|
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. |
On November 14 2017 02:40 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2017 01:41 Ryzel wrote:On November 14 2017 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 23:51 Ryzel wrote:On November 13 2017 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 22:37 Ryzel wrote:On November 13 2017 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:43 Uldridge wrote:
And I'm saying, why don't you use your guns instead of showing them? And don't use them on me, but use them on the people that actually hold the power, people I didn't want in power.
I'm not saying to become more docile, I'm saying to become more aggressive. But you need more people than just a fraction to want to be involved, and that's just not the case, so no change will happen. Well you don't radicalize people by cajoling them you radicalize people by cudgeling them with the discomfort of the truth. When I break Danglars and xDaunt they are going to be more effective and vocal warriors for justice and equity than anyone else here, probably myself included. EDIT: meant to edit. If you're genuinely interested in changing hearts and minds, the only way you'll do so is by opening your own to theirs. We throw the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" arguing around a lot, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments on this thread are in bad faith. In order to get through to Danglars and xDaunt (or any confident, intelligent individual with an opposing viewpoint), you need to develop and demonstrate an understanding and empathy of their beliefs and how/why they're formed, to the point that it could seem plausible that they could "break" you. It requires risk and vulnerability, and it isn't easy. This is "good faith" arguing. The closest I have seen to this type of arguing is IgnE's very well thought-out post on his opinion of conservatism several pages back. It took a lot of effort on his part, but you can see the kind of response he got from xDaunt. I'm sure that xDaunt is more likely to personally reflect on IgnE's posts in the future as a result. The issue I see you having in your goal is that the concept of beliefs that run counter to your own are anathema to you, as well as threatening. Granted, given the history of racism, you and the black community have more reason to feel that way than most. But unfortunately, this prevents you from having a conversation with them that leads anywhere meaningful, and typically ends the same way each time. The reason this isn't easy is because it requires a sacrifice on your part. They're not the ones trying to convince you, so they can keep their guard up on their beliefs all they want. The burden is on YOU to adopt beliefs you may find initially repulsive. It requires a fluidity and confidence in your beliefs, an acknowledgement that "beliefs exist that are opposite of mine, and that's OK". Personally, I believe there are universal truths that we as humans all try and aspire to. We're all playing our own version of the game, so to speak, but the game is the same. Ugh sorry I'm rambling, but you get the idea I'm sure =) I'm inclined to wonder if you think you did that here? But I would point out that what I do empowers people who do what you want, despite the consistent assertion otherwise. Perennial evidence stands in the familiar refrain calling for the (fictionalized) restraint/focus shown by MLK jr. Sorry, I'm stupid and need more clarification. What is it that you're wondering if I think I did? My intention was to convey that the most effective way to sway the mind of an intelligent person confident in their beliefs is to find common ground, typically by embracing their beliefs since they won't make the same effort for you, and then making your argument from that framework. Do I think I made that effort to sway your mind? Honestly I could have done better, I only just kind of gave lip service to the difficulty you would have without going into detail, so it probably comes off that I don't acknowledge that difficulty. Again I'm stupid, but I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "what I do", or empowering people that do "what I want". Is that in reference to what I think I did? And what do you mean by "consistent assertions"? I think I've brought something like this up before, but I don't remember if it was directed at you. And I'm having trouble deciphering the point of your last sentence. There's always people saying that MLK Jr emphasized focus and restraint, which is similar to my point, yet he didn't actually say that? Do you not agree with the point I'm trying to convey (which I outlined 1st paragraph of this post)? I was of the understanding that point was pretty universal, but if you don't agree we could certainly argue that point. I was wondering if you think you were employing the technique you were suggesting. The style of argumentation I use and the type of action I support empower people who use the style of argumentation you are suggesting. Not sure who "he" is? But my point was that the abrasive approach I prefer, and claim empowers people who use your preferred approach, is validated by people's constant calls for folks like myself to be more like the sanitized version of MLK they are familiar with. As to your point, I think it has it's times and places, and would quibble with what you probably mean/think by "most effective", and would frame my argumentation style differently than you would in relation to your preferred style but other than that, mostly yes, I would agree. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying... 1) Your style of argumentation (which as you say is abrasive, and I interpret as "telling it how it is" without "holding back" i.e caring about the opinion of the recipient), and the type of action you support (basically "making them see the error of their ways") is empowering to people that use my approach. I'm interpreting that as "lots of us have tried what MLK Jr. supposedly preached, and it's gotten us nowhere over the last 50 years. It sucks to just sit back and take it, so it feels good to dish out the truth". Is this about right? 2) People saying that you should "dial it back" is evidence that your form of argumentation is effective, and that your idea of "effectiveness" probably differs from mine (but, presumably, includes the desire to sway minds like Danglars and xDaunt)? Just want to clarify those before proceeding further. No. You are not understanding me correctly. 1) Your style of argumentation (which as you say is abrasive That's about as much as you got right. I could (in the mathematical sense) explain what's wrong with the rest, but we're pretty far apart already/still and I sincerely doubt you're going to bring an argument on this that I haven't heard, probably not even one I haven't seen here. I don't mean that to hurt your feelings, but to say it plainly as to not lead you on to believing you were making a new or slightly persuasive (to me anyway) argument. Fair enough. I don't mind being wrong (happens a lot), I only care about finding mutual understanding. I do value your opinions; it's unfortunate that I'm so far apart from you that it seems it would be too much effort to bring me there. If you do ever feel like helping me understand where you're coming from, it would be very appreciated. Thanks for your time.
