|
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. |
On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
For anyone who considers themselves left leaning, please try to reflect on your current beliefs regarding Houthis and realize you are not misunderstanding anything. If you slowly find yourselves wondering if Houthis are victims or “not actually antisemitic”, please take a moment to pause and wonder what caused the shift. There can be groups that hate Israel that are also separately deeply antisemitic and Houthis are a golden example of this. The types of language they openly embrace goes far beyond the more cautious Hamas.
But it’s the same deal every time. Reflexive activism that seeks only to assess the thinnest surface of the situation will have an easy time concluding Houthis are “just quirky and oppressed and speaking out of anger from oppression but are actually very progressive”
I think it will take at most 2 weeks before various forms of disinformation repeating enough times force their way from TikTok into mainstream. I am hopeful Houthis are enough of an extreme case that even though the US is bombing them, people may entertain the possibility they aren’t the main character in a Disney movie.
Coming soon to tiktok:
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: Houthis are not antisemitic. Their flag just means Israel and they only mean the IDF. Did you know they treat women very well and provide free housing for LGBTQ communities”
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: did you know Houthis initiated the first civil rights movement and that they were instrumental in helping the north win the civil war to abolish slavery?”
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones
Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican.
It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever.
|
On January 16 2024 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
For anyone who considers themselves left leaning, please try to reflect on your current beliefs regarding Houthis and realize you are not misunderstanding anything. If you slowly find yourselves wondering if Houthis are victims or “not actually antisemitic”, please take a moment to pause and wonder what caused the shift. There can be groups that hate Israel that are also separately deeply antisemitic and Houthis are a golden example of this. The types of language they openly embrace goes far beyond the more cautious Hamas.
But it’s the same deal every time. Reflexive activism that seeks only to assess the thinnest surface of the situation will have an easy time concluding Houthis are “just quirky and oppressed and speaking out of anger from oppression but are actually very progressive”
I think it will take at most 2 weeks before various forms of disinformation repeating enough times force their way from TikTok into mainstream. I am hopeful Houthis are enough of an extreme case that even though the US is bombing them, people may entertain the possibility they aren’t the main character in a Disney movie.
Coming soon to tiktok:
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: Houthis are not antisemitic. Their flag just means Israel and they only mean the IDF. Did you know they treat women very well and provide free housing for LGBTQ communities”
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: did you know Houthis initiated the first civil rights movement and that they were instrumental in helping the north win the civil war to abolish slavery?”
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican. It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever.
I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump.
First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do.
On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians!
Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does.
|
On January 16 2024 01:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 00:13 Gorsameth wrote:On January 15 2024 23:44 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 15 2024 18:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Taking the risk that October 7 could repeat would be the ethical thing to do for Israel. There are various reasons.
Practically:
1) Israel's security apparatus didn't take the threat of Hamas seriously. This gave Hamas easy access into the country. If 1,000 people were slaughtered in the neighborhood next to yours, would you feel comfortable if the army of your country just said "we'll try to pay more attention next time. I'm sure that'll make all the difference."? A terrorist group killed 1000 of our civilians, therefor we are justified in killing 20.000+ innocent civilians on their side. This is the entire problem with the Israeli response in a nutshell. Isn’t that the response basically globally?
You say that as if it justifies it. Wrong is wrong regardless of how many in power are doing it.
I know your point is to open peoples eyes to the greater point they are in the cusp of agreeing to, but if they are in this case, is that so wrong? At least they will be consistent in their beliefs
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 03:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 03:25 Cricketer12 wrote:On January 16 2024 01:08 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 00:13 Gorsameth wrote:On January 15 2024 23:44 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 15 2024 18:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Taking the risk that October 7 could repeat would be the ethical thing to do for Israel. There are various reasons.
Practically:
1) Israel's security apparatus didn't take the threat of Hamas seriously. This gave Hamas easy access into the country. If 1,000 people were slaughtered in the neighborhood next to yours, would you feel comfortable if the army of your country just said "we'll try to pay more attention next time. I'm sure that'll make all the difference."? A terrorist group killed 1000 of our civilians, therefor we are justified in killing 20.000+ innocent civilians on their side. This is the entire problem with the Israeli response in a nutshell. Isn’t that the response basically globally? You say that as if it justifies it. Wrong is wrong regardless of how many in power are doing it. You assumed I said it as if it justifies it. I simply typed on a keyboard.
True.
|
On January 16 2024 00:06 Magic Powers wrote:
With questions like this the only thing you prove is how much of a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias you have.
I'm sorry. I thought that empathizing with the plight of Israeli townships that just faced one of the most barbaric atrocities in modern history would be a place where everyone here found common ground. Especially from you who are such an empath that you felt the need to empathize with and rationalize for foot soldiers of the Hamas militant wing.
