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  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Looms
post Aug 26 2018, 08:41 PM
Post #61


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
WOW you guys just all let loose at once. I'm not sure how i'll try to reply, but i want to address the crux of all of your points. I want to reiterate from previous debates my views on "conservative" and "liberal".

Mindset\frame of mind\world-view, self-identification as part of a group, and political First, there is our mindset on an issue. How do we view issue? How do we think\process stimuli? In terms of mindset I think conservative is something we all are as well as liberal. Thinking conservatively is fundamental. Its natural. It’s about survival. The more threatened we feel the more conservatively we will think. The more self serving we think the more conservative our mindset would be. These opinioned observations might seem like slights or attacks on conservatives. But understand I too think conservatively on issues.


I don’t think it's a slight, I just think you're wrong (or reductionist at best). It's not about reacting to threat (at least not necessarily), it's about assessing what works.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
I do the mental work of understanding the other side, though I’m sure many of you will disagree. What is it that makes someone or myself conservative on certain issues? What is it that I\they are against?


Why do you think of being conservative in terms of "What am I against", specifically?

QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
As an example, gay marriage. I didn’t think this issue should be decided in the courts, didn’t seem logical to me. At the same time, I didn’t have a huge issue if it was. Also, I think the whole “gay rights” issue is something that has purposely usurped the momentum civil rights based on race. Point is. I was of a liberal mind enough to want to see LGBTQ community have the right to marry. And conservative enough in mind frame to not care if they didn’t get it through the Courts. Regardless, it was a struggle for Gays to obtain the right to marry. I think we can all agree to that.

I was always for it, and still am. However, in hindsight, if I knew what comes next, I would have opposed it despite not having any personal objections (Generally, I really don't care what people choose to do with their lives or relationships).

QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
LGBTQ community wanted to call their committed relationships marriage. They wanted their committed relationships to have the same respect as that of heterosexual relationships. This is all they wanted. Yet, there was resistance. Where did that resistance come from? The right or the left? No surprise, the Right, predominately. Why, the Right? Well, that’s a rhetorical question and it has no real bearing on my point. People of a conservative mind saw a threat. Many, many, Blacks I know were against it, even though they vote democratically (the leftist political party) predominately.
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/fi...ge_equality.pdf

Point is I didn’t see the threats to gay marriage that a religious person may see, nor a more homophobic person. But I did see a threat of my own that caused me concern. I still see that threat, as such I’m not extremely liberal on any of these gender\sexuality based political issues.
How conservative or how liberal I am on an issue may very well correlate to the threat I feel based on that issue. I’m not sure HOW someone can feel deeply threatened by Gay marriage, but it was very easy for me to acknowledge that people did. People saw it as the destruction of thousands of years of tradition. People saw it as unholy, literally, putting us endanger of God’s wrath. I’m not trying to debate any of this, just saying I was in a better position to observe and acknowledge these fears, even though I didn’t share them on this issue, precisely because I didn’t care too much about the outcome.
Anyways that’s enough about mindset. To conclude I think we all see things through a conservative lens, I think we all see some things through a liberal lens.


Congratulations, you've just been takfir'd from the left. I'm not joking. There's no room for having ANY reservations about anything dealing with LGBTQQIAAP+ (this is the updated acronym...I didn't just lean on my keyboard). This is what I'm trying to explain to you: the left has COMPLETELY been taken over by intersectionality. It is a religious movement at this point as much as a political one. Do you not see this as a problem?

As far as the LGBTQ community...there is no LGBTQ community. There's the LGBTQ activist community, which many LGBTQ people are sick and tired of, and which demands compliance and ideological uniformity from anyone who happpens to not be straight. There are all kinds of LGBTQ people, with different ideologies, political affiliations, etc. Most just want to live their lives unmolested. Many are even *GASP* conservative themselves, which is one of the reasons that white gay men have been kicked out of the progressive stack. But then again, so have you: The absolute state of the left

QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
That leads me to self-identification… how often are we seeing things through a conservative lens vs a liberal lens will likely determine whether we call ourselves liberals and or conservatives. This in turn may greatly influence our political party choice. At this point in time, conservative associate with the Republican Platform in large part, while liberals tend to support the Democrats. This has and can change.


I mostly agree with you here, and this is why I rarely talk of being exiled from the left, and usually describe it as a mutual divorce. They no longer had any room for those like myself, to be sure, but I also realized that where I agree with the left on a certain position, it is for vastly different reasons.


QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
Lastly, there is liberal vs conservative which is an expedient way to summarize all the “right” and all the “left” political ideology. Its perfectly synonymous with the political terms “right” and ”left”.


Expedient, yet reductive. You're essentially putting center-left liberals in the same bucket as full blown tankies. The way the political compass does it is a little bit better (though I find that to be reductive as well), where in addition to right vs left you have libertarian vs authoritarian. But at the end of the day, we need to be able to explain which way we lean politically without turning it into a dissertation, so "vaguely center-rightish" does the job of letting people know what they may expect my positions to be. It doesn’t mean the assumption is accurate, but better than nothing, I guess.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 23 2018, 02:26 PM) *
Why is all this important? Well just want you all to get my perspective. No, I am not a conservative. Yes, I do have conservative views. As I have said before, my personal conservatism is something that I generally need to “grow” out of. That’s my opinion. Its not that conservatism is bad or evil. In my opinion, it is self-serving, it is uneducated, it is selfish, it is myopic. For all the religious faith conservatism around the world creates, it continues to be devoid of spirituality, connecting all humans.

And yeah for a little pragmatism. It doesn’t matter. 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. I don’t think you are evil. Just unconcerned, unaware, or clueless that the power to create any reality, including one of peace is within our capabilities. But if someone can simple say… “threat” and you go “destroy” its unachievable. But we could nuke this world 15 times over and it would continue to spin and a few thousand years later life would start anew.

I’ll get back to the real replies later


That is so strange to me. Rather than adopting a political position that is descriptive of your world view, you instead take a prescriptive ideology and attempt to "grow" into it? I don't get it, man. You act like it's some sort of recieved knowledge. Why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 27 2018, 04:35 AM
Post #62


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

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Net and Looms

I feel like you both sort of ignored me when i said.

"How do we think\process stimuli? In terms of mindset I think conservative is something we all are as well as liberal. Thinking conservatively is fundamental. Its natural. It's about survival. The more threatened we feel the more conservatively we will think."

I have conservative views in me, you have liberal views in you. We all do. I won't even use the terms "good" and "evil", since it seems we are all wise enough to see the flaws in the terms. Lets use these terms if you all don't mind, in fact Looms you sort of said it earlier in a debate. Let's say "equality" and "dominance\sumpremacy" Where i move politically left I move towards equality. I seek to establish or protect equality for all. Where i move right I seek to establish or protect dominance and supremacy of yourself or the group you belong to.

What did Obama sell the people of America? "Yes we can" "America is at its best when we work together with our allies". Obama sold plurality. What did Trump sell? "We never win anymore, I'll make us win" and "We'll have the best this and the best that". He sold us domination. In his words "make America Great again" was to sell us supremacy.

But for all Obama "we are the world" he still was president that sought to protect American dominance globally.

But that's kind of my point on mindset. He wasn't nor was his political views all about "equality" he believed in domination. Just as i am sure... that some of Trumps views gear towards equality. I've heard some when it comes to healthcare.

So again of course al of us have views that push us toward equality and of course we all have view that push us to dominance.

Net

QUOTE
Tackling the issue of selfishness, you view conservatives as selfish but I can easily point at a number of policies and events which demonstrate that there's a lot of selfishness on the left,especially today.
I highly doubt it. Net i don't get why you can't get what i'm saying. Let say we are talking about Antifa, it is without a doubt left wing. But their violence to other humans do not resonate with liberals. They are a militant leftist group, quite the oddity, hence the size of their numbers and their support. On the other hand, look at the conservative support for war in the last 4 decades. There is LARGE support for violence against other humans, disproportionately on the political right, and this violence is a lot worst than simply busting someone upside their head. War is mass homicide.

So sure you can find examples of leftist violence, you can show lots of examples. A FEW examples may rise to the level of homicide. But i can show so many many many many more examples of humans committing violence against other humans, with right wing support. Here's the caveat to that. You would complain up and down how "that's a false equivalency, Droop" Because in your mind... its "unfair" to compare Humans committing acts of violence to other Humans... to, well, Humans committing acts of violence to other Humans. In other words, Americans killing Iraqis is TOTALLY different than, say, Crips killing Bloods. Am I right? If i am it makes sense because there is a crap ton of psychological programming and individual would have to unpack to see how its not that different at all.

