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."

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

This. I'm snarky, a lot. But I don't want to place that above the feelings of people I care about.

All right that stung enough to draw me back in. Let's see if I can be succinct.

1) Institutions are shaped by people at the top - which means if I criticize the Republican party I'm not necessarily criticizing most Republicans. If I criticize the the military I'm not necessarily criticizing most soldiers and sailors. If we don't accept that then we can't snark at most institutions because there is something from almost any big institution on this board who might be hurt. I guess we could still snark at Carrot Top.

2) The specific wording: OK here you have a partial point. We should be a bit more careful. But at the same time, the term "military" in U.S. vernacular mostly refers the institution not the majority of soldiers and sailors. Referring to "Republicans" and "Democrats" generally refers to the parties as institutions and not the majority of people in either party.

And I hope I will be able to exercise self-control and post only on other topics forward. Because right now, it looks nobody else on the board shares my point of view and there is zero point in me arguing with a position held by every single other person on the board.