Political Discussion

[DownIsTheNewUp]

Oh man, this isn't going to go over well. And it does seem like an insult.

Our politics differ, for sure. But dang. I've tried to stay civil.

You are always civil and well spoken.

@Chucktshoes This thread is made up mostly of left leaning moderates with a couple people who are far left (in the American sense) sprinkled in.

How about instead of slingshoting insults at us, you articulate how you think we are out of touch.

Because these conversations are very much based in reality.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I would put this thread on block and never see it again if I could. It draws me like a moth to a flame. We always love the things that hate us don’t we? I generally don’t engage with y’all in this thread because the more I do, the more the far right makes sense in comparison. I don’t consider that a positive direction for anyone’s wellbeing.

They say you shouldn’t wrestle with a pig because it only gets you dirty and it’s fun for the pig. I believe the same goes for trying to discuss politics with the crazy. I’m not saying that in a glib or dismissive manner. I legitimately believe that a large portion of the active participants in this thread are suffering from some type of psychosis that is akin to the mass hysteria of the Salem witch trials. So why bother?

This thread is representative of the far left. There are very few centrists or moderates who have much to say here. This isn’t me trying to fling insults even though I know that’s how it will be received, I just really do think a lot of y’all have lost touch with any semblance of reality at this point. But sometime it is fun to watch the internecine bloodshed as an outsider.

Where do I start with this response. It is so full of the things you claim not to do. You were glib and dismissive and continue to be. You continue to insult people by labeling them hysterical and psychotic. You have no qualification do determine psychosis or mass hysteria, and a person that does would not determine it from reading internet interactions. You take pleasure in watching others argue about things they deeply believe and then you believe they have lost touch with reality.

It's condescending and insulting. If you can't interact in a meaningful and respectful way maybe you should just leave the thread.

 

[ayayrawn]

Imagine being a centrist in 2019.

 

[Teeeee]

I usually read through this thread every couple weeks but don't really post, I feel you guys all say things more eloquently than I can. But I came here to pretty much say ^this sentence^.

I work with mostly blue collar Trump supporters (a couple are very vocal) who I really think are only on 'that side' because they are racist, misogynist homophobes. These are the kind of people that say LGBT is for Liberty, Guns, Bible and Trump. And they make fun of Libtards all day. They assume I'm a liberal because I don't join in with them in these discussions. But really it's because I find it very difficult to find the right words to tell them how close minded and small I think they are. I guess they believe what they believe and they won't hear me anyway. Then I think, am I even listening to them? So admittedly I have a hard time being openly communicative with people I vehemently disagree with.

It's hard to hear what people are saying when they are insulting minority groups. But I think it would behoove all sides to listen.

Why are some opposed to abortion? Honestly. Why?

Why does gun control frighten some?

Why is immigration bad?

Etc. Etc.

If we can get to the real honest answers, we may uncover some similarities to build upon. We may find that there are fears that can be mitigated in a logical way for all sides.

I don't think we're ever going to get through to the "Mexicans are rapists" or "gays are sinners and deserve AIDS" or the "I'm going to shoot up dayton" people. They are clearly not open to civil discussion. And the person who occupies the white house is one of those. But if we can find the rational people on each side and actually listen and cooperate, who knows?

I am often NOT the rational one. I know that. I work at it. It's hard because some of the issues are so personal. But I still try.

We have to try something. People are dying.

 

[Chucktshoes]

Oh man, this isn't going to go over well. And it does seem like an insult.

Our politics differ, for sure. But dang. I've tried to stay civil.

This is why I should have continued to not post here. I’m truly sorry I’ve upset you. I really do like you. I hope you can move past my words here in this thread when/if you interact me in other threads.

 

[Teeeee]

This is why I should have continued to not post here. I’m truly sorry I’ve upset you. I really do like you. I hope you can move past my words here in this thread when/if you interact me in other threads.

I know this. And I thank you for apologizing. You and I have built a rapport. Your politics sometimes scare me. But it might be based on assumptions on my part without really digging into your views and values. And probably vice versa.

You are going to catch slack for what you said. I think you know that.

I'd really like to stop the pitchforks if we can. That's for all of us. The world can be a scary place out there (especially this week) with a lot of people yelling louder than and over the person next to them. Let's make this place different. Please no more name calling and poking the bear just to poke the bear.

I'm all for hashing it out. I just don't want to feel yucky about it

 

[Dtknuckles]

This is why I should have continued to not post here. I’m truly sorry I’ve upset you. I really do like you. I hope you can move past my words here in this thread when/if you interact me in other threads.

If you are sorry then don't be condescending towards others beliefs and viewpoints. It's as simple as that.

