logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Planning Ahead, Keeping AD's community together
net2007
post Jun 13 2018, 06:03 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I was wondering if anybody else here thinks it's a good idea to have a backup plan just in case Americasdebate goes down. It's possible that Mike and Jamie will come back with further plans for AD because they're continuing to pay for the cost of the domain and thus far when the website has gone down, as it did a few days ago, they've worked to fix the problem but in the scenario that we do lose AD, we'd lose what's left of our debating community and some of us have debated here for over a decade. Personally, I've debated here since 2007, have gotten to know some of the members, and developed a lot of my debating skills here so from my perspective it'd be unfortunate to see that happen. AD is also an interesting concept in itself, I think America should have a dedicated spot to debate a range of issues, including with members of other nations when they find an interest.

As for what we'd plan to do if the website goes down, I'm open to any ideas. Perhaps we could think of a common place we'd meet in the scenario that the website goes down, or exchange contact information and figure that out at a later time, there's a number of things that we could do.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jun 13 2018, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 95)
droop224
post Sep 18 2018, 09:03 PM
Post #81


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Cool, Droop! I guess it would be fine with you if you were in the hospital and your nurse chose to use her platform to lecture you on Obama's "failed policies".
Or a restaurant...I'm sure a waiter that offers said lecture would receive appreciation and an extra big gratuity from you.
LOL no it would not be fine with me. I'm in the hospital... I'm hungry... But that's missing the "huge" point. If you are at a place where I think its appropriate for you to tell me how great our nation is, then you are in a place where you can tell me where America sucks.

QUOTE
Well, team spirit is narcissistic too isn't it? "We're (team x) look how great we are!"
YES, it is!! But I bet you would feel fine if I said Conservatives generally show more "team spirit" than liberals, but be offended if I were to say Conservatives generally are more narcissistic than liberals. You get where I'm going with that?

QUOTE
Should the player use this platform to protest his own team or own sponsoring state rather than the country as a whole?
Think that would go over well? Should it go over well?
The further left the less they would care, the further right the more they would give a crap. (with exceptions)

QUOTE
Wrong. I prefer no personal political propaganda when I am the paying customer.
Obviously some political speech is more insulting than other political speech.
"Hey you're great! I'm great, we're all great" beats the hell out of "you suck!"

It that REALLY so hard to understand?
Honestly, yes and no. It's real easy to understand what you said, its really hard to figure out how you would apply it and how your application would be replicated to someone else.

Segue to Trouble

QUOTE(Trouble)
QUOTE(Droop)
I disagree. Terrorism never meant anything... ever. Morality still has the same meaning and it is the singular concept that prevents us from being mere animals. (yes, I admit thinking we are more than mere animals may be delusional).

You mean "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." has not been employed and then manipulated by the state for the exercise of imperial power? You are saying it never meant anything??
Trouble its not that i didn't think that Terrorism had a definition. Only that Terror is the root word of Terrorism. and yet there is a contingency of unlawfulness for something to be terror-ism. Whose law? Huh? Whose law? Is it the law of the party being terrorized or is it the law of the party terrorizing? Is it law of the State or can it be religious law? Does it have to be a U.N. recognized nation or can it be any group with an identity. I mean its not that people fled screaming for their lives and people lost there lives when planes came a crashing on 9/11 that made it a terrorism. Oh no, its because it is illegal to crash planes into buildings. blink.gif

Bottom line i understand my mistake in the way i made my first statement won't do it again.

Back to Mrs P

I understand "personal"; I understand "political"; and I understand "propaganda". I even understand "political propaganda." What I don't understand is "personal political propaganda" Is it personal when i talk about a person, or is it personal when i am doing it by myself... or, like terrorism, does it exist on a "i know it when i see it" basis.

Now Football is a good example. So athletes come out the locker room and place their hands over their heart in a sign of positive political speech\propaganda... they don't say anything. Kaepernick takes a seat... doesn't say anything. Was that personal political propaganda\speech? I think so because many on the Right were unhappy. Was it personal because it was just him? Later during the year, whole teams started kneeling, with a few exceptions. So was the whole team making "personal political propaganda" Now i'm not so sure, but still conservatives didn't like it. In one case, the whole Pittsburgh Steelers team decided to stay in the locker room for the national anthem, except one. And it seems that conservatives LOVED this personal political speech of this one player in contrast to the team. Again, honestly i think the phrase "personal political propaganda" will boil down to political speech one does not like.

QUOTE
"Hey you're great! I'm great, we're all great" beats the hell out of "you suck!"
Yes, i guess it does. wink2.gif But "you suck, I suck, we all suck" is a necessary statement if you suck. You're great, I'm great, we're all great, is just cheerleading. Great for morale, not so great for fixing inequities.

This post has been edited by droop224: Sep 18 2018, 09:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 19 2018, 06:43 AM
Post #82


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 18 2018, 10:27 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 15 2018, 12:17 AM) *
You're probably right on that, actually, there's little question that on a day to day bases most behave differently than they do online or when they're fighting for a cause as a group.


I look at the internet overall as a large crowded highway or city. Think about the way people behave in a city, where anonymity is more assured, than a small town.
They're far far ruder in the city. They're far ruder on the large highways too. Sometimes they're so rude people go crazy and we call that road rage.

I was at a concert a few nights ago. It was really good....the band is super talented, my favorite in fact (Rise Against).
But they couldn't help using their venue to make a political statement mid-way, with a crowd they were assured would applaud.
I absolutely can't stand it when celebrities (of all varieties) do this with their paying captive audience.
It reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inscky6EyQ8

But even worse. The above is actually polite and discrete by comparison to the soapbox celebrity talker/kneeler.
Do it on your own time like the rest of us!

I've never heard of a CME event, Net. Interesting stuff!


I think there could something to all of that as well, both urban and rural environments have their share of problems but from personal experience, I've lived in both environments and have seen a contrast. There are no doubt others who haven't had the same experience I have here but from what I've seen in the city of Asheville, it would support your claim. A young disabled man was shot just a block from here at the gas station around the corner and when I was coming home a couple months ago there was a woman outside crying because, apparently, she got beat up, shot with a pellet rifle, then dragged behind the suspect's car. I wasn't there to witness the event but she was indeed scraped up and was bleeding from what looked like small bullet wounds. A couple of other residents and I got her some help but that situation could have been a lot worse, she's lucky.

Apart from the crime, I've met a few people that I thought were friends who turned out not to be for some very good reasons and once I attended a Mitt Romney rally at the civic center downtown and ran into some protesters. While waiting outside in line to get into the civic center the protesters didn't bother me, one of them was actually nice to me, but there was certainly drama that day. Walking home a lady hung out of her downtown apartment and flipped me off because she figured I attended the rally. She was right but I could have been a protester or someone walking to their car from work for all she knew considering her apartment didn't have a clear line of sight to the civic center. After she did that I told her I'm trying to be nice over here and she screamed something about free speech. I guess she was right on that and I didn't want the drama so I decided to leave it be, that's not the kind of situation where we could have had a civil conversation. My point would have been that her approach isn't the kind of free speech that'll reach her political opponents but I don't think that was her goal. tongue.gif

There have been very nice individuals who I've met here in Asheville as well but I think it's fair to say that I've seen more rudeness and drama living in the city than anywhere else I've lived. The world can be a frustrating and scary place sometimes, on a different note than my situation what Democrats in office just did by holding onto a 36-year-old sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh was a sick move. This could have been mentioned weeks ago but they took an allegation that'll be hard to prove given how long ago it was, waited until all of their other obstruction attempts failed, then at the very last minute, in desperation, made this an issue. Whether or not the allegation is true, they're using the Me Too movement to push a political agenda. Worse still is that while Kavanaugh is willing to come to the table to speak about this, the Democrats won't budge without a lengthy FBI investigation that they know will delay the hearing until after the midterms and this says nothing of the fact that many of these same politicians haven't taken sexual assault allegations against Democrats seriously. What a mess!

To touch just a little on celebrities and those who have a bigger megaphone to get their views circulated than your average joe does. Many influential figures do think that they're the ones with the answers and if only we thought like them, the world would be a better place and many of these same individuals have huge lapses in judgment on the topics they emphasize. I don't think all of their points are bad ones and I'm a very big free speech advocate, I think with some celebrities that it's the tone that's off-putting. The real question on my mind on this one is, are they reaching anyone apart from those who already think like them? There's reason to be skeptical of that in regards to celebrities who don't put a word in for fans who may not think like them.

Overall, there's so much divisiveness and so much in the way of games that are being played, it can at times be very disheartening, (perhaps many Democrats would agree in regards to some of the concerns that they have). The potential for another CME event is indeed crazy, I hope the government gets with it on preparing for that. There is no shortage of ways that the Universe and our own planet could kill us without fighting amongst ourselves being added to the mix. I just hope Americans and members of other nations can cooperate a little better, it'll never be perfect but we could improve for sure, there's a lot of untapped potential. I'd probably go crazy as it is if I weren't to look at areas where we are working together.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 19 2018, 11:58 AM
Post #83


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 18 2018, 04:03 PM) *
QUOTE
Cool, Droop! I guess it would be fine with you if you were in the hospital and your nurse chose to use her platform to lecture you on Obama's "failed policies".
Or a restaurant...I'm sure a waiter that offers said lecture would receive appreciation and an extra big gratuity from you.
LOL no it would not be fine with me. I'm in the hospital... I'm hungry... But that's missing the "huge" point. If you are at a place where I think its appropriate for you to tell me how great our nation is, then you are in a place where you can tell me where America sucks.


