The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: solon on July 11, 2019, 09:59:36 AM
-
@sol
He hasn't logged in since July 2
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=393
Did I miss announcement that he was taking a break?
-
I'm guessing he got temporarily banned for some stuff he said on another thread. That is pure speculation, though.
Or, maybe he just decided he's had enough of us.
-
Well, his most recent post concludes with
I'm done. I'm sure the forum will be fine without me.
So...
-
He attacked another member and was addressed by one of the mods. Was probably banned.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/are-social-conservatives-always-wrong/msg2405352/#msg2405352
-
Well, his most recent post concludes with
I'm done. I'm sure the forum will be fine without me.
So...
Yeah. I saw that, too.
At the time, I interpreted it as his just being done with that thread, even though he said "forum," because leaving the entire forum because of stuff that was said just on that thread seemed... well, silly? I dunno.
But he was in quite a froth. So... :shrugs:
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
For real. I have steered clear of that thread. There is no good that can come from posting in threads like that, as sol found out, I guess.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
For real. I have steered clear of that thread. There is no good that can come from posting in threads like that, as sol found out, I guess.
Some are interesting and useful, if only to show how varied peoples' views can be.
-
Some posters are way too invested in winning societal arguments on this forum. Sol was one of them. RIP in peace in peace.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
For real. I have steered clear of that thread. There is no good that can come from posting in threads like that, as sol found out, I guess.
Yeah, it was sort of like watching a train wreck.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Well, I disagree. Not only was that thread extremely tame compared to what you'd get in most other environments, there's also plenty of lighter topics there.
Seems to me like sol overreacted a bit to a fairly innocuous statement and no one seemed to really agree with him and that got to him. Doubt he was banned, probably just needs a little reflection time.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Well, I disagree. Not only was that thread extremely tame compared to what you'd get in most other environments, there's also plenty of lighter topics there.
I also disagree w/ ETF and agree with u.
Moreover, in another thread not in the Off Topic forum (I think Zikoris' thread about banning politics) it was sol himself who opined that politics is inseparable from tax policy and other matters of political economy that directly affect Mu$tachian$' achievement of their financial objectives.
I think the Off Topic forum best for discussions of these political matters.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
For real. I have steered clear of that thread. There is no good that can come from posting in threads like that, as sol found out, I guess.
Agreed. One of the few sections on these forums I have abandoned completely.
-
Damn. I myself got in a few political fights with Sol in those threads a while back. But ‘twas all in good fun - I’m sure Sol would agree. I’ll miss him for sure!
Edit: I just visited the thread in question and read Sol’s remarks. He definitely went off the handle and crossed the line. Especially the part about yelling at the other poster and saying he shouldn’t be allowed to talk in public. Yeesh. Sol is obviously highly intelligent but I think he got caught up in too many political fights here. Not saying people can’t have political arguments but most of your posts here should probably be related to personal finance or frugality in some way.
-
MMM himself almost personally banned him last year:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/msg1938720/#msg1938720
He was probably on a shorter leash if he was in fact banned and not just taking a break from the forum.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Well, I disagree. Not only was that thread extremely tame compared to what you'd get in most other environments, there's also plenty of lighter topics there.
Seems to me like sol overreacted a bit to a fairly innocuous statement and no one seemed to really agree with him and that got to him. Doubt he was banned, probably just needs a little reflection time.
He may have been given a "time out". lol
-
Damn. I myself got in a few political fights with Sol in those threads a while back. But ‘twas all in good - I’m sure Sol would agree. I’ll miss him for sure!
I miss sol too.
-
MMM himself almost personally banned him last year:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/msg1938720/#msg1938720
He was probably on a shorter leash if he was in fact banned and not just taking a break from the forum.
That's not the first time he got on Pete about something.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1762556/#msg1762556
-
Words are our substitute for physical confrontation. A heated conversation--to me--is very valuable, because it represents prototyping where no one is physically injured. And something valuable must be at stake if an argument is getting heated.
You find the most valuable things where you least want to look.
Anyway I generally liked talking with sol.
-
If he's gone I'm sorry to see Sol go. I rarely found myself agreeing with his non-financial posts, but he was generally a smart poster.
-
MMM himself almost personally banned him last year:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/msg1938720/#msg1938720
He was probably on a shorter leash if he was in fact banned and not just taking a break from the forum.
That's not the first time he got on Pete about something.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1762556/#msg1762556
I keep forgetting there is a blog... haven't read it since 2015 or so.
-
I think Sol is a valuable member of this community. And while I like the off topic forum, it is best not to get too emotionally involved in some of the topics (I myself have over-posted and gotten worked up myself at times). It's not just in forums. I visited my father and he is very upset at the state of affairs in the US (we have very similar politics, only that he keeps on top of the news while a little goes a long way with me). He has a family member who is equally concerned about the state of the affairs of the US, but in the opposite direction -and I could see he was really getting worked up, so I said, let's talk about something else. I showed him an OK go video (my favorite, one with treadmills) and he showed me his favorite dance routine he saw from the Macy's Day parade/celebration.
-
Kind of feel like off topic should be like a no-holds barred zone. I mean, we kind of go there looking for a fight right? Especially a topic like "Are social conservatives always wrong?"
I think most of us like Sol so much we want to create a nice unsafe space just to accommodate his aggression. Or at least I do.
-
Looks like @sol decided to opt out because of the interaction in that OT thread. This is his last post on the forums (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=393):
Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings.
Don't try to make this about me. When a racist person says something extraordinarily racist, you don't want them to say "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" and you don't want them to say "I'm sorry you're such a fragile snowflake that you can't take a joke." You want them to say "I'm sorry for being racist. That was wrong of me, I will try to be less racist in the future."
You're dealing in sexism. It's offensive. Your apology was insincere and inadequate for the scope of your mistake, which you still fail to recognize or admit.
I'm done. I'm sure the forum will be fine without me.
No evidence that mods took any action other than reprimanding him for forum rules like they do in other posts with similar violations (strikeout text with explanation). I will miss Sol's point of view, but not his argumentative style; he was always at his best when speaking from his point of view and at his worst when contradicting someone else's.
-
Words are our substitute for physical confrontation. A heated conversation--to me--is very valuable, because it represents prototyping where no one is physically injured. And something valuable must be at stake if an argument is getting heated.
You find the most valuable things where you least want to look.
Anyway I generally liked talking with sol.
An angry Mu$tachian is an upset Mu$tachian so I'm sorry for them when I realize they are perturbed.
Nevertheless, as a free-speech absolutist I always encourage individuals to say exactly what they mean in the words of their choosing whether they are intemperate or not.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I’ve said countless times that it needs to separate the off topic section with the political section. Those of us that firmly live by the “low information diet” as MMM preaches, shouldn’t have to wade through lists of political BS threads to see some regular “off topic” posts.
Sure, you can just not click them (which i typically don’t) but I try and eliminate the temptation of engaging in political discussions altogether.
-
I miss Sol. He wrote many thoughtful posts that I enjoyed reading. Hope you come back Sol!
But until now I avoided reading the thread (are socially conservatives always wrong) because I knew something in it might set me off. I like reading the forum to be relaxing. I should have stuck with that avoidance...
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I’ve said countless times that it needs to separate the off topic section with the political section. Those of us that firmly live by the “low information diet” as MMM preaches, shouldn’t have to wade through lists of political BS threads to see some regular “off topic” posts.
Sure, you can just not click them (which i typically don’t) but I try and eliminate the temptation of engaging in political discussions altogether.
I've been a moderator in other (non-FIRE) internet communities, and in one community I deliberately created a separate space for political discussion there with the specific intent of allowing political discussion to occur, but keeping it out of other areas whose primary purpose is not political. It serves the useful purpose of keeping overt political debates - and the emotions/animosity that sometimes accompanies them - compartmentalized, and allows those who wish to avoid them, to do so while those who wish to debate, can. People that choose to come that that forum go there knowing that their views will be challenged and debates may get... heated. Most of the time it works pretty well, at least as far as keeping political debate in its own space(Then again, I created the space for that purpose, so take my opinion with a grain of salt).
One tricky aspect of these forums is that the subject matter here is heavily skewed toward financial topics, and as such some subjects that were not originally intended to be political brush up against political matters. Tax policy impacts financial planning, as does health insurance policy - so it's hard to completely avoid discussions of politics and policy. As such, some threads are started with non-political intentions but end up veering into political territory. In such cases, having a "political debate" forum that these threads can be moved to may still be productive, but the moderators here have a much tougher task than those on other forums where the intended subject matter is obviously non-political.
-
@sol was my favorite poster. He made really good, well researched arguments. He often wrote what I was thinking, but couldn't get into words.
He was obviously triggered by that comment due to personal experience, and he said so. I have the same issue when anyone posts that they make sure they are healthy so why should they pay for sick people who don't stay healthy, because my otherwise healthy daughter had a random cancer at age 19.
I hope sol come back.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I’ve said countless times that it needs to separate the off topic section with the political section. Those of us that firmly live by the “low information diet” as MMM preaches, shouldn’t have to wade through lists of political BS threads to see some regular “off topic” posts.
Sure, you can just not click them (which i typically don’t) but I try and eliminate the temptation of engaging in political discussions altogether.
I've been a moderator in other (non-FIRE) internet communities, and in one community I deliberately created a separate space for political discussion there with the specific intent of allowing political discussion to occur, but keeping it out of other areas whose primary purpose is not political. It serves the useful purpose of keeping overt political debates - and the emotions/animosity that sometimes accompanies them - compartmentalized, and allows those who wish to avoid them, to do so while those who wish to debate, can. People that choose to come that that forum go there knowing that their views will be challenged and debates may get... heated. Most of the time it works pretty well, at least as far as keeping political debate in its own space(Then again, I created the space for that purpose, so take my opinion with a grain of salt).
One tricky aspect of these forums is that the subject matter here is heavily skewed toward financial topics, and as such some subjects that were not originally intended to be political brush up against political matters. Tax policy impacts financial planning, as does health insurance policy - so it's hard to completely avoid discussions of politics and policy. As such, some threads are started with non-political intentions but end up veering into political territory. In such cases, having a "political debate" forum that these threads can be moved to may still be productive, but the moderators here have a much tougher task than those on other forums where the intended subject matter is obviously non-political.
Good posting. Obviously with a finance forum, there is significant relation to politics and finances/building wealth, which can be appropriate in nearly any forum section. I find the political discussions in regards to financial topics to stay on very good track around this place.
The off topic section here holds (rightfully) most of the political discussions which have much less to do with direct financial questions/comments, largely for things such as social opinions and politics. I would personally like to see those in a separate political sub group of the forum. Basically a section classified as “political - non personal finance related,” or similar.
-
I too was taken aback with the passion in that last thread where Sol went off before signing off. I also wanted to say that I miss him too. He was one of my favorite posters in this forum.
-
Maybe he just realized that his time is too valuable to waste on conversations like these. Taking a break from the forums & the internet is never a bad idea.
Hope sol is enjoying the break. (thumbs up)
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Nope. You aren’t the only one. I’ve been advocating for a ban on politics pretty much since I arrived (no big surprise given my tag line, huh?). Posted “off topic” a few times and lived to regret it. Will try not to make that mistake again.
“off topic” reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi’s description of Mos Eisley.😆
-
<snip>
No evidence that mods took any action other than reprimanding him for forum rules like they do in other posts with similar violations (strikeout text with explanation). I will miss Sol's point of view, but not his argumentative style; he was always at his best when speaking from his point of view and at his worst when contradicting someone else's.
There may have been some moderator action behind the scenes, one of the participants asked about it.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/are-social-conservatives-always-wrong/msg2408811/#msg2408811
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Nope. You aren’t the only one. I’ve been advocating for a ban on politics pretty much since I arrived (no big surprise given my tag line, huh?). Posted “off topic” a few times and lived to regret it. Will try not to make that mistake again.
“off topic” reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi’s description of Mos Eisley.😆
I've seen plenty of sites where politics can be discussed without being so overly charged. After reading even more of the off-topic last night, I just don't think the people on this forum can handle it! It's quite insane, actually. Why have that here? It just makes everyone hate each other. It's probably best if we don't know who is "left" or "right" because when we don't know others political leanings, for some reason, everyone seems to get along just fine. Funny how that works.
Even MMM himself, much of his writings are quite "right" and much of his writings are quite "left"... but in political threads, people just put others in a far left or right box and blast them.
Anyways, I will be avoiding Off-Topic. But it just sucks when long time posters with some 10,000 or so posts fall from grace because of off topic nonsense on a site that is more about eating rice and beans :)
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
Nope. You aren’t the only one. I’ve been advocating for a ban on politics pretty much since I arrived (no big surprise given my tag line, huh?). Posted “off topic” a few times and lived to regret it. Will try not to make that mistake again.
“off topic” reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi’s description of Mos Eisley.😆
I've seen plenty of sites where politics can be discussed without being so overly charged. After reading even more of the off-topic last night, I just don't think the people on this forum can handle it! It's quite insane, actually. Why have that here? It just makes everyone hate each other. It's probably best if we don't know who is "left" or "right" because when we don't know others political leanings, for some reason, everyone seems to get along just fine. Funny how that works.
Even MMM himself, much of his writings are quite "right" and much of his writings are quite "left"... but in political threads, people just put others in a far left or right box and blast them.
Anyways, I will be avoiding Off-Topic. But it just sucks when long time posters with some 10,000 or so posts fall from grace because of off topic nonsense on a site that is more about eating rice and beans :)
I would disagree with that. Based on the multiple comments you can often tell people's leanings.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
Occasional low res conversation about politics comes up in a variety of places on this board, but the heated argumentative stuff seems to stay in Off Topic. Works pretty good I think. As someone else mentioned, people go to Off Topic sometimes for a fight. I still think that's okay. People don't understand each other and that's worth investigating.
The line gets drawn when attacks get personal which amounts to well-poisoning. Still seems reasonable. I think Sol got caught up in that but I wasn't involved and didn't follow what happened so I don't really know.
-
I think political conversations are a good test of emotional intelligence. If you find yourself getting triggered then you need to evaluate your emotional and mental health. I read a book on emotional intelligence and it talked about how it can be more effective than IQ in predicting future success. I LOVE have political discussions with people, especially in real life but I've come to avoid it because too many people let their emotions cloud their judgement.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
Interesting perspective, but I can’t relate to it. I don’t agree that we are inherently “political” creatures. Social ones, yes. But “political”is greatly stretching credulity. There is no reason why any of us need to discuss politics at all, let alone on a website that is primarily about personal finance.
Remaining staunchly apolitical in a society that is obsessively political takes some discipline. But no more so than say saving 50% of your income and investing it as many on this website do.
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
Interesting perspective, but I can’t relate to it. I don’t agree that we are inherently “political” creatures. Social ones, yes. But “political”is greatly stretching credulity. There is no reason why any of us need to discuss politics at all, let alone on a website that is primarily about personal finance.
Remaining staunchly apolitical in a society that is obsessively political takes some discipline. But no more so than say saving 50% of your income and investing it as many on this website do.
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
Amen. Discussing politics is just mental masturbation. It might be enjoyable and stimulating but it accomplishes nothing.
-
Wait, masturbation accomplishes nothing?
-
Amen. Discussing politics is just mental masturbation. It might be enjoyable and stimulating but it accomplishes nothing.
This is offensive to me. Apologize.
-
As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
There appear to be three main points you've shared here:
- There is no point in participating because no individual has control over anything
- We should focus on being nice to one another and ignore what those in power do
- Discussion of issues and ways to solve problems prevents people from formulating solutions and solving problems
Is this a misreading of your comment?
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
Yeah, and it's amazing how much time some people on this forum spend posting in the political threads boosting their post count thinking they are actually making a difference or convincing anyone to change their minds about anything while providing poor arguments and hurling personal insults. Major time wasters that accomplish nothing, so I try to avoid it for the most part and concentrate more on things I can actually control myself.
I'm an American citizen and independent, so I'll vote in our elections but not waste countless hours arguing with far left liberals about it on the MMM forums. LOL
-
I miss Sol. He had nice ears.
-
I’ve learned a good amount from these forums by seeing what people post, though it can be difficult to swallow at times. For the most part people here are much less off the rails that what you would find elsewhere.
Maybe the biggest thing I’ve gotten over time is a better understanding of how the rest of the world represented here sees the United States. It is easy to fall trap to thinking what is around you is normal. It is really good to be reminded that the US is faillit unique in a number of ways. For example, the “far left” in the US is basically center or center-right in most other developed nations represented here.
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
Yeah, and it's amazing how much time some people on this forum spend posting in the political threads boosting their post count thinking they are actually making a difference or convincing anyone to change their minds about anything while providing poor arguments and hurling personal insults. Major time wasters that accomplish nothing, so I try to avoid it for the most part and concentrate more on things I can actually control myself.
I'm an American citizen and independent, so I'll vote in our elections but not waste countless hours arguing with far left liberals about it on the MMM forums. LOL
LOL. Well, just a glance at your last 50 posts show 32% of them were in the political off-topic threads, so...
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
Yeah, and it's amazing how much time some people on this forum spend posting in the political threads boosting their post count thinking they are actually making a difference or convincing anyone to change their minds about anything while providing poor arguments and hurling personal insults. Major time wasters that accomplish nothing, so I try to avoid it for the most part and concentrate more on things I can actually control myself.
I'm an American citizen and independent, so I'll vote in our elections but not waste countless hours arguing with far left liberals about it on the MMM forums. LOL
LOL. Well, just a glance at your last 50 posts show 32% of them were in the political off-topic threads, so...
I have close to 600 total posts, though. The vast majority are not in the political threads. Some of the off-topic threads are not political. And some of those posts in those few political threads that I've posted to are not arguing with anyone. So, I stand behind what I said.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
Interesting perspective, but I can’t relate to it. I don’t agree that we are inherently “political” creatures. Social ones, yes. But “political”is greatly stretching credulity. There is no reason why any of us need to discuss politics at all, let alone on a website that is primarily about personal finance.
Remaining staunchly apolitical in a society that is obsessively political takes some discipline. But no more so than say saving 50% of your income and investing it as many on this website do.
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
No one is apolitical. And this isn't a community of family and friends. It's a public forum. Civil conversation is possible and should be allowed. "Solutions" are dictated by policy.
-
I hope to see Sol back one day because he provided funny, thought provoking and well thought out posts (usually).
That said, I disagree with many of his beliefs and he was way out of line in that last thread. It seemed like it was a sensitive topic for him and he misread the intent behind a post and overreacted.
Here is hoping he cools off and is able/willing to come back to the community.
-
How many people here would get a thread dedicated to their absence? I guess that says something about sol.
-
I miss Sol. He wrote many thoughtful posts that I enjoyed reading. Hope you come back Sol!
I am sorry to see him go. I enjoyed his posts as well.
