Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by krondys View Post
... Today, it seems that we on the liberal side are stilling doing our level best to improve the lot in life for ALL of us, but especially those that are the most disadvantaged. The conservative goal seems to be just to STOP the liberals from doing ANYTHING. Not to implement their own goals; not to win in the "marketplace of ideas" by presenting a reasoned and well-though-out policy directive to improve America in the way they think best; but just to stymie "the libs" in any way they can. ...
As someone who self-identifies as a conservative, I'll say that there are various goals I have and that I'd like to see implemented, aside from "stop the liberals from doing anything". Tax cuts (yes, I'd like to see even more tax cuts), spending reductions, restore / enhance the right of the people to keep and bear arms (constitutional carry, hearing protection act, etc), deregulation, enhanced border security, repeal of Roe v Wade, confronting threats to our security (e.g. ISIS), protecting the first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, etc. I suppose you could coach a number of those in language and phrasing that make it about stopping libs ("you just want to stop us from implementing any gun control" or "you just want to stop us from helping the poor"), but that's not how I see them.
  #102  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:40 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Pantastic, I do appreciate you adding examples to show your point. I agree the incidents you mention are terrible. I do not, however, agree that opponents of "Black Lives Matter" necessarily support those behaviors from the police. I think there are other motivations at play, including misunderstanding. And there are levels of "I don't support this action by BLM but don't accept that action of the cops."
BLM is specifically about opposition to the torture and killing of black people by cops. People who 'don't support BLM' are saying that they are opposed to people opposing such behavior, which means that they do in fact support the torture and killing of black people by police, whether overtly or just in a 'I don't like it but we should let it continue happening' sense. And I'm explicitly not talking about "I don't support this specific action by someone involved with BLM", but about the broader "I oppose BLM".

Quote:
However, this isn't the thread to get into that topic. What's relevant to this thread is that you have provided an example of assuming your opponents position and projecting intent.
No, I have provided an example of examining an opponents position and looking at what it actually entails instead of 'civilly' pretending that we can agree to disagree on whether cops should or should not be allowed to murder and torture minorities with little to no consequence. I also don't understand what you even mean by 'projecting intent' - I have not even spoken about intent, and I don't really care what good intentions pave the road to Hell.

Quote:
It's a similar process to conservatives and "the War on Christmas". "Liberals are anti-christianity and want to get rid of Jesus."
Except that I've provided clear evidence of the wrongs happening, while 'the war on Christmas' involves either completely made up wrongs or an objection to people that aren't Chrisitan and/or don't celebrate Christmas not participating in Christmas. No one is going to come up with a video of an anti-Christmas warrior tasering someone who said 'Merry Christmas', or of anti-Christmas forces slamming a kid in a Santa outfit to the ground, or of anti-Christmas militia shooting someone through the window for setting up a Christmas tree and then suffering no consequences for it.
  #103  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
BLM is specifically about opposition to the torture and killing of black people by cops. ...
That's not accurate. Here:

Quote:
Campaign Focus
BLM’s What Matters 2020 will focus on the following issues:

Racial Injustice
Police Brutality
Criminal Justice Reform
Black Immigration
Economic Injustice
LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights
Environmental Conditions
Voting Rights & Suppression
Healthcare
Government Corruption
Education
Commonsense Gun Laws
What if I 'don't support BLM' because I disagree with them about what constitutes "Commonsense Gun Laws"?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-03-2019 at 03:11 PM.
  #104  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:34 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's not accurate. Here:



What if I 'don't support BLM' because I disagree with them about what constitutes "Commonsense Gun Laws"?
Then say that you support BLM for the most part, except for that one plank.
  #105  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:38 PM
Derleth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
protecting the first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion
Then you're out of step with the GOP, which wants to curtail the free exercise of religion by moving it closer to government.

