|
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. |
United States43755 Posts
On November 02 2017 05:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:30 Velr wrote:
Uhm.. Because in the US you don't have a fucking refugee problem.
Turkye has a refugee problem, Italy has a refugee problem, greece ha a refugee problem... You got right wing talking points and thats about it. If you can't understand the basic question posed, and possible responses to it, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you label people bigots? Try again if you wish, but I'm looking for a real response if you want to move on.
There is a huge difference between the reality and the popular perception and the reason people see their own perception, and not the reality, is bigotry.
Not sure which part of this you're struggling with. I mean that's pretty much what bigotry is. You have a preconceived idea of another group of people and you insist that your idea is true, regardless of the evidence.
|
How is someone to debate you, Danglars, if your problems are just made up? Leftist are no precogs, we don't know what treatens you at this very moment when there is no data that suggests a specific danger.
We should take your fears seriously? Well, show some serious grounds for your fear and everyone will. Please, show some legitimate reason to take your fears seriously.. PLS.
I had a collegue today say in my office "in times like this you never know when your alone in the woods"... I told her: "this is the safest time we ever lived in, stuff just gets reported more.". She didn't disagree, she told me that she feels differently despite knowing the facts.
Well, there is nothing you can answer to this fear, atleast nothing helfpull... I felt like punching her but didn't 
If you let "feelings" and "fear" guide you... Stop reading news, you get all the bad stuff from all over the world all the time, if you can't judge/deal with it, don't consume it.
|
United States43755 Posts
On November 02 2017 05:39 Velr wrote:
I felt like punching her
so her fear was justified ;p
|
Nah, because i didn't ^^.
It was really kinda sad for me. She's one of the smartest people i know and i have nothing but respect for her. Yet constant media showers of crimes against women made her belief that we live in dangerous times.
Actually its frightening...
|
There is no reason to fear refugees. They don’t commit acts of terror. The data backs this up in every way. If people are saying they shouldn’t be allowed in or supporting the idea, it can been construed as a bigoted point of view.
|
On November 02 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:00 warding wrote:
This forum isn't as tilted to the left as Danglar suggests. It's more the case that any reasonable individual in the center abhors the Trump administration, and that Trump and Fox have steered conservatism into the anti-science and, more recently, anti-economics party. Educated individuals tend not to be cool with climate change denial, anti-free trade rhetoric, xenophobic anti-immigration stances, relativist foreign policy, anti-lgbt rights, southern civil war revisionism, and so on. Not because of different moral priorities but brcause they are stances that objectively make everyone worse off. I've seen a lot of people casting themselves as the true center and the true right to try and label the entirety of the Republican party as extremists and the party of stupid people. "I'm not a left-wing partisan, I'm an educated centrist and pro-science. Your policies objectively make everyone worse off." It's certainly gag-inducing to see people go on like that. You want to define reality as left-biased to make yourself feel good. I say your side wants to racialize every political issue, engages in erasure and revision of history, has false perceptions on the basic situation on man and government, has anti-civilizational immigration stances, thinks whites get less rights, can't get its head out of its ass on the free speech underpinning the civil society, has idiotic utopian visions of foreign policy and global governance, exiles scientists based on their research and political opinions, is against popular sovereignty in principle and deed, and I could go on. Oh, and the big Democrat party donors that lecture us on how misogynistic and callous (The Left is moral, you are not) are literally molesting kids and sexually assaulting women. The surrounding liberal society covers it up. And we're the ones supposed to be morally reprehensible. Furthermore, you can't lose an election fair and square and pick up and move on. That's one of the beginning squares for partisan idiocy. The left was taking the country to the dump as I saw it, with establishment Republicans helping them along, and the left sleeps until they overreach with Hillary and wake up to say, "Wait a second? The country doesn't love us for our beautiful utopian progress? Demographic destiny and mass immigration devalues the citizen and the conversation of race is simply berating white Republicans in the public square? What???" Congratulations on electing Trump and continuing to make him necessary. I'll also throw you a bone. I don't agree with where Trump is taking the party on trade policy. That will have real damage
You've directed your post at a strawman. I'm not a centrist - I studied economics and grew up reading Hayek, Ayn Rand, Mises, Friedman, Popper, Burke and Oakeshott. Politically I've always defined myself as right-wing and lightly libertarian. Also, I'm Portuguese who has lived and spent extended periods of time in the US and still have family there. Therefore I find most conversations on ethnicity in the US utterly confusing - if only because I always assumed I was a regular white European, but people in the US usually assume I'm either Mexican, Jewish or, more recently, Arab. Professionally, I run a small company. Were I a US citizen, I should clearly be part of the Republican base. I sympathized with the McCain and Romney candidacies because I used to think the Republican party had a better grasp of economics than the Democrats.
