EPTin the publius article discussion it was brought up how "conservative ideas had been tried and proven successful." can you explain in what context you meant this? can you give some examples?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4949
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
in the publius article discussion it was brought up how "conservative ideas had been tried and proven successful." can you explain in what context you meant this? can you give some examples? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
so it only ever defines itself in relation to movements to change the status quo, and not in absolute quality of policy terms. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On September 11 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote: Haha, I love "basket of deplorables." What a great, high-handed insult. I may steal that one for future use. Will you cite your source when you use it? Or will you pull a malena? | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote: no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 11 2016 06:49 TMagpie wrote: No, you don't get it. Telling 300 million people "why can't we all be more scientific and pragmatic" will only get the response of "we are scientific and pragmatic, gtf out troll" and no amount of you feeling superior to them with your self prescribed pragmatism will make them suddenly bow down to your insights. Do you really think walking into congress and telling them "yo dudes, why ain't you pragmatic?" Will make them change their ways? I do get it; you're the one trolling by asserting I don't get it, and making up strawmen. don't argue badly; and don't make useless comments please. you're not helping anything along or enlightening anyone; nor are you venting usefully. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 11 2016 04:03 Nyxisto wrote: I didn't say conservatives, I'll talked of the supporters that have shown resiliency. You can do this experiment a little yourself. Try calling someone a racist bigot homophobe for a few years and, at the end, ask them how receptive they are to listening to your ideas and finding common ground.Isn't it a little ironic that apparent 'Conservatives' of all people have essentially adopted some kind of post modern 'anything goes' narrative? Are we supposed to tolerate racism in the discourse to celebrate diversity? Actual conservatives ought to denounce Trump as much as any leftist. You don't need to be a liberal to hate bigots | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:38 Danglars wrote: I didn't say conservatives, I'll talked of the supporters that have shown resiliency. You can do this experiment a little yourself. Try calling someone a racist bigot homophobe for a few years and, at the end, ask them how receptive they are to listening to your ideas and finding common ground. You don't need to find common ground with everybody and you can't. This is especially true from a Conservative perspective. There are categorical rights and constitutional rights, and when somebody crosses that line there's no discussion to be had. It just seems that the Conservative side of the American political spectrum has tolerated people who have crossed that line for decades which is why they're now finding themselves in a party that has been hijacked. The left-wing equivalent of Trump has no institutional power in the US. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 11 2016 05:44 IgnE wrote: @introvert or any other self-identified conservative in this thread in the publius article discussion it was brought up how "conservative ideas had been tried and proven successful." can you explain in what context you meant this? can you give some examples? They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived. You need look no farther than the article itself. Liberals deny or misdirect on both success stories. But there's your start for future reading if you want to see the two sides. We just celebrated 20 years of the "Contract with America" Gingrich welfare reform signed by Clinton so there might be more stories on that one recently. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:43 Nyxisto wrote: You don't need to find common ground with everybody and you can't. This is especially true from a Conservative perspective. There are categorical rights and constitutional rights, and when somebody crosses that line there's no discussion to be had. It just seems that the Conservative side of the American political spectrum has tolerated people who have crossed that line for decades which is why they're now finding themselves in a party that has been hijacked. The left-wing equivalent of Trump has no institutional power in the US. Now I find we're back to the original LegalLord post: Keep classifying people who disagree with policy as "morons not worth listening to" and as you put it "[somebodies] where there's no discussion to be had" and you're just building an opposition class almost as if that was your principal objective. You might *think* the language narrows down a pitifully small population, but it's large now and always expanding. | ||
KwarK