Back in the 1990s, Apple and IBM were moving closer to each other; IBM was a lot bigger than Apple back then, so the joke going around was IBM + Apple = IBM. That is, if Apple moves too close to IBM, it will fall in and be consumed and nothing of Apple will remain within the Big Blue Monstrosity of IBM. Well, you can just as well say Religion + Government = Government; any time a religion gets too close to the state, it falls in and becomes just another arm of the state and nothing religious is left within the bureaucracy. All that happens is that the government becomes even more nanny-state, even more eager to restrict freedom in the name of moral purity.

Modern GOPists can't understand that, or won't understand it, or actively want the nanny state because they think they'll get to be the nannies in their Dominionist Theocracy.
  #106  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:23 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's not accurate. Here:



What if I 'don't support BLM' because I disagree with them about what constitutes "Commonsense Gun Laws"?

You have to then explain that you are a one-issue voter because the 2nd amendment is more important to you than all the other issues combined.

Both parties use the distasteful tactic of saying their opponent is against issue A because legislation pertaining to it was bundled with issue B legislation which the opponent is vehemently opposed to and they voted against it. People are forced onto "hills to die on" because of our unnecessary bundling of issues.

This is why I'd like to see every issue legislated/dealt with separately. No bundling. No bullshit deals. Then the issues that truly divide us would rise to the surface while the things we actually agree upon can be put to bed.

Last edited by BwanaBob; 12-03-2019 at 04:24 PM.
  #107  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Then you're out of step with the GOP, which wants to curtail the free exercise of religion by moving it closer to government. ...
Could you give me some specific examples of ways they are doing this? I'm pretty sure I could give a few examples of ways I see them as defending the free exercise of religion, but I don't understand which actions you're seeing here as curtailing freedom of religion.
  #108  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:38 PM
WreckingCrew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Could you give me some specific examples of ways they are doing this? I'm pretty sure I could give a few examples of ways I see them as defending the free exercise of religion, but I don't understand which actions you're seeing here as curtailing freedom of religion.
I work at a National Park devoted to the notion of freedom of religion/separation of church and state so I would be delighted to hear your examples of defending the free exercise of religion. No fooling, we collect modern examples of debate on the issue so I would be professionally interested in your take.
  #109  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreckingCrew View Post
I work at a National Park devoted to the notion of freedom of religion/separation of church and state so I would be delighted to hear your examples of defending the free exercise of religion. No fooling, we collect modern examples of debate on the issue so I would be professionally interested in your take.
The Republican Party Platform says:

Quote:
The First Amendment: Religious Liberty
The Bill of Rights lists religious liberty, with its rights of conscience, as the first freedom to be protected. Religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. As George Washington taught, “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to a free society. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of a American tradition that religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door.

Our First Amendment rights are not given to us by the government but are rights we inherently possess. The government cannot use subsequent amendments to limit First Amendment rights. The Free Exercise Clause is both an individual and a collective liberty protecting a right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Therefore, we strongly support the freedom of Americans to act in accordance with their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their everyday lives.

We support the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage. We pledge to protect those business owners who have been subjected to hate campaigns, threats of violence, and other attempts to deny their civil rights.

We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage and further affirm the rights of religious students to engage in voluntary prayer at public school events and to have equal access to school facilities. We assert the First Amendment right of freedom of association for religious, private, service, and youth organizations to set their own membership standards.

This is one recent example of them working to uphold that goal, at least IMHO. Here is another one.