-
How many people here would get a thread dedicated to their absence? I guess that says something about sol.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/r-i-p-boarder42/
-
I like Sol -- intelligent, funny, articulate, insightful, and original -- I tend to disagree with him on politics, economics, and social issues but so what, he challenges my positions in an intelligent and thought provoking way and that's all that really matters. I guess he's digital pouting right now because no one agreed with him or lent any support on the thread in question. I think he was off the mark in that thread (huge understatement), but I can relate as I'm a stepfather myself. Emotions got in the way of communication, it happens.
-
I think political conversations are a good test of emotional intelligence. If you find yourself getting triggered then you need to evaluate your emotional and mental health. I read a book on emotional intelligence and it talked about how it can be more effective than IQ in predicting future success. I LOVE have political discussions with people, especially in real life but I've come to avoid it because too many people let their emotions cloud their judgement.
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. It's easy to say "just stay above it all and don't be triggered" when you or your loved ones aren't being hugely personally impacted by politics. Some political topics are very personal to some, and not so much to others. Whether they are personal or "triggering" as you put it, rarely has anything to do with emotional intelligence so much as they have to do with personal experience.
You (and I'm using the general you here) may enjoy a bracing political debate, but what's a fun exercise of your mental faculties can easily be a highly sensitized topic that will tremendously change someone else's quality of life or even be a matter of life and death. Here are a few (personal!) examples:
- Arguing points of immigration with someone who has loved ones or family members how are undocumented-- and fears that their 17 year old nephew might have his parents deported, or be thrown out of the country he's lived in since the age of 2.
- Gender politics with someone wondering if their daughter will be kicked out of the military for being trangender, even though she has deployed and faithfully served her country for almost a decade. After being discharged from the military (honorably? dishonorably?? who knows?), will she be able to find a civilian job?
- Arguing marriage equality with someone who's facing the question of whether they can marry their same-sex loved one and not get fired for outing themselves as non-straight. This one is particularly near and dear to my heart.
- Even an example earlier in this thread, someone saying, "I don't see why I have to pay for unhealthy idiots who get sick because I keep myself healthy!" versus "my daughter had childhood cancer." Highly politicized topics such as the ACA may also spell literally, life or death for a lot of people with preexisting illnesses or conditions.
These responses aren't aren't a reflection of low emotional maturity or intelligence, just that someone has a far different set of experiences.
Now, that doesn't mean that people impacted by politics have carte blanche to flip out at other folks. Sure, in some areas of the internet, it's a big old free-for-all, but I definitely value the well written and reasoned responses by the excellent MMM community, even the folks I disagree with. But the impulse to fall into impassioned yelling, to be "triggered" by politics? IMO, that's more a reflection of the current state of our world and of politics than anything else.
-
How many people here would get a thread dedicated to their absence? I guess that says something about sol.
It says one thing - that one person took the time to start the thread. Once that happens, it's not uncommon for people to throw in their 2 cents, regardless of their opinion of sol.
-
actually, my bookmark to this form is a link to sol's posts:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=393;area=showposts;start=0
I started doing this as time saver since I dont have time to browse all of the forums to find topics that are interesting to me and it seemed like sol was posting in the interesting threads so this link is sort of a curated list of "threads worth my time to read" on the forum MINUS the OT stuff, I dont engage in that stuff.
Now, I need a new suggestion of who to follow here? Who posts reliably good finance stuff and knows their shit when it comes to taxes, investments, etc?
-
Now, I need a new suggestion of who to follow here? Who posts reliably good finance stuff and knows their shit when it comes to taxes, investments, etc?
Quite a few people. Checking out the investment and tax sections of the forum should give you a pretty good idea.
-
It seems to me that the only people who don't seem interested in talking about politics are the ones who either set it or would feel threatened by it changing. I agree I'm not sure how much good talking about it on a site like this does but it's pretty much inevitable when the subject matter is money and jobs and the like.
We are naturally political creatures bound by the limited resources around us and it seems silly to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. It doesn't always end pretty but I think for the most part it's better to try to have a good discussion than not.
Interesting perspective, but I can’t relate to it. I don’t agree that we are inherently “political” creatures. Social ones, yes. But “political”is greatly stretching credulity. There is no reason why any of us need to discuss politics at all, let alone on a website that is primarily about personal finance.
Remaining staunchly apolitical in a society that is obsessively political takes some discipline. But no more so than say saving 50% of your income and investing it as many on this website do.
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
No one is apolitical. And this isn't a community of family and friends. It's a public forum. Civil conversation is possible and should be allowed. "Solutions" are dictated by policy.
Being perfectly apolitical is difficult to attain. That said, a plurality of the American public doesn’t vote, doesn’t participate in politics in any meaningful way, and doesn’t give a rats rear one way or the other regarding “current affairs”. I think it’s accurate to call those people apolitical.
Speaking for myself I’m not apolitical (yet), I’m more of an ANTI-politics bent. I’m against politics, do not see any good coming of it, and urge others to avoid politics. That said, the siren-song of indifference and being apolitical is very attractive to me and who knows, in a few years I might achieve that sort of zen state.
As for this being a public forum, its not. It’s a private website. If the mods or owner(s) decide to ban participants for any or no reason, that is their right. They also retain the right to set any rules they wish for participation.
-
Maybe he just realized that his time is too valuable to waste on conversations like these. Taking a break from the forums & the internet is never a bad idea.
Hope sol is enjoying the break. (thumbs up)
I personally liked him and hope he’s doing well. There’s also the Pareto principle to consider. He might have hit his personal 80%. I know I’m getting close to mine.
To infinity and beyond! 😁
-
Being perfectly apolitical is difficult to attain. That said, a plurality of the American public doesn’t vote, doesn’t participate in politics in any meaningful way, and doesn’t give a rats rear one way or the other regarding “current affairs”. I think it’s accurate to call those people apolitical.
Speaking for myself I’m not apolitical (yet), I’m more of an ANTI-politics bent. I’m against politics, do not see any good coming of it, and urge others to avoid politics. That said, the siren-song of indifference and being apolitical is very attractive to me and who knows, in a few years I might achieve that sort of zen state.
As for this being a public forum, its not. It’s a private website. If the mods or owner(s) decide to ban participants for any or no reason, that is their right. They also retain the right to set any rules they wish for participation.
It is a public forum, but only because the owner wants it to be (and has committed financial resources expressly to protect it as such (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/03/11/mmm-receives-legal-threats-great-lawyer-wanted/)).
But if we are within our legal rights, then I will absolutely fight with every resource available to preserve those rights and keep publishing the opinions of both forum users and myself.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I'm of two minds about this.
First, that thread (and really anything in the MMM off-topic sub-forum) is very tame by comparison of what you get on the rest of the internet.
But (and second), I have been on too many message boards over the past 20 years where the original purpose of the site was overrun by the offtopic section. In some cases in killed the community; people would join up just for the booming off topic sub-forum and thing spiraled from there, in other cases the off topic subforum was deleted (sometimes too late). And sometimes the off topic forums were spun off into their own thing (the one that comes to mind today is offtopic.com which is can be directly traced back to the honda-acura.net forums).
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I'm of two minds about this.
First, that thread (and really anything in the MMM off-topic sub-forum) is very tame by comparison of what you get on the rest of the internet.
But (and second), I have been on too many message boards over the past 20 years where the original purpose of the site was overrun by the offtopic section. In some cases in killed the community; people would join up just for the booming off topic sub-forum and thing spiraled from there, in other cases the off topic subforum was deleted (sometimes too late). And sometimes the off topic forums were spun off into their own thing (the one that comes to mind today is offtopic.com which is can be directly traced back to the honda-acura.net forums).
I’ve been on lots of websites over the years that have seen their core creative users/ posters leave. A recurring theme is acrimonious discussions that result in people saying “screw it” and leaving.
I no longer plan on staying on a website for very long. I reference the Pareto principle, but perhaps declining returns is more accurate. You learn the bulk of what you’re going to learn in a few months and then you’re just overstaying your welcome. The more established posters see you as a threat, and interaction becomes more of a chore and less a learning experience.
Know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em!
-
I miss Sol. He had nice ears.
It would probably be against Forum Rules to say I disagree with both of your sentences.
I think it would be an interesting psychological study to dig into why sol responded so personally and deeply to such a easily ignored sentence.
In my background I have a story where I was accused of stealing electricity by a tenant to my landlord and it was spread to other tenants. (some details unexplained on purpose, I was much more involved as I worked in the area) This was not brought to the police although I often wish it had been. This accuser told many people we all knew, the landlord brought in 4 electricians to look at the situation, all they could say was there is no physical evidence he (I) stole electricity. I was under suspicion for a long time.
As for the person that accused me, I can't say he made up a lie, because I think he believed what he said, and a series of coincidences made it look plausible to him.
All that is to get to this point, I'm a bit on edge if someone even gets close to thinking I would steal something and could I come unglued.
I think there was something in sol's background that was tickled and sol responded more to the background than what was in the actual post.
-
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. It's easy to say "just stay above it all and don't be triggered" when you or your loved ones aren't being hugely personally impacted by politics. Some political topics are very personal to some, and not so much to others. Whether they are personal or "triggering" as you put it, rarely has anything to do with emotional intelligence so much as they have to do with personal experience.
This is true. But it's also true that given a person is posting anonymously on a public forum - deliberately removing a large part of what makes them individual to others - they can't really complain that others aren't respecting them as an individual. Part of being close to another human being is that they know exactly what to say to hurt you deeply. It may be that in an anonymous public discussion someone else just happens to say that particular thing. In being offended as in criminal law we should consider intent. When someone who knows us says this thing, they intended offence; a stranger posting to your anonymous online handle obviously does not intend offence, or at least not to the same extent.
It is decent to try not to offend people, thus PC. But it is also decent to try not to be offended.
I grew up in an abusive household, was in the military, have been homeless and unemployed and at that time had mental health issues, and I'm Jewish, and nowadays I'm self-employed and also a stay-at-home dad. I'm not special in this regard, I'm simply old enough to have had a variety of experiences in my life. Like many others with their own individual experiences, I could dip into any thread on this forum or a thousand others and find something to be offended at in people discussing people like me. But I don't, because I recognise it's not personal.
You can't help what offends you, but you can help what you say and do about it. Every time someone says, "triggered", my firearms experience makes me think of firearms. Firearms are insensate machines. Humans should try not to be insensate machines, but make use of their rationality and willpower.
Put another way, we should try not to be offensive, but we should also try not to be offended.
-
actually, my bookmark to this form is a link to sol's posts:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=393;area=showposts;start=0
I started doing this as time saver since I dont have time to browse all of the forums to find topics that are interesting to me and it seemed like sol was posting in the interesting threads so this link is sort of a curated list of "threads worth my time to read" on the forum MINUS the OT stuff, I dont engage in that stuff.
Now, I need a new suggestion of who to follow here? Who posts reliably good finance stuff and knows their shit when it comes to taxes, investments, etc?
Neat trick! @MDM would get my vote.
-
Sol better come back. He was one of my favorite off topic posters here early on, though I think once he FIRED he became increasingly Howard Hughes-ish and increasingly overtly intolerant of disagreement. I thought he was an interesting case-study to watch in that regard, especially after he probably blocked seeing my posts over some-such disagreement (40% confidence; 60% he just manually ignored me).
-
Sol is /was by far one of my favorite members here but as many sometimes you just need to know when to move on. I think if hes allowed and comes back it would show true character but perhaps we wont know if hes given the opportunity or not. He did cross a line and the moderators did what there suppose to. I have been "yelled at" for alot less but while I agree the Open topic thread is good to have there are many threads on there that go beyond civil conversation. Its not for me but I do agree for those that can stomach it and like that kind of stuff more power to you. But I would like to see Sol come back. I dont agree with alot of what he says/writes as well but he is one of those that makes me challenge and think about things which I enjoy.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
I'm of two minds about this.
First, that thread (and really anything in the MMM off-topic sub-forum) is very tame by comparison of what you get on the rest of the internet.
But (and second), I have been on too many message boards over the past 20 years where the original purpose of the site was overrun by the offtopic section. In some cases in killed the community; people would join up just for the booming off topic sub-forum and thing spiraled from there, in other cases the off topic subforum was deleted (sometimes too late). And sometimes the off topic forums were spun off into their own thing (the one that comes to mind today is offtopic.com which is can be directly traced back to the honda-acura.net forums).
I’ve been on lots of websites over the years that have seen their core creative users/ posters leave. A recurring theme is acrimonious discussions that result in people saying “screw it” and leaving.
I no longer plan on staying on a website for very long. I reference the Pareto principle, but perhaps declining returns is more accurate. You learn the bulk of what you’re going to learn in a few months and then you’re just overstaying your welcome. The more established posters see you as a threat, and interaction becomes more of a chore and less a learning experience.
Know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em!
Sounds like you've had a lot of shitty political conversations.
However, everything is politics.
It's impossible to avoid discussing politics the same way it's impossible to avoid discussing money. Even if you aren't directly talking about it, you are always talking about it. It just takes some fancy conversational footwork to pretend like you aren't.
The moment you discuss the arts, you are inherently discussing the funding of the arts, which is a huge political topic.
If you discuss science, you are absolutely discussing the politics around research funding, publication, access to information, etc.
If you discuss housing...oops, there's a TON of policy inherent in the subject of housing.
You literally cannot talk about anything without some underlying relevant policy, and therefore politics being a fundamental part of the discourse, whether overtly acknowledged or not.
If what you mean to say is, overtly discussing broad strokes, hot button political issues as they directly relate to current campaigns/politicians, that's a very narrow band of political discussion, and yes, I too tend to avoid it since I find minimal utility in it as few people have much actually valuable insight.
Right now, a major political issue in my city is that most of the residents find a certain architectural drawing to be ugly. That's it, a bunch of people find a drawing to be ugly. This is a massive political issue that is heading to court and is an ugly battle of different agencies desperately trying to attack each other with policy. It's costing a fortune and political careers will live and die with this issue.
...because a lot of people find a drawing ugly.
...I mean...it is REALLY ugly.
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Puppies, pandas, food, water, books, sex, roads, houses, cottages, clothes, weather, trees, rivers, music, churches, festivals, landscaping, tv/movie production, video games, education, socks, underwater basket weaving...it's all marinating in policy.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
I totally support avoiding non-productive conversations and agree that a lot of the off-topic conversations here are excessively reactive, but it's the internet, it's excessively reactive. It's not politics that's the problem, it's reactive conversations about sensitive issues with strangers on the internet that gets out of hand.
Bring up literally anything emotionally sensitive online and you're in for an epic cluster fuck of reactivity.
It is what it is.
-
I think political conversations are a good test of emotional intelligence. If you find yourself getting triggered then you need to evaluate your emotional and mental health. I read a book on emotional intelligence and it talked about how it can be more effective than IQ in predicting future success. I LOVE have political discussions with people, especially in real life but I've come to avoid it because too many people let their emotions cloud their judgement.
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. It's easy to say "just stay above it all and don't be triggered" when you or your loved ones aren't being hugely personally impacted by politics. Some political topics are very personal to some, and not so much to others. Whether they are personal or "triggering" as you put it, rarely has anything to do with emotional intelligence so much as they have to do with personal experience.
You (and I'm using the general you here) may enjoy a bracing political debate, but what's a fun exercise of your mental faculties can easily be a highly sensitized topic that will tremendously change someone else's quality of life or even be a matter of life and death. Here are a few (personal!) examples:
- Arguing points of immigration with someone who has loved ones or family members how are undocumented-- and fears that their 17 year old nephew might have his parents deported, or be thrown out of the country he's lived in since the age of 2.
- Gender politics with someone wondering if their daughter will be kicked out of the military for being trangender, even though she has deployed and faithfully served her country for almost a decade. After being discharged from the military (honorably? dishonorably?? who knows?), will she be able to find a civilian job?
- Arguing marriage equality with someone who's facing the question of whether they can marry their same-sex loved one and not get fired for outing themselves as non-straight. This one is particularly near and dear to my heart.
- Even an example earlier in this thread, someone saying, "I don't see why I have to pay for unhealthy idiots who get sick because I keep myself healthy!" versus "my daughter had childhood cancer." Highly politicized topics such as the ACA may also spell literally, life or death for a lot of people with preexisting illnesses or conditions.
These responses aren't aren't a reflection of low emotional maturity or intelligence, just that someone has a far different set of experiences.
Now, that doesn't mean that people impacted by politics have carte blanche to flip out at other folks. Sure, in some areas of the internet, it's a big old free-for-all, but I definitely value the well written and reasoned responses by the excellent MMM community, even the folks I disagree with. But the impulse to fall into impassioned yelling, to be "triggered" by politics? IMO, that's more a reflection of the current state of our world and of politics than anything else.
I stand by my assertion for two reasons.
1. There have been plenty of issues that affect me greatly that I am able to argue emotionlessly for and even some that I argue against because of I believe it the fair or right policy even though it's detrimental to me personally.
2. Most of the people who have been triggered in political arguments in my experience are triggered in all political arguments and often don't have a personal connection to the issue.
As an aside, of course there are people who are emotionally intelligent who still get triggered by a topic but I would consider them even more emotionally intelligent if they didn't.
Part of this is maturity as I have gotten better at controlling my emotions with age. And part of this is temperament as I've always been pretty adept at playing devil's advocate since grade school.
-
Being perfectly apolitical is difficult to attain. That said, a plurality of the American public doesn’t vote, doesn’t participate in politics in any meaningful way, and doesn’t give a rats rear one way or the other regarding “current affairs”. I think it’s accurate to call those people apolitical.
Speaking for myself I’m not apolitical (yet), I’m more of an ANTI-politics bent. I’m against politics, do not see any good coming of it, and urge others to avoid politics. That said, the siren-song of indifference and being apolitical is very attractive to me and who knows, in a few years I might achieve that sort of zen state.
As for this being a public forum, its not. It’s a private website. If the mods or owner(s) decide to ban participants for any or no reason, that is their right. They also retain the right to set any rules they wish for participation.
I think for all intents and purposes, this is a public forum. Practically, there is very little interference here.
Everyone votes every day of their life. Whether or not you physically go to a poll and circle a few names once a year is irrelevant. Where you live/work/shop is a vote. This site is a form of proposed policy on how you should spend your money and live your life. If enacted personally, it's a form of self-governance, as no national government is likely to mandate anything here, but very much policy nonetheless. Everything involving the acquisition and then use of money is political in some way.
To say "nothing good comes out of politics" is wrong because everything comes from policy that allows it to exist or not and there are certainly some good things that we have.
The only thing I agree with you is that maybe the general public doesn't need to frequently get in heated debates amongst themselves over broad macroeconomic policy (or federal policy) that is extremely hard to change. But that also doesn't mean that those issues never need to be discussed. Pretending issues don't exist is silly, but recognizing that they exist and choosing not to talk about them also doesn't make you apolitical. If an issue affects you directly enough, you will most certainly get involved in some way. "No participation" is still a vote. Even if no participation is the result of one believing the system is broken, that's a vote.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Literally. Even the physics of atoms are governed by the laws of the universe. Everything we do falls under the umbrella of politics.
