Welcome to the American Inquistion

[elfenix 34,238]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well-played.  And yes, literally ANY mechanism can be used to discriminate.

For example, speed limits can of course be racially enforced -- a given cop could decide to only pull over black drivers for speeding.  But that is about the discriminatory actions and intent of individuals using those mechanisms, not about the mechanisms themselves.

So, do we need to reform speed limits because of race?  Nope.  But might we need to reform how the police enforce them?  Yep.  If you argue that speed limits are racist, you're not making a very good point.  If you are arguing that they are sometimes enforced with inherent prejudice and racism, then I'm listening.  Same as with the pieces you cited regarding the rules of evidence.  Or the guy at USDOT in charge of truck inspections could target minority-owned trucking agencies for enforcement, and let white-owned entities skate.  If that happens, I'm not concerned about the regs -- I'm concerned about the regulators.

And if you have data that tells you that the regs are enforced in a discriminatory fashion, then I don't want to hear the disingenuous defense of "but the regs aren't racist" -- that's three-card monte.  Let's focus on the actual problem, discriminatory enforcement.  That's a huge part of the disconnect - disingenuous arguments of "well, X isn't racist, you're just crying racist!"  No, the response is dishonest and creates a red herring.

highway construction isn't inherently racist.  but when planners again and again choose to bulldoze through and disconnect black neighborhoods so that white people from the burbs can get into and out of the CBD faster it becomes racist. 

[Brisketexan 105,116]

Just now, elfenix said:

highway construction isn't inherently racist.  but when planners again and again choose to bulldoze through and disconnect black neighborhoods so that white people from the burbs can get into and out of the CBD faster it becomes racist. 

Yep.

I mean, shit, knives aren't racist, but if Kalvin Kliff Klansman uses one to stab only black people, and not white people....then THAT'S racist.

[TwiceHorn 31,457]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Absolutely.  And maybe that's an argument for pity, and maybe it's merited.  But it doesn't dictate a course correction.  Some people are going to be left behind.  So be it.  There are plenty of people still around who think interracial marriage should be illegal.  They have been left behind.

Well, yeah.  Some things that I was kind of "raised with" -- I want to take pains to note that  my parents were not intentionally racist or determined to instill conservative values -- have been tilted on their axis in the last few years.  Like some conservative positions that I didn't think were primarily racist probably are.

You can either double-down or re-think.  I have had to re-think.  Example:  I have always thought affirmative action was kind of tricky, and it is.  For a while there, I thought either it had served its purpose or that the inevitable "reverse discrimination" required that it be undone, or both.  That wasn't racially motivated on my part, but I have come to understand, after rethinking it, that it is probably necessary and it hasn't outlived its usefulness and that any reverse discrimination is an acceptable byproduct of its purpose.

The alternative is to double down on it and that starts becoming outright racist or requires some other immorality or wholesale lack of empathy.

But having to re-think these things has definitely been uncomfortable.  I have the benefit of knowing how and having the inclination to research things and go beyond what the media -- and God-forbid social media -- spoon feeds me in order to re-think my positions.  Not everyone has the wherewithal to do that, either "natively" or because of their lack of education and exposure.  To a certain extent, they are pitiable victims.

[Brisketexan 105,116]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, yeah.  Some things that I was kind of "raised with" -- I want to take pains to note that  my parents were not intentionally racist or determined to instill conservative values -- have been tilted on their axis in the last few years.  Like some conservative positions that I didn't think were primarily racist probably are.

You can either double-down or re-think.  I have had to re-think.  Example:  I have always thought affirmative action was kind of tricky, and it is.  For a while there, I thought either it had served its purpose or that the inevitable "reverse discrimination" required that it be undone, or both.  That wasn't racially motivated on my part, but I have come to understand, after rethinking it, that it is probably necessary and it hasn't outlived its usefulness and that any reverse discrimination is an acceptable byproduct of its purpose.

The alternative is to double down on it and that starts becoming outright racist or requires some other immorality or wholesale lack of empathy.