I'm curious: which National Park is "devoted to the notion of freedom of religion/separation of church and state" (if you feel comfortable sharing that personal detail)?
  #110  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:02 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post

I'm curious: which National Park is "devoted to the notion of freedom of religion/separation of church and state" (if you feel comfortable sharing that personal detail)?
Maybe this one.
  #111  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:48 PM
Derleth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Could you give me some specific examples of ways they are doing this? I'm pretty sure I could give a few examples of ways I see them as defending the free exercise of religion, but I don't understand which actions you're seeing here as curtailing freedom of religion.
What you quoted, about the Republicans being in favor of weakening the Establishment Clause, is more than sufficient. Curtailing freedom of religion includes forcing people to interact with a government which has declared a preference for a religion which is not their own... or, perhaps, you would feel comfortable with seeking justice in a government court with selected suras from the Koran on the lawn and copies of sharia law in the library?
  #112  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:40 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,227
I will give an example of a good conservative vs the other kind. Sunday's op-ed in the NY Times included two conservatives. One was actually Maureen Dowd's but written by her pro-Trump brother. He gave a number of reasons why he supports Trump. None of then hold water. For example; he believes Trump's been good for the economy. I think the opposite but he gives no reason for me to change my view and neither of us is an analyst. In any case, the president probably does very little to guide the economy (although Trump with his tariff wars is certainly trying). He things that Trump's actions in Iran and N. Korea are brilliant and I think they are just leading those two countries towards greater belligerence and also leading Iran to nuclear weapons. At this point I stopped reading his column since I had nothing to learn from it.

Contrast this with Ross Douthat. On actual policy matters I almost always out of sync with him. Nometheless I almost always learn something from him. He is a devout Catholic and, until Trump (whom he loathes) came along, a far right winger. Nonetheless he gives arguments, he gives explanations and occasionally even convinces me. But he is always worth reading. I would welcome him to the boards.
  #113  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
BLM is specifically about opposition to the torture and killing of black people by cops. People who 'don't support BLM' are saying that they are opposed to people opposing such behavior, which means that they do in fact support the torture and killing of black people by police ...
You know I've realized that I have gradually spent less and less time in GD and reading some posts here make realize why that has happened. It is much less jerkish posting from points right of me than it is by people who I mostly agree with but whose posting style and attitudes make me want to metaphorically slap them upside the head.

There are lots of reasons for people to say that they "don't support BLM" that are not an endorsement of "torture and killing of black people by cops" ranging from that they do not believe that such is what is actually happening, to understanding the message of BLM as communicated by public mouthpieces and actions as something other than what you and I understand it to be. Reality (IMHO) is that the messaging was done in a very poor manner that resulted in its purpose being easily misunderstood by large segments of others who have been feeling that they have not been mattering. Setting up any disagreement with the movement as being on the side of torture is as much poisoning of the well as can happen. Do you really believe that 57% of Americans are in support of the "torture and killing of black people by cops"?


Once upon a time playing in GD was fun when one of a few things happened which happened somewhat often -

I learned more about why someone thought something very different than I did. Sometimes they learned something too. Sometimes my mind or someone else's minds were even changed a little, or at least made more ready to change over time.

or

I had a fun debate in good faith using facts and logic. Not name-calling and othering.


What I see now is a complete lack of interest in understanding other POVs and more commonly the crap like the above where an opposing take is presumed to represent something hateful and anyone with a different take is evil incarnate or a troll. Good faith debates on even innocuous subjects end up with people claiming personal attacks.

Not sure what, from a posting perspective "good liberalism" is but I see a lot that isn't.

And I hate HATE having to be on the side of people whose perspectives I disagree with so much!
  #114  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:28 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,430
When you open your eyes to the fact that people are getting tortured and killed every day, debate ceases to be a fun game. It becomes about saving people’s lives.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #115  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:30 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There are lots of reasons for people to say that they "don't support BLM" that are not an endorsement of "torture and killing of black people by cops" ranging from that they do not believe that such is what is actually happening, to understanding the message of BLM as communicated by public mouthpieces and actions as something other than what you and I understand it to be. Reality (IMHO) is that the messaging was done in a very poor manner that resulted in its purpose being easily misunderstood by large segments of others who have been feeling that they have not been mattering. Setting up any disagreement with the movement as being on the side of torture is as much poisoning of the well as can happen. Do you really believe that 57% of Americans are in support of the "torture and killing of black people by cops"?
I agree with Pantastic on this one. The message of the movement is right there in the name: Black Lives Matter. So people who say they disagree with the movement are saying they disagree with the message. They're saying that black lives don't matter.

