As I said before, I'm happy to drop this line of discussion, because everything that needs to be said, has been said- at least until the next topic comes up.
Please read my previous posts, particularly the link in this one.
"Reaganomics." Wow, the autocorrect actually recognizes that's a word. But it doesn't recognize "autocorrect". Heh.
Yeah welcome to 2016.
Also I think debating things has run its course in the sense I feel the undead horse is now a pile of dust.
|
I would be happy to drop it KC, good point.
I would like to clear one thing up however. The other day, this exchange occurred:
My statement to Scott was due top his insulting "right wingers", NOT "racists, misogynists, and bigots'. Anyone is free to insult racists, misogynists, and bigots all they want, although the policy of these boards is to flag it and move on. Blatantly insulting the 33-50% of people who might be on the right in the political spectrum is not OK in my opinion, and is not what good political discussions or inclusive communities are made of.
This post received several 'likes', however I feel my part in it has been misunderstood, although I could be wrong.The "deplorables" quote was in reference to racists, misogynists, and bigots; not "people who don't share my political ideology."If you think the reaction to "deplorables" was bad, just imagine what it would have been like if right-wingers had looked "deplorable" up in a dictionary!I think it is that kind of "people who don't share my political ideology are stupid!" statements that turn people from supporting a position to voting against people who insulted them.Perhaps I am wrong, and people on the right are truly not welcome here, but I would like to think we can include people, even if we don't all agree on politics.
With that said, I will happily drop the truth/multitudes stuff.
It's already been said way before on this thread that those whom follow a similar political orientation to those like me don't belong here.
*those who follow
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
*Walks out behind woodshed*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's already been said way before on this thread that those whom follow a similar political orientation to those like me don't belong here.
I hope that is the opinion of a single poster, and not representative of the community as a whole, but I honestly don't know.
My personal opinion is that everyone is welcome (assuming they follow the community guidelines), and I would rather hear from someone who disagrees with me, because I might just learn something.
EDIT: I would also remind everyone that the moderation staff have been dealing with some heavy business for several days, which is like 1,000 posts in the Election Thread. I would like to have a friendly at least non-hostile discussion, because I think the mods are probably questioning the value of controversial threads, and ditching politics from the boards altogether would mean less stress for them. I personally like the controversial stuff, but it can't get personal, or things go to s@&$.
|
|
It's already been said way before on this thread that those whom follow a similar political orientation to those like me don't belong here.It may well have been, but I'm curious which post you're thinking of and if we would interpret it differently.
Somewhere in this thread that should have been locked 60 pages back. Possibly Buglyman said it or some one else when discussing "conservative" ttrpg players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really.*those who follow
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
*Walks out behind woodshed*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not refer to kobolds with "it", good sir and/or/nor madam.
;(
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to be clear, as my post at the bottom of Page 65 probably skirted the lines of not being deleted.
I don't think that all right-wing people are bigoted. I do think that the core right-wing philosophy relies on bigoted principles, but a lot of that (obvious opinion ahead) is just a product of some people being Wrong and Not Having Thought Out Their Opinions Enough In Conjunction With The Facts. Which is my viewpoint, and likely mirrors that of many people on the right. For instance, I don't think that all people who support the death penalty are racist, or even that all people who support limiting abortion rights are sexist. But those philosophies both lead to racist and/or sexist places.
It's sort of like how I don't think the people who supported the Iraq War were actually rooting for the nation to be thrown into a state of bloody instability where radical terror and hatred for our country's warlike tendencies could survive and thrive. But I do think that their support led to that situation, whether they intended it or not.
It's not about, "Are Republicans racist?" It's about, "Are Republican policies leading to racism?"
|
And now look, they have to make fun of it. Jesus, Conservative Anklebiter didn't go after people like this (no real fun in using him either as it had gotten a stale me).
Are you opposed to grammar?
KC pointed out an annoying error, and apologized. You can say "oops" and edit it, or make a stink about it. If you make a stink about it, Batman comes in to remind you that good grammar is essential.
As for that chip on your shoulder, I don't think the boards, and this thread are particularly hostile to conservatism in general. But, because conservatism is linked to some particularly hostile ideologies it does take some consideration in posting to avoid heated discussions. Are there ideas you don't feel comfortable expressing in this forum?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can say "oops" and edit it, or make a stink about it.
Or you can say, "Oh my god, f@%% off, Kobold Cleaver." That's equally valid and fair.
I apologize if my post came off as rude or patronizing. I was just sort of screwing around. I'd actually misread your post slightly, and couldn't tell what you were saying, so I went for the silly grammar joke. I made a bit of an ass of myself, though. I'm sorry. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NenkotaMoon,
I completely understand your dissatisfaction with this thread, there is some messed up stuff that slipped through. I would just ask you cut the mods some slack in this case because, A) No one wants to read through all that stuff. And, B) the mods are dealing with a lot right now.