But that gets me to another point about people on the left, like myself, that i'm trying to make. One, we do try to unpack some of this psychological programming. Two, we do not justify to the extent of those on the right. To kind of explain what i mean, I'll say this. There is that "golden rule" in all its forms. "Do unto other as you would want them to do to you." Well, justification is basically us saying... "I'm in a position, where i don't want to, but I'm going to have to break this rule" Conservatives, generally, find this way easier to do when it comes to HUMANS (of any kind) committing violence to other HUMANS (of any kind). Not sure "easier" is the best word.

I end with this though. I believe we all have both a conservative and liberal psyche with us. Sometime we want dominance, sometime we seek to prohibit dominant behavior.

QUOTE(Looms)
That is so strange to me. Rather than adopting a political position that is descriptive of your world view, you instead take a prescriptive ideology and attempt to "grow" into it? I don't get it, man. You act like it's some sort of received knowledge. Why
I wanted to quickly address this. IMO an individual worldview is like a fingerprint. And not only is it unique, its fluid. So what political position could truly be descriptive of an individuals worldview? Sure we could narrow it down. but you'd still run into the same problems that come with generalizations and people would still argue political views and attribute them intersecting political positions. i.e. "oh you believe that?? that's what a socialist believe, you must be a communist" huh?!?!

oh also

QUOTE
Why do you think of being conservative in terms of "What am I against", specifically?
I don't whether I say "for" or "against" the other is implicitly there somewhere. In general i probably frame it that way because I see the conservative stance is the status quo, the liberal side the push for change, the conservative stand against the agenda. but if you feel better you can invers the terminology that conservative are for the status quo, liberals are against the status quo and pushing it to change, and conservatives are for keeping the status quo.








This post has been edited by droop224: Aug 27 2018, 04:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Aug 27 2018, 12:57 PM
Post #63


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Having a discussion based upon using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is fairly pointless. Both have varied definitions which are further trivialized in the context being used.

To me, this lack of definition has been purposeful. Politicians and supporting mass media are champions of changing the meaning of words. Don't like a word? Use it in a context which changes what the word means.

For an example of how a word with can be used to confuse and blur meanings and conclusions let us think of "love". Love has multiple meanings.

Let us say someone loves their partner. Their partner is the love of their life. They have a special bond. Their relationship includes making love.

This person also has a pet. This person declares they love their pet. The pet is special to them.

Sounds to me like there is admitted bestiality. What sort of deranged person is this person?

Using "love", "liberal", or "conservative" can be confusing words. Using them does nothing to clarify. In the case of "liberal" and "conservative" they are frequently used to make a point when the point is often to misuse definitions and make false arguments.

If you wish for a discussion or a debate to end up being meaningless, start throwing "liberal" and "conservative" around. It works great. Talking in circles is a boring read and less than ad.gif 's mission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Aug 27 2018, 01:45 PM
Post #64


**********
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



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 27 2018, 08:57 AM) *
Having a discussion based upon using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is fairly pointless. Both have varied definitions which are further trivialized in the context being used.

To me, this lack of definition has been purposeful. Politicians and supporting mass media are champions of changing the meaning of words. Don't like a word? Use it in a context which changes what the word means.

For an example of how a word with can be used to confuse and blur meanings and conclusions let us think of "love". Love has multiple meanings.

Let us say someone loves their partner. Their partner is the love of their life. They have a special bond. Their relationship includes making love.

This person also has a pet. This person declares they love their pet. The pet is special to them.

Sounds to me like there is admitted bestiality. What sort of deranged person is this person?

Using "love", "liberal", or "conservative" can be confusing words. Using them does nothing to clarify. In the case of "liberal" and "conservative" they are frequently used to make a point when the point is often to misuse definitions and make false arguments.

If you wish for a discussion or a debate to end up being meaningless, start throwing "liberal" and "conservative" around. It works great. Talking in circles is a boring read and less than ad.gif 's mission.

It's also how language works -- word meanings change over time, and so it became necessary to make dictionaries so that slipshod attempts at redefinition can be refuted by a source with more plausibility than political types, lazy thinkers and Scrabble cheaters.

However, it has become a weak form of argumentation to quote Websters and others too much, so it goes to how terms are defined in debate. Basically, if all parties in debate do not agree on term definitions, it is indeed useless to continue debate. What it becomes is a fight that nobody ever wins.

Still, there are actually good reasons why people continue to fight. By "good" I mean logical. There's social dominance, protecting self-image, and of course having enemies -- which seems fundamental to being human.

And that brings me to this observation: Honest debate isn't within human abilities. We really are a bunch of animals throwing poop at each other because, well, we have to. It is beyond us to do anything else. We try and try but fail every time.

Er, but then how to explain when we don't and end up actually working together to build things like nations that have ideals we can't possibly live up to, but then somehow we do -- if only for brief periods?

I don't know. It's one of those mysteries we brush away by invoking magic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 27 2018, 01:48 PM
Post #65


*********
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(Gray Seal @ Aug 27 2018, 06:57 AM) *
Having a discussion based upon using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is fairly pointless. Both have varied definitions which are further trivialized in the context being used.

To me, this lack of definition has been purposeful. Politicians and supporting mass media are champions of changing the meaning of words. Don't like a word? Use it in a context which changes what the word means.

For an example of how a word with can be used to confuse and blur meanings and conclusions let us think of "love". Love has multiple meanings.

Let us say someone loves their partner. Their partner is the love of their life. They have a special bond. Their relationship includes making love.

This person also has a pet. This person declares they love their pet. The pet is special to them.

Sounds to me like there is admitted bestiality. What sort of deranged person is this person?

Using "love", "liberal", or "conservative" can be confusing words. Using them does nothing to clarify. In the case of "liberal" and "conservative" they are frequently used to make a point when the point is often to misuse definitions and make false arguments.

If you wish for a discussion or a debate to end up being meaningless, start throwing "liberal" and "conservative" around. It works great. Talking in circles is a boring read and less than ad.gif 's mission.
LOL C'mon man. How many words in the English lexicon have multiple meanings? You guys act like politics is math. Its not. We all use facts, but we use them to support our opinions. In some cases we will use only the facts that support our opinion. "Liberal" and "conservative" can be confusing words and yet there are people that do more than support the President.

Is it odd that the people that are pro-war, pro-trump, are the same that support cops in the unarmed killing of American citizens for non compliance, are the same that support racist monuments standing, are against football players kneeling, are the same that support citizens killing other citizens for being pushed to the ground (that one still has me smdh, because i know White people are allowed to protect their family) and yeah these people tend to vote for people that call themselves Republicans. Is there fluidity between individuals and these position\view? Absolutely, 100% But there is more commonality than fluidity which is why these views start getting attributed to these people. The point is... we'd call them something other than "these people" so here is their name. Conservative. let's not overthink how language works here too much.

You can do the exact same thing with "liberals" There is variation as you look at each individual, but there is commonality as a whole.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Aug 27 2018, 02:43 PM
Post #66


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Politics is not math but that is a mistake. Politics should be as close to math as possible. Thinking government and politics can be a fluid, ill defined means for authoritarian control is a huge blunder. A person's freedom should not be taken from them unless there is a specific reason for doing. That reason should not be a difference in values or the force of the majority.

C'mon man. You recognize that there is a variation of individuality but insist to lump people together into groups. Then you use words which are essentially meaningless to describe them.

Your main paragraph had a list of opinions. As individuals we can agree with some of them and not others. Yet you wish to put individuals into a group in agreement with all of these points even if they do not agree with them all? That is poor practice and disingenuous to understanding. It is a poor basis for discussion to lump individuals into groups where they all believe the same things.

There are war mongers. There are authoritarians. There are people who use race as a crutch. There are people who appreciate public speech. There are people who wish to end public speech. These are correct labels. Lumping various ideas into a singular mindset is incorrect.

There are always commonalities. You have already made that argument earlier (we all have principles which do not fit into a neat package) though you sloppily use "liberal" and "conservative" to describe differences. Bringing in the subject of commonality is good for the discussion. You conveyed that we are all mixtures of positions on current events. Commonality is not a reason to use liberal/conservative. Artificial grouping and then using emotionally charged words to describe individuals is a poor idea. It does not lead to good problem solving.

