|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2018 10:51:11 GMT -5
I mean, if you are actually being affected by extremist rhetoric, or if you are legitimately concerned about SJWs taking over the world or higher education or whatever, I get that and agree it’s the right thing to say, “Hey, that’s extreme. That’s not right or helpful. This is why.” And I dare say most people will agree with you. But, many times, I think ignoring the alt-left fringe is the smarter option. Like how conservatives don’t seem to spend half their time addressing, let alone mocking, the alt-right. One could make an argument (indeed, the argument has been made) that the fact that conservatives don't call out the alt-right much has allowed the alt-right to gain more influence in mainstream conservativism. Those who quietly agree with them can put on a moderate conservative face. In my real, day to day life, it's true, I don't have much contact with SJW craziness and I don't spend much time worrying about it. But I could turn the question around and ask why it bothers you so much that Opty and I go off on the alt-left fringe so much if you do not think they represent most liberals?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 29, 2018 11:24:35 GMT -5
Which is why, since you are an intelligent, well-spoken, liberally-minded person, I get so fucking irritated at your obsession with this. You don't think other liberals get irritated with extremists? They do. The vast fucking majority do, I'll bet my house. Extremists are a very small (though frustratingly attention-seeking) minority. People harping and hating because it makes them feel good to vent their spleen is just fanning the flames, and it's not an honest assessment of what's going on with the left. And saying "but I'm *only* talking about the far left" (which I do not believe you are, as I think you view the far left as most of the left, but I'll take your word for it) begs the question - WHY? What is the point of regularly bashing a small, non-representative segment of a group you are, as far as I know, still a member of? Because, as Amadan touched on, they are the loudest voice, the squeakiest wheel, the growing face of the party and, just like Trump's appauling, garbage-human behavior is pushing some people farther to the left, the increasing-in-volume lunacy of the far-left is pushing more people to the right. It's often said, and is my perception too, that the far-leftists view anyone who isn't as extreme as them as being on the right, and they attack them for it. If your child / family member was running around screaming, shitting in the corners, and setting fire to the house, would you just sit there silently and ignore it, or would you get off your ass and yell at them to stop? That's what I'm doing. The far-right right is the cold, uncaring superego. The far left is pure, unrestrained id. More rational people need to start telling them to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. We desperately need a viable third party that better fits the beliefs and supports the issues of the rational center (no, I don't believe the Libertarians fit this, no matter how much they'd like to think that they do). Until we get that, I'm going to continue to call out and push back against the awful behavior on my side of the political aisle in hopes that they don't totally burn our house down.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 29, 2018 11:36:59 GMT -5
This is just another example of the way things are heading in terms of civil discourse. And given my thread about the tone here on TCG, I'm sure you all know where I land on the map of the importance of civility. Doxxing is wrong. The alternative to doxxing is NOT doxxing. Suggesting civil discourse as a fix will likely fall on deaf ears. That said, I have noticed a strong increase in appeals for civility from conservatives in response to Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant and Nielsen getting heckled. I find this very hypocritical, since most of those conservatives have decidedly not, for the last almost two years, been appealing to their own president to engage civilly. In most cases, they make excuses for Trump's incivility. "He's a fighter" and "If you hit him he's gonna hit back" and "He's just telling it like it is" and other similar bravado-worshiping nonsense rhetoric. Trump's incivility is transparently about his own ego, but his supporters defend it. And yet, when people get angry and protest about children at the border being taken from their parents, put in cages, treated inhumanely, it's OH NO WAIT, LET'S BE CIVIL ABOUT THIS. The truth is, Trump revels in uncivil discourse. He participates in it, encourages it, loves it. And instead of recognizing this incivility as harmful, his base cheers it, and people like you--who do have a sense of its harmfulness and are, yourselves, civil--excuse it, rationalize it, or minimize it. Right up until the Dems are behaving badly, and then they get inordinately concerned with civility. I would have to disagree with that characterization of "people like me". I've never excused Trump's incivility. On several occasions on this board, I've called him an impulsive narcissistic blowhard (or something similar) and said I wish he would never Tweet, and I wish he would act more presidential. And I would say that Republicans like Paul Ryan or Steve Scalise