Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64533 times)

Sugaree

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #150 on: February 27, 2019, 01:32:56 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on. 

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #151 on: February 27, 2019, 01:48:24 PM »
I know what pro-lifers said. I have actually spoken to quite a number of them over the years. Some do seem to care, others have told me I am going to hell for using contraception. But overall I am judging them by their actions, not their words.

Despite their statements and what they say are their motivations, their actions and their votes indicate they do not care about the health and welfare of women and babies in general, because of their huge activism to remove government funding from planned parenthood (None of which goes to abortions), or in some cases try to close them down. Sometimes politically, sometimes by intimidation. A huge number of women (in particular lower income women) get their reproductive health care from PP! If you don't get good early reproductive care, your likelihood of having healthy pregnancies and healthy births goes down.
In my case in my early 20's I went to PP in order to get on contraception. They don't just hand it out, they give you reproductive care. In my case they discovered precancerous cells in the pap smear they did, and treated it. So not only did I NOT die of potentially undiagnosed cancer (hey, I'm a life too! Do I count?), later on in life when I was ready and prepared to have kids I was able to successfully bear two healthy children. Do you think if politically or by intimidation pro lifers closed down all PP clinics, would then be saving "lives"? I argue not. Instead these women would then pursue more dangerous, and sometimes more late term abortions, which not only terminates the pregnancy but risks the health and life of the mother as well. If pro-lifers shrug their shoulders and say they are fine with that kind of thing happening, well that's all I can say about the subject.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #152 on: February 27, 2019, 02:16:48 PM »
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.

Well, that's not really what was said.  But if that is what was being referenced, instead of any positive incentive to have more children created by the welfare programs, then it kind of sounds like GuitarStv was right doesn't it?

I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #153 on: February 27, 2019, 02:25:52 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on.

This is a good point about the problems with welfare.  I'm not opposed to welfare, I just think we should set it up so that we are helping the ones who need it without creating dependency.  The whole thing should be set up to help people get their feet back under them.  If we penalize the ones who go back to work, that keeps them from working. There are lots of healthy people who use welfare as a way of life with no plans to do anything different.  The system shouldn't be eliminated, just improved. 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #154 on: February 27, 2019, 02:32:33 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on.

This is a good point about the problems with welfare.  I'm not opposed to welfare, I just think we should set it up so that we are helping the ones who need it without creating dependency.  The whole thing should be set up to help people get their feet back under them.  If we penalize the ones who go back to work, that keeps them from working. There are lots of healthy people who use welfare as a way of life with no plans to do anything different.  The system shouldn't be eliminated, just improved.

I would guess you would find many people on the left side of the spectrum who agree with this. I certainly do.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #155 on: February 27, 2019, 02:42:55 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #156 on: February 27, 2019, 02:47:06 PM »
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.

Government cheese was actually supposed to have been very good. It was just surplus cheese produced because the government was over subsidizing dairy. They gave it away as a welfare receipt instead of selling it on the market because doing so would have cratered the cheese market. Really interesting story.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/31/643486297/episode-862-big-government-cheese

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #157 on: February 27, 2019, 02:51:17 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

Itís impossible not to just laugh.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #158 on: February 27, 2019, 02:57:38 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

What fact did you get shouted down for? Was it for agreeing with the Peterson comment? That sounds like an opinion to me.

But if that's what caused you to get shouted down, it wouldn't surprise me. Jordan Peterson is extremely skilled at saying shitty things without saying them. It's a little bit of a gas-lighting. Because he's so good at this, he excels at drawing liberals off sides.

That sounds like what may have happened to you. Some liberals shouted you down because they know what Peterson is really on about, but they find it difficult to verbalize it because he's so slippery. That doesn't mean they were right to shout you down, because they weren't. But I do sympathize.

It takes a very well-practiced person to effectively litigate against Peterson rhetoric.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #159 on: February 27, 2019, 03:04:26 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

Itís impossible not to just laugh.

It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #160 on: February 27, 2019, 03:21:16 PM »
For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

I'm truly not seeing an inconsistency there. Believing that life should be a survival-of-the-fittest competition, and believing that the competition shouldn't start until birth would both be moral positions. They are opinions about how we should structure society. Again, this is not my position on the subject at all. (I'm firmly on the pro-choice side, but in an odd way not relevant to this conversation).

I'm sure we could come to an understanding with some further discussion (I've read enough of your posts to value what you write), but I think I'm getting sidetracked from the point I'm trying to make, which is more general than abortion.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

I'm not suggesting an obligation to go this route-- I don't expect women walking into PP to befriend the protesters--but if you have the capacity I think this is a better way of effecting change. 


steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #161 on: February 27, 2019, 03:43:11 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

Itís impossible not to just laugh.

I don't agree with the acknowledgement comment. It's interesting that you use that word.

That isn't the issue though. It's the idea that the world has to be re-made based on that in my opinion abhorrent idea.