 

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

If you are sorry then don't be condescending towards others beliefs and viewpoints. It's as simple as that.

@Teeeee said it well: "I'd really like to stop the pitchforks if we can."
Someone has to be the first to not feel compelled to respond (says the guy who has invited himself into the arguments of others ); but, really, that's the hardest part of civil discourse - the civility.
I'd like to suggest a tabula rasa. I like to see you all argue back and forth, but in the classical sense of an argument; because I get to hear some points of view - not all that are the same as mine. I don't like to see you all fight. It's distracting and only benefits those that would benefit from us being...er, distracted.

 

[Dtknuckles]

@Teeeee said it well: I'd really like to stop the pitchforks if we can.
Someone has to be the first to not feel compelled to respond (says the guy who has invited himself into the arguments of others); but, really, that's the hardest part of civil discourse - the civility.
I'd like to suggest a tabula rasa, so to speak. I like to see you all argue back and forth, but in the classical sense of an argument; because I get to hear some points of view - not all that are the same as mine. I don't like to see you all fight. It's distracting and only benefits those that would benefit from us being...er, distracted.

I would hardly call this a pitchfork. I'm just pointing out how he continues to be condescending and insulting even after he says he's not. I have a history of treating him respectfully even when he has called in to question my profession by saying that schools cause mental illness. He has labeled anybody involved with the government a party to violence.

All that I am asking is that he be respectful when commenting in this thread. That is hardly a pitchfork.

 

[Chucktshoes]

If you are sorry then don't be condescending towards others beliefs and viewpoints. It's as simple as that.

I’m sorry I upset Teeeee, not you.

The antipathy between us has long ago moved past political to being personal. I can admit that, and I think it’s obvious to anyone who reads our exchanges that it is the case. I don’t like you, you don’t like me, so why do you continue to engage with me? What is it you’re trying to accomplish? You and I only fight with each other, so let’s just not. I’m totally down with not engaging. I like leaving you unblocked simply for conversation context, but it isn’t that necessary.

 

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

He has labeled anybody involved with the government a party to violence.

I quoted you mainly 'cause it was next in the line of responses. Maybe not a pitchfork....but at least a nerf arrow.

If your above statement holds then I'm likely to catch some sharpened prongs...although not all unwarranted.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I’m sorry I upset Teeeee, not you.

The antipathy between us has long ago moved past political to being personal. I can admit that, and I think it’s obvious to anyone who reads our exchanges that it is the case. I don’t like you, you don’t like me, so why do you continue to engage with me? What is it you’re trying to accomplish? You and I only fight with each other, so let’s just not. I’m totally down with not engaging. I like leaving you unblocked simply for conversation context, but it isn’t that necessary.

I would not say I don't like you. Actually if we met in real life I think we would get along pretty well. I've never insulted you, and kept our disagreements respectful. I engage with you because you have different ideas than I do. I actually like having arguments with you because I usually learn something. I never would classify what we do as a "fight". I will call you out when you are being condescending and disrespectful. In this situation you are.

It's nice to know now that you have antipathy towards me, which I find strange. I mean its the internet why would anybody hate somebody who has no affect on the day to day of their personal life. If you feel like you have to block me then go ahead. It means nothing to me. If you do it, do it in the knowledge that I have never insulted, mocked you ideas, or ridiculed you in any way. You do it because you can't handle interacting with people who disagree with you.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I quoted you mainly 'cause it was next in the line of responses. Maybe not a pitchfork....but at least a nerf arrow.

If your above statement holds then I'm likely to catch some sharpened prongs...although not all unwarranted.

Don't worry, maybe there is some context lacking.

 

[Chucktshoes]

I would not say I don't like you. Actually if we met in real life I think we would get along pretty well. I've never insulted you, and kept our disagreements respectful. I engage with you because you have different ideas than I do. I actually like having arguments with you because I usually learn something. I never would classify what we do as a "fight". I will call you out when you are being condescending and disrespectful. In this situation you are.

It's nice to know now that you have antipathy towards me, which I find strange. I mean its the internet why would anybody hate somebody who has no affect on the day to day of their personal life. If you feel like you have to block me then go ahead. It means nothing to me. If you do it, do it in the knowledge that I have never insulted, mocked you ideas, or ridiculed you in any way. You do it because you can't handle interacting with people who disagree with you.

Dude, can’t say I agree with your assessment. We all like to take the best view of our own actions. But I mean, really, our exchanges never amount to much more than politely wordy paragraphs that can be boiled down to “I’m not the asshole here, you are. Eff you, buddy.” Aren’t you tired of it? I am.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Dude, can’t say I agree with your assessment. We all like to take the best view of our own actions. But I mean, really, our exchanges never amount to much more than politely wordy paragraphs that can be boiled down to “I’m not the asshole here, you are. Eff you, buddy.” Aren’t you tired of it? I am.

