Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64552 times)

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #500 on: March 06, 2019, 12:55:03 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.

This is a really good point and parallels why the Klan is so misunderstood as racist. They didn't hate black people, they hated planks of wood arranged at right angles. That is why they set them on fire. They just didn't like the wood.

Utterly ridiculous.  The Klan openly believed that the white race was superior and said so.

You say that, but "there is no rebuttal or other side of the story.  I don't think that's fair or reasonable.  If it's true, I would say racist, yes.  But for some reason I bet there are people who deny the claims are true."

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #501 on: March 06, 2019, 01:00:20 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #502 on: March 06, 2019, 01:02:37 PM »
Where I think I agree with steveo is that it is impossible to say whether a patriarchy is a good thing or a bad thing. Within the framework of a patriarchy is how our society has developed, and our society has been fairly successful in some areas, so to deny that patriarchy might have some benefits to society

Slavery built the pyramids and The Great Wall and the American South. Those are all pretty beneficial things. I really doubt whether you would struggle to say whether slavery is a good thing or a bad thing.

is to disregard our entire recent history and to assume our ancestors were generally bad people who wanted their daughters to live as second-class citizens because they disliked females.

This is extremely loaded, but let's parse it out.

"Assume our ancestors were generally bad people"

Our ancestors were bad people. I'm sure they were capable of being perfectly nice in many situations. In the context thorough which they life, many were probably considered  good and decent. But in the context of 2019 values; bad people. No issues with that. I'll probably be considered a bad person in 100 years. Society generally improves over time.

"who wanted their daughters to live as second-class citizens"

I don't know what they wanted. But they made their daughters live as second class citizens. That's inarguable.

"because they disliked females."

Again, this is really irrelevant. Not everyone who is a sexist hates women. In fact, most sexists probably like women just fine.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #503 on: March 06, 2019, 01:03:11 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #504 on: March 06, 2019, 01:03:58 PM »
Folks. We can provide examples of Trump doing racist shit for decades — but it won’t have any impact.

We’ve all heard what the Donald says and we’ve seen how he behaves — if at this point the conclusion being drawn is still “I don’t see how that’s racist,” then that person’s brain is broken and they are beyond rational debate. May as well beat your head against a wall, it will be a better use of your time.

Which is, basically, what this thread was originally about.  Why do Liberals and Conservatives have to be that way?

Because we can obviously see that the leader of the Republican party is incredibly racist.  It's not hidden.  It's not subtle.  From his beauty pageants and the Central Park Five, to his anti-immigrant rhetoric and that "Mexican judge" dialogue above, it's obvious.

That means that, from where we're standing, continuing to support that party and that man means you either think his racism is irrelevant, or you're okay with it.  Either way, we don't see a middle ground where we can compromise.

Toque.

So much this^ There is no middle ground for those of us who choose to not openly support and/or condone racism and/or a racist President. I don't care if you are a liberal, conservative or a member of the lizard people, if you support and/or condone racism there is no compromise. I thought our country was long past people like Trump. Again I was wrong.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #505 on: March 06, 2019, 01:06:21 PM »
The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

Let's play a game. I have a randomly selected person behind a curtain. The name of the game is to determine whether or not this person is a criminal. You have one question to ask, and two options. The options are,

A.) "Was this person's mother and father unfairly denied access to subsidized FHA loans?"
B.) "How much gangster rap is on this person's iPod?"

Which question do you ask?

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #506 on: March 06, 2019, 01:08:54 PM »
What conservatives don't seem to understand - if the present system is unequal/racist/sexist/whatever and you don't want the present system to change (ie, you want to "conserve it") then you are in fact condoning and enabling sexism/racism/etc. 

The white supremacists are not the problem.  YOU are.  The silent, comfortable center-right.


I think you are convinced that center/right people don't want to change the system or don't recognize any issues that affect women, minorities, etc.  What I think you are missing is that the debate is really about HOW we progress and change.  You have allowed yourself to believe that all these people are seriously supporting or at least not fighting against racism, sexism, etc.  That's just not true.

For example.  We all want to eliminate poverty.  One side might suggest more governmental programs, regulations, higher minimum wages, etc.  The other side believes that the free market and competition works better, and it's better for the government to get out of the way.

So what happens?  One side claims the other just wants massive governmental control and communism, the other side claims the other is racist and hates minorities who are disproportionately impoverished.

How the fuck we get to that point is remarkable.  Everyone talks in extremes.  Both sides.  It's our reality TV era, more drama the better.  Why we can't just discuss the actual issues and different views on how to solve them, it's insults and name calling.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #507 on: March 06, 2019, 01:11:22 PM »
What conservatives don't seem to understand - if the present system is unequal/racist/sexist/whatever and you don't want the present system to change (ie, you want to "conserve it") then you are in fact condoning and enabling sexism/racism/etc. 

