| FAQ |
| Calendar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#101
12-03-2019, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#102
12-03-2019, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#103
12-03-2019, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-03-2019 at 03:11 PM. |
|
#104
12-03-2019, 03:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
#105
12-03-2019, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 04:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#108
12-03-2019, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#109
12-03-2019, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#111
12-03-2019, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#112
12-03-2019, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
12-03-2019, 09:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
12-03-2019, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 09:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
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
12-03-2019, 10:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.nps.gov/rowi/index.htm |
|
#119
12-03-2019, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
*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
12-03-2019, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#121
12-03-2019, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
12-03-2019, 11:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
12-03-2019, 11:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#124
12-03-2019, 11:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-03-2019, 11:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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:
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
12-04-2019, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
12-04-2019, 03:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-04-2019, 05:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well put. You speak of another sort of “unnecessary bundling,” which BwanaBob discussed in post 106.
|
|
#129
12-04-2019, 06:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
5: Keep a sense of humor. We're here to enjoy ourselves, after all. |
|
|
|||
|
#130
12-04-2019, 07:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#131
12-04-2019, 09:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
12-04-2019, 10:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sure, those who argue do enjoy it to some extent. But that enjoyment isn't really about humor. |
|
#133
12-04-2019, 10:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
12-04-2019, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
12-04-2019, 01:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#136
12-04-2019, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#137
12-04-2019, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
12-04-2019, 02:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
12-04-2019, 07:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
#140
12-04-2019, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guys, can we really not make this a BLM debate? We have dozens of threads about that in GD; this is ATMB.
|
|
#141
12-04-2019, 09:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
12-05-2019, 08:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Atamasama; 12-05-2019 at 08:32 PM. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