-
I stand by my assertion for two reasons.
1. There have been plenty of issues that affect me greatly that I am able to argue emotionlessly for and even some that I argue against because of I believe it the fair or right policy even though it's detrimental to me personally.
2. Most of the people who have been triggered in political arguments in my experience are triggered in all political arguments and often don't have a personal connection to the issue.
As an aside, of course there are people who are emotionally intelligent who still get triggered by a topic but I would consider them even more emotionally intelligent if they didn't.
Part of this is maturity as I have gotten better at controlling my emotions with age. And part of this is temperament as I've always been pretty adept at playing devil's advocate since grade school.
I don't think you're defining "emotional intelligence" correctly. Emotional intelligence is not the ability to argue a controversial topic dispassionately - it's something closer to empathy or theory of mind - the ability to anticipate how others will think/feel or to read how they are feeling in the moment, and to use that knowledge to inform your own conduct(and granted, it can be used for good - to help people, or for evil - to manipulate them).
I don't think being emotionally "triggered" by something is inherently a sign of lower emotional intelligence(one's subsequent response may be, however). In fact, I would argue that failure to anticipate that others will be "triggered" by one's own conduct is a pretty clear hallmark of low emotional intelligence.
I say this as someone who has occasionally been knocked for being *too* level-headed and logical during heated, emotional discussions. That doesn't make me emotionally intelligent - it just makes me a highly rational/logical personality type.
-
Sounds like you've had a lot of shitty political conversations.
However, everything is politics.
It's impossible to avoid discussing politics the same way it's impossible to avoid discussing money. Even if you aren't directly talking about it, you are always talking about it. It just takes some fancy conversational footwork to pretend like you aren't.
The moment you discuss the arts, you are inherently discussing the funding of the arts, which is a huge political topic.
If you discuss science, you are absolutely discussing the politics around research funding, publication, access to information, etc.
If you discuss housing...oops, there's a TON of policy inherent in the subject of housing.
You literally cannot talk about anything without some underlying relevant policy, and therefore politics being a fundamental part of the discourse, whether overtly acknowledged or not.
If what you mean to say is, overtly discussing broad strokes, hot button political issues as they directly relate to current campaigns/politicians, that's a very narrow band of political discussion, and yes, I too tend to avoid it since I find minimal utility in it as few people have much actually valuable insight.
Right now, a major political issue in my city is that most of the residents find a certain architectural drawing to be ugly. That's it, a bunch of people find a drawing to be ugly. This is a massive political issue that is heading to court and is an ugly battle of different agencies desperately trying to attack each other with policy. It's costing a fortune and political careers will live and die with this issue.
...because a lot of people find a drawing ugly.
...I mean...it is REALLY ugly.
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Puppies, pandas, food, water, books, sex, roads, houses, cottages, clothes, weather, trees, rivers, music, churches, festivals, landscaping, tv/movie production, video games, education, socks, underwater basket weaving...it's all marinating in policy.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
I totally support avoiding non-productive conversations and agree that a lot of the off-topic conversations here are excessively reactive, but it's the internet, it's excessively reactive. It's not politics that's the problem, it's reactive conversations about sensitive issues with strangers on the internet that gets out of hand.
Bring up literally anything emotionally sensitive online and you're in for an epic cluster fuck of reactivity.
It is what it is.
[/quote]
"Money is the mother's milk of politics." Jesse Unruh
Unruh's verity encapsulates the inescapable entanglement of money and politics.
Their inseparability means that politics cannot be avoided here since this website is largely about money.
-
Wait, masturbation accomplishes nothing?
May be in the very distant future, people will have figured out having sex only mentally and accomplishing satisfaction. Until then, mental masturbation without the physical accomplishes little. :-)
-
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
This is why most folks can "get away" with saying they dislike politics and want to avoid it. If political discussions are just a conversational inconvenience, it means that the topics - almost all of which are deeply impactful to someone - just don't affect you.
But they can and do deeply affect other people, who don't have the luxury of just stopping the conversation.
-
Sounds like you've had a lot of shitty political conversations.
However, everything is politics.
It's impossible to avoid discussing politics the same way it's impossible to avoid discussing money. Even if you aren't directly talking about it, you are always talking about it. It just takes some fancy conversational footwork to pretend like you aren't.
The moment you discuss the arts, you are inherently discussing the funding of the arts, which is a huge political topic.
If you discuss science, you are absolutely discussing the politics around research funding, publication, access to information, etc.
If you discuss housing...oops, there's a TON of policy inherent in the subject of housing.
You literally cannot talk about anything without some underlying relevant policy, and therefore politics being a fundamental part of the discourse, whether overtly acknowledged or not.
If what you mean to say is, overtly discussing broad strokes, hot button political issues as they directly relate to current campaigns/politicians, that's a very narrow band of political discussion, and yes, I too tend to avoid it since I find minimal utility in it as few people have much actually valuable insight.
Right now, a major political issue in my city is that most of the residents find a certain architectural drawing to be ugly. That's it, a bunch of people find a drawing to be ugly. This is a massive political issue that is heading to court and is an ugly battle of different agencies desperately trying to attack each other with policy. It's costing a fortune and political careers will live and die with this issue.
...because a lot of people find a drawing ugly.
...I mean...it is REALLY ugly.
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Puppies, pandas, food, water, books, sex, roads, houses, cottages, clothes, weather, trees, rivers, music, churches, festivals, landscaping, tv/movie production, video games, education, socks, underwater basket weaving...it's all marinating in policy.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
I totally support avoiding non-productive conversations and agree that a lot of the off-topic conversations here are excessively reactive, but it's the internet, it's excessively reactive. It's not politics that's the problem, it's reactive conversations about sensitive issues with strangers on the internet that gets out of hand.
Bring up literally anything emotionally sensitive online and you're in for an epic cluster fuck of reactivity.
It is what it is.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. We’re probably proceeding from completely different definitions of politics. I tend to define it fairly narrowly as to encompass electoral decisions and governmental policy. Your definition seems to be much more inclusive of other social behaviors.
I do want to address this issue of “privilege” as it does seem to be all the rage these days. Saying “privilege” seems to be the 21st century equivalent of accusing someone of being “bourgeois.” And of course the “privileged” or “bourgeoisie” can’t hope to understand the issues of the downtrodden proletariat. Or some such. The irony of talking about “privilege” on a website that caters to those who are millionaires or striving to be millionaires isn’t lost on me. I do happen to find find it very funny. I will confirm that I do feel rather “privileged” to spend very little of my personal time on politics. Reclaiming the hours I used to spend formulating and voicing political opinions that in the end didn’t matter one bit makes me a happier person than I would otherwise be.
We all want to feel that we matter. And we do. We matter to God, our families, and our friends. We don’t matter to the politicians. Our views are irrelevant to them and in the end they will do as they please. We can choose to get ourselves all worked up over that and try 100% harder, 200% harder to get politicians to act according to our wishes. And we’ll still end up in more or less the same place. I choose to optimize my life by not spending precious time on something that I don’t enjoy that offers minimal payback. I encourage others to do the same.
-
Sounds like you've had a lot of shitty political conversations.
However, everything is politics.
It's impossible to avoid discussing politics the same way it's impossible to avoid discussing money. Even if you aren't directly talking about it, you are always talking about it. It just takes some fancy conversational footwork to pretend like you aren't.
The moment you discuss the arts, you are inherently discussing the funding of the arts, which is a huge political topic.
If you discuss science, you are absolutely discussing the politics around research funding, publication, access to information, etc.
If you discuss housing...oops, there's a TON of policy inherent in the subject of housing.
You literally cannot talk about anything without some underlying relevant policy, and therefore politics being a fundamental part of the discourse, whether overtly acknowledged or not.
If what you mean to say is, overtly discussing broad strokes, hot button political issues as they directly relate to current campaigns/politicians, that's a very narrow band of political discussion, and yes, I too tend to avoid it since I find minimal utility in it as few people have much actually valuable insight.
Right now, a major political issue in my city is that most of the residents find a certain architectural drawing to be ugly. That's it, a bunch of people find a drawing to be ugly. This is a massive political issue that is heading to court and is an ugly battle of different agencies desperately trying to attack each other with policy. It's costing a fortune and political careers will live and die with this issue.
...because a lot of people find a drawing ugly.
...I mean...it is REALLY ugly.
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Puppies, pandas, food, water, books, sex, roads, houses, cottages, clothes, weather, trees, rivers, music, churches, festivals, landscaping, tv/movie production, video games, education, socks, underwater basket weaving...it's all marinating in policy.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
I totally support avoiding non-productive conversations and agree that a lot of the off-topic conversations here are excessively reactive, but it's the internet, it's excessively reactive. It's not politics that's the problem, it's reactive conversations about sensitive issues with strangers on the internet that gets out of hand.
Bring up literally anything emotionally sensitive online and you're in for an epic cluster fuck of reactivity.
It is what it is.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. We’re probably proceeding from completely different definitions of politics. I tend to define it fairly narrowly as to encompass electoral decisions and governmental policy. Your definition seems to be much more inclusive of other social behaviors.
I do want to address this issue of “privilege” as it does seem to be all the rage these days. Saying “privilege” seems to be the 21st century equivalent of accusing someone of being “bourgeois.” And of course the “privileged” or “bourgeoisie” can’t hope to understand the issues of the downtrodden proletariat. Or some such. The irony of talking about “privilege” on a website that caters to those who are millionaires or striving to be millionaires isn’t lost on me. I do happen to find find it very funny. I will confirm that I do feel rather “privileged” to spend very little of my personal time on politics. Reclaiming the hours I used to spend formulating and voicing political opinions that in the end didn’t matter one bit makes me a happier person than I would otherwise be.
We all want to feel that we matter. And we do. We matter to God, our families, and our friends. We don’t matter to the politicians. Our views are irrelevant to them and in the end they will do as they please. We can choose to get ourselves all worked up over that and try 100% harder, 200% harder to get politicians to act according to our wishes. And we’ll still end up in more or less the same place. I choose to optimize my life by not spending precious time on something that I don’t enjoy that offers minimal payback. I encourage others to do the same.
No.
I specifically mean policy, as in...well...policy.
There is no matter of interpretation, there is simply a matter of level of bureaucracy and government, but policy is policy is policy is policy.
Feel free to ignore it, but it's there, in literally everything in your life.
Do you drive?
There's policy in your license, your roads, your speed limits, your seat belts, your car's emissions, it's air bags, the taxes you paid on it, the policies that supported it being made domestically, or the policies that governed it being imported, the police that administer the laws of the road, your insurance...fuck, even the goddamn ink used to print your insurance documents, all are touched in some way by policy, which is decided by politicians, whom are elected officials.
Politics reaches well beyond the very very limited view you want to include in your sweeping criticism, but it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Policy underpins literally everything, which means that everything is politics.
There simply is no other interpretation. So no, I don't agree to disagree. I disagree.
As for privilege.
It may be "trendy" to talk about, but it absolutely exists.
You can write off what I said because you don't like my use of the word "privilege", but you deftly dodged my actual point.
As I said, it's hard to avoid talking politics with people who don't have access to potable water because of shitty fucking politics. I don't care how good you are at being a devil's advocate or how dispassionate you are, but the claim that all political discussion is somehow bad is pretty fucking rich if you are actually talking to people whose safety is being actively affected by politics.
That's what I mean by privilege.
If you are fortunate enough to not have to worry about the real life impacts of politics in your day to day life, then that is, in fact, by definition, a privilege. Period.
Me?
I'm in the middle of a political mess because my pain patients just had funding cut for their injections.
For me, politics is affecting my every workday. The people I care for are suffering. None of us have the privilege of being able to ignore what our ridiculous and shitty provincial government is doing.
Politics= real life impacts to many, many people.
-
Malkynn, you have done a much better job, of stating my own position that politics is in almost everything. I had a previous discussion here saying the same thing and I seem to recall that my argument was only warmly received.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
+1
You have probably seen this thread,
"Does anyone else think there should be a "No Politics" rule?"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/does-anyone-else-think-there-should-be-a-'no-politics'-rule-101977/
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
I have personal experience that one person's voice can have impact.
One person's voice can influence a group of others. A group can affect policy. I have repeatedly participated in successful efforts of this type. Affecting national policy is a high bar, so my % of wins is higher in local issues than national ones, but from time to time, groups I've been in have at least had visible effects on the national conversation.
Politics has a different response curve than personal activity. It takes more time and has less certainty of success. But your power extends far beyond yourself if you choose to exercise it. You're only guaranteed to be powerless if you believe you're powerless.
PS. I like Sol, and miss about 90% of his posts. Hope he comes back.
-
Malkynn, you have done a much better job, of stating my own position that politics is in almost everything. I had a previous discussion here saying the same thing and I seem to recall that my argument was only warmly received.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
+1
You have probably seen this thread,
"Does anyone else think there should be a "No Politics" rule?"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/does-anyone-else-think-there-should-be-a-'no-politics'-rule-101977/
And to re-iterate that thread, saying "Well, EVERYTHING is politics, so it's impossible to not discuss" is seriously a huge cop-out, because you know perfectly well that
1. TONS of discussion spaces ban politics without difficulty (including FIRE-oriented spaces, like r/financialindependence and many of the FIRE Facebook groups) and are still able to discuss stuff like how a new tax policy affects their investments
2. When people like me say "get this political crap out of here", we are obviously not saying "Look at those assholes calmly discussing tax strategy", we are obviously talking about the toxic political discourse that is all about emotional vomit, personal attacks, calling the other side names, and has nothing to do with FIRE or Mustachianism at all. THAT is what drives people away from spaces. THAT is what people want gone.
I seriously think political discussion here should be something that happens in journals only, or at the very least journals and off-topic only so people can reasonably avoid it while still being able to participate in the forums.
-
Malkynn, you have done a much better job, of stating my own position that politics is in almost everything. I had a previous discussion here saying the same thing and I seem to recall that my argument was only warmly received.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
+1
You have probably seen this thread,
"Does anyone else think there should be a "No Politics" rule?"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/does-anyone-else-think-there-should-be-a-'no-politics'-rule-101977/
And to re-iterate that thread, saying "Well, EVERYTHING is politics, so it's impossible to not discuss" is seriously a huge cop-out, because you know perfectly well that
1. TONS of discussion spaces ban politics without difficulty (including FIRE-oriented spaces, like r/financialindependence and many of the FIRE Facebook groups) and are still able to discuss stuff like how a new tax policy affects their investments
2. When people like me say "get this political crap out of here", we are obviously not saying "Look at those assholes calmly discussing tax strategy", we are obviously talking about the toxic political discourse that is all about emotional vomit, personal attacks, calling the other side names, and has nothing to do with FIRE or Mustachianism at all. THAT is what drives people away from spaces. THAT is what people want gone.
I seriously think political discussion here should be something that happens in journals only, or at the very least journals and off-topic only can reasonably avoid it while still being able to participate in the forums.
+1 I have to agree 100%.
-
Sounds like you've had a lot of shitty political conversations.
However, everything is politics.
It's impossible to avoid discussing politics the same way it's impossible to avoid discussing money. Even if you aren't directly talking about it, you are always talking about it. It just takes some fancy conversational footwork to pretend like you aren't.
The moment you discuss the arts, you are inherently discussing the funding of the arts, which is a huge political topic.
If you discuss science, you are absolutely discussing the politics around research funding, publication, access to information, etc.
If you discuss housing...oops, there's a TON of policy inherent in the subject of housing.
You literally cannot talk about anything without some underlying relevant policy, and therefore politics being a fundamental part of the discourse, whether overtly acknowledged or not.
If what you mean to say is, overtly discussing broad strokes, hot button political issues as they directly relate to current campaigns/politicians, that's a very narrow band of political discussion, and yes, I too tend to avoid it since I find minimal utility in it as few people have much actually valuable insight.
Right now, a major political issue in my city is that most of the residents find a certain architectural drawing to be ugly. That's it, a bunch of people find a drawing to be ugly. This is a massive political issue that is heading to court and is an ugly battle of different agencies desperately trying to attack each other with policy. It's costing a fortune and political careers will live and die with this issue.
...because a lot of people find a drawing ugly.
...I mean...it is REALLY ugly.
It's also impossible to pretend to avoid the subject of politics unless you live in a veritable monoculture of privilege. It's literally impossible to avoid political discourse in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water or has ongoing conflict with police.
Everything is politics. Everything.
Puppies, pandas, food, water, books, sex, roads, houses, cottages, clothes, weather, trees, rivers, music, churches, festivals, landscaping, tv/movie production, video games, education, socks, underwater basket weaving...it's all marinating in policy.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
I totally support avoiding non-productive conversations and agree that a lot of the off-topic conversations here are excessively reactive, but it's the internet, it's excessively reactive. It's not politics that's the problem, it's reactive conversations about sensitive issues with strangers on the internet that gets out of hand.
Bring up literally anything emotionally sensitive online and you're in for an epic cluster fuck of reactivity.
It is what it is.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. We’re probably proceeding from completely different definitions of politics. I tend to define it fairly narrowly as to encompass electoral decisions and governmental policy. Your definition seems to be much more inclusive of other social behaviors.
I do want to address this issue of “privilege” as it does seem to be all the rage these days. Saying “privilege” seems to be the 21st century equivalent of accusing someone of being “bourgeois.” And of course the “privileged” or “bourgeoisie” can’t hope to understand the issues of the downtrodden proletariat. Or some such. The irony of talking about “privilege” on a website that caters to those who are millionaires or striving to be millionaires isn’t lost on me. I do happen to find find it very funny. I will confirm that I do feel rather “privileged” to spend very little of my personal time on politics. Reclaiming the hours I used to spend formulating and voicing political opinions that in the end didn’t matter one bit makes me a happier person than I would otherwise be.
We all want to feel that we matter. And we do. We matter to God, our families, and our friends. We don’t matter to the politicians. Our views are irrelevant to them and in the end they will do as they please. We can choose to get ourselves all worked up over that and try 100% harder, 200% harder to get politicians to act according to our wishes. And we’ll still end up in more or less the same place. I choose to optimize my life by not spending precious time on something that I don’t enjoy that offers minimal payback. I encourage others to do the same.
No.
I specifically mean policy, as in...well...policy.
There is no matter of interpretation, there is simply a matter of level of bureaucracy and government, but policy is policy is policy is policy.
Feel free to ignore it, but it's there, in literally everything in your life.
Do you drive?
There's policy in your license, your roads, your speed limits, your seat belts, your car's emissions, it's air bags, the taxes you paid on it, the policies that supported it being made domestically, or the policies that governed it being imported, the police that administer the laws of the road, your insurance...fuck, even the goddamn ink used to print your insurance documents, all are touched in some way by policy, which is decided by politicians, whom are elected officials.