The white supremacists are not the problem.  YOU are.  The silent, comfortable center-right.


I think you are convinced that center/right people don't want to change the system or don't recognize any issues that affect women, minorities, etc.  What I think you are missing is that the debate is really about HOW we progress and change.  You have allowed yourself to believe that all these people are seriously supporting or at least not fighting against racism, sexism, etc.  That's just not true.

For example.  We all want to eliminate poverty.  One side might suggest more governmental programs, regulations, higher minimum wages, etc.  The other side believes that the free market and competition works better, and it's better for the government to get out of the way.

So what happens?  One side claims the other just wants massive governmental control and communism, the other side claims the other is racist and hates minorities who are disproportionately impoverished.

How the fuck we get to that point is remarkable.  Everyone talks in extremes.  Both sides.  It's our reality TV era, more drama the better.  Why we can't just discuss the actual issues and different views on how to solve them, it's insults and name calling.

Yeah except one of the sides does demonstrably racist things all the god damn time unless you have a really stupid definition of racist.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #508 on: March 06, 2019, 01:14:25 PM »
What conservatives don't seem to understand - if the present system is unequal/racist/sexist/whatever and you don't want the present system to change (ie, you want to "conserve it") then you are in fact condoning and enabling sexism/racism/etc. 

The white supremacists are not the problem.  YOU are.  The silent, comfortable center-right.


I think you are convinced that center/right people don't want to change the system or don't recognize any issues that affect women, minorities, etc.  What I think you are missing is that the debate is really about HOW we progress and change.  You have allowed yourself to believe that all these people are seriously supporting or at least not fighting against racism, sexism, etc.  That's just not true.

For example.  We all want to eliminate poverty.  One side might suggest more governmental programs, regulations, higher minimum wages, etc.  The other side believes that the free market and competition works better, and it's better for the government to get out of the way.

So what happens?  One side claims the other just wants massive governmental control and communism, the other side claims the other is racist and hates minorities who are disproportionately impoverished.

How the fuck we get to that point is remarkable.  Everyone talks in extremes.  Both sides.  It's our reality TV era, more drama the better.  Why we can't just discuss the actual issues and different views on how to solve them, it's insults and name calling.

If that's the case, then why the heck are republican representatives going into government just to block governmental solutions instead of out into the free market creating free market solutions that would obviate the need for governmental solutions?  As soon as I see these free market solutions appearing I'll be happy to stop pushing for governmental solutions.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #509 on: March 06, 2019, 01:18:09 PM »
What conservatives don't seem to understand - if the present system is unequal/racist/sexist/whatever and you don't want the present system to change (ie, you want to "conserve it") then you are in fact condoning and enabling sexism/racism/etc. 

The white supremacists are not the problem.  YOU are.  The silent, comfortable center-right.


I think you are convinced that center/right people don't want to change the system or don't recognize any issues that affect women, minorities, etc.  What I think you are missing is that the debate is really about HOW we progress and change.  You have allowed yourself to believe that all these people are seriously supporting or at least not fighting against racism, sexism, etc.  That's just not true.

For example.  We all want to eliminate poverty.  One side might suggest more governmental programs, regulations, higher minimum wages, etc.  The other side believes that the free market and competition works better, and it's better for the government to get out of the way.

So what happens?  One side claims the other just wants massive governmental control and communism, the other side claims the other is racist and hates minorities who are disproportionately impoverished.

How the fuck we get to that point is remarkable.  Everyone talks in extremes.  Both sides.  It's our reality TV era, more drama the better.  Why we can't just discuss the actual issues and different views on how to solve them, it's insults and name calling.

Yes I know.  I am from Texas and was a Republican for most of my life.  What can I say other than my old beliefs were just wrong.  I was so busy looking around at my own local little world that I didn't see how badly there were persistent, systemic issues that "free market capitalism" and "we all want to make things better" just didn't address, and never could address.   

Don't get me wrong, I completely and thoroughly understand the Republican platform and mindset.  The vast majority of my family and old friends are still Rs.  They are also mostly smart people that don't see the value/need to make changes.  In fact, most feel we've already changed "too much".  Meaning, they are already uncomfortable with whatever social progress has been made so far and they CERTAINLY don't want to see more of it.   Better to carp about taxes and debt than to come to terms with the fact that you might be sexist/racist.  And in fact, from my own personal experience, the large majority of people I know from the South ARE racist/sexist to one degree or another.  It's a little less bad in the cities down there, but its still very, very bad in small towns. 

ChewMeDown

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #510 on: March 06, 2019, 01:34:54 PM »
It's pretty obvious.  To many of you, there is simply no middle ground.  If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.  There is no middle ground, there is absolutely no room for understanding and empathy.  I think it's a terrible way to approach the world.  Demonizing entire groups of people is not healthy, rational, tolerant, etc.  It's kind of everything some of you seem to be standing up against, but then turn around and say such things in your next post.  As long as it's not people YOU like, then it's ok. Label them and demonize them.