And yet the stances I've mentioned in my previous post make it impossible for me to sympathize with what your consider right-wing. Many of them are the exact opposite of previously held Republican stances. You can call my demographic the The Economist subscribers caucus. The Republicans may be losing us as it's decided to dig trenches around it's rural, uneducated base.
|
On November 02 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:
you asked:
"As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex?"
I answered with: You don't have refugees.
Where is the disconnect?
You are fighting stuff that is not influencing, let alone treatening you. You are fighting Foxnews scarecrows and think others are crazy for not seeing it.
Wake up.
I can't help with that ignorance. When I responded to Mohdoo, and you quoted it, I have an honest expectation that you know why he said that and why I called attention to it. Short that, maybe next year we understand each other. No hard feelings.
On November 02 2017 05:36 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 05:25 Velr wrote:On November 02 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers! Democrats actually don't care and are out of touch. They obviously don't care who they throw 'bigot' at and why. That part's as much an party identity problem as a perception problem, but Democrats in the past did a better job of hiding their disdain of middle America and poor whites because they were courting their votes. You not understanding why democrats call people like you bigots/racists isn't showing a problem with democrats... Its showing a problem with your selfimage. Stop talking (and acting!) like a bigot/racist and people will stop calling you on it... Velr, what is meant by "As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex?" What could possibly be a bad result from this policy if true? That's because people are so reflexively bigoted in response to any mention of refugees. If you don't want to be called a bigot, don't be a bigot.
I should have quoted more of his post. Read it and tell me what he means by saying that. Like, why he's saying that response might have poor results. But primarily, what is the purpose of actually writing that line in context of the paragraph in which it appears.
|
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that.
|
On November 02 2017 05:39 Velr wrote:How is someone to debate you, Danglars, if your problems are just made up? Leftist are no precogs, we don't know what treatens you at this very moment when there is no data that suggests a specific danger. We should take your fears seriously? Well, show some serious grounds for your fear and everyone will. Please, show some legitimate reason to take your fears seriously.. PLS. I had a collegue today say in my office "in times like this you never know when your alone in the woods"... I told her: "this is the safest time we ever lived in, stuff just gets reported more.". She didn't disagree, she told me that she feels differently despite knowing the facts. Well, there is nothing you can answer to this fear, atleast nothing helfpull... I felt like punching her but didn't If you let "feelings" and "fear" guide you... Stop reading news, you get all the bad stuff from all over the world all the time, if you can't judge/deal with it, don't consume it.
How am I supposed to participate you with this debate if the entirety of your interaction is taking my responses to other people into separate directions? If you want more, post your own interesting takes on stuff and ask me for my perspective. If you want to skim into something I'm writing back to Mohdoo and miss the boat, I'm not going into the water to rescue you. I want to take your posts and arguments seriously, but every time I'm appalled by how little you understand the argument.
|
On November 02 2017 05:55 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 05:00 warding wrote:
This forum isn't as tilted to the left as Danglar suggests. It's more the case that any reasonable individual in the center abhors the Trump administration, and that Trump and Fox have steered conservatism into the anti-science and, more recently, anti-economics party. Educated individuals tend not to be cool with climate change denial, anti-free trade rhetoric, xenophobic anti-immigration stances, relativist foreign policy, anti-lgbt rights, southern civil war revisionism, and so on. Not because of different moral priorities but brcause they are stances that objectively make everyone worse off. I've seen a lot of people casting themselves as the true center and the true right to try and label the entirety of the Republican party as extremists and the party of stupid people. "I'm not a left-wing partisan, I'm an educated centrist and pro-science. Your policies objectively make everyone worse off." It's certainly gag-inducing to see people go on like that. You want to define reality as left-biased to make yourself feel good. I say your side wants to racialize every political issue, engages in erasure and revision of history, has false perceptions on the basic situation on man and government, has anti-civilizational immigration stances, thinks whites get less rights, can't get its head out of its ass on the free speech underpinning the civil society, has idiotic utopian visions of foreign policy and global governance, exiles scientists based on their research and political opinions, is against popular sovereignty in principle and deed, and I could go on. Oh, and the big Democrat party donors that lecture us on how misogynistic and callous (The Left is moral, you are not) are literally molesting kids and sexually assaulting women. The surrounding liberal society covers it up. And we're the ones supposed to be morally reprehensible. Furthermore, you can't lose an election fair and square and pick up and move on. That's one of the beginning squares for partisan idiocy. The left was taking the country to the dump as I saw it, with establishment Republicans helping them along, and the left sleeps until they overreach with Hillary and wake up to say, "Wait a second? The country doesn't love us for our beautiful utopian progress? Demographic destiny and mass immigration devalues the citizen and the conversation of race is simply berating white Republicans in the public square? What???" Congratulations on electing Trump and continuing to make him necessary. I'll also throw you a bone. I don't agree with where Trump is taking the party on trade policy. That will have real damage You've directed your post at a strawman. I'm not a centrist - I studied economics and grew up reading Hayek, Ayn Rand, Mises, Friedman, Popper, Burke and Oakeshott. Politically I've always defined myself as right-wing and lightly libertarian. Also, I'm Portuguese who has lived and spent extended periods of time in the US and still have family there. Therefore I find most conversations on ethnicity in the US utterly confusing - if only because I always assumed I was a regular white European, but people in the US usually assume I'm either Mexican, Jewish or, more recently, Arab. Professionally, I run a small company. Were I a US citizen, I should clearly be part of the Republican base. I sympathized with the McCain and Romney candidacies because I used to think the Republican party had a better grasp of economics than the Democrats. And yet the stances I've mentioned in my previous post make it impossible for me to sympathize with what your consider right-wing. Many of them are the exact opposite of previously held Republican stances. You can call my demographic the The Economist subscribers caucus. The Republicans may be losing us as it's decided to dig trenches around it's rural, uneducated base.
