Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64580 times)

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #300 on: March 04, 2019, 03:39:53 PM »
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

Agreed. But officers are murdered too, many of them with the best of intentions. How many lines of work have that distinction?

I'm struggling to see the point you are making here. Police officers are sometimes murdered, and it's clearly a more dangerous job than many others. What bearing does that have on how we should expect them to behave? The job is not compulsory, again I say if someone isn't up to the job they should find another line of work.

 

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #301 on: March 04, 2019, 03:44:10 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?

No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women. I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #302 on: March 04, 2019, 03:51:48 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?

No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women. I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.

Some societies decided that the women should be inncharge for those exact same reasons, so there still isn't anything natural about a patriarchy. Nor a matriarchy, since there seems to be a lot of intent to misconstrue around here.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #303 on: March 04, 2019, 04:00:47 PM »
No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women.

I would say things like denying women the right to vote for most of the country's existence counts as coordinated. And there are other examples as well. But does it matter if it was a coordinated effort or not? I'm pretty sure the end goal here isn't to call every man a terrible sexist who did this all on purpose. It's just to accept that women start out from behind the 8-ball in many circumstances, and that they're harmed by reinforced notions of what men and women are and aren't capable of. Then we can start talking about the things we can do to reduce hostility towards women in society.

Being on tape talking about how you molest unwilling women isn't a disqualifier for the Presidency as far as 60+ million people are concerned.. There's still a lot of work to do.

I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.

Agree with this. Women will probably never reach parity in construction jobs because men are stronger. Men will probably never reach parity in care giving roles. There's probably no biological reason why men are any better at most of today's high power jobs than women are though.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #304 on: March 04, 2019, 06:20:14 PM »
More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

At the risk of sounding immodest, I've made probably the most full and complete post in this entire thread. The charge that I am trying to over-simply a complicated seems unfounded to me.

I pointed at a result (let's do "few female congresspeople, no female presidents") and gave two, super concrete factors that help explain that result. Women being denied the franchise until early last century, and women facing legal discrimination in education until the 1970s are strong barriers to women entering public office. And the fact that both of these have existed for more than half the country's lifetime probably contributed to male-favored institutions.

The biggest issue that I take though, is that your alternative explanations don't pass the smell test.

Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

This doesn't explain 45 straight male presidents (and almost not female major candidates) unless you think women are orders of magnitude less capable than men.

Quote
People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate.

Yes. And a society that views male candidates as preferable on such a consistent, historical basis might just be described as patriarchal.
You silly, crazy extreme leftist.

We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #305 on: March 04, 2019, 06:23:39 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Animals do not possess the unique concept of self-awareness (conscious thinking) that humans possess. They simply behave in a manner that is in accordance with their instinct. Systematic discrimination isn't possible for animals, whereas humans can cognitively recognize, debate and challenge the natural constructs of local society.

The inverse is true as well. For instance some humans deem homosexual behavior as deviant. Whereas, various forms of this are found in every major geographic region and every major animal group. 

It's ok to challenge "norms" and "tradition." That's a benefit of these wonderful complex brains of ours ( :

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #306 on: March 04, 2019, 06:59:33 PM »
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

Quote
“The danger of mega-partisan identity is that it encourages citizens to care more about partisan victory than about real policy outcomes,”

When it becomes about winning, because we feel good when we win, then decency and humanity get thrown out the window.

Try being a "moderate" or "independent." Folks in this camp don't necessarily averaging out all opposing ideas to arrive in the middle. Instead, they tend to be unorthodox, supporting and opposing aspects of both parties. It's great fun...my conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my liberal friends think I'm a wingnut.

I get the same thing as a Libertarian.

It seems that both major parties have gotten to the point where they believe "You're either with us or against us" and demonize anyone who doesn't support their point of view 100%.

Yet in real life, away from the nastiness of social media, most people are far more moderate.  It's as if the radicals in both major parties are running things and carrying the narrative, and the middle of the roaders have just been cowed into letting them do so.

sixwings

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 162
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #307 on: March 04, 2019, 08:58:37 PM »
Nah, this isn't a  both sides thing. Look at CPAC, Trump spent 2 hours doing nothing but mock liberal ideas and agendas. It wasn't about ideas but mocking. I'm not aware of any time Obama spent 2 straight hours mocking conservative ideas like that.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #308 on: March 04, 2019, 09:02:23 PM »
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

Quote
“The danger of mega-partisan identity is that it encourages citizens to care more about partisan victory than about real policy outcomes,”

When it becomes about winning, because we feel good when we win, then decency and humanity get thrown out the window.

