They won't ever be separate things. That is my point.
"Hey non-trump voter: you should go out and vote in the elections because we need to get healthcare for everyone that needs it."
"Hey trump voter: you've proven to be an idiot and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince an idiot of obvious things. If you figure it out on your own then mazel tov."
"Hey trump voter: you've proven to be an idiot and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince an idiot of obvious things. If you figure it out on your own then mazel tov."
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, Steinman is so much more "civil" in his disrespect. Because that's what doubling-down on a Strawman argument that's already been disproven is (It was disproven in the NYT article, well before this discussion came to Halforums). It's disrespect masked in a layer of faux-civility, but a blatant logical fallacy being used to disparage the opposition is extremely disrespectful.
I'll take a heartfelt chewing out over faux-civility any day. At least when someone is willing to be openly pissed off, they're being honest.
Saying it's the left who started the "fuck civility" move in modern political discourse is utterly laughable.
Mind you, I prefer a conversation where both sides manage a bit of civility, and I do agree some things said here are over the line. I also think people are letting emotions cloud their thinking. But the way some on the right have been treating a LOT of people on the left is not just uncivil but far, far worse. There's a reason some on the left have let the gloves come off.
As for Trump voters - I can understand blotsfan's position. Easily most Trump voters who matter won't be swayed by logical and fair political discourse.
As for stienman: I look up to him as someone who manages to properly defend a whole lot of positions I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I haven't (also) been annoyed by his absolute defense of almsot everything done by Trump or his administration - it's absolutely right to defend "normal" conservative moves made by this admin and it's fair to be devil's advocate, but sometimes stien is defending some extremely unchristian policies for...What? Being oppositional?
As for this SC pick - the choice for a somewhat moderate right winger is tactically right. Democrats and the left will have a hard time demonizing him - and thus getting masses up in arms about it - while it still means Roe vs Wade is dead.
As for the American political system - it has been broken for a long time now, and Trumpism and the Tea Party are an exponent of it. It's hardly fair to call your current system a democracy anymore. But neither main party will ever meaningfully change the system, because they're the ones kept in charge. There are many different forms of Western democracies - France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Belgium all have wildly different rules - but practically anything is better than a de facto two party system where both parties can be controlled and swayed by absolute minorities.
As for formula, like I said earlier, I'm all in favor of keeping breast feeding as a primary choice, but yes, people using formula are heavily stigmatized in some layers and parts of society, and the pendulum really doesn't need to swing that far the other way. I never said I agreed with the US' opposition to the bill, quite the opposite.
Mind you, I prefer a conversation where both sides manage a bit of civility, and I do agree some things said here are over the line. I also think people are letting emotions cloud their thinking. But the way some on the right have been treating a LOT of people on the left is not just uncivil but far, far worse. There's a reason some on the left have let the gloves come off.
As for Trump voters - I can understand blotsfan's position. Easily most Trump voters who matter won't be swayed by logical and fair political discourse.
As for stienman: I look up to him as someone who manages to properly defend a whole lot of positions I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I haven't (also) been annoyed by his absolute defense of almsot everything done by Trump or his administration - it's absolutely right to defend "normal" conservative moves made by this admin and it's fair to be devil's advocate, but sometimes stien is defending some extremely unchristian policies for...What? Being oppositional?
As for this SC pick - the choice for a somewhat moderate right winger is tactically right. Democrats and the left will have a hard time demonizing him - and thus getting masses up in arms about it - while it still means Roe vs Wade is dead.
As for the American political system - it has been broken for a long time now, and Trumpism and the Tea Party are an exponent of it. It's hardly fair to call your current system a democracy anymore. But neither main party will ever meaningfully change the system, because they're the ones kept in charge. There are many different forms of Western democracies - France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Belgium all have wildly different rules - but practically anything is better than a de facto two party system where both parties can be controlled and swayed by absolute minorities.
As for formula, like I said earlier, I'm all in favor of keeping breast feeding as a primary choice, but yes, people using formula are heavily stigmatized in some layers and parts of society, and the pendulum really doesn't need to swing that far the other way. I never said I agreed with the US' opposition to the bill, quite the opposite.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I disagree with how you handle it, but that's your prerogative. Just don't be surprised when you alienate as many as you sway.
I think society as a whole would be better if instant runoff made parties obsolete altogether
I didn't say they started it, I just said what its pragmatic effect is.
Ever read the Tamuli trilogy by David Eddings? One of the states of the Empire had an interesting solution. When a person took public office, all of their holdings were put into a trust. You only made a profit if the state did as well. In practice, it was essentially a punishment to serve in politics. No one wanted the job.
GasBandit
Staff member
I have not read that. Maybe I should, it sounds interesting.
Dave
Staff member
He has stated that Roe v. Wade was settled law. It will probably not die with this guy.
It's only a couple of paragraphs of background for one of the new characters, but it's an interesting concept.
He basically summed up that whole part for you already.
It's blatantly unethical (not sure if explicitly illegal) and means that the Muslim ban court ruling has to be overturned this instant.
Granted it won't be, but you know, it should.
Your family and my family deserve to live closer to each other. No, really. You and Kati have SO much to talk about. You have no idea.
