I Never Take Negative Comments about People Like Me Personally

[MineralMan]

I'm a white male. But I'm me. If you attack a white male or some group of white males for being white males, I know that you're not necessarily attacking me.

I'm old. But I'm an individual old man. If you attack someone for being an old white man, I understand that you're not necessarily attacking me.

I have a full beard. But, it's my beard and I've had it since 1969. If you make jokes about men with beards, they're not necessarily about me. I won't take it personally.

I'm straight. I was born that way. If you criticize straight men, you're not necessarily attacking me. I understand that.

I'm a staunch, loyal Democrat. I always vote for Democratic candidates. If you denigrate loyal Democrats, I get it that you're not necessarily attacking me, personally. I'll keep right on voting for Democrats.

I can't change a lot of things about who I am, but I'm not overly sensitive about who I am. But, I'm an individual, and I never assume that attacks on groups are attacks on me.

While it's a pretty large logic flaw to attack a group of people for the actions of just some people like that group, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are attacking me just because I have the same attributes as the group you're attacking. It just means that you haven't thought through what you said very well. Your attack is too broad. But, I understand. I won't assume you're attacking me, anyhow. I won't take it personally, because I understand how people often think.

[aikoaiko]

1. Ok but what if they are including you personally in those groups?

[MineralMan]

3. I've not encountered that situation.

Most people on DU don't know me personally. I know myself, though. So, I'm not sure how they're going to include me in a group if I know I'm not part of that group.

See, if someone says or implies that "old white men are racists," I know that's not true. While some, no doubt, are, I'm not and I know other old white men who are not. The error is on the part of the person making the statement without qualifying it.

[loyalsister]

2. That's surprising

Given the ongoing cultural manifestation of oppression, ridicule, and lost opportunities this group you belong to faces based on the presumed superiority of others.

[MineralMan]

4. To which group are you referring?

[loyalsister]

12. White males is the one you referred to

.

[MineralMan]

18. OK. There is little that white males really have in common,

other than their skin color and genetics. It's a matter of being born in that state, just like a lot of other characteristics.

I can think of few things one can say that apply universally to that group. So, I don't take broad statements about "white males" personally, ever. The same goes for any inborn trait that might identify someone as part of a group.

If you know only that I am a white male, you don't know anything important about me at all.

[loyalsister]

44. There is cultural agreement that some visible characteristics are undesireable

That is not the case when it comes to being a white man.
That appearance is not consistently perceived to be such and inferior state, or such a bad thing to be, that someone would use the characteristic of whiteness combined with male gender as an insult.

Is it possible that the group you referenced is not perceived in a way that can reasonably compare to experiences of people whose identities and appearances are commonly used as ridicule or insult to others?

[MineralMan]

48. That depends on whose culture you're discussing.

Being a white man is not universally accepted as desirable, by any means.

It's a big world out there.

Besides, I mentioned a number of other groups which include me, not just my skin color or sex.

[loyalsister]

50. broadly accepted US culture is the one I referred to

I think you know that since this is a site is rooted in discussion US politics.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

46. I am a white male....

And I can't stand most others, white males that is. 65 and been fighting for equal rights decades.

[CentralMass]

31. There you have it MineralMan.

[FakeNoose]

5. You seem like a nice regular guy

I get your point - that generalizations usually aren't fair and we should try not to make them.

If I'm ever up your way in Minnesota I'd like to buy you a beer.

Happy 4th of July!

[MineralMan]

6. I'll take you up on that if we ever meet.

[mythology]

7. There is a difference between attacking straight white guys and a minority group

There isn't a history of lynching white guys or physically beating straight guys for being straight. It's not a fair comparison. Yes, the logic flaw is the same, but there isn't the same historical baggage.

But even if it were, the rules here state don't engage in group bigotry. The people going around calling Christie or Trump fat as though that inherently disqualifies them from something, or saying it's okay to call Republicans gay because it offends them, are saying that being gay or being fat is bad and that isn't okay with me.

[MineralMan]

9. That is certainly true.

But, I'm not talking about DU rules. I'm talking about my own personal reaction to things people say. What people say can definitely be offensive, but that does not necessarily mean that I take what they say personally.

Since I realize that some people do take such things personally, I try very hard not to lump people into broad groups, especially when talking about inborn or involuntary attributes. I'm sure I have failed to maintain that standard sometimes, of course.

DU has rules, and they are enforced by randomly selected juries. In my time here, I've had a few of my posts removed. Very few, but a few. When that happens, I take a close look at the removed post to understand the reason a jury voted to remove it. Then, I try not to do that again.

I'm in no way saying that people should use broad brush group attacks. Far from it. I'm simply saying that I don't take such attacks personally if I'm part of the targeted group. That's my reaction to such things. Yours might well be different.

[judesedit]

8. I agree. I am a white woman in my 60's. I did NOT vote for Drumpf.

When I hear the percentage of white women who allegedly voted for that greedy imbecile I know I'm not in that category. I'm just very surprised at the number that allegedly did. As we have no paper trail for our voting, I'm not at all sure it is even accurate. Thank you for not being in the narrow minded group of white males being referred to. Most women appreciate it very much.