United States42573 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:38 Danglars wrote: I didn't say conservatives, I'll talked of the supporters that have shown resiliency. You can do this experiment a little yourself. Try calling someone a racist bigot homophobe for a few years and, at the end, ask them how receptive they are to listening to your ideas and finding common ground. I'm always a little confused by this idea that you owe it to someone to tell them that they're wrong in a way that fits their narrow viewpoint (which is built on the aforementioned wrong). You see it most often with things like explaining to someone that what they just racist. It's much like Louis CK's asshole bit quoted below. + Show Spoiler + If someone says that you're being racist you don't get to go "well maybe I am but I feel like the way that you told me that I am was super hurtful and now I'm offended so really you're the bad guy here so I'm just gonna keep on doing it". We don't put up with that shit anywhere else. If someone is shouting 1+1=3 in front of a crowd and you correct them we don't promptly go "dude, the way you corrected me in front of all those people was super humiliating and made me look like shit so I'm going to keep saying it's 3 and you can fuck off". If you say a bunch of racist and homophobic things and someone calls you out on it then that problem does not somehow go away because you got triggered by the way they called you out. That problem is still there. It's not up to you and now amount of "I'm offended by the way you called me racist" or bio major's absurd "you shouldn't be able to just call someone a racist because discrimination against racists is a real problem in America today and racists should be a protected class" will change that. If you're at a point in your life where people are collectively going "wow, that was pretty fucking racist" the problem is you. There might also be a different problem with everyone else but there's still a problem with you and one isn't cancelled out by the other. If you choose to ignore the fact that you're being racist because you think the way they told you about it was rude then clearly you don't see racism as a problem. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:56 KwarK wrote: I'm always a little confused by this idea that you owe it to someone to tell them that they're wrong in a way that fits their narrow viewpoint (which is built on the aforementioned wrong). You see it most often with things like explaining to someone that what they just racist. It's much like Louis CK's asshole bit quoted below. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18y6vteoaQY&t=1m50s If someone says that you're being racist you don't get to go "well maybe I am but I feel like the way that you told me that I am was super hurtful and now I'm offended so really you're the bad guy here so I'm just gonna keep on doing it". We don't put up with that shit anywhere else. If someone is shouting 1+1=3 in front of a crowd and you correct them we don't promptly go "dude, the way you corrected me in front of all those people was super humiliating and made me look like shit so I'm going to keep saying it's 3 and you can fuck off". If you say a bunch of racist and homophobic things and someone calls you out on it then that problem does not somehow go away because you got triggered by the way they called you out. That problem is still there. It's not up to you and now amount of "I'm offended by the way you called me racist" or bio major's absurd "you shouldn't be able to just call someone a racist because discrimination against racists is a real problem in America today and racists should be a protected class" will change that. If you're at a point in your life where people are collectively going "wow, that was pretty fucking racist" the problem is you. There might also be a different problem with everyone else but there's still a problem with you and one isn't cancelled out by the other. First I have to get a couple things down in the quote train that are very important. Do you agree that the definition of what is racist/called racist has expanded in the last few years? How about sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic. It's a real question ... I've been called Islamophobic for wanting to limit immigration from Muslim countries in the Middle East for national security reasons. I've been called sexist for fighting the idea that women are paid unequally now ... and I think the pay gap has been debunked enough to make it open season for debate. You've shown propensity to spin disagreement (and why am I even responding, to be honest) to what biologymajor and others said. The great moral question remains: is it morally objectionable to persecute someone to unemployment, create and expand racist stereotypes, for disagreeing with their political choices? I'd have hoped for more of a commitment to free speech, but I've since been disabused of that notion. If you say a bunch of racist and homophobic things and someone calls you out on it then that problem does not somehow go away because you got triggered by the way they called you out. If weirdos want to call a bunch of normal speech and political speech racist and homophobic, they deserve to be laughed out of town. And for biologymajor, I do anticipate a future restructuring of companies and HR departments to not reject good hires with non-PC opinions on politics. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
My stance was also specific to college campuses where the sensitivities are at an all time high and the consequences of being labeled racist/sexist/whatever are long lasting. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 11 2016 07:46 Danglars wrote: You need look no farther than the article itself. Liberals deny or misdirect on both success stories. But there's your start for future reading if you want to see the two sides. We just celebrated 20 years of the "Contract with America" Gingrich welfare reform signed by Clinton so there might be more stories on that one recently. can you just clarify 1) what were the conservative policies responsible for 2) what success? like are you saying mandatory mimimum and three strike laws are responsible for lower crime rates? what is the "success" of welfare reform? fewer people on welfare? and re: you being called sexist for asserting that the gender pay gap doesnt exist i can bring up my doubts about the gender pay gap with certain qualifications without being called a sexist in company that is probablu far more leftist than the company you keep. that is because 1) im not an asshole 2) i appreciate nuance 3) i dont make stupid statements about "feminism" and 4) im not an asshole. usually when people you are interacting with call you sexist its in the context of your entire projected personality and the sum of your articulations | ||
|
KwarK