Not if I'm the paying customer.
If I'm the paying customer and he/she is the employee (especially the entertainer, aka the person paid to please the audience...in whatever capacity that might be), it's my decision what I want to hear. If I don't like it, I leave and take my money elsewhere. That is how it works.
I'm not paying to be insulted.
If I don't like being insulted and I am insulted, I leave and take my money.
It's as simple as that. What insults me might not make anyone else feel insulted, true.
The player might say, "Kill Mrs P! Hate on Mrs P!"
I'd leave and stop paying...others might not. Some might like it. If enough people like it, he/she would stay in business. If enough people don't, he/she loses his or her audience.


QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 19 2018, 01:43 AM) *
...on a different note than my situation what Democrats in office just did by holding onto a 36-year-old sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh was a sick move. This could have been mentioned weeks ago but they took an allegation that'll be hard to prove given how long ago it was, waited until all of their other obstruction attempts failed, then at the very last minute, in desperation, made this an issue. Whether or not the allegation is true, they're using the Me Too movement to push a political agenda. Worse still is that while Kavanaugh is willing to come to the table to speak about this, the Democrats won't budge without a lengthy FBI investigation that they know will delay the hearing until after the midterms and this says nothing of the fact that many of these same politicians haven't taken sexual assault allegations against Democrats seriously. What a mess!


It's unbelievable. It won't be hard to prove, it is impossible to prove after all this time. It's a waste of FBI resources to even try.
But the words from Sen. Hirono really got to me in particular. A sitting Senator, in a nation ruled by law, is arguing against presumption of innocence.
A Senator who is supposed to be upholding that law instead lectures the men of Congress and the nation that they should not expect proof.
They should just automatically believe a 35-year-old story just because a woman told it.
What if this was a murder story instead. Would Sen Hirono insist that we believe a woman today if she claimed who the murder was from 35 years ago, with no proof, just because she is a woman?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 19 2018, 12:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Sep 19 2018, 02:47 PM
Post #84


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 19 2018, 05:58 AM) *

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 18 2018, 04:03 PM) *
QUOTE
Cool, Droop! I guess it would be fine with you if you were in the hospital and your nurse chose to use her platform to lecture you on Obama's "failed policies".
Or a restaurant...I'm sure a waiter that offers said lecture would receive appreciation and an extra big gratuity from you.
LOL no it would not be fine with me. I'm in the hospital... I'm hungry... But that's missing the "huge" point. If you are at a place where I think its appropriate for you to tell me how great our nation is, then you are in a place where you can tell me where America sucks.


Not if I'm the paying customer.
If I'm the paying customer and he/she is the employee (especially the entertainer, aka the person paid to please the audience...in whatever capacity that might be), it's my decision what I want to hear. If I don't like it, I leave and take my money elsewhere. That is how it works.
I'm not paying to be insulted.
If I don't like being insulted and I am insulted, I leave and take my money.
It's as simple as that. What insults me might not make anyone else feel insulted, true.
The player might say, "Kill Mrs P! Hate on Mrs P!"
I'd leave and stop paying...others might not. Some might like it. If enough people like it, he/she would stay in business. If enough people don't, he/she loses his or her audience.
See... now we are getting to a point where we see eye to eye. Just as an example, nothing frustrated me more than when Vet, or even worst people who never put on the uniform, would talk how Kaepernick's protest insulted or disrespected the troops, the flag, blah, blah, blah. No, it doesn't.

It doesn't insult the troops, because that's me. Nor does it insult America, because I'm American and he's American. But it did insult individuals. And their were troops that felt disrespected. But that's because they've tied their national identity to their egos. If you feel insulted because someone is saying something is wrong with the country... that's a "you" thing. I mean they are not insulting you. If i were to say something about Americans, like "Americans love money more than their own children" that's actually insulting an American on the basis of being an American. But in many cases we are dealing with Americans feeling insulted, because American institutions are being challenged.

I'm not telling an individual they "can't" be insulted, but please recognize its not them insulting you, its you being insulted. (to be honest, maybe that's not possible)

Other than that.. we started from "I absolutely can't stand it when celebrities (of all varieties) do this with their paying captive audience", afterwards we pointed out you absolutely can stand it as long as its positive to you. Then we moved to "I prefer no personal political propaganda when I am the paying customer." and now we are at "If I'm the paying customer and he/she is the employee (especially the entertainer, aka the person paid to please the audience...in whatever capacity that might be), it's my decision what I want to hear. If I don't like it, I leave and take my money elsewhere. That is how it works."

Each of these, for me was a step in getting to what's really at issue, critiquing America as a whole.

QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 19 2018, 01:43 AM) *
...on a different note than my situation what Democrats in office just did by holding onto a 36-year-old sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh was a sick move. This could have been mentioned weeks ago but they took an allegation that'll be hard to prove given how long ago it was, waited until all of their other obstruction attempts failed, then at the very last minute, in desperation, made this an issue. Whether or not the allegation is true, they're using the Me Too movement to push a political agenda. Worse still is that while Kavanaugh is willing to come to the table to speak about this, the Democrats won't budge without a lengthy FBI investigation that they know will delay the hearing until after the midterms and this says nothing of the fact that many of these same politicians haven't taken sexual assault allegations against Democrats seriously. What a mess!


It's unbelievable. It won't be hard to prove, it is impossible to prove after all this time. It's a waste of FBI resources to even try.
But the words from Sen. Hirono really got to me in particular. A sitting Senator, in a nation ruled by law, is arguing against presumption of innocence.
A Senator who is supposed to be upholding that law instead lectures the men of Congress and the nation that they should not expect proof.
They should just automatically believe a 35-year-old story just because a woman told it.
What if this was a murder story instead. Would Sen Hirono insist that we believe a woman today if she claimed who the murder was from 35 years ago, with no proof, just because she is a woman?

LOL i have to admit that i wish Blacks could get this same level commitment from the Right on issues regarding the "presumption of innocence". I can dream. Bad news for Kavanaugh, they were just was able to convict Bill Cosby. Good news for Kavanaugh, he's White. That's not completely fair, Clarence got away with it too.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 19 2018, 03:20 PM
Post #85


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 19 2018, 09:47 AM) *
LOL i have to admit that i wish Blacks could get this same level commitment from the Right on issues regarding the "presumption of innocence". I can dream. Bad news for Kavanaugh, they were just was able to convict Bill Cosby. Good news for Kavanaugh, he's White. That's not completely fair, Clarence got away with it too.


How about everyone should be entitled to presumption of innocence? It's pretty key to living in a society governed by law.
If you think only black men have been impacted by this, you're not paying attention.
I do think the Bill Cosby case was a travesty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 19 2018, 04:40 PM
Post #86


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



On getting political during a gig:

The job is to play music that has emotional meaning, sing lyrics that evoke images -- hopefully that fit the music and vice versa -- and to connect with the audience. Any talking in there needs to fit as well.

Lots of performers pull it off and still get a few political points across. I prefer the Willie Nelson approach where some of his fans didn't know his politics until Willie gave money to a Democrat's campaign. Huh, the guy is liberal! Who would have thought?

Uh, most fans by far? Let's see, he's artsy-fartsy with his long hair, using a pick on a classical guitar with a hole worn through the top, has a strap that is macrame (red, white, blue too), sings about all sorts of stuff, writes his own songs, smokes a lot of weed. And he loves being on the road.

Did some of his fans miss that? Apparently so. I'm pretty sure that's because Willie knows who he is and doesn't need to say anything that isn't in his music. Well, other than "I don't care" in response to his rather small number of fans who have turned against him for being liberal.

Sometimes my daydreaming takes me to a stage in a large venue, and I try to say something political outside the music. The fantasy turns harsh quickly, always has. I think there's a lesson here:

Gigging is an experience that can be very good or very bad, so why on Earth would you want to encourage the bad? Is it ego? A feeling of personal power that gets away from you, forgetting that the power comes mostly from the audience? Talking politics would be like playing Christian folk music at an American Communist Party rally, or maybe Aretha Franklin's R-E-S-P-E-C-T at a Trump rally.

So it's a perfectly natural response to never pay for that again, aka musician's career suicide.

On the other hand, there are folks like Neil Young who make music that is mostly political. Still, there's a lot more to his music, and that is very important. Without the emotion he'd be unbearable. Just another crazy uncle at Thanksgiving.

The master at this is Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull), IMHO. The music stands on its own, the lyrics can be taken lots of different ways -- although Thick As A Brick is pretty clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Sep 19 2018, 05:03 PM
Post #87


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 19 2018, 09:20 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 19 2018, 09:47 AM) *
LOL i have to admit that i wish Blacks could get this same level commitment from the Right on issues regarding the "presumption of innocence". I can dream. Bad news for Kavanaugh, they were just was able to convict Bill Cosby. Good news for Kavanaugh, he's White. That's not completely fair, Clarence got away with it too.


How about everyone should be entitled to presumption of innocence? It's pretty key to living in a society governed by law.
If you think only black men have been impacted by this, you're not paying attention.
I do think the Bill Cosby case was a travesty.

Whoa!! mrsparkle.gif I think Black and Hispanics suffer disproportionately from a lack of "presumption of innocence", so bad we may not make it to court to see the judge... because I am paying attention. However that's as far as I would go. I'm with you presumption of innocence is the most important aspect when deciding to jail an individual. That said there just are certain things that if you get accused of you won't get the presumption of innocence... pedophilia, sexual assault, killing a cop, or serving in Germany's Army during WWII.