Politics reaches well beyond the very very limited view you want to include in your sweeping criticism, but it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Policy underpins literally everything, which means that everything is politics.
There simply is no other interpretation. So no, I don't agree to disagree. I disagree.
As for privilege.
It may be "trendy" to talk about, but it absolutely exists.
You can write off what I said because you don't like my use of the word "privilege", but you deftly dodged my actual point.
As I said, it's hard to avoid talking politics with people who don't have access to potable water because of shitty fucking politics. I don't care how good you are at being a devil's advocate or how dispassionate you are, but the claim that all political discussion is somehow bad is pretty fucking rich if you are actually talking to people whose safety is being actively affected by politics.
That's what I mean by privilege.
If you are fortunate enough to not have to worry about the real life impacts of politics in your day to day life, then that is, in fact, by definition, a privilege. Period.
Me?
I'm in the middle of a political mess because my pain patients just had funding cut for their injections.
For me, politics is affecting my every workday. The people I care for are suffering. None of us have the privilege of being able to ignore what our ridiculous and shitty provincial government is doing.
Politics= real life impacts to many, many people.
Wow Malkyn. Seems I inadvertently pissed you off. Not good and my apologies.
Just wanted to address a couple of points. You’re obviously passionate and see great utility in engaging in politics whereas I do not. You’re not going to convince me of the utility of politics, and I’m not going to convince you of the futility. Folks believe what they want to believe.
I’m saddened by your situation. And I have no specific solution other than to point out that it’s extremely cruel for anyone to withhold pain meds from someone who needs it. What sort of person does that? Well, other than a scum-sucking politician. Hope you find some peace.
-
I’m saddened by your situation. And I have no specific solution other than to point out that it’s extremely cruel for anyone to withhold pain meds from someone who needs it. What sort of person does that? Well, other than a scum-sucking politician. Hope you find some peace.
I hope Malkynn is i the same province I am, because I would hate to think there are people in two provinces going through this. And yes, scum-sucking just about says it all. Politicians do not have to be scum-sucking. And we don't have to elect the ones that are. But some are and we do.
-
And to re-iterate that thread, saying "Well, EVERYTHING is politics, so it's impossible to not discuss" is seriously a huge cop-out, because you know perfectly well that
1. TONS of discussion spaces ban politics without difficulty (including FIRE-oriented spaces, like r/financialindependence and many of the FIRE Facebook groups) and are still able to discuss stuff like how a new tax policy affects their investments
2. When people like me say "get this political crap out of here", we are obviously not saying "Look at those assholes calmly discussing tax strategy", we are obviously talking about the toxic political discourse that is all about emotional vomit, personal attacks, calling the other side names, and has nothing to do with FIRE or Mustachianism at all. THAT is what drives people away from spaces. THAT is what people want gone.
I seriously think political discussion here should be something that happens in journals only, or at the very least journals and off-topic only so people can reasonably avoid it while still being able to participate in the forums.
I have mixed emotions about the toxic political discourse. I find it repulsive, but useful in a twisted and ironic way. As I noted upthread I don’t consider myself apolitical but rather ANTI-political. And all those toxic political conversations complete with wide-eyed participants foaming at the mouth and screaming at each other are undeniably useful to making my point.
All I have to do is point at the screaming lunatics and ask the rhetorical question: “do you like what you see? This is what the politicos have to offer you. Is this the type of culture and society that you find desirable?” And if not, maybe you should consider my alternative of rejecting political discourse and involvement in their entirety.
You don’t win arguments on logical grounds. You win them based on emotion. I just happen to prefer logic. I guess at some point you have to choose whether you want to win or lose. ((Shrugs))
-
I like the political threads in Off Topic. Although they do become heated, they are generally intelligent arguments, or at least the most intelligent arguments I get exposed to. Many posters also provide good resource links that have led me to look deeper into some issues. I still disagree with the opposition, but at least I get some insight into their arguments.
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
I have personal experience that one person's voice can have impact.
One person's voice can influence a group of others. A group can affect policy. I have repeatedly participated in successful efforts of this type. Affecting national policy is a high bar, so my % of wins is higher in local issues than national ones, but from time to time, groups I've been in have at least had visible effects on the national conversation.
Politics has a different response curve than personal activity. It takes more time and has less certainty of success. But your power extends far beyond yourself if you choose to exercise it. You're only guaranteed to be powerless if you believe you're powerless.
PS. I like Sol, and miss about 90% of his posts. Hope he comes back.
Thank you for the excellent response. I want to hone in on one thing you had to say with regards to the response curve. I don’t argue that if you were to spend enough time and effort that you couldn’t move the political needle some small amount. Because given enough time and effort, you probably could. My argument is that the response curve or what you get out of that time and effort is so poor that it just isn’t worth your while.
We FI folks talk a lot about optimization. Optimization of our finances, optimization of our precious time, optimization of our spending. But for some reason we want to establish this sort of artificial boundary around politics and say “well you HAVE to be involved in politics because, well, you just gotta!”
OK. Why? Why is politics any different from anything else? If we want to shine the harsh light of analysis on the utility of cars, houses, and actively managed mutual funds, why would we not shine that same harsh light on the utility of politics?
As regards SOL, I miss him too. I disagreed with him on politics of course but he has a keen analytical mind and I appreciate that. I’m also just a little jealous that he seems to have beaten me out the door😁.
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
I have personal experience that one person's voice can have impact.
One person's voice can influence a group of others. A group can affect policy. I have repeatedly participated in successful efforts of this type. Affecting national policy is a high bar, so my % of wins is higher in local issues than national ones, but from time to time, groups I've been in have at least had visible effects on the national conversation.
Politics has a different response curve than personal activity. It takes more time and has less certainty of success. But your power extends far beyond yourself if you choose to exercise it. You're only guaranteed to be powerless if you believe you're powerless.
PS. I like Sol, and miss about 90% of his posts. Hope he comes back.
Thank you for the excellent response. I want to hone in on one thing you had to say with regards to the response curve. I don’t argue that if you were to spend enough time and effort that you couldn’t move the political needle some small amount. Because given enough time and effort, you probably could. My argument is that the response curve or what you get out of that time and effort is so poor that it just isn’t worth your while.
We FI folks talk a lot about optimization. Optimization of our finances, optimization of our precious time, optimization of our spending. But for some reason we want to establish this sort of artificial boundary around politics and say “well you HAVE to be involved in politics because, well, you just gotta!”
OK. Why? Why is politics any different from anything else? If we want to shine the harsh light of analysis on the utility of cars, houses, and actively managed mutual funds, why would we not shine that same harsh light on the utility of politics?
As regards SOL, I miss him too. I disagreed with him on politics of course but he has a keen analytical mind and I appreciate that. I’m also just a little jealous that he seems to have beaten me out the door😁.
Part of the reason I'm involved in policy and politics is because I can: both my grandmothers were married with children and in their 30s before they got the right to vote. My paternal grandparents were suffragists campaigning for the rights of women to vote and being attacked for it, rotten tomatoes and all. It's all close enough that I can't take my rights for granted - I'm not going to rely on someone else somewhere else to do what I think is right without my telling them what that is, whether by voting or otherwise.
And as I'm FIREd, I have the leisure to be involved, even on a small level: I'm an elected councillor on my parish council and as a result I do get a say in my local environment: what development proposals are acceptable, how we manage facilities such as playgrounds, open spaces, public footpaths and highways, public toilets, the parish hall and our community sports club, and what if anything we can do to mitigate climate change through reducing carbon emissions and responding to coastal erosion. It's all stuff that matters in making this small community a better place for everyone. It has great utility. Before I was FIREd I was a civil servant mainly working on policy issues: even there I could have an impact: words I drafted are in many pieces of national legislation and even European legislation. And, Buffalo Chip, if you are in the USA then I have to tell you that the USA is signed up to at least one piece of international legislation that I helped negotiate and that includes a significant amount of my drafting.
There is a great tendency to think that politics is all about national elections and the talking heads on the media, because that's all most people see of it, and that personal involvement has no effect on them. There's much more to running the sorts of countries that we want to live in than that, and if we don't put in the effort then we have only ourselves to blame when the countries we live in become less and less like places we want to live.
-
As for “hiding one’s head in the sand”, I find that sort of comment naive. As if any of us with our one voice have any impact whatsoever on national political policy. Commenting on topics over which we have essentially zero control is pointless and the acrimony it generates destroys the sense of community that people would otherwise share. Further, it drives people away from actually formulating Solutions and solving problems on their own.
I have personal experience that one person's voice can have impact.
One person's voice can influence a group of others. A group can affect policy. I have repeatedly participated in successful efforts of this type. Affecting national policy is a high bar, so my % of wins is higher in local issues than national ones, but from time to time, groups I've been in have at least had visible effects on the national conversation.
Politics has a different response curve than personal activity. It takes more time and has less certainty of success. But your power extends far beyond yourself if you choose to exercise it. You're only guaranteed to be powerless if you believe you're powerless.
PS. I like Sol, and miss about 90% of his posts. Hope he comes back.
Thank you for the excellent response. I want to hone in on one thing you had to say with regards to the response curve. I don’t argue that if you were to spend enough time and effort that you couldn’t move the political needle some small amount. Because given enough time and effort, you probably could. My argument is that the response curve or what you get out of that time and effort is so poor that it just isn’t worth your while.
We FI folks talk a lot about optimization. Optimization of our finances, optimization of our precious time, optimization of our spending. But for some reason we want to establish this sort of artificial boundary around politics and say “well you HAVE to be involved in politics because, well, you just gotta!”
OK. Why? Why is politics any different from anything else? If we want to shine the harsh light of analysis on the utility of cars, houses, and actively managed mutual funds, why would we not shine that same harsh light on the utility of politics?
As regards SOL, I miss him too. I disagreed with him on politics of course but he has a keen analytical mind and I appreciate that. I’m also just a little jealous that he seems to have beaten me out the door😁.
Part of the reason I'm involved in policy and politics is because I can: both my grandmothers were married with children and in their 30s before they got the right to vote. My paternal grandparents were suffragists campaigning for the rights of women to vote and being attacked for it, rotten tomatoes and all. It's all close enough that I can't take my rights for granted - I'm not going to rely on someone else somewhere else to do what I think is right without my telling them what that is, whether by voting or otherwise.
And as I'm FIREd, I have the leisure to be involved, even on a small level: I'm an elected councillor on my parish council and as a result I do get a say in my local environment: what development proposals are acceptable, how we manage facilities such as playgrounds, open spaces, public footpaths and highways, public toilets, the parish hall and our community sports club, and what if anything we can do to mitigate climate change through reducing carbon emissions and responding to coastal erosion. It's all stuff that matters in making this small community a better place for everyone. It has great utility. Before I was FIREd I was a civil servant mainly working on policy issues: even there I could have an impact: words I drafted are in many pieces of national legislation and even European legislation. And, Buffalo Chip, if you are in the USA then I have to tell you that the USA is signed up to at least one piece of international legislation that I helped negotiate and that includes a significant amount of my drafting.
There is a great tendency to think that politics is all about national elections and the talking heads on the media, because that's all most people see of it, and that personal involvement has no effect on them. There's much more to running the sorts of countries that we want to live in than that, and if we don't put in the effort then we have only ourselves to blame when the countries we live in become less and less like places we want to live.
Thanks for the well thought out reply. And thank you for your service to your community.
We’re all a product of our experiences and I’m no different. I’ve spent many, many hours in political advocacy and done more in that realm than many. In the end, I was fortunate enough to have my own moment of clarity. I came to the difficult conclusion that what I was doing was ineffective and probably counterproductive. Even though you could argue that at the time my “side” was winning. I couldn’t and still can’t reconcile myself to the enormous amount of time and resources it took to move the needle. As I indicated in the post above I don’t question that the needle can be moved, I question the effort needed to do so especially as compared to other available alternatives.
One of the myriad problems I have with the framing of the debate is it does tend to be framed as a set of (false) binary choices. You are either Republican OR Democrat. You are either with us OR you’re with the evil “them.” You either are involved in politics OR you are letting your community fall into disarray. In my opinion that’s a false dichotomy: you can completely reject politics AND do great things for your community AND do it in a manner of greater effectiveness.
-
I do hope Sol returns. I loved his grit, his compassion and his often contrarian views that illuminated perspectives I hadn't even dreamed of. The thread about religion was particularly fun to follow.
He cut through the BS or inflamed the off-topic threads - entertaining and often informative.
Looks like the thread which caused him to leave, struck a nerve with him. He heard something in the arguments that deeply cut him - something only he could see and hear.
I miss him.
-
I hope Sol is feeling better. The conversation was unexpectedly rough for him. If he chooses to come back, that would be great. On the other hand, if he's out enjoying the beautiful summer, that's great too.
-
I’ve spent many, many hours in political advocacy and done more in that realm than many.
Thank you for your service!
In the end, I was fortunate enough to have my own moment of clarity. I came to the difficult conclusion that what I was doing was ineffective and probably counterproductive.
That is a tough thing to realize. Much respect.
Curious - was it counterproductive regarding the original goals you were working for, or counterproductive regarding your personal life, or counterproductive simply in the sense that other activities would have more effect (aka, the opportunity cost wasn't worth it)?
I have made mistakes in my civic efforts. One of the most successful turned out to have bad effects. Also I over-volunteered for several years, then went into what I called "volunteering remission" before slowly reactivating. You have my sympathy in any of the cases!
Even though you could argue that at the time my “side” was winning. I couldn’t and still can’t reconcile myself to the enormous amount of time and resources it took to move the needle. As I indicated in the post above I don’t question that the needle can be moved, I question the effort needed to do so especially as compared to other available alternatives.
Thanks for clarifying this point. Upthread, you sounded as if you thought no one could make a difference.
I do think each person gets to decide for themselves how much they do or give outside of themelves. Some have more choice than others, but you get to make choices in the large range available to you. No hard feelings from me, except if someone says "you can't" or "you shouldn't" and discourages people who can indeed make a difference.
I do think people skills and circumstances differ greatly... and that there are many ways of being a good person in the world. If yours are in activities that are not labeled politics, that's fine. Do the things where you can see and feel the impact you have.
I often find that when people had a discouraging experience, they overstate the barriers. My personal opinion is that that is discouraging to others. I hope I'm not offensive in belaboring the point. My goal isn't to urge you to do something different, it's to make sure others do something whenever they are ready.
Power, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. (Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now!) :)
One of the myriad problems I have with the framing of the debate is it does tend to be framed as a set of (false) binary choices. You are either Republican OR Democrat. You are either with us OR you’re with the evil “them.” You either are involved in politics OR you are letting your community fall into disarray. In my opinion that’s a false dichotomy: you can completely reject politics AND do great things for your community
Strongly argree. Great points.
-
Wow Malkyn. Seems I inadvertently pissed you off. Not good and my apologies.
Just wanted to address a couple of points. You’re obviously passionate and see great utility in engaging in politics whereas I do not. You’re not going to convince me of the utility of politics, and I’m not going to convince you of the futility. Folks believe what they want to believe.
I’m saddened by your situation. And I have no specific solution other than to point out that it’s extremely cruel for anyone to withhold pain meds from someone who needs it. What sort of person does that? Well, other than a scum-sucking politician. Hope you find some peace.
Lol, no, not pissed off, just fiesty.
I'm rarely rarely ever actually pissed off, and certainly not likely to be so because of something said on the internet.
As for politicians, well...most of the people I love are politicians or work in government at different levels, so I do not share your disdain for them as a species.
Yes, I have ample disdain for the literal drug dealer who is in power in my province right now, but there are fucking assholes in power all over.
However, in politics, the likelihood of an incompetent criminal being elected is *directly* proportional to how clueless the public is and how easily swayed they are by irresponsible, absurdist, extremist discourse. As evidenced across the world right now.
Politics isn't the problem, the public not understanding politics is the problem.
-
I disagree with the idea that it is not possible to discuss financial matters without it turning to politics.
It is possible to discuss how best to tax plan under the current tax law without offering an opinion on the fairness of the law itself.
It is possible to discuss how to pay for healthcare or qualify for ACA subsidies without declaring your stance on the state of healthcare in America.
It is possible to discuss how to reduce your own personal pollution without stating what you think the government should do about climate change.
It is actually fairly easy to do these things. More importantly, the possibilities I listed fall within everyone's circle of control, whereas political discussion here does not improve anyone's lives.
-
Hmm, I can't really agree with that. It's easy to say "just stay above it all and don't be triggered" when you or your loved ones aren't being hugely personally impacted by politics. Some political topics are very personal to some, and not so much to others. Whether they are personal or "triggering" as you put it, rarely has anything to do with emotional intelligence so much as they have to do with personal experience.
This is true. But it's also true that given a person is posting anonymously on a public forum - deliberately removing a large part of what makes them individual to others - they can't really complain that others aren't respecting them as an individual. Part of being close to another human being is that they know exactly what to say to hurt you deeply. It may be that in an anonymous public discussion someone else just happens to say that particular thing. In being offended as in criminal law we should consider intent. When someone who knows us says this thing, they intended offence; a stranger posting to your anonymous online handle obviously does not intend offence, or at least not to the same extent.
It is decent to try not to offend people, thus PC. But it is also decent to try not to be offended.
I grew up in an abusive household, was in the military, have been homeless and unemployed and at that time had mental health issues, and I'm Jewish, and nowadays I'm self-employed and also a stay-at-home dad. I'm not special in this regard, I'm simply old enough to have had a variety of experiences in my life. Like many others with their own individual experiences, I could dip into any thread on this forum or a thousand others and find something to be offended at in people discussing people like me. But I don't, because I recognise it's not personal.
You can't help what offends you, but you can help what you say and do about it. Every time someone says, "triggered", my firearms experience makes me think of firearms. Firearms are insensate machines. Humans should try not to be insensate machines, but make use of their rationality and willpower.
Put another way, we should try not to be offensive, but we should also try not to be offended.
Words to live by.
-
The political discussions in this forum are far more civil than anywhere else I "hang out" on the internet. In fact, some of these lively and intelligent discussions have inspired me to volunteer for a political group to try to help fix a problem that is important to me. I don't believe I would have been motivated to do this without exposure to this forum since I had previously been so turned off by the venom on Facebook and with the current administration's antics that I avoided discussing or being involved in politics at all costs.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
-
However, in politics, the likelihood of an incompetent criminal being elected is *directly* proportional to how clueless the public is and how easily swayed they are by irresponsible, absurdist, extremist discourse. As evidenced across the world right now.
Politics isn't the problem, the public not understanding politics is the problem.
This. I can't tell if those in this thread who are arguing against the utility of political discourse are saying 1) I find political conversations unpleasant and unproductive and try to avoid them or 2) politicians are all lying scum, so all engagement with politics -- from conversations to calling my representative to voting -- is pointless.