If you stated that you believed in the patriarchy but things are changing so rapidly in the western world that women now have so many opportunities to succeed and they are going out there and doing it the Pol Pot comment would be out of line. The Pol Pot comment is extreme but it's a good line isn't it.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #162 on: February 27, 2019, 03:48:52 PM »
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

The interesting point is that I have been shouted down on here for stating what I think are clearly factual points. I heard Jordan Peterson state recently words to the effect that the idea of the western world being a repressive patriarchy is abhorrent. I completely agree with this comment.

Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them and if you disagree with their extreme views you get shouted down and called racist/red-piller or some other derogatory term.

I think it's clear now that these extremist leftists are not liberals and should not be categorised as such. We need a different classification for these people. So basically although I understand where this thread is coming from it's a false dichotomy.

There are liberals who believe in the free market, equal opportunities for everyone and progressive social policies to help people who struggle in society via either social support (including an income) and/or helping these people have greater opportunities now and in the future via education or similar support. I'm one of these people.

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

Itís impossible not to just laugh.

I don't agree with the acknowledgement comment. It's interesting that you use that word.

That isn't the issue though. It's the idea that the world has to be re-made based on that in my opinion abhorrent idea.

If you stated that you believed in the patriarchy but things are changing so rapidly in the western world that women now have so many opportunities to succeed and they are going out there and doing it the Pol Pot comment would be out of line. The Pol Pot comment is extreme but it's a good line isn't it.

Itís a line that makes you look silly because itís not extreme, itís ridiculous. So no, itís not particularly effective. It makes a reader go from trying to consider the validity of your point, to laughing at you and concluding that youíre spouting nonsense. That wasnít your intention, right?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #163 on: February 27, 2019, 03:53:08 PM »
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 05:01:14 PM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #164 on: February 27, 2019, 03:55:11 PM »
Itís a line that makes you look silly because itís not extreme, itís ridiculous. So no, itís not particularly effective. It makes a reader go from trying to consider the validity of your point, to laughing at you and concluding that youíre spouting nonsense. That wasnít your intention, right?

No it wasn't and I wish I hadn't posted that now. It's such a trivial comment in my overall post but clearly it was a bad miscommunication. I did state a lot of other stuff apart from that comment and I think those comments are a lot more relevant to the discussion than that one point.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #165 on: February 27, 2019, 04:05:01 PM »
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 05:00:11 PM by steveo »

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #166 on: February 27, 2019, 04:50:17 PM »
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably a both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.

What I wrote came off more dismissive than intended. I am a man, and I was firmly including myself in that fragile male ego group. We are probably on the same side of almost all social issues, but I am 100% sure that I have done or said something racist before, and 100% sure that I have said or done something sexist before. It stings to be accused of that, regardless of if it is justified or not. It is only natural to carry around that hurt for a few threads as you get over it.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #167 on: February 27, 2019, 04:59:27 PM »
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably a both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.

What I wrote came off more dismissive than intended. I am a man, and I was firmly including myself in that fragile male ego group. We are probably on the same side of almost all social issues, but I am 100% sure that I have done or said something racist before, and 100% sure that I have said or done something sexist before. It stings to be accused of that, regardless of if it is justified or not. It is only natural to carry around that hurt for a few threads as you get over it.

Honestly I don't view this stuff as men vs women now because there are so many women that don't have these extreme leftist viewpoints. There are also men who have these extreme leftist viewpoints.

I don't get the comments about at one point in your life doing something wrong. Sure but who hasn't ? I'm definitely not offended by anything stated towards me on this forum. I'm not racist or sexist at all and if I am called that I just laugh because it's hilarious.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #168 on: February 27, 2019, 06:11:41 PM »
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Age: 92
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #169 on: February 27, 2019, 06:21:36 PM »
First of all, this post is not intended to start a fight.  There have been several threads that have made me want to respond with my views (but I have refrained so that the thread wasn't sidetracked.)  Please read this and understand that I'm wanting open and honest communication without fighting or being nasty to each other. 

In reading most of the threads around here, it seems like most of the members lean to the left both politically and socially.  I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum.  Comments are made with assumptions about conservatives that make me defensive whether I should be or not.  For example, in a recent thread there was a reference to someone who watched fox news and that it was not surprising that this viewer made racist comments.  Admittedly, there are conservatives who are racists but there are also liberals who are racists.  It seems like racism has become a default accusation if you disagree with someone.  (for example, if you don't like ILLEGAL immigration, you must be racist)  In my experience, most conservatives are not opposed to immigration, they just want it done legally by people who are going to follow our laws.  Breaking into the country illegally isn't a good start to following the laws of our country.  I'm not a Trump fan or a big proponent of building a wall.  But, I do agree we have a big issue with border security which needs to be solved.  That has nothing to do with the race of the people coming through our Southern border.  It has everything to do with them following our laws and being productive citizens (as well as restricting illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc).  Why can't we have productive discussions about this without assuming the worst of others?

Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.  I guess my issue with the comment implying racism (and others supporting it) is that an assumption is being made about conservatives that is not true of the majority of them.  You can watch a tv station or show without agreeing with everything on it.  Also, some things that are labeled "racist" are just things that people disagree with and not real racism.  Our society (both conservative and liberal) tends to assume the worst of people who don't agree with them.  In my experience, most people are liberal or conservative because that's what they legitimately think will be best for people as a whole.  I'd like us as a country to reach the place where we can openly discuss the merits of different beliefs and whether they make sense.  Right now, our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion without getting mad and defensive.  We should be able to look for the best in people without being so easily offended. 

My concern right now is that we are going the wrong way with racism.  Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).  That was a big wasted opportunity, he could have made a big difference in bringing us all together.  Now, we have Trump who spends much of his time fighting with the media and making controversial statements/tweets.  The mainstream media is so upset with him they aren't helping matters (or being objective for the most part).  We have made so much progress as a country that I hate to see us go backwards. 

I'll end my rant here because it's long enough.  For the most part, this community is open minded and accepting.  I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind.

ericrugiero, it DOESNT have to be this way. Beneath the vicious malintent of those who seek to fan the flames of disagreement in this nation, lies fundamental differences in philospohy and morality. That will NEVER change. But what CAN change is that we, as people become tolerant and respectful of those that have different moral and philosophical convictions. I may despise the values many of my leftist family and friends have, but I am respectful and tolerant of them. I do not despise them as people. I'm atheist and disagree with much of the central tenets of Christianity. Yet I respect these people and tolerate their belief system. We (my social circle) all seem to get along pretty well, that is, except for the rabblerousers that are intolerant and disrespectful. You know who you are.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #170 on: February 27, 2019, 06:23:33 PM »
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #171 on: February 27, 2019, 07:05:15 PM »
For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

I'm truly not seeing an inconsistency there. Believing that life should be a survival-of-the-fittest competition, and believing that the competition shouldn't start until birth would both be moral positions. They are opinions about how we should structure society. Again, this is not my position on the subject at all. (I'm firmly on the pro-choice side, but in an odd way not relevant to this conversation).

I'm sure we could come to an understanding with some further discussion (I've read enough of your posts to value what you write), but I think I'm getting sidetracked from the point I'm trying to make, which is more general than abortion.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

I'm not suggesting an obligation to go this route-- I don't expect women walking into PP to befriend the protesters--but if you have the capacity I think this is a better way of effecting change.

Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #172 on: February 27, 2019, 07:16:16 PM »
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

You are part of the evil patriarchy. I mean when you come at people like that it's going to be difficult. I think people are reacting to this. We aren't evil. We aren't bad. We don't believe that men are putting women down. We ain't buying what you are selling because it's too extreme.

As I stated earlier I'm a liberal and I'm an atheist. My wife attends church weekly. We should get to choose our religious beliefs or non-beliefs.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #173 on: February 27, 2019, 08:15:51 PM »
Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them ...

No we aren't.  And we don't believe that.

Can you find me an example of someone who does?  That's a fringe communist belief held by approximately 5 people in a college somewhere.

Toque.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #174 on: February 27, 2019, 08:20:47 PM »
Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

You're being too vague.  How are the people on the left putting you off side?
Is it our desire to provide everyone with better, universal health care, cheaper than you're getting it right now?
Is it because we're calling out people when they're contributing to racism and many people were happier pretending racism wasn't a problem?
Is #metoo going "too far"?

What, precisely, is the left doing that is so very off-putting?

I spent eight years listening to right wingers complain about how off-putting and divisive Obama was.  How he was "Taking away our rights".  And then you ask them to name the rights he'd taken away, and they couldn't.  And to name the divisive behaviour he engaged in, and they couldn't.

So, I'll ask you, in all honesty, what is the left doing to you these days that is hurting so bad and making you suddenly switch sides?

Toque.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #175 on: February 27, 2019, 09:40:12 PM »
Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.

Still doesn't sound inconsistent to me. I could understand how it could sound arbitrary, but I don't see any inconsistency in drawing a line somewhere to "begin the competition". We do something similar right now when a person turns 18 (or 21, or 16, etc). But maybe you're right that I'm trying to construct a rational position without resorting to religion, when religion is in fact a primary driver of pro-life positions. But even if the pro-life position stems from religion, I still think I'm better served by acknowledging that, to that person, their position is consistent with their beliefs and engaging from that position.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.
 

I appreciate that you agree with my point, but I feel I should add that I don't view this as a problem particular to the left, or the right, but to all of us. Centrists are just as guilty of this as anyone.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 08:31:36 AM by Watchmaker »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #176 on: February 27, 2019, 11:05:19 PM »
Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them ...

No we aren't.  And we don't believe that.

Can you find me an example of someone who does?  That's a fringe communist belief held by approximately 5 people in a college somewhere.

Toque.

If you don't believe in equality of outcome then I'm wondering what you really believe. Do you use statistics to prove the patriarchy exists ? The use of statistics in this fashion is a very blunt tool to paint a picture of there being a lack of equality.

Liberals like myself do not believe in equality of outcome and don't use statistics to paint the world out to be a repressive patriarchy.

Of course if you aren't in that boat then we are on the same page.