[MineralMan]

10. And you're part of a large group of white women in their 60s

who also did not vote for the Fake President. Thank you!

[LakeArenal]

11. I understand what you say Mineral Man..

I am not sure if I think attacking on any personal level, physical trait, or opinion is helpful. Especially if the attack is filled with venom and swear words.

I know when I have been attacked in life for a prolonged period, say a 10 minute butt reaming, I tend to shut down. That is the intent of the attack: to silence opinion and bully someone into agreeing with the attacker by second guessing themselves.

The cliché is "the best defense is a good offense". I feel there's a world of difference between offense and offensive.

I have been told on DU that I am silly, ridiculous, uniformed and need psychiatric care. So, there are times when I see individuals attacked. I will respond but in the end, I will say, I'm done you can have the last word... The other always take the last word. Usually, they go really personal on the last attack, daring me to respond again after I said I wouldn't. I have never taken that bait, but I sure wanted to.

I'm not sure the " They go low, we go high" necessarily works in today's culture. I only wish it could be true among those here at DU.

[MineralMan]

14. I hear you. I believe that, in the long run, going high is

the best way to proceed. That does not mean not defending yourself and your values, though. You should do those things vigorously and regularly, it seems to me.

If you are attacked personally, here or elsewhere, you can defend yourself or keep in mind that the person doing the attacking does not actually know you at all. Often, the second choice works better.

If you see direct personal attacks on others on DU, I suggest alerting on posts like that. They won't always be removed, but they often will be, as they should.

[LakeArenal]

16. Peace, brother..

Happy 4th..

[annabanana]

13. a little hide is a good thing in this world..

(old white fat christian gov't retiree woman)

[MineralMan]

15. Sometimes a strong, thick hide is required.

More's the pity.

[Gore1FL]

17. Quite a Twist on Martin Niemller you got there:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
(not) Because I was not a Socialist. (But, because I didn't think they were talking about me.)

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
(not) Because I was not a Trade Unionist. (But, because I didn't think they were talking about me.)

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
(not) Because I was not a Jew. (But, because I didn't think they were talking about me.)

[MineralMan]

19. Not really.

[Gore1FL]

20. Yes really. That''s what you implied.

Your OP basically stated "It's OK to be a prejudiced fuckwit about groups I belong to if you aren't talking about me specifically."

It's not OK. You are not the person who gets to make a decision about what is offensive to others.

[MineralMan]

21. You have the floor. Please Proceed.

You might want to correct the spelling in your first reply, though.

Still, "They" aren't coming for anyone. This is not about that.

[Gore1FL]

57. I am less concerned about my spelling than I am your espoused openness to abusive behavior.

But thanks ever so much.

[cwydro]

34. He's not going to get it.

Which proves your point.

[Enoki33]

37. Thank you

[cwydro]

22. Spoken from a place of white, male privilege.

Perfect example.

[MineralMan]

24. Which I earned in no way at all.

Such privilege is important to recognize, but is not earned in any way. I know my privileges, recognize them, and attempt to be aware of them at all times. A few, like a college education and being a veteran, I did earn, but they're meaningless, as well, as identifiers of who I am.

When I see a post on DU that says something to the effect of: "Donald Trump is President because older white males voted for him," I recognize that many white males did vote for him. I did not vote for him, though, despite being an older white male. Now, had the statement said that "many" or even "most" white males voted for him, I'd definitely agree with the statement. But, without qualifications, the statement is too inclusive and therefore incorrect.

That's the point of my thread opening post. While I recognize that many older white males voted for Trump, I am not part the group being discussed, because I did not vote for him. So, I don't take that statement personally. There are many such statements made every day - statements that are too inclusive and too unqualified. They're a common error in logic and expression. I do not take them personally, because I also recognize that they are improperly stated.

"Some," "many," "a majority of" and "most" are good qualifiers. If they are omitted when making accusatory or negative statements about groups, they include people who should not be included and who are not actually part of the group that did what the group is accused of.

So, I don't take such statements personally. Instead, I analyze the statement and insert the appropriate qualifier mentally.

[cwydro]

28. Exactly. White male privilege is not earned.

Simply taken for granted.

[MineralMan]

29. It is not taken for granted by everyone who has

that privilege, however. That's an important distinction.

Many people of that description take it for granted, but not all. Which is why I don't take your statement personally, as I said in the OP.

Qualifiers are important parts of our language.

[cwydro]

32. I think you're fooling only yourself. nt

[MineralMan]

33. OK. You're entitled to think as you think.

I don't know you. You don't know me. You might think you do, but you actually don't.

I don't think I know you. I know that I do not.

[MineralMan]

38. And, once again, you've expressed your opinion.

We both do that, as we are entitled to do. We're both free to express our opinions, as we are to ignore those opinions if we choose.

As my signature line says, that's my opinion.

[emulatorloo]

51. Let's see, you like picking meaningless fights w self-aware old guys

"You spend a helluva a lot of time on DU for someone who is married."