Well see what happens with Kavanaugh. i say 25% chance it affects his chance to sit as a judge and a 3 percent chance any real legal action comes out of it! w00t.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 21 2018, 07:06 PM
Post #88


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 19 2018, 07:58 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 19 2018, 01:43 AM) *
...on a different note than my situation what Democrats in office just did by holding onto a 36-year-old sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh was a sick move. This could have been mentioned weeks ago but they took an allegation that'll be hard to prove given how long ago it was, waited until all of their other obstruction attempts failed, then at the very last minute, in desperation, made this an issue. Whether or not the allegation is true, they're using the Me Too movement to push a political agenda. Worse still is that while Kavanaugh is willing to come to the table to speak about this, the Democrats won't budge without a lengthy FBI investigation that they know will delay the hearing until after the midterms and this says nothing of the fact that many of these same politicians haven't taken sexual assault allegations against Democrats seriously. What a mess!


It's unbelievable. It won't be hard to prove, it is impossible to prove after all this time. It's a waste of FBI resources to even try.
But the words from Sen. Hirono really got to me in particular. A sitting Senator, in a nation ruled by law, is arguing against presumption of innocence.
A Senator who is supposed to be upholding that law instead lectures the men of Congress and the nation that they should not expect proof.
They should just automatically believe a 35-year-old story just because a woman told it.
What if this was a murder story instead. Would Sen Hirono insist that we believe a woman today if she claimed who the murder was from 35 years ago, with no proof, just because she is a woman?


They've made a mockery of the whole process here. On this topic, Democrats in office have a history of hysterics and smear campaigns during the nominations of conservative judges but they've stepped things up a few notches this time around. We've seen an unprecedented amount of bickering, protest, and interruptions at the actual hearings. It was to the extent that I couldn't find another example of things ever being this chaotic during a Supreme Court nominee hearing. Other members are welcome to demonstrate that there's a more extreme case than Kavanaugh's hearing but I came up with nothing.

Apart from everything else, over a week ago they were complaining about unreleased documents, despite Kavanaugh having turned over more documents than the last five Supreme Court nominees combined....

http://checkyourfact.com/2018/08/09/fact-c...-supreme-court/

So some have tried to drive home any point they could no matter how absurd they look doing it. Cory Booker's "I am Spartacus moment" sure was a trip. Seems like a bad idea to say you're breaking the rules, when you're not actually breaking the rules. It's clear he wanted to portray himself as brave or perhaps the first in a new line of saviors to help protect us from Trump and his new Supreme Court Nominee pick. He had quite the interesting way of going about that, he had his back covered, so he lied and got caught doing it. Bad liars don't make good saviors, neither do good liars for that matter.

As for the move they pulled by waiting to reveal Christine Ford's allegation of attempted rape against Kavanaugh, you could be right that it'll be impossible to prove with how old the allegation is but, as you're hinting at, that's not stopping some from presuming he's guilty. I found this video from Ben Shapiro to be amusing, he also made a number of fair points. If interested start this at the 8:00 mark and watch for a few minutes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idPr8rfE3hk

I tend to like Shapiro, he'll do a little bit in the way of nitpicking but he's not afraid to do it to both sides, so he's conservative but will call out Trump or other conservatives when they're in the wrong which, in my eyes, helps a lot with credibility. I don't know if what Christine Ford is saying is true, perhaps someone did do something to her but we don't know the date, time, month, or location that this happened let alone if it was indeed Kavanaugh who committed the act, (assuming she was indeed assaulted). The eyewitness who was supposed to help substantiate her accusation is suggesting he doesn't know what she's talking about....

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/kavanaughs-pr...never-at-party/

QUOTE
I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as PJ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post, Smyth says in the statement,

I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women


She's fuzzy on a lot of aspects of this and wouldn't testify, the Senate offered an open hearing, a closed hearing, they've offered to go to California to meet at a location closer to her, at one point there was talk of having a woman ask her questions and Democrats in office aren't mentioning anything about that to their supporters from what I've seen. The FBI investigation that they were trying to push for isn't even the kind of case that the FBI covers, yet they're pointing right back at Republicans for their lack of support for that effort as if Senate Democrats didn't turn this situation into a circus act from the outset. From what I understand, the FBI didn't touch this case because it's not a federal crime and there's no crime mentioned where the statue of limitations hasn't run out.

The latest demands being made now come with the promise that Christine Ford will testify, but not on Monday according to Fords attorney, after another delay and only in the case that Ford gets to be heard after Kavanaugh is heard. Typically, the one who's being accused responds to the accusations, not the other way around. I don't think they expect those conditions to be met, I think Democrats expect a vote to happen so they're setting unreasonable expectations at this point in the hopes that it will appear as if Republicans weren't willing to work together.

I feel like I ranted on this topic and I'm probably preaching to the choir, it's just that the level of distortion here is so extensive and multilayered that it's mind-boggling, same with the Russia collusion narrative that's being pushed. Many who are pursuing that have lied, broken long-standing guidelines, broken laws, and deceived the public in many ways. Few people would know with certainty right now what Trump's exact role was with Russia yet there are those who let on as if they know for a fact he's guilty, you don't have to dig deep to find wild unsubstantiated remarks on that topic. In some of the more extreme cases, I think people assume innocence or guilt because it's politically expedient to do so. That was one of Ben Shapiro's points in the video above and I think that's very applicable to both parties in a lot of respects. What some people will do with an unsubstantiated allegation is believe it if it helps them politically and dismiss it if doesn't, facts become secondary to image.

This post has been edited by net2007: Sep 22 2018, 12:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Oct 17 2018, 12:11 AM
Post #89


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Let me jump back into the fray a little to take on some issues and comments: (some things maybe I'll make a separate debate)

First, to all people in this discussion, the concept of over-generalizing continues. Here are my two cents. It's not overgeneralizing if its true about the group. Hobbes, Net, Looms, etc. none of you are powerful (I think). I am not powerful. Our power comes a small part of a larger group. If a debater says conservatives support X, Y, or Z that doesn't mean they are being lazy. Just like you all understand individual responsibility, you all need to understand social responsibility. If the reason a law exists is that conservative support, then I am not overgeneralizing to lay it at the feet of conservatism. Now, does that mean every self-proclaimed conservative agrees with a said law? No, it does not. Does that mean every self-proclaimed liberal disagrees? No, it does not.

If it calls for debating you as an individual, I will. But if I am debating a policy or a national viewpoint that finds heavy support in a certain political party, then i may not want to make it about YOU. Am I debating YOU? No. I am debating with you. If you are a conservative there are consequences of following that philosophy, same as liberalism. In my case, gender/sexual orientation "equality" issues are issues that I may not be lockstep with when it comes to the current leftist platform. That being said I wouldn't say you are wrong to lay the fact that little boys are told they can be girls and start running on the girl's track team at the feet of a leftist such as myself. Now if one of the conservatives on this board blamed the left, even though I am part of the left and disagree, i wouldn't go, "What are you talking about, I don't agree" Because whether I agree with it or not personally, the politics that I support are clearly supportive of it. That called "owning my collective sh-stuff", I think conservatives generally don't want to own their collective sh-stuff. It likely seems counter-intuitive to them, IMO.


Many times I feel that conservatism is so wrapped up in individualism, the idea that they should have any collective responsibility must seem counterintuitive to themselves. I don't blame them per se; we are taught the collectivism as opposed to individualism. The more I read, the more I have come to believe that the two are not opposed but require concurrent effort to keep civilization balanced.


But, that being said, I'm going to lay sh-stuff at conservative's feet, even though this may not seem fair to you all. No Net, Hobbes, and others, that doesn't mean I'm debating myself, because I'm not debating your personal views. I'm debating, generally, against the prevailing conservative viewpoint. All conservatives aren't Republicans, all Republicans aren't conservative. I think the contrast is even starker when it comes to Democrats. All Democrats certainly aren't liberals, ESPECIALLY, politicians. America clearly leans "right" of politics on the national level to begin with.


Are all Republicans\Conservatives racist? No. Do racist feel welcomed in the Republican party? C'mon stop kidding yourselves, of course, they do. But you all, I mean "self-proclaimed conservatives and\or Republicans", don't want to own that sh-stuff. And it's just as insane as me a leftist pretending that transsexuals don't have a home in the Democratic party. Do not take the above statement to mean that "Droop acts or thinks there are no racists in the Democratic party" There are plenty of racists that are Democrats, especially among elderly White people. And don't even get me talking about politicians that are Democrats. But generally, with the exception of the geographical locations where it is heavily White and Democratic, does a politician get away with selling racism AND getting elected equally in both parties? I dare say they do not.


Even as an individual, we have to take some ownership in what our group represents. But, this should not be seen as my saying "an individual we should take responsibility for what other individuals in our group say or do" Let's say I'm at a Black Live Matter rally and there is an individual that says "PIGS should fry like bacon". I don't think I need to take ownership of that. Let's say the person saying this is the head of BLM or a sub-faction of BLM and I cheer this person on or it's part of their written doctrine. In this case, I DO need to take ownership in part because I support the group and this is part of the group message.


When the Republican party COURTS racists because they need their votes, if you consider yourself a Republican, you are a part of that. Now you may be a Republican, because you are religious, a nationalist, or you just love the way they treat rich people or any other number of reasons. Now if a racist goes off and hits someone with a car at a Racist rally that does not land at your feet. (by the way, I am completely aware that what I deem as "racist" is an opinion"


What does all this I wrote boil down to it and why is it important to this debate. When talking about moving on, you all need to really ask yourself, do you want a debate or do you want echo chambers. There are HUMAN costs for many of our political views. HUMAN costs are at the heart of political debate. I feel, maybe I'm wrong as if many of you want to debate in a manner so sterile that the human element of that which we debate is not recognized.


