Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
And that's fine. You're entitled not to be interested in it or to object to it or even to have a strong emotional reaction to it. But the vitriol the guy gets is just not in any way matched by what he's doing. He says things people a lot of people really dislike reading - well, you can ignore him, as Pepsi says. You can engage with him, as some have tried to do, though he seems pretty confident about his view of the world, so that's something to be aware of going in if you want to engage in that discussion.
But there simply is nothing bad faith about what he's saying. Even just the "moral grandstanding" piece of it is, in its absolute simplest iteration, no more or less coherent than accusing someone of holding the position they hold as a simple result of white privilege - it's ironically even the same argument structure.
This doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. How do you "deflate", or "flatten", a conversation?
|
Take the air out of it. Bring up a tangential point in an attempt to redirect. I was making the point that the RCC is the only responsible party that hasn't apologized, and instead of agreeing that ya, that's pretty ####ty of them, he attempted to redirect the conversation to a large percentage of indigenous being Christians, and wouldn't want that, and that it was I who's position was wrong, because it would be visiting even more harm on them, despite this being one of the main items Indigenous want. Recognition and apologies.
This is how Cliff discusses stuff. Not facing the real point, but veering into other areas that make him seem like he is the enlightninged one. Some people gobble that #### up. The reality is it's Cliff never follows up with anything of value.