But having to re-think these things has definitely been uncomfortable.  I have the benefit of knowing how and having the inclination to research things and go beyond what the media -- and God-forbid social media -- spoon feeds me in order to re-think my positions.  Not everyone has the wherewithal to do that, either "natively" or because of their lack of education and exposure.  To a certain extent, they are pitiable victims.

Excellent post.  And re-thinking and broadening your perspective is key.  A lot of that came to me via experience, some voluntary and some involuntary.  I just saw more of the world, more of the people around me, and really had to get into and experience their lives (I don't want to make it sound like I even came close to understanding their daily experiences -- I just learned a whole lot more about them than I knew before).  If you are willing to see and absorb that perspective, it can't help but make you re-think.  A lot of what I've seen knocked me on my ass, and made me realize how little I really knew before.  It's a humbling exercise.

And there are a lot of things about me from my past that I've come to recognize were racist or carrying some other prejudicial baggage.  None of it ON PURPOSE -- I never had the goal of being racist, quite the opposite.  But that makes it even harder to change -- after all, I didn't intend to be racist, I'm NOT racist, so to imply that I am still acting in a racist way and need to change my ways implies that I'm lying/challenges my integrity.  So, if I am at all fragile about myself, I don't want to face that truth.  It's uncomfortable, and embarrassing, and shameful.  But if we don't face those truths, we won't improve.

I want this country to be better not because I hate it, but because I love it.  I want myself to be better not because I am self-loathing, but because I am honest and acknowledge that my life will be a road to being better, but I'll never reach the ultimate destination.  I want my country to be better for my fellow man because WE the people matter, and if some of us are facing challenges and pain because of systemic and structural failures, then we owe it to our fellow man to fix those.  And yes, I get irritated and angry at those who resist those, often starting from a position of "if you don't like it, then LEAVE."

Edited June 15, 2020 by Brisketexan

[TwiceHorn 31,457]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.  And re-thinking and broadening your perspective is key.  A lot of that came to me via experience, some voluntary and some involuntary.  I just saw more of the world, more of the people around me, and really had to get into and experience their lives (I don't want to make it sound like I even came close to understanding their daily experiences -- I just learned a whole lot more about them than I knew before).  If you are willing to see and absorb that perspective, it can't help but make you re-think.  A lot of what I've seen knocked me on my ass, and made me realize how little I really knew before.  It's a humbling exercise.

And there are a lot of things about me from my past that I've come to recognize were racist or carrying some other prejudicial baggage.  None of it ON PURPOSE -- I never had the goal of being racist, quite the opposite.  But that makes it even harder to change -- after all, I didn't intend to be racist, I'm NOT racist, so to imply that I am still acting in a racist way and need to change my ways implies that I'm lying/challenges my integrity.  So, if I am at all fragile about myself, I don't want to face that truth.  It's uncomfortable, and embarrassing, and shameful.  But if we don't face those truths, we won't improve.

I want this country to be better not because I hate it, but because I love it.  I want myself to be better not because I am self-loathing, but because I am honest and acknowledge that my life will be a road to being better, but I'll never reach the ultimate destination.  I want my country to be better for my fellow man because WE the people matter, and if some of us are facing challenges and pain because of systemic and structural failures, then we owe it to our fellow man to fix those.  And yes, I get irritated and angry at those who resist those, often starting from a position of "if you don't like it, then LEAVE."

Yeah, just experience with people and life wiped out most of my social conservatism quite some time ago.  Some of the more policy oriented things took more work.

And having the Trumpists "double down" on stuff so often has exposed to me what some of those policies may be all about.  I think there are still some people of good will supporting certain policies that I now find distasteful and wrong, but the origination of them, and a lot of support for them, comes from a place that simply is not of good will.

[BradInATX 9,208]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, just experience with people and life wiped out most of my social conservatism quite some time ago.  Some of the more policy oriented things took more work.

And having the Trumpists "double down" on stuff so often has exposed to me what some of those policies may be all about.  I think there are still some people of good will supporting certain policies that I now find distasteful and wrong, but the origination of them, and a lot of support for them, comes from a place that simply is not of good will.