I would ask you to please put the past of this thread in the past, and start with a clean slate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Fergie said.
I'm always interested in contrasting perspectives. I do like to see something to back them up beyond "this is what I think and/or believe and if you don't then you're stupid", since knowing the foundation of a view is often critical to considering it. But I hope I try to listen to what's being said.
who insist that states' rights are the way to go,
People only insist on states rights when the states agree with them. They'll pull sovereignty and the inability to keep effects from moving from one state to the other the second you dont: see marijuana legalization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if many of its practitioners hold to it in good faith.
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.
The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".
Both parties sell out large parts of their "ideology" on a daily basis. There are some great minds on both side of the spectrum, and they usually have very little to do with either party.
|
|
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if many of its practitioners hold to it in good faith.
Back again.
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".
It seems fundamentally impossible to me to hold to a coherent set of political beliefs that anyone could term "right wing" without those beliefs including the support for policies that are, at their core, bigoted.
In other words, if you do not count among your political beliefs any support for policies that are rooted in bigotry, I don't consider your beliefs right-wing.
I'm willing to be educated on this, though. If someone can provide me with an actual example of someone who self-identifies as right-wing but in no way supports any of the many right-wing policies rooted in bigotry, I'll happily concede that my stance was overly generalized.
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if many of its practitioners hold to it in good faith.So they are not bigots, they just support bigotry?
This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.
In all likelihood they're voting FOR something else it just happens to come with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First Act: Rename Commander-in-Chief to Emperor. He would go for God but, ya'know, "humble".So for those who have stated that campaign promises and party platforms don't matter:
In 1984, the political scientist Michael Krukones tabulated the campaign pledges of all the Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter and found that they achieved seventy-three per cent of what they promised. Most recently, PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking site, has assessed more than five hundred promises made by Barack Obama during his campaigns and found that, to the irritation of his opponents, he has accomplished at least a compromised version of seventy per cent of them.It's far from perfect, but there's enough there in the DNC platform and Clinton's campaigning (both of which Sanders influenced) that I think a Clinton presidency can effect some real meaningful progressive change, even in the face of an intransigent Congress.
Unfortunately, that quote above comes from this horrifying The New Yorker article: "President Trump’s First Term" ("His campaign tells us a lot about what kind of Commander-in-Chief he would be.")
I actually think he'd prefer Tyrant, because then he'd get more use out of a big golden "T".
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if many of its practitioners hold to it in good faith.So they are not bigots, they just support bigotry?
Those who support the platform, definitely. Those who don't, but hold to the Republican's right-wing philosophy (as opposed to the other aspects of the GOP which Fergie alludes to), support premises that at their conclusion lead to bigotry. I already went over this. Try to be careful here—I've put a lot of effort into clarifying a complex point of view, but I shouldn't have to repeat that same effort in every subsequent post.
I'd just like to be clear, as my post at the bottom of Page 65 probably skirted the lines of not being deleted.
I don't think that all right-wing people are bigoted. I do think that the core right-wing philosophy relies on bigoted principles, but a lot of that (obvious opinion ahead) is just a product of some people being Wrong and Not Having Thought Out Their Opinions Enough In Conjunction With The Facts. Which is my viewpoint, and likely mirrors that of many people on the right. For instance, I don't think that all people who support the death penalty are racist, or even that all people who support limiting abortion rights are sexist. But those philosophies both lead to racist and/or sexist places.
It's sort of like how I don't think the people who supported the Iraq War were actually rooting for the nation to be thrown into a state of bloody instability where radical terror and hatred for our country's warlike tendencies could survive and thrive. But I do think that their support led to that situation, whether they intended it or not.
It's not about, "Are Republicans racist?" It's about, "Are Republican policies leading to racism?"
In all likelihood they're voting FOR something else it just happens to come with that.
This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.
Sure, but what? What coherent political ideology do they possess that allows them to self-identify as right-wing without supporting any of the policies that define the modern American right wing?
*Reads the earlier link about charity money being used to pay personal obligations* Huh. I'm glad they included the lawyer's comment there, that's... really quite something.
Scott, I enjoy talking politics with you, and would rather you not get banned from the forums.
Please relax a little.
|
|
Ok, I honestly thought all of the anklebiter/toenibbler/foottickler posts were all the same person.And now look, they have to make fun of it. Jesus, Conservative Anklebiter didn't go after people like this (no real fun in using him either as it had gotten a stale me).
Well I created him to be a sort of opposite here on the boards to Comrade in politics, but, it got boring and I didn't really care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but what? What coherent political ideology do they possess that allows them to self-identify as right-wing without supporting any of the policies that define the modern American right wing?In all likelihood they're voting FOR something else it just happens to come with that.
This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.