Mikenost12

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #177 on: February 27, 2019, 11:10:49 PM »
  The system is dying and rotting and feels fraudulent and we aren't sure where to direct our rage...

(I've truncated the quote, but my response is to your entire post.)

I get that a lot of people feel like this, but I don't agree. I think now is the best time it's every been to be alive, and the general trend continues to be up.

You mention the press being largely owned by a few powerful people, but this has always been the case. The fact that we're so aware of it now actually suggests progress on this front to me. And we have many robust non-profit, publicly funded, or independent sources. That's not to say there aren't massive structural issues in the news media, but I'm doubtful you could point to a time outside our lifetimes when the situation was any better.

I am concerned about the long term impacts of growing economic inequality, but it is important to remember that life has gotten better for almost every segment of western society over the last 100 years. One of the basic points that MMM makes is that the "bare minimum" middle class lifestyle in America is, in fact, an astonishing life of opulent luxury. The difference in what a "poverty line" lifestyle looked like in 1950 vs now is incredible. If nothing else, a person living in the modern world has access to the richest array of information and art ever available to any member of humanity.

That's not to say there aren't risks, or there aren't serious problems to be dealt with. But, in my opinion, a rational perspective should be based to the the understanding that we've had a huge number of successes on which we can build.

   told myself i wouldn't comment but:

1983 - 90% of US media controlled by 50 companies, 2017 90% of US media controlled by 6 companies (per NY Times and Wiki, though apparently Free Press claims not that high)


https://billmoyers.com/story/media-consolidation-should-anyone-care/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_consolidation


Also Fairnes Doctrine, Equal time doctrine, Personal attack rule, Political editorial rule, all abandoned and not enforced. Their have been real changes in this any many industries like the media, but it is like the frog in the boiling water, you don't notice small changes over long periods of time. Getting rid of FCC rules (or EPA or labor or energy or education laws) does have an impact that's why they lobby to have them removed. No individual can keep up and battle against special interest, the money isn't in lobbyists for consumer interests and their aren't a tremendous amount of obscene paying corporate jobs to reward politicians that work in the public rather than special interests. As in Plato's Republic this is a problem, which is why he proposed the radical notion that the ruling class possessions were outlawed.

 You asked a time when media wasn't as concentrated, 1983. Again erosion of government rules and regulations by special interests. We stopped enforcing antitrust laws, stopped being alarmed by concentration of wealth and power. There was a time before cable news, where media was more centrist...  With cable news and then the internet, owners could argue this are different forms of media, not subject to the old rules meant to govern over air tv and radio, and again push to get rules removed, to the point you can have inflammatory fake stories...

Your right things are getting better for everyone, this is very true I'm glad to be alive now compared to 1215, or 1915 or 1955. Compared to the 50's our society is far more egalitarian, with greater luxuries, the world is getting better. As the Stoics and Mr Money Mustache point out appreciation of what we have, negative visualization, gratitude and perspective is tonic  for hedonic adaptation, the continual boredom with what we have, mindless consumerism, etc...

 However, our society got better when we pointed out inequality and started having public schools, social security, government protecting food and air quality, implementing child labor laws, banning discriminatory practices, trying to eliminate graft and corruption. The public is polarized over the flag or Kapernic or 'tribes' while the rich dismantle our government brick by brick, with people unsure who to focus anger at for things getting worse. Although the 'arc of history is long and bends towards justice' as well as bends towards progress and luxury, that doesn't mean we can't be alarmed at the direction our country is going or what is occurring with our democracy.

real wages have stagnated against inflation, growth in the economy is going to small proportion at the top and the policies they have bought from the government have exacerbated the trend. I believe it is this that is driving frustrations in the 1st world in a way that doesn't occur when everyones standard of living is on the rise from generation to generation. Nassiem Taleb's general search for Black Swans and feeling we undervalue risk is I believe informed by the devastation inflicted on Lebanon, going from the 'Paris of the Middle East' of his youth into civil war. Don't feel fully secure that things will go on forever without some vigilance. Even if the march of humanity is upward, it isn't inevitable without fighting for it, ie... civil rights movement, suffragette movement.

  Numerous studies have show that legislators on both sides of the isle are much more polarized and less likely to vote with the other side, than now. Just because inequality was worse in the 1920's or our politics was more divided during the Reconstruction doesn't mean there isn't some cause for alarm.

Although I can be happy with the sunset, running water, indoor plumbing, my friends, family, health, the internet and phones, dazzling array of foods and beers or whatnot, when I step outside my stoic contentment I feel a duty to speak out against the wealthy dismantling our government. When I talk to younger people many seemed scared about the future in a way my generation didn't. The selling of our government has real consequences. I'm torn between acceptance of things outside my control, appreciation for life and splender and a feeling of duty towards truth our Country perhaps.