Yeah, well said. Like hayden said, there's a lot of these guys running around the board that do the whole coded low-level racism thing. These are guys that we sit next to at UT football games. We probably play golf or poker with them, have them as neighbors that we invite to our BBQs, or even have them as good friends (I have plenty of good friends that are Trump people). 

I think the clarity for me that's emerging is that most of the people that I know that fit that sort of mold are generally good people, I wouldn't call them overtly racist, they have PoC friends, and aren't hateful. But they are gravely concerned with keeping the status quo that has been so good to them and their familes over the years, decades, and centuries. They see it as a zero-sum game, and you end up with a lot of mental gymnastics and flailing around the fact that, simply put, they don't want to share what's "theirs". And I think many of them believe the American way of life is "theirs" to determine and protect.

Sometimes it's hard to reconcile. On one hand I think most of my social circle that fits the above are pretty good folks. On the other, you realize they're at best passively supporting the continued oppression of others in order to preserve said status quo.

I guess I wonder if they have room in their ideal America for minorities who are truly equal to them. And that's where I struggle to really judge people's hearts right now in the Trump era.

Wulaw is a good example of this, and he even basically said it straight up, which I respect him for. His concern is about losing the status quo. It's not an overtly racist stance. But the results of said stance definitely promote racism and imbalance, whether intentional or not. Especially when the smart people like Wulaw get all the hillbillies who don't have any concept of nuance all worked up along side of them.

Edited June 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[Mdhorn 5,949]

2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

I was finishing up a paper last night for a psychology class and part of it was about George Kelly. I am not here to argue the merits of his Social Construct Theory, but part of it resonated to me with what we are seeing from the cult supporters. The construct they have built for themselves with which they have lived their life around is now not only being stamped out, but they are being left behind and told they are flat out wrong in how they view things. They feel threatened to see their own personal construct and view of life come under assault. I do not feel bad for them, but reading his theory makes me better understand why Dotard’s supporters are going down with the ship instead of adjusting their own construct to a world that is changing by the minute in a positive way for millions of people who deserve it. It is easier to cling to the comfort of what you know instead of progressing forward and re-thinking long held wrong-headed views that are now becoming extinct.

But these people with their personal constructs aren't under assault.  Their constructs for other people are.  Their lives don't have to change much--they already probably self isolate in a community to their demographic in the burbs. Remember how they preach that federal government is too powerful and wants to control every aspect of our daily life?  Any guesses who else does? These f'g hypocrites.  The same people that are strict Constitutionalists except for the parts they disagree with.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Wulaw Horn 19,069]

4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

well, see, this is the biggest thing: @Wulaw Horn initiated a good faith discussion, and was met with good faith discussion. this is why i don't think this subforum is as much of a cesspool as everyone else thinks. it only turns into one when people come in without good faith.

and that does go for #bothsides

It’s a cesspool. I’ve never not initiated a good faith discussion in my life. I’ve been called a liar. A cunt. A nazi. A racist. Some other really vile shit that I blocked out of my mind. A whole shit load of other things. It’s bullshit echo chamber nonsense by and large that’s not particularly worth the time to engage in. And I say that as someone who likes to talk politics in my real life with anyone who isn’t a moron and who is willing to listen and not intentionally run to consider the worst case scenario. 

Which sucks because I like talking to a lot of people here that I don’t particularly agree with, but it’s drown out by the bad faith bomb throwers more or less 

all that said I check my notifications and if you whistle me up and it’s not on bad faith I’m happy to respond. 

[David Dennison 18,856]

When do the autos-da-fé start?

[BradInATX 9,208]

No need, I think they're self-immolating

 

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,233]

10 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

General discussion on changes in online discussion over the past decades immediately prompts the mindless "white conservatives don't care about brown people" reflex.  This simple rhetorical tactic is employed because it can be employed by anyone without giving any thought or effort at all.  If you attack the moral character and intentions of the messenger, you don't even need to address their points. 