...but you'll have more of an idea soon, I promise.
Do we get to institute an honorary "Orange people aren't allowed to nominate judges" 300-day waiting period?
I do this already, but so far my artisanal voting practice has not had the influence I'd hoped.
You should read it anyway. It's worthwhile.
--Patrick
Last edited:
I seem to recall you mentioning how you cringe when you remember some opinions you used to hold. What makes you so sure that Trump voter won't change their opinions the way you did? And if you were treated with this level of rage back then do you think you still would have changed your mind, or would you have doubled down on your stupidity?
I mean "person becomes more liberal as they go through college" is practically a cliche. Most trump voters are past that point.
"Person becomes more and more liberal as they learn their world is larger than they expected" has been around at least since the mid-to-late-1800's, and has actually been supported by research.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Blotsfan has a point. Believing something out of ignorance is one thing. Stauchly defending a point with strawman arguments that you know are strawmen is something else entirely. Most people are willing to let their ignorance be remedied. Very few people who have reached the point of using logical fallacies intentionally are ever going to change their minds.
This is the foreignest alternate Earths I've ever slided into. But at least that means Trump couldn't get elected here.
I might just stick around.
figmentPez
Staff member
I knew I should have taken more care forming that sentence. Most people are willing to let at least some of their ignorance be remedied. (This is a statement that goes well beyond politics. Most people would like to know when they're ignorant of a way to save money. Point them to a better deal on something they want to buy, most will thank you.) People generally like to learn, if they haven't had their curiosity beaten out of them. The younger a person is, the more likely they are to be willing to have any specific area of ignorance remedied.
And yet they're more then willing to ignore this sort of stuff, but punish the other side for "incivility":
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010709101305847808
Also, maybe you should rethink your arguments a bit when you're repeating TD talking points...
Post automatically merged:
Weird how after 8 years of calling Obama a foreign born muslim commie fascist, the right didn't alienate as many as it swayed...
Which will never happen while you still have FPTP voting...I think society as a whole would be better if instant runoff made parties obsolete altogether
GasBandit
Staff member
Few people voted for Trump for Trump. As I said, a lot, people voted for a grenade that they wanted to throw at Capitol Hill, especially in response to the Obama Era.
"I'd like this room to be beige" "Well that will never happen while the room is orange."
Isn't that what I just said?
I don't know if you've noticed but gas loves to make the "I don't believe x, but here are numerous reasons why x is correct" argument. Abortion, gay marriage, discrimination...
For some reason though he can't "play devils advocate" when it comes to him disagreeing with a liberal policy. Weird, huh?
And what about the Obama era made them vote that way again?
Not to mention that, lets be honest, if Obama ran against him, he'd have won. Of course, so would have a lot of other people that didn't have the Benghazi investigation and that Comey letter working against them.
More like "Well that will never happen if you don't repaint the room."
GasBandit
Staff member
FTFY
How many of this board's communist/socialist/happy-face-fascists have I told to go fuck off in the last 5 years or so?
But you're also incorrect. I've done so numerous times, especially in discussions concerning things like socialized medicine and Bernie Sanders.
Also-also, I really "like" how you're incapable of any argument that doesn't turn into an ad hominem "well Gas is just a... " "Steinman always..." etc.
Dude, don't tell him what i'm implying, he'll just get mad and vote Trump to spite me or something.
Post automatically merged:
I too miss JCM...
How rude! Behave yourself or so help me I will send you so many birthday wishes you will be buried in a auburn grave.
You can tell me to fuck off if you want to. I'm a safe space.
I think this is really wishful thinking.
How about this. Don't play devils advocate ever again. Its a pointless endeavor. The devil doesn't need an advocate. He's the devil. Argue what you actually believe. Its difficult to "argue" something when you go on and on advocating one thing and then just turn around and say "oh well I don't actually think that."
*raises hand*
I like reading devil's advocating because it's often interesting and stimulating.
Though I acknowledge that I'm also far removed from the American political process so I get to experience it in an objective, detached manner, which probably means my experience reading devil's advocating is very different from the Americans on this forum.
I like reading devil's advocating because it's often interesting and stimulating.
Though I acknowledge that I'm also far removed from the American political process so I get to experience it in an objective, detached manner, which probably means my experience reading devil's advocating is very different from the Americans on this forum.
When a picture of a preschool refugee child standing alone in front of a judge is posted, the reaction of anyone who considers themselves a good parent, or someone with even trace amounts of humanity, should be THIS IS WRONG! Not, "Obama/Bush/Clinton did it first."
GasBandit
Staff member
I've argued my actual positions countless times. You're probably sick of hearing them over and over again. However, one position I definitely do have that I WILL argue at the drop of a hat is other people should be able to argue their positions without being told to fuck off. I don't care how much "bullshit" anyone thinks their rhetoric is. Frankly, I think you and @li3n are the unmitigated twin kings of sophomoric bullshit, but I continue to engage you in civil discourse... lord knows why.
I think the "don't play devil's advocate" was for everyone, or at least that's how I took it. I agree; it is pointless and I've seen it said on here many times, though I'm not sure if it's many people or just a couple.