Love Your Enemies

[Lhorn 4963]

13 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah it's still internet tough guy stuff from the safety of your keyboard.  There's an FB  VCU basketball fan site. 2 kids have just announced they're transferring.  One was a decent, if unspectacular starter, and the other a rising sophomore who was showing promise. "Fans" were saying good riddance, they were the worst players on the team, things like that.  I was amazed people would say shit like that about a couple kids who see those posts, and who have parents who visited those sites from time to time.

Maybe they’d feel better if we gave their coach back. 

[bernorange 8363]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:28 AM, TwiceHorn said:

...

Another thing he mentioned is that contemnacious shitposting actually causes a little dopamine hit.  It's a bit addictive.  People continue to do it even though they acknowledge on a conscious level that it's bad and they may even wish they didn't.

[bernorange 8363]

dup

Edited May 20, 2019 by bernorange

[Nivek 16986]

On 5/18/2019 at 7:26 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

This trend has been going on since about the time of the first Reagan election.  Partisanship has become the game over governing.

A great documentary on the Carter Ford election.  The difference is startling how people treated the opposing candidate, and the supporters of each party.  The fringes have pulled the center of each party away from each other.

Our own last discussion was a great example of perspective.  You insulted family and friends of mine whom have dedicated their lives, advanced their careers in government, some through clandestine operations and others in visible roles at the local level.  While you were OK hurling insults, you became incensed when I suggested your wife couldn't hack it.   This tactic of portraying ourselves as victims is at the core part of the issue.  The left has moved more to the center as the right has moved more to extremes.   The Republicans of old would not have allowed the NRA to dictate policy.  They supported logical conclusions about the environment and pollution.  They would not have to pretend to be hyper-Christian.   They did not shit all over the gun laws enacted in 1968 (supported by NRA) which had more opposition within the Democratic party than in the Republican Party.     

[GringoSalado 1652]

49 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Our own last discussion was a great example of perspective.  You insulted family and friends of mine whom have dedicated their lives, advanced their careers in government, some through clandestine operations and others in visible roles at the local level.  While you were OK hurling insults, you became incensed when I suggested your wife couldn't hack it.   This tactic of portraying ourselves as victims is at the core part of the issue.  The left has moved more to the center as the right has moved more to extremes.   The Republicans of old would not have allowed the NRA to dictate policy.  They supported logical conclusions about the environment and pollution.  They would not have to pretend to be hyper-Christian.   They did not shit all over the gun laws enacted in 1968 (supported by NRA) which had more opposition within the Democratic party than in the Republican 

This idea that the NRA is all powerful is some paranoid, naive bullshit. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by GringoSalado

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

43 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Our own last discussion was a great example of perspective.  You insulted family and friends of mine whom have dedicated their lives, advanced their careers in government, some through clandestine operations and others in visible roles at the local level.  While you were OK hurling insults, you became incensed when I suggested your wife couldn't hack it.   This tactic of portraying ourselves as victims is at the core part of the issue.  The left has moved more to the center as the right has moved more to extremes.   The Republicans of old would not have allowed the NRA to dictate policy.  They supported logical conclusions about the environment and pollution.  They would not have to pretend to be hyper-Christian.   They did not shit all over the gun laws enacted in 1968 (supported by NRA) which had more opposition within the Democratic party than in the Republican Party.     

I criticized the general slackness of gov't agencies. I never attacked any one individually, and I definitely didn't attack military or security agencies, but we all know how inefficient the military can be (the son, in the AF has talked about the issues he's seen in his branch).

I criticized the process, and stagnation of MANY gov't bureaucracy, not indiviuduals (nothing new there, but for some reason you took great offense to that pretty widely known fact).  You on the other hand did what you're accusing me of doing, by personally attacking my wife.   So you own that reality my man.

I know a great many people in gov't service (county, state and federal level folks) and most of them criticize it's problems just as I did. Sorry if reality doesn't meet your perceptions.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

58 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Our own last discussion was a great example of perspective.  You insulted family and friends of mine whom have dedicated their lives, advanced their careers in government, some through clandestine operations and others in visible roles at the local level.  While you were OK hurling insults, you became incensed when I suggested your wife couldn't hack it.   This tactic of portraying ourselves as victims is at the core part of the issue.  The left has moved more to the center as the right has moved more to extremes.   The Republicans of old would not have allowed the NRA to dictate policy.  They supported logical conclusions about the environment and pollution.  They would not have to pretend to be hyper-Christian.   They did not shit all over the gun laws enacted in 1968 (supported by NRA) which had more opposition within the Democratic party than in the Republican Party.     

The irony is strong in this post.  And then you had to go yay team (which is not to say I disagree with that aspect of it, but whyyyyy).