I would suggest you not wait for me but until then you can reflect on this from MLK jr.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
|
I can't wait for the next long think piece on the difficulties of Democratic party unity. Perhaps a long winded piece about how hard it is to get non-Democrats to unify with Democrats is in order.
EDIT: something that just hasn't come up yet due to DJT being out of the country is that DJT endorsed Strange. All this yammering about how Moore is the True Trumpkin and/or True Republican is crazy. DJT endorsed Strange! Does that make DJT the establishment? Do the Moore deadenders not realize where DJT is on all this?
|
The fact that so many in Alabama would rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat truly does say how far the disconnect is between the parties. They would rather have the person who speaks on there behalf to be a pedophile than a democrat. That is literally the worst thing someone can be and they are okay with that as long as he is part of there party. Part of that sort of shocks me but another realizes how fake there nationalism was so I shouldnt be surprised by it.
|
The man was removed from the court twice for defying a court order and still got elected. Alabama has never really been a state that prized the rule of law or modern concepts like 14 year olds can't consent.
|
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office.
|
On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
Multiple people in positions of power in the state have said that even if he did it, they'd still vote for him either because it isnt that bad or because electing a Democrat is worse than electing a pedo. Not a stretch to say there is a chunk of the general population there which agree.
Also on the innocent until proven guilty thing, funny how they're not giving the same benefit of the doubt to all the Hollywood peeps, and people like Bush Sr. who are being accused. Breitbart is a hilarious den of hypocrisy right now.
|
I think the safe bet is they don’t care if they are true or not. That very little could convince them not to vote for Moore. An innocent until proven guilty is for the court to levy the power of the state against someone. It does not apply in elections.
|
On November 14 2017 03:46 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™. Multiple people in positions of power in the state have said that even if he did it, they'd still vote for him either because it isnt that bad or because electing a Democrat is worse than electing a pedo. Not a stretch to say there is a chunk of the general population there which agree. Also on the innocent until proven guilty thing, funny how they're not giving the same benefit of the doubt to all the Hollywood peeps, and people like Bush Sr. who are being accused. Breitbart is a hilarious den of hypocrisy right now.
I don't get why this is surprising... Look you gotta really put in the work if you want to take the title of worst state in the union next year and you NEVER know what Florida has up their sleeve to try and take the title.
|
On November 14 2017 03:53 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 03:46 On_Slaught wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™. Multiple people in positions of power in the state have said that even if he did it, they'd still vote for him either because it isnt that bad or because electing a Democrat is worse than electing a pedo. Not a stretch to say there is a chunk of the general population there which agree. Also on the innocent until proven guilty thing, funny how they're not giving the same benefit of the doubt to all the Hollywood peeps, and people like Bush Sr. who are being accused. Breitbart is a hilarious den of hypocrisy right now. I don't get why this is surprising... Look you gotta really put in the work if you want to take the title of worst state in the union next year and you NEVER know what Florida has up their sleeve to try and take the title.
