Talk:Derpy/@comment-69.179.162.121-20130518023549/@comment-5513888-20130522181434

Well of course you want to speak out against prejudice, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, exc. but what should be the goal is enlightenment, clarification, not animosity.

But I digress, Above our conversation is an issue of intolerance (which usually goes hand in hand with prejudice, but is not exactly the same practice). As I said before, needs to stop is the cycle, not the vessel. Let us analyze the arguement above ours. Shall we?

This cycle branches off the "Derpy offensive" debate, revived partly by Sentrakk's statement saying why Derpy is offensive is obvious. In a sense, she's right. Her eyes and name are obvious reasons to call her offensive. Maybe not LEGITEMENT, but apparent—as in, if one wanted to accuse her of offensive, her eyes and name is the perfect argument supporting said accusation. WHY they're offensive, however, is another matter (and, debatably and in my opinion, a gross exaggeration made by the minority "offended"). The cycle could've ended here easily, by simply ignoring the statement. Sadly, it wasn't. What truly revives the cycle, however, is the response made by the anon. It insults and accuses Senrakk of being intolerant bigot. What does this cause? Sentrakk to lash back. She too insults, but at least she acknowledges the other side of the arguement, that Derpy isn't offensive, but claims she knows individuals legitimately offended by Derpy.

The anon rudely denies this claim, despite having no knowledge disproving the statement—and in my opinion, it seems unrealistic to assume no single person was insulted by Derpy. She will offend some people, seldom people, but people nonetheless— but its not the arguements nor what they present, but what they convey. Both debaters continuously insult each other, and this causes no compromise nor understanding, but hatred. The cycle continues through both sides. Neither now understand each other and simply oppose each others' claims because they oppose each other (I speak of personal experience). The debate has been reduced to immature bickering.

It's understandable if you don't understand, admitably my explaination is a bit haphazard. But what I'm trying to say is that those argueing above us are continuing the cycle of intolerance. Now both parties are stubbornly unwilling to listen to each others arguments, the animosity has increased, which will make both sides less willing to listen to each other. So yes, advocate for what is right, like in this case, Derpy being unoffensive, but you want others to see your side of the arguement, not drive then from it. Otherwise neither side will be willing to accept each others view.