Edited May 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 16986]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The irony is strong in this post.  And then you had to go yay team (which is not to say I disagree with that aspect of it, but whyyyyy).

There were two parts.  One was that issuing a blanket insult was fine because the people being insulted are faceless (How it ties back to the discussion point).  The second part was in reference to the both-sides attempt about laying blame for the current political climate.   Did I really need to spell that out?

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The left has moved more to the center as the right has moved more to extremes.

Statements-- held beliefs-- like this exemplify why I think the original post is a hopeless wish. We can't even agree on why we disagree. It's all the other guy.

and that really should be @Nivek since he's the one that said it

Edited May 20, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Statements-- held beliefs-- like this exemplify why I think the original post is a hopeless wish. We can't even agree on why we disagree. It's all the other guy.

and that really should be @Nivek since he's the one that said it

I wasn't even going to address the whole false premise that the left has moved toward the center.  It's being pushed to the fringes more than the right.  THAT comment has been made even on the CNN's of the world.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

6 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Statements-- held beliefs-- like this exemplify why I think the original post is a hopeless wish. We can't even agree on why we disagree. It's all the other guy.

and that really should be @Nivek since he's the one that said it

How the fuck did that get attributed to me? 

I left this post out of CR for a reason.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

There were two parts.  One was that issuing a blanket insult was fine because the people being insulted are faceless (How it ties back to the discussion point).  The second part was in reference to the both-sides attempt about laying blame for the current political climate.   Did I really need to spell that out?

This thread isn't about "blanket insults."  It's about treating specific opponents with contempt in addition to arguing politics or policy.  It's a #bothsides® issue that you managed to take partisan.

And, just for clarification, stating that "government is inefficient" and dealing with government agencies is difficult as a result is an actual argument position.  It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be some of both.  People can and do argue that point without anonymity and without antagonism daily and have for decades.

In that particular argument, you personalized it and specifically condemned OB2.0's wife, when he did no such thing.  That is a classic example of what this thread is about.  Your taking that as an insult and then implying that OB2.0 engaged in victimhood is grand irony.

And, yes I understood that there were two points or aspects to your post, I specifically said I didn't disagree with what you said about the GOP, but it was quite unnecessary to the topic.

Edited May 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

42 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's being pushed to the fringes more than the right.

Maybe, maybe not-- I have an opinion, this isn't the place for it. 

[Armybrat 40911]

On 5/19/2019 at 8:32 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Surly at it's best...

 

On 5/19/2019 at 8:30 AM, Macanudo said:

Well, see all my ideas aren't 100% brilliant.   And some of them are alcohol fueled.  

Try the AARP Screwdriver....... Metamucil w/vodka. Works 100% of the time for me.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

Before I devolve into what this thread implicitly condemns (haha, get it!!!?!?), let me apologize.    I was vaguely annoyed at nivek for injecting partisan politics into the thread.

It's not just anonymity or ad hominem attacks, although those can be part of it.  It's contempt and dimissal of your rhetorical opponent.  It's "dunking on" your opponent.  It doesn't add anything to the debate, other than jollies for you and your side.

Another point Brooks made he summarized as "iron sharpens iron:"  Frequently, compromise positions are the best positions, both as a matter of "getting along" and as a matter of extracting and enacting the pithy, valid parts of each side of a polarized or polarizing argument.  When you shut down, by "dunking" on your opponent, you simply insure that each side retreats to their corner and echo chamber and reduce the likelihood of future productive engagement.

It's not a new thing, but some of the little insights Brooks had, I thought were valuable and/or provocative.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105336]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Before I devolve into what this thread implicitly condemns (haha, get it!!!?!?), let me apologize.    I was vaguely annoyed at nivek for injecting partisan politics into the thread.

It's not just anonymity or ad hominem attacks, although those can be part of it.  It's contempt and dimissal of your rhetorical opponent.  It's "dunking on" your opponent.  It doesn't add anything to the debate, other than jollies for you and your side.

Another point Brooks made he summarized as "iron sharpens iron:"  Frequently, compromise positions are the best positions, both as a matter of "getting along" and as a matter of extracting and enacting the pithy, valid parts of each side of a polarized or polarizing argument.  When you shut down, by "dunking" on your opponent, you simply insure that each side retreats to their corner and echo chamber and reduce the likelihood of future productive engagement.

It's not a new thing, but some of the little insights Brooks had, I thought were valuable and/or provocative.

 

What about the wild frustration that I've felt in recent years -- here, on other media, in personal interaction -- whereby one DOES try to engage in reasoned discussion....and that's dismissed out of hand as "well, that's your opinion."  Or, my favorite when pointing out an obvious piece of fake news (e.g., "Matthew McConaughey endorses Trump!"), the response is "well, you can't prove it DIDN'T happen!"