and the like, who are reasonable and civil (and there are many like them), do the same and feel the same. Yet they, too, are frequently in the line of fire from uncivil attacks. (Or even shooters as in the case of the shooting at the baseball game where Scalise was badly injured.) However, I have excused my voting for Trump by saying I look at the macro more than the micro, and thus far I remain glad that Trump is in office vs Hillary. (See Iran deal, see appointing of judges (SCOTUS and other), see low unemployment, see tax reform, see dialogue with North Korea, see the travel ban, see pro-Israel action, etc.) I don't like how Trump sows divisiveness, and he does shoot himself in the foot constantly. But the extent of the rancor against him is not only due to his idiotic impulsive unkind behavior, but also due to the inability to accept that he won the election and is changing things. And in some of those cases, the attacks are either unfair or out of proportion to what he's done to "deserve it". (See references to Hitler, see Peter Fonda's tirade that wanted to throw Barron into a cage with pedophiles, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 29, 2018 12:05:35 GMT -5
I mean, if you are actually being affected by extremist rhetoric, or if you are legitimately concerned about SJWs taking over the world or higher education or whatever, I get that and agree it’s the right thing to say, “Hey, that’s extreme. That’s not right or helpful. This is why.” And I dare say most people will agree with you. But, many times, I think ignoring the alt-left fringe is the smarter option. Like how conservatives don’t seem to spend half their time addressing, let alone mocking, the alt-right. One could make an argument (indeed, the argument has been made) that the fact that conservatives don't call out the alt-right much has allowed the alt-right to gain more influence in mainstream conservativism. Those who quietly agree with them can put on a moderate conservative face. In my real, day to day life, it's true, I don't have much contact with SJW craziness and I don't spend much time worrying about it. But I could turn the question around and ask why it bothers you so much that Opty and I go off on the alt-left fringe so much if you do not think they represent most liberals? Good question. I’ll preface by saying it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to, back when Trump was first elected. More and more I usually don’t say anything, because I’ve learned to shrug it off, it’s not worth it, wiser to ignore (taking my own advice as it were). And also, after a few debates here – the one about Milo getting shut out from visiting that college campus comes to mind – I have taken people’s points. Believe it or not, I do consider them and occasionally adjust or at least tweak my position as a result. E.g. on the free speech issue. So, in this case I saw a fallacy in the original assertion or suggestion or whatever that was but apparently wasn’t. Still, I would not have bothered if Don and celawson hadn’t “liked” the post. Then I thought it deserved to be countered because “liberals so hysterical, conservatives so chill” is a big NOPE imo and more than one person was going there. And then I got irritated by the second post, natch. In my real life, I regularly deal with some serious right-wing batshittery. I try to refrain from bitching about it online, because it’s also pointless (except for getting a little short-term sympathy), and because I believe decent and at least somewhat rational conservatives far outweigh those who are overtly racist, sexist, homophobic worshipers at the altar of Cheeto Jesus. I think conservatives are wrong on a fuckton of things, for sure, but (and some might tell me I’m lying to myself) they are not evil, fascist, third-reichers, nor are they sympathizers of such. This all admittedly would have sounded a little better pre-Trumpism. I'm not sure I answered the question well enough, but that's where I'm at.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2018 12:38:04 GMT -5
I would have to disagree with that characterization of "people like me". I've never excused Trump's incivility. Oh please. Yes, you tut tut, but as long as he's not a Democratic, there is nothing he can say or do that would make you do more than tut tut. If every time we talked about how horrible some liberal celebrity was being, I did a "yeah-but-Trump-and-anyway-they're-just-a-celebrity-who-cares-what-they-think?" you would absolutely accuse me of excusing them.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 29, 2018 13:20:55 GMT -5
What should I be doing besides tut tutting?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 29, 2018 17:53:18 GMT -5
What should I be doing besides tut tutting? A valid question. If you like Trump's policies, nothing, I guess. I think the criticism is that at times you seem much more vehemently against liberal bad behavior, even when Trump objectively exhibits similar or even worse behavior. You're not alone in doing that. I'm absolutely sure I've done it myself. But intellectual honesty requires not doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2018 18:27:21 GMT -5