You bring good ideas to the discussion. Your use, as well as other's use, of liberal and conservative detracts from the good ideas. Few people are on the same page when those terms are being used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 27 2018, 05:06 PM
Post #67


*********
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(Gray Seal @ Aug 27 2018, 08:43 AM) *
Politics is not math but that is a mistake. Politics should be as close to math as possible. Thinking government and politics can be a fluid, ill defined means for authoritarian control is a huge blunder. A person's freedom should not be taken from them unless there is a specific reason for doing. That reason should not be a difference in values or the force of the majority.

C'mon man. You recognize that there is a variation of individuality but insist to lump people together into groups. Then you use words which are essentially meaningless to describe them.

Your main paragraph had a list of opinions. As individuals we can agree with some of them and not others. Yet you wish to put individuals into a group in agreement with all of these points even if they do not agree with them all? That is poor practice and disingenuous to understanding. It is a poor basis for discussion to lump individuals into groups where they all believe the same things.

There are war mongers. There are authoritarians. There are people who use race as a crutch. There are people who appreciate public speech. There are people who wish to end public speech. These are correct labels. Lumping various ideas into a singular mindset is incorrect.

There are always commonalities. You have already made that argument earlier (we all have principles which do not fit into a neat package) though you sloppily use "liberal" and "conservative" to describe differences. Bringing in the subject of commonality is good for the discussion. You conveyed that we are all mixtures of positions on current events. Commonality is not a reason to use liberal/conservative. Artificial grouping and then using emotionally charged words to describe individuals is a poor idea. It does not lead to good problem solving.

You bring good ideas to the discussion. Your use, as well as other's use, of liberal and conservative detracts from the good ideas. Few people are on the same page when those terms are being used.

I think you making an issue for precision detracts from my argument, but that's your choice and any one else who chooses to do so. That my opinion.

QUOTE
There are war mongers. There are authoritarians. There are people who use race as a crutch. There are people who appreciate public speech. There are people who wish to end public speech. These are correct labels. Lumping various ideas into a singular mindset is incorrect.
Can't you see these are all "groups" too? We are talking about millions of individuals in this country, hundreds of millions. Whose to say they agree with being lumped in with War mongers because they believe in the necessity of a war? Or that they want to be labeled as authoritarians because they support healthcare for all Americans.

At least with "liberal" and "conservative" we are talking about groupd that people self identify with.

But to another point you make

QUOTE
There are always commonalities. You have already made that argument earlier (we all have principles which do not fit into a neat package) though you sloppily use "liberal" and "conservative" to describe differences. Bringing in the subject of commonality is good for the discussion. You conveyed that we are all mixtures of positions on current events. Commonality is not a reason to use liberal/conservative. Artificial grouping and then using emotionally charged words to describe individuals is a poor idea. It does not lead to good problem solving.
I'll acknowledge and take that hit. "Sloppy" is another way to say "inaccurate". I can admit that this is the nature of generalization... generally! You sacrifice precision for expediency. But attacking someone for generalizing is not saying that the generalization is incorrect.

If I am debating a position on a particular issue that is supported in large part by conservatives OR (important OR here)those elected by conservatives I'm going to lay it at the feet of conservatism. Now, as an example, You, Net, Looms, Hobbes, and Mrs P may have various levels support for an issue, with various reasons for that support. Now that just FIVE people, FIVE individuals, who i get to communicate with. We are talking about tens to hundreds of millions of people i'll never get to communicate with. And even if i could... so what? A position on issue exists to such a degree that it has been created in our collective realities.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan is happening. Economic sanctions are happening. And just to throw it out there as an issue, abortions are happening. Forget this cop out that Looms presented that boils down to "suffering happens". There is a HUGE difference between someone skydiving without a parachute (did you all see that video holy crap)who misses the net and dies (he didn't) and suffering that exist because a politician you voted for is voting to inflict that suffering or you support a political position.

Let take abortion. I don't think i would want to abort a child with my significant other. That's me personally. Personally, because of the fundamental unfairness i see with women and liberal attitudes towards abortion, i'm luke warm to the position it at best. But i have to take ownership, politically speaking, because of the way i vote and the people to whom i give political support.

Do I support abortion? Kind of, but not really. Is it for the reason often espoused by abortion adovocates? Not really. Would it offend me that a conservative laid the fact abortion is happening at the feet of liberals, me being a liberal? No. Because while the generalization may not be spot on and imprecise, its functional and its "generally" true.

I'm not opposed to knowing it, but getting each individual perspective on why they support a position, isn't necessary for my point that a position exists and that it finds it support from a particular group. If you let something detract you from a greater point, i'm not sure that's because of my generalization as much as a lack of political ownership and responsibility.

This post has been edited by droop224: Aug 27 2018, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Aug 28 2018, 06:40 AM
Post #68


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
War in Iraq and Afghanistan is happening. Economic sanctions are happening. And just to throw it out there as an issue, abortions are happening. Forget this cop out that Looms presented that boils down to "suffering happens".


I'd take that thought one step further. A crisis of Federalism means both self inflicted pain and externally driven sources of pain increase. The ability to cope with the pain by taking productive action wains. IE a loss of agency is at play. This is where that heavy dose of philosophy I mentioned comes into play...

If you let yourself become bitter and disaffected droop, you'll probably lose interest in topic XYZ but not to the point where you routinely glance at problems rather than stare at and follow problems. Should you excessively generalize and group together wide swaths of people you'll lose critical thinking. You will have succumbed to nihilism. Now the next step if you had a bit more youth would be to get angry at the system, not care about fixing it or contributing constructive criticism to a sinking ship, and then find something to break both literally and metaphorically.

Part of being a patriot would be to first attempt to fix the sinking ship and having the maturity to accept failure if it comes. This isn't about you, it is about the next generation and giving them the best chance at agency.

The very definition of new is something that has no record of success or failure. Therefore you need to start thinking about a future that has a workable solution around your current dilemma. Again, philosophy is necessary to orient yourself internally to wade through the lesser ideas until you arrive at something plausible to build a nation around. If you went through all that trouble to be the next George Washington on subject ABC at least people will consider your ideas. It shows you cared enough to submit something comprehensive. Someone who is building solutions is exercising empathy, rather than lamenting it. Telling everyone they don't care enough gives an impression you are falling into self pity. The nobility is in the fight Sir.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Aug 28 2018, 05:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Sep 4 2018, 05:51 AM
Post #69


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Getting back to the original intent of the authour, I suspect there will be much to talk over the next couple of years. The best way to talk about the political stuff would be here. The second best way as much as it pains me to admit it would be some social media platform? I use Zuckerburg's ailing contraption as a bulletin board and as an access portal only. I don't really use it for nattering in real time because frankly it sucks and can't hold a candle to here. The format is all wrong for that. So I leave the brainstorming up to you 'Net.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 4 2018, 12:37 PM
Post #70


**********
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



QUOTE(Trouble @ Sep 4 2018, 01:51 AM) *
Getting back to the original intent of the authour, I suspect there will be much to talk over the next couple of years. The best way to talk about the political stuff would be here. The second best way as much as it pains me to admit it would be some social media platform? I use Zuckerburg's ailing contraption as a bulletin board and as an access portal only. I don't really use it for nattering in real time because frankly it sucks and can't hold a candle to here. The format is all wrong for that. So I leave the brainstorming up to you 'Net.

Agreed, and thanks for bringing out something I'd not thought of before: Social media attracted people away from bulletin board system (BBS) styled forums because social media had the novelty quality that wears off with experience. This intersected with the sexy new smart phones, the build-out of n-G wireless networks, and the movement toward virtualizing reality. Enabling all this were software advances in AI and other lesser-known supporting tech. Hardware miniaturization and improved performance/price ratios were other elements in the overall convergence that gave us the ability to live with minimal physically present human interactions.

Smartphones allowed people to avoid interaction even when physically present. It became easier to withdraw from society while being in it, and since society often sucks, lots of folks were attracted to the tech -- not because it made life easier, but because it made life more tolerable.

Add in there an extra large portion of immediate gratification along with anonymity, and you've got a worldwide trend that has its benefits and problems.

Meanwhile, the older ways of doing things can still be practiced. As time continues to move on, I'm pretty sure people will figure out when and where tech is appropriate and when it isn't. It'll probably take a few more generations before it's as common as when and where to use horses versus automobiles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 5 2018, 11:13 PM
Post #71


********
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



Gray Seal

QUOTE
Having a discussion based upon using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is fairly pointless. Both have varied definitions which are further trivialized in the context being used.