I choose not to view the world and people that way.  It really is that simple.  We aren't going to convince each other either way.  It's been fun.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #511 on: March 06, 2019, 01:38:33 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #512 on: March 06, 2019, 01:40:49 PM »
The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

Let's play a game. I have a randomly selected person behind a curtain. The name of the game is to determine whether or not this person is a criminal. You have one question to ask, and two options. The options are,

A.) "Was this person's mother and father unfairly denied access to subsidized FHA loans?"
B.) "How much gangster rap is on this person's iPod?"

Which question do you ask?

I enjoy me some gangsta rap occasionally, but I can enjoy the music without participating in the behaviors (just like I can listen to rock n roll without tripping on LSD or blowing coke).

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #513 on: March 06, 2019, 01:52:01 PM »
If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

It's fucking maddening that this same, stupid, lazy take is being regurgitated on page 11 of this thread after many of us have worked so hard.

Hundreds of posts highlighting things like

-the Supreme Court ruling in North Carolina about black voter suppression
-the similar cases in Mississippi and North Carolina
-Steve King's rhetoric
-Donald Trump's insistence that an American judge is Mexican
-"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"
-redlining

And still the same, "herp-derp, racism = you disagree with me!" takes.

OP, where you at dawg? You wanted to know why discourse is so bad? I've made a bunch of really long, thoughtful, peaceful posts on it in this thread, but if you want the Cliff's Notes, here you go:

One side largely deals in fact-based discourse. The other side made a hilariously untruthful person the head of state and they hold them accountable for almost none of the lies he tells. A self-proclaimed middle thinks that both sides are bad.

No shit both sides are bad. Obama bombed a whole lot of people for reasons that I really don't agree with. That fucking sucks. I hate it. But I'll still vote D until the cows come home because of the fact-based discourse thing. Both sides are bad, but they are not the same. We see that on the macro with a comparison between Obama and Trump.

We see it on the micro in this very thread too. Do you know how crazy making it is to literally annotate your argument only to have people who are likely less educated in stats than you come back and say, "Sure that's all well and good, but did you know that correlation does not imply causation. Now let's consider how gangster rap might cause more crime in the black community. I won't even try to provide empirical evidence for this, but you should consider my argument on the same level as your annotated argument."


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #514 on: March 06, 2019, 01:53:46 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.


I also don't believe it's irrelevant at all.  Donald Trump has been quoted saying that black people are lazy.  If there was evidence to support his claims that laziness was indeed a black trait, this would be evidence that he's not actually being racist.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:56:35 PM by GuitarStv »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #515 on: March 06, 2019, 02:05:14 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.

Absolutely not. That's why my sentence used the modifying word 'probably'. I'd be surprised if the inverse were true. Mathlete keeps citing his skills in statistics, so tell us what is the probability that a group of people who largely separated from another 100,000 years ago or so, mated with other species/races who had separated 500,000 years ago or so, and were exposed to different environmental stimuli, when observed over populations of 1 billion people or so, would not indicate some minor behavioral difference at roughly one-one-thousandth of a standard deviation?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:12:45 PM by Boofinator »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #516 on: March 06, 2019, 02:07:20 PM »
It's pretty obvious.  To many of you, there is simply no middle ground.  If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.  There is no middle ground, there is absolutely no room for understanding and empathy.  I think it's a terrible way to approach the world.  Demonizing entire groups of people is not healthy, rational, tolerant, etc.  It's kind of everything some of you seem to be standing up against, but then turn around and say such things in your next post.  As long as it's not people YOU like, then it's ok. Label them and demonize them.

I choose not to view the world and people that way.  It really is that simple.  We aren't going to convince each other either way.  It's been fun.

I just want to point out that you haven't offered any middle ground either.  You're basically just asking people to accept your judgement of whether an action is rascist or not without providing any kind of compeling argument.  Demanding that we accept your judgement in place of our own is not a middle ground.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:11:09 PM by shenlong55 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #517 on: March 06, 2019, 02:09:54 PM »
It's pretty obvious.  To many of you, there is simply no middle ground.  If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.  There is no middle ground, there is absolutely no room for understanding and empathy.  I think it's a terrible way to approach the world.  Demonizing entire groups of people is not healthy, rational, tolerant, etc.  It's kind of everything some of you seem to be standing up against, but then turn around and say such things in your next post.  As long as it's not people YOU like, then it's ok. Label them and demonize them.

I choose not to view the world and people that way.  It really is that simple.  We aren't going to convince each other either way.  It's been fun.