Perhaps that's just my bias coming through.
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 04:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
For anyone who considers themselves left leaning, please try to reflect on your current beliefs regarding Houthis and realize you are not misunderstanding anything. If you slowly find yourselves wondering if Houthis are victims or “not actually antisemitic”, please take a moment to pause and wonder what caused the shift. There can be groups that hate Israel that are also separately deeply antisemitic and Houthis are a golden example of this. The types of language they openly embrace goes far beyond the more cautious Hamas.
But it’s the same deal every time. Reflexive activism that seeks only to assess the thinnest surface of the situation will have an easy time concluding Houthis are “just quirky and oppressed and speaking out of anger from oppression but are actually very progressive”
I think it will take at most 2 weeks before various forms of disinformation repeating enough times force their way from TikTok into mainstream. I am hopeful Houthis are enough of an extreme case that even though the US is bombing them, people may entertain the possibility they aren’t the main character in a Disney movie.
Coming soon to tiktok:
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: Houthis are not antisemitic. Their flag just means Israel and they only mean the IDF. Did you know they treat women very well and provide free housing for LGBTQ communities”
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: did you know Houthis initiated the first civil rights movement and that they were instrumental in helping the north win the civil war to abolish slavery?”
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican. It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever. I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump. First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do. On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians! Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does. Lots of reasons to support both of course. The easiest is democracy.
No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants.
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 04:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 00:06 Magic Powers wrote:
With questions like this the only thing you prove is how much of a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias you have. I'm sorry. I thought that empathizing with the plight of Israeli townships that just faced one of the most barbaric atrocities in modern history would be a place where everyone here found common ground. Especially from you who are such an empath that you felt the need to empathize with and rationalize for foot soldiers of the Hamas militant wing.
You asked about the safety of Israeli citizens. I explained that this question disregards the safety of Palestinians, which should be considered equally important. It doesn't surprise me that you still don't get the point despite me holding your nose right up to it. Your bias is clouding your judgement. Israeli citizens do not have a greater right to safety than Palestinians.
|
On January 16 2024 04:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:17 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
For anyone who considers themselves left leaning, please try to reflect on your current beliefs regarding Houthis and realize you are not misunderstanding anything. If you slowly find yourselves wondering if Houthis are victims or “not actually antisemitic”, please take a moment to pause and wonder what caused the shift. There can be groups that hate Israel that are also separately deeply antisemitic and Houthis are a golden example of this. The types of language they openly embrace goes far beyond the more cautious Hamas.
But it’s the same deal every time. Reflexive activism that seeks only to assess the thinnest surface of the situation will have an easy time concluding Houthis are “just quirky and oppressed and speaking out of anger from oppression but are actually very progressive”
I think it will take at most 2 weeks before various forms of disinformation repeating enough times force their way from TikTok into mainstream. I am hopeful Houthis are enough of an extreme case that even though the US is bombing them, people may entertain the possibility they aren’t the main character in a Disney movie.
Coming soon to tiktok:
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: Houthis are not antisemitic. Their flag just means Israel and they only mean the IDF. Did you know they treat women very well and provide free housing for LGBTQ communities”
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: did you know Houthis initiated the first civil rights movement and that they were instrumental in helping the north win the civil war to abolish slavery?”
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican. It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever. I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump. First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do. On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians! Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does. Lots of reasons to support both of course. The easiest is democracy. No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants. Wait are you saying that there is no principals behind democracies? Also, notice the lack of only in my post. I was just pointing out the most obvious one.
I wasn't saying that, no, but it is true that there are no principles behind democracies, you're right.
I can do the other ones as well as soon as you post them.
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 05:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 05:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:17 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
For anyone who considers themselves left leaning, please try to reflect on your current beliefs regarding Houthis and realize you are not misunderstanding anything. If you slowly find yourselves wondering if Houthis are victims or “not actually antisemitic”, please take a moment to pause and wonder what caused the shift. There can be groups that hate Israel that are also separately deeply antisemitic and Houthis are a golden example of this. The types of language they openly embrace goes far beyond the more cautious Hamas.
But it’s the same deal every time. Reflexive activism that seeks only to assess the thinnest surface of the situation will have an easy time concluding Houthis are “just quirky and oppressed and speaking out of anger from oppression but are actually very progressive”
I think it will take at most 2 weeks before various forms of disinformation repeating enough times force their way from TikTok into mainstream. I am hopeful Houthis are enough of an extreme case that even though the US is bombing them, people may entertain the possibility they aren’t the main character in a Disney movie.