To me, this lack of definition has been purposeful. Politicians and supporting mass media are champions of changing the meaning of words. Don't like a word? Use it in a context which changes what the word means.

For an example of how a word with can be used to confuse and blur meanings and conclusions let us think of "love". Love has multiple meanings.

Let us say someone loves their partner. Their partner is the love of their life. They have a special bond. Their relationship includes making love.

This person also has a pet. This person declares they love their pet. The pet is special to them.

Sounds to me like there is admitted bestiality. What sort of deranged person is this person?

Using "love", "liberal", or "conservative" can be confusing words. Using them does nothing to clarify. In the case of "liberal" and "conservative" they are frequently used to make a point when the point is often to misuse definitions and make false arguments.

If you wish for a discussion or a debate to end up being meaningless, start throwing "liberal" and "conservative" around. It works great. Talking in circles is a boring read and less than ad.gif 's mission.


I see your point, it mirrors what Hobbes suggested. Similar to what I mention in my reply to Droop below, I think that political, as well as other types of labels, are frequently misused in debates. That's especially true today but I think it's less about the labels themselves and more about those who are misusing them. That's my perspective on it, I think that those types of words have a place but if they're used to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups, then they do indeed become pointless.

Good to see you posting again by the way.

Droop
QUOTE
I feel like you both sort of ignored me when i said.

"How do we think\process stimuli? In terms of mindset I think conservative is something we all are as well as liberal. Thinking conservatively is fundamental. Its natural. It's about survival. The more threatened we feel the more conservatively we will think."

I have conservative views in me, you have liberal views in you. We all do. I won't even use the terms "good" and "evil", since it seems we are all wise enough to see the flaws in the terms. Lets use these terms if you all don't mind, in fact Looms you sort of said it earlier in a debate. Let's say "equality" and "dominance\sumpremacy" Where i move politically left I move towards equality. I seek to establish or protect equality for all. Where i move right I seek to establish or protect dominance and supremacy of yourself or the group you belong to.


I'm back from my trip so I finished this reply finally, it will be long but I'll try to make it worth a read.

To start off I think the contrast between the left and the right is complex, I can't say I agree with members here who are suggesting that terms like left, right, liberal, and conservative are misleading or unnecessary, I think it's the people debating those terms who are often responsible for making them misleading. I'll debate the contrast between these groups with you but these are terms which are often used irresponsibly, that's probably why some are ditching them altogether.

I remember you saying something along these lines... "I have conservative views in me, you have liberal views in you", more than once actually. You're also suggesting that conservatism is based on something primal and is about dominance while a liberal mindset is more advanced, you've gone as far as to suggest that you take us "all as seriously as teenagers with guns" as well. However, I do see that you're trying to make an effort to suggest that each group has diversity in some respects, I believe that in regards to some of your writings but you're generalizing in the sense that a liberal mindset is what you appear to believe separates us from animals and brings out traits like compassion or an ability to think beyond our primal urges and intincts.

I just don't see that, protecting Hillary Clinton and Peter Strzok while going after Trump so aggressively that they're bending and breaking the rules is all about maintaining dominance for the Democrats and this is one example of many. You should have seen Strzok's hearing before Congress a few weeks ago, I watched most of it and many Democrats who spoke tried to defend Strzok or downplay what he did and I can't recall one Democrat who dug deep into what he did to ask the types of questions that needed to be asked, half of the time they were simply countering Republicans or trying to redirect the conversation to irrelevant topics.

To address human nature in regards to what's primitive, do you remember earlier when you accused conservatives of being oversensitive and I showed you quotes which demonstrated how far some modern liberals have taken that? Organizing a day to go scream at the sky because Trump became President, or using a cry closet with stuffed animals for college students who are stressed about exams? You didn't address those things. Most Democrats and modern liberals don't go that far, classical liberals even less so, there's diversity in every group but I don't remember Republicans or the right doing something like organizing a day to scream at the sky because Obama got elected, though I'm open to any information you have.

If some feel it's necessary to organize a day to scream at the sky, I say vent it if you have to but it's based purely on emotion from what I can see. What does it accomplish apart from perhaps making them feel a little better for a while? I think they should be able to do that, but it does strike me as acting in an unproductive way based on emotion and fear and at its roots, that's acting on primitive instincts which is something you're associating with the right. Modern liberals can be very prone to act based on primitive feelings or make premature assumptions which lack foresight, they're human.

It should also be mentioned that not every new or left-leaning idea is a good one, let's look at the transgender community and some of those who defend them. Personally, I don't care what they believe or how they live their life, I think that if what a person does makes them happy and they're not hurting anybody that they should be able to choose how they want to live. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell lies on their behalf because it may make them feel better. I wouldn't seek a transgender person out to tell them that they're wrong on this either but a man can not be a woman or vice versa simply because they say so or believe it's true and those around them who are cisgender << (non-transgender) are often feeding into that false narrative. Again, I think they should have the right to believe what they want, but the idea that a man can be a woman because they think they are is a position that makes a mockery of science. That position is based on what makes a transgender person feel good, but that doesn't make it true.

I will grant you that a conservative mindset is often the more cautious mindset by definition, where new information is often not considered. I don't believe the position above is accurate or necessarily healthy, (the suicide rate for transgenders is very high), perhaps that's my conservative side but I researched before I decided and understand enough about science to know a man can't be a woman or vice versa, not with today's science anyway. With that said, I'll stray from the far right on a number of other things. For those who don't consider how we're treating the planet, I think that's a mistake, but I think those types who are on the right are generally very far to the right. Just as with the far left, they do have some bad ideas and stubbornness.

QUOTE
What did Obama sell the people of America? "Yes we can" "America is at its best when we work together with our allies". Obama sold plurality. What did Trump sell? "We never win anymore, I'll make us win" and "We'll have the best this and the best that". He sold us domination. In his words "make America Great again" was to sell us supremacy.


I don't think that's a complete picture of the situation. If Trumps loud and often bombastic rhetoric is giving you that impression, I could see how that could be a distraction from looking deeper but there's a lot more behind this. Michelle Obama suggested that her husband being elected was the first time she felt proud of America and Obama was very critical and negative of America, he was positive in regards to what Democrats and modern liberals wanted but was usually neglectful or critical of those on the right and the issues that were important to them, that's not inclusiveness, that's partisanship. He spent a lot of time apologizing for our nation or picking out the things that he believes should be frowned upon. Sometimes he was right to be critical, white supremacist should be countered but many of the people that the left considers to be white supremacists, aren't.

This negative outlook on America is actually a trend on the left, sometimes to an extreme. This certainly isn't applicable across the board but ask yourself which side is more prone to do something like burn the American flag, or downplay the positive aspects of what Americans have managed to do throughout the years. For example, our military is often seen as crap, it should be portrayed as a drain on other nations even though it's had a positive impact in many respects, another one is that the American flag represents how flawed our nation is, lastly our nation's success is based on our history of white supremacy as if that's the primary factor or there are no other factors at all, (so many people oversimplify when it comes to that), I could go on and on.

None of that sends a message that our country "wins", you're pointing out that Trump has said "we never win anymore" as if Obama and many who supported him haven't done the same thing in there own way. It's not too uncommon for America portrayed as a dump, more or less, that's a drain on other nations. The truth, as in many situations, is that things are not so black and white, there's a lot of grey on this topic. We should be able to make criticisms about some of the flaws about America, but that should be put into perspective by explaining what we've done which has had a positive impact.

I think that both left-leaning Democrats and conservative Republican politicians try to sell us that America has a host of problems. While it's true that there are problems and so much more needs to be done to improve, politicians often point this out because they want to portray themselves as the one who will fix everything, Trump did not invent that tactic. Additionally, "Yes We Can" is basically the same as "Make America Great Again". Usually, all "Yes We Can" boiled down to is "Yes We Can" pass legislation and fight for those who agree with Obama's worldview, he was not a moderate who brought our nation together, things got more divisive on his watch.

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...

QUOTE
"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.

Though Trump himself is now often part of what's wrong with our system of government, he's exposed how deep government corruption goes in a way we haven't seen. Not only by bringing attention to himself and others with loud rhetoric that gains attention but nobody would have known the kinds of details we now know about Hillary and the upper levels of the FBI and DOJ if he hadn't been elected, having said that, Trump being elected also came with consequences. My biggest problem is that he's doing little to heal some of the divisiveness we're seeing, the level of chaos was also getting worse under Obama so we could have used someone who would reach out to a range of different people beyond catchphrases with little in the way of action to back them.