Try being a "moderate" or "independent." Folks in this camp don't necessarily averaging out all opposing ideas to arrive in the middle. Instead, they tend to be unorthodox, supporting and opposing aspects of both parties. It's great fun...my conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my liberal friends think I'm a wingnut.

I get the same thing as a Libertarian.

It seems that both major parties have gotten to the point where they believe "You're either with us or against us" and demonize anyone who doesn't support their point of view 100%.

Yet in real life, away from the nastiness of social media, most people are far more moderate.  It's as if the radicals in both major parties are running things and carrying the narrative, and the middle of the roaders have just been cowed into letting them do so.

I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #309 on: March 04, 2019, 09:14:29 PM »
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

It's simple. No one wants to live in that world.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #310 on: March 04, 2019, 09:19:31 PM »
I do, subject to a basic safety net so that people don't starve.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #311 on: March 04, 2019, 10:14:53 PM »
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

It's simple. No one wants to live in that world.

If everyone's circumstances were always the result of their own decisions, it might be OK.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #312 on: March 04, 2019, 11:13:38 PM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed. It shows that I can produce I think better quality facts via statistics that point to a matriarchy within society and that is even using your reports.

Does the fact that, across the board, the institution of health care has a statistically significant disregard for the pain of black people indicate an institutional, possibly subconscious, bias against black people?

It's not a fact. That is one study that solely focuses on providing pain medication to people. No sane person who has any understanding of statistics would come to your conclusion.

If you are unable to do that, despite clear evidence that it is the case, there is no point discussing anything related to this matter with you.

I agree that yourself and myself shouldn't discuss this issue anymore. If you can show that you can be rational when it comes to providing your proof that the patriarchy or institutionalised racism exists that would be a start. I also suggest that you have the ability to engage when proof is provided that the social construct that you believe in is false. I also suggest you learn to use logic when discussing or debating issues. Lastly I would suggest that you learn to engage in less confrontational fashions.

For anyone that I have offended here I am not stating that I believe in a matriarchy or that health care may have an institutional bias against black people. I am stating that there is no proof at all within the points that have been made within this area of the discussion.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #313 on: March 04, 2019, 11:20:06 PM »
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

This was so much easier to engage with. The idea within this thread is that it is so hard to engage if you are a conservative with a liberal. I'm going much further than that. I think I'm a liberal and I'm definitely not conservative but my viewpoint which is so close to I think what some extreme leftists on here believe in gets attacked irrationally.

I also believe that we are much closer in our belief systems that what it appears. It's almost as if any tiny disagreement with an extreme leftist leads to over the top reactions. The way to fix that is for people like yourself and others within this thread to engage in sane rational constructive fashions.

When you hear that society is a repressive patriarchy, you are thinking that what is being said is that there is some outside entity trying to force or manipulate people to behave a certain way (e.g. be sexist).

But that's not what people are trying to say. No one thinks the problem is some cabal of evil men who actively and intentionally prevent women from being CEOs at large companies and trick people into watching LeBron James.

"You and me and everyone else" are Western society and our "own little decisions" add up to what we're describing as a repressive patriarchy. Men/women/liberals/conservatives--everyone in our society is a participant or victim (oftentimes both) of this subtle accumulation of individual behaviors.

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?

Good points. Personally I wouldn't label society a patriarchy (even if we define a patriarchy as you appear too) because I don't believe it is plus it is an attacking way to view the world. The problem isn't men in power. If anything as I have already stated western society is actually freaken fantastic. Personally I think that if there are issues it's better to discuss those issues in some detail.

So for instance is there a problem with women working as leaders of companies and if there is a problem what can be done to fix it.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #314 on: March 04, 2019, 11:23:48 PM »
At the risk of sounding immodest, I've made probably the most full and complete post in this entire thread. The charge that I am trying to over-simply a complicated seems unfounded to me.

I have no problems with engaging with you.

Yes. And a society that views male candidates as preferable on such a consistent, historical basis might just be described as patriarchal.