Coming soon to tiktok:
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: Houthis are not antisemitic. Their flag just means Israel and they only mean the IDF. Did you know they treat women very well and provide free housing for LGBTQ communities”
“Fun facts imperialists don’t want you to know: did you know Houthis initiated the first civil rights movement and that they were instrumental in helping the north win the civil war to abolish slavery?”
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican. It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever. I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump. First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do. On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians! Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does. Lots of reasons to support both of course. The easiest is democracy. No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants. Wait are you saying that there is no principals behind democracies? Also, notice the lack of only in my post. I was just pointing out the most obvious one. I wasn't saying that, no, but it is true that there are no principles behind democracies, you're right. I can do the other ones as well as soon as you post them. No need to, if you do think that democracies have values and principals behind them, you do not understand much of anything. But it explains a lot about your values and principals. I always thought it was strange how you used "the west" as if it was an insult when they respect human rights way more than the countries and governments you hold higher than them. Some how you got trapped in the populism "logic" where because the west is far from perfect they are the bad guy. Which as has left you open to some pretty crazy thoughts.
What are some of the governments that I hold higher than "The West"?
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 05:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 05:25 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 05:16 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:17 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On January 16 2024 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You need to log off of Twitter, friend. You have an entire forum with leftists at your disposal, you don't need to make up new ones Its not about Leftists. I think you're one of the folks who have been here a really long time, so I am sure you remember xDaunt. He was your classic textbook republican who was dismissive and condescending towards the entire idea of Trump for all the reasons any reasonable person would be. Over the course of the election, the same psychological process that impacted many other people impacted him. The wave of his existing identity compelled his mind to slowly alter until conforming with the weighted average perspective on Trump within his tribal identity as a republican. It is the same pathetic weakness I have described previously regarding the way people try to fill their empty soul with group identity. It is a natural human process. It isn't exclusive to right or left or whatever. I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump. First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do. On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians! Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does. Lots of reasons to support both of course. The easiest is democracy. No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants. Wait are you saying that there is no principals behind democracies? Also, notice the lack of only in my post. I was just pointing out the most obvious one. I wasn't saying that, no, but it is true that there are no principles behind democracies, you're right. I can do the other ones as well as soon as you post them. No need to, if you do think that democracies have values and principals behind them, you do not understand much of anything. But it explains a lot about your values and principals. I always thought it was strange how you used "the west" as if it was an insult when they respect human rights way more than the countries and governments you hold higher than them. Some how you got trapped in the populism "logic" where because the west is far from perfect they are the bad guy. Which as has left you open to some pretty crazy thoughts. What are some of the governments that I hold higher than "The West"? You would have to tell me. I'd guess "communist" ones. All I know for certain is that you believe democracies have no values and that is just what The West wants me to believe.
Clearly I didn't have to tell you because you just used those governments in an argument against me, so they must exist very firmly in your mind.
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 06:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 05:38 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:25 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 05:16 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:17 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I think your analysis of what happened to xDaunt is flawed. He didn't slowly change his ideological positions because of group pressure, or anything like that. There is nothing that he believed after Trump that he didn't believe before Trump.
First, in terms of behavior, it makes perfect sense for a conservative to side with Trump regardless of whether they personally like him or not. Shortly after Trump was elected, when xDaunt was saying that he was not a fan, at one point I asked him to describe something that Trump could do or say that he would criticize him for, and even then he categorically refused to answer that. Trump had won. When the far right authority figure wins, the conservative bends behind that authority figure. Bowing to the winner is not a weird thing for a conservative, it's what they do.
On top of that (and perhaps more importantly), any objections that xDaunt may have had with regards to Trump was about style, not about content. He had different rhetorical strategies, he wanted to present as reasonable and elitist, while Trump's strategy is to embrace populism during elections and lie about being a populist while, of course, being just as much an elitist as xDaunt wants him to be. There is no ideological tension there. A true "principled Republican who thinks Trump is going to far ideologically" is not really something that you encounter very often in the wild because there's already a name for those people, they're called Democrats. In reality, I think it's fair to argue that the main way in which the "reasonable Republican" exists in the real world is as a figure that someone more conservative attacks, calling them a RINO: they're too ready to ally with Democrats, I'll put in the real fight I'm not like these carrierist politicians!
Allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis: I don't think the far left, or the far right, are very often changing their ideological positions, because their ideology is more radical in comparison with the rest of the population, and when you have radical views, whether they're in a direction or the other, they tend to be consistent: you're trying to achieve something specific. The group that is much more vulnerable to this weakness and pressure that you describe is actually centrists, or liberals, because their ideology is much more based on what is currently accepted rather than any kind of principle or goal that needs to be reached. So you can get liberals to support Ukraine and Israel even though it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of principles or values: but it's what The West does, and it's what most of the mainstream media does. Lots of reasons to support both of course. The easiest is democracy. No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants. Wait are you saying that there is no principals behind democracies? Also, notice the lack of only in my post. I was just pointing out the most obvious one. I wasn't saying that, no, but it is true that there are no principles behind democracies, you're right. I can do the other ones as well as soon as you post them. No need to, if you do think that democracies have values and principals behind them, you do not understand much of anything. But it explains a lot about your values and principals. I always thought it was strange how you used "the west" as if it was an insult when they respect human rights way more than the countries and governments you hold higher than them. Some how you got trapped in the populism "logic" where because the west is far from perfect they are the bad guy. Which as has left you open to some pretty crazy thoughts. What are some of the governments that I hold higher than "The West"? You would have to tell me. I'd guess "communist" ones. All I know for certain is that you believe democracies have no values and that is just what The West wants me to believe. Clearly I didn't have to tell you because you just used those governments in an argument against me, so they must exist very firmly in your mind. That you talk in riddles is not my fault. You could mix it up and be direct and clear. Or keep being emotional about me not being able to decode you.
"You are illogical and bad because you like these governments more than the West!!!
- Which governments are you talking about?
- I dunno."
Always a pleasure having conversations with you, I say.
So, I see that you mentioned human rights in your little rant, that is a principle that I hold. I certainly think that human rights are important, and I've noticed that democracies tend to support those more than authoritarian systems. But that doesn't make it "a principle of democracies", as we can tell because we have seen, throughout history, probably every single democracy not support human rights in some instances. Even in Switzerland, where we have direct democracy (an obviously superior system to representative democracy, you guys are insane for not implementing that), we have recently voted to know whether Peruvians deserved human rights and we voted that they don't. So when I think of standing for human rights and I see a democracy not doing that, for example Israel completely disregarding the human rights of Palestinians, I don't go "Oh but Israel is a democracy and democracies have human rights as a principle, I must support Israel", instead I go "Oh I support human rights, therefore I oppose Israel denying Palestinians those rights, even though Israel is a democracy". Are you following my populist logic here?
|
|
|
On January 16 2024 06:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2024 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 05:38 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:25 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 05:16 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 05:12 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2024 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 16 2024 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
No, that doesn't work as a reason to support Israel and Ukraine, because there are very many people who are in favor of democracy and who support Ukraine and Palestine. The majority, in fact. If the point was "They're democracies and therefore we support them because they are democracies", which I'm not sure that it was, wouldn't want to misrepresent you, then you're agreeing with me, as that means there is no principle or value behind the decision, just following what The West wants. Wait are you saying that there is no principals behind democracies? Also, notice the lack of only in my post. I was just pointing out the most obvious one. I wasn't saying that, no, but it is true that there are no principles behind democracies, you're right. I can do the other ones as well as soon as you post them. No need to, if you do think that democracies have values and principals behind them, you do not understand much of anything. But it explains a lot about your values and principals. I always thought it was strange how you used "the west" as if it was an insult when they respect human rights way more than the countries and governments you hold higher than them. Some how you got trapped in the populism "logic" where because the west is far from perfect they are the bad guy. Which as has left you open to some pretty crazy thoughts. What are some of the governments that I hold higher than "The West"? You would have to tell me. I'd guess "communist" ones. All I know for certain is that you believe democracies have no values and that is just what The West wants me to believe. Clearly I didn't have to tell you because you just used those governments in an argument against me, so they must exist very firmly in your mind. That you talk in riddles is not my fault. You could mix it up and be direct and clear. Or keep being emotional about me not being able to decode you. "You are illogical and bad because you like these governments more than the West!!! - Which governments are you talking about? - I dunno." Always a pleasure having conversations with you, I say. So, I see that you mentioned human rights in your little rant, that is a principle that I hold. I certainly think that human rights are important, and I've noticed that democracies tend to support those more than authoritarian systems. But that doesn't make it "a principle of democracies", as we can tell because we have seen, throughout history, probably every single democracy not support human rights in some instances. Even in Switzerland, where we have direct democracy (an obviously superior system to representative democracy, you guys are insane for not implementing that), we have recently voted to know whether Peruvians deserved human rights and we voted that they don't. So when I think of standing for human rights and I see a democracy not doing that, for example Israel completely disregarding the human rights of Palestinians, I don't go "Oh but Israel is a democracy and democracies have human rights as a principle, I must support them", instead I go "Oh I support human rights, therefore I oppose Israel denying Palestinians those rights, even though Israel is a democracy". Are you following my populist logic here? So in this war which side support human rights more? What countries do you hold in high regard?
I don't know which side supports human rights more, whichever it is it's not by a large margin, and they're both so far away from supporting human rights that it makes the question silly.
I hold no countries in high regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