Well, here's an example. In theory, a core right-wing concept is "small government" (it's big with libertarians, too). Now, let's say that this really is a core philosophy—it certainly holds a lot of power as a principle, if nothing else.
What truly small government leads to is fairly well-demonstrated in other countries, in my opinion—lack of strong federal oversight, easy persecution of lower classes and minorities and women, rampant corruption, and horrible standards of living for those of little means.
But a lot of people see it very differently. They believe that small government leads to a more efficient system with fewer taxes where each state can do what's best for it without being stifled by umbrella policies—kinda like Special Education, but for grownups. "Universal health care might be good for California," Floridians say, "but 'round here, our life is so s*~@ty, who cares? It's Florida. Get us out of here. Help. Help." Minorities do better, by this worldview, because people can more-or-less manage themselves without the government poking in. Kinda like how civil and pleasant Reddit is. Kinda like how we pretty much shut down all violence ourselves with all our guns, rendering the USA the least violent country on earth.
I really, really disagree with that philosophy, but I believe it's a product of privilege and not looking closely enough at the numbers, not bigotry. Now, can it be connected with bigotry? Absolutely. It goes with bigotry like toast goes with jam: Damn good. But there are people who hold the belief because they legitimately think, "I do fine on my ranch without the government telling me to watch out for turtles, and dadgummit, everyone else should do fine on their ranches, too!"
Like I said, I really disagree with it, and have trouble not making fun of it. But it is an intuitive point of view for a lot of people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Fergie said.
I'm always interested in contrasting perspectives. I do like to see something to back them up beyond "this is what I think and/or believe and if you don't then you're stupid", since knowing the foundation of a view is often critical to considering it. But I hope I try to listen to what's being said.
Foundation of a viewpoint seems to be the key to understanding why someone holds an opinion on a issue that from a different perspective is considered racist. I would be surprised that there are not several different views/perspectives on "both sides" in political affiliation on a given topic.
Example 1: the death penalty. Because the death penalty is applied disproportionately to minorities (which as far as I can tell is true about much of the sentencing inherent to the criminal justice system in the US), a widely held perspective/view is that the death penalty is inherently racist.
Another opposed viewpoint/perspective's foundation stems from the belief that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for murder (as the easiest example) stems from the view/perspective that those who murder forfeit their right to live in trade. From that perspective/view, the penalty is not racist. Take one or more lives, lose your own, without regard to whom the murderer is and whom the victim(s) are.
Example 2: abortion. From one perspective/view, abortion is considered murder. An opposed perspective/view holds that it is not anyone's decision to make but that of the woman making the decision.
I am not aware of abortion being considered as a racist issue. It is not included as an example of racism just to be clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but what? What coherent political ideology do they possess that allows them to self-identify as right-wing without supporting any of the policies that define the modern American right wing?
The policies that the right wing SAYS defines them using a very successful public relations campaign of
individual liberty
Patriotism
Freedom of religion
smaller government
fiscal responsibility
hard work
Family values
Mom, apple pie,baseball and leave it to Beaver
A strong military for defense.
Honesty over political corectness
Now, all of that is actually malarkey for a whole list of reasons and I know that. But not everyone does and they vote according to how they see things, not how I do or necessarily anything resembling the reality of the situation.
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".
Both parties sell out large parts of their "ideology" on a daily basis. There are some great minds on both side of the spectrum, and they usually have very little to do with either party.
Snarky answer: No. Democrats aren't the "Left", they join Republicans as part of the "Right".
More seriously, who is the Right then? Beyond Republicans.
As near as I can tell people who identify as "right" are mostly either Republican or consider Republicans moderate sell outs. RINOs.
Libertarians tend to talk about how "right" and "left" aren't sufficient.Are you claiming the racism is the "sellout"? Or is it when they aren't hardcore enough, because that seems the more common claim to me.
I heard an interview with some conservative talk radio host yesterday. One of the ones who've been against Trump from the start. He didn't say a word about racism or sexism or any other kind of bigotry. He turned against Trump because Trump wasn't strongly enough against Obamacare and because he'd supported Democrats in the past.
Anecdotal, of course, but interesting.
There are still very few people who will accept the idea that they are racist. Quite frankly, I think everyone, myself included, is to some degree, it's built into our genes as much as sex is. Now how we react to that programming will vary from person to person due to factors both genetic and social upbringing and education.
Now many goals of a right-winger may have racism as their collateral consequence. As a right-winger you want to see fewer Democrats elected, so you'll support laws that hamper their constituencies to vote and organise. As a matter of consequence and neccessities, you'll be aiming those laws at traditional Democratic strongholds, which will have amore mixed population than Republican strongholds which are more of a monoculture.
Many people are also thinking in terms of a zero sum mentality. If you're cutting a bigger piece of pie for non-whites and non-males, than white males will see things as their own piece getting smaller and will fight.