The white liberals love the brown people of the world so much.  They are their righteous guardians and protectors.  Except they didn't care to protect them from drone strikes during the Obama years.  And they seldom address the largest factor impacting the black community, which is fatherless/single parent households.  And they care so much about the ~100k brown people who will die from CV in the US, but they don't care about the 500K brown people who die every year from malaria that could largely be prevented with simple things like mosquito nets.  It's almost as if they only care about brown people when it is politically expedient for them to do so.  

So - both sides?

[Wulaw Horn 19,069]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So - both sides?

When the rubber meets the road how many of us care about our brother the way that we should?  

Actually it’s kind of a human survival mechanism I’d argue. There is so much pain and injustice and awfulness in a world with 8 billion people that nobody can do anything to turn the tide. If you were fully cognizant and aware of it at all times you’d be a basket case unable to leave the house and live your own life. 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Irieguy 1,059]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I think things that are more nebulas can get people to not come in fangs out. Also being civil helps.

If we start talking about certain politicians, no matter who they are, people will come in with walls up to defend thier side.

There is only one Nebula.

[gmr548 16,576]

On 6/11/2020 at 9:09 PM, Sbbruin said:

 I would honestly like to hear a clear explanation of his position. 

"Orange chode yummy."

$9.95 plz

[Gatorubet 30,233]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s a cesspool. I’ve never not initiated a good faith discussion in my life. I’ve been called a liar. A cunt. A nazi. A racist. Some other really vile shit that I blocked out of my mind. A whole shit load of other things. It’s bullshit echo chamber nonsense by and large that’s not particularly worth the time to engage in. And I say that as someone who likes to talk politics in my real life with anyone who isn’t a moron and who is willing to listen and not intentionally run to consider the worst case scenario. 

Which sucks because I like talking to a lot of people here that I don’t particularly agree with, but it’s drown out by the bad faith bomb throwers more or less 

all that said I check my notifications and if you whistle me up and it’s not on bad faith I’m happy to respond. 

If you support the GOP, you support Russia interfering in our elections and Mitch and Trump denying it and not reacting and protecting our very essence of a democracy.     If you support the GOP, you support the usurpation and politicization of the Justice Department by a political shill.    If you support the GOP, you support an Impeachment trial that was not allowed to present witnesses and exhibits, and had the announced decision predetermined by Senators who violating their oath specifically not to do that.   What small points do you think it worth discussing civilly if you are an intelligent and well-read supporter of the GOP?  

I have no interest in hearing why Conservatives support Trump and the GOP in removing rules that protect people from heath care discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity during a pandemic.  I see no reason to be civil to a person advocating that, or even continuing to support the GOP and Trump, any more than I would care to hear from a person advocating segregation in a civil, cerebral way.

Rather, an intelligent and well-read and articulate GOP supporter is to be loathed the most - no?  Some mouth breather does not know any better.  That mouth breather may be a deplorable, but his well educated colleague is far, far worse.    That is my gut reaction, and I've had a few cocktails tonight again, which might be coloring my prose a bit.   That is not to say I would not engage in a discussion with Wulaw on some topics.     But I am not sure he 'gets' the fact that much of his conservative world viewpoint is not seen be me - and others - as a topics worthy of a neutral and purely academic discussion.   See the segregation analogy.

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

When do the autos-da-fé start?

I don’t know if The Mars Volta is still around. 

[gmr548 16,576]

33 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If you support the GOP, you support Russia interfering in our elections and Mitch and Trump denying it and not reacting and protecting our very essence of a democracy.     If you support the GOP, you support the usurpation and politicization of the Justice Department by a political shill.    If you support the GOP, you support an Impeachment trial that was not allowed to present witnesses and exhibits, and had the announced decision predetermined by Senators who violating their oath specifically not to do that.   What small points do you think it worth discussing civilly if you are an intelligent and well-read supporter of the GOP?  

I have no interest in hearing why Conservatives support Trump and the GOP in removing rules that protect people from heath care discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity during a pandemic.  I see no reason to be civil to a person advocating that, or even continuing to support the GOP and Trump, any more than I would care to hear from a person advocating segregation in a civil, cerebral way.