United States42573 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:22 Danglars wrote: First I have to get a couple things down in the quote train that are very important. Do you agree that the definition of what is racist/called racist has expanded in the last few years? How about sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic. It's a real question ... I do believe it has. However I believe that a lot of the reason that it has expanded is because not white male voices got a chance to make themselves heard on what they experienced as racist/sexist/etc. A status quo in which the group which is not generally on the receiving end of the -ism decide amongst themselves what does and does not count and then correct the people who experience it existed for a long time. Hell, we still see it constantly. We still get people like Roger Ailes insisting that he did not act inappropriately and that if some women who worked for him perceived it as sexist, well, they're just being hysterical. It has expanded beyond the definition that the group most responsible for sexist/racist/etc behaviour defined it as the groups on the receiving end have been given more of a voice. But that's not a bad thing, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Part of it comes down to that ever abused concept, privilege. For a long time white privilege meant getting to control the narrative by correcting minorities who claimed to experience racism, effectively saying "no you didn't just experience racism, that wasn't racist, you just don't understand racism like we do". As part of the societal erosion of that privilege people who try to do that shit are getting called out on it more and more. I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. If I say something and someone tells me "that was kinda racist" my immediate thought is "but I know I'm not a racist so that means that what I said wasn't racist so you're wrong". And if your definition of racist is swastika tattoos and so forth then sure, I'm not a racist (although a lot of Trump supporters still would be). But given that I don't experience racism personally I'm not really the best judge and probably shouldn't spend my time correcting the people who do. An approach that would show a little more good faith would be to ask why they experienced what I said as being racist and make an effort to understand it in the broader context that they describe which I may not have previously been aware of. I might still feel they misunderstood me at the end of it but at least I'd have learned a little more about how other people experience the world. Alternatively I could see their point of view and go "you know what, that thing I said was pretty racist, I'll try to work on that". But it's very hard to assume good faith opposition to racism from people who refuse to listen to the experience of racism from people who don't look like them. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg) | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:22 biology]major wrote: Kwark, I agree with your main point. what I think the left doesn't understand is the labels and their meanings have changed over time, they have been diluted to the point where they are difficult to take seriously, yet still carry damaging consequences. The reason this happened (you might find this ironic) is because people became so sensitive to even the slightest triggering remarks they had to find a way to hamper it with shaming labels. IF people were truly racist in the way the word was used a few decades ago, I would completely agree with you. My stance was also specific to college campuses where the sensitivities are at an all time high and the consequences of being labeled racist/sexist/whatever are long lasting. You have a presidential candidate that retweets stormfront memes including Hillary Clinton on a pile of bank notes with a David Star, and that wasn't even the worst thing he had uttered that week. This isn't just 'college campus level' of controversy, it's 'the fluoride in your drinking water controls your thoughts' bad | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 11 2016 08:58 KwarK wrote: But given that I don't experience racism personally I'm not really the best judge and probably shouldn't spend my time correcting the people who do. To be fair, this is also true in part of a lot of the people that do the calling-out. A lot of the cries of racism/sexism don't necessarily come from minorities that actually experience racism/sexism, but from white-knighting white males who themselves likewise do not experience racism/sexism and are overeager to call things as they see them, which leads to a lot of subsequent disagreement. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 11 2016 11:26 Nyxisto wrote: 'white-knightning' in this context is a pretty asinine term. No minority can effectively change things without having a sufficiently large part of mainstream society behind them. It's a silly attempt to play supporters of minority groups and minority groups against each other. Some reverse psychology trick where people opposing emancipatory movements try to act as if supporters of minority interests are paternalistic. Sure, I can agree with that, I'm just trying to provide some context for why some people might view things the way they do. White males are naturally going to have a hard time accepting the argument that "you don't have the perspective to judge for minorities what they should and shouldn't consider racist" when the person making said argument to them is another white male. The natural response to that is "well you don't either". When this occurs with any amount of frequency, it turns off the receiver to the argument. For example, Danglars' case of him being called Islamophobic for things that he doesn't consider Islamophobic--I'm betting none of the people who called him out on this are Muslims and are no better judges of what does and doesn't qualify as Islamophobia. This just leads to people like Danglars dismissing the argument altogether. | ||
| ||