I just want to point out that you haven't offered any middle ground either.  You're basically just asking people to accept your judgement of whether an action is rascist or not without providing any kind of compeling argument.  Demanding that we accept your judgement in place of ours is not a middle ground.



I am still holding out hope for an answer as to what his unique definition of the word actually is:

I think that you're stretching in order to avoid calling Trump racist here.

Calling a judge biased solely because of his race is a clear declaration of inferiority at doing his job.  There's  no nuance at all.  Racist doesn't have any different meaning.  I'm using the dictionary definition.  The same one that Paul Ryan used.  You're bending over backwards to change facts to match your world view.

"Solely because of his race" - if that were true, I think I would agree with you that it's racist.  But that's not what happened.  The context was much more than that.  It would be naive to ignore the political charged turmoil at the time and how that related to Trumps comments.

I'm definitely not bending over backwards, I might even suggest you are doing the same by seemingly ignoring context and cherry picking a single sentence.  But seriously, I do get what you are saying and why you believe Trump is a racist.  I just view it differently.  I think he is offensive, derogatory, and says highly inappropriate and non-presidential things.  But I disagree that he believes he is superior because he is white.  At least from what I have seen when taking everything in to context.

OK.  So saying that someone is inferior at his job because of ethnicity is not racist to you. 

Only a declaration of racial superiority is?

That's a stretch and misrepresenting what was said.  I don't play technicality games.  I read the entire story and try and understand the context the best that I can.  You and I have to simply disagree on this.  Trump did not suggest Curiel was racially inferior.  He claimed that due to the highly charged political climate surrounding Mexico, that a judge with Mexican heritage, who is a part of a lawyers association that is sympathetic to illegal aliens, an Obama appointee, etc... might have bias against him and based on what Trump felt were unfair rulings, he believed that played a part.  Look how charged people are just on this thread?  Are you denying that someone may show bias?  I don't like accusing judges of bias, specifically due to the profession itself, but it's not unreasonable for someone who believes they are being treated unfairly to suggest bias.

I already posted the dictionary definition of racist, but you don't appear to agree with it.  I don't want to misrepresent your position, so what is your definition of racist?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #518 on: March 06, 2019, 02:25:28 PM »
Can we officially say this thread has jumped the shark?

Racism is judging a person or group of people negatively based on their race. Not based on what they are like as an individual, but because that they are a member of that group. That's all it is. Giving examples of why a certain group of people are different/worse due to either cultural and/or genetic reasons is not actually proving that racism isn't real. It's just providing a rationalization for racism.  NO one wants to be judged based on membership of a group, versus on their own merits. You wouldn't like it if it happened to you, so yeah don't do it to other people!

It's pretty obvious from reading this thread I don't think racism is going away anytime soon, especially in the US.

One of the many reasons this is important is that the President is supposed to represent and serve ALL citizens. Do you understand why, based on Trumps many acts, discrimination lawsuits and the things he says about: Blacks, women, Hispanics, Muslims, marching white supremacists that many people feel he is not competent to fairly represent and serve all of us? If you were Black, would you trust Trump? In any dealings?
I work for the government. The things that he says on a regular basis, could get me fired, because it can be seen as creating a hostile work environment. And he's the president. He's supposed to be a role model, the "best of us". I wish I could say it was only Trump. But it's a lot of his administration. And the fact that he has such high approval ratings from Republicans, I can only conclude they either don't care, or actually approve of the things he says.  It's honestly not good for our country to have someone like this sit as President.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:34:37 PM by partgypsy »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #519 on: March 06, 2019, 02:27:47 PM »
If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

It's fucking maddening that this same, stupid, lazy take is being regurgitated on page 11 of this thread after many of us have worked so hard.

Hundreds of posts highlighting things like

-the Supreme Court ruling in North Carolina about black voter suppression
-the similar cases in Mississippi and North Carolina
-Steve King's rhetoric
-Donald Trump's insistence that an American judge is Mexican
-"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"
-redlining

And still the same, "herp-derp, racism = you disagree with me!" takes.

OP, where you at dawg? You wanted to know why discourse is so bad? I've made a bunch of really long, thoughtful, peaceful posts on it in this thread, but if you want the Cliff's Notes, here you go:

One side largely deals in fact-based discourse. The other side made a hilariously untruthful person the head of state and they hold them accountable for almost none of the lies he tells. A self-proclaimed middle thinks that both sides are bad.

No shit both sides are bad. Obama bombed a whole lot of people for reasons that I really don't agree with. That fucking sucks. I hate it. But I'll still vote D until the cows come home because of the fact-based discourse thing. Both sides are bad, but they are not the same. We see that on the macro with a comparison between Obama and Trump.