What should I be doing besides tut tutting? Stop whatabouting when other people say he's vile. Own that he's vile but you're okay with that because MAGA. Stop pretending that the vileness of Denocrats bothers you. I mean, you would still rather have Trump than Clinton in the White House, I get it. But you've lost any moral credibility when it comes to complaining about people being uncivil or polarizing. Trump is what he is. I don't think he's Hitler, but he's not the kind of Republican you claim to be, and you know that, you just prefer him to even the nicest Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 29, 2018 18:47:53 GMT -5
Because, as Amadan touched on, they are the loudest voice, the squeakiest wheel, the growing face of the party and, just like Trump's appauling, garbage-human behavior is pushing some people farther to the left, the increasing-in-volume lunacy of the far-left is pushing more people to the right. It's often said, and is my perception too, that the far-leftists view anyone who isn't as extreme as them as being on the right, and they attack them for it. Yes, they do that, but unless the far-leftists are actually the left, no one is going to bend to their extremity, so who fucking cares? (This is why I get the feeling that when you say far-left, you mean left.) It's like claiming neo-Nazis are taking over the Republican party. The only way either scenarios are possible is if these extremist groups actually have the power to sway the middle, or the normal left/right folks. And from what you and Amadan are claiming, they are doing the opposite: they are causing people on their side to move away from them, which is in both cases a good thing, right? Since moving away from an extreme is a move toward moderation, assuming they can find a home there. That said, I appreciate the WaPo link and your take on the matter. Call the extremists out if you deem it helpful. I won't argue unless it's a disagreement in substance.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 29, 2018 19:04:29 GMT -5
What should I be doing besides tut tutting? Stop whatabouting when other people say he's vile. Own that he's vile but you're okay with that because MAGA. Stop pretending that the vileness of Denocrats bothers you. I mean, you would still rather have Trump than Clinton in the White House, I get it. But you've lost any moral credibility when it comes to complaining about people being uncivil or polarizing. Trump is what he is. I don't think he's Hitler, but he's not the kind of Republican you claim to be, and you know that, you just prefer him to even the nicest Democrat. I don't really "whatabout" when people say he's vile. Have I done that recently? You always accuse me of that, but I just don't recall doing that as a standard method of arguing. If I do, it's to the extent that I think people are overreacting to some of Trump's behaviors. For instance, I think there's a difference between Trump calling Nancy Pelosi a mean nickname, and Maxine Waters calling for what she recently called for. Am I wrong about that? Yes, I wish Trump wouldn't do it, and I've said that, but on the other hand, there is a spectrum of incivility, therefore there should be a spectrum of outrage. What I admit to doing is coming up with what I think are plausible explanations for some of the things Trump does, when everyone is speculating on why and most of the speculations are the worst possible reasons he would do something. That's not whatabouting. Good grief -- I have MANY TIMES and even just above owned that he's vile (narcissitic impulsive blowhard that doesn't act presidential) but I DO ADMIT that I'm ok with that because I prefer his policies (for the most part) to Hillary's. Have you not read my multiple posts where I have said exactly that? Should I copy and paste where I said that in my prior post above? So I actually say Trump's behavior bothers me, but I'm pretending that the Democrats' behavior bothers me. Okaaaay. Honestly, if I think Hillary's policies would be more damaging to our country than Trump's, then I don't think I've lost moral credibility putting my country before some politeness. I haven't denied he behaves like an ass sometimes. But you know what? He doesn't ALWAYS. And his asslike behavior is more schoolyard immaturity than dangerous or evil. So yeah. Would you rather have an arrogant and jerk neurosurgeon who is the best in the country take out your spinal cord tumor or some reeeeaaalllly nice guy who barely graduated from an inferior medical school? When the outcome could be your paralysis. If you're a polite guy, I don't think that removes any of your credibility for liking politeness. Come on, Amadan, you need to up your game here. EDITED to add: I want to clarify above that I'm not ok with Trump's behavior, I'm ok with him being POTUS and with my vote for him. But again, I don't see what else I can do besides tut tut.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 29, 2018 22:13:11 GMT -5
I think, if you forfeit all rights to criticize bad behavior, no matter how vile, whether it be by a politician or an ordinary citizen, in perpetuity, starting now, you're good.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2018 10:07:41 GMT -5
Good grief -- I have MANY TIMES and even just above owned that he's vile (narcissitic impulsive blowhard that doesn't act presidential) but I DO ADMIT that I'm ok with that because I prefer his policies (for the most part) to Hillary's. Have you not read my multiple posts where I have said exactly that? Should I copy and paste where I said that in my prior post above?