QUOTE
I highly doubt it. Net i don't get why you can't get what i'm saying. Let say we are talking about Antifa, it is without a doubt left wing. But their violence to other humans do not resonate with liberals. They are a militant leftist group, quite the oddity, hence the size of their numbers and their support. On the other hand, look at the conservative support for war in the last 4 decades. There is LARGE support for violence against other humans, disproportionately on the political right, and this violence is a lot worst than simply busting someone upside their head. War is mass homicide.

So sure you can find examples of leftist violence, you can show lots of examples. A FEW examples may rise to the level of homicide. But i can show so many many many many more examples of humans committing violence against other humans, with right wing support


I actually don't think that you could show me more examples, one reason is that there are more left-leaning members in the military than you're assuming, did you look at the links I shared? There is, however, a stronger Republican presence in the military though Democrats don't have a small presence. There being higher numbers of Republicans in the military, is in large part, due to Republican politicians pouring funds into it but in terms of left and right, it's much closer than you might think.

I understand where you're coming from on the military, but the situation is very complex, as are political labels. As you've even suggested, we all have varying levels of liberal and conservative traits in us, therefore by your own admission liberals today, and dating back, would hold responsibility for war-related deaths. That's not to mention that perspective is needed when talking about war-related deaths. There are certainly deaths that shouldn't have happened, death is sad in general as far as I'm concerned. As you've been hinting at, any death of a "human" is a sad thing but I'd disagree with you if you were to say that killing is never necessary. Sometimes you come off that way but what would you suggest should be done with a terrorist running into a building strapped with explosives, or someone actively shooting into a crowd of civilians? I'm not talking about dropping nukes here or talking about whether or not the U.S. Military should be involved in foreign nations. To start with the basics is there any situation where you think that taking a life is necessary for any nations military?

Lastly, if you want to count the military, there are currently about 1.4 million Americans serving in it, a small fraction of the overall U.S. population and a small fraction of those military personnel are involved in active combat. Many military personnel are involved in providing humanitarian aid, medical services, educational services, environmental health services, etc. etc...

https://www.todaysmilitary.com/working/care...ds-and-profiles

Also, you didn't seem to consider this when I mentioned it...

QUOTE
I shared some of my more substantial sources in an exchange with you, then decided to give that topic its own thread. I don't want to mention it again here because it's very involved and would be premature considering I have the other debate in the works. Besides, for a casual thread, there's a lot of left VS. right in this exchange already so if you want me to point out the substantiation again, just let me know and I'll send it to you in a personal message.


You're missing something here but I'm offering to explain it to you in further detail. As for what I'm going to address in this thread, yes, I could show you "lots of examples" of violence and uncivil behavior on the left, it happens on a daily basis. I've seen a contrast in the way the left protested Trump being elected compared to how the right protested Obama being elected, I've looked into the size and scope of protesting movements in general on both sides and have seen a difference between the left and right, I've noticed little things like a contrast in how pro second amendment students have been reacting to all of these school shootings compared to how students who are gun restrictions advocates are reacting, I've looked at some of the chaos in left-leaning colleges and there's a number of random violent acts I take notice of etc. etc.

Most recently there was chaos from the very start of the Brett Kavanah hearing yesterday, I don't classify what happened in this case as violence but it's certainly uncivil behavior. More importantly, I can't think of a single example where this has happened on the right EVER during a Supreme Court nominee hearing for a left-leaning judge, and many others are saying the same thing. Can you show me one example of a Supreme Court nominee hearing ever rising to the level of chaos that was on display yesterday, where Republicans starting interrupting a few seconds into the hearing while protesters, (apparently organized by Chuck Schumer), screamed to try to shut down the hearing? It got bad enough that they decided to remove Brett Kavanaugh's children from the hearing....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8il9dAhA00

Start this video at the 11-minute mark and watch it for a few minutes, this is all of the hearing that we saw yesterday unedited so you can scroll further to see that protesters kept having to be removed as Democrats grandstanded and interrupted more than 40 times in the first hour alone! So I could exhaust myself giving you individual examples in multiple areas but to make the case that there's a contrast between the left and right overall, (meaning that on average one group is more likely to have a member of that group act in a way that is violent or uncivil), would take more than individual examples so the next paragraph is an important one.

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.

Another reason I don't want to state which side is more violent with certainty is that I think the left and right have a lot in common when it comes to behavioral trends and as members here have been debating, political groups are very diverse, there are usually some varied interest and behaviors between members within any given political group. On this topic, I believe there's a difference between the left and right as well but if there's a difference in the level of violence and uncivil behavior between these groups overall, it's not by much and trends often change rather than leading to a fixed result.

This has been a topic of interest for me because I want to know what effect various political beliefs, (or group of political beliefs), have on the belief holder. From what I've learned the results are mixed, I'm picking up on trends and differences between various groups but things are much more complex than what you're going to hear from most media pundits or politicians. I hope for your sake that you're not fixated on this negative view of the right because that's what you're hearing from a few left-leaning news organizations because they leave out so much. Personally, I'd consider some of that information, critical stances of the right are needed and it's not as if everything they're saying is wrong but without considering opposing viewpoints and facts that don't support left-wing narratives, you'll lack perspective.

Trouble
QUOTE
Getting back to the original intent of the authour, I suspect there will be much to talk over the next couple of years. The best way to talk about the political stuff would be here. The second best way as much as it pains me to admit it would be some social media platform? I use Zuckerburg's ailing contraption as a bulletin board and as an access portal only. I don't really use it for nattering in real time because frankly it sucks and can't hold a candle to here. The format is all wrong for that. So I leave the brainstorming up to you 'Net.


Americasdebate is certainly unique in a lot of ways, while it wouldn't be quite the same there are other debate boards we could use in the scenario that AD fails. A few members mentioned some potential options, right now I'm just waiting for enough members to settle on a location....

QUOTE
"I think that the ultimate purpose for anything new would be to still be able to debate a range of political and social issues, etc, and still be able to throw in a casual conversation discussion when we want. Other websites are doing just that and have a steady flow of debaters posting. Nightimer mentioned The Colline Gate and AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler Forums, well that as well as Monica Bellucci innocent.gif , Looms mentioned a Discord Server, AuthorMusician mentioned Slatestarcodex, JohnfrmCleveland mentioned an MMT Facebook page, and I brought up Debate.org which has one debate section where members can actually vote on a winner which seems interesting but I don't know too much about them yet, the only experience I have there is having asked some questions and looking at the forums. I do like the look of that site and from what I can tell the members seem okay but there are many options. I'm just waiting on a few members here to say that they're in if this is something our community decides it wants.

If they pick a location, one of the footnotes I was thinking would be smart is to only use the alternate location if ad.gif does go down and in the meantime, it would simply serve as a safeguard so we all have somewhere to meet up in the worst case scenario. I'm suggesting waiting on debating at the other location in order to prevent the flow of debates from dropping at AD any more than it has."


That's what I have at the moment, a few other members would need state they want to do this, then agree on a place or perhaps being willing to take a vote on a new location that we would meet at if AD goes down. I think I'd most likely want to go to either Debate.org or The Colline Gate, though I'm open to the other locations as well, we could try something very different like a Discord Server or other locations that were mentioned if that's what other members settle on.

This post has been edited by net2007: Sep 6 2018, 01:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 9 2018, 11:29 PM
Post #72


********
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



A number of members in this thread have addressed divisiveness, mudslinging, and the effect it's having. Well, I just read what was probably one of the most divisive and unproductive exchanges I have in a long time in a forum. I feel like I just read something where either Trump or Maxine Waters was posting in there somewhere.....

LINK: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/750707.page

Here are some quotes I pulled from earlier on in the thread, this was edited for length so there are gaps in between some of the quotes where there were more comments in between, so the link above would give a closer look.....

QUOTE
If I didn't know better, I'd think you wanted it down because it reveals how obvious liberals can be.

______

If you tell me where you live, OP, I can guarantee it won't be the last time. Or is that too "obvious?"

_______

We have all said that many, many, many times, but you keep coming back to pick fights with "obnoxious liberals" because you're too much of a chicken to do it in real life.

________

"An anonymous poster, who doesn't know my name or where I live, said he would protest in my neighborhood! I'm being threatened!!!"