If it's the first, fine. Everyone can talk about or not talk about politics as they wish, and reasonable people can differ on whether internet forums generally and this forum in particular are a good place to do that.
But if it's the second, that is a big, deep problem. Anyone who lives in a representative democracy has the obligation as a citizen to do their personal best to be sufficiently informed about policy to have an opinion about what good policy would look like and vote for candidates and issues in a way that reflects the opinions. The whole enterprise of representative "small d" democracy is premised on those who can vote exercising that obligation responsibly. Those who simply shrug off that obligation because it's tedious or confusing or annoying or upsetting--and, at least in the US where I live, there's an awful lot of that--are quite literally undermining good governance and the rule of law. They are contributing to the corruption they purport to despise by failing to hold their elected officials accountable. That's precisely how bad politicians stay in office and bad policy stays in place.
This is not directed to anyone in particular. But as Malkynn pointed out, voter complacency and the resulting poor governance is happening all over. And regardless of what anyone's political views may be, and whether they're inclined to engage in conversations about them, I sincerely hope they continue to participate in politics. The continued existence of political freedom depends on it.
-
I always enjoyed his point of view.
-
Malkynn, you have done a much better job, of stating my own position that politics is in almost everything. I had a previous discussion here saying the same thing and I seem to recall that my argument was only warmly received.
Politics=policy=EVERYTHING
+1
You have probably seen this thread,
"Does anyone else think there should be a "No Politics" rule?"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/does-anyone-else-think-there-should-be-a-'no-politics'-rule-101977/
And to re-iterate that thread, saying "Well, EVERYTHING is politics, so it's impossible to not discuss" is seriously a huge cop-out, because you know perfectly well that
1. TONS of discussion spaces ban politics without difficulty (including FIRE-oriented spaces, like r/financialindependence and many of the FIRE Facebook groups) and are still able to discuss stuff like how a new tax policy affects their investments
2. When people like me say "get this political crap out of here", we are obviously not saying "Look at those assholes calmly discussing tax strategy", we are obviously talking about the toxic political discourse that is all about emotional vomit, personal attacks, calling the other side names, and has nothing to do with FIRE or Mustachianism at all. THAT is what drives people away from spaces. THAT is what people want gone.
I seriously think political discussion here should be something that happens in journals only, or at the very least journals and off-topic only so people can reasonably avoid it while still being able to participate in the forums.
Yup, THIS. I don't see how fired up emotional outbursts over whether certain voters are racist or other voters are unstable whatever is in any way beneficial to this site. It makes no sense to have it here and seems to only turn people against each other.
-
However, in politics, the likelihood of an incompetent criminal being elected is *directly* proportional to how clueless the public is and how easily swayed they are by irresponsible, absurdist, extremist discourse. As evidenced across the world right now.
Politics isn't the problem, the public not understanding politics is the problem.
You just can't help it, can you? We aren't even in off-topic. But you just have to throw daggers at people over politics. I think this is EXACTLY the political discourse this site does NOT need.
-
I’ve spent many, many hours in political advocacy and done more in that realm than many.
Thank you for your service!
In the end, I was fortunate enough to have my own moment of clarity. I came to the difficult conclusion that what I was doing was ineffective and probably counterproductive.
That is a tough thing to realize. Much respect.
Curious - was it counterproductive regarding the original goals you were working for, or counterproductive regarding your personal life, or counterproductive simply in the sense that other activities would have more effect (aka, the opportunity cost wasn't worth it)?
I have made mistakes in my civic efforts. One of the most successful turned out to have bad effects. Also I over-volunteered for several years, then went into what I called "volunteering remission" before slowly reactivating. You have my sympathy in any of the cases!
Even though you could argue that at the time my “side” was winning. I couldn’t and still can’t reconcile myself to the enormous amount of time and resources it took to move the needle. As I indicated in the post above I don’t question that the needle can be moved, I question the effort needed to do so especially as compared to other available alternatives.
Thanks for clarifying this point. Upthread, you sounded as if you thought no one could make a difference.
I do think each person gets to decide for themselves how much they do or give outside of themelves. Some have more choice than others, but you get to make choices in the large range available to you. No hard feelings from me, except if someone says "you can't" or "you shouldn't" and discourages people who can indeed make a difference.
I do think people skills and circumstances differ greatly... and that there are many ways of being a good person in the world. If yours are in activities that are not labeled politics, that's fine. Do the things where you can see and feel the impact you have.
I often find that when people had a discouraging experience, they overstate the barriers. My personal opinion is that that is discouraging to others. I hope I'm not offensive in belaboring the point. My goal isn't to urge you to do something different, it's to make sure others do something whenever they are ready.
Power, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. (Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now!) :)
One of the myriad problems I have with the framing of the debate is it does tend to be framed as a set of (false) binary choices. You are either Republican OR Democrat. You are either with us OR you’re with the evil “them.” You either are involved in politics OR you are letting your community fall into disarray. In my opinion that’s a false dichotomy: you can completely reject politics AND do great things for your community
Strongly argree. Great points.
Thanks for yet another thought provoking post.
In answer to your question regarding what drove my views on politics, it was primarily the opportunity cost. It was that dual-facepalm moment when I looked back at the time I had spent and realized that it really was an utter waste and that I could have done so much more elsewhere . I think you have a good point that personal adversity can drive people to more adamant positions than are warranted. And perhaps that’s the case with me. At this point though I’m really more interested in being apolitical than spending significant amounts of my time advocating against politics.
People believe what they want to believe and tell themselves comfortable lies when reality doesn’t match their preferred narrative.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
-
I miss sol, too. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but I tended to enjoy reading how he said it. At the very least, every anti-fancypants-blender tirade was gold (and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home).
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Ehh... I'd throw some "Both-sides-ism" on that. I won't drag this further into the weeds with examples, but I've definitely seen this on both sides of the aisle in my personal life.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
-
and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home
JUDAS!
-
I miss sol, too. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but I tended to enjoy reading how he said it. At the very least, every anti-fancypants-blender tirade was gold (and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home).
As a Vitamix owner I agree! I still hold that I"m happy with my Vitamix purchase. I also have fancypants cookware (regret purchase) and a dealership car (semi-regret purchase). All purchased before reading MMM.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
Please. Political affiliation will always seep out.
This way, at least there is a place for it.
-
I miss sol, too. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but I tended to enjoy reading how he said it. At the very least, every anti-fancypants-blender tirade was gold (and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home).
As a Vitamix owner I agree! I still hold that I"m happy with my Vitamix purchase. I also have fancypants cookware (regret purchase) and a dealership car (semi-regret purchase). All purchased before reading MMM.
Now I feel stupid for owning a Blendtec. I figured it would come in handy if I ever needed to blend an iPhone. Wish I could read these blender rants! I'm not up for trying to find them, though.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
Please. Political affiliation will always seep out.
This way, at least there is a place for it.
Of course, but if there is a culture of it being off limits, maybe we could maintain civility? The forum just lost a very popular poster over it, which seems proof enough that it's probably not a good idea to have fiery discussions about politics. Too many people don't seem capable of handling it. This is a FIRE blog, I would think if people want to scream at each other over politics and say nasty things, there surely must be more appropriate venues?
-
You are right that people shouldn't scream at each other and say nasty things. That's why the forum rules exist. Which say not to scream at each other and say nasty things.
Why have a rule "don't talk about politics" when a rule "don't talk about politics rudely" would suffice?
-
Of course, but if there is a culture of it being off limits, maybe we could maintain civility? The forum just lost a very popular poster over it, which seems proof enough that it's probably not a good idea to have fiery discussions about politics. Too many people don't seem capable of handling it.
(emphasis mine)
It's especially interesting to me that people who ostensibly have the self-restraint to save >50% of their net income cannot control their emotions in a political discussion. It's insane how primordial political intuitions are.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
Please. Political affiliation will always seep out.
This way, at least there is a place for it.
Of course, but if there is a culture of it being off limits, maybe we could maintain civility? The forum just lost a very popular poster over it, which seems proof enough that it's probably not a good idea to have fiery discussions about politics. Too many people don't seem capable of handling it. This is a FIRE blog, I would think if people want to scream at each other over politics and say nasty things, there surely must be more appropriate venues?
Wait! We didn't lose sol over a fiery discussions about politics.
He left because of a simple statement,
"The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory."
This comment is what sol quoted and came unglued about.
Breaking it down, "The big concern for divorce, (new boyfriends and step-dads), it may be a concern, whether it is the big concern is up for debate. and then "new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory." The important word here, is can. Yes, they can be, they aren't always, and it's probably a low percentage that are.
I suspect a million people could read that and go on to the next post without anymore thought than, it's a shame that could happen, but sol had some memory that surfaced and this is how he expressed it.
Nobodies problem but sol's.
-
Yeah. That's a strange thing to get worked up over.
-
Unfortunately both sol and the maker of the statement doubled down.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
Please. Political affiliation will always seep out.
This way, at least there is a place for it.
Of course, but if there is a culture of it being off limits, maybe we could maintain civility? The forum just lost a very popular poster over it, which seems proof enough that it's probably not a good idea to have fiery discussions about politics. Too many people don't seem capable of handling it. This is a FIRE blog, I would think if people want to scream at each other over politics and say nasty things, there surely must be more appropriate venues?
Wait! We didn't lose sol over a fiery discussions about politics.
He left because of a simple statement,
"The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory."
This comment is what sol quoted and came unglued about.
Breaking it down, "The big concern for divorce, (new boyfriends and step-dads), it may be a concern, whether it is the big concern is up for debate. and then "new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory." The important word here, is can. Yes, they can be, they aren't always, and it's probably a low percentage that are.
I suspect a million people could read that and go on to the next post without anymore thought than, it's a shame that could happen, but sol had some memory that surfaced and this is how he expressed it.
Nobodies problem but sol's.
Politics aside, I made the comment that "off topic" in general doesn't seem to be working with this community. If I read correctly, Sol went off on a politically charged rant over the above non-political statement. I've read through a bit of the conversations in off-topic, notably the political ones, and it's such a mess. Not all of it, of course, but enough of it.
-
I miss sol, too. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but I tended to enjoy reading how he said it. At the very least, every anti-fancypants-blender tirade was gold (and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home).
As a Vitamix owner I agree! I still hold that I"m happy with my Vitamix purchase. I also have fancypants cookware (regret purchase) and a dealership car (semi-regret purchase). All purchased before reading MMM.
Now I feel stupid for owning a Blendtec. I figured it would come in handy if I ever needed to blend an iPhone. Wish I could read these blender rants! I'm not up for trying to find them, though.
Sol would say you're right to feel stupid about purchasing a Blendtec. It wasn't so much that each rant was gold, but that it seemed you couldn't mention Vitamix on the forum without Sol commenting about how stupid it is. Here's a few posts:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/vitamix-blender/msg1620399/#msg1620399 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/vitamix-blender/msg1620399/#msg1620399)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336183/#msg1336183 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336183/#msg1336183)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336763/#msg1336763 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336763/#msg1336763)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/just-scored-a-vitamix-on-craigslist/msg1930163/#msg1930163 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/just-scored-a-vitamix-on-craigslist/msg1930163/#msg1930163)
-
Sol's comment was no more political than the other statement was. Child abuse is not a hot political topic that one party has taken up over the other.
Edit: because derp
-
Wow! Three pages and nobody's thought to just ask the mods if sol's been banned? I can fix that. Please stand by for further updates.
-
In the other thread it was mentioned that sol had been spoken to privately, so I'm assuming he received at least a temporary ban. I can't imagine that the mods would have permanently banned him for a one time offense. others have only been banned for repeated trolling.
He appeared to be done with the forum according to his last post. As a fellow hothead, I can confirm its really hard to come crawling back after making such a grand statement.
-
Wow! Three pages and nobody's thought to just ask the mods if sol's been banned? I can fix that. Please stand by for further updates.
I know. I wonder if mods (like @arebelspy) are willing to comment publicly or not as to his status. His comments made it look like he'd just decided to leave.
On some level it's fitting that a thread about sol's whereabouts has turned into 3 pages of heated debate.
-
I feel it should be pointed out in sol's absence:
Political opinions are not entitled to a polite hearing. The reason political threads are becoming increasingly rancorous is because a small group of posters are doubling down on their support of Trump even as his actions and declarations have become progressively more indefensible. The brickbats those posters have been getting are not the result of a boorish attitude to conservatism: they're the result of an entirely justifiable disgust with an utterly morally bankrupt abandonment of basic standards of governance. He's corrupt, racist, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, and misogynistic; he's on tape boasting about committing sexual assault; and he was absolutely fine with the Saudis dismembering an American resident with a bone saw while the man was still alive. The posters still supporting him are not owed any politeness.
-
I don't care much about sol, but I keep checking @2Birds1Stone 's journal for updates.
-
I feel it should be pointed out in sol's absence:
Political opinions are not entitled to a polite hearing. The reason political threads are becoming increasingly rancorous is because a small group of posters are doubling down on their support of Trump even as his actions and declarations have become progressively more indefensible. The brickbats those posters have been getting are not the result of a boorish attitude to conservatism: they're the result of an entirely justifiable disgust with an utterly morally bankrupt abandonment of basic standards of governance. He's corrupt, racist, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, and misogynistic; he's on tape boasting about committing sexual assault; and he was absolutely fine with the Saudis dismembering an American resident with a bone saw while the man was still alive. The posters still supporting him are not owed any politeness.
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
-
I feel it should be pointed out in sol's absence:
Political opinions are not entitled to a polite hearing. The reason political threads are becoming increasingly rancorous is because a small group of posters are doubling down on their support of Trump even as his actions and declarations have become progressively more indefensible. The brickbats those posters have been getting are not the result of a boorish attitude to conservatism: they're the result of an entirely justifiable disgust with an utterly morally bankrupt abandonment of basic standards of governance. He's corrupt, racist, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, and misogynistic; he's on tape boasting about committing sexual assault; and he was absolutely fine with the Saudis dismembering an American resident with a bone saw while the man was still alive. The posters still supporting him are not owed any politeness.
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Maybe not. But it seems as though complete indifference to these things is. At least in 2019.
-
I feel it should be pointed out in sol's absence:
Political opinions are not entitled to a polite hearing. The reason political threads are becoming increasingly rancorous is because a small group of posters are doubling down on their support of Trump even as his actions and declarations have become progressively more indefensible. The brickbats those posters have been getting are not the result of a boorish attitude to conservatism: they're the result of an entirely justifiable disgust with an utterly morally bankrupt abandonment of basic standards of governance. He's corrupt, racist, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, and misogynistic; he's on tape boasting about committing sexual assault; and he was absolutely fine with the Saudis dismembering an American resident with a bone saw while the man was still alive. The posters still supporting him are not owed any politeness.
Thus confirming Maureen Dowd's point (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/attacking-pelosi-will-not-defeat-trump/) as quoted by ReadySetMillionaire yesterday.
-
Malkynn, you have done a much better job, of stating my own position that politics is in almost everything. I had a previous discussion here saying the same thing and I seem to recall that my argument was only warmly received.
Yup, THIS. I don't see how fired up emotional outbursts over whether certain voters are racist or other voters are unstable whatever is in any way beneficial to this site. It makes no sense to have it here and seems to only turn people against each other.
Exactly, especially since we know that the [INSERT GROUP] are the problem.
-
I feel it should be pointed out in sol's absence:
Political opinions are not entitled to a polite hearing. The reason political threads are becoming increasingly rancorous is because a small group of posters are doubling down on their support of Trump even as his actions and declarations have become progressively more indefensible. The brickbats those posters have been getting are not the result of a boorish attitude to conservatism: they're the result of an entirely justifiable disgust with an utterly morally bankrupt abandonment of basic standards of governance. He's corrupt, racist, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, and misogynistic; he's on tape boasting about committing sexual assault; and he was absolutely fine with the Saudis dismembering an American resident with a bone saw while the man was still alive. The posters still supporting him are not owed any politeness.
Thus confirming Maureen Dowd's point (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/attacking-pelosi-will-not-defeat-trump/) as quoted by ReadySetMillionaire yesterday.
At the risk of sounding harsh: you read that piece, right? Because it's about the clash within the Democratic party regarding how to deal with Trump, and says precisely nothing about opposition to Trumpism.
-
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
I feel it's important to note that this is a pretty dishonest characterisation of Dowd's argument. She was speaking very specifically about the four members of the Democratic party currently giving Pelosi shit for not being confrontational enough with Trump. The entire piece is Dowd's argument that it's wrongheaded and offensive for AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley to go after Pelosi specifically in the way that they have. It was not a general argument about progressives, as ReadySetMillionaire is presenting it; it was a specific charge laid against four specific House members in relation to a specific situation.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party. Especially ones that boast about committing sexual assault and support the dismembering of journalists while they're still alive.
Hell, let's have a bit of fun with this. Here's a list of politicians. If you support any of these people, I'm happy to report that I think you're a sack of rancid dog vomit. Not limiting it to Trump, or even to rightwingers!
-Matteo Salvini of the Lega Nord in Italy
-Viktor Orban in Hungary
-Filip Dewinter, formerly of Vlaams Blok in Belgium
-Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela (the failure of some people on the left to properly condemn this worthless bastard even now is a disgrace)
-Pretty much every politician in the AfD in Germany, the Swedish Democrats, the FPO in Austria, whatever the FN in France is now calling itself
-Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil
-Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines
-Pretty much any politician who's taken money from Putin, left or right. You fuckers are selling out your countries.
-Nigel Fucking Farage, Boris Fucking Johnson and Michael Fucking Gove
-The Saudis. Seriously. It's genuinely appalling that those bastards are able to set foot in liberal democracies without being immediately pelted with offal.
I've probably missed a load of them, but you get the idea. If you're an enthusiastic fan of any of the people on that list, you're awful.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
-
At the risk of sounding harsh: you read that piece, right? Because it's about the clash within the Democratic party regarding how to deal with Trump, and says precisely nothing about opposition to Trumpism.
I feel it's important to note that this is a pretty dishonest characterisation of Dowd's argument. She was speaking very specifically about the four members of the Democratic party currently giving Pelosi shit for not being confrontational enough with Trump. The entire piece is Dowd's argument that it's wrongheaded and offensive for AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley to go after Pelosi specifically in the way that they have. It was not a general argument about progressives, as ReadySetMillionaire is presenting it; it was a specific charge laid against four specific House members in relation to a specific situation.
Lol, yes I read the article. :)
We'd have to get Ms. Dowd's take to know for sure, but given that the other times the word "progressive" is used in the article it refers to more than "four specific House members," ReadySetMillionaire's interpretation is plausible at least, and apparently correct.
-
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I don't think that's an even vaguely likely scenario. I'd also say that any undecided voter who decides to vote for concentration camps and unabashed racism because the other side was rude is a crayon-chewing moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than string - largely because that would be an unbelievably stupid reason to vote a particular way. "Well, children are literally dying in concentration camps set up by the Trump administration, and Trump is racially abusing members of Congress, but liberals are being rude about those things, so I'll vote for the pussy-grabber!"