I don't recall you ever admitting before that he was vile, just expressed some disappointment that he isn't always civil.
I think you make a lot of equivocations and excuses for Trump that you do not make for Democrats. But okay, I'll keep a closer eye on what you say about both henceforth.
If I actually believed that was a comparable situation, yes. I mean, if I had actually believed Trump would be a good president, I would have voted for him despite the "Grab 'em by the pussy" comments and other crap. And it's not like I thought Hillary Clinton would have been awesome. I thought they were both pretty terrible offerings. But I do not think Trump is in any way like someone who's the best in his field but happens to have a terrible personality. And I have a hard time believing you do either. Seriously, you think Trump was the best the Republican party had to offer? No, you just voted for him because any Republican would be preferable to any Democrat.
The point I have been making repeatedly is that I do not think you are intellectually consistent. You cheer when Trump does something you approve of, like we're all supposed to admit that we were wrong about him being terrible. How many times during Obama's administration did you think he did something right and admit it? When Trump behaves terribly, you feel obligated to defend him because everyone else is "overreacting." But when Democrats or liberals are caught behaving terribly, I can practically hear your pearls grinding together.
You are the most blatantly, kneejerk partisan person on this board. And I'm not saying that as an indictment, like you are not allowed to be a kneejerk partisan. But that's why whenever you "call out" Democrats or stand up for Trump, it's hard to treat it as something worth serious intellectual engagement, for the same reason that half the time I ignore, and the other half of the time I make some sarcastic comment, when Don finds some way in which whatever is going on anywhere in the world today is because of da gummint and not enough free markets. The difference being that Don can be insightful and argue a point meaningfully, as opposed to just reciting Reason and Cato Institute talking points, when he chooses to. Don occasionally forces me to think - you never really do, because you never really say anything that couldn't have been scrolling across the bottom of Fox News. I know you think that's unfair and you don't literally type what you see on Fox News, but when your opinions are essentially indistinguishable from GOP propaganda, of course they get reacted to the same way people react to obvious propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 30, 2018 11:06:45 GMT -5
At the same time, however, there is something of an "outrage standard" being applied by people who despise Trump, as a matter of course. Really Amadan, it's not unlike what you were talking about re some elements of the far left (which I think you have nailed). With Trump, some people--including people here--simply will not accept any criticism of Trump as meaningful criticism--or any disapproval of Trump as honest disapproval--unless it matches or at least approaches their own criticism/disapproval of the given Trump-related issue.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 30, 2018 11:28:41 GMT -5
I don't really care if you insult my "GOP partisan talking points". I think it's good that someone mentions these occasionally on this board, because they do occasionally have some merit and should be represented sometimes. The extent of anti-Trump bias goes beyond a sense of rationality a lot of the time. So yeah, I try to balance that a bit. But I DO care if you purposely mischaracterize what I'm saying, or accuse me of something I'm not doing ("whataboutism"), or have this totally incorrect idea of my bias against Obama or the Clintons (which you continually incorrectly characterize as '100 percent against 100 percent of time'), just because you think I'm too dumb to recognize what you're doing. Anyway, if I were soooo kneejerk partisan, I wouldn't be for amnesty for DACA recipients, or happy when SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage, or sympathetic to trans folks and the use of the bathroom matching their gender identification, or disliking attacks on Hillary as a woman or as a wife who stood by her husband, or complimenting Obama's character and tone and bearing as POTUS, or agreeing when he commuted sentences of drug offenders or repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell". So maybe you can take a look at your own knee jerk biases about posters on this board and try to be a little more objective.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2018 11:33:39 GMT -5
Anyway, if I were soooo kneejerk partisan, I wouldn't be for amnesty for DACA recipients, or happy when SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage, or sympathetic to trans folks and the use of the bathroom matching their gender identification, or disliking attacks on Hillary as a woman or as a wife who stood by her husband, or complimenting Obama's character and tone and bearing as POTUS, or agreeing when he commuted sentences of drug offenders or repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell". So maybe you can take a look at your own knee jerk biases about posters on this board and try to be a little more objective.
That has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I never thought you were against gay marriage or trans people or that you think misogynistic attacks on Hillary were okay. I think you're a kneejerk unreflexive Republican with a self-image as a nice person, not a member of the alt-right.
|
|