We see it on the micro in this very thread too. Do you know how crazy making it is to literally annotate your argument only to have people who are likely less educated in stats than you come back and say, "Sure that's all well and good, but did you know that correlation does not imply causation. Now let's consider how gangster rap might cause more crime in the black community. I won't even try to provide empirical evidence for this, but you should consider my argument on the same level as your annotated argument."

Eh, we’ve been down this road before in these same forums so it’s just argumentum ad nauseam. It seems for some the best way to defend racism is pretend it simply doesn’t exist. Trump is just misunderstood. Yeah I saw that same bullshit excuse when someone tried to excuse Trump admitting to sexual assault. You know “locker room talk” and all. I am happy to find some middle ground with anyone provided we all agree that racism, sexism etc. is not a part of that compromise. I am not even ok with a little racism. I think it’s obvious why there is so much polarization.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #520 on: March 06, 2019, 02:28:12 PM »
We see it on the micro in this very thread too. Do you know how crazy making it is to literally annotate your argument only to have people who are likely less educated in stats than you come back and say, "Sure that's all well and good, but did you know that correlation does not imply causation. Now let's consider how gangster rap might cause more crime in the black community. I won't even try to provide empirical evidence for this, but you should consider my argument on the same level as your annotated argument."

For the record, you are right, I have only taken graduate-level statistics courses. I guess that makes you the end-all-be-all of any discussions that involve stats.

To add to this, I never said gangsta rap caused thug life; rather, gangsta rap (not rap) was a byproduct of thug life. By the way, I apologize for using the term thug life, because some people might find it offensive (though it is the most colorfully descriptive term I can think of to characterize criminal gang culture, and one that is used self-referentially within the community). Unfortunately, I feel the term 'thug' has become one of the dog-whistle words that are used to characterize criminals of a specific race, rather than criminals in general.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #521 on: March 06, 2019, 02:46:34 PM »
I said
“In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter whether an individual is "a racist / sexist," what matters is the systems and patterns in place, and the way that people speak and behave and vote within those systems.

Put another way, if someone is a horrible virulent racist in their heart of hearts, but I can't tell by the way they speak / behave / vote, then I don't care. It's completely irrelevant what someone *is,* what is important is what they *do.*”

Then you said:
Absolutely. Nobody can control other people's thoughts or prosecute thought crimes. The problem is too many people want to ascribe motive when they truly have no idea what a person's reasoning behind their actions are, as well as an intolerance in allowing someone else to interpret events differently than their own.

My reply:

No, you’re not getting the point. In most cases, it is completely irrelevant whether someone’s motives are racist or not. What matters is whether their actions contribute to the continued subjugation of non-white peoples.

Meaning — a person could vote for the Donald for any reason they like — maybe the hair? — but that action actively contributes to the subjugation of non-white people. The whole I’m-not-racist-but-I’ll-vote-for-one thing is some childish, responsibility-denying bullshit.

*****

I said:

“And if you still support the Donald at this point in history ... if you are denying the existence of societal systems that are changing but have been in place for literally thousands of years and are still running today ... if you are getting defensive about new ideas that you don't understand, instead of trying to understand them ... then your actions are saying everything that needs to be said about who you are and what you stand for, and it ain't equality or democracy.”

Then you said:
What ideas are out there that you think Conservatives don't understand? What societal systems do you think are changing? Honest question.

My reply:

Patriarchy, white supremacy, and classism are three ideas I am sure conservatives do not understand. Mostly this is because they believe they have nothing to learn from people who aren’t rich and white and male, so they willfully refuse to listen.

It’s a well-known response called “White Fragility” (Google Robin DeAngelo’s work on this) where white people deny stories and statistics about racism, and especially their own participation in it, because to admit that you have bias is seen as being incompatible with being “a good person.” (Whatever that means.) It’s painful to open one’s eyes to the suffering around them and realize that you are on the upper end of the see-saw only because there are lots of other people at the other end. So most will do anything — up to the most incredible kinds of mental tap-dancing as we’ve seen on this thread — to avoid it.

But these hierarchies are changing. These traditional social systems are breaking down. Black people and women and disabled people and marginalized folks of all backgrounds are not content to let rich white men dictate the rules of society any more, and we are taking more power.

I believe / hope / pray that Donald Trump and the whole phenomenon around him — the buffoons who get themselves puffed up off his hot air, the mercenaries who exploit his popularity for their own Randian ends, the fools who like his racism more than they fear not having health care or clean air or water — I believe it is all nothing more than the extinction burst of the old “conservative” way of thinking.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:52:31 PM by madgeylou »

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #522 on: March 06, 2019, 02:52:21 PM »
We see it on the micro in this very thread too. Do you know how crazy making it is to literally annotate your argument only to have people who are likely less educated in stats than you come back and say, "Sure that's all well and good, but did you know that correlation does not imply causation. Now let's consider how gangster rap might cause more crime in the black community. I won't even try to provide empirical evidence for this, but you should consider my argument on the same level as your annotated argument."