And, sure, there are people who are misinformed. But this is such a simple and direct issue, I don't see how anybody can be honestly mistaken. The people who are misinformed about this issue are people who have chosen to be misinformed. They have chosen to get their information from sources that lie to them on a regular basis and have chosen to ignore the sources that are trying to tell them the truth.

Ignorance is not an excuse when somebody chose to be ignorant.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 12-03-2019 at 09:30 PM.
  #116  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:33 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Then say that you support BLM for the most part, except for that one plank.
That's assuming he gives a single shit about any of the other points.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #117  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree with Pantastic on this one. The message of the movement is right there in the name: Black Lives Matter. So people who say they disagree with the movement are saying they disagree with the message. They're saying that black lives don't matter.

And, sure, there are people who are misinformed. But this is such a simple and direct issue, I don't see how anybody can be honestly mistaken. The people who are misinformed about this issue are people who have chosen to be misinformed. They have chosen to get their information from sources that lie to them on a regular basis and have chosen to ignore the sources that are trying to tell them the truth.

Ignorance is not an excuse when somebody chose to be ignorant.
So you DO think that 57% of Americans support "torture and killing of black people by cops"?

Let's be clear, I am among those who support the movement but while the clear message is that Black lives matter too, it was easy for others who feel that society is leaving them behind to hear that name and feel that it instead implied that their lives do not matter.

Not yet being convinced that the magnitude of unfair treatment by police is as big as it is, which is one of the reasons that some do not support BLM, is not the same as supporting torture and murder.

Being ignorant, sometimes because they are more concerned about their own problems and how their problems are being ignored, is not the same as supporting torture and murder and is not the same as saying that anyone else does not matter.

Another poll:

Do the 12% of Black Americans who oppose BLM endorse the torture and murder of Blacks?

Of those who had heard of BLM (and yes some had never heard of it) 36% did not understand what the goals were. Were they evil supporters of murder and torture for that lack of understanding?

When the issue is not yet understanding the problem and its magnitude, when the issue is being afraid that your problems are being completely ignored, when the issue is just not yet understanding what a movement's goals are, not by willful ignorance but because of not yet hearing a good explanation of it, labelling people as supporters of torture and murder (hell even labelling all of what occurs that BLM fights against as "murder and torture") is "bad posting" to an extreme. It cuts off any chance for reducing ignorance and for reassuring that attending to these problems does mean that others' problems are not also important. Only not so extreme because of how much other bad posting of similar degrees has become the norm. Everything being relative and all. But it is NOT "saving other people's lives"; it is masturbatory posturing.

And those behaviors are sadly common.

Last edited by DSeid; 12-03-2019 at 10:16 PM.
  #118  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:29 PM
WreckingCrew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The Republican Party Platform says:




This is one recent example of them working to uphold that goal, at least IMHO. Here is another one.

I'm curious: which National Park is "devoted to the notion of freedom of religion/separation of church and state" (if you feel comfortable sharing that personal detail)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Maybe this one.
A good guess, but no. Please allow me to introduce a man who was banished from Massachusetts for his "new and dangerous opinions" Roger Williams. One of Williams' core beliefs was that one's personal relationship with God was far too important for the grubby hands of the state or politics in general.

https://www.nps.gov/rowi/index.htm
  #119  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:41 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So you DO think that 57% of Americans support "torture and killing of black people by cops"?
What are people doing when they defend the cops when this happens, argue against their being held accountable, and come up with reasons that the shooting must have been justified? They are justifying murder by cops.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #120  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreckingCrew View Post
A good guess, but no. Please allow me to introduce a man who was banished from Massachusetts for his "new and dangerous opinions" Roger Williams. One of Williams' core beliefs was that one's personal relationship with God was far too important for the grubby hands of the state or politics in general.