    Just today current admin to stop rules about predatory payday loans, no one on this board will fall for them, so who cares right. Maybe another rule about pollution in streams but hey not in our middle class area, who cares right. Cut taxes further on the rich drive up the debt and talk about cutting social security, thats ok.  Allow banks to eliminate various rules on investment to manipulate aluminum and copper, that's ok. High speed traders to jump in front of all trades and extract tiny toll, allow pharma companies to use Gov't block me buying medicine from Canada or Ireland (shouldn't free trade advocates be against this) thats fine. <this is fine meme>.

   this is just anecdotal so I could be wrong, just a thought

 /weak attempt to tie wall of text to original Off Topic - reasons for liberals vs conservatives increased polarization:
 
 inequality pushes division and looking for someone to blame, rapid changes to culture accelerating with media and tech changes are hard for people to adjust to, gerrymandering makes districts ideologically safe and you can appeal more to your base, splintering in the media results in us living in filter bubbles of ideas we agree with, rise of special interests and increased campaign contributions/increasing role of money driving policy, lack of shared enemy or lack of shared national aspiration/end of Cold War, good and bad breakdown of nationalism/patriotism. Overall I like the idea of trying to find common ground and not vilify each other, on actual issues and policy most people can find reasonable compromises or points of agreement
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 11:46:23 PM by Mikenost12 »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #178 on: February 27, 2019, 11:13:09 PM »
Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

You're being too vague.  How are the people on the left putting you off side?
Is it our desire to provide everyone with better, universal health care, cheaper than you're getting it right now?
Is it because we're calling out people when they're contributing to racism and many people were happier pretending racism wasn't a problem?
Is #metoo going "too far"?

What, precisely, is the left doing that is so very off-putting?

I spent eight years listening to right wingers complain about how off-putting and divisive Obama was.  How he was "Taking away our rights".  And then you ask them to name the rights he'd taken away, and they couldn't.  And to name the divisive behaviour he engaged in, and they couldn't.

So, I'll ask you, in all honesty, what is the left doing to you these days that is hurting so bad and making you suddenly switch sides?

Toque.

No it's comments like these:-

Misogynists, still at it. Yay!
I don't think it is worth arguing with/trying to explain to assholes like steveo.  He is so firmly convinced of his own superior worldview that nothing will sway him.
I mean, kinda? Not their fault they've got a misogynist dad.
but I know outside the journals the red pill gang will trash on it/us/women in general, so putting it here (partly because I am too lazy to move it to my own journal, partly because I think you will find it interesting):
Quote from: FrugalToque
"You've already been warned.  That's enough of gaslighting "you're being irrational" nonsense.  I have given you a well annotated list of exactly how the sexism/the patriarchy affects women.  Knock it off."
"This is bullshit.  I gave you a long list of well supported examples other than abortion."
"Sexism exists.  Sexism came out of the patriarchal nature of our society (which goes back only a few decades to when women had credit cards that said Mrs. Husband's first name, husband's last name on them, couldn't get bank accounts on their own, etc. etc.  Its affects are still clearly, statistically identifiable today, as I have demonstrated.  As everyone knows.)

He's pretending sexism doesn't exist, ignoring pointed mathematical evidence to the contrary, and trolling the female writers on this forum.  This behaviour makes the forum less inclusive and less welcoming to female readers and writers.  I have no desire to cut the audience for this philosophy down by half by letting people carry on like this.

Keeping this forum open and tolerant is one of my jobs here.

Toque."

"I don't know where you're living, but we're all getting tired of this.  The facts are there for anyone with an open mind, which you clearly don't have.
I, specifically, am getting tired of this sort of thing on the forum.
Sexism exists.
It permeates our entire world.
It is as obvious to an unbiased observer as the rotation of the planet, the changing of the climate and greenness of the grass."

I'll add that you personally sent me a message which I deleted and you stated something like "You will stop". It was said it in those terms as well.

So it's people like you and others that clearly resort to aggressive posturing and degrading labels to try and win your argument which is just your opinion and myself and lots of other liberal minded people are getting sick of hearing it and the way it is shoved down our throats. Maybe if you could rationally discuss issues and drop the labels and aggressive posturing you'd have a much better chance of engaging other people.

I'm all for better health care and better access to education. I don't believe the vast majority of people are racist and I think stating that racism is such a big problem today is hilarious. It might be a problem if you live in some backward part of the western world but I don't see racism around at all. I'm unsure what to think about MeToo. I'd need specific details to comment on it but I know that I am not a sexual predator and I don't see how the movement has any relevance to me.

Like I said though it's not policies that are reasonable that are pushing myself and others towards the right. It's people like yourself and other leftists who believe that their opinions are completely factual and everyone has to agree with them and their policies. If they don't you will also shout them down. That behaviour is why threads like this are started and why the left is losing support.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 12:02:08 AM by steveo »

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #179 on: February 28, 2019, 01:15:21 AM »
To paraphrase steveo :  'I have an Asian wife and part Asian kids, and none of us think racism is a real thing!  Therefore it must not be a big deal!'

'I'm a man, and my wife says she's never been discriminated against, so the patriarchy isn't a real thing, and it's just made up by all those wimmens out there just wanting to be victims and get an unfair advantage over us poor men!'