This supports my point that you have trouble having conversations with people who disagree with you. Disagreements aren't necessarily boiled down to insults.

And I remind you that you came into this thread and were insulting to the entire group by questioning our sanity.

 

[Widget]

It's a matter of relativity. If we're all dead due to apocalyptic climate events then did it matter? If we are all broke and dying because healthcare is fucked, does it matter? If we're too stupid to make arguments in favor of your all important issues because we didn't fix the education system, did it matter? I'm not syaing they aren't important and shouldn't be brought up. I'm saying they are poor metric for choosing a direction for our national reform if much larger issues are going to be ignored in favor of them.

I think you're argument is just horribly flawed. Based on what you're writing, you want people to abandon immediate and short term problems to focus solely on long term issues? It's just not a functional way to run a society. Abandon the causes of gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, and by the time you can fix the long term issues you are for (climate, education, etc), you have a society that doesn't care to fix them. Sorry, but it reads like something out of those Zeitgeist videos I watched on youtube back in college.

 

[Chucktshoes]

This supports my point that you have trouble having conversations with people who disagree with you. Disagreements aren't necessarily boiled down to insults.

And I remind you that you came into this thread and were insulting to the entire group by questioning our sanity.

Fine. I’m an asshole. I mean I already knew that, but are you happy now?

 

[debianlinux]

Why are some opposed to abortion? Honestly. Why?

Why does gun control frighten some?

Why is immigration bad?

Abortion is easily compared to murder. Co-opting any form of murder is a pretty heinous idea. (personally, I think we need government regulated abortion clinics because it is a health issue not a moral issue, similarly, I support assisted suicide)

Gun control is a prerequisite step to tyrannical dictatorships. In all historical examples the populace was first disarmed. Gun control and disarmament are not the same thing but slippery slopes are a thing to be feared.
Then there's that Bill of Rights thing that essentially says it is not up for discussion. If we open the door on something as clear cut as that then the entire thing comes up for revision.
Gun violence is bad, really bad, but guns aren't actually the issue, in my opinion. There are much deeper issues driving the violence; guns just happen to be very convenient to that end.
Furthermore, there's perfectly good use for firearms in areas that are not very populated at all. Yet, I never hear policy that respects this fact.
Also, guns are an excellent equalizer which is an argument I would think more women would lean into. Guns actually are a pretty good crime deterrent in this way. What the policy seeks to remove it never appears to offer an acceptable replacement. Thus, I can empathize with a great deal of fear in this particular issue. Current proposed gun control policies have no appearance of actually addressing the issues in a useful way and historically they never have.

Immigration... well, now, I think there's some obvious fears of cultural dilution but I don't see how this country has a leg to stand on. I do think it's hypocritical that there are plenty of country's with tighter restrictions than we have that are not demonized for having them. The fact is, immigration is real and there are mechanisms to enable it. Personally, I would not be opposed to erasing borders entirely but that would break down existing power structures in such a way it will never, ever be allowed. And there, really, is the issue isn't it? It's not about racist rednecks at all. The current situation with the deportations and child abuse is repugnant, heinous, and in my opinion, should be treated similarly to war crimes.

 

[debianlinux]

I think you're argument is just horribly flawed. Based on what you're writing, you want people to abandon immediate and short term problems to focus solely on long term issues? It's just not a functional way to run a society. Abandon the causes of gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, and by the time you can fix the long term issues you are for (climate, education, etc), you have a society that doesn't care to fix them. Sorry, but it reads like something out of those Zeitgeist videos I watched on youtube back in college.

You might be right. I'm of the opinion the long term problems have been staved off in favor of endless short term issues so long that it's an easy position to take now. Whereas if those issues had been addressed in a timely manner I would posit we wouldn't really be dealing with the other issues in any meaningful way. so, we'll just keep kicking them to the curb and coming up with new hot button issues to keep us from ever dealing with them?

 

[Dtknuckles]

Dude, can’t say I agree with your assessment. We all like to take the best view of our own actions. But I mean, really, our exchanges never amount to much more than politely wordy paragraphs that can be boiled down to “I’m not the asshole here, you are. Eff you, buddy.” Aren’t you tired of it? I am.

Actually when you said that you would not be interacting in this thread a while back, I was disappointed. I respected the fact that you had a deeper knowledge base than most. I mean you linked a supreme court decision once. Not everyone takes to to that level. A diverse opinion is always good to hold the BSers accountable.