https://www.nps.gov/rowi/index.htm
This was very cool. Tha is for sharing. If I ever get out to R.I. I'll have to visit the park.
  #121  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
DSeid,

This will probably make you cringe, and almost certainly tarnish your leftist credentials, but I agree with your last few posts, and I think you're going to find it more than a little frustrating trying to convince them that their 'then you support murder and torture' angle is bad posting / wrong / unhelpful to reasonable discussion.
  #122  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:25 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,754
People can read an article like this...

https://nypost.com/2017/07/06/politi...officers-life/
...and be opposed to BLM, and that has nothing to do with wanting Black people tortured and killed.

I personally read that article and don’t see a direct line between BLM and that violence. I think blaming the movement is wrong and I doubt that more than a tiny portion of people in the movement truly hate all cops. But regardless, it does at times come across as spreading the narrative that cops in general are bad, or at least is portrayed that way by its detractors.

Stating that any opposition to BLM is literally wanting the death of Black people is as simplistic and wrong as saying anyone who is pro choice is in favor of the wanton murder of babies. No, that’s not true, and if you insist it’s true then you come across as ill-informed and incapable of understanding even simple nuance.

I personally believe that statistics show huge racial disparities in the way people of color are treated by law enforcement, and disparities in the way that minority victims of bad policing are treated by the media and the public. I think there is a solid purpose for the movement borne out by facts and that it’s shining a light on problems in society that need to be fixed, so I am sympathetic to the movement. But declaring that anyone who opposes it is, well, evil, is a childish statement.
  #123  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
That's assuming he gives a single shit about any of the other points.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
  #124  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:44 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough. Let's remove the doubt.

Ditka, in order to fully answer your inquiry on how to answer if you support BLM, how do you feel about

Racial Injustice
Police Brutality
Criminal Justice Reform
Black Immigration
Economic Injustice
LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights
Environmental Conditions
Voting Rights & Suppression
Healthcare
Government Corruption
Education?

Please rate them in # of shits given for each compared to the number of shits you give for commen sense gun control.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.

Last edited by snfaulkner; 12-03-2019 at 11:48 PM.
  #125  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What are people doing when they defend the cops when this happens, argue against their being held accountable, and come up with reasons that the shooting must have been justified? They are justifying murder by cops.
1) Quite the moving of the goalposts from saying that "... 'We disagree on Black Lives Matter' actually means that they're in favor of things like a police officer strangling a man to death during an arrest ..." to this statement.

2) BUT even that - no. What one sees and what one believes is primed by what one's own personal past experiences are. Many of the individual episodes have at the times been left to who one believes. For those whose pre-existing default is that cops are generally good people working a dangerous job having to make life and death decisions at the moment, a bias to believe the cop version exists. For those whose lived experience is cops functioning according to racial bias and abusing their power, a bias to disbelieve the cop exists. (And of course both pre-existing biases have some reality basis.) Sometimes even after the evidence is clear that a specific instance is a cold blooded murder, it is hard for people to release the conception they are anchored to. They are very very wrong to do that, but I doubt even many of them are actually pro-cops murdering Blacks, even as they deny the clear evidence of such having occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
DSeid,

This will probably make you cringe, and almost certainly tarnish your leftist credentials, but I agree with your last few posts, and I think you're going to find it more than a little frustrating trying to convince them that their 'then you support murder and torture' angle is bad posting / wrong / unhelpful to reasonable discussion.
To some degree I am just venting. To no degree do I expect to convince the bad posters to alter their ways. But I do think that there are others here.

And no it does not make me cringe. I disagree with you on almost everything. I suspect our values have very little overlap. But I appreciate that in this thread at least you are making an apparent effort to post well and actually explain what your values are and how they lead you to the conclusions you have.