I've read your responses in thread after thread, and seen how you ignore it when many other people bring up their personal, REAL, lived experiences of discrimination.  Because it didn't happen to you, it's not real.  Other people's lived experiences of discrimination are just anecdata, while your opinions are FACTS.  Backed up by logic and (carefully chosen) statistics, even!  You even bring your own personal manifestos/pity party into completely unrelated threads--like this one.

You keep posting over and over about how everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong wrong wrong and giving liberals a bad name, but you don't dare come out of your own little bubble to actually listen to women and POC, outside of your own family.  You've literally become the internet equivalent of the street preacher standing on the corner, shouting about how all us godless liberals are going to hell because we don't listen to the Holy Word as interpreted by steveo.   And you wonder why the mod is telling you to knock it off?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 01:18:37 AM by ministashy »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #180 on: February 28, 2019, 03:49:04 AM »
@ministashy - thanks for that response. You've proven exactly what I've been stating. If you can't debate the issue at hand attack the person. Good work !

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.

If you actually want to discuss any issue rationally and calmly I'm more than happy to discuss it. We should simply set some simple parameters around that discussion. Simple things like don't attack the other poster and accept that people can have a different opinion to yourself. Just basic behaviours that respectful human beings should display.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 03:57:13 AM by steveo »

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #181 on: February 28, 2019, 04:47:22 AM »
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #182 on: February 28, 2019, 06:07:42 AM »
@ministashy - thanks for that response. You've proven exactly what I've been stating. If you can't debate the issue at hand attack the person. Good work !

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them.

Uh huh.  Shades of:  'I have a black friend!  I can't possibly be racist.' 

Quote
If you actually want to discuss any issue rationally and calmly I'm more than happy to discuss it.

Yeah, I don't think so.  I learned a long time ago there's no point in arguing with street preachers, unless you're doing it to be entertained.  (Though I will admit I love how you continue to maintain that you are 'calmly and rationally' posting--as opposed to all us irrational females, I'm sure--while at the same time crying about being picked on by evil lib posters and moderators.  It's really classic!  Two thumbs up!)

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #183 on: February 28, 2019, 06:20:53 AM »
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 06:24:01 AM by sherr »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #184 on: February 28, 2019, 06:41:55 AM »
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.

Note: I may still be a little bitter about this. I am in the middle of looking for a new church after an Elder went on a Sunday-morning rant about how "The Democrats are killing babies after they are born now and we must all be united against this Great Evil!" And then of course the Elders refused to retract the statement or apologize after I pointed out that it was just a bunch of Trumpian lies.

My point is that there is at least as much blame to go around on the Christian side as there is on the Left side for this disconnect, IMHO much much much more blame to go on the Christian side.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #185 on: February 28, 2019, 06:49:58 AM »
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.

Definitely this. I grew up in a religious area and things like not allowing a football coach to pray with the team before games was an outrage. There was very much an attitude of "we're all Christian here, what's the problem". Except of course, not everyone was Christian but non-Christians weren't willing to risk being ostracized for admitting as much.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #186 on: February 28, 2019, 06:58:00 AM »
Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.

Still doesn't sound inconsistent to me. I could understand how it could sound arbitrary, but I don't see any inconsistency in drawing a line somewhere to "begin the competition". We do something similar right now when a person turns 18 (or 21, or 16, etc). But maybe you're right that I'm trying to construct a rational position without resorting to religion, when religion is in fact a primary driver of pro-life positions. But even if the pro-life position stems from religion, I still think I'm better served by acknowledging that, to that person, their position is consistent with their beliefs and engaging from that position.

Fair enough, my wording wasn't precise enough.  It's not inconsistent (in that the arbitrary rules are consistently followed).  It's logically inconsistent (in that there's a stated need for competition, which we throw out when things are unfair, unless the unfairness has nothing to do with abortion - then we throw out concern for fairness).

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #187 on: February 28, 2019, 07:16:41 AM »

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.


You're being decidedly irrational in your approach to this issue, and you're pretending that your opponents are making you be irrational.  You're reporting anecdotes as if they were data.

If anecdotes are important, though, here are some I have because I listen to women, too:

One woman told me how her teacher in elementary school would line the girls up so he could look down their shirts.  They all knew he was leering at them and invading their privacy, but they said nothing because they didn't think anyone would believe them.

In my first year university Algebra class, the professor instructed the "girls" to build a 3d wire frame because their brains were not equipped to understand 3 dimensions without a visual aid.  (Isn't it weird how women just *choose* lower paying careers?  I mean, it's not like anyone is constantly telling them they'll suck at the higher paying ones, right?)

The worse stories come from those who were sexually assaulted and forced to help the authorities cover up the crime.  Nice bunch, those people.

I guess if you've never seen the emails where men try to lay off the women on mat leave or pregnancy leave, if you've never seen the email that says we "need to put the <minority woman> in her place" because she's getting too uppity, you could have some delusion that sexism and racism don't exist.

