EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 121
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote: The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. How can anyone have a discussion on anything if they legitimately believe something like this? I just don't understand why posts like these are allowed by moderation when they add literally nothing to the discussion. Fair enough ban posters who go off on tangents of "what about killary!?" but at least have the decency to take out the trash on the left side of politics as well. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 13 2018 23:19 bo1b wrote: I think there are plenty of people who honestly feel superior one way or another based on their political leanings, take a look at the latest Grumbles post on conservatives and liberals, I'll quote for posterity: How can anyone have a discussion on anything if they legitimately believe something like this? I just don't understand why posts like these are allowed by moderation when they add literally nothing to the discussion. Fair enough ban posters who go off on tangents of "what about killary!?" but at least have the decency to take out the trash on the left side of politics as well. On April 12 2018 21:16 Excludos wrote: I think a lot of the reasons we have what might be conceived as a "lefty echo chamber" right now is due to this being one of the few times in history where one side is just blatantly wrong (Ok, ok. I understand there's always two sides in politics, but I don't think this is a wholly unreasonable view to hold atm). Most people who would normally consider themselves "right" does not support what the current right side is doing in the US. And sure, since this is a gaming forum with a younger audience (Younger people tend to lean more left than older), there is always going to be a bit of left leaning here. But once the current administration leaves office (And after whatever reform which is inevitably going to happen afterwards), it should even out a little bit once the usual right siders has a reasonable party to support again. I don't mean to single Excludos out, because it's a very honest read and he deserves credit. Why have a debate if one side of today's politics is dead wrong? And not only that, but very uniquely in the course of history, blatantly dead wrong starting quite recently? If you don't think a reasonable person on the other side could find themselves supporting (or partially supporting) the other political party, you simply don't understand the other side well enough to debate it. It will lead to some very frustrating and angry reactions all over the place. It's not that your debating opponent arrived at different conclusions of how the country should be run, what should be prioritized, how much liberty to exchange for how much security ... it's that he's blatantly wrong, and everybody knows it but him ... in fact most people in his ideological camp aren't with him ... and isn't it so frustrating to explain his pathetic psychosis and stupidity? I think there's a lot of reason to believe different than I do. Medical expenses are high, why not make it a state responsibility? That's a natural conclusion to reach. I think it would unduly burden the taxpayer and lead to worse outcomes than under a freer market, but I don't think he's a dolt that even left allies would agree is stupid. Same on immigration. Same on tax reform. Same on the role of the federal judiciary. I think Grumbels version of liberal saints, right-wing mercenaries is one and the same. Part of me wants to throw it back, the whole smear job, at the movement of the left (uniquely corrupt? ready to let unelected bureaucrats and particularly the intelligence agencies run a republic on behalf of the citizens?), but that's not productive for such a partisan. Of course he thinks more blame is on the right than the left, and an aspect of his political viewpoint is the left is almost entirely free of the malaise. Pointing out that someone on the right could do the same, with equal conviction, would not lead to an "Aha" moment. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 13 2018 23:19 bo1b wrote: I think there are plenty of people who honestly feel superior one way or another based on their political leanings, take a look at the latest Grumbles post on conservatives and liberals, I'll quote for posterity: How can anyone have a discussion on anything if they legitimately believe something like this? I just don't understand why posts like these are allowed by moderation when they add literally nothing to the discussion. Fair enough ban posters who go off on tangents of "what about killary!?" but at least have the decency to take out the trash on the left side of politics as well. yes, many people do feel suprioer one way or another. what about it? especially in the current situation, wherein one side really is better than the other. the underlying post you refer to is indeed hyperbolic and excessive; but that doesn't mean it's impossible to have a discussion on ANYTHING with such a person. that's being hyperbolic yourself. as to moderation's choices; I can't speak to that as I am not them. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On April 14 2018 00:09 zlefin wrote: yes, many people do feel suprioer one way or another. what about it? especially in the current situation, wherein one side really is better than the other. the underlying post you refer to is indeed hyperbolic and excessive; but that doesn't mean it's impossible to have a discussion on ANYTHING with such a person. that's being hyperbolic yourself. as to moderation's choices; I can't speak to that as I am not them. Imagine I had posted something like this: The liberal understanding of politics is to be smug, self serving and obsequies. If you have a renegade figure such as Bernie, who has proven to have somewhat radical ideals which resonate with large swathes of the population, but was unfortunate enough to run against the preferred candidate, then the answer is clear. You immediately throw all support behind the mainstream politician, do everything but rig the nomination, and do everything to make it as preordained as possible that Hillary wins instead. It's a hive mind mindset which I find almost entirely absent in right wing politics. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as conservatives are good at picking up figureheads to the cause, constantly using left leaning figures as champions against the party they represented. Ignore all the stupidity in that quote, I believe none of it. But if I did, and Grumbles and I ran into each other with views like that, how could we possibly make progress? I am not seriously convinced of democratic superiority at this stage, moral or otherwise. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
also, that you are not convinced of democratic superiority in some moral sense means little. it's truth is independent of your ability to assess, see, or admit to it. the point though is that when such superiority actually occurs, and in some circumstancse it genuinely does, then it really changes a lot about the nature fo arguments and how we respond to them. in other words: try reviewing some posts from the perspective that it's actually true, and see how that changes things. getting into the truth of it is a matter for the main thread of course. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
 Either “side” making arguments of superiority is caustic to any political discussion. But also people should keep their powder dry when it is clear someone is expressing frustration. Politics are not devoid of emotion. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
To be clear I understand that feeling superior one way or another is human nature, but I just do not see the purpose in coming into a discussion to drop a paragraph of condescension and nothing else. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
iamthedave wrote: I think there's a degree of truth to the idea that generalisations work better when talking about the right than the left. One of the great strengths of right wing politics is that people on that political spectrum seem to agree with each other on a broad swath of ideas and come together behind their guys when it matters. See: Trump. A looooooot of people swallowed personal misgivings in the sake of political identity. Like bo1b was saying. My side is diverse and argues/thinks, and is thus not easily generalizable, but generalizations work just fine on your side! Ugh. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 14 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote: I think an argument for the superiority of something which is predicated on the reader agreeing before hand that that something is in fact superior is not much of an argument, you can see this reflected in just about every proof for God that exists. To be clear I understand that feeling superior one way or another is human nature, but I just do not see the purpose in coming into a discussion to drop a paragraph of condescension and nothing else. it's partly because the mods want to quarantine everythin gto one thread. otherwise we'd have a few different aligned threads for partisan venting. people need/like to vent after all. i'm not sure what your other statement is about, it seems to be a misreading/misunderstanding of things. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:13 Plansix wrote: It wouldn’t be as big of a deal if people didn’t see an attack on conservative politicians as a personal attack on them. The same with progressive, centrists and the rest. It is the most toxic part of identity politics, when people their political leaning as a core part of their identity. And see any criticism of that political viewpoint as a personal attack. There is a fine line though, surely you'd agree? Particularly when conservative's are routinely accused of things liberals find heinous, such as racism, sexism etc. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote: Like bo1b was saying. My side is diverse and argues/thinks, and is thus not easily generalizable, but generalizations work just fine on your side! Ugh. You cut out the majority of his post where he makes his point. The people who post in this thread also read the politics thread, so there was no way we would miss that.... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:37 Plansix wrote: You cut out the majority of his post where he makes his point. The people who post in this thread also read the politics thread, so there was no way we would miss that.... ::Generalization for me, but not for thee ::Now, let me tell you why the double standard is actually, totally true. I’m restating bo1b’s point with another example, that I think you get. This kind of discourse, if it can be called discourse, is caustic. If we had actual Trump partisans in here spouting how the left is a herd of sheep (Plansix: you cut out the part where he makes his point... he proves they are!) deserving of generalization, I’d say the exact same thing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:30 bo1b wrote: There is a fine line though, surely you'd agree? Particularly when conservative's are routinely accused of things liberals find heinous, such as racism, sexism etc. I understand the feeling of prosecution that a lot of conservatives feel and I try to be sympathetic. But in contrast they have held power in government for 8 years and control the majority of state legislatures. They have their own media groups and Fox News, which is not what I would call “nice” to liberals or progressives. So at times it is hard to buy into the feeling of persecution when that same empathy is not reciprocated to, say for instance, blacks complaining about racism. It becomes hard to not see it as a tactic used by some to blunt critique of real racist and sexists within conservatism. Or as something more caustic. But again, that is a meta issue and not your fault. I understand that conservatives don’t see themselves reflected in culture. But I also think that a lot of people, like racial minorities, LGBT folks and others, feel excluded from conservatism. There doesn’t seem to be lot of room for them in the conservative movement. But that movement holds a lot of political power, even if it has little cultural influence at large. It’s a problem because I believe conservatism has a purity test problem. The tent is not broad or open enough. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote: I understand the feeling of prosecution that a lot of conservatives feel and I try to be sympathetic. But in contrast they have held power in government for 8 years and control the majority of state legislatures. They have their own media groups and Fox News, which is not what I would call “nice” to liberals or progressives. So at times it is hard to buy into the feeling of persecution when that same empathy is not reciprocated to, say for instance, blacks complaining about racism. It becomes hard to not see it as a tactic used by some to blunt critique of real racist and sexists within conservatism. Or as something more caustic. But again, that is a meta issue and not your fault. I understand that conservatives don’t see themselves reflected in culture. But I also think that a lot of people, like racial minorities, LGBT folks and others, feel excluded from conservatism. There doesn’t seem to be lot of room for them in the conservative movement. But that movement holds a lot of political power, even if it has little cultural influence at large. Don't get me wrong, I find fox news absolutely detestable, along with pretty much every single conservative politician in power right now (zlefin, if there was something I would argue is clearly superior right now in politics between the two parties, it is that the current elected politicians in the RNC are revolting), I just don't think it gives people carte blanch to make sweeping generalizations. There are people who voted for Trump I presume based on good faith not on excluding undesirables. I just saw your edit as I posted this, which somewhat ties into what I was posting to Kollin yesterday, in that most people aren't part of the alt right nor the antifa groups, yet for whatever reason insist on categorizing the other as if they were, where purity tests absolutely exist. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 14 2018 01:51 bo1b wrote: Don't get me wrong, I find fox news absolutely detestable, along with pretty much every single conservative politician in power right now (zlefin, if there was something I would argue is clearly superior right now in politics between the two parties, it is that the current elected politicians in the RNC are revolting), I just don't think it gives people carte blanch to make sweeping generalizations. There are people who voted for Trump I presume based on good faith not on excluding undesirables. I just saw your edit as I posted this, which somewhat ties into what I was posting to Kollin yesterday, in that most people aren't part of the alt right nor the antifa groups, yet for whatever reason insist on categorizing the other as if they were, where purity tests absolutely exist. And I think part of that is a tactic to keep us in our silos, in our lanes and tribes. It is easier to get votes and support if you can convince people that the “other side” is going to destroy their culture/way of life. Take away their guns, even though there is no serious political push to strip people of fire arms, for instance. I’ve said this before, my brother voted for trump and there was a lot of confilt in my family because of it. Not because we were horrible to him, but because the ACA repeal was going to be by for my wife and my sister’s son. He felt guilty about all the worry, but also didn’t want face the “we told you” from his siblings. Or our way less forgiving spouses. He wanted to hold his political opinion, be vocal about it and not deal with very real world results of that vote. I don’t think my brother is alt right, but he gets no breaks when he tries to defend some of them. And that is the dynamic, we are so entrenched that we cannot turn around and deal with the worst actors in our own groups. So, we get labeled as supporting them. Steve Bannon and Bill Clinton alike. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
Let's go back in time to the night before the election, with two groups lining up to get into a booth. Presume that one of them is from a military family, and has had a family member die in Afghanistan, and the other has a daughter with Chron's disease. I couldn't blame the military family voting against who they believe will take them into Syria again, in favor of an outspoken non interventionist, just like I couldn't blame the other voting for the aca. The problem I have with sweeping generalizations is that people ignore there are very real reasons to vote one way or another, and reducing it to "racists and libtards" does nothing but make sure the other group can't see your perspective, and perhaps worse, ends up with people brushing half the population as the enemy. I just feel like the current state of affairs has people in echo chambers arguing against others as if those other people had seen whatever compelling evidence that they themselves had seen (right or wrong), and dismissed it without cause. | ||
| ||