I suggest that the reason that we can't have a conversation based upon logic and reason and facts is because a large segment of our society has opted out of those norms altogether.  That's the underlying problem.  No facts or evidence will convince them of anything.  All we have LEFT is "dunking on people."  Shit, that's been my governing thesis for a while around here (ledge, scotch, etc.) -- once a dominant segment of our society opted out of reason-based discourse, there is no good ending to this story.

[Armybrat 40911]

Yeah, and I repeatedly was dissed & negged for expressing my opinions. Best thing I ever did on these inter webs (besides discovering the link to xhamster) was to abandon the effort to participate in any serious discussions with those people who are so full of vitriol.

My bp has dropped 20/20 since making that decision....... which made it easier to recover from the January health issue.

You young Turks (/racist) can continue with the tilting at windmills & such.  😉

[Brisketexan 105336]

No large segment in society was once capable but now have opted out of reason based discourse.   The percentage of the population capable of reason based discourse is at an all time high, in both total number and percentage of the population.  Literacy rates are as high as they've ever been, higher education rates are up, and there is strong "evidence to support the claim that IQ has been increasing substantially over time."  All measures of public education and reasoning skill have been trending positive over the past century - trends that continue today.  You are merely exposed to a higher number of hostile dogmatics than one would have encountered in times past.  This leads to a false nostalgia for an era that never existed. 

It’s not about ability. It’s about the choice not to engage in reason.

[Brisketexan 105336]

By percentage, do you think there are more obstinate people now than there used to be?  If so, do you have anything other than anecdotes to support that belief?  I think that a more reasonable explanation is that a new class of obstinate people did not suddenly emerge alongside the massive increase in education rates in society, but instead that one typically encounters more obstinate people (that they disagree with) today than they did prior to the internet.  

Actually, I think we’re at the opposite of a sweet spot when it comes to education (dunning Kruger and all that). You used to have an educated class, and a good number of folks who knew that they didn’t have all the answers, but would listen to folks like doctors and scientists. Now, folks with a little bit of education think they know MORE than scientists or doctors, because hey, I’m smart!

[Macanudo 13012]

In all seriousness....   This gets credited to Voltaire I think but "The best way to defeat your opponents argument is to know your opponents argument."   Civil discourse and discussion is such a lost art.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

In all seriousness....   This gets credited to Voltaire I think but "The best way to defeat your opponents argument is to know your opponents argument."   Civil discourse and discussion is such a lost art.

Isn't that pretty much the credo of lawyers everywhere ?

[TwiceHorn 31536]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, I think we’re at the opposite of a sweet spot when it comes to education (dunning Kruger and all that). You used to have an educated class, and a good number of folks who knew that they didn’t have all the answers, but would listen to folks like doctors and scientists. Now, folks with a little bit of education think they know MORE than scientists or doctors, because hey, I’m smart!

The latter is an interesting point.  Medicine, at least, has given us some massively bad information recently.  Remember the low fat, low cholesterol diet?  I can't immediately think of what science has done to lose public trust, maybe it's pharma, or Roundup, or something else.

Regardless, those who remain capable of engaging in debate should do so, without contempt.

[BrickHorn 18285]

On 5/17/2019 at 8:26 PM, RDCanecutter said:

Basically, nobody's read their Machiavelli. In The Prince, he advises his reader to either be completely polite to others, or else destroy them.

Unless your enemy has studied his Agrippa, which I have!

[Kennythetiger 9460]

3 hours ago, Armybrat said:

 

Try the AARP Screwdriver....... Metamucil w/vodka. Works 100% of the time for me.

This sounds horrible. A guy’d be likely to get drunk and shit himself. 

[Macanudo 13012]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Regardless, those who remain capable of engaging in debate should do so, without contempt.

That's the frustrating thing.   I can have some really enlightening conversations with people I disagree with if the idea of non-contempt occurs.  I very often learn something from their point of view.   I may not agree with it but I can learn.

 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

40 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

That's the frustrating thing.   I can have some really enlightening conversations with people I disagree with if the idea of non-contempt occurs.  I very often learn something from their point of view.   I may not agree with it but I can learn.

Veramente y e vero.

I'm also intrigued by the idea of giving up anonymity on the internet, but I think in the long run I'm going to have to oppose that idea simply because it would probably lead to me having to give up the fake identities I use in real life, too.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

4 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Veramente y e vero.

I'm also intrigued by the idea of giving up anonymity on the internet, but I think in the long run I'm going to have to oppose that idea simply because it would probably lead to me having to give up the fake identities I use in real life, too.