To resolve your anecdotes and mine, you'd have to stop using anecdotes and start using stats.  And you'd say, "Why do women earn less money than men?"  And someone says, "Hey!  There's just choosing lower paying careers!".

Are you sure they aren't just having their resumes thrown out because they have a female name?  Because that happens, in side by side comparison of identical resumes for John and Jennifer.  (It's worse for John and Jamal, FYI.)  Are you sure it's not just because they're steered away from higher paying careers all the way through their lives?

That all aside, my job here is to make sure that this forum, and its information about Early Retirement, is open and relatable to all: women, men, black, white, gay, straight, poor, middle-class and rich etc. etc.

When people come here and tell women, or minorities, that their lived experiences - which are supported by widespread, well established statistics - are fake, those people don't feel welcome.  I have literally found quotes from women where they feel that the Early Retirement movement is just another Internet White Men's club that constantly talks about having to watch out for gold diggers and other garbage sexist tropes.  Or just try telling a black man who gets randomly "carded" every few days on his walk to work that racism isn't a problem anymore.  Is he going to feel welcome in a place where that goes without argument?

This forum will not be permitted to go in that direction and I'm prepared to exert effort to make sure of it.

Toque.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #188 on: February 28, 2019, 07:43:01 AM »

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.


You're being decidedly irrational in your approach to this issue, and you're pretending that your opponents are making you be irrational.  You're reporting anecdotes as if they were data.

If anecdotes are important, though, here are some I have because I listen to women, too:

One woman told me how her teacher in elementary school would line the girls up so he could look down their shirts.  They all knew he was leering at them and invading their privacy, but they said nothing because they didn't think anyone would believe them.

In my first year university Algebra class, the professor instructed the "girls" to build a 3d wire frame because their brains were not equipped to understand 3 dimensions without a visual aid.  (Isn't it weird how women just *choose* lower paying careers?  I mean, it's not like anyone is constantly telling them they'll suck at the higher paying ones, right?)

The worse stories come from those who were sexually assaulted and forced to help the authorities cover up the crime.  Nice bunch, those people.

I guess if you've never seen the emails where men try to lay off the women on mat leave or pregnancy leave, if you've never seen the email that says we "need to put the <minority woman> in her place" because she's getting too uppity, you could have some delusion that sexism and racism don't exist.

To resolve your anecdotes and mine, you'd have to stop using anecdotes and start using stats.  And you'd say, "Why do women earn less money than men?"  And someone says, "Hey!  There's just choosing lower paying careers!".

Are you sure they aren't just having their resumes thrown out because they have a female name?  Because that happens, in side by side comparison of identical resumes for John and Jennifer.  (It's worse for John and Jamal, FYI.)  Are you sure it's not just because they're steered away from higher paying careers all the way through their lives?

That all aside, my job here is to make sure that this forum, and its information about Early Retirement, is open and relatable to all: women, men, black, white, gay, straight, poor, middle-class and rich etc. etc.

When people come here and tell women, or minorities, that their lived experiences - which are supported by widespread, well established statistics - are fake, those people don't feel welcome.  I have literally found quotes from women where they feel that the Early Retirement movement is just another Internet White Men's club that constantly talks about having to watch out for gold diggers and other garbage sexist tropes.  Or just try telling a black man who gets randomly "carded" every few days on his walk to work that racism isn't a problem anymore.  Is he going to feel welcome in a place where that goes without argument?

This forum will not be permitted to go in that direction and I'm prepared to exert effort to make sure of it.

Toque.

As a woman, who had dealth with BS sexism all my life (not to mention men telling me I was imagining it, being too sensitive, or that it wasnít a big deal) thank you, Toque, for not allowing it here.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 07:44:38 AM by Kris »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13310
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #189 on: February 28, 2019, 08:08:43 AM »

As a woman, who had dealth with BS sexism all my life (not to mention men telling me I was imagining it, being too sensitive, or that it wasnít a big deal) thank you, Toque, for not allowing it here.

And as an older forumite, I can tell you it is better than it was, but that is not saying much.  And the backlash.  Just as in some of the political discussions, opponents take the most extreme views and tout them as standard feminist values, to the point that many women who are actually feminists are discouraged to use the word.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #190 on: February 28, 2019, 09:08:48 AM »
Fair enough, my wording wasn't precise enough.  It's not inconsistent (in that the arbitrary rules are consistently followed).  It's logically inconsistent (in that there's a stated need for competition, which we throw out when things are unfair, unless the unfairness has nothing to do with abortion - then we throw out concern for fairness).

Fair enough.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.
 

I appreciate that you agree with my point, but I feel I should add that I don't view this as a problem particular to the left, or the right, but to all of us. Centrists are just as guilty of this as anyone.

There's a couple different conversations going on here and I've gone back an re-read what you posted Steveo, and I decided I wanted to say more than I did in my first response.

You say the problem is that "the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side". I think you're approaching this in the wrong way. If someone criticizes me, I first try really hard to see their point and maybe understand that I am doing something worthy of criticism (which I often am). I can say that, just in this thread, you've said several things I wouldn't be proud to have said. And beyond the content of the posts, your tone is coming across as combative and mean-spirited. Is that how you want it to come across?