What a snowflake.

____________


Seems like the inky defense you have when your fellow liberals act like unhinged brats is to call the person pointing out a liar - and making up your own lie in the process.

____________

You mean up the other liberals making up **** and calling me a liar?

____________

OMG. You are demonstrating the worst in liberal behavior. You don't like the topic, so you call it a lie - and me a liar.

____________

I frequently wish that I did silence conservatives. I am really tired of their constant whining.


It went like this for pages, on the 9th page, the same two were still at it....

QUOTE
You are quite clearly insane. You have explained why you shared something but repeatedly failed to say what it was that you shared and why it did not adhere to the clearly stated guideline.
____________

You are crazy, my friend.
I openly challenged you to share here my original post, for everyone to read and evaluate.


One of the members of the site threw in this... "American Horror Story Forum", I saw no other context for that comment so my guess is that they were cracking a joke about the chaos that was on display, either way, it was a spectacle that went nowhere. The two participants quoted above, (one actually being the site administrator), went at it like this throughout the duration of the thread, (for context take a look at the link). (Edit: one of the comments quoted above came from a third member) Both of them accused the other of lying and they both either generalized or insinuated. A threat and insults were thrown in for good measure and while there seemed to be good points and understandable concerns mixed into all of that as well, it often starts out that way in debates or in other confrontations between those with varied beliefs. Some will go in with fair arguments or good intentions but one thing can lead to another when opposing viewpoints clash and defenses go up.

To the credit of Hobbes, Gray Seal, and many others, terms like "liberal", "conservative", along with other labels can be a huge problem. Perhaps I'm a bit stubborn on this topic, I still go to those words fairly regularly but I have to admit that there's something to what others are stating about them. In the thread I quoted above, I think part of the problem came from remarks like this.... "your fellow liberals act like unhinged brats" or this.... "I frequently wish that I did silence conservatives. I am really tired of their constant whining."

More broadly speaking America is in a bit of a pickle right now, some would go much further than that and say we're on the brink of war a social collapse on a level so profound that America would never look the same again, (if it survives it at all). We could be, change is no doubt happening on many levels, as for a sudden breakdown of our society involving civil war like chaos, short of a natural disaster large enough to cause a collapse, I think we'll be okay. Anything is possible but if it does happen we've been resilient in the past where we've gotten through world wars, the Civil War, the 60s, and the Cold War. The Civil War came from within, much like the problems we're seeing now, perhaps it's that we're in a bit of a Civil Cold War.

I'm often an optimist on these types of topics, perhaps to a fault but to address the other side of the coin on this topic stories like the one below, and many other things, give me hope that things will not get much worse and eventually calm back down, at least to some degree...

http://time.com/5233477/sally-kohn-the-opposite-of-hate/

CNN is one of the most biased networks on television overall, as with Fox News one opinion dominates and many things are said which give an incomplete or misleading representation of their political opponents, but even in their ranks, they have some Anchors and Contributors who will surprise you...

QUOTE
"Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator, activist, host of the podcast State of Resistance"

_____

"It may seem surprising for a liberal commentator like myself, but from 2010 to 2013, I worked in the most prominent den of American conservatism: Fox News. During my time at the network I came to realize how condescending I'd been in my views about not only the people who worked at Fox News but the people watching at home. And condescension is just a snooty form of prejudice; we are only condescending to those we feel are inherently beneath us. The more I got out of my own liberal bubble, the more I met other conservatives who were neither stupid nor hateful, or at least no more deliberately hateful than I was. Those experiences really challenged my biases and assumptions."

"I'm not saying that Sean Hannity is the nicest person on the planet; his political views are certainly not anywhere near what I would reasonably call nice. What I am saying is that I realized that the person I'd thought of as entirely cruel, as the caricature of a horrific right-wing monster, is actually caring and kind, and a good dad and a supportive friend. Including a supportive friend to me."

Either way, the experience of getting to know and like many conservatives and at the same time receiving more and more hate mail from conservatives presented me with a choice. From here on out, was I going to believe that most conservatives were like the ones I'd worked with at Fox News, or was I going to assume that most conservatives were like the ones sending me hateful messages online? Which was the exception, and which was the rule?.......


I think that's a must read for those who look at the left or right and believe that either side is composed primarily of dangerous or stupid individuals who are a drain on America. She goes on to explain a lot more about why she changed her viewpoint. To me, this story and other information I've come across like this hasn't meant that there aren't serious problems on each side that need to be addressed. I'm quite often critical of modern liberals and Democrats. A lot has changed over the last couple of decades and I believe there's a growing minority within these groups who are causing a whole host of problems. Often they're not taken seriously or addressed at all so I find myself exposing them so that it's front and center for a little while. I'd imagine the left often feels the same way but at a certain point, I think some get lost, where in their minds, the worst among us become representative of political groups in a much larger sense.

AD has had its moments and I think that'll continue but by comparison to that thread I shared, I think we're doing okay. Personally, I've usually enjoyed the debates we've had, including some of the more heated ones. I think my overall point with all of this was to show a contrast between two very different approaches with the two links that were posted. To address the state of America today I believe that things usually aren't like they were in that chaotic thread and therefore there's hope. Having said that, there's no doubt that there's a debate to be had about how bad things are. I want to understand where that line is, roughly how many Americans are dividing us, how much of an impact are they having, and therefore how should this be framed and addressed? This is a tricky and complicated topic with many possible outcomes which will continue to impact millions, I'll say that much with certainty.

Edited to spell check and correct a mistake which is marked in red above

This post has been edited by net2007: Sep 10 2018, 03:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Sep 10 2018, 06:16 AM
Post #73


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 9 2018, 05:29 PM) *
QUOTE
"Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator, activist, host of the podcast State of Resistance"

_____

"It may seem surprising for a liberal commentator like myself, but from 2010 to 2013, I worked in the most prominent den of American conservatism: Fox News. During my time at the network I came to realize how condescending I'd been in my views about not only the people who worked at Fox News but the people watching at home. And condescension is just a snooty form of prejudice; we are only condescending to those we feel are inherently beneath us. The more I got out of my own liberal bubble, the more I met other conservatives who were neither stupid nor hateful, or at least no more deliberately hateful than I was. Those experiences really challenged my biases and assumptions."

"I'm not saying that Sean Hannity is the nicest person on the planet; his political views are certainly not anywhere near what I would reasonably call nice. What I am saying is that I realized that the person I'd thought of as entirely cruel, as the caricature of a horrific right-wing monster, is actually caring and kind, and a good dad and a supportive friend. Including a supportive friend to me."

Either way, the experience of getting to know and like many conservatives and at the same time receiving more and more hate mail from conservatives presented me with a choice. From here on out, was I going to believe that most conservatives were like the ones I'd worked with at Fox News, or was I going to assume that most conservatives were like the ones sending me hateful messages online? Which was the exception, and which was the rule?.......


I think that's a must read for those who look at the left or right and believe that either side is composed primarily of dangerous or stupid individuals who are a drain on America. She goes on to explain a lot more about why she changed her viewpoint. To me, this story and other information I've come across like this hasn't meant that there aren't serious problems on each side that need to be addressed. I'm quite often critical of modern liberals and Democrats. A lot has changed over the last couple of decades and I believe there's a growing minority within these groups who are causing a whole host of problems. Often they're not taken seriously or addressed at all so I find myself exposing them so that it's front and center for a little while. I'd imagine the left often feels the same way but at a certain point, I think some get lost, where in their minds, the worst among us become representative of political groups in a much larger sense.

AD has had its moments and I think that'll continue but by comparison to that thread I shared, I think we're doing okay. Personally, I've usually enjoyed the debates we've had, including some of the more heated ones. I think my overall point with all of this was to show a contrast between two very different approaches with the two links that were posted. To address the state of America today I believe that things usually aren't like they were in that chaotic thread and therefore there's hope. Having said that, there's no doubt that there's a debate to be had about how bad things are. I want to understand where that line is, roughly how many Americans are dividing us, how much of an impact are they having, and therefore how should this be framed and addressed? This is a tricky and complicated topic with many possible outcomes which will continue to impact millions, I'll say that much with certainty.



The term I've seen bandied about for what you have been describing is "siloing". Siloing is how people attempt to shield themselves from strange and dissenting opinions. Whether they are triggered or not comes later. The process is voluntary and accentuated by social media. My observation is that different groups silo differently but the end result is the same.