For instance, if we were to discuss Saudi-American relationships, we should only debate "hey here is the money we get for these arms deals and saving on oil trade" Its as if we should not look at something like Saudi's treatment of its own citizens and how their treatment of human beings lines up with our values.

Net

QUOTE
That's not reflective of mindset where my perception of the world would be the only perception of the world or the only one that's correct. That's acknowledging variety and that others may have a different set of morals. One of the reasons my replies are often long is that I'm trying not to oversimplify things. I definitely don't always get it right and what I feel is right may not be right in every case but sometimes you're coming off as if you don't understand that this rule applies to you, frankly. Do you know the difference between the real world and your perception of the real world?
Nothing and everything. We are all limited to see the world through our own lens. But we can pretend to see the world through other lenses. Bottom line if you were as capable as you think to see the world thru other lenses, even if you just pretended for a short time, you'd be far more liberal. Taking the time to see how someone else must see the world is what makes liberals... liberal. Its what makes us chase equality so much.
<div>
QUOTE
Remember your own standards on this, there's a difference between the real world and your own perception of the real world. I think one of the reasons you're getting confused at times is that you're taking things said by others, then rephrasing them, later to debate the rephrased version of what the other person said. In a sense, you're debating with yourself when you do that because you're creating your own characters to debate based on assumptions or oversimplifications.

I never made the claim that there's mass liberal support for violence, you're trying to debate that position but it's a position that came from you. So for one more clarification, you were making the argument that racism is abound on the right, I responded by agreeing, then later saying this....
QUOTE
I talk about violence on the left in my writings a good bit because it's clear that it's a problem that's getting worse but I don't think violence is representative of the left or the right altogether, those responsible for the worst of it make up a minority on both sides.

As far as modern liberal support for violence goes, I don't think that's mainstream either but I would make the argument that not enough people are condemning that type of behavior or confronting it head on to help combat what's going on. Just as with conservatives people often find it easier to just ignore or downplay violence and other forms of uncivil behavior. I've gone over that some, I think it boils down to some assuming that an acknowledgment reflects poorly on their preferred group in a larger sense. Personally, I think it helps to acknowledge when things go wrong in a party or group, as long as some perspective is offered. Those who are doing things which cause damage are a drain on those around them so it's not such a bad idea to confront that because those types inhibit the healthy growth of political parties and groups.

Behavioral trends have been worsening on both sides, as far as comparing the left to the right or modern liberals to modern conservatives, (to be more specific to current times), I do think there's a small but noticeable difference between these groups, and I'm not just talking in terms of rudeness or profanity in protest.
Well... neither of us can stop what some random individual does. That's not the point. We control who and what we support. The people we support, the ideals we support, the groups we support, the philosophies we support, etc. What did Donald Trump say.. What did Obama say? Would you like to go clip for clip on who has said the more vile things? The left supported Obama; the Right supported Trump. And i can guess the rhetoric you are listening to... but maybe this little ">video provides perspective







QUOTE
We've had this debate already, it sounds like you're making the argument that there are conservatives who support military action, and since military action often involves violence, conservatives, therefore, must be violent or be accepting of violence so long as it achieves goals. It's an argument that is applicable on some level, so I'm not going to say that the right's tie to the military doesn't count at all, but here again you're oversimplifying.
No, "oversimplification" would be.. "they hate us because we are free". There is a difference between over-simplification and simply stating something. And a point of nuance, it has nothing to do with the "right's tie to the military" its the "right's ties" to use military force. The ease in which the Right can be persuaded to war to be more exact, though persuade may not be the right word. How do you persuade people so willing to see other humans be killed in the name of necessity.

I'm not over simplifying anything. Just simply stating conservative support for violence against other Human Beings.

QUOTE
Also, the military isn't as conservative as you let on either but I don't think that works against modern liberals who are involved in our military, often that says something positive about their character, though there are exceptions.....
LOL i did what? Look the military is run by many conservatives, but is made up of a quite diverse workforce, especially in the enlisted ranks. Its very nature will filter out many liberal minds in their first tour or two, but certainly not all. That being said... its a tool!! It does as its wielder wishes it to do. The wielders are not the generals and admirals.

QUOTE
You might have picked up on the left having stronger ties with the military than some realize if you had actually absorbed some of my prior writings or writings of others for that matter, but I don't see much of that. You either don't take them seriously or skip huge portions of what's written. Here's how I phrased it before...
... says the civilian to the US Marine. Whatever you want to think.




QUOTE
Your argument comes off as if you look things this way... (military = bad, military = conservative, conservative = bad.) and I wouldn't be surprised that if we were to have this conversation again that you wouldn't have remembered or absorbed anything I wrote above. I don't think that's because you can't, I think it's because you choose not to. According to a lot of your writings, you view those who you deem "conservative" as intellectually and morally inferior so you're not learning much in these types of exchanges from what I can tell.
Your counter argument comes off as if you don't know the difference between supporting the military and supporting military action. Do you? Don't take that the wrong way, i've noticed that among Conservative circles they do tend to fall in these rhetorical traps. Like "you don't support the troops if you don't stand for the flag". Its just the weird way the Right puts things together i guess.




Trouble




QUOTE
Congratulations for not being a psychopath. I can see where you are directing this line of thinking. Finding a base line and then associate your views as part of a baseline. Then, you'll flip this around by taking your view as a universal law yada yada ad naseum. This is how you'll attack the other group which by default means the conservatives. I'm not buying it.
Thank you, others should try it. "you gonna flip and flop it..." What the hell are you talking about? There are no UNIVERSAL laws, i don't think there are any UNIVERSAL laws... you are missing the point. My point is YOU who ever YOU are need a baseline for you to calibrate your moral compass. If you believe freedom is an important ideal but you align yourself with a slave owners because it makes you rich, something is corrupt with YOUR (not you personally) moral compass.

Looms

QUOTE
No. You misunderstand what I'm "hypersensitive" about. I don't stay up at night worrying if someone thinks I'm racist. I don't give a damn. I am, however, "hypersensitive" when it comes to doxing, getting people fired, political violence, deplatforming and moral panic. I'm also "hypersensitive" about murder. What of it? And what points did I deflect from, exactly? Where there any points buried beneath the blind zealotry and moral outrage that I was responding to? The fact that in your analogy I'M the one reacting with butt-hurt and hyperbole (those are the words you are looking for, you're welcome), whereas CR is being sane and rational, is just brilliant. I'm simply asking how far he would personally go, based on actual things that are done by people for the same reasons and ideology.
Trevor Noah had a good skit on this. How Trump, and the Right overall, make themselves the victims even when facts don't bear it out. Go look at some statistics. See what it means to be Black or Hispanic in this nation compared to White. pick something... income levels, incarceration, life expectancy... Now do some "rough rationalization" to see if the threat to White males getting fired matches up. Plainly spoken, you are scared on Jack-Sh-stuff when compared to what a minority has to maneuver through.

And just on a "keeping it real" note. I have not, nor will i ever act as if CruisingRam is sane.
QUOTE
I assure you it was in no way unconscious. I quite consciously said what I said, although you're wrong that I put the category of "Americans" on the same level as the category of "people". They are not on the same level, "American" is a subcategory of "people" that takes precedence over other subcategories of people at the same level (that of a nation). And yes, being a citizen of a certain country aboslutely DOES afford you special priviledge within that country. For example...voting for the government of said country. Is this somehow countroversial? Also...now you're against group identity, all of a sudden? Your "tactical individualism" has been noted.
Look i admit that that being a citizen of a country allows you certain legal privileges. I wouldn't agree that being an American is a sub-class of people. I mean does being a Texan make you a different class of person that Hoosier?

Finally, nothing wrong with group identification, i'm just highly cognizant of how easy that devolves to group superiority when not watched carefully.

QUOTE
"I reject your ism and substitute my own", said Droop, without the slightest hint of irony. Do you honestly not yet understand why I consider the left to be the equivalent of presuppositionalist Christians, and vehemently oppose them on the same grounds? No, I don't "practice" humanism, whatever that means...I consider it to be a vapid ideology. Why do you assume that everyone has to? Atheists don't practice Christianity, Buddhists don't practice Islam, etc...what of it? What I would really like to know, though, is where the supremacism comes into play.
No, I don't. Funny thing is i did think about it as i wrote it... thought about it and left it there. There is no irony. Your point makes my point.

Humanism
QUOTE
Anyways, an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
That works for me. In everyday terms what does it mean. it means its harder to convince me to treat other human beings like crap than it is for some Nationalist, racist, etc.

QUOTE
No, I think pragmatism is essential to conservative philosophy, and in many ways, that's what it's all about: pragmatism vs idealism.
Classic irrational conservative thinking. I'm pragmatic. I still have ideals. I think conservatives want to mask their lack of ideals for pragmatism... because it sounds better than saying, "I lack ideals!"
QUOTE
Why is moral condemnation so important to you? Why are you so invested in it? "Can I do it yet? Can I? How about now?" What is this?
Its not. But conservatives being accountable for their political views is important to me. Is it important to you?