Rather, an intelligent and well-read and articulate GOP supporter is to be loathed the most - no?  Some mouth breather does not know any better.  That mouth breather may be a deplorable, but his well educated colleague is far, far worse.    That is my gut reaction, and I've had a few cocktails tonight again, which might be coloring my prose a bit.   That is not to say I would not engage in a discussion with Wulaw on some topics.     But I am not sure he 'gets' the fact that much of his conservative world viewpoint is not seen be me - and others - as a topics worthy of a neutral and purely academic discussion.   See the segregation analogy.

I am with you on this in general. The example I use is Dan Patrick and Donald Trump vs. Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz. The former two are just that shit-for-brains stupid. Dumber than rocks. They suck, but they are what they are, and most people see that. The latter two are not idiots. They know exactly what they are doing. Now, Cruz is loathed too because he has the charisma of a rectal thermometer, but they could be so much more than what they are. But they choose to abdicate leadership to hold on to power. Fuck them.

 

 

[Celery Man 20,943]

I’m sure someone had made this point but we’re just about at 120,000 dead Americans and may be just about to see the damage start in earnest in many parts of the country. The reason that it is this bad, worse than anywhere else, is because a large minority of the country no longer believes in facts, science, experts, and things of that nature. The reason for this is because that minority has been hoodwinked by a ludicrous charlatan who has destroyed their sense of reality and they are largely too far down the path to find their way out without an awakening like Saul on the road to Damascus. They don’t have “differing opinions” that deserve to or even can be treated with respect. I’m sorry (not sorry) if being a fucking idiot hurts your feelings. Knock it off.

[BradInATX 9,208]

12 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s a cesspool. I’ve never not initiated a good faith discussion in my life. I’ve been called a liar. A cunt. A nazi. A racist. Some other really vile shit that I blocked out of my mind. A whole shit load of other things. It’s bullshit echo chamber nonsense by and large that’s not particularly worth the time to engage in. And I say that as someone who likes to talk politics in my real life with anyone who isn’t a moron and who is willing to listen and not intentionally run to consider the worst case scenario. 

Which sucks because I like talking to a lot of people here that I don’t particularly agree with, but it’s drown out by the bad faith bomb throwers more or less 

all that said I check my notifications and if you whistle me up and it’s not on bad faith I’m happy to respond. 

 

This is not a good look. It makes it appear that you were looking to proselytize at us rather than have a discussion. Nobody on this thread called you a cunt or a nazi. You lamented the lack of discussion between sides and several people engaged in good faith with you and told you why in today's climate, voices of conservatives who got us where we are today are not really something that we care to entertain right now.

It feels like you were looking for us to get our pom poms out for you and make you feel better about being a small part of the environment that led us to where we're at today, simply because you're a smart enough person to be a never-Trumper. 

It's not that simple, and the taking your ball and going home play is lame and stinks of safe-spacery.

Edited June 16, 2020 by BradInATX

[Wulaw Horn 19,069]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

This is not a good look. It makes it appear that you were looking to proselytize at us rather than have a discussion. Nobody on this thread called you a cunt or a nazi. You lamented the lack of discussion between sides and several people engaged in good faith with you and told you why in today's climate, voices of conservatives who got us where we are today are not really something that we care to entertain right now.

It feels like you were looking for us to get our pom poms out for you and make you feel better about being a small part of the environment that led us to where we're at today, simply because you're a smart enough person to be a never-Trumper. 

It's not that simple, and the taking your ball and going home play is lame and stinks of safe-spacery.

I’m taking about in general why I have no desire to engage. I speak when spoken to now. This doesn’t seem like some great crime. It seems like a logical self preservation step and response to extreme and unneeded vitriol. I don’t want to go through life riled up and unhappy. That’s what happens for me when people choose to respond to me as if I’m pond scum and I’d posit it’s a normal human reaction that most people behave accordingly. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m taking about in general why I have no desire to engage. I speak when spoken to now. This doesn’t seem like some great crime. It seems like a logical self preservation step and response to extreme and unneeded vitriol. I don’t want to go through life riled up and unhappy. That’s what happens for me when people choose to respond to me as if I’m pond scum and I’d posit it’s a normal human reaction that most people behave accordingly. 