I came to the realization early in life that angry people which are difficult to communicate with are not a problem for a lifelong bureaucrat. They are a commodity to be poked and prodded by your friendly neighbourhood Richard Cheney for the desired effect. It isn't the nicest realization but if one comes to the conclusion that modern politics runs on outrage, both real and imagined you can see where the cynicism comes from. If one can prove this is the case then that puts us near banana republic territory because egregiousness is the lifeblood of heavy handed autocracies.

Your article 'Net was one of the few exceptions because it was based on personal experience. The personal touch could be one of the saving graces for the sincere individual looking to bridge the thoughts of different parties. But I would also caution it isn't a panacea. Technically Mormons have to put out a lot of shoe leather with their seminary duties. They have far more accurate understandings of where people are at than most because of this outreach work. A generation ago I would have argued the left used more shoe leather but now not so much. The point I am making is that all that knowledge may not necessarily be put to good use. I'm thinking about the lack luster career of a Mitt Romney. He had a lot of Mormon resources under his control and despite this gem he did not possess enough appeal to get elected to the office of the president.

I would also add there is an element of frustration or fatigue which is affecting peoples' tolerance for dissent. It may be just a sign of the times or maybe there are many smaller problems contributing to the whole? My guess is that ten years from now it won't be just one cause that brought people to this point.

So if we were to distill your comments would it be fair to say that debating in polarized climate is a challenge? If it is an attitude what should the credo be and how do we administer it in a new forum?

This post has been edited by Trouble: Sep 10 2018, 06:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 15 2018, 05:17 AM
Post #74


********
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(Trouble @ Sep 10 2018, 02:16 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Sep 9 2018, 05:29 PM) *
QUOTE
"Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator, activist, host of the podcast State of Resistance"

_____

"It may seem surprising for a liberal commentator like myself, but from 2010 to 2013, I worked in the most prominent den of American conservatism: Fox News. During my time at the network I came to realize how condescending I'd been in my views about not only the people who worked at Fox News but the people watching at home. And condescension is just a snooty form of prejudice; we are only condescending to those we feel are inherently beneath us. The more I got out of my own liberal bubble, the more I met other conservatives who were neither stupid nor hateful, or at least no more deliberately hateful than I was. Those experiences really challenged my biases and assumptions."

"I'm not saying that Sean Hannity is the nicest person on the planet; his political views are certainly not anywhere near what I would reasonably call nice. What I am saying is that I realized that the person I'd thought of as entirely cruel, as the caricature of a horrific right-wing monster, is actually caring and kind, and a good dad and a supportive friend. Including a supportive friend to me."

Either way, the experience of getting to know and like many conservatives and at the same time receiving more and more hate mail from conservatives presented me with a choice. From here on out, was I going to believe that most conservatives were like the ones I'd worked with at Fox News, or was I going to assume that most conservatives were like the ones sending me hateful messages online? Which was the exception, and which was the rule?.......


I think that's a must read for those who look at the left or right and believe that either side is composed primarily of dangerous or stupid individuals who are a drain on America. She goes on to explain a lot more about why she changed her viewpoint. To me, this story and other information I've come across like this hasn't meant that there aren't serious problems on each side that need to be addressed. I'm quite often critical of modern liberals and Democrats. A lot has changed over the last couple of decades and I believe there's a growing minority within these groups who are causing a whole host of problems. Often they're not taken seriously or addressed at all so I find myself exposing them so that it's front and center for a little while. I'd imagine the left often feels the same way but at a certain point, I think some get lost, where in their minds, the worst among us become representative of political groups in a much larger sense.

AD has had its moments and I think that'll continue but by comparison to that thread I shared, I think we're doing okay. Personally, I've usually enjoyed the debates we've had, including some of the more heated ones. I think my overall point with all of this was to show a contrast between two very different approaches with the two links that were posted. To address the state of America today I believe that things usually aren't like they were in that chaotic thread and therefore there's hope. Having said that, there's no doubt that there's a debate to be had about how bad things are. I want to understand where that line is, roughly how many Americans are dividing us, how much of an impact are they having, and therefore how should this be framed and addressed? This is a tricky and complicated topic with many possible outcomes which will continue to impact millions, I'll say that much with certainty.



The term I've seen bandied about for what you have been describing is "siloing". Siloing is how people attempt to shield themselves from strange and dissenting opinions. Whether they are triggered or not comes later. The process is voluntary and accentuated by social media. My observation is that different groups silo differently but the end result is the same.

I came to the realization early in life that angry people which are difficult to communicate with are not a problem for a lifelong bureaucrat. They are a commodity to be poked and prodded by your friendly neighbourhood Richard Cheney for the desired effect. It isn't the nicest realization but if one comes to the conclusion that modern politics runs on outrage, both real and imagined you can see where the cynicism comes from. If one can prove this is the case then that puts us near banana republic territory because egregiousness is the lifeblood of heavy handed autocracies.

Your article 'Net was one of the few exceptions because it was based on personal experience. The personal touch could be one of the saving graces for the sincere individual looking to bridge the thoughts of different parties. But I would also caution it isn't a panacea. Technically Mormons have to put out a lot of shoe leather with their seminary duties. They have far more accurate understandings of where people are at than most because of this outreach work. A generation ago I would have argued the left used more shoe leather but now not so much. The point I am making is that all that knowledge may not necessarily be put to good use. I'm thinking about the lack luster career of a Mitt Romney. He had a lot of Mormon resources under his control and despite this gem he did not possess enough appeal to get elected to the office of the president.

I would also add there is an element of frustration or fatigue which is affecting peoples' tolerance for dissent. It may be just a sign of the times or maybe there are many smaller problems contributing to the whole? My guess is that ten years from now it won't be just one cause that brought people to this point.

So if we were to distill your comments would it be fair to say that debating in polarized climate is a challenge? If it is an attitude what should the credo be and how do we administer it in a new forum?


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. There's often a great deal of violence and uncivil behavior in situations that are closer to home, there's no doubt about that but some change for the worse when they're in situations where they feel there are fewer consequences. Politicians often tone it back with the insults or argue passive aggressively, (though there are now clear exceptions to that rule), but they're worried about elections and votes so while Democrats and Republicans often hate each other, many elected officials fake it as they go to war with the opposition through their policymaking or shady backdoor deals like the Steele Dossier that the Hillary campaign paid for to smear Trump. However, things are usually more out in the open online and certainly during protests.

Online, usually the worst that will happen for uncivil behavior is getting a moderator warning or perhaps getting banned from a website rather than in real life where you'd potentially get punched in the face or fired for telling a coworker that you think they're an evil disgusting pig who you can't stand. Threats are usually easier to make online as well because there are too many to keep track of to combat that kind of thing effectively, in fact, the administrator from the forum I quoted in my last post didn't even care that a threat was made. As for protesters, there's often safety in numbers and protesters who slander others with hateful rhetoric or commit violent crimes during protests know it. I wouldn't be surprised if some protesters, such as Antifa members, would run and hide before they'd go up to someone agressively while they're alone (without their buddies to back them). As far as the authorities go, violent and aggressive protesters know that they only have so much manpower when dealing with large groups, it's much easier for an aggressor to blend in then sneak away when it suits them, though your more dedicated protesters are prepared to go to jail. With that said, this rule doesn't apply across the board but I think that fear of consequences is part of the reason we're seeing a difference between online and group behaviors vs. the behaviors witnessed locally.

Other than that, I think there's a better understanding that there are people behind the beliefs when communicating directly, especially when it's one on one. I still see a lot of common courtesy and genuine concerns for others on a local level, I think I have hope because at many pivotal moments throughout American history the "personal touch" has been applied on a much larger scale. At a certain point, I think people get tired of chaos and things get a little better, we're very lucky not to be under a dictatorship with far less flexibility. In situations like what happened on 9/11 Americans got tired in a heartbeat based on one event, other times it takes longer as with the followup to the 60's and early 70's which was an incredibly divisive period in American history. In that case, it may very well be that people just got tired of what they were seeing there as well. I was born in the early 80's and the first 20 years of my life were nothing like it is now, or what I've learned about how things were a decade before I came along. At minimum things were at least far less divisive earlier in my generation, it certainly wasn't perfect but I'd take that back in a heartbeat. My hope is that things, once again, calm back down some with time.