It could but society is made up of approximately 50% females and they can vote. You have to let them vote and you don't get to decide that there votes are wrong. My opinion is that over time you will get a female president just as you had a black president. I don't see the need to focus on this as a big issue. For what it's worth I would personally vote for a female president just to see a female president in power assuming that they were reasonable. I wouldn't vote for a female president that was running on the basis of attacking the patriarchy.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #315 on: March 04, 2019, 11:26:33 PM »
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

When you hear that society is a repressive patriarchy, you are thinking that what is being said is that there is some outside entity trying to force or manipulate people to behave a certain way (e.g. be sexist).

But that's not what people are trying to say. No one thinks the problem is some cabal of evil men who actively and intentionally prevent women from being CEOs at large companies and trick people into watching LeBron James.


"You and me and everyone else" are Western society and our "own little decisions" add up to what we're describing as a repressive patriarchy. Men/women/liberals/conservatives--everyone in our society is a participant or victim (oftentimes both) of this subtle accumulation of individual behaviors.

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread...

These comments frustrate me. I think if you have any objectivity you would see that I am engaging in much better faith than more than one poster who is an extremist leftist. I'll argue that you stating this shows that you are not discussing these issues in good faith at all. You are clearly just attacking someone who has a different viewpoint to yourself but when other people who support your viewpoint debate in extremely poor fashions they get a pass.

If you don't have integrity you really shouldn't be debating issues with other people.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #316 on: March 04, 2019, 11:28:31 PM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

This thread is so absurdly to the left, that I don't even want to respond (just as I don't want to get into political arguments with my far-right parents). This is coming from one of the most liberal people I know in real life (because other people tell me regularly) and one who votes almost completely along Democratic lines.

I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

Exactly. The extremism on this thread amazes me. The poor reasoning ability. The lack of ability to discuss issues constructively. That is the extremist left in a nutshell and it's not pretty at all.

This isn't everyone but it's more than one person.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #317 on: March 04, 2019, 11:31:49 PM »
I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.

So you disagree with some of the comments by Torque and others ? You should state this explicitly. It would make discussion a lot better if we had guidelines to use.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #318 on: March 04, 2019, 11:35:52 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?

No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women. I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.

Exactly.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #319 on: March 04, 2019, 11:39:08 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?

No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women. I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.

Some societies decided that the women should be inncharge for those exact same reasons, so there still isn't anything natural about a patriarchy. Nor a matriarchy, since there seems to be a lot of intent to misconstrue around here.

This is being a little disingenuous. I personally don't believe in the patriarchy and there is no way that you can prove that it exists. I think it'd be much better if you could accept that the patriarchy is a social construct that you create within your head. It's a way of viewing the world. I think that it's a poor way to view the world and it's really poor when it comes to analysing real issues within society.

There is nothing natural about western society but it's what we have developed. If there is a problem within society we should be able to discuss it. I find it a lot easier to focus on specifics.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #320 on: March 04, 2019, 11:41:37 PM »
Agree with this. Women will probably never reach parity in construction jobs because men are stronger. Men will probably never reach parity in care giving roles. There's probably no biological reason why men are any better at most of today's high power jobs than women are though.

I basically agree. I'm trying not to state anecdotes because that has been attacked but in my experience some women are good managers. This is just the same as stating some men are good managers.

I think that this is a specific issue that could be looked at in detail as well. My opinion is that this is changing and it's getting close to positive discrimination. I work for a big company and women are encouraged a lot more than men. I'm not putting a judgement on this as being bad either.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #321 on: March 04, 2019, 11:46:23 PM »
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #322 on: March 04, 2019, 11:48:17 PM »
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.

How many times have you used the phrase "extreme leftist" in response to statistics and academic studies in this thread?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #323 on: March 04, 2019, 11:48:22 PM »
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

I'm not even this far extreme however I believe that this is a good base to work from. Luck plays a part in how well you do. I also believe that we probably do have to really push to provide equal opportunities for everyone. I also think that unfortunately people will fall by the wayside and we need to support these people.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #324 on: March 04, 2019, 11:55:43 PM »
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.

How many times have you used the phrase "extreme leftist" in response to statistics and academic studies in this thread?

This is partly not a fair response. The statistics and academic studies used to support the leftist viewpoint have been nothing less than farcical. As for the point about calling people who believe in the patriarchy and who do not come across as liberal at all to me extreme leftists that is a tough one for me. I accept your point but I'm not going to label all the left as being like some of the posters on here. That is why I've labelled them extreme leftists. The extreme left wing viewpoint that has been espoused by several people on this thread is not indicative of the left or the middle at all.