-
I feel it's important to note that this is a pretty dishonest characterisation of Dowd's argument. She was speaking very specifically about the four members of the Democratic party currently giving Pelosi shit for not being confrontational enough with Trump. The entire piece is Dowd's argument that it's wrongheaded and offensive for AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley to go after Pelosi specifically in the way that they have. It was not a general argument about progressives, as ReadySetMillionaire is presenting it; it was a specific charge laid against four specific House members in relation to a specific situation.
I read the article as discussing the progressive wing of the party, not just the four house members who were causing a ruckus. It is titled "Scaling Wokeback Mountain," which I interpreted as a direct shot to progressives in general. The article also references numerous progressive groups and individuals, and scolds them as well.
If you have a different interpretation that's fine.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
Shit, we better start bashing Bernie or whoever the fuck if there is an entire coalition of toddlers who vote for whoever is receiving the most severe criticism.
-
On a less flippant note, I do actually think it's quite important for people to continue to yell about Trump and other similar politicians. A substantial part of what these people trade in is the sly reassurance that "everyone really thinks like this, but that we're the only ones willing to say it out loud". It's actually really important, especially in terms of undecided voters, to make it as clear as possible that everyone does not really think like this, and that a huge chunk of the population find those beliefs genuinely disgusting.
It's a lot harder to sell "we're just saying what everyone's thinking" when a substantial chunk of the population are saying loud and clear that what's being said is horseshit.
-
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I don't think that's an even vaguely likely scenario. I'd also say that any undecided voter who decides to vote for concentration camps and unabashed racism because the other side was rude is a crayon-chewing moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than string - largely because that would be an unbelievably stupid reason to vote a particular way. "Well, children are literally dying in concentration camps set up by the Trump administration, and Trump is racially abusing members of Congress, but liberals are being rude about those things, so I'll vote for the pussy-grabber!"
Concentration camps? Is Godwin's Law in effect here?
For starters, I think I would agree that most American voters are morons, but that extends to both sides of the aisle, and politicians on both sides have learned to play to it. It's why we have a culture of outrage. Every single thing the president does is the scandal of the century. And the Republicans were just as guilty when Obama was president. For those of us who aren't partisan hacks, it just sounds like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and it gets old.
-
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I don't think that's an even vaguely likely scenario. I'd also say that any undecided voter who decides to vote for concentration camps and unabashed racism because the other side was rude is a crayon-chewing moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than string - largely because that would be an unbelievably stupid reason to vote a particular way. "Well, children are literally dying in concentration camps set up by the Trump administration, and Trump is racially abusing members of Congress, but liberals are being rude about those things, so I'll vote for the pussy-grabber!"
Concentration camps? Is Godwin's Law in effect here?
For starters, I think I would agree that most American voters are morons, but that extends to both sides of the aisle, and politicians on both sides have learned to play to it. It's why we have a culture of outrage. Every single thing the president does is the scandal of the century. And the Republicans were just as guilty when Obama was president. For those of us who aren't partisan hacks, it just sounds like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and it gets old.
In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."[13] In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites Facebook and Twitter with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging efforts to compare its alt-right organizers to Nazis.[14][15][16][17]
In October 2018, Godwin said on Twitter that it is acceptable to call Brazilian politician (later became President) Jair Bolsonaro a "Nazi".[18][19] In June 2019, after Chris Hayes invoked Godwin's Law in a discussion of whether it was appropriate to call the United States's refugee detention centers "concentration camps," Godwin explicitly stated his belief that the term "concentration camps" was appropriate.[20]
The deployment of Godwin's law any time the Nazi era is mentioned is a convenient way of silencing discussion on lessons we can learn about that time, and parallels we can draw to history repeating itself.
-
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I don't think that's an even vaguely likely scenario. I'd also say that any undecided voter who decides to vote for concentration camps and unabashed racism because the other side was rude is a crayon-chewing moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than string - largely because that would be an unbelievably stupid reason to vote a particular way. "Well, children are literally dying in concentration camps set up by the Trump administration, and Trump is racially abusing members of Congress, but liberals are being rude about those things, so I'll vote for the pussy-grabber!"
Concentration camps? Is Godwin's Law in effect here?
For starters, I think I would agree that most American voters are morons, but that extends to both sides of the aisle, and politicians on both sides have learned to play to it. It's why we have a culture of outrage. Every single thing the president does is the scandal of the century. And the Republicans were just as guilty when Obama was president. For those of us who aren't partisan hacks, it just sounds like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and it gets old.
Oh, did you miss this with AOC and the big Twitter uproar a couple weeks ago? Because you're about to get a history lesson from the oh so knowledgeable progressives about TRUE concentration camps, and what REAL concentration camps are, and citations from REAL historians about the origins of the use of "concentration camps." Best wishes to you and your family.
-
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
I feel it's important to note that this is a pretty dishonest characterisation of Dowd's argument. She was speaking very specifically about the four members of the Democratic party currently giving Pelosi shit for not being confrontational enough with Trump. The entire piece is Dowd's argument that it's wrongheaded and offensive for AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley to go after Pelosi specifically in the way that they have. It was not a general argument about progressives, as ReadySetMillionaire is presenting it; it was a specific charge laid against four specific House members in relation to a specific situation.
Perhaps it is dishonest to attribute the idea that most progressives act in this way to Dowd based on this quote; but I don't think it is a dishonest characterization of the argument - that vilifying people because you disagree with their point of view is wrong. I can certainly understand how a lot of people feel that political discourse on both sides follow this type of behavior.
-
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I don't think that's an even vaguely likely scenario. I'd also say that any undecided voter who decides to vote for concentration camps and unabashed racism because the other side was rude is a crayon-chewing moron who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than string - largely because that would be an unbelievably stupid reason to vote a particular way. "Well, children are literally dying in concentration camps set up by the Trump administration, and Trump is racially abusing members of Congress, but liberals are being rude about those things, so I'll vote for the pussy-grabber!"
Concentration camps? Is Godwin's Law in effect here?
For starters, I think I would agree that most American voters are morons, but that extends to both sides of the aisle, and politicians on both sides have learned to play to it. It's why we have a culture of outrage. Every single thing the president does is the scandal of the century. And the Republicans were just as guilty when Obama was president. For those of us who aren't partisan hacks, it just sounds like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and it gets old.
Even Godwin thinks Godwin's law doesn't apply here.
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1141125878874877953?lang=en
-
Because you're about to get a history lesson from the oh so knowledgeable progressives about TRUE concentration camps, and what REAL concentration camps are, and citations from REAL historians about the origins of the use of "concentration camps." Best wishes to you and your family.
Do you actually realise how you sound? Do you realise you're now posting mockingly about concentration camps?
I mean, it's not a progressive conspiracy to note that concentration camps were not exclusive to the Third Reich, or that the camps set up by the Trump administration meet the definition. It's uncontroversial to refer to the British concentration camps of the Boer War, for example, or the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War Two. But you decide that being snide and mocking about concentration camps in which multiple children have died was a perfectly reasonable reaction. Well done you.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
Shit, we better start bashing Bernie or whoever the fuck if there is an entire coalition of toddlers who vote for whoever is receiving the most severe criticism.
Personally, I think the argument, "calling out people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party will make independents like me vote for the corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful racist misogynists" is... an odd one, at best.
-
If you haven't read Jonathan Haidt's book Righteous Mind I would highly recommend it. It outlines some of the psychology, intuitions and morality associated with politics and the sort of "purity" ideas that are coming up in this thread.
-
I can't believe this turned into a political thread.
-
I can't believe this turned into a political thread.
I can.
-
I can't believe this turned into a political thread.
I can.
Yeah, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
-
I mean, it's a thread about Sol, who was very political here. The fact that it was posted in general discussion, notwithstanding. It probably should have been in off-topic to begin with.
-
I don't care much about sol, but I keep checking @2Birds1Stone 's journal for updates.
At least we know he's in Poland, visiting family. I like to think that no updates = much fun bring had. I know no such thing about sol, alas.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I wasn't expecting this to turn into a political thread, but then, no surprise. LOL
I'm one of those independents. It doesn't help that there's only one democrat candidate among the font-runners that I would consider voting for- Biden. But none of them would be as strong as Trump on immigration and border security.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I wasn't expecting this to turn into a political thread, but then, no surprise. LOL
I'm one of those independents. It doesn't help that there's only one democrat candidate among the font-runners that I would consider voting for- Biden. But none of them would be as strong as Trump on immigration and border security.
To be clear, FIREstache has just admitted that he supports corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists, as the abuse he receives for his support of it will drive him to vote for Trump in 2020.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I wasn't expecting this to turn into a political thread, but then, no surprise. LOL
I'm one of those independents. It doesn't help that there's only one democrat candidate among the font-runners that I would consider voting for- Biden. But none of them would be as strong as Trump on immigration and border security.
To be clear, FIREstache has just admitted that he supports corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists, as the abuse he receives for his support of it will drive him to vote for Trump in 2020.
Nah he’s an independent, remember? He will probably vote for the Libertarian candidate then wipe his hands of the whole mess.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
I wasn't expecting this to turn into a political thread, but then, no surprise. LOL
I'm one of those independents. It doesn't help that there's only one democrat candidate among the font-runners that I would consider voting for- Biden. But none of them would be as strong as Trump on immigration and border security.
To be clear, FIREstache has just admitted that he supports corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists, as the abuse he receives for his support of it will drive him to vote for Trump in 2020.
Like I just said, as an independent, I might vote for Biden. But he has to win the nomination for that to be a possibility.
-
He was obviously an intelligent individual.Unfortunately for him, he couldn't help but bash on conservatives every opportunity he got by calling them sexist, bigots, misogynists, or racist immediately. It was tired, pedantic, and was not constructive conversation.
Absolutely agree. And we are well aware that he is not the only one here with such "credentials."
From Maureen Dowd's op-ed this weekend:
"The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom."
Rings so incredibly true in the thread Sol got worked up in.
Well, I didn't want to say anything negative myself, but the comments from the above posters match what I had been thinking, so I just feel I should say that I agree with them.
Ditto. All the more reason to dump off-topic and political threads. It's better when nobody knows or cares about political affiliation.
Please. Political affiliation will always seep out.
This way, at least there is a place for it.
Of course, but if there is a culture of it being off limits, maybe we could maintain civility? The forum just lost a very popular poster over it, which seems proof enough that it's probably not a good idea to have fiery discussions about politics. Too many people don't seem capable of handling it. This is a FIRE blog, I would think if people want to scream at each other over politics and say nasty things, there surely must be more appropriate venues?
Wait! We didn't lose sol over a fiery discussions about politics.
He left because of a simple statement,
"The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory."
This comment is what sol quoted and came unglued about.
Breaking it down, "The big concern for divorce, (new boyfriends and step-dads), it may be a concern, whether it is the big concern is up for debate. and then "new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory." The important word here, is can. Yes, they can be, they aren't always, and it's probably a low percentage that are.
I suspect a million people could read that and go on to the next post without anymore thought than, it's a shame that could happen, but sol had some memory that surfaced and this is how he expressed it.
Nobodies problem but sol's.
Politics aside, I made the comment that "off topic" in general doesn't seem to be working with this community. If I read correctly, Sol went off on a politically charged rant over the above non-political statement. I've read through a bit of the conversations in off-topic, notably the political ones, and it's such a mess. Not all of it, of course, but enough of it.
You live in the off topic forums. You participate in them heavily, then step back and complain that they're a flaming pile of shit, when you were just seen squatting in the pile.
Sol's comment was no more political than the other statement was. Child abuse is not a hot political topic that one party has taken up over the other. Using him to further your narrative because you disliked him and can't avoid the off topic forums without a mod closing them to spare you from them is just poor taste. Regulate yourself.
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
-
There are several users with FIRE in their names, perhaps there is some confusion as to who's who.
-
I miss sol, too. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but I tended to enjoy reading how he said it. At the very least, every anti-fancypants-blender tirade was gold (and this is from someone with a semi-fancypants $80 blender at home).
As a Vitamix owner I agree! I still hold that I"m happy with my Vitamix purchase. I also have fancypants cookware (regret purchase) and a dealership car (semi-regret purchase). All purchased before reading MMM.
Now I feel stupid for owning a Blendtec. I figured it would come in handy if I ever needed to blend an iPhone. Wish I could read these blender rants! I'm not up for trying to find them, though.
Sol would say you're right to feel stupid about purchasing a Blendtec. It wasn't so much that each rant was gold, but that it seemed you couldn't mention Vitamix on the forum without Sol commenting about how stupid it is. Here's a few posts:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/vitamix-blender/msg1620399/#msg1620399 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/vitamix-blender/msg1620399/#msg1620399)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336183/#msg1336183 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336183/#msg1336183)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336763/#msg1336763 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/buy-it-for-life!/msg1336763/#msg1336763)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/just-scored-a-vitamix-on-craigslist/msg1930163/#msg1930163 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/just-scored-a-vitamix-on-craigslist/msg1930163/#msg1930163)
Thank you for sharing. These are hilarious! I still like my Blendtec, though :)
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
So, to be clear....
You would vote for Trump over anyone but Biden?
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
Anyone who votes for Trump because someone a thousand miles away in Dublin was mean about him on the internet is an even bigger idiot that I had feared.
-
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/living-in-a-hotel/msg2313839/#msg2313839
tee hee
But ya, they must have mistaken you for someone else.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
Anyone who votes for Trump because someone a thousand miles away in Dublin was mean about him on the internet is an even bigger idiot that I had feared.
Even if you're right, that vote still counts. As someone who lives in the country where Trump is president and could potentially be re-elected, I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a bit. You can have a productive conversation without sharing all of your true feelings.
-
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/living-in-a-hotel/msg2313839/#msg2313839
tee hee
But ya, they must have mistaken you for someone else.
Is it possible the thread was moved to off-topic. If I recall reading (maybe a different forum?), you have to post a certain amount of times to even use off-topic, right? In March I would have still been a new member. Regardless, I was told I post like crazy in off-topic and accused of things I clearly don't do. Obviously mistaken for another poster. If somehow I stumbled on a single off topic post, then I was mistaken about "zero" - but that's a far cry from what I was accused of doing.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
Anyone who votes for Trump because someone a thousand miles away in Dublin was mean about him on the internet is an even bigger idiot that I had feared.
Even if you're right, that vote still counts. As someone who lives in the country where Trump is president and could potentially be re-elected, I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a bit. You can have a productive conversation without sharing all of your true feelings.
Yeah. Shut up or go back where you come from. Trump 2020 - HOW GREAT IS AMERICA NOW?
-
Some moderate-types on this thread are saying that aspects of the progressive wing of the democrat party turn them off enough to either lead them to vote for trump or not vote at all. In response, some of the more liberal board members are pointing out that this makes them basically immoral. I agree that voting for Trump is an immoral choice, yet it is clear that many, many moderate/independent types will make this immoral choice on the basis of being very turned off by aspects of the progressive wing of the democrat party. So, if the point is to have someone more liberal and less awful than Trump elected, Democrats need to listen to those moderates, even if they find them to be morally reprehensible, because unfortunately they are the ones who will decide this election. That is my 2 cents.
-
Yeah, no. You can pretend that corruption, incoherence, abusive, spiteful, racist, or misogynistic traits are unique to the Republican party alone if you want to...but you'd be wrong.
Not even vaguely close to what I said. I said that continuing to support someone who has demonstrated that he is all of these things is not a position that deserves respect. I will happily abuse people who support corrupt, incoherent, abusive, spiteful, racist misogynists of any political party.
It is EXACTLY this type of abuse you speak of and inflict that will overwhelmingly drive independent voters to Trump in 2020. If you cant/don't/wont' see this, I don't know what else to say.
This is probably accurate. Runbikerun is not making their case. I read their unsavory, holier than thou posts and think "I want no association with this." It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it turns me off to their cause. I could very much see behavior like this pushing voters to Trump.
Personally, I could maybe vote Biden if he wins the nomination. Though the party is pushing him away from his generally moderate positions, that I have to go with my instinct that he's just trying to get votes and appease the radicals. I'd prefer Biden v. Trump for sure, and the debates would play a large part in my final decision. I would like to have a legit choice when voting time comes around. There is not one other Democrat running that I would even consider an option, though I did like Booker at one point, so who knows.
Anyone who votes for Trump because someone a thousand miles away in Dublin was mean about him on the internet is an even bigger idiot that I had feared.
Even if you're right, that vote still counts. As someone who lives in the country where Trump is president and could potentially be re-elected, I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a bit. You can have a productive conversation without sharing all of your true feelings.
runbikerun has been added to my ignore list. Such a nasty person. Basically proof that politics probably shouldn't be discussed on this forum, because posters like that are seemingly allowed to act so hostile and say such awful things to others. It would only work on this forum if moderators wouldn't tolerate that anymore. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Best to ignore it, so I'll take my own advice :)
-
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
Oh shit sorry I had you confused with DreamFIRE who is another "independent" who shows up frequently to complain about politics.
My comment about child abuse not being a political issue still stands.
-
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
Oh shit sorry I had you confused with DreamFIRE who is another "independent" who shows up frequently to complain about politics.
My comment about child abuse not being a political issue still stands.
It's all good!
-
runbikerun has been added to my ignore list. Such a nasty person. Basically proof that politics probably shouldn't be discussed on this forum, because posters like that are seemingly allowed to act so hostile and say such awful things to others. It would only work on this forum if moderators wouldn't tolerate that anymore. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Best to ignore it, so I'll take my own advice :)
Is there such a thing as an ignore list on the forum? Or is this a personal list?
That would certainly make the forum more pleasant...
Edit: found out how
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
-
Now, I need a new suggestion of who to follow here? Who posts reliably good finance stuff and knows their shit when it comes to taxes, investments, etc?
Quite a few people. Checking out the investment and tax sections of the forum should give you a pretty good idea.
There was a thread once about "who do you follow"
Sol was a top choice, as was MDM, and Seattle CPA.
-
runbikerun has been added to my ignore list. Such a nasty person. Basically proof that politics probably shouldn't be discussed on this forum, because posters like that are seemingly allowed to act so hostile and say such awful things to others. It would only work on this forum if moderators wouldn't tolerate that anymore. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Best to ignore it, so I'll take my own advice :)
Is there such a thing as an ignore list on the forum? Or is this a personal list?
That would certainly make the forum more pleasant...
Edit: found out how
Glad you found it! It's buried. I have a few added already. Really cleans things up.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
I agree with the bolded, however users like Laserjet didn't warn us of criticizing Trump, he warned of saying that it is ok to disrespect or abuse Trump voters and I agree. I don't think it's ok to disrespect and abuse people when we don't know why they made the choice they did.