QUOTE
Why do you? Or do you think that supporting policies that cause human suffering is exclusive to any one political position? Human suffering is unavoidable.
No, but in the case of America, supporting policies that cause human suffering is heavily weighted by the Right. But yeah... some suffering happens no matter what you do. Never confuse or conflate the Left's desire to alleviate human suffering for hubris that we think we can eliminate human suffering. But, we have enough compassion to ease the suffering of our fellow humans rather than enrich ourselves off of it, at least in terms of what we politically support.

QUOTE
You are absolutely wrong. You cannot have liberty and equality, because every human is not the same. The only way you can actually attain equality is via totalitarianism.
That would be a fun philosophical debate. Agree to disagree for now

This post has been edited by droop224: Oct 17 2018, 12:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 22 2018, 05:30 AM
Post #90


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Hey Droop, I'll be able to reply to your last post before too long. Complicated and very difficult times for me here but I still have that urge to participate, it just may be a little bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 1 2018, 10:46 PM
Post #91


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



To update the members here, depending on where I am I often don't have an internet connection so this reply was written in a notepad and posted from McDonalds. I won't be able to post as often as I'd like but am reading the replies posted here though my smart phone when I have data.

Droop224
QUOTE
Let me jump back into the fray a little to take on some issues and comments: (some things maybe I'll make a separate debate)

First, to all people in this discussion, the concept of over-generalizing continues. Here are my two cents. It's not overgeneralizing if its true about the group. Hobbes, Net, Looms, etc. none of you are powerful (I think). I am not powerful. Our power comes a small part of a larger group. If a debater says conservatives support X, Y, or Z that doesn't mean they are being lazy. Just like you all understand individual responsibility, you all need to understand social responsibility. If the reason a law exists is that conservative support, then I am not overgeneralizing to lay it at the feet of conservatism. Now, does that mean every self-proclaimed conservative agrees with a said law? No, it does not. Does that mean every self-proclaimed liberal disagrees? No, it does not.


This reply will be a long but important one if you're wanting to know and communicate with those who you consider to be conservative.....
_________

Perhaps most of our power comes from each one of us as individuals, I'd certainly agree that some wield more power in society than others but there's more than one way to look at this. The problematic thing about the generalizing is that there are a number of things that people say which aren't true about a group, not as a whole and sometimes not even in regards to a majority within the group, or in regards to the group leader for that matter. Some do go to generalizing arguments because they're being lazy or it suits their agenda to dehumanize their opposition. For example, someone may argue... "those who vote for Trump or Obama, are either racist or un-American". You debate politics a good bit so I'd be willing to bet that you've seen that misused yourself, it's a problem that's rampant and tends to snowball when two or more people start talking past one another because they're on the defense for what they feel are mischaracterizations, (many generalizing comments are).

QUOTE
Many times I feel that conservatism is so wrapped up in individualism, the idea that they should have any collective responsibility must seem counterintuitive to themselves. I don't blame them per se; we are taught the collectivism as opposed to individualism. The more I read, the more I have come to believe that the two are not opposed but require concurrent effort to keep civilization balanced.


To address more on collectivism vs. individualism, remember that very long winded debate we had over the word liberal? My argument was that the meaning of the word has changed in many respects, perhaps not in the dictionary, but in its application. It's not incredibly uncommon for a liberal to make an argument that seems like it's from an alternate reality when stacked up against the dictionarial use of the word.

Here's a definition of the word liberal, if i remember right it's one of the definitions you mentioned when you posed one of your multiple choice questions...

"Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms". https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

There are other variants such as,...

"an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

and in some respects these are outdated definitions which are used by some to protect select groups over others, (often the types of groups that think or look like they do). This is what's lead to a rise in the use of terms such as "modern liberal", "left", and "progressive", and a rise in the use of the term "classical liberal" to contrast. However, these are still group identifiers that don't completely or accurately describe everyone. To not be too critical, I do think it was a good point when you said that we all have various levels of liberal in conservative in us. Same would be true with this, many individuals will have a few old school liberal beliefs while having a few modern liberal beliefs. With labels, there's often no one size fits all solution. As a side note, you didn't have to try to convince me that there are fair minded liberals out there, you and I were likely referencing two very different types of people.

As to your point about collectivism Vs. individualism, I do think there's value in cooperating as collective and I think that mentioning the effect that groups have as a collective, has its place but it's often done without discipline from those who fail to make any effort to elaborate and point out individual exceptions, as mentioned previously. It's a slippery slope for a lot of people and often one thing leads to another and they're saying things that are neither fair or accurate.


QUOTE
Are all Republicans\Conservatives racist? No. Do racist feel welcomed in the Republican party? C'mon stop kidding yourselves, of course, they do. But you all, I mean "self-proclaimed conservatives and\or Republicans", don't want to own that sh-stuff. And it's just as insane as me a leftist pretending that transsexuals don't have a home in the Democratic party. Do not take the above statement to mean that "Droop acts or thinks there are no racists in the Democratic party" There are plenty of racists that are Democrats, especially among elderly White people. And don't even get me talking about politicians that are Democrats. But generally, with the exception of the geographical locations where it is heavily White and Democratic, does a politician get away with selling racism AND getting elected equally in both parties? I dare say they do not.


QUOTE
Even as an individual we have to take some ownership in what our group represents. But, this should not be seen as my saying "an individual we should take responsibility for what other individuals in our group say or do" Let's say I'm at a Black Live Matter rally and there is an individual that says "PIGS should fry like bacon". I don't think I need to take ownership of that. Let's say the person saying this is the head of BLM or a sub-faction of BLM and I cheer this person on or it's part of their written doctrine. In this case, I DO need to take ownership in part because I support the group and this is part of the group message.


When the Republican party COURTS racists because they need their votes, if you consider yourself a Republican, you are a part of that. Now you may be a Republican, because you are religious, a nationalist, or you just love the way they treat rich people or any other number of reasons. Now if a racist goes off and hits someone with a car at a Racist rally that does not land at your feet. (by the way, I am completely aware that what I deem as "racist" is an opinion"


Need to and have to? Nobody has to do anything Mr. I see where you're coming from on some of this but from the outset I'd say that the lions-share of the ownership for any act should be taken by the one committing the act, I think that's a good rule of thumb to start with. Having said that, those who are supporting an individual who's committing a horrific act can play a role to various degrees depending on the situation.

For example, If a murder occurs, others could be supporting the murderer on a level that makes them an accessory to the crime or even an accomplice, those are more direct roles. Further out you could have those who had suspected the murderer could kill but didn't play a direct role, (perhaps they had their own mean streak but wouldn't personally be involved in a murder), and at the end of the list there could be those who knew the murderer, may have supported them in some fashion but does not support murdering another person and had no knowledge that it would happen. There are many scenarios that could play out depending on who's doing what, you're hinting at that with your last reply some I believe. I see your point on this topic but may disagree with you on where to draw the line, ownership is a strong word for many situations.

Depending on who's supporting what and why I'd much sooner say "played a small indirect role" than to say that someone loosely connected with a situation needs to take ownership. I'd also consider that many politicians are corrupt and all of them have something in their history or are doing something wrong, in fact, many people were casting anti votes in the last presidential election based on how flawed each candidate was. More broadly speaking, whether it's something negative or positive there are a number of ways we can share common ground with those who consider themselves part of the same group. You and I would have to debate specifics cases to see where we line up on this issue overall.

QUOTE
Net

QUOTE
That's not reflective of mindset where my perception of the world would be the only perception of the world or the only one that's correct. That's acknowledging variety and that others may have a different set of morals. One of the reasons my replies are often long is that I'm trying not to oversimplify things. I definitely don't always get it right and what I feel is right may not be right in every case but sometimes you're coming off as if you don't understand that this rule applies to you, frankly. Do you know the difference between the real world and your perception of the real world?


Nothing and everything. We are all limited to see the world through our own lens. But we can pretend to see the world through other lenses. Bottom line if you were as capable as you think to see the world thru other lenses, even if you just pretended for a short time, you'd be far more liberal. Taking the time to see how someone else must see the world is what makes liberals... liberal. Its what makes us chase equality so much.


I do take the time to see the world though the eyes of others, if you do the same you'd probably know that doing so can complicate your life. I think it's a good thing, we're really talking about empathy but it can also be a struggle when witnessing others hurting. I'd also say that there's a point where it's smart to be careful with trying to see the world though the eyes of others because nobody is always going to be right with with their instincts and that can lead to poor decisions when someone isn't careful. Not that I believe that liberal and conservative makes the difference between fair and unfair but perhaps I'm far more liberal than you realize. On this, it doesn't seem you understand what my beliefs are and it's not because I haven't explained them to you. At some point in our exchanges you appear to have made a judgment call on what you think my group identity is and have stuck to it regardless of what I'm telling you. Perhaps, due to what you're presuming my group identity is, you find much of what I say to be suspect.

You mentioned "pretending" in your last reply and in the Confederate Memorials thread you suggested that I seem to be saying all of the right things but you didn't believe I was being genuine. Generally I like debating with you and you keep returning to debate with "conservatives". As far as your judgement calls go when debating, Is it the lack of trust or is this a debate strategy of yours? Do you not remember what's written in some cases? In your last reply you focused some on clarifying where your coming from, perhaps you're wanting the left and right wing members at AD to communicate well, I can try to give you a clearer picture of where I'm at. I can understand not trusting a stranger, especially one you consider a political opponent in a group you believe is largely immoral, I just hope you're not going in with predetermined conclusions altogether.

My opinion on the removal of statues in that thread wasn't a typical conservative position, I said that individuals on both sides have reasons they want statues to remain or be removed so I pitched the idea of holding a vote in each area to let majority rule. No matter what, someone is going to be upset, but with that idea, I figured that at least both sides have a chance of being heard.