For the record, you are right, I have only taken graduate-level statistics courses. I guess that makes you the end-all-be-all of any discussions that involve stats.

To add to this, I never said gangsta rap caused thug life; rather, gangsta rap (not rap) was a byproduct of thug life. By the way, I apologize for using the term thug life, because some people might find it offensive (though it is the most colorfully descriptive term I can think of to characterize criminal gang culture, and one that is used self-referentially within the community). Unfortunately, I feel the term 'thug' has become one of the dog-whistle words that are used to characterize criminals of a specific race, rather than criminals in general.

It’s a good point.  People can accept (or not accept) stats that are presented.  In this thread I’ve seen a ton of stats and studies from one side and almost zero stats presented from the other.  Mostly I’ve seen your side try to sidestep or downplay the presented data/studies without posting much of your own. 

Which again, makes sense because many, many, many people do NOT use information to change an opinion.  Rather, their preexisting opinion acts as a gatekeeper for any/all new information they might be presented with.

Which is exactly what we see from the conservatives in this thread.  Now, that’s my thesis, that you are simply incapable of changing your mind.  You can prove me wrong by giving me examples of times in the past you HAVE changed your mind re: sexism/racism in the US.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:54:14 PM by tyort1 »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #523 on: March 06, 2019, 03:12:49 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.

Absolutely not. That's why my sentence used the modifying word 'probably'. I'd be surprised if the inverse were true. Mathlete keeps citing his skills in statistics, so tell us what is the probability that a group of people who largely separated from another 100,000 years ago or so, mated with other species/races who had separated 500,000 years ago or so, and were exposed to different environmental stimuli, when observed over populations of 1 billion people or so, would not indicate some minor behavioral difference at roughly one-one-thousandth of a standard deviation?

Here's my stab at the math, feel free to check. To determine whether any individual behavioral trait differed from another at P<0.001, we would need to perform a two-sided z-test (or a t-test with n=1 billion) at Z(Φ=0.9995)≈3.29. The absolute value of the test statistic (the difference in means divided by the standard error (standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size of each population times the square root of 2)) would then be compared to this Z-value. The difference that would need to exceed this Z-value to reject the null hypothesis is, by my calculation, 1/6795 times the standard deviation. Close enough to my original low-ball estimate. This would need to be the case for every behavioral trait analyzed. And this is just measuring means; we would also want to consider various percentiles or even the standard deviations themselves.

Obviously, this is an exercise in semantics because we could never possibly measure the whole population, but more importantly there are certainly environmental confounding variables that make any test for genetic differences practically null and void unless we can start treating our subjects like lab rats.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #524 on: March 06, 2019, 03:29:16 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

Trump did make the claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. I think he's absolutely right. I don't think there's anything Trump could say or do to change the minds of those who still support him at this point. All of the justification for his prior comments underscores this point.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #525 on: March 06, 2019, 03:32:26 PM »
We see it on the micro in this very thread too. Do you know how crazy making it is to literally annotate your argument only to have people who are likely less educated in stats than you come back and say, "Sure that's all well and good, but did you know that correlation does not imply causation. Now let's consider how gangster rap might cause more crime in the black community. I won't even try to provide empirical evidence for this, but you should consider my argument on the same level as your annotated argument."

For the record, you are right, I have only taken graduate-level statistics courses. I guess that makes you the end-all-be-all of any discussions that involve stats.

To add to this, I never said gangsta rap caused thug life; rather, gangsta rap (not rap) was a byproduct of thug life. By the way, I apologize for using the term thug life, because some people might find it offensive (though it is the most colorfully descriptive term I can think of to characterize criminal gang culture, and one that is used self-referentially within the community). Unfortunately, I feel the term 'thug' has become one of the dog-whistle words that are used to characterize criminals of a specific race, rather than criminals in general.

It’s a good point.  People can accept (or not accept) stats that are presented.  In this thread I’ve seen a ton of stats and studies from one side and almost zero stats presented from the other.  Mostly I’ve seen your side try to sidestep or downplay the presented data/studies without posting much of your own. 

Which again, makes sense because many, many, many people do NOT use information to change an opinion.  Rather, their preexisting opinion acts as a gatekeeper for any/all new information they might be presented with.

Which is exactly what we see from the conservatives in this thread.  Now, that’s my thesis, that you are simply incapable of changing your mind.  You can prove me wrong by giving me examples of times in the past you HAVE changed your mind re: sexism/racism in the US.

Can you start with which position of mine you disagree with? Is it that I feel there is still racism and sexism present? Is it that I believe people of different races and sexes are capable of leading (including that I voted for HRC and BO)? Is it that I have a hard time believing that there are zero genetic differences (when looking at statistics) between different races, but that these differences are irrelevant because they are dwarfed by the differences between individuals? Is it that I don't believe white racism is endemic within the United States today (to quote BO, with whom I agree in this sentiment)? Please do tell me which opinion of mine you would like me to change so we can have a constructive argument.

