher the friend or fence-sitter doesn't like any other day of the week bigoted. It happened enough to teach fairly quickly they never really were on our side. I'm quite certain you know this phenomenon.
It happened in the Gay Fray; I'm sure it happens in Christianist-masculinist peepee wars, but whether it's rare for having shaken out by now or simply such a steady murmur I don't notice, I actually couldn't tell you. But it also happens in white supremacist apologistic narrative, and with misogyny, among other prejudices. More directly, the connection is supremacism.
So regardless of what you think about my assessment of your outlook on human rights, there remains a question of what you, who is allegedly smarter than them, think you or anyone else accomplishes by generating sympathy among less extreme expressions of common cause? And, sure, part of me wonders how you could miss this aspect, but there is also the the point of you being steeped in a similar creeping sympathy.
If it's important enough to go out of your way to be disrespectful, it ought to be important enough to get a clue, or, at least, not make things worse.
For example, the guy who told me that my emotional attachment to my gun was motivating my advocacy for stalking. (In language decorated with such terms as "bawling", "screeching", "whining", "lying", etc etc)
How does one respond to such folk, on a forum like this?
So, yeah, thing is, I stand by my posts, Iceaura, and don't need to blame them on other people.
It may be worth enough for you to pitch a hissy-fit about, but not so much to put any real effort into.
Meanwhile, as to your question:
You could always try being honest.
That's just a suggestion, though. I mean, y'know, since you
did ask. Otherwise, yes, I'm generally aware of what happens when the recommendation is to violate one's own conscience or pretense thereof.