I've debated climate change here and have suggested that conservatives are making a mistake when they don't take the issue seriously, I think that's a decision that will hurt them in the long run.

I had a heated debate with Mrs. Pigpen over the issue of silencers, It didn't get too out of hand and I think it ended respectfully between us but we have very different opinions on that. I'm more prone to say the public could do without certain gun peripherals than many conservatives.

I did a thread about Bill O'Reilly, he's conservative but I saw enough evidence to convince me that he's very likely guilty of the charges against him. Unlike with Kavanaugh, I got a funny vibe with him which were backed by some revealing facts. I'm still not positive about O'Reilly, but am okay to say I think he was guilty.

I've called out Tucker Carlson in a debate with you and didn't sugar coat it. He's very biased, he invites left leaning guest on his show, later to insult and laugh at their opinions. It seems that he invites the ones who he figures are easy targets.

My beliefs get complicated though...

I'm a fiscal moderate. I think that taxes and government programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are vital. Where I part from modern liberals is where i think the cut off point should be because things can backfire if done in excess, to me smart politics is about balance, as with life. On this topic, if an individual is at a clear disadvantage or is disabled, I think it's part of who we are as Americans to provide a little help and compassion. Having said that, I don't think it's smart to discourage demographics who are paying the majority of the countries bills, it makes no sense and it backfires. It's part of why people are moving out of California, literally by the millions, it's rated the worst state to do business, among other things, the highest cost of living as well from what I remember. Politically speaking, the state lacks balance and they've taken taxation too far in that case.

I do hold many common conservative positions. For example, I'm not fond of affirmative action. Above I said that if an individual is at a clear disadvantage or is disabled, I think it's part of who we are as Americans to provide a little help and compassion. However, affirmative action assumes that if a person is a minority, then they're at a disadvantage. I don't like that, I think it's border line discriminatory actually. This is where individualism comes into play, instead of looking at the skin color I say simply look at the individual and try to find out if they're at a clear disadvantage or are disabled. There should be something to incentivize growth and we can only take things so far but I often agree with modern liberals on this issue depending on what they say.

I'll tell you an interesting story. Out of curiosity I once took a fun questionnaire before the election between Obama and Romney. Based on my answers, the questionnaire made a tally of my political positions and made a recommendation on which candidate I should vote for based on how much my views are aligned with them. The suggestion it made was that I should vote for Romney because I agree with him on more issues by a whopping 2%. I've told you this story before, remember? To be honest, I was surprised it was that close. I'm a moderate but I had always figured I was more along the lines of being about 65% aligned with conservative candidates like Romney. Around that time I was beginning to realize I side with conservatives with more passion because I'm more aligned with them in spirit than I am with liberals today. This is because I'm convinced that modern liberals are, on average, less civil and more likely to look past things like individualism, freedom of speech, and the presumption of innocence.

Given my policy beliefs are so split, a strategy and temperament difference has often been the deciding factor for me. I've made very critical arguments directed at some Democrats and modern liberals, perhaps this is why my group identity in your eyes is conservative but it's a lot more complicated than that, I could easily vote Democrat if things were different. For example, I would have likely been a JFK Democrat, he had the spirit of a uniter and unlike politicians today it was more than empty rhetoric. He helped do something that drew in Americans from all backgrounds. I'm a big space program geek so NASA's ambitions in the 60's would have been right up my ally.

To wrap this part up, I'm not an absolutist on the vast majority of issues, there are exceptions to most rules. I could show you many examples of violence and uncivil behavior on the left, but you could show me examples of violence and uncivil behavior on the right as well. I'm sure you could mention a number of things which you consider to be unfair and you'd be right on a lot it. The trick for me was to find out if there was any measurable difference between the left and right. I'll mention more on that below...

QUOTE
QUOTE
[Net 2007] Remember your own standards on this, there's a difference between the real world and your own perception of the real world. I think one of the reasons you're getting confused at times is that you're taking things said by others, then rephrasing them, later to debate the rephrased version of what the other person said. In a sense, you're debating with yourself when you do that because you're creating your own characters to debate based on assumptions or oversimplifications.

I never made the claim that there's mass liberal support for violence, you're trying to debate that position but it's a position that came from you. So for one more clarification, you were making the argument that racism is abound on the right, I responded by agreeing, then later saying this....
QUOTE
I talk about violence on the left in my writings a good bit because it's clear that it's a problem that's getting worse but I don't think violence is representative of the left or the right altogether, those responsible for the worst of it make up a minority on both sides.

As far as modern liberal support for violence goes, I don't think that's mainstream either but I would make the argument that not enough people are condemning that type of behavior or confronting it head on to help combat what's going on. Just as with conservatives people often find it easier to just ignore or downplay violence and other forms of uncivil behavior. I've gone over that some, I think it boils down to some assuming that an acknowledgment reflects poorly on their preferred group in a larger sense. Personally, I think it helps to acknowledge when things go wrong in a party or group, as long as some perspective is offered. Those who are doing things which cause damage are a drain on those around them so it's not such a bad idea to confront that because those types inhibit the healthy growth of political parties and groups.

Behavioral trends have been worsening on both sides, as far as comparing the left to the right or modern liberals to modern conservatives, (to be more specific to current times), I do think there's a small but noticeable difference between these groups, and I'm not just talking in terms of rudeness or profanity in protest.
Well... neither of us can stop what some random individual does. That's not the point. We control who and what we support. The people we support, the ideals we support, the groups we support, the philosophies we support, etc. What did Donald Trump say.. What did Obama say? Would you like to go clip for clip on who has said the more vile things? The left supported Obama; the Right supported Trump. And i can guess the rhetoric you are listening to... but maybe this little ">video provides perspective

QUOTE
[Net 2007] "We've had this debate already, it sounds like you're making the argument that there are conservatives who support military action, and since military action often involves violence, conservatives, therefore, must be violent or be accepting of violence so long as it achieves goals. It's an argument that is applicable on some level, so I'm not going to say that the right's tie to the military doesn't count at all, but here again you're oversimplifying."
No, "oversimplification" would be.. "they hate us because we are free". There is a difference between over-simplification and simply stating something. And a point of nuance, it has nothing to do with the "right's tie to the military" its the "right's ties" to use military force. The ease in which the Right can be persuaded to war to be more exact, though persuade may not be the right word. How do you persuade people so willing to see other humans be killed in the name of necessity.

I'm not over simplifying anything. Just simply stating conservative support for violence against other Human Beings.

QUOTE
[Net 2007] "Also, the military isn't as conservative as you let on either but I don't think that works against modern liberals who are involved in our military, often that says something positive about their character, though there are exceptions....."
LOL i did what? Look the military is run by many conservatives, but is made up of a quite diverse workforce, especially in the enlisted ranks. Its very nature will filter out many liberal minds in their first tour or two, but certainly not all. That being said... its a tool!! It does as its wielder wishes it to do. The wielders are not the generals and admirals.

QUOTE
You might have picked up on the left having stronger ties with the military than some realize if you had actually absorbed some of my prior writings or writings of others for that matter, but I don't see much of that. You either don't take them seriously or skip huge portions of what's written. Here's how I phrased it before...
... says the civilian to the US Marine. Whatever you want to think.




QUOTE
Your argument comes off as if you look things this way... (military = bad, military = conservative, conservative = bad.) and I wouldn't be surprised that if we were to have this conversation again that you wouldn't have remembered or absorbed anything I wrote above. I don't think that's because you can't, I think it's because you choose not to. According to a lot of your writings, you view those who you deem "conservative" as intellectually and morally inferior so you're not learning much in these types of exchanges from what I can tell.
Your counter argument comes off as if you don't know the difference between supporting the military and supporting military action. Do you? Don't take that the wrong way, i've noticed that among Conservative circles they do tend to fall in these rhetorical traps. Like "you don't support the troops if you don't stand for the flag". Its just the weird way the Right puts things together i guess.


Okay, to address much of this together, I'll start with this part...

"Your counter argument comes off as if you don't know the difference between supporting the military and supporting military action. Do you?"

For starters I actually agree with you on a saying like this... if you don't support the troops if you don't stand for the flag" I'd say that not standing for the flag is bad for the NFL business wise because the majority of the fans don't like it and I'll argue that it can send a message that your critical of the country because the flag is a symbol for America. It's also fair to point out that some knelled because they believe there's widespread oppression of black Americans or because Trump got involved. It may indeed be true that some who are kneeling aren't very supportive of the military but ultimately I don't like the comment because it's an absolute in a scenario where there shouldn't be one.

As far as what you're saying here "Your counter argument comes off as if you don't know the difference between supporting the military and supporting military action"

When I said this... Your argument comes off as if you look things this way... (military = bad, military = conservative, conservative = bad.) Looking back, I shouldn't have said that in the context that I did. I think it stemmed some from not having read a comment from you at AD where you've mentioned the military in a positive context, this after having read your opinions on this topic a great deal, at times I've seen you mention the military in a broader context as well as you just did in your last reply...

its very nature will filter out many liberal minds in their first tour or two, but certainly not all. That being said... its a tool!! It does as its wielder wishes it to do."

My point here isn't to argue about the validity of that statement, I'll let you know what I think of the complete quote later but it's certainly not a positive thing you're mentioning and it's not in reference to military "action". Part of the reason I felt it was necessary to comment by say the following...

QUOTE
About 80% of the jobs in the military are non-combat positions, and a chunk of that actually involves saving lives through humanitarian aid...