And with North Carolina going strong as a dark horse contender, Alabama needed to bring it’s A-game in 2017.
|
The panhandle, the most furthest place in FL from my perspective, is considered Alabama, not even FL, and I'm talking about Pensacola area (there are people in that area would rather be part of Alabama than FL just so you know). But then Logo taking the real words out of my head.
|
On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office.
ah, equating an extra martial relationship to statutory rape. you never know what the next stupid thing you’re gonna hear is until you hear it. there’s a joke here about how well that comparison’ll age.
LOL the comparison aside, assuming Moore’s guilt and calling that ‘sexual misconduct’ is just so ridiculous. i wouldn’t ever start by assuming his guilt, but if i did, i’d call it rape.
whew if P6’s article is accurate i look to stand corrected on the first part. though i stand by the second part on behalf of both; if we’re assuming guilt, call it rape.
|
|
|
On November 14 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 02:40 Ryzel wrote:On November 14 2017 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2017 01:41 Ryzel wrote:On November 14 2017 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 23:51 Ryzel wrote:On November 13 2017 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 22:37 Ryzel wrote:On November 13 2017 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well you don't radicalize people by cajoling them you radicalize people by cudgeling them with the discomfort of the truth. When I break Danglars and xDaunt they are going to be more effective and vocal warriors for justice and equity than anyone else here, probably myself included. EDIT: meant to edit. If you're genuinely interested in changing hearts and minds, the only way you'll do so is by opening your own to theirs. We throw the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" arguing around a lot, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments on this thread are in bad faith. In order to get through to Danglars and xDaunt (or any confident, intelligent individual with an opposing viewpoint), you need to develop and demonstrate an understanding and empathy of their beliefs and how/why they're formed, to the point that it could seem plausible that they could "break" you. It requires risk and vulnerability, and it isn't easy. This is "good faith" arguing. The closest I have seen to this type of arguing is IgnE's very well thought-out post on his opinion of conservatism several pages back. It took a lot of effort on his part, but you can see the kind of response he got from xDaunt. I'm sure that xDaunt is more likely to personally reflect on IgnE's posts in the future as a result. The issue I see you having in your goal is that the concept of beliefs that run counter to your own are anathema to you, as well as threatening. Granted, given the history of racism, you and the black community have more reason to feel that way than most. But unfortunately, this prevents you from having a conversation with them that leads anywhere meaningful, and typically ends the same way each time. The reason this isn't easy is because it requires a sacrifice on your part. They're not the ones trying to convince you, so they can keep their guard up on their beliefs all they want. The burden is on YOU to adopt beliefs you may find initially repulsive. It requires a fluidity and confidence in your beliefs, an acknowledgement that "beliefs exist that are opposite of mine, and that's OK". Personally, I believe there are universal truths that we as humans all try and aspire to. We're all playing our own version of the game, so to speak, but the game is the same. Ugh sorry I'm rambling, but you get the idea I'm sure =) I'm inclined to wonder if you think you did that here? But I would point out that what I do empowers people who do what you want, despite the consistent assertion otherwise. Perennial evidence stands in the familiar refrain calling for the (fictionalized) restraint/focus shown by MLK jr. Sorry, I'm stupid and need more clarification. What is it that you're wondering if I think I did? My intention was to convey that the most effective way to sway the mind of an intelligent person confident in their beliefs is to find common ground, typically by embracing their beliefs since they won't make the same effort for you, and then making your argument from that framework. Do I think I made that effort to sway your mind? Honestly I could have done better, I only just kind of gave lip service to the difficulty you would have without going into detail, so it probably comes off that I don't acknowledge that difficulty. Again I'm stupid, but I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "what I do", or empowering people that do "what I want". Is that in reference to what I think I did? And what do you mean by "consistent assertions"? I think I've brought something like this up before, but I don't remember if it was directed at you. And I'm having trouble deciphering the point of your last sentence. There's always people saying that MLK Jr emphasized focus and restraint, which is similar to my point, yet he didn't actually say that? Do you not agree with the point I'm trying to convey (which I outlined 1st paragraph of this post)? I was of the understanding that point was pretty universal, but if you don't agree we could certainly argue that point. I was wondering if you think you were employing the technique you were suggesting. The style of argumentation I use and the type of action I support empower people who use the style of argumentation you are suggesting. Not sure who "he" is? But my point was that the abrasive approach I prefer, and claim empowers people who use your preferred approach, is validated by people's constant calls for folks like myself to be more like the sanitized version of MLK they are familiar with. As to your point, I think it has it's times and places, and would quibble with what you probably mean/think by "most effective", and would frame my argumentation style differently than you would in relation to your preferred style but other than that, mostly yes, I would agree. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying... 1) Your style of argumentation (which as you say is abrasive, and I interpret as "telling it how it is" without "holding back" i.e caring about the opinion of the recipient), and the type of action you support (basically "making them see the error of their ways") is empowering to people that use my approach. I'm interpreting that as "lots of us have tried what MLK Jr. supposedly preached, and it's gotten us nowhere over the last 50 years. It sucks to just sit back and take it, so it feels good to dish out the truth". Is this about right? 2) People saying that you should "dial it back" is evidence that your form of argumentation is effective, and that your idea of "effectiveness" probably differs from mine (but, presumably, includes the desire to sway minds like Danglars and xDaunt)? Just want to clarify those before proceeding further. No. You are not understanding me correctly. 1) Your style of argumentation (which as you say is abrasive That's about as much as you got right. I could (in the mathematical sense) explain what's wrong with the rest, but we're pretty far apart already/still and I sincerely doubt you're going to bring an argument on this that I haven't heard, probably not even one I haven't seen here. I don't mean that to hurt your feelings, but to say it plainly as to not lead you on to believing you were making a new or slightly persuasive (to me anyway) argument. Fair enough. I don't mind being wrong (happens a lot), I only care about finding mutual understanding. I do value your opinions; it's unfortunate that I'm so far apart from you that it seems it would be too much effort to bring me there. If you do ever feel like helping me understand where you're coming from, it would be very appreciated. Thanks for your time. I would suggest you not wait for me but until then you can reflect on this from MLK jr. Show nested quote +I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
I'm trying to fully understand what he's saying here. The tension he is describing is the uncomfortable truth that the black community has been treated as unequal for a long time? Or is the tension describing the actual outrage of the black community over that period of time? Or is it both?
Being "cured" ostensibly means "ALL mankind will respect the dignity and worth of human personality". A noble goal, but the quote doesn't illustrate how he gets from "reveal tension and force discussion" to said goal. Is it really feasible to have all men believe such a noble ideal? What do we do with the ones who don't listen? Is 80% or 90% of men good enough? What needs to happen for the defining moment where we can say "the struggle is over, injustice is cured"? Is that moment destined to never come? Does the next phase of the transition to positive peace involve forcefully dealing with the outlying people who refuse to acknowledge the tension?
I'm not asking you to answer all those questions (but if you could that would be great =P), but to me this seems incomplete. I'm assuming he's answered all these questions and more at some point though.
Is it effective though? I think you said yourself in a discussion with someone a few pages back that "things got a bit better for a decade, then have slowly gotten worse". Do you think that has anything to do with adherence to MLKs word?
|
On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office.
I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult
|
On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from an (I presume?) consenting adult
There are a number of sexual harassment claims out there against Bill Clinton. There is no real defense to Bill Clinton at this point. But Bill isn’t on the ballot either, so it’s sort of moot.
The Atlantic has an article about Bill today and that his legacy needs to be re-written.
|
We already know when he said "drain the swamp", he actually meant "let's add more bloodsucking mosquitoes into the swamp."
|
Norway28709 Posts
On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult
monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation.
The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago.
|
On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago.
Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee.
Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present.
|
On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present.
But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women.
This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin.
|
On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office.
I like how these excuses cover all the bases, with the last one applying even if Roy Moore is a pedophile. The problem is that the "But Bill" argument doesn't work at all because the first public revelations of rape came at the very end of his second term, after the impeachment proceedings. The only issue known about Bill prior to his elections was infidelity, so the But Bill excuse fails completely.
The Doug Jones excuse seems to be something you made up as a hypothetical. So what this means is that if Roy Moore is a pedophile, there are no excuses left, unless you're going to go to #5 on the excuse escalation scale, which is "pedophilia should not disqualify someone from holding office."
Alabamans are already very close to #5, considering that a male former coworker of Moore's has said it was common knowledge he dated high school teenagers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
