EPTOn November 30 2019 23:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
They have completely different meanings.
They have completely different meanings.
We don't see the difference that you see. You're going to need to explain it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1915
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
We don't see the difference that you see. You're going to need to explain it. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
Also, there's a thing called context. You both have more than 850 posts in this very thread, you should be a bit familiar with each other. If GH writes something that you think can be interpreted as 'I am opposed to gay marriage', you should think 'hm, this is wholly inconsistent with the opinions he has posted in the past', not 'wow, gotcha, you screwed up your wording on this one!'. At the very least, don't use a possible interpretation based on a vague post to portray his opinion as the least agreeable possible just so you can start an argument over nothing. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. Edited post was this: On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals", or "neoliberals" going forward to avoid people being confused, support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. They are completely different meanings. Unedited post writes that liberals support gay marriage and GH blames liberals and liberal media outlets for all the ills of the world. Edited post is disjointed and makes no sense anyways. It doesn't matter if you can make sense of it though. That doesn't matter though since I was responding to the unedited post, which GH edited afterwards, then pretended that his now edited post was the original post I was responding to. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
In the new post, on top of saying that liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos, GH also offers that he is willing to call these types of people "neoliberals" instead of "liberals" to avoid confusion. The meaning is exactly the same. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
Gay marriage is an example of this, sure, democrats (liberals in this context) beat out republicans by a decade or two in finding support for it, but they were also opposed during 80s and 90s. Sure, democrats (and liberals) do more than republicans/conservatives to address the climate problem - but they also promote the consumerism that, for some, represents an existential threat to humanity. Sure, liberals and democrats have a better track record with black people than republicans and conservatives, but leading democrats - ones that were still highly cherished by large swathes of democrats and liberals as late as 2016 - were still guilty of police reforms that very negatively affected black communities. Worker rights, war on drugs, american imperialism, all of these are further examples of situations where liberals and democrats have been better than conservative republicans, however while they have still, from a leftist's point of view, been fairly abhorrent for very long.. Basically he's opposed to liberals patting themselves on the back over being better than republicans when they still aren't nearly good enough. (In his point of view). I think it's entirely fair to make the argument that liberals are good enough, if that is your point of view, but I think it's very dishonest to argue that he, through his opposition to liberals, is actually a republican/conservative. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
It would had been easy of GH to write "I miswrote. I now edited my post, I await your rewritten post in response to mine". Instead he edited his post and made out that I am responding to someone else instead and then doubled down on it. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Nebuched. You just aren't reading his orginal post, you are just reading his edited post. GH constantly rails against liberals, finding any reason to blame liberals and more recently "liberal media" for anything. If for him "liberals" support gay marriage, then he obviously doesn't support gay marriage. It's a valid political position btw, I'm not interested in discussing gay marriage in particular. Anyways, it's completely disgusting to edit your post and then respond to someone responding to your original post as if you didn't edit your post to alter its meaning. I don't know why the pair of you defend such behaviour. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35154 Posts
Socially left, economically right, effectively worthless. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: GH argues, rather consistently, that liberals don't have good enough solutions to the problems our societies face. He also argues, consistently, that their solutions are better than those presented by conservatives. However, he does not believe that being better than conservatives is sufficient or worth patting yourself on the back over, and he argues (usually with sources) that liberals have in the past supported and contributed to many of the current day societal ills that liberals like to point fingers at republicans over. Gay marriage is an example of this, sure, democrats (liberals in this context) beat out republicans by a decade or two in finding support for it, but they were also opposed during 80s and 90s. Sure, democrats (and liberals) do more than republicans/conservatives to address the climate problem - but they also promote the consumerism that, for some, represents an existential threat to humanity. Sure, liberals and democrats have a better track record with black people than republicans and conservatives, but leading democrats - ones that were still highly cherished by large swathes of democrats and liberals as late as 2016 - were still guilty of police reforms that very negatively affected black communities. Worker rights, war on drugs, american imperialism, all of these are further examples of situations where liberals and democrats have been better than conservative