Anything can happen, I believe the future is largely in our hands and that we can make the best or worst of our future. I definitely understand the skeptics and where you're coming from, things are messed up in so many respects right now. It may turn out that we seesaw back and forth for a very very long time until one day, mother nature or something else unforeseen puts us in a position where we're not going to have a choice other than to take a step back and let the planet do its thing. In a sense, it'll be as if we're forced to rest for a while and then reset. If we're not very careful before and during a major calamity then that rest could become eternal very easily.

I'll give you one example of something that is going to happen, something that we're ill prepared for as well. It wouldn't be as bad as an impact from a large asteroid but it could potentially kill millions and cause widespread chaos unless we're smart. In 1859 a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) lead to what became known as the Carrington Event, named after the astronomer who observed the CME in progress and realized there was a link between that solar event and strange occurrences which happened globally. There wasn't much in the way of electrical or long distance communication devices in those days, but in short, telegraph operators reported sparks jumping between their equipment, shorting it out, and even causing fires in some instances. In those times, this CME event was mostly harmless, people enjoyed seeing the northern lights as far south as Cuba, the aurora was actually bright enough to be able to see enough to walk around at night or read a book!

However, if that happened today, the results could be catastrophic. It would short out communications satellites and cell phone towers, meaning no more phones and a disruption of internet services for a while. That would only be just the start of our problems, additionally, this would cause, at a minimum, entire states to lose power if not most of the country, this as other nations would face similar problems. It gets worse though, we're not talking a loss of power for a week or two, power could be out for months or even as long as a year or more. This due to the fact that the electrical grid is dependant on Large Power Transformers that can take as long as 2 years to manufacture. We are very dependent on electricity, apart from our lights and devices not working this would cause water and gas station pumps to shut down. No transporting food, if you're not on well water you'd be in trouble, hospitals would lose power and the patients in them would be in trouble, so many things would fall apart overnight. It's a huge problem that the government is well aware of, safeguards could be put in place to reduce the effects on our electrical grid but nobody wants to dish out the funds.

To wrap this up, in my opinion for us to go over the edge and suffer widespread chaos and civil unrest it'd likely take something extra that would give us that little push in the wrong direction. That's without doubt coming eventually, I just hope I'm not here to see it. unsure.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 18 2018, 02:27 PM
Post #75


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(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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Sep 18 2018, 03:35 PM
Post #76


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,331
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 18 2018, 08:27 AM) *
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.


I totally agree. Even when not paying and captive (ie, celebrities doing political ads). I totally support their right to do it...but it isn't smart.

Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. They were a rising star, got political, and pretty much disappeared from the scene. At best, it turns off about half your potential audience. Why do that?

I've also found their opinions to be as ill informed as most people's, often moreso. It's one thing to be naive in private. Declaring your ignorance publicly? Generally not a good idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Sep 18 2018, 03:45 PM
Post #77


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

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs P

QUOTE
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.
Sure you can. I beg you explain it to me.

If I were to go to country music festival how many artists would be waving huge flags in the back drop. How many would make statements paying homage to the greatness of this nation, midway through? Maybe you can't stand country music, but i'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to this.

I mean everyday i would go to school my teacher would lead in standing and pledge our allegiance to a flag and a republic since the age of 5... 5 year old child!! I mean i was there to learn math, science, letters, language, etc. Seems to me that most people were more upset when someone ever tried to stop making us children make that political statement.

Before anyone could "kneel" they were first told they need to come out of the locker room and "Stand". I didn't see a lot of people complaining about those political statements. I mean, they were there to watch FOOTBALL!! They weren't there to see a bunch of high paid athletes stand to pay homage to the nation. But you didn't hear a lot of complaints.

Statements affirming or reaffirming the greatness of a nation is just as much a political statement as statements being critical of inequities of a nation. Statements positing your loyalty to a nation are just as much political statements as statements disavowing yourself of a nation. Agree or disagree?

Such is the nature of cognitive dissonance, you don't know you are experiencing it, unless someone illuminates it for you. You're welcome and stay woke! mrsparkle.gif

This post has been edited by droop224: Sep 18 2018, 03:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 18 2018, 04:32 PM
Post #78


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, 10:45 AM) *
Statements affirming or reaffirming the greatness of a nation is just as much a political statement as statements being critical of inequities of a nation. Statements positing your loyalty to a nation are just as much political statements as statements disavowing yourself of a nation. Agree or disagree?


Political statements made from an individual viewpoint should be made in that individual's time.
Obviously it comes down to context.
We are in America, so it is reasonable to expect a promotion of America. Especially in certain times/locations where it is customary...just as it's reasonable to expect when I visit Singapore I will respect their Nationalism (which is on FAR greater display than ours, especially during the National Parade which they hold each year).

If I watch the Colbert show, it's a political statement...but that's exactly the product I'm buying.
I'm not ipso facto buying politics when I watch sports/listen to music/watch a movie or television show unrelated to politics.

Edited to add:
Global Guerrillas had a writeup on "Lost Kinship" that I think is pretty spot on.
QUOTE
We talked about many of the topics I'm currently writing about in greater detail with The Global Guerrillas Report. Topics such as China's tyrannical social credit system, open source political parties (they have already rolled the Republican party and they are about to do it to the Dems), how moral warfare works online (shaming and naming, etc.), and modern Tribalization.

In the last segment, we touched on something I haven't written much about yet: the potential for widespread civil conflict in the US and how that impacts our thinking on resilience.

Why so pessimistic? It's becoming clear that the US doesn't have a shared narrative anymore. A narrative, combined with rituals and traditions, that provides us with us the basis of fictive kinship.

A kinship, not based on DNA, that allows us to trust each other rather than as strangers/enemies.
A shared understanding of moral and ethical conduct (the soft elements that make it possible for a legal and regulatory system to work).
An understanding that we are better off together than apart.



This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 18 2018, 04:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Sep 18 2018, 05:34 PM
Post #79


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

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs P

QUOTE
Political statements made from an individual viewpoint should be made in that individual's time.
Huh!?!? You're a human being of free will in a supposed free nation that supposedly values freedom. All time of your existence is "your time". Who's else time could it be? Do you really think that if you paid for a concert ticket that the performer is now working on YOUR time?!? It's time!!

QUOTE
Obviously it comes down to context.
Well the context in the example given or alluded to by you or me are the following: Children in school; Football game; Music concerts. None of these were political events for either positive or negative political statements. You really don't feel a need to refute that you have a problem with positive political statements during these events, just negative one's. Which means this statement:

QUOTE(Mrs P)
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.
is inaccurate. You just don't like political speech that you disagree with during these exact same time.

QUOTE
We are in America, so it is reasonable to expect a promotion of America.
Again, what?!?! I know my "what?!?!" and "huh?!?!" can come across slightly offensive. But think about what you are saying.

Its reasonable for Americans... to promote America... to other Americans... in America.. whistling.gif Well, i don't want to call it unreasonable, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Sounds a little like, i don't know, narcissistic. "We're Americans look how great we are! Aren't we great, Yes we are"

All jokes aside this is perfect example of modern leftist trying to debate with a modern conservative. There is so much cognitive dissonance that you have to break through, there is so much zealotry that you have to break through. Its the constant shifting of "oh that's different" mentality. "Oh I hate roaches" "You got roaches crawling in you hair" "oh these are different roaches because lil Jimmy has a roach farm, i don't want to kill his pets"

In this case (correct me if i am wrong) You can't stand political speech by Americans to Americans about America during YOUR time, unless it political speech by Americans to Americans about America promoting America, because that's different.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 18 2018, 06:08 PM
Post #80


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, 12:34 PM) *
QUOTE
Political statements made from an individual viewpoint should be made in that individual's time.
Huh!?!? You're a human being of free will in a supposed free nation that supposedly values freedom. All time of your existence is "your time". Who's else time could it be? Do you really think that if you paid for a concert ticket that the performer is now working on YOUR time?!? It's time!!


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.

QUOTE
Its reasonable for Americans... to promote America... to other Americans... in America.. whistling.gif Well, i don't want to call it unreasonable, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Sounds a little like, i don't know, narcissistic. "We're Americans look how great we are! Aren't we great, Yes we are"


Well, team spirit is narcissistic too isn't it? "We're (team x) look how great we are!"
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?

Forgot to answer this bit:
QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 18 2018, 12:34 PM) *
In this case (correct me if i am wrong) You can't stand political speech by Americans to Americans about America during YOUR time, unless it political speech by Americans to Americans about America promoting America, because that's different.


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?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 18 2018, 05:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 19th, 2018 - 03:28 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.