And you know what, I'll even give you an example of a time when I changed my mind on a race. I was in 6th or 7th grade, and had a friend named Benita Martinez. I grew up in Miami, so I always assumed she was ethnically Cuban. Anyways, my parents complained about the illegal Mexican immigrants even then, and it rubbed off on me as a dislike of people of Mexican heritage (not that I would have known whether I knew a single one). I'm not sure how we got to talking about it, but I told Benita I like all races, except the Mexicans because (I don't recall what reason I provided). She then informed me she was Mexican. That day I changed my mind, and realized I like all races of people. It is a conversation I feel really bad about to this day (for Benita's sake), but also really good about having because it taught me a valuable lesson.

Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #526 on: March 06, 2019, 04:07:31 PM »
Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.

Are you serious? Donald Trump accomplished nothing regarding North Korea. The supposed "Art of the Deal" author failed to reach any deal, and as we speak North Korea is rebuilding a nuclear missile test facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/world/asia/north-korea-missile-site.html
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 04:10:09 PM by Norioch »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #527 on: March 06, 2019, 04:18:38 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

Trump did make the claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. I think he's absolutely right. I don't think there's anything Trump could say or do to change the minds of those who still support him at this point. All of the justification for his prior comments underscores this point.

Just some food for thought.  Is it possible that Trump supporters don't support everything he says?  Maybe many of the people who support him don't like him very much.  But maybe those people agree with a lot of the policy decisions he's making and value that over dumb shit he says on twitter?  Economy is booming.  Jobs numbers are incredible.  Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.  Criminal justice reform, and gasp, maybe his supporters actually think we should try and stop human and drug trafficking as well as solve illegal immigration issues at the border.  Is it ok to really dislike the guy but still think he's doing a good job with the direction of the country?  Maybe his supporters aren't all racists, and actually really don't like the shit he says.  But do like his policies and with such limited fucking choices in our shit 2 party system, that was the best one, policy wise.

Thank you for confirming that the ends justify the means.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #528 on: March 06, 2019, 04:28:13 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

Trump did make the claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. I think he's absolutely right. I don't think there's anything Trump could say or do to change the minds of those who still support him at this point. All of the justification for his prior comments underscores this point.

Just some food for thought.  Is it possible that Trump supporters don't support everything he says?  Maybe many of the people who support him don't like him very much.  But maybe those people agree with a lot of the policy decisions he's making and value that over dumb shit he says on twitter?  Economy is booming.  Jobs numbers are incredible.  Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.  Criminal justice reform, and gasp, maybe his supporters actually think we should try and stop human and drug trafficking as well as solve illegal immigration issues at the border.  Is it ok to really dislike the guy but still think he's doing a good job with the direction of the country?  Maybe his supporters aren't all racists, and actually really don't like the shit he says.  But do like his policies and with such limited fucking choices in our shit 2 party system, that was the best one, policy wise.

Thank you for confirming that the ends justify the means.

That's not at all what I said.  The president isn't using racism to renegotiate trade deals.

No, this is totally different.  He just used it to get elected... so that he could renegotiate trade deals.

fuzzy math

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Age: 38
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #529 on: March 06, 2019, 04:30:33 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

Trump did make the claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. I think he's absolutely right. I don't think there's anything Trump could say or do to change the minds of those who still support him at this point. All of the justification for his prior comments underscores this point.

Just some food for thought.  Is it possible that Trump supporters don't support everything he says?  Maybe many of the people who support him don't like him very much.  But maybe those people agree with a lot of the policy decisions he's making and value that over dumb shit he says on twitter?  Economy is booming.  Jobs numbers are incredible.  Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.  Criminal justice reform, and gasp, maybe his supporters actually think we should try and stop human and drug trafficking as well as solve illegal immigration issues at the border.  Is it ok to really dislike the guy but still think he's doing a good job with the direction of the country?  Maybe his supporters aren't all racists, and actually really don't like the shit he says.  But do like his policies and with such limited fucking choices in our shit 2 party system, that was the best one, policy wise.

Thank you for confirming that the ends justify the means.

That's not at all what I said.  The president isn't using racism to renegotiate trade deals.

Why cant you concede a single point? When presented with data, definitions, examples you just pivot to something else to score a point. Do you actually read responses? You were wrong about North Korea, as you’ve been wrong 500x in this thread and all we hear is how open minded you are and how you want to listen and learn. And all you do is argue the nitpickiest shit while never even acknowledging the things you claim you want to hear about under the guise of learning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fuzzy math

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Age: 38
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #530 on: March 06, 2019, 04:55:22 PM »
Trump said that a judge who had Mexican heritage was unfit to act as a judge, because he was Mexican.  He declared the man inferior (in this case inferior as an objective decision maker) because of his race.  This is a declaration of racial inferiority.