As far as BLM I understand you to hold gun rights as more important than the other issues. Do you recognize that Blacks are profiled by police and that biases that police have, perhaps even implicitly, result in some trigger happy behaviors with people dying as a result? For quite a few cases the evidence of such is overwhelming and the evidence that it is a systemic issue is extremely solid. (This does not mean that every case of alleged police abuse is accepted as true, nor that every is false.) Can you understand how society's tolerating that circumstance sends a message that Black lives do NOT matter? Can you endorse the idea that tolerating such abuses of power and misapplication of power due to even implicit biases, is unacceptable unjust and must be addressed, that addressing such injustice is important for those who suffer from it and also for the good of society as a whole? If only it wasn't yoked to any other issues that you might not agree with?
  #126  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:40 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
Okay, to try to get the thread back on track (and not be another BLM debate):

There seems to be mostly consensus that to be a good conservative (or liberal) Doper:

1. Be factual, cite sources, operate on facts-first policy
2. Don't deliberately assume or project malicious intent onto one's opponents
3. Don't assume you know what your opponents are thinking better than they themselves
4. If one's own side is evil, recognize that
  #127  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:17 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
4. If one's own side is evil, recognize that
I assume by this you mean, recognize when your side does or says something evil. The way you worded it, it sounds like you’re suggesting that a poster admit that those they politically align with are evil. I doubt anyone would ever do that, otherwise they’re willfully embracing evil. Even people who are fully corrupt tend to try to rationalize away such things.

Now it’s fair to suggest that a poster should be mature enough to admit when they don’t agree with what their side has done, and not be so insecure that they have to defend every little thing. On the flip side, if someone admits that their side has done something wrong, it’s equally appropriate for the other side to not pounce on that admission and try to use that as ammo.

For example, someone might say, “I’m a Republican because I believe it is the lesser of two evils for conservatives, and I don’t want all my guns taken away, I don’t want an overbearing government, I want to be able to pass what I’ve earned to my children, and I don’t want excessive corporate taxation to cripple the economy. But even I think that the Trump administration went too far in separating children from their families at the border. That’s not something the party of family values should be doing.”

You should not say, “So you admit that the Republicans are acting like Nazis putting kids in concentration camps? If you care about kids at all you must vote Democrat or you hate children.”

I do see that sort of thing often. (From all sides, this isn’t conservatives being victimized or anything.)
  #128  
Old 12-04-2019, 05:42 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,861
Well put. You speak of another sort of “unnecessary bundling,” which BwanaBob discussed in post 106.
  #129  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:03 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There seems to be mostly consensus that to be a good conservative (or liberal) Doper:

1. Be factual, cite sources, operate on facts-first policy
2. Don't deliberately assume or project malicious intent onto one's opponents
3. Don't assume you know what your opponents are thinking better than they themselves
4. If one's own side is evil, recognize that
I'd add:

5: Keep a sense of humor. We're here to enjoy ourselves, after all.
  #130  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:42 AM
WreckingCrew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This was very cool. Tha is for sharing. If I ever get out to R.I. I'll have to visit the park.
Come on by anytime. In many ways Roger was looking to set up the ultimate Straight Dope forum: ideas welcome. When he was 70 a couple of Quakers showed up in Newport. He rowed an open boat down from Providence, about 25 miles down Narragansett Bay, and spent three days debating them, explaining in minute detail just how wrong they were. But he also said they could stay in RI, and worship any way that they wanted to.
  #131  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:51 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What are people doing when they defend the cops when this happens, argue against their being held accountable, and come up with reasons that the shooting must have been justified? They are justifying murder by cops.
Is it good conservatism to point out the reasons why a police shooting is justified even if BLM is protesting it? Or to point out, even, that the large majority of police shootings of black people happened under circumstances that, if the shootee were white, BLM wouldn't utter a peep?