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/...tary-myths.html


is because I haven't felt you've portrayed an accurate picture of the military, it's not that everything you're saying is wrong but it's incomplete and lacks perspective on what the Military is doing that's positive, this being similar to the approach you've taken with conservatives. Here for example, instead of criticizing me on a comment I made which, admittedly, probably earned the scrutiny, you tied conservatives in, in a broad way...

"Its just the weird way the Right puts things together i guess."

To your credit you seem self aware that your approach can lead to inaccurate statements...

"There are assumptions being made, I admit, but not unjust ones. Its is fair for me to assume you as a conservative support conservative positions on certain issues. Will I always be accurate, absolutely not."

With that said, are you willing to hold your own comments dating back under the same level of scrutiny, then apply that in a broader sense to the left? When you say things like...

"I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun." or
"Of course I caught on... I'm very liberal!! Thanks for meeting me halfway. Let's move on."

would you be willing to use the same standard, and would you assume that that's just the weird way the left puts things together? What about Hillary Clinton or Maxine Waters, there's lots of material to work with there ya know? I don't want to overdo it here, it's probably not hard to figure out that I've found several of your comments to be either unfair or false but having said that and for what it's worth, I think you bring a great deal to the table at AD. Generally, I enjoy our debates believe it or not, I don't agree with certain things you say for sure but you're willing to communicate and I could point to some solid points you've made as well.

"Look the military is run by many conservatives, but is made up of a quite diverse workforce, especially in the enlisted ranks. Its very nature will filter out many liberal minds in their first tour or two, but certainly not all."

If you were in the military then are you stating that from personal observation or do you have something concrete to go along with that? It doesn't seem improbable that the numbers of liberals would drop some given that most of the support and encouragement for our military personnel comes from the right, but if the numbers of liberals in the military drop, by how much do they drop? I'm willing to bet that you didn't go around and make a tally of other service members political beliefs at the beginning and end of their first two tours or do so on a scale large enough for what you said to be representative of most who serve in the military. I think mentioning your personal experience accounts for something, somehow I believe you when you say you served but personal observations often only get us so far.

I think my larger point was to demonstrate that things aren't as cut and dry as some of your comments imply. Whether the number is 40% liberal or 20%, liberals would hold some responsibility for violence committed by our military. Another thing I'd point out is that although I am a civilian, I do know that many who serve characterize the actions of our military much differently than how you have. Perhaps in some cases, their characterizations fall on the other end of the spectrum, where our military could do no wrong. I tend to believe there's a lot of gray in most situations and actions that shouldn't have been taken by our military, have been in some cases. Committing a violent act always has some degree of consequences but there's a lot of information that could be added to that.

You'vr suggested that our military committing violence is violence on other humans but I'm looking to see where that's been put into perspective, sometimes you're saying that in a conversation where you've portrayed the military in a negative light in other ways. If military violence is violence on other humans and nothing is mentioned about what those other humans we've targeted are doing, then perspective is lost. There are exceptions to this and sometimes our actions backfire but the other humans you're mentioning are often targeting civilians, including women, children, the elderly, etc., just to name a few vulnerable groups, and they do that on purpose. We're getting better at reducing civilian casualties and causing them isn't our goal. With terrorist groups, violence on civilians is often the rule rather than the exception. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I'd understand if you were simply not wanting us to get involved because it's putting Americans or other nations at risk, in some circumstances I'd agree that it's none of our business but there's a difference between killing a terrorist who's committing murders and a terrorist killing civilians intentionally. Modern liberals are big on protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community yet homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in Islam and that's just the start. It's not hard to say or do something which would lead to a beheading, without due process, and often over the most minuscule of things or for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those who you're not putting focus on or calling "other humans" are morally bankrupt and a danger to other "humans".

I agree with you that we're killing humans. Some would say "animals" but animals work with what they have in front of them, there's violence but it's different. Some humans commit mass murder and to take it a step further they'll even do it because they don't agree with the beliefs of others, so terrorist are indeed very human. Perhaps some of them can be redeemed and I'm sure terrorist have another side to them other than the horrific acts they commit, I'm not against mentioning that if it's put into some perspective. I don't think the military should be portrayed as innocent or perfect, I think it's fair to portray it accurately though.

"What did Obama say? Would you like to go clip for clip on who has said the more vile things? The left supported Obama; the Right supported Trump. And i can guess the rhetoric you are listening to... but maybe this little ">video provides perspective"

Your link didn't work but sure, why not? I should probably let you know ahead of time though that I'm well aware that Trump does more trash talking, here's how I phrased it to you earlier in the thread...

QUOTE
[net2007]"Trump may be rough around the edges and more outwardly bombastic with his speech but Obama was bombastic to the right through neglect of that side and aggressive policies which stripped away things that were important to them. We also got a sense of how Obama felt when he would go off cuff or make a gaffe as he did here when talking about conservative voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest...

"it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"

That's a hit that mirrors the tone Trump would set when criticizing the left. The contempt Obama had for a huge chunk of the population was usually better hidden, that's one of the differences between Obama and especially Hillary VS. Trump, they're polished and seasoned politicians who are good at putting up a front as they go to war with or neglect those who don't share their worldview. Things got more divisive under Obama, in part because many in the general public saw past the smooth talking. Although Obama spoke of uniting the country and inclusivity, it didn't take because people got the sense that there was something about his words that wasn't genuine on this topic."


I will say that Trump's been in the wrong multiple times when he's gone on offense. The tone he often takes doesn't help with uniting the country, in some respects he's been a force for division and has said things which have backfired but he has his strong points as well, as did Obama for that matter.

Would you like to compare...

1. The number of vile things Maxine Waters has said when compared to Jeb Bush?

2. The number of ridiculous or inaccurate things Nancy Peloci has said when compared to John Kasich?

3. The level of violence and vile rhetoric from conservatives when Obama was elected to what the left did when Trump was elected?

4. The way Republicans have handled the nomination process of ANY left leaning Supreme Court Justice to how Democrats handled the nomination process of Brett Kavanaugh?

5. The overall number of times in recent history that a Democrat in office has encouraged the harassment of Republicans and conservatives, to the number of times elected Republicans have done the same?

6. The overall number of times in recent history that Republicans in office have been harassed compared to how many times Democrats in office have been harassed? When I say harassment, both sides receive A LOT of hate mail and anonymous threats, I'm talking about direct, in person intimidation like what happened to both Ted Cruise and Nancy Peloci when they were approached in public. (Im going to debate the bomb scare along with other anonymous threats further down)

7. In response to these school shootings, the overall level of vile and violent behavior between pro second amendment students and students who are gun restrictions advocates? (Both groups are roughly the same age and went though the same events)

I'd have more, for example by mentioning what's happening at some of our left leaning colleges, but I'm asking these rhetorically, they're probably not fair questions given your political leanings but we can debate this more when I get the chance if you're wanting to. It may be a little while, my post can't be as frequent at the moment due to my living situation, but I always try to get back.

Also, remember this...

QUOTE
[net2007]"I believe I've come across something additional that rises to a higher level than any of this and it involves a large number of people as well, it's something the media, and even right-wing media, has missed from what I can tell. It certainly raises a lot of questions although I'm still not going to state that I know which side is less civil without leaving room for others to counter. I could be wrong but I trust the information I've come across because bias is unlikely to be a factor with these types of sources. Again, if you want to know what I'm talking about here, send me a PM. I have a thread I started a while back on this topic where I'll reveal these sources but it will take a while to get around to finishing it, revealing all of it in this thread would be premature and it's a very extensive topic so I'm going to wait for now."


You mentioned war, this is in the same ballpark apart from the fact that the ones being harassed or killed are by far less likely to be guilty of doing something horrific, like chopping the head off of another human because they don't like what they believe. What I'm offering to explain isn't a conspiracy and when mentioning it elsewhere it hasn't been debunked or shown to be non-creditable . The thread I'm working on here is very extensive, it'll take time given how seldom I'm able to work on it but I'd tell you enough in the meantime to get the idea. If not, if you want to fill in the blanks and expand on what you already know, creditable information that'll offer another perspective on modern conservatives and modern liberals is out there if you're willing to consider it. You said, "we'lll see what happens with Brett Kavanaugh" Did it give you a moment of pause when you witnessed what the Democrats role in that chaos was, almost immediately followed by a spike in midterm polling for Republicans?

The Democrats likely blew their chances in the Senate, the Republicans are now expected to gain seats and the poll numbers shifted in the House some too. The overall generic congressional vote poll is holding steady for the Dems but they've lost ground in some of the House races that matter the most. It's not over yet by any stretch, historically speaking the party of the president loses seats but I don't see a blue wave on the order of the red wave that Obama saw and more or less, this is due to incivility on the left and within the Democrat party. That's part of the reason for the media's excessive focus on this new bomb scare and for their lackluster coverage of violence and incivility on the left and within the Democrat party.

As far as the bomb scare goes, it was obviously disturbing and should be getting coverage. Having said that, some in the MSM had already given their verdict by placing blame on Trump before they knew who was guilty of doing this or what their background was, further showing that this was something they used to score political points. When Trump is turning up the temperature I think it's fair to call him out on that but they'd be taken a lot more seriously if they held themselves up to the standard that they expect others to live by and if they were more honest.