I don't know what to call people like that but extreme leftists is the best that I've come up with. I would think those people would like that label but if I'm wrong please provide me with an alternative. I'm liberal and there is no way that I am in anyway, shape of form aligned to the extreme view on this thread.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #325 on: March 05, 2019, 01:08:00 AM »
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #326 on: March 05, 2019, 01:17:00 AM »
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

This is indicative of one of the most poisonous and insidious trends in western politics: the doubt-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to discrediting your opponents. Demand evidence, then when it's presented demand that it take a bunch of other variables into account, while ignoring the fact that those variables are either controlled for or not relevant, and all the while ignore the mountain of accumulated evidence across dozens of spheres.

CVs with stereotypically black names are less likely to trigger a call for interview than identical CVs with stereotypically white names. Black Americans are more likely to be harassed under stop-and-frisk laws; they're more likely to be targeted by voting measures designed to stop them voting, they're more likely to receive custodial sentences, they're more likely to die in police custody; they're more likely to suffer any one of a thousand indignities and disadvantages.

None of this is taken into account when furiously arguing that maybe there's an explanation for the difference in prescriptions for children that absolves white people of having to take any responsibility. And no matter how many times the other side presents research papers, Cochrane reviews and entire books detailing those indignities, the response is always the same: demand a specific example, then throw as much mud at that specific example as you can in the hope that enough sticks to obscure the truth. It's hard to tell whether what's happening is an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of race in America, or a cynical derailing of discussion, and it's hard to tell which prospect is more depressing.

What part of reality did I not acknowledge? I only acknowledged that people on this board are characterizing others as misogynists or racists or trolls when they decline to agree with their claim of institutional racism and patriarchy in modern-day America. And by institutional, I mean pervading our institutions, not prevalent in pockets here and there.

This is a perfect example. Don't discuss any of the half-dozen examples I gave, but focus instead on a single sentence for rhetorical effect. Again: black people lose out in the job market, they're regularly deliberately disenfranchised, they're disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement, they don't get the same medical treatment, and they die sooner. There are dozens of other spheres in which they get a shitty deal. That's the reality that's not being acknowledged.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #327 on: March 05, 2019, 03:40:56 AM »
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

I'm 45 and I've only ever voted for the left. I think that puts your comment and judgement into it's proper perspective. My parents always voted for the left.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 03:50:31 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #328 on: March 05, 2019, 03:49:53 AM »
This is a perfect example. Don't discuss any of the half-dozen examples I gave, but focus instead on a single sentence for rhetorical effect. Again: black people lose out in the job market, they're regularly deliberately disenfranchised, they're disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement, they don't get the same medical treatment, and they die sooner. There are dozens of other spheres in which they get a shitty deal. That's the reality that's not being acknowledged.

You just don't seem to get it do you. No one is refuting some of these situations. Not one person. We are stating that the issue is complex and you can't just state that this is because of the patriarchy and institutionalised racism. We don't see these things that you see and we aren't buying it. You can't prove it or come anywhere close to proving it either.

I can acknowledge the reality of the situation and even want to do something about without believing that the system is setup to screw black people (or whoever) over.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 04:00:03 AM by steveo »

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #329 on: March 05, 2019, 04:29:13 AM »
I give up. There's no point in discussing this any further: steveo knows better than everyone else what the left is, what structural racism is, whether it exists and whether we need to worry about it, and trying to argue otherwise is utterly fruitless.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 06:08:23 AM by runbikerun »

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #330 on: March 05, 2019, 05:29:56 AM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.

Still dodging the question, huh?  Sad.  You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.

You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".

If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #331 on: March 05, 2019, 05:32:29 AM »
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.

How many times have you used the phrase "extreme leftist" in response to statistics and academic studies in this thread?

Better yet (note the date):
I think we should just drop the labels.