Sure, it seems logical to say Trump is this and if you support Trump, you support this, but it can be more complex than that. Many voters are simply ignorant of what's going on. Their family, friends, and preferred media sources are telling them they're good, logical people who have come to the correct conclusion so they believe it to be true. Never mind that they've never read more than a headline. Then there's people who know Trump is bad but think the alternative is worse. Again, they can be dead wrong and still believe it sincerely.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
Quite the psycho babble strawman you have created. Nobody that I've seen in my limited time here seems to care about criticism of Trump on any personal level or criticism of "right wing ideology." The issue is when that supposed criticism of Trump extends to "anyone who likes Trump deserves to be abused and name called."
And if you don't like being labeled, abused, and name called, then apparently you are a right wing special operative here only to campaign for Trump! Goodness.
And yes, I would expect moderate to right leaning posters here to consider the most moderate and right leaning Democrat candidates like Biden. Is that surprising? I'm definitely a moderate and Biden is the only candidate I'd consider from the DNC field at the moment. I'm sorry that bothers you so much.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
I agree with the bolded, however users like Laserjet didn't warn us of criticizing Trump, he warned of saying that it is ok to disrespect or abuse Trump voters and I agree. I don't think it's ok to disrespect and abuse people when we don't know why they made the choice they did.
Sure, it seems logical to say Trump is this and if you support Trump, you support this, but it can be more complex than that. Many voters are simply ignorant of what's going on. Their family, friends, and preferred media sources are telling them they're good, logical people who have come to the correct conclusion so they believe it to be true. Never mind that they've never read more than a headline. Then there's people who know Trump is bad but think the alternative is worse. Again, they can be dead wrong and still believe it sincerely.
At least you are saying it in a much nicer way. But still kind of repeating the same attacks. If you don't like my preferred worldviews, then you are ignorant, brainwashed, and too dumb to read past a headline. I don't think it's healthy to view people this way and it makes debate nearly impossible when that's your starting point. Which is why I would never debate actual politics here, there is too much hate and animosity. I'd much prefer to bullshit about blenders. So I'll remind myself again to take my own advice and move on from this nonsense. Anyone interested in a Vitamix?
-
This was the toned-down version already, but point taken. I'll do my best to remain as civil as possible.
For what it's worth, I suspect Trump is in for a mauling in 2020. He got in thanks to an incredible degree of apathy in 2016, and still lost the popular vote by three million. That apathy is gone for a generation at least: I doubt anyone is going to be seriously pulling the "plague-on-both-your-houses" schtick this time round, and so I'm quietly confident that there will be a sizeable wave of voters turning out to make sure he goes - not a million miles from the French presidential election in the 2000s, where apathy saw Jean Marie Le Pen get through the runoff to the final vote, but disgust saw him get absolutely shellacked by a coalition of just about everyone else.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
I agree with the bolded, however users like Laserjet didn't warn us of criticizing Trump, he warned of saying that it is ok to disrespect or abuse Trump voters and I agree. I don't think it's ok to disrespect and abuse people when we don't know why they made the choice they did.
Sure, it seems logical to say Trump is this and if you support Trump, you support this, but it can be more complex than that. Many voters are simply ignorant of what's going on. Their family, friends, and preferred media sources are telling them they're good, logical people who have come to the correct conclusion so they believe it to be true. Never mind that they've never read more than a headline. Then there's people who know Trump is bad but think the alternative is worse. Again, they can be dead wrong and still believe it sincerely.
At least you are saying it in a much nicer way. But still kind of repeating the same attacks. If you don't like my preferred worldviews, then you are ignorant, brainwashed, and too dumb to read past a headline. I don't think it's healthy to view people this way and it makes debate nearly impossible when that's your starting point. Which is why I would never debate actual politics here, there is too much hate and animosity. I'd much prefer to bullshit about blenders. So I'll remind myself again to take my own advice and move on from this nonsense.
I realize the way I've worded it is still going to offend Trump voters but I'm also trying to have an honest conversation with the people who think it's ok to be abusive, that's the mind I want to change right now. One of the difficulties of an open forum I suppose. What I honestly think is that the vast majority of Trump voters have been lied to and believed it in one way or another but If I was having a one on one with a Trump supporter I would broach the subject differently.
And I didn't call anyone brainwashed or dumb. So often when someone takes offense at a word (wrong, ignorant) they turn it into an even worse word (brainwashed, dumb) to justify their own offense. Not reading past a headline is perfectly normal human behavior. It might be due to lack of caring or avoidance of cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't make someone dumb.
-
I'm not gonna miss Sol that much. I distrust anyone with a crusader's self righteous zeal that can't question their own views - Fundamentalist Christians, Capitalists, Democrats, Progressives, Communists, Wahabbists, Republicans, Fascists, Feminists, SJWs, 2nd Amendment haters, Gun nuts - all of them. Sol was just another. Plenty rage quit just like him. But there's and there's plenty more just like him and plenty more to replace him.
It might be because I'm sour about American liberals who want to rage quit America like Sol rage quit the board. They should leave. They should GTFO and don't let the door hit them in the ass. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on. We got thousands of immigrants ready and willing to take their place piling up on our border. Or these liberals can show some spine and stay and fight for the America they want.
-
I'm not gonna miss Sol that much. I distrust anyone with a crusader's self righteous zeal that can't question their own views - Fundamentalist Christians, Capitalists, Democrats, Progressives, Communists, Wahabbists, Republicans, Fascists, Feminists, SJWs, 2nd Amendment haters, Gun nuts - all of them. Sol was just another. Plenty rage quit just like him. But there's and there's plenty more just like him and plenty more to replace him.
It might be because I'm sour about American liberals who want to rage quit America like Sol rage quit the board. They should leave. They should GTFO and don't let the door hit them in the ass. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on. . We got thousands of immigrants ready and willing to take their place piling up on our border. Or these liberals can show some spine and stay and fight for the America they want.
Assuming you're referring to Trump's comment to congresswomen, let's remember they don't actually hate America, that's part of Trump's constructed narrative too. Someone who wants to quit doesn't run for office. And their "complaining" is exactly what a politician should be doing. Find a problem, inform the people, work to fix problem.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
I agree with the bolded, however users like Laserjet didn't warn us of criticizing Trump, he warned of saying that it is ok to disrespect or abuse Trump voters and I agree. I don't think it's ok to disrespect and abuse people when we don't know why they made the choice they did.
Sure, it seems logical to say Trump is this and if you support Trump, you support this, but it can be more complex than that. Many voters are simply ignorant of what's going on. Their family, friends, and preferred media sources are telling them they're good, logical people who have come to the correct conclusion so they believe it to be true. Never mind that they've never read more than a headline. Then there's people who know Trump is bad but think the alternative is worse. Again, they can be dead wrong and still believe it sincerely.
At least you are saying it in a much nicer way. But still kind of repeating the same attacks. If you don't like my preferred worldviews, then you are ignorant, brainwashed, and too dumb to read past a headline. I don't think it's healthy to view people this way and it makes debate nearly impossible when that's your starting point. Which is why I would never debate actual politics here, there is too much hate and animosity. I'd much prefer to bullshit about blenders. So I'll remind myself again to take my own advice and move on from this nonsense.
I realize the way I've worded it is still going to offend Trump voters but I'm also trying to have an honest conversation with the people who think it's ok to be abusive, that's the mind I want to change right now. One of the difficulties of an open forum I suppose. What I honestly think is that the vast majority of Trump voters have been lied to and believed it in one way or another but If I was having a one on one with a Trump supporter I would broach the subject differently.
And I didn't call anyone brainwashed or dumb. So often when someone takes offense at a word (wrong, ignorant) they turn it into an even worse word (brainwashed, dumb) to justify their own offense. Not reading past a headline is perfectly normal human behavior. It might be due to lack of caring or avoidance of cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't make someone dumb.
"preferred media sources are telling them they're good, logical people who have come to the correct conclusion so they believe it to be true." - that sounds like "brainwashed" to me. And my point was that it came off as simply sugar coated. But I get what you are saying. It's all good.
However, I am finished with this thread, it's not why I'm here. Just an FYI if you do decide to respond - I probably won't be replying back on the topic anymore (I think we beat it to death already). Enjoy this beautiful Wednesday, I'm heading out for a bike ride.
-
Jesus. Look, there's the old-fashioned type of conservatism that emphasized individual freedom and personal responsibility. Low taxes. Strong national defense. Many of us lead our own personal financial lives in accord with this conservative mindset. Self sufficiency and self reliance. No problem, we may not all agree as to whether this mindset is best for society as a whole, but we can certainly have a civil discussion. I personally think we need certain public services and a sufficient social safety net but others may civilly disagree with me and that's fine.
Then, there's another type of conservatism. Racism. Xenophobia. Religious intolerance. Control over women's reproduction. Homophobia / transphobia. Children in cages. Gun fetishes. And let's top it off by putting a fake celebrity douchebag in the white house. Guys, this idiot has been a fake celebrity since the 80s, come on! So with respect to this version of conservatism, thanks but no thanks. This stuff isn't even really conservative, it's just wrong. Why can't we have a civil conversation? Because one side has sailed off the edge of the map.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
Nobody that I've seen in my limited time here seems to care about criticism of Trump on any personal level or criticism of "right wing ideology."
Stick around.
-
I'm not gonna miss Sol that much. I distrust anyone with a crusader's self righteous zeal that can't question their own views - Fundamentalist Christians, Capitalists, Democrats, Progressives, Communists, Wahabbists, Republicans, Fascists, Feminists, SJWs, 2nd Amendment haters, Gun nuts - all of them. Sol was just another. Plenty rage quit just like him. But there's and there's plenty more just like him and plenty more to replace him.
It might be because I'm sour about American liberals who want to rage quit America like Sol rage quit the board. They should leave. They should GTFO and don't let the door hit them in the ass. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on. We got thousands of immigrants ready and willing to take their place piling up on our border. Or these liberals can show some spine and stay and fight for the America they want.
I learned a LOT from sol, and I am none of those things on your list. If you had listed "Tolerant", maybe I would have made it, but being on this list is nothing I would ever aspire to, being tolerant and all.
-
Why can't we have a civil conversation? Because one side has sailed off the edge of the map.
I understand the sentiment and I have this feeling sometimes too but then I ask myself, what's the alternative? Is an uncivil conversation more productive? Do we just not talk at all?
Maybe it would better explain my thoughts on this to just say Darryl Davis (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes) is my hero.
-
I'm not gonna miss Sol that much. I distrust anyone with a crusader's self righteous zeal that can't question their own views - Fundamentalist Christians, Capitalists, Democrats, Progressives, Communists, Wahabbists, Republicans, Fascists, Feminists, SJWs, 2nd Amendment haters, Gun nuts - all of them. Sol was just another. Plenty rage quit just like him. But there's and there's plenty more just like him and plenty more to replace him.
It might be because I'm sour about American liberals who want to rage quit America like Sol rage quit the board. They should leave. They should GTFO and don't let the door hit them in the ass. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on. . We got thousands of immigrants ready and willing to take their place piling up on our border. Or these liberals can show some spine and stay and fight for the America they want.
Assuming you're referring to Trump's comment to congresswomen, let's remember they don't actually hate America, that's part of Trump's constructed narrative too. Someone who wants to quit doesn't run for office. And their "complaining" is exactly what a politician should be doing. Find a problem, inform the people, work to fix problem.
I'm not referring to that specifically. But I've heard plenty of limousine liberals piss and moan about moving to Canada from the last election or if he wins the next. Leave already. And yeah, Trump's a piece of shit. Him not getting us into WW III yet may be the only thing that contradicts that or it may be God's continued blessing of America. But I don't trust him not to keep trying through arrogance or stupidity and I don't want to test God's patience.
-
I'm not gonna miss Sol that much. I distrust anyone with a crusader's self righteous zeal that can't question their own views - Fundamentalist Christians, Capitalists, Democrats, Progressives, Communists, Wahabbists, Republicans, Fascists, Feminists, SJWs, 2nd Amendment haters, Gun nuts - all of them. Sol was just another. Plenty rage quit just like him. But there's and there's plenty more just like him and plenty more to replace him.
It might be because I'm sour about American liberals who want to rage quit America like Sol rage quit the board. They should leave. They should GTFO and don't let the door hit them in the ass. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on. . We got thousands of immigrants ready and willing to take their place piling up on our border. Or these liberals can show some spine and stay and fight for the America they want.
Assuming you're referring to Trump's comment to congresswomen, let's remember they don't actually hate America, that's part of Trump's constructed narrative too. Someone who wants to quit doesn't run for office. And their "complaining" is exactly what a politician should be doing. Find a problem, inform the people, work to fix problem.
I'm not referring to that specifically. But I've heard plenty of limousine liberals piss and moan about moving to Canada from the last election or if he wins the next. Leave already. And yeah, Trump's a piece of shit. Him not getting us into WW III yet may be the only thing that contradicts that or it may be God's continued blessing of America. But I don't trust him not to keep trying through arrogance or stupidity and I don't want to test God's patience.
Hell no, they can leave on November 4, 2020 if they like :) I guess I was confused because I don't recall Trump telling those people to leave but he talks so much he probably has at some point.
-
This was the toned-down version already, but point taken. I'll do my best to remain as civil as possible.
For what it's worth, I suspect Trump is in for a mauling in 2020. He got in thanks to an incredible degree of apathy in 2016, and still lost the popular vote by three million. That apathy is gone for a generation at least: I doubt anyone is going to be seriously pulling the "plague-on-both-your-houses" schtick this time round, and so I'm quietly confident that there will be a sizeable wave of voters turning out to make sure he goes - not a million miles from the French presidential election in the 2000s, where apathy saw Jean Marie Le Pen get through the runoff to the final vote, but disgust saw him get absolutely shellacked by a coalition of just about everyone else.
Would that it were true.
For what it's worth, here's what I think is happening:
Looking at the Democratic slate of candidates for 2020, it seems apparent that at least one of the presidential nominee or VP picks will be a person of color. Very possibly, one of them will be a woman, too. Trump is ramping up the racism, sexism, and neo-birtherism now, because he knows that's what his supporters like/want/respond to. What he is doing now is building a new Hillary machine for them to hate -- a figurehead to spew all their bile and conspiracy theories at. Expect more and increasingly strident racism from him going forward, because the point is to create that space where any of the eventual candidates can just be plugged in. By the time the Democratic nomination is made, Trump's base -- and right-wing media, and his lackeys in the GOP -- will be primed and prepped to transfer all that hatred to whomever it ends up being. Instead of "Lock Her Up!" they'll just change the chant to "Send Them Back!"
And if the Democrats keep infighting, they will be fragmented and unable to rally behind their ticket.
The libertarians will keep thinking they're above all this and not bother to try to block Trump. Because, you know, both parties are the same.
And that's how we get Trump in 2020.
-
I agree that because Trump is a racist, sexist shit doesn't make the people who vote for him the same. What I never see is any reasoned justification for supporting those characteristics in Trump. It's always "oh, they don't know because they only watch Fox News or talk to other Trump supporters/ don't read his tweets", or it's "I can put up with it for the tax cuts/deregulation/anti-immigrant stance". Which gives Trump supporters/Republicans a free pass on the racism and the deaths of children at border posts and the anti-environment stuff that I'm not sure they deserve - deliberate ignorance and self-interest are not exactly admirable characteristics, are they? And I never see any indication that there are any limits to what Trump voters will put up with, even with Trump consistently pushing the boundaries he gets almost no push back from anyone other than Democrats.
-
They're not robbing the bank, they're driving the getaway car.
It's total complicity in the racist, sexist, homophobic, stuff . . . but at a slightly lower level than that of Trump.
They don't give a shit what happens in the bank. They're going to drive that car and get paid handsomely. If someone gets killed in the robbery . . . too bad, doesn't impact them. But don't call 'em robbers. Oh no. That's unfair . . .
-
We don't need to rely on presidential candidate debates to tell us anything about Biden or Trump.
The ACTIONS of both candidates are more important b/c as Trump (and other politicians before him) have shown - talk is very, very cheap.
I think we know that whatever Democrat might get elected with be pushed into a corner just like the GOP did with Obama. Truth and honor will be valueless in debates.
The GOP will resort to any tactic they need to in order to stifle the Democrats. Lying and cheating is fair play to the current GOP.
Look at Biden's track record. Look at Trump's track record. Don't given Trump too much credit for any of the current prosperity. That pre-dated him and is independent of him. Enough said.
My mind is made up. Anyone but Trump.
I'd be glad to see Sol back in the discussions. He can get pretty riled up but as long as it is in the Off-Topic section, rant away Sol! Be nice but rant if it has a point.
-
I agree that because Trump is a racist, sexist shit doesn't make the people who vote for him the same. What I never see is any reasoned justification for supporting those characteristics in Trump. It's always "oh, they don't know because they only watch Fox News or talk to other Trump supporters/ don't read his tweets", or it's "I can put up with it for the tax cuts/deregulation/anti-immigrant stance". Which gives Trump supporters/Republicans a free pass on the racism and the deaths of children at border posts and the anti-environment stuff that I'm not sure they deserve - deliberate ignorance and self-interest are not exactly admirable characteristics, are they? And I never see any indication that there are any limits to what Trump voters will put up with, even with Trump consistently pushing the boundaries he gets almost no push back from anyone other than Democrats.
No, but they are very common characteristics in humans regardless of who they vote for.
And I don't think it gives anyone a "pass" so to speak. I'm still willing to call them out for it but I think it's also important to remember that most people are not uncaring sociopaths. If you put a wounded/sick/hungry person right in front of them, they feel sympathy. It's just that when that person is far away and you can't see them, we process it differently. The brain has ways of shielding us from accepting how bad things are when they're not right in front of us. Once those walls are up, sometimes we deny even what's in front of our own eyes.
-
I think the fundamental moral dilemma for moderates is that both far wings of each parties are taking the respective parties hostage, leaving many people feeling unrepresented and casting a "fuck it" vote.
Trump obviously conducted a hostile takeover of the Republican Party (PBS's Frontline episode of "Trump's Road to the White House" is terrific). He is doing conservative things like lowering taxes, nominating conservative judges, promoting de-regulation, etc.; but he is also a buffoon, as already documented in this thread, and he is not at all old school conservative (small government, budget reduction, etc.).