 

I think you're being a little thin skinned. I was really the only one that threw bombs at you here, and I apologized for that and walked it back a bit. All I'm saying is that, at least in my opinion, what you're calling "responding to you as if you're pond scum" is more just people disagreeing with what you're saying. It feels like there's an expectation that you should be appreciated and lauded for being a never-Trumper (which seems to be common in a lot of never-Trump Republicans). 

The expectation that we should revel in the magnanimity of a never-Trumper and subsequent defensiveness and persecution complex when we don't reeks of privileged white guy who was never told no. And to be fair and transparent, I'm kinda a privileged white guy who was never told no myself. I'd guess that most frequent posters on this board are too.

Anyway. Stick around. There are some people who take the other side that I like on this board. Anastasis is a solid poster, and I even like GRHorn most of the time. You as well, even though we've butted heads a few times.

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by BradInATX

[G650 14,254]

That's honestly very well put Brad.

[wildcat09 29,353]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

I think you're being a little thin skinned. I was really the only one that threw bombs at you here, and I apologized for that and walked it back a bit. All I'm saying is that, at least in my opinion, what you're calling "responding to you as if you're pond scum" is more just people disagreeing with what you're saying. It feels like there's an expectation that you should be appreciated and lauded for being a never-Trumper (which seems to be common in a lot of never-Trump Republicans). 

The expectation that we should revel in the magnanimity of a never-Trumper and subsequent defensiveness and persecution complex when we don't reeks of privileged white guy who was never told no. And to be fair and transparent, I'm kinda a privileged white guy who was never told no myself. I'd guess that most frequent posters on this board are too.

Anyway. Stick around. There are some people who take the other side that I like on this board. Anastasis is a solid poster, and I even like GRHorn most of the time. You as well, even though we've butted heads a few times.

 

@Anastasis is bad, actually.

[BradInATX 9,208]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

@Anastasis is bad, actually.

 

You gotta tune out the about 20% of his posts where he's being a troll or intentionally disingenuous. He does it in such a nuanced and subtle way, though, that I appreciate the craftsmanship. The other 80% is usually good.

Edited June 16, 2020 by BradInATX

[Fozzz 152]

I'm beginning to suspect that the fact that we are conditioned to mediate all forms of observable oppression in our society through the lens of race does more work for the ruling elite than does the racism itself.  Had chattel slavery never taken hold in this country things may be a little better than they are currently but things would by-and-large be the same.

[David Dennison 18,856]

Just now, Fozzz said:

I'm beginning to suspect that the fact that we are conditioned to mediate all forms of observable oppression in our society through the lens of race does more work for the ruling elite than does the racism itself.  Had chattel slavery never taken hold in this country things may be a little better than they are currently but things would by-and-large be the same.

Slavery and racism certainly had an impact on who became the ruling elite.

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Slavery and racism certainly had an impact on who became the ruling elite.

It had an impact on a lot of things but even if not a single slave had ever reached our shores you can bet your ass there would still be a ruling elite and it would reproduce itself in largely the same manner that it does currently.

[David Dennison 18,856]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It had an impact on a lot of things but even if not a single slave had ever reached our shores you can bet your ass there would still be a ruling elite and it would reproduce itself in largely the same manner that it does currently.

And people say we don't need confiscatory taxes.

[G650 14,254]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

there would still be a ruling elite and it would reproduce itself in largely the same manner that it does currently.

But that isn't really an issue. Racial disparity and the breadth of the gap in the elite and the masses are however.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, G650 said:

But that isn't really an issue. Racial disparity and the breadth of the gap in the elite and the masses are however.

Well, this sentiment is precisely the problem I was targeting in my first post.  Simply reshuffling the deck, if that were even possible, isn't going to reduce the amount of immiseration in our society.  All it could do, and this is what I believe liberals are really after, is to further legitimize that immiseration.