I guess I am an extremist in Steveo's eyes. I do believe in using academic studies/statistics/ along with personal experiences to support/draw conclusions. Hell it's why I am here on a blog about FIRE. I used statistics yesterday to explain to my 9 year old how getting the flu shot greatly reduced her chances of getting the flue. Sometimes I think a person simply creates a label in order to justify their own position. Kind of like trying to elevate it and make it appear as though it's more rational. What if we called Steveo's position "shit sandwich?" Sure doesn't sound appealing now. ( : "Extremist" has a negative connotation. It denotes more of a political viewpoint outside of social norms that may call for extreme measures. Personally I just don't see that here at all. This discussion certainly is hampered by the "extremist" labeling of viewpoints. Too bad it continued past the point of claiming it would be stopped.   
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 05:34:38 AM by MasterStache »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #332 on: March 05, 2019, 07:49:12 AM »
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

I'm 45 and I've only ever voted for the left. I think that puts your comment and judgement into it's proper perspective. My parents always voted for the left.

Neither the Republican party (far right) nor the Democratic party (center-right) in the United States are left wing.  Who exactly were you voting for?

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #333 on: March 05, 2019, 08:38:23 AM »
If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

That would be completely irrelevant. Slavery was wrong for moral reasons. (Let's say you run your analysis and it happened to come up that slaves lived longer? Would we suddenly agree that the Southern way-of-life was beneficial to the slave? One thing I'd be willing to bet was that slaves were less susceptible to death by the tropical diseases prevalent in the South during the Antebellum period.)

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2903
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #334 on: March 05, 2019, 09:23:10 AM »
Neither the Republican party (far right) nor the Democratic party (center-right) in the United States are left wing.  Who exactly were you voting for?
I think we disagree on what center is (I do agree that the Democratic party as a whole doesn't push nearly as far left as the Republican party pushes towards the far leftright).

I tend to agree with this view of the political spectrum:



I see Democrats as scattered throughout regions 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18; Republicans as occupying regions 10 and 13 (with much more concentration in 10).
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 01:15:07 PM by robartsd »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #335 on: March 05, 2019, 10:16:53 AM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.

Still dodging the question, huh?  Sad.  You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.

You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".

If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

God this is frustrating, but I guess that is the reason for this thread. Let me help you out.

Steveo admits that racism exists, as do all sane people, but he has a problem with your simplistic use of statistics. He understands  black Americans overall have poorer health outcomes but logically and reasonably he also understands that there could be many variables that contribute to this reality, and to simplistically chalk it up to racism is unreasonable. Having worked in healthcare I personally can think of lots of alternate variables off the top of my head that does not involve racism. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.

Also, these labels are ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. Flinging personal insults seems to be the de-facto response for a lot of people in the off-topics. People can disagree with you for valid reasons, and at any time posters here could be wrong, including myself. That should be the reason people debate, to come to truth. Right?

As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #336 on: March 05, 2019, 10:31:00 AM »
I don't see that this has come up yet:  https://righteousmind.com/

I read the book, it's based in large part on the "Elephant in the Brain."

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #337 on: March 05, 2019, 10:33:10 AM »
Does it seem to anyone else like many critiques of "the left" or "the extreme left" seem to revolve around people upset that someone on the internet thinks they are racist or sexist?  How does that work exactly?

1. Be a liberal
2. Someone says you are racist
3. ????
4. MAGA

I can't imagine screwing the environment, the Supreme Court, net neutrality, and whole bunch of other things that are important to me out of spite because I'm mad that I don't get to "just ask questions" about whether maybe women aren't cut out to be CEOs.  By the way, the "extreme left" or whatever thinks that all of us liberals are just as racist and sexist too. They think that Kamala Harris is basically as bad as a rogue Chicago cop.  They think Elizabeth Warren is culturally appropriating.  They think Cory Booker is a neoliberal (whatever that is).  I guess I just don't think that whatever this caricature of "the left" has that much power.  And I would like for "the right" to get their kook house in order before complaining about our fringes.  I mean, you elected someone who didn't believe Obama was born in the US.  Our kooks aren't the head of the party at least. 

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #338 on: March 05, 2019, 10:37:20 AM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.

Still dodging the question, huh?  Sad.  You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.

You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".

If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

God this is frustrating, but I guess that is the reason for this thread. Let me help you out.

Steveo admits that racism exists, as do all sane people, but he has a problem with your simplistic use of statistics. He understands  black Americans overall have poorer health outcomes but logically and reasonably he also understands that there could be many variables that contribute to this reality, and to simplistically chalk it up to racism is unreasonable. Having worked in healthcare I personally can think of lots of alternate variables off the top of my head that does not involve racism. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.