Oh the HORRORS!!!! Admins definitely need to ban this MM guy ASAP.

[treestar]

52. Nice to know that being single, I

get more DU time!

[emulatorloo]

53. That's in the TOS, right?

Perhaps I should consider divorce so I get more DU time too?

[displacedtexan]

23. Back when DU was new, we held some truths to be self-evident...

"Present company excepted" was one of those truths we held as self-evident.

This is why flamebait posts are so frustrating: hard to ignore, but difficult to address when we know they are designed to drive wedges between us.

I find myself typing away in anger at some dumbass divisive post...then hitting the back button without posting my reply.

No one on this board is ever included when most of us rant about issues related to groups of people, and your point is brilliant! We need to be more visible in our "present company excepted" replies to posts.

Thanks for the thoughtful OP!

[MineralMan]

26. Sadly, it's no longer possible to hold such things

as self-evident. Sometimes, such broad inclusions are deliberately used to inflame. I refuse to be inflamed by them, though, which is the point of my post, as you recognized.

Using qualifying words or defining groups with more precision in statements prevents such misunderstandings and helps people get points that are being made. Leaving out qualifiers, though, often adds to the ill-feelings.

[Gothmog]

25. I am also a white male who is older

[MineralMan]

27. There are a large number of people who fit that description.

The description is far too vague to be taken personally.

[mvd]

30. I understand what you mean

I am not so young anymore, a white male and despise Trump. I know that the majority of whites voted for Trump, and that disturbs me. How could they do that? But general attacks do leave out many good Democrats.

[KPN]

55. My sentiments exactly.

[Dem2]

35. Same here

In fact, I don't know why people assume that any comment directed to a advantaged skin color and gender group would be about them unless they're naturally defensive about their identity, which makes me question if they're of the Trump type (insecure, childish, defensive.)

[thbobby]

39. What I have learned about white men

White men are like Muslims. Or gay women. Or People named Bob (Me. Bob and white man). Or tall people.

Almost any group of people... Most are good people. Some are bad. Bad ones make a lot of noise and get recognized.

[MineralMan]

42. Yup. We're all part of the group that is human.

The rest is just details.

[KPN]

56. I like it!

[MrScorpio]

40. The most important thing that one should be in this world is self-aware...

And you, my friend, are about as self-aware as they come.

[MineralMan]

45. You're too kind, by half.

[pangaia]

41. Hey you old white male bearded straight Democrat.

[MineralMan]

43. You called?

I'm also an old fart and a geezer. Among other things.

[lambchopp59]

47. In other words, you've grown the thick skin of maturity

Our present PINO does not possess, neither do many of his fans. You've sorted stereotyping process from person.
Even those of the MAGA hat variety still deserve personal consideration, yet it seemed to be a mob mentality that managed to put an astonishingly immature leader in high office. It's easy to tend to believe those who just ignored the thin skinned childishness coming from the Donald as being a vote to protect their own greedy, short sighted and immature interests.
I tend to stereotype the MAGA hat wearer as obstinate, likely to accept "alternative facts", and astonishingly unaware of how potentially dangerous their philosophy is to everyone's well being, especially that of future generations.
I tend to give most of the DU poster sort benefit of the doubt of being far more politically correct when it comes to stereotyping, and a few, as demonstrated above. less so.

[MineralMan]

49. The thing about wearing a MAGA hat is that it's voluntary.

It's self-labeling, so you're justified in forming an opinion of MAGA-hat-wearing individuals that is negative, I think.

The same applies to many other self-labeling attributes.

[lambchopp59]

54. And comes with a presumption of racism and stereotype labelling by the wearer

Not necessarily so, but easy for us as DU'ers to generalize.
My problem in understanding the MAGA hats come that eliminating the race stereotyping, the oversimplified religious and/or the greed factor:
What in any earthly logic were they thinking electing Donald Trump would accomplish? Generalized prosperity from a real estate mogul who went bankrupt X 4?
Take the 18 gay republicans who showed up for a Trump rally. The cognitive dissonance... I'm speechless.
I'm also voluntarily democrat, but I can't change who I am personally to fit the narrative that wants to build a wall on our southern border. That, I believe is as genetically determined as it is in most of my lclose family that shares those traits.
My father, who died brainwashed against all he'd previously stood for by continual Fox Noise viewing was the exception to this, but not until he'd succumbed to alzheimer's.
So, if my "liberalism" is a disease, as the MAGA's chant lately: my response is that their own disease is a form of dementia.
It seems the actual new form of stereotyping is more about philosophy than traits.
Yet I believe most MAGA hats would disagree with this.

[Hekate]

58. Peace in a fractious time, my friend

[raccoon]

59. You may have something there. nt

[True Dough]

60. Mineral Man feels so strongly about this cause

that he even has his own billboard!

[Ms. Toad]

61. Note that all of the groups you identified are majority groups -

or at least groups that are not historically powerless targets of bigotry. The dynamic is very different - and the fact that you don't see that using gay, or black, or fat as an insult is different from attacking a historically powerful group should serve as a wake-up call to you.