One thing that Brooks pointed out is that kids aren't anonymous on social media and they are the presumptive future or vanguard of it. 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

55 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

That's the frustrating thing.   I can have some really enlightening conversations with people I disagree with if the idea of non-contempt occurs.  I very often learn something from their point of view.   I may not agree with it but I can learn.

 

I find that it happens with some frequency, even on this shithole, because I'm mostly interested in what others have to say, even if I think they're insane in the brain.  Iron sharpens iron, or sometimes shapes it a different way.

 

And while politics and policy are important, I find people that get consumed by it are insufferable, on #bothsides® and I don't want to be that way or hang out with those people.  I tend to distrust those that post almost exclusively in CR.  I fear that they are the insufferables.

Edited May 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Helobious 9464]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And while politics and policy are important, I find people that get consumed by it are insufferable, on #bothsides® and I don't want to be that way or hang out with those people.  I tend to distrust those that post almost exclusively in CR.  I fear that they are the insufferables.

*Rant*  People super passionate about politics are no different than jersey wearing pro-sport superfans in my eyes. They both put an unhealthy amount of time, energy, and passion towards something they have little to no control over.

So someone thinks we should spend billions on a border wall. I don’t agree. Now what? What can either of us truly do to impact that situation? Cast one vote for someone that says they’ll do something about it? We could cast 1000 votes each and it wouldn’t make a fuck of a difference. Yet tons of people literally hate each other because they’re on different sides of the “political aisle”. Just because they feel differently about certain subjects. Even though the folks you hate are as powerless as you are. It’s so stupid. Ironically, a difference can better be made on politics at the local/community level, yet that’s the level people are least passionate about.

[GringoSalado 1652]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, I think we’re at the opposite of a sweet spot when it comes to education (dunning Kruger and all that). You used to have an educated class, and a good number of folks who knew that they didn’t have all the answers, but would listen to folks like doctors and scientists. Now, folks with a little bit of education think they know MORE than scientists or doctors, because hey, I’m smart!

Perhaps true but the relative intelligence of our current generation of educated class plays no small part in this (imo).

[workswithseed 2111]

On 5/18/2019 at 7:15 PM, Brisketexan said:

We’d like to think so. We’ve seen that it’s not true.

Give this society permission to be shamelessly racist, and it will run with that like a fucking greyhound. You’ll have a shitload of places and areas that become Jim Crow as hell.

Wasn't Jim Crow passed by legislation where you couldn't sell to blacks? 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

9 hours ago, Helobious said:

So someone thinks we should spend billions on a border wall. I don’t agree. Now what? 

Well, I can tell you what "now what" would have been when our grandparents were growing up. "I'll give you your wall and in exchange I want _______". Now it's "no you can't have your wall, I want ______ instead". 

Never mind the wall in the above example. I am not trying to debate walls or immigration restrictions yay or nay, just saying that there was a time in American politics when horse-trading was expected. Now the default position when either side approaches any issue is "our solution is X, no counter offers could work or should be discussed". Usually the counter offer is characterized in the worst possible terms, as well. Un-American. Racist. Whatever else you can think of that puts the subject outside the Overton window.

Not saying YOU are saying or thinking that. I am describing how politics seems to work in 2019 among the people debating it. There was plenty of incendiary rhetoric in, say, 1934, but at that time, there was also an expectation of compromise, both sides getting a little of what they want. I don't believe that exists any longer, and part of me wonders if it's by design. You can only be called a hateful bigot or an un-American socialist stooge for so long before you stop wanting to approach solutions as a blend of ideas and instead start wanting to hammer through something that not only satisfies you but comes at the expense of the person insulting you.

Edited May 21, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[Nivek 16986]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

This thread isn't about "blanket insults."  It's about treating specific opponents with contempt in addition to arguing politics or policy.  It's a #bothsides® issue that you managed to take partisan.

And, just for clarification, stating that "government is inefficient" and dealing with government agencies is difficult as a result is an actual argument position.  It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be some of both.  People can and do argue that point without anonymity and without antagonism daily and have for decades.

In that particular argument, you personalized it and specifically condemned OB2.0's wife, when he did no such thing.  That is a classic example of what this thread is about.  Your taking that as an insult and then implying that OB2.0 engaged in victimhood is grand irony.

And, yes I understood that there were two points or aspects to your post, I specifically said I didn't disagree with what you said about the GOP, but it was quite unnecessary to the topic.

Let's not conflate the issues here.  My disagreement with Onboard was not akin to demonizing him or his wife nor did I make a blanket statement about all people that prescribe to his political leanings.  Our disagreement is based on him using a broad stroke which he walked back a little bit.   He opened the door using his hearsay anecdote as evidence and I shut it; I hold no enmity towards him or his family.  Those who think this is ironic don't understand the concept.  

The GOP part was in response to Onboard's bothsides-ing.