Also, these labels are ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. Flinging personal insults seems to be the de-facto response for a lot of people in the off-topics. People can disagree with you for valid reasons, and at any time posters here could be wrong, including myself. That should be the reason people debate, to come to truth. Right?

As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

I think a lot of it may be due to what people mean when they are talking about institutional racism or sexism. Steveo has flatly denied that institutional racism exists, but if it does it is racist against whites.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #339 on: March 05, 2019, 10:43:56 AM »
Versatile, I think it's because when anyone who posts information that is contrary to his views, he labels them as "extreme left" which is inflammatory (and not even remotely accurate) and also dismissing any fact-based arguments. He is name calling and not arguing in good faith. He will argue that people have not given enough "proof" for some argument like patriarchy, but then will also say statistics and journal articles are not "proof" or "fact" and has also come out and said  "I personally don't believe in the patriarchy and there is no way that you can prove that it exists."

I suppose he could argue that he just doesn't "believe" in social constructs, as well as many other abstract concepts, just because? Because you can't touch or taste them or as he says they are just in your head? But then he will invoke male female role models as "real" and the basis for say job or compensation differences, while ignoring they are also a social "construct". 

At think at this point we have to say, people will have their own opinions and prejudices apparently Steveo is "triggered" by the term patriarchy. That's fine. He should just come out and say it, and not waste everyone's time in pretending he is being rational or objective about this topic when he is not.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 10:48:12 AM by partgypsy »

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #340 on: March 05, 2019, 10:58:06 AM »
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

Or, we like OUR facts but not YOUR facts.  YOUR facts are just your opinion.

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.

How many times have you used the phrase "extreme leftist" in response to statistics and academic studies in this thread?
+1

The only reason we can't win with logic, is because steveo ignores all facts, statistics, and logic that doesn't agree with his pre-conceived notions of how things are.

Which is pretty typical, I must admit.  Many many many people are like this.  They don't, however, claim to be the most logical of logical people.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #341 on: March 05, 2019, 11:06:24 AM »
Here is an example, just in 1 of steveo's posts, after a reasoned post that referenced statistics as well as a journal paper, of steveo saying that they a) don't know what they are doing, b) no sane person would agree with them, c) they are irrational and not logical, d) they are confrontational, and e) they have given no proof whatsoever.

"It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed. It shows that I can produce I think better quality facts via statistics that point to a matriarchy within society and that is even using your reports" (sure, let's see that Steveo).

(referring to a journal findings) "It's not a fact."...No sane person who has any understanding of statistics would come to your conclusion." (the op is simply posting the findings of a published article and recapping what the authors have stated. A peer-reviewed article, so I would guess at least 1 or 2 people agreed? Calling the findings of a journal article a "fact" is just, odd.) 

"If you can show that you can be rational when it comes to providing your proof that the patriarchy or institutionalised racism exists that would be a start. ...I also suggest you learn to use logic when discussing or debating issues."

"Lastly I would suggest that you learn to engage in less confrontational fashions." (bonus point for one of the best examples of patronizing mansplaining I've seen).

"For anyone that I have offended here I am not stating that I believe in a matriarchy or that health care may have an institutional bias against black people. I am stating that there is no proof at all within the points that have been made within this area of the discussion." (i.e. if I don't agree with the conclusion I will not accept anything you give as evidence, as evidence.)

I will give Steveo the benefit of the doubt that he is simply inexperienced with arguing with people who have more basis for their argument than him and is reacting in an emotional way, and is not a troll.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 11:10:22 AM by partgypsy »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #342 on: March 05, 2019, 11:16:43 AM »
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

It's how they silence the other side.  Disagree with them, label them, ban them.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #343 on: March 05, 2019, 11:39:53 AM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.

Still dodging the question, huh?  Sad.  You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.

You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".

If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

God this is frustrating, but I guess that is the reason for this thread. Let me help you out.

Steveo admits that racism exists, as do all sane people, but he has a problem with your simplistic use of statistics. He understands  black Americans overall have poorer health outcomes but logically and reasonably he also understands that there could be many variables that contribute to this reality, and to simplistically chalk it up to racism is unreasonable. Having worked in healthcare I personally can think of lots of alternate variables off the top of my head that does not involve racism. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.