As an example, take a look at the clip below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_MQUOU2cY

Here, CNN's John King says "nobody is blaming the President" as their own caption below reads "Trump has no plans to claim any responsibility for inciting serial bomber They're so disconnected, even if John King and the rest of the panel didn't know what the caption said, they later go on to say things like "There's a pretty clear implication by all of this that rhetoric inevitably leads to violence." CNN points fingers at the president on a daily basis regardless so it's not hard to see that John King was trying to take focus of their own bias and divisive rhetoric.

I think networks like CNN should cover stories like this but they either don't mention or don't put as much emphasis on problems created by those who they consider to be like minded or if they fear the story could reflect poorly on the left tor Democrats. For example, I bet that you know about the attempted murder of Republican congressmen by James T. Hodgkinson, but there was also the attempted stabbing of Rudy Peters , and ground castor beans containing ricin (a deadly toxin) that were sent to President Trump, Ted Cruz, John Richardson, and James Mattis, just recently. I could go on, last week there was a bomb scare at WMAL, a conservative radio station broadcasting out of D.C. and lastly the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter happens not to like Trump because the shooter himself is a racist and he views Trump as too sympathetic to Jews...

https://fox8.com/2018/10/27/heres-what-we-k...ooting-suspect/

Those are just a few examples, both sides contribute a great deal to the divisive climate we see in America, while I'm not going to pretend that I don't believe that the level of incivility is higher on the left overall, I think the difference is relatively small when all is considered and that trends often change. There's no one size fits all formula and labels can be deceiving, I think you understand that in regards to the right. Although some of what you write would suggest otherwise, I do catch where you say things like this as well...

"Bottom line, while debate is fun and I can get caught up in it like the next person. I wish everyone of you the best, truly, because the world keeps spinning."

That's politics for ya, it's not hard to get caught up in the heat of the moment. I think that's a lot of people but things get a lot crazier out there than they do a AD, that's for sure.

Edited to correct a range of issues, my numbered list had the wrong numbers and writing most of this from my computer locally then coping it to AD caused special characters to appear throughout the reply.
_______________________

Elections are coming up, is anybody here voting?

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 1 2018, 10:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Nov 5 2018, 06:46 PM
Post #92


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,941
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Just an observation, but from the outside it seems like one of the issues here is that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have shifted in meaning in their usage a great deal in the last 40 years, particularly in the USA.

net2007 has done a good job of describing what the meaning of 'liberal' used to be. Today's American liberals would be mostly described, in Europe at least, as 'social democrats'. They don't want state control or ownership of the whole economy, even as a distant end goal, so they aren't sensibly described as 'socialists'.

Some people who do want state control or ownership of certain key industries might be seen as being closer to socialism than other social democrats who don't, but it depends very much who is saying it and what industries they are saying it about. Someone who vociferously argues that all defence contractors supplying the US military should be US-based and US-owned (or - more topically - that the US steel industry should be US-based and US-owned and that foreign suppliers and owners should be penalised with tariffs) probably would not be described by anyone, least of all themselves, as a social democrat.

For some reason, rooted in the red scares of the Cold War and before, the two syllables of 'social' have been almost the worst thing any American could say about another American, so 'liberal' has stood in for them. But, because of the euphemism treadmill, 'liberal' is becoming more of a tainted label in itself, at least on the US right.

But modern US 'conservatives' (and UK ones) don't really fit the classical definitions of conservatism either. The political definition of 'favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.' doesn't sit well any longer with the original sense of 'averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values' all that well, especially when the traditional values are not extant in law or culture any longer (or, in some cases, never have been) and can only be achieved politically by implementing the very change and innovation that conservatism is supposed to be so averse to.

We've tried other terms - progressive vs regressive doesn't really work either because it has been coined mostly from the left and carries with it the assumption that the destination being progressed to by Progressives is the right one for everybody.

I don't know what the answer is, but it strikes me that we won't get to it while the very terms we use to describe ourselves and our opponents are themselves increasingly loaded and misunderstood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 10 2018, 03:15 PM
Post #93


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



FWIW, a post from another thread that seemed appropriate here:

QUOTE
QUOTE
One of the things that I've always found interesting about liberal and their take on conservatives is the inherent, underlying believe that conservatives are just flawed human beings, and hey, that explains it. This is condescending and racist itself. People are people. There is no genetic difference that makes liberals superior...just different experiences and perspectives. You clearly have no interest in understanding either, which is fine, it just renders your opinions and comments mostly irrelevant.

Jonathan Haidt dedicated years of research to this phenomenon, what he and his fellow researchers found was that because conservatives have a much broader range of morality, they tend to understand and disagree with the left, whilst the left tends to simply not understand the right.

The book he wrote, the righteous mind illustrates it, but what they did was ask people a series of questions about topics that asked them what they would do, and then what they think a person on the other side of the spectrum would do, and at an alarming rate, left wing people have a very low predictive accuracy of right wing people, whereas centrists and right wing people had a fairly high predictive accuracy of the others.

Where it's become worse, is that the left have formed echo chambers around themselves in a similar fashion to insulated religious groups, where they no longer have their views challenged, and have formed a moralistic world view akin to a secular religion.


Droop, you and I butt heads on this alot, and I think this post seems to summarize why. You seem to be genuinely interested in trying to understand, which I applaud you for, and which is why I posted this, and perhaps you might be interested in Haidt's book. I hadn't heard of it, but I did find it illuminating that the things I have observed are actually scientifically documented.

What this says, to your point about pigeon holing groups of people if it fits, is that those on the left are terrible at that, but interestingly, those on the right are actually pretty good at it. Which I'm sure is exactly the opposite of what most on the left think...which is the whole point of why they did the study.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 10 2018, 04:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 10 2018, 10:53 PM
Post #94


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Reply relocated to proper thread

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 11 2018, 12:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Yesterday, 03:24 AM
Post #95


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 10 2018, 09:15 AM) *
FWIW, a post from another thread that seemed appropriate here:

QUOTE
QUOTE
One of the things that I've always found interesting about liberal and their take on conservatives is the inherent, underlying believe that conservatives are just flawed human beings, and hey, that explains it. This is condescending and racist itself. People are people. There is no genetic difference that makes liberals superior...just different experiences and perspectives. You clearly have no interest in understanding either, which is fine, it just renders your opinions and comments mostly irrelevant.

Jonathan Haidt dedicated years of research to this phenomenon, what he and his fellow researchers found was that because conservatives have a much broader range of morality, they tend to understand and disagree with the left, whilst the left tends to simply not understand the right.

The book he wrote, the righteous mind illustrates it, but what they did was ask people a series of questions about topics that asked them what they would do, and then what they think a person on the other side of the spectrum would do, and at an alarming rate, left wing people have a very low predictive accuracy of right wing people, whereas centrists and right wing people had a fairly high predictive accuracy of the others.

Where it's become worse, is that the left have formed echo chambers around themselves in a similar fashion to insulated religious groups, where they no longer have their views challenged, and have formed a moralistic world view akin to a secular religion.


Droop, you and I butt heads on this alot, and I think this post seems to summarize why. You seem to be genuinely interested in trying to understand, which I applaud you for, and which is why I posted this, and perhaps you might be interested in Haidt's book. I hadn't heard of it, but I did find it illuminating that the things I have observed are actually scientifically documented.

What this says, to your point about pigeon holing groups of people if it fits, is that those on the left are terrible at that, but interestingly, those on the right are actually pretty good at it. Which I'm sure is exactly the opposite of what most on the left think...which is the whole point of why they did the study.

I hear you, but I want more. I want Conservatives to understand Conservatives. LOL. But I still owe Net a reply, but it got lost so until I get back to trying to write that much again let me ask you this: What do you think this means... because conservatives have a much broader range of morality? This is so important as a causative statement, but what does it mean. You can either give me your view of what the author is saying or you can tell me just your own opinion on what it means. Does it means something, does it mean nothing, how does one have a broader range of morality. Especially... when talking about conservatism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Yesterday, 07:05 PM
Post #96


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Nov 12 2018, 09:24 PM) *
I hear you, but I want more. I want Conservatives to understand Conservatives. LOL.


I hear you on that. It is actually one of the reasons I am thinking of getting the book. I don't disagree at all that it would help, but given the causative statement, the answer is likely 'it depends', to a greater degree than what the same question posed to Liberals would have.

QUOTE
Net [/b]a reply, but it got lost so until I get back to trying to write that much again let me ask you this: What do you think this means... because conservatives have a much broader range of morality? This is so important as a causative statement, but what does it mean. You can either give me your view of what the author is saying or you can tell me just your own opinion on what it means. Does it means something, does it mean nothing, how does one have a broader range of morality. Especially... when talking about conservatism.


Very good question, and completely fair. I haven't not read any of his research, so will just share my opinion. I will also add that the statement itself conflicts with my view on the topic, which is that most people are 'moral' to about the same degree, they just have different perspectives on what that entails. Take abortion. I think people on both sides of the issue have a very moral position, even though they arrive at completely different conclusions about what that means (I've been trying to explain this to my daughter for a while now, with very limited success. smile.gif )

So, my take on that is that there is a pretty broad spectrum of moral issues/stances within the Republican Party. You have the religious right on one side, for example, with their particular views on morality, and maybe the more Libertarian minded people on the other side, where the stance is more not caring what anyone else does or thinks, so long as it doesn't impact them. Then you have tea party people (similar to but different than the Libertarians), and yes, you have some more racist people who really just want things to just not change, in particular with regards to diversity. All of these groups would have very different views on a variety of topics, and you might not be able to find a single big topic that they all would agree on. Maybe not even a single small topic.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Yesterday, 07:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 14th, 2018 - 07:55 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.