Because conservatism - at least my conservatism - doesn't accept that (for instance, in the case that got BLM going) Michael Brown didn't attack Darren Wilson, punch him in the face, and try to grab his gun, because of implicit bias or white supremacy. He attacked him because he didn't want to get arrested for robbing a convenience store. Is it good conservatism to make that argument?

These are the positions that BLM allegedly holds, and how I feel about them.

Racial Injustice - I am against it. If BLM comes up with some actual instances, I will support them.

Police Brutality - Same answer.

Criminal Justice Reform - It depends on what they mean - I would need something specific.

Black Immigration See above.

Economic Injustice - I am against it. Also, see above.

LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights - It depends on what they mean - I would need something specific.

Environmental Conditions - I'm not even sure what they mean. Is BLM in favor of environmental conditions, or not?

Voting Rights & Suppression - If they mean voter ID, then finally I understand them. I am in favor of voter ID laws.

Healthcare - Healthcare is a good thing. So is motherhood, and apple pie.

Government Corruption - I'm against it.

Education - Another area of agreement - I am in favor of education.

So, cool - it is possible to be a conservative, and agree on some issues while disagreeing or asking 'what the heck do you mean specifically?' on others. Is that good conservatism?

Regards,
Shodan
  #132  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:15 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I'd add:

5: Keep a sense of humor. We're here to enjoy ourselves, after all.
I disagree. GD is not a particularly humorous forum. We're not really cracking jokes over there. We're talking about extremely serious subjects. That's kinda the point of the forum. There's never an issue where the problem with a conservative poster is that they couldn't take a joke.

Sure, those who argue do enjoy it to some extent. But that enjoyment isn't really about humor.
  #133  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:24 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,829
Note that I assumed GD since that's the forum where being a conservative is relevant. I implicitly include Elections, as it is basically a spinoff forum. I can see where a sense of humor is relevant to the site at large, but not to the topic of being a good conservative that we actually want to debate.

Last edited by BigT; 12-04-2019 at 10:25 AM.
  #134  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:38 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Okay, to try to get the thread back on track (and not be another BLM debate):

There seems to be mostly consensus that to be a good conservative (or liberal) Doper:

1. Be factual, cite sources, operate on facts-first policy
2. Don't deliberately assume or project malicious intent onto one's opponents
3. Don't assume you know what your opponents are thinking better than they themselves
4. If one's own side is evil, recognize that
IMHO, the BLM discussion is very instructive in illustrating how useless your "mostly consensus" list is.

Several liberal posters have supported the claim that anyone who opposes BLM can be assumed to be in favor of police torturing and killing black people. Do you think those posters disagree with your list? I think it's highly likely that they would oppose "deliberately assum[ing] or project[ing] malicious intent onto one's opponents", or "assum[ing] you know what your opponents are thinking better than they themselves". But they simply don't think that's what they're doing; in their view it's manifestly obvious that these are the motivators and thoughts of BLM opponents.

It would similarly follow that conservatives who act comparably to these liberal posters also do not see themselves as assuming/projecting etc.

So holding these as principles has very little practical application. Even if people agree as to the abstract principles, the application is too subjective.

This point has a broader application. People tend to find arguments made by people who they are opposed to or at least whose positions they disagree with as being logically flawed in all sorts of ways. Saying that what you require from your opponents is rational discourse - or the like - is not a meaningful standard, since the notion that you can objectively judge the rationality and logic of the approach of your debate or ideological opponents is a delusion.

And here's the real point, in the context of this thread. On an individual level there will obviously be some people who are better than others at separating their own biases from their assessments of others' logic. But it's virtually impossible to eliminate it entirely, and - more to the point - in aggregate it will always be a huge huge factor. So the collective wisdom of a left-leaning crowd about a conservative poster will always be heavily weighted to the negative side even about such ostensibly neutral matters as logical process, intellectual honesty etc etc. Saying "we could tolerate conservative posters as long as they argued rationally and in good faith" or the like makes people feel like the tolerant version of themselves that they'd like to be, but isn't worth much more than that.