In my view, progressives are similarly undertaking a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Their positions are so incredibly antithetical to many moderates' positions. In no particular order:
(1) they support state-sponsored healthcare for undocumented immigrants (which every D candidate said they would do in the last debate, in an obvious attempt to pander to the progressive base);
(2) advocate for de facto open borders (as described by Mother Jones of all outlets -- https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/07/are-democrats-now-the-party-of-open-borders/ );
(3) unfairly describe wealthy entrepreneurs (according to Progressives, entrepreneurs "did not build" their businesses, which I take great offense to);
(4) want to raise taxes (when I already pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, state income tax, municipal income tax, federal income tax, medicare tax, social security tax, and healthcare is basically a tax at this point);
(5) expand state-sponsored healthcare and, for some, remove private sector healthcare;
(6) forgive student loan debt (I had $159,000 in loans at the start of the year, and I disagree with this, as it does not solve the fundamental problem -- cost; although I guess this is a popular position because who doesn't want "free!");
(7) The constant, never-ending bashing of American history and achievement (just browsed the NYT to find today's latest: targeting the Apollo accomplishments as sexist -- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/science/women-astronauts-nasa.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes )
I could go on. So one party is held hostage by Trump, the other by a progressive base that is antithetical to many moderate positions.
There are huge swaths of the middle of the country that do not support Trump or progressives. But when they are picking between the two, they will vote for the one who they think will do less harm to themselves individually.
On this note, I also think a huge problem, for democrats, is that they are kind of the boy who cried wolf. GWB was the devil, now he's revered by many. McCain was the devil, now he's widely revered. Romney was the devil and laughed off the stage for calling Russia our biggest threat, now he's a knowledgeable, noble statesman. I can see why many people just don't give a shit what labels the left throws at Trump.
Bottom line of this rant -- voting for one or the other is a "tacit approval" of everything they do is perhaps true, but it ignores the significant complexities of the matter.
-
GWB was the devil, now he's revered by many. McCain was the devil, now he's widely revered. Romney was the devil and laughed off the stage for calling Russia our biggest threat, now he's a knowledgeable, noble statesman. I can see why many people just don't give a shit what labels the left throws at Trump.
GWB was an idiot. McCain wasn't a devil . . . although his running mate was also an idiot. Nothing wrong with Romney (he invented Obamacare).
Who's laughing now about Russia with the president in Putin's back pocket?
:P
-
but he is also a buffoon
Honestly, I don't understand how this wasn't enough to stop a lot of seemingly reasonable people for voting for him in 2016. Not like the buffoon factor was an unknown before the primaries back then.
-
but he is also a buffoon
Honestly, I don't understand how this wasn't enough to stop a lot of seemingly reasonable people for voting for him in 2016. Not like the buffoon factor was an unknown before the primaries back then.
Agreed. Full transparency (not sure if I've said this in this particular thread), I voted for Hillary. But I think in reaction to Trump, the progressives have moved the party left (maybe it just seems that way because it's primary season), and now Hillary seems like quite a moderate in comparison.
I think this is what will shape 2020. How far left will the democratic candidate go? Because the buffoon factor wasn't enough to stop Trump four years ago.
-
I think the fundamental moral dilemma for moderates is that both far wings of each parties are taking the respective parties hostage, leaving many people feeling unrepresented and casting a "fuck it" vote.
Trump obviously conducted a hostile takeover of the Republican Party (PBS's Frontline episode of "Trump's Road to the White House" is terrific). He is doing conservative things like lowering taxes, nominating conservative judges, promoting de-regulation, etc.; but he is also a buffoon, as already documented in this thread, and he is not at all old school conservative (small government, budget reduction, etc.).
In my view, progressives are similarly undertaking a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Their positions are so incredibly antithetical to many moderates' positions. In no particular order:
(1) they support state-sponsored healthcare for undocumented immigrants (which every D candidate said they would do in the last debate, in an obvious attempt to pander to the progressive base);
(2) advocate for de facto open borders (as described by Mother Jones of all outlets -- https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/07/are-democrats-now-the-party-of-open-borders/ );
(3) unfairly describe wealthy entrepreneurs (according to Progressives, entrepreneurs "did not build" their businesses, which I take great offense to);
(4) want to raise taxes (when I already pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, state income tax, municipal income tax, federal income tax, medicare tax, social security tax, and healthcare is basically a tax at this point);
(5) expand state-sponsored healthcare and, for some, remove private sector healthcare;
(6) forgive student loan debt (I had $159,000 in loans at the start of the year, and I disagree with this, as it does not solve the fundamental problem -- cost; although I guess this is a popular position because who doesn't want "free!");
(7) The constant, never-ending bashing of American history and achievement (just browsed the NYT to find today's latest: targeting the Apollo accomplishments as sexist -- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/science/women-astronauts-nasa.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes )
I could go on. So one party is held hostage by Trump, the other by a progressive base that is antithetical to many moderate positions.
There are huge swaths of the middle of the country that do not support Trump or progressives. But when they are picking between the two, they will vote for the one who they think will do less harm to themselves individually.
On this note, I also think a huge problem, for democrats, is that they are kind of the boy who cried wolf. GWB was the devil, now he's revered by many. McCain was the devil, now he's widely revered. Romney was the devil and laughed off the stage for calling Russia our biggest threat, now he's a knowledgeable, noble statesman. I can see why many people just don't give a shit what labels the left throws at Trump.
Bottom line of this rant -- voting for one or the other is a "tacit approval" of everything they do is perhaps true, but it ignores the significant complexities of the matter.
That was about as well as I think the whole situation can be put.
And it's not like the Republican Party leadership wanted Trump to be nominated. They openly did everything they could to prevent him from getting the nomination (similar to how the DNC secretly did everything they could to make sure Clinton was the Democrat nominee). Plenty of well-known conservatives called themselves "never Trumpers." Whether or not they came around by November is a different story. I didn't vote for him in 2016 and certainly won't vote for him in 2020 either, but the progressives on the left have made it equally difficult to consider the Democrat Party.
But constantly crying fascism got old during GWB's presidency, and anyone that's been around long enough to remember that is probably tired of hearing it by now. I remember having conversations with people who legitimately thought Bush would refuse to surrender power after his second term. And I see some of the same comments now.
-
I don't remember GWB ever "joking" about being president for 10 or 12 more years. Or saying that his followers would start a civil war if he doesn't get re-elected. Or being a mysogynistic, racist, lying criminal.
GWB looks like a saint compared to the current president.
-
but he is also a buffoon
Honestly, I don't understand how this wasn't enough to stop a lot of seemingly reasonable people for voting for him in 2016. Not like the buffoon factor was an unknown before the primaries back then.
Agreed. Full transparency (not sure if I've said this in this particular thread), I voted for Hillary. But I think in reaction to Trump, the progressives have moved the party left (maybe it just seems that way because it's primary season), and now Hillary seems like quite a moderate in comparison.
I think this is what will shape 2020. How far left will the democratic candidate go? Because the buffoon factor wasn't enough to stop Trump four years ago.
She always was a moderate. It's just that the right has taken to labeling pretty much everyone on the other side a far-left radical socialist, no matter what the reality.
-
I don't remember GWB ever "joking" about being president for 10 or 12 more years. Or saying that his followers would start a civil war if he doesn't get re-elected. Or being a mysogynistic, racist, lying criminal.
GWB looks like a saint compared to the current president.
Then you have a very different view of Bush than the reality of his time in office. People wanted him arrested for war crimes. The worst I've heard about Trump so far is impeachment, though the Hitler references started much earlier in his presidency than they did for Bush.
“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator.” -GWB
It was reported that Obama said something along the lines of it being easier to be president of China than of the USA to Chinese officials (so that can be taken with a grain of salt). In either case, everyone says dumb shit. Trump seems to say a lot more of it, but that doesn't change the fact that people will always overreact to or ignore whatever is said, depending on party affiliation.
-
I don't remember GWB ever "joking" about being president for 10 or 12 more years. Or saying that his followers would start a civil war if he doesn't get re-elected. Or being a mysogynistic, racist, lying criminal.
GWB looks like a saint compared to the current president.
Then you have a very different view of Bush than the reality of his time in office. People wanted him arrested for war crimes. The worst I've heard about Trump so far is impeachment, though the Hitler references started much earlier in his presidency than they did for Bush.
“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator.” -GWB
It was reported that Obama said something along the lines of it being easier to be president of China than of the USA to Chinese officials (so that can be taken with a grain of salt). In either case, everyone says dumb shit. Trump seems to say a lot more of it, but that doesn't change the fact that people will always overreact to or ignore whatever is said, depending on party affiliation.
Bush did commit war crimes. He OK'd the abduction and torture of civilians and the torture of enemy combatants. He OK'd the use of private contractors in the Iraq war who committed war crimes.
He wasn't overtly racist, or misogynist though, didn't conspire with Russia, and didn't commit crimes in the US to the best of my knowledge though.
-
For what it's worth, here's what I think is happening:
Looking at the Democratic slate of candidates for 2020, it seems apparent that at least one of the presidential nominee or VP picks will be a person of color. Very possibly, one of them will be a woman, too. Trump is ramping up the racism, sexism, and neo-birtherism now, because he knows that's what his supporters like/want/respond to. What he is doing now is building a new Hillary machine for them to hate -- a figurehead to spew all their bile and conspiracy theories at. Expect more and increasingly strident racism from him going forward, because the point is to create that space where any of the eventual candidates can just be plugged in. By the time the Democratic nomination is made, Trump's base -- and right-wing media, and his lackeys in the GOP -- will be primed and prepped to transfer all that hatred to whomever it ends up being. Instead of "Lock Her Up!" they'll just change the chant to "Send Them Back!"
And if the Democrats keep infighting, they will be fragmented and unable to rally behind their ticket.
The libertarians will keep thinking they're above all this and not bother to try to block Trump. Because, you know, both parties are the same.
And that's how we get Trump in 2020.
IF Trump wins, I'm pretty sure Kris is right about how. Don't blame the libertarians though, the changing the line above that is all the Democrats should need to win. Trump has his base and they will turn out, but they are far from a majority. Of course Democrats could pivot towards the center in the primary and win by a landslide with plenty of independent support. The way I see it the Democratic party has all the power in this round because they know exactly which cards the Republican party will play; but this doesn't have to be a game where Trump always wins.
While the Democrats were in power, I kept thinking that the Republicans could easily take control by embracing the old-fashioned type of conservatism that OurTown talked about (that's what it will take to get my vote back). I never imagined that they would win with a candidate like Trump.
Either way, I won't spend too much time considering presidential candidates, I'm sure all 55 electoral votes from my state will go to the Democratic party's nominee. My time will be better spent considering the top two runoff candidates on my ballot.
Don't given Trump too much credit for any of the current prosperity. That pre-dated him and is independent of him. Enough said.
That is mostly true for nearly every presidential reelection candidate. The economy reacts too slowly to the policy lead by the sitting president to really be an indicator for their second term election. Unfortunately the voters react to the economy faster than policy changes effect the economy (and voters often put to much weight on the current economic conditions that are part of common business cycles in spite of policy changes as well).
I think the fundamental moral dilemma for moderates is that both far wings of each parties are taking the respective parties hostage, leaving many people feeling unrepresented...
and he is not at all old school conservative (small government, budget reduction, etc.).
Yep, (but I haven't decided to shirk my civic duty to vote, just decided that voting for the candidate that I believe would be the best is a better message to the dominate parties than voting for the dominate party candidate that is not as bad as the other). Republicans haven't actually put up an old school conservative for president in a long time.
Bottom line of this rant -- voting for one or the other is a "tacit approval" of everything they do is perhaps true, but it ignores the significant complexities of the matter.
And voting for a third party is not "tacit approval" of the eventual winner!
But constantly crying fascism got old during GWB's presidency, and anyone that's been around long enough to remember that is probably tired of hearing it by now. I remember having conversations with people who legitimately thought Bush would refuse to surrender power after his second term. And I see some of the same comments now.
And I heard plenty of conservatives that were afraid that Obama was going to refuse to turn over power and become a dictator.
She always was a moderate. It's just that the right has taken to labeling pretty much everyone on the other side a far-left radical socialist, no matter what the reality.
Personally I think Hillary's worst credential was her record at the Department of State. Not sure how people thought Trump would be better.
“If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator.” -GWB
It was reported that Obama said something along the lines of it being easier to be president of China than of the USA to Chinese officials (so that can be taken with a grain of salt).
I take these to mean that President of the United States (and "Leader of the Free World") are not nearly as powerful titles as people sometimes make them out to be. You can (think you) have the perfect policy, but you still have to deal with politics to actually implement it. To everyone who's candidate losses the Presidential election, remember, the President's power is considerably limited on its own.
Trump seems to say a lot more of it, but that doesn't change the fact that people will always overreact to or ignore whatever is said, depending on party affiliation.
My biggest concern with Trump is that his words will be a problem for us diplomatically. Fortunately, I think most of the world is far more rational about the actual power of the sitting US President than the average american voter.
-
I think being "too dumb to read past a headline" works both way. I fully admit that I don't usually read past a headline. What I'm reading on here and what I've seen from the headlines that Trump tweeted for AOC to go back to where she came from (and thinking how horrible of him) and then read the full quote to go back to the drug infested places they came from..... To me that's two entirely different things.
Just like Sol saying that Trump said he could get away with murder in Times Square.... NOT the quote at all.
-
Wow, that thread! Am I the only one who thinks this site probably doesn't need an Off-Topic section? What a disaster and wasteland that section seems to be.
The wasteland is spreading to other parts of the forum, unfortunately. I'd be all for a no politics and no religion rule on this forum but I don't think there is enough moderator presence here to enforce it. That is not a dig at the moderators.
-
I think being "too dumb to read past a headline" works both way. I fully admit that I don't usually read past a headline. What I'm reading on here and what I've seen from the headlines that Trump tweeted for AOC to go back to where she came from (and thinking how horrible of him) and then read the full quote to go back to the drug infested places they came from..... To me that's two entirely different things.
Just like Sol saying that Trump said he could get away with murder in Times Square.... NOT the quote at all.
Are you sure you read the full quote?
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
-
Read it now. OR maybe I need to fact check it. The quote is NOT "go back where you came from...."
-
Then you have Guitar Stv, aa Canadian yet seemingly expert on all American politics, who doesn't know who Omar is. He must be reading "the headlines"
-
Then you have Guitar Stv, aa Canadian yet seemingly expert on all American politics, who doesn't know who Omar is. He must be reading "the headlines"
Since when was he demoted from being a triple a Canadian?
-
I think being "too dumb to read past a headline" works both way. I fully admit that I don't usually read past a headline. What I'm reading on here and what I've seen from the headlines that Trump tweeted for AOC to go back to where she came from (and thinking how horrible of him) and then read the full quote to go back to the drug infested places they came from..... To me that's two entirely different things.
Just like Sol saying that Trump said he could get away with murder in Times Square.... NOT the quote at all.
? Just so we're all on the same page here, this is the full Trump quote in question (emphasis mine):
So interesting to see "Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
Only one of the people he was talking about was not born in America, and she's been a citizen for longer than Trump's wife has been. The other three "originally came" from the USA. All four however are Black / Brown / Latino.
Telling brown people to "go back where you came from" is absolutely racist, and it a line straight from the white supremacist quotebook. It assumes that the USA is a land for whites only, and that non-whites can never really belong here.
And then in addition we throw on the other pejoratives, "vicious", "worst", "corrupt", "inept", "totally broken", "crime infested". This makes the statement more racist, not less as you somehow seem to conclude. These are all common racist characterizations of non-whites and non-white-majority countries. Other countries can have problems sure, but you'll never hear so bleak a picture as to hear a racist describe them.
Not to mention that "telling people how our government is to be run" is exactly the job of elected representatives. That's literally what they were elected to do. But racists sure seethe at having non-whites be in positions of authority, don't they?
Add it to the large pile of other explicitly racist things that Trump has done. I cannot understand how you think that adding "drug infested" somehow makes this non-racist.
-
Read it now. OR maybe I need to fact check it. The quote is NOT "go back where you came from...."
That is true that it doesn't literally say it and I'll admit I find it frustrating when headlines say "____ says _____" but it's not a quote. On the other hand it still reads like a clumsy, drawn out version of that. The basic premise that someone should go back to the country from which they came when they're a citizen of the US (particularly when they "came" from the US) is pretty awful. Since they were in fact born here, what country is he telling them to go to. Why is he even bringing up the idea that they're from another country? Could it have something to do with their skin color perhaps?
So he did not say "go back to where you came from" but he did say "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came"
There was fluff in the middle where he criticized... the US and Somalia I guess?
-
Read it now. OR maybe I need to fact check it. The quote is NOT "go back where you came from...."
Right, technically it's "Why don't they go back ... [to the countries] from which they came." That's just a longer and more awkward way of saying the same thing though.
-
Huh? I have exactly ZERO posts in off-topic on this forum. And I probably would have completely avoided reading them if not for this post showing up in the General section.
Oh shit sorry I had you confused with DreamFIRE who is another "independent" who shows up frequently to complain about politics.
My comment about child abuse not being a political issue still stands.
Really??? I could have sworn you had him mixed up with me, FIREstache, since I'm the only one who said I was an independent in this thread... more than once even, and I had posted some very recently in the off topic part of the forum that you were complaining about.
-
The users who warn us that criticism of Trump will lead to his election are doing so to silence criticism. They're hoping your fear of another term will keep your mouth shut and normalize what most Americans view as unacceptable ideology. You'll notice that whatever the matter of discussion, they will take the farthest right position (even with ostensibly moderate positions, like "maybe" supporting Biden... the topic there is which DNC they prefer, so naturally they've chosen the one the farthest to the right). Their existence on this forum is to push right wherever and whenever possible. You'll notice also that they have generic user names, don't engage in discussions constructively or in good faith, and gloat when actual users grow frustrated with engaging with them and stop posting. They make frequent and vague appeals to moderators to help them police the tone of conversations whenever the tone is open criticism of far right ideology. They'll post on-topic occasionally to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility to the moderator so that they continue to post.
This strategy plays out in many other fora and other social media platforms. It's a campaign.
That's quite an entertaining tale you tell there. But I question whether any of it is grounded in facts. If they want Trump to be re-elected as you stated, then why would they support Biden, who happens to be the democrat presidential candidate who polls most favorably in head to head matchups vs. Trump?
-
Read it now. OR maybe I need to fact check it. The quote is NOT "go back where you came from...."
Right, technically it's "Why don't they go back ... [to the countries] from which they came." That's just a longer and more awkward way of saying the same thing though.
Isn't it a tad ironic that Trump's mother was a Scottish immigrant? This whole Brexit deal is a mess so maybe he should take his own advice.
-
Read it now. OR maybe I need to fact check it. The quote is NOT "go back where you came from...."
Right, technically it's "Why don't they go back ... [to the countries] from which they came." That's just a longer and more awkward way of saying the same thing though.
Isn't it a tad ironic that Trump's mother was a Scottish immigrant? This whole Brexit deal is a mess so maybe he should take his own advice.
Oh dear dog it's bad enough over here already without adding that.
-
MOD NOTE:
Sol was warned for his comments that broke forum rules in the posts linked to on the first page of this thread.
He then left of his own accord. Who knows if, or when, he'll be back.
In the meantime, this thread has apparently turned into another political back and forth.
With the OP's question answered, above, I'm locking this thread.
Please PM me or another mod with any concerns.
Cheers!