republicans, however while they have still, from a leftist's point of view, been fairly abhorrent for very long.. Basically he's opposed to liberals patting themselves on the back over being better than republicans when they still aren't nearly good enough. (In his point of view). I think it's entirely fair to make the argument that liberals are good enough, if that is your point of view, but I think it's very dishonest to argue that he, through his opposition to liberals, is actually a republican/conservative. I have the feeling you are just inserting your own thoughts into the unknown box of GH and reinterpreting his inconsistent and empty words to how it best fits your worldview. Afterall, though you may have written an internally consistent political positon, there is nothing to indicate that any of that is GH's as shown through his own posts, he cannot elucidate any of that himself often latching onto others to say "that's what I meant" even when diametrically opposed. If those were truly his thoughts, then well done, you have managed to express GH for him, something GH has not done for himself. It is far more likely that you have instead used GH open and series of disconnected political expression to reflect you own internally consistent political expression. On December 01 2019 00:15 Gahlo wrote: A very common refrain from GH is that the establishment democratic party does a lot of virtue signaling for minority/disenfranchised groups for their votes, because the Republicans won't even give that, but doesn't actually follow through with policy to actually help them. Socially left, economically right, effectively worthless. That may be so. Who are you to say what GH means when he cannot say for himself? Are you not just self inserting yourself into whatever, so then afterwards GH can claim that what you just wrote is what he meant all along, despite pages of an inability to explain himself? Just witness DarkPlasmaBall and Wombat's conversation with GH about liberal media that started all this. Are they too supposed to know all of GH's political views? It is clear that even if you can read GH's mind, rather ironically, using liberal to mean for Socially left, economically right, is effectively worthless | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Original post was this: On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. remember this is in the context of + Show Spoiler + On November 30 2019 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Okay. I disagree with pretty much all of that being something where I would identify liberal media outlets as allies rather than opposition (other than cannabis). I also disagree those are structural changes along the lines of healthcare and breaking up corporations. I disagree on them doing more good than harm as well, but now I do better understand the reasoning of people that disagree. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote: The post says liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos. Which is, as he put it, reductive, but generally accurate. If you know anything about GH, you know that his issue is probably the "Jeff Bezos" part. In the new post, on top of saying that liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos, GH also offers that he is willing to call these types of people "neoliberals" instead of "liberals" to avoid confusion. The meaning is exactly the same. | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote: The post says liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos. And knowing GH issue with "liberals" what exactly do you think his issue is? If he probably has an issue with Jeff Bezos, then why is "supporting gay marriage" in there as well? Do you understand now that my post make sense in that original unedited post context? Do you understand how disgusting it is to then edit your post afterwards and then respond to the post to your original unedited post as if you haven't edited it? And no, it's not obvious to me that GH would not be against gay marriage. He hates the Democratic party which is for gay marriage. I also have no idea for instance his stance on all sorts of political positions. What's his position on free trade? Religion? Government power? Rule of law? He takes often different postions on these. It's not that he edited it, he pretended he didn't edit it, and was all, "are you okay" you are having a "moment" instead of saying he changed his post. That is some shitty (to use an american phrase) gaslighting going on there. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
On December 01 2019 00:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: And knowing GH issue with "liberals" what exactly do you think his issue is? If he probably has an issue with Jeff Bezos, then why is "supporting gay marriage" in there as well? Because he's agreeing with me that this is what liberal means, socially to the left (supporting gay marriage) and economically to the right (supporting Jeff Bezos). On December 01 2019 00:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Do you understand how disgusting it is to then edit your post afterwards and then respond to the post to your original unedited post as if you haven't edited it? The edited post contains exactly the same message. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote: The post says liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos. GH is opposed to liberals and liberal media. If I was to take your interpretation at face value then as "liberals support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos", he opposes gay marriage and Jeff Bezos. Don't go re re re intepreting his post. This is like next level | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12204 Posts
On December 01 2019 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: GH is opposed to liberals and liberal media. Therefore, he opposes gay marriage and Jeff Bezos. You need to treat the people you disagree with a lot more honestly. This is nonsense and I struggle to think you don't know it. | ||
| ||