Also, these labels are ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. Flinging personal insults seems to be the de-facto response for a lot of people in the off-topics. People can disagree with you for valid reasons, and at any time posters here could be wrong, including myself. That should be the reason people debate, to come to truth. Right?

Sure, you'll admit that sexism exists, but then suddenly one of you will switch over to gaslighting about how the pay gap doesn't really exist because women just choose lower paying careers and more "family time".  Sexism exists, but you'll fight tooth and nail to never attribute any outcome to it and therefore never do anything to address those outcomes, because  we can't show an office building labelled "SEXISM INC" where all the sexist decisions are made and prove that every single biased outcome is the result of a precise input.

You'll admit racism exists, but really, black people just commit more crimes and that has nothing to do with the history of the country, Jim Crow laws, red-lining, poverty and disenfranchisement.  And since I can't show you a multi-variable analysis that follows a 100% complete trail all the way from the red-lines of Flint to the prisons of Michigan, why, you don't have to believe there's anything that can or should be done to fix it.

You'll talk about "institutional racism" as if that means that there have to be actual laws, still in place right to this day, that specifically single out women or minorities for shitty treatment.

Quote
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

1.  There is a movement among conservatives, where they find a few gay people or minorities, and pretend that they've "walked away" from being liberal because the left has "turned to extremism".  You can look up "walk away campaign".
"Oh, those liberals are so mean because they won't tolerate the little dog whistles I like to use to treat women and minorities like shit.  All I wanted to do was imply sexism is fake, rape is just regret and racism is just black people being preferring lives of crime."

2.  You have no idea what my job as a moderator is.  My main purpose is not to let people throw racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted canards and cliches around, slowly turning this forum into one of the other, shittier parts of the Internet where nobody but white men feel safe.

Toque.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #344 on: March 05, 2019, 12:03:39 PM »

[/quote]
. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.

[/quote]

"racism is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes": no one is arguing this. Can you please show where people are stating this?
 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #345 on: March 05, 2019, 12:09:06 PM »
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

Someone else: "Your view of statistics is too simplistic."

A third person: "Mathlete, good political discourse means acknowledging that both of your viewpoints are equally valid. So sayeth I, the centrist"


Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #346 on: March 05, 2019, 12:16:42 PM »
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

It's how they silence the other side.  Disagree with them, label them, ban them.

Have you contacted a moderator as was suggested in the other thread? Nothing from your previous account (CheezM) looked the least bit controversial, it's possible that it was just a mistake.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #347 on: March 05, 2019, 12:22:57 PM »
This guy summarizes my main thoughts on race:

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America....

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."

I miss that guy. His successor stokes the right-leaning flames, while a whole host of others stoke the left-leaning flames. Meanwhile, the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #348 on: March 05, 2019, 12:27:31 PM »
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

Someone else: "Your view of statistics is too simplistic."

A third person: "Mathlete, good political discourse means acknowledging that both of your viewpoints are equally valid. So sayeth I, the centrist"

I love centrists.


A - B is a child rapist!
B - No I'm not!
Centrist - Let's meet half way.  B is a rapist, but not of children.  Anything else is unfair.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #349 on: March 05, 2019, 12:47:50 PM »
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.

Still dodging the question, huh?  Sad.  You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.

You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".

If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

God this is frustrating, but I guess that is the reason for this thread. Let me help you out.

Steveo admits that racism exists, as do all sane people, but he has a problem with your simplistic use of statistics. He understands  black Americans overall have poorer health outcomes but logically and reasonably he also understands that there could be many variables that contribute to this reality, and to simplistically chalk it up to racism is unreasonable. Having worked in healthcare I personally can think of lots of alternate variables off the top of my head that does not involve racism. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.

Also, these labels are ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. Flinging personal insults seems to be the de-facto response for a lot of people in the off-topics. People can disagree with you for valid reasons, and at any time posters here could be wrong, including myself. That should be the reason people debate, to come to truth. Right?

As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

I think a lot of it may be due to what people mean when they are talking about institutional racism or sexism. Steveo has flatly denied that institutional racism exists, but if it does it is racist against whites.

Oh yeah, I think a huge problem is that people aren't on the same page as far the agreed-upon definitions of what they are discussing, as these terms have certainly changed quite a bit in my lifetime. Sometimes people are talking about wildly divergent points when they think they are talking about the same thing.

I'll let Steveo define what he believes as far as your second point.