The literal truth of your argument is that the forum's not wildly on the left, the problem is the Republican party is wildly extreme and dumb. I do enjoy hearing you studied masters of classical liberalism (Rand excluded), but if it ends in the kind of propaganda you're shitting out, it doesn't matter much to me. I read through your posts and at nearly every juncture it's made up with minor exceptions. I ascribe your intentions to why you falsely put the forum median to the center to be coming from wanting yourself to also be closer to the center, which isn't necessarily the case (even though you say "Reasonable Individual In The Center.") A couple others have used it to justify their partisanship in the past. For that, I apologize. Now, can you understand why I think your criticism of the Republican party particularly on social issues is pigheaded and swallowing the left's BS on social issues at full value? Because I hope I didn't waste my time throwing equally important campaign slogans and sound bites right back at you to prove the point.
|
On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that.
It would be nice if you would participate more, but I get why you don’t. It isn’t entirely your doing. Conservatives kinda tapped into a really nasty part of US politics and I don’t think they know how to get away from it.
I am fully in support of more aggressive moderation in this thread. I think terms calling posters bigots and racists should result ban/warning. I also think that using the general term “the left” and any other broad brush term for the other side of the political spectrum should result in a ban/warning. The same goes for “the right”. But that isn’t how the thread works right now.
|
On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that.
why should being reasonable need a justification?
it seems like something one should aspire to all on its own.
and the reasonable ones are tolerated more than the unreasonable ones. it may merely be various observation biases making it seem different to you. and of course, if oyu defend the unreasonable ones, that does tend to taint you by association.
Also, just because someone believes themselves to be reasonable doesn't mean they are. everyone is reasonable in their own mind; but many people are quite clearly not reasonable.
and sometimes people aren't what they try to be as well.
|
On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that.
I remember back during the election, any criticism toward Hillary Clinton would result as "Hey you are just a sexist individual that doesn't want a woman in the office."
And those same defenders of Hillary would goad other users by using insulting languages and when the other side fought back, you get warned/banned.
On this thread, its pretty much open field on calling our President stupid, idiotic and people that attempt to justifies the POTUS' action as stupid, idiotic, and in some case, nonsensical without providing much of reasoning.
|
On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that.
There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left".
|
On November 02 2017 06:14 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. I remember back during the election, any criticism toward Hillary Clinton would result as "Hey you are just a sexist individual that doesn't want a woman in the office." And those same defenders of Hillary would goad other users by using insulting languages and when the other side fought back, you get warned/banned.
On this thread, its pretty much open field on calling our President stupid, idiotic and people that attempt to justifies the POTUS' action as stupid, idiotic, and in some case, nonsensical without providing much of reasoning.
do you want me to give you a sample of people saying similar things about Clinton, which according to you, is a bannable offense?
Can a mod please turn on the filter option for this thread? I feel like just giving a link to LL's or GH's filter with the word "Clinton" highlighted would go a long way of making sure I don't overwork myself
|
Twitter did not deny the validity of the email.
|
On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left".
That's one of the meanings of "no one has any tolerance for that." You get the dialogue you deserve.
|
On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left".
Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests
|
On November 02 2017 06:14 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. I remember back during the election, any criticism toward Hillary Clinton would result as "Hey you are just a sexist individual that doesn't want a woman in the office." And those same defenders of Hillary would goad other users by using insulting languages and when the other side fought back, you get warned/banned. On this thread, its pretty much open field on calling our President stupid, idiotic and people that attempt to justifies the POTUS' action as stupid, idiotic, and in some case, nonsensical without providing much of reasoning.
Yeah no. There was a lot of critism of Hillary in the thread but was heavily laden with "well compared to trump jesus what can you do?". Not supporting Hillary was supporting trump and no one could really defend trump from not being sexist and racist. People didn't fathom the incompetence and possible criminal components to trump but people were pretty reasonable in discussing the election from an anti hillary point of view.
|
On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests
This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