[G650 14,254]

16 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Well, this sentiment is precisely the problem I was targeting in my first post.  Simply reshuffling the deck, if that were even possible, isn't going to reduce the amount of immiseration in our society.  All it could do, and this is what I believe liberals are really after, is to further legitimize that immiseration.

 

Well I've never really been called a liberal in the modern American sense, but no, I'm not aiming to legitimize anything. The gap between top and bottom has stretched too wide, and the bottom has gotten too numerous, or the top too narrow depending on how you want to characterize it, and the artificial reasons we have used to place some people in the bottom are at issue. So this needs to be address or society is going to keep collapsing.

[lemonlime 5,503]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m taking about in general why I have no desire to engage. I speak when spoken to now. This doesn’t seem like some great crime. It seems like a logical self preservation step and response to extreme and unneeded vitriol. I don’t want to go through life riled up and unhappy. That’s what happens for me when people choose to respond to me as if I’m pond scum and I’d posit it’s a normal human reaction that most people behave accordingly. 

Yes, it is, but you seem to be only worried about whoever it is that is calling you "pond scum."  And you're quiet the rest of the time.  And this may be a more in person issue, with people I know in real life, than with anonymous message board posters who can choose what they feel like responding to.  But, for example, I will not forget that the head of the Republican party called me a "bad Jew."  Nor will I forget all those so called "good people" who didn't say a word about it, while either supporting Trump or voting Republican and avoiding talk of Trump.  And to be clear I'm far angrier about other things, including imprisoning brown children, gassing protestors for a photo op, and lying about Covid.    But, when I see these "good people" I can't forget their contempt, and I have zero desire to debate the intricacies of, say, health care policy.

You seem very concerned for your own preservation, while ignoring the reactions of the people being shit on by the 2020 GOP.

Edit to add because not sure I stated it very well before, but unless you're a white, straight, Christian man in this country, the GOP/Trump has found a way to shit on you, and it is personal, and support for Republicans is personal.

Edited June 16, 2020 by lemonlime

[Wulaw Horn 19,069]

5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

 

I think you're being a little thin skinned. I was really the only one that threw bombs at you here, and I apologized for that and walked it back a bit. All I'm saying is that, at least in my opinion, what you're calling "responding to you as if you're pond scum" is more just people disagreeing with what you're saying. It feels like there's an expectation that you should be appreciated and lauded for being a never-Trumper (which seems to be common in a lot of never-Trump Republicans). 

The expectation that we should revel in the magnanimity of a never-Trumper and subsequent defensiveness and persecution complex when we don't reeks of privileged white guy who was never told no. And to be fair and transparent, I'm kinda a privileged white guy who was never told no myself. I'd guess that most frequent posters on this board are too.

Anyway. Stick around. There are some people who take the other side that I like on this board. Anastasis is a solid poster, and I even like GRHorn most of the time. You as well, even though we've butted heads a few times.

 

I wasn’t talking about anything that happened on this thread man. I was talking about other interactions from the last month. 

Might you think being called vile and loathsome names is something that a healthy and well adjusted person should look to deal with then agree to disagree I guess. 

[F250 28,770]

This has been an interesting thread. Now I am going to go to the Steel Shank thread and discuss the importance of healthy eating.

 

[workswithseed 2,103]

23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you have to look at it from the perspective of "the other side."  They've tried to have a good-faith conversation for decades upon decades.  They've been patient, they've provided sound arguments....just to be met with bullheaded resistance, often backed by utterly disingenuous "reasons."  The call NOT to be divisive, and NOT to create friction between factions, is not credible when its underlying message is "don't rock the boat, and stop making me uncomfortable."  

Am I being divisive when it comes to racist shitheads?  You bet your ass I am.  I'm done with compromises like "we'll free you from slavery, but impose a century+ of Jim Crow on your ass."  I believe in settling any and all of my cases when possible.  But sometimes, I just need to take the sonofabitch to trial and kick their asses.  It's up to the other side, and whether they'll actually be reasonable and accept reality.

You remind me of Dr. Cocteau from Demolition Man. You can't away peoples rights to be assholes.

