So you're saying the implication that "Republican intellectual" is an oxymoron doesn't slam the choices of the average Republican? Seriously?

And if someone said "Jamaican intellectual" was oxymoronic I should be perfectly calm about my choice to retain Jamaican citizenship, because they obviously weren't talking about me, right, they were only talking about the stupid people with Jamaican citizenship? That's your stance?

eta: That also reads like you're saying that if you're hurt by the overgeneralisation, your hurt is oversensitivity or somehow invalid. I'm sure I'm misinterpreting that, however, because you're generally more diplomatic than that.

I had a cogent response to this, but the board ate it. I think that's the universes' way of telling me to STFU and not stir the guac.

But...I don't want anyone to go away.

I think some people (like me) snark about a lot of serious stuff. I think some people are thick-skinned about many things (like me) but some people have triggers (for instance, I am thick-skinned about myself for the MOST part) and some people speak up freely -- "Hey, that made me feel squicky, and here's why" and some people do NOT feel easy in speaking up.

The point that I see is that snark should never, ever go away, bu that when people's triggers get pushed the question should, in most cases, be "OK, this is what I meant. I didn't mean to hurt you, but why do you feel like this" if the writer doesn't get it.

I mean, the "military intelligence is an oxymoron." I've used this; I heard it ALL growing up, from my dad, my dad's buddies. My dad was a private (I think -- he was a grunt) in the early 60's; some of his buddies went up to Colonel, I think. I don't think they denigrated most of the people working in military intelligence; I think it was code-speak -- "Sometimes the higher-up's have their heads in their asses about what's actually going on in the field."

A friend of a friend IS military intelligence; I don't know what he does, because he can't talk about it. But he's agreed with the "Sometimes the higher-up's have their heads in their asses about what's actually going on in the field" thing, and made the military intelligence joke. I don't think he feels this is the case for the whole of it, or for many of the people he knows and works with. BUT -- he was talking with a small group of people, and he snarked himself.

I guess I went ahead and stirred the guac.

Speaking for myself only: I snark. I love it. I try not to snark hard on things that people on the board might believe, or if I snark, I try to include modifiers -- and not modifiers of the "...and some of my best friends are black/Jewish/whatevers."

If I do, it's a mistake. Call me on it, please. With civil discourse.

And now, I AM flouncing away...to figure out what to stuff up a Cornish game hen's ass (a dead one, guys) and how long to cook the damned thing. For my ham-hating sister.

Again citizenship though I guess exitable is not the same as membership in a voluntary institution. I do take the point, and though I was not the person this time I will be careful to distinguish between criticism of a group and criticism of its membership. However the idea that "+Republican Intellectual" is a contradiction in terms is normally a criticism of the idea than any can defend the Republican party as it currently exists in an intelletually consistent way rather than a denial that one can be a Republican and an intellectual at the same time. Probably should be phrased better to make that clear, but it is also a pretty well know meaning. Whereas there is no tradition of saying that about Jamaicans and meaning the Jamaican government. Context is not trivial.

Whereas there is no tradition of saying that about Jamaicans and meaning the Jamaican government

What does the Jamaican government have to do with it? I'm talking about the choice to be a Jamaican citizenship. You're dragging over politics from the Republican example, but I'm not.

Context is not trivial.

Not in the least. But you're creating one that I hadn't established, and therefore it's now apples and oranges.

a criticism of the idea than any can defend the Republican party as it currently exists in an intelletually consistent way

Obviously some people can and do, because they vote Republican. Also, they post here. It's not mutually exclusive.

There are reasons other than support most of what a party stands for and does to vote for it and urge other to. For instance believing it is an evil, but a lesser evil. My reason for voting for Democrats over Republicans in most races, while thinking the Democratic Party is basically flushing our nation and our (human) world the toilet only slightly more slowly than Republicans would. I tend to assume that people who vote Republican on this list are my mirror image. It would really surprise me if Republican supporters on this list would defend the Republican party as currently constituted as something that is actually good for America or the world, rather than as something that is slightly less evil than the Democratic party.

But Typo, you get that this particular comment (i.e. Republicans versus Democrats) isn't what we're discussing, right? Obviously there are perfectly good reasons to criticize or snark on a million things, and politics is definitely one of them.

The point here is not that particular remark anymore, but the reasons why we should all take into account that some people are going to be hurt sometimes.

Typo, I'm not trying to have a political discussion with you. I don't discuss American politics on the internet. I'm trying to discuss the validity of emotion, and why it's not fair to discount offense at being shamed for partaking in as basic a freedom as that.

I don't get to tell you that it doesn't hurt to be insulted because of how you vote, or that that wasn't an insult. I really don't think standing up for yourself or others in this instance is an example of oversensitivity or political correctness. I prioritise it as being polite. Obviously not everyone else does. But that doesn't erase the pain that others have already felt.

ita ! To answer that would require repeating stuff I have already said. I think you are ignoring part of my argument, but I don't think repeating it would be productive. Amy I was answering a specific example, because discussing it general terms seems like something that is even harder to keep civil. At this point I think I've made my point and won't keep repeating it in hopes that I change somebody's mind. Which has been a hard won lesson for me.

Typo, we are indeed at an impasse. I think you're ignoring the core of what I'm saying, which is that people were hurt, and that should trump most everything in a group of people that should respect each others' feelings.

That's my sole point. I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or soldiers or pacifists. I just care about being respectful to other members of the group.

I just care about being respectful to other members of the group.

THIS is the important bit, to me. If I post something that hurts someone's feelings, I want that someone to TELL me I hurt their feelings. So I can say "I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent."

I'm all for snark. But I'm also for people being able to say "Hey, that stung."