You agreed with my post and then immediately laid the blame on the other side, which rather missed the point. The point I was trying to make is that we each control our own behavior, no one else's. Who am I to be handing out advice on the internet, but I think if you changed the way you approach disagreements, using more kindness, generosity, and open-mindedness, I think you'd have better results.


Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #191 on: February 28, 2019, 01:12:20 PM »
I think steveo is a great, living example of cognitive dissonance.  He has an existing belief ("misogyny is overblown or non-existent") and knows people in his personal life that conform to that view.  So, whenever someone else with a different experience or even actual data shows that steveo's views are not universal, far from it, he simply discounts the data.  And discounts the anecdotes.  And discounts the personal experience of women that HAVE experienced it.  Because if it doesn't conform to his pre-existing belief, it must be discounted. 

Unlike others here, I don't think he's "an @Sshole", but rather someone with a particular blindspot that no amount of data or contrary experiences can sway.  In many ways it reminds of a lot of arguments I used to get into back in the 80's with people that "don't believe in evolution".  The pattern of behavior is amazingly similar.

And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

Damn, I'm so glad I got out of there.  It's pretty much the armpit of America.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #192 on: February 28, 2019, 02:18:55 PM »
"liberals are anti religious." Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 09:25:51 AM by partgypsy »

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #193 on: February 28, 2019, 07:50:50 PM »
...
2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

This reminds me of vegans.  And yes, evangelists come in all persuasions and for all things.  If you can call it an "...ism"  then there will be a zealot ready to convince you to follow it.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #194 on: March 01, 2019, 07:59:47 AM »
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the manís gesture, recalled: ďHe was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.Ē
ďIíve always said,Ē Jillette explained, ďI donít respect people who donít proselytize. I donít respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think itís not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
ďHow much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?Ē
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: ďIf I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didnít believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, thereís a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.Ē
ďThis guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.Ē

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described. 

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #195 on: March 01, 2019, 08:23:29 AM »
As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

Here's the thing though, I'm pretty sure just about EVERYONE has already heard "The Good News." Non-believers like me are aware that you think we're going to hell and, let's just say, it's not a point of view that resonates with us.

So, if you have to say something, I hope you will approach it as Penn described. But since the vast majority of people are already aware of Christianity, you may as well just keep your religion to yourself because to a lot of people (like me), your beliefs don't resonate at all, and in fact seem to have led to way more destruction than progress over the years, and it's honestly irritating to be treated like I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the urgency of this "hell" thing that I don't even believe in.

And I'm not saying that to knock you or call you crazy or whatever atheists get accused of when we dismiss others' religious beliefs. I'm saying it because I believe that Christianity sucks, just as deeply as you believe that I'm going to hell. (And, side note, I have a lot more objective evidence to support my particular beliefs than Christians have to support theirs.)

On more than one occasion, I have been accused of being disrespectful and dismissive of others' beliefs as though that's somehow more offensive than Christians believing that I'm going to burn for eternity. That's the part that I don't get. Everyone gets to believe what they want, but to me, Christians do a lot more harm than good trying to get the rest of us to go along with ya. I'm not trying to turn anyone else into an atheist, so I appreciate folks not trying to impose their beliefs on me as well.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 08:25:27 AM by madgeylou »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #196 on: March 01, 2019, 08:36:52 AM »
...snip
ďThis guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.Ē

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I've heard this reasoning before and in theory it's logical and I respect that. However, using that same logic, I could argue that if someone truly believes they are saving me from eternal damnation it would be reasonable for them to be more forceful with their proselytizing, where and why would you draw a line? Like you said, if the truck is coming shouldn't the true believer be willing to tackle me in order to save me?


brandon1827

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #197 on: March 01, 2019, 08:43:27 AM »
And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

I can echo this 100%. I was born and raised in rural middle Tennessee. After serving my country and spending some time abroad, I eventually found myself back here. When I was reading this post, it resonated so much and mirrored many of my experiences here growing up. Luckily, my parents didn't teach me to hate other people...but the culture in the south is completely intertwined with racism. It's just so ingrained here and displayed on an almost daily basis...but like Tyort1 said, if you ever asked any of these people if they are racists, after telling you to go to hell, they would loudly and emphatically deny it. Racism is everywhere down here and has been for generations. It gets passed down from one generation to the next. Some (like my parents) don't explicitly teach their children to be racists, but it's such a way of life here and so institutional that it seems to perpetuate itself.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #198 on: March 01, 2019, 08:55:08 AM »
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the manís gesture, recalled: ďHe was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.Ē
ďIíve always said,Ē Jillette explained, ďI donít respect people who donít proselytize. I donít respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think itís not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
ďHow much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?Ē
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: ďIf I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didnít believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, thereís a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.Ē
ďThis guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.Ē

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

brandon1827

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #199 on: March 01, 2019, 08:59:14 AM »

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

I don't have anything meaningful to add...I just love this post so much I had to comment.