All of which means that as a practical matter, the search for "good conservatism" on a liberal MB is a fool's errand.

(IME, the only "good conservatives" on this MB are those who are being used by people to bolster their supposed impartiality when in the course of attacking other conservative posters. )
  #135  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Police Brutality - Same answer.
You can't come up with one instance of police brutality yourself?

Quote:
LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights - It depends on what they mean - I would need something specific.
The Republican Party platform specifically says marriage is one man and one woman. Are you for or against that?
  #136  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... As far as BLM I understand you to hold gun rights as more important than the other issues. Do you recognize that Blacks are profiled by police and that biases that police have, perhaps even implicitly, result in some trigger happy behaviors with people dying as a result? For quite a few cases the evidence of such is overwhelming and the evidence that it is a systemic issue is extremely solid. (This does not mean that every case of alleged police abuse is accepted as true, nor that every is false.) Can you understand how society's tolerating that circumstance sends a message that Black lives do NOT matter? Can you endorse the idea that tolerating such abuses of power and misapplication of power due to even implicit biases, is unacceptable unjust and must be addressed, that addressing such injustice is important for those who suffer from it and also for the good of society as a whole? If only it wasn't yoked to any other issues that you might not agree with?
I think I can comfortably answer "Yes" to all of those questions.
  #137  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Fair enough. Let's remove the doubt.

Ditka, in order to fully answer your inquiry on how to answer if you support BLM, how do you feel about

Racial Injustice
Police Brutality
Criminal Justice Reform
Black Immigration
Economic Injustice
LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights
Environmental Conditions
Voting Rights & Suppression
Healthcare
Government Corruption
Education?

Please rate them in # of shits given for each compared to the number of shits you give for commen sense gun control.
I don't think I understand the rating scale you'd like to see, but if it offers any insight, I doubt that my views of how we should address, for example, "healthcare" or "education" align with #BLM's, even though I probably give more than a shit or two about both of those things.

And here's the thing: probably my biggest break with conservative orthodoxy is on matters of law enforcement and policing. I HATE the "blue wall of silence" and general lack of accountability police face for uses of force. I'm the sort of conservative that should be a natural ally with #BLM on issues of police mistreatment of citizens, but they've totally turned me off to their movement by including this litany of liberal priorities in their agenda.

WTF do "Environmental Conditions" or "LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights" have to do with Sean Groubert shooting Levar Jones?
  #138  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:03 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
WTF do "Environmental Conditions" or "LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights" have to do with Sean Groubert shooting Levar Jones?
Call me cynical, but every movement that attains any level of public consciousness spreads like a weed, sending up little green shoots in an attempt to stay relevant. But I haven't heard of BLM in a while now.

For their original incarnation, I backed them 100%, and the opposing all lives matter bullshit was a patently transparent move by white conservatives to dilute that simple message.
  #139  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:35 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think I can comfortably answer "Yes" to all of those questions.
Thank you for the response and the further exposition that followed.
  #140  
Old 12-04-2019, 08:45 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
Guys, can we really not make this a BLM debate? We have dozens of threads about that in GD; this is ATMB.
  #141  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
I'm done with it but it was useful as a case study of the sorts of posting behaviors the thread discusses. It was on point in that regard.
  #142  
Old 12-05-2019, 08:31 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm done with it but it was useful as a case study of the sorts of posting behaviors the thread discusses. It was on point in that regard.
In addition, I think the “if you oppose it you automatically want minorities killed and tortured” suggestion also illustrates a bit of how the “good conservatism can’t exist” feeling is present on the boards. (I don’t mean that it’s ubiquitous, just that it is present among some posters.) Simplistic demonization of a person who disagrees with you prevents any real discussion. That directly speaks to the topic here.

Last edited by Atamasama; 12-05-2019 at 08:32 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017