[BradInATX 9,208]

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I wasn’t talking about anything that happened on this thread man. I was talking about other interactions from the last month. 

Might you think being called vile and loathsome names is something that a healthy and well adjusted person should look to deal with then agree to disagree I guess. 

 

We're talking about surly, right? Vile and loathsome is sort of the norm here, and well-adjusted is not.

[elfenix 34,238]

18 hours ago, Celery Man said:

The reason for this is because that minority has been hoodwinked by a ludicrous charlatan who has destroyed their sense of reality and they are largely too far down the path to find their way out without an awakening like Saul on the road to Damascus.

rush?

[Celery Man 20,943]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

rush?

ok, a series of ludacrous charlatans

[elfenix 34,238]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

ok, a series of ludacrous charlatans

all supported by the good old API

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

On 6/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, EMAWesome said:

Believe exactly like we do or you will be burned at the stake.  I briefly thought about staying out of the shit hole that is the Cloak Room because of this prevailing attitude but this whole groupthink plague is worth fighting against.  I know it's not a popular stance to take here but a man who was slightly smarter than even me once said  "Just because something is popular does not mean it is right and just because something is right does not mean it is popular." (Albert Einstein)

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,112]

Thanks Ron, now I’m going to have nightmares. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

49 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Thanks Ron, now I’m going to have nightmares. 

I don't know that we have any beef-based drinks or cocktails, do we?  But it needs vodka. And horseradish.

[elfenix 34,238]

I don't know that we have any beef-based drinks or cocktails, do we?  But it needs vodka. And horseradish.

Bloody bull

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Great thread from freaking Tom Nichols of all people on why the crying from Republicans about cancel culture and the culture war is absolute nonsense.

[Message Board User 12,395]

Thought this was an exceptionally relevant piece today and the range of signatories is impressive - David Frum, Gloria Steinem, Wynton Marsalis, Margaret Atwood, Zaid Jilani, Noam Chomsky, Kmele Foster, Salman Rushdie, Malcolm Gladwell, Garry Kasparov, and Fareed Zakaria among others.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,457]

15 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Thought this was an exceptionally relevant piece today and the range of signatories is impressive - David Frum, Gloria Steinem, Wynton Marsalis, Margaret Atwood, Zaid Jilani, Noam Chomsky, Kmele Foster, Salman Rushdie, Malcolm Gladwell, Garry Kasparov, and Fareed Zakaria among others.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

 

That's pretty good.

Really, I think one of the huge problems, both in advancing bad ideas and countering them, is the abbreviated platform of social media.

Bad, controversial, or provocative ideas can be presented in a non-obnoxious way, and they can be countered or debated in a non-obnoxious way.  Just not on many social media platforms.

I think even dumb people wouldn't "swallow" bad ideas so easily if they got hashed out with even the least bit of nuance.  Similarly, people would be less likely to want to suppress ideas or speech.

Instead, we get the marketplace of zingers and poo-flinging.

Edited July 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[washparkhorn 9,939]

33 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Thought this was an exceptionally relevant piece today 

Terrific letter.

If we don't talk to each other, we don't figure out how to heal these divides.

Glad you posted it for destiny's sake, if nothing else. 

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

41 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

This is undoubtedly true and quite disturbing. 

I think we presume humanity's march is always forward towards a more open society. Technology marches forward, but humanity has largely been left holding the rope and little else. We have become tribalistic - maintaining a tight control on information received and processed and basking in media silos that only bring good news and our political soap operas. That is not going to work for long. We are seeing fray on the edges already. And the pressure is still on.

The road to better days will require open conversations about ideas for the future. 

[Brisketexan 105,116]

Terrific letter.
If we don't talk to each other, we don't figure out how to heal these divides.
Glad you posted it for destiny's sake, if nothing else. 
 

Counterpoint: we have “talked to” and “treated fairly as members of society” people who are happy to tell you that minorities are inferior, black people are worthless n words, etc, for far too long. Tolerating evil allows it to fester and even flourish. Some shitheels need to be crushed.

There will be collateral damage. Such is the ugly nature of humanity.