That's why Paul Ryan declared it textbook racism.

So racist, yes.



I need to ask this, what line would Trump need to cross before you admitted his racism?  Is there anything that he could do?


I honestly don't know.  That's why I asked for examples.  You are stretching with the Mexican judge, in my opinion.  Trump was questioning bias, not whether someone was inferior or superior because of their race.  An example showing Trump believing he's superior because he is white would be a line to cross.  Because that is actual racism.  Inappropriate and offensive comments do not equate to racism.  They are inappropriate and offensive comments.  Totally valid reason to hate the guy.  But "racist" has a different meaning.
Apparently the answer for many is "Trump would just have to come out and say he's racist."  And still many would claim he's not.

Sigh.

Trump did make the claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. I think he's absolutely right. I don't think there's anything Trump could say or do to change the minds of those who still support him at this point. All of the justification for his prior comments underscores this point.

Just some food for thought.  Is it possible that Trump supporters don't support everything he says?  Maybe many of the people who support him don't like him very much.  But maybe those people agree with a lot of the policy decisions he's making and value that over dumb shit he says on twitter?  Economy is booming.  Jobs numbers are incredible.  Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.  Criminal justice reform, and gasp, maybe his supporters actually think we should try and stop human and drug trafficking as well as solve illegal immigration issues at the border.  Is it ok to really dislike the guy but still think he's doing a good job with the direction of the country?  Maybe his supporters aren't all racists, and actually really don't like the shit he says.  But do like his policies and with such limited fucking choices in our shit 2 party system, that was the best one, policy wise.

Thank you for confirming that the ends justify the means.

That's not at all what I said.  The president isn't using racism to renegotiate trade deals.

Why cant you concede a single point? When presented with data, definitions, examples you just pivot to something else to score a point. Do you actually read responses? You were wrong about North Korea, as you’ve been wrong 500x in this thread and all we hear is how open minded you are and how you want to listen and learn. And all you do is argue the nitpickiest shit while never even acknowledging the things you claim you want to hear about under the guise of learning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why can't you?

Of course I read the responses, I respond to them.  I feel we have made some good progress, you just have an inherent bias and refuse to see what is obviously right in front of you.  I think we sorted out the definitions and I have agreed that Trump is racially insensitive, but I feel there is a significant difference between being insensitive and racist.  I just literally commented "touche" to a point well made that you just accused me of not conceding to...  I was absolutely NOT wrong about North Korea, by the way.

Apparently there were 3-4 replies while I was typing. So yes you conceded a point. You don’t even know who you’re arguing with anymore because you certainly don’t know what I’ve said in this thread. But yes flipping something back at someone is a perfect deflection technique, something you’ve used many times in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #531 on: March 06, 2019, 05:02:32 PM »
It's pretty obvious.  To many of you, there is simply no middle ground.  If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.  There is no middle ground, there is absolutely no room for understanding and empathy.  I think it's a terrible way to approach the world.  Demonizing entire groups of people is not healthy, rational, tolerant, etc.  It's kind of everything some of you seem to be standing up against, but then turn around and say such things in your next post.  As long as it's not people YOU like, then it's ok. Label them and demonize them.

I choose not to view the world and people that way.  It really is that simple.  We aren't going to convince each other either way.  It's been fun.

I just want to point out that you haven't offered any middle ground either.  You're basically just asking people to accept your judgement of whether an action is rascist or not without providing any kind of compeling argument.  Demanding that we accept your judgement in place of our own is not a middle ground.

I'm not asking anyone to accept my judgment.  I'm merely asking for people to be understanding that others may have different views that are legitimate, based on their personal life experiences and lifestyle.  Going down the road of demeaning others as racists simply because of a news channel should be universally recognized as a pretty terrible way to go about judging others.

I do feel I've demonstrated a reasonable middle ground.  It's others who are saying "If you don't believe in what I think, you are a racist." - where is the middle ground or understanding in statements and posts like that?  How can there be much discussion?  In fact, these are posters saying "there is no middle ground"... sigh.

Anyways, the mod, for some reason, keeps banning me.  Just more proof of the censorship.  I was about done with this conversation anyways so I'll just accept the writing on the wall that alternate opinions and appeals for tolerance and understanding are not welcome here.  I don't feel I've said anything that offensive and certainly am not trolling.  But I don't own the forum or moderate it, so if they want to ban accounts, have at it I guess.

Wait, I think we might have gotten a bit mixed up here.  I don't think I agree that anyone has said that others are racist simply because of a news channel.  I get how you could interpret some of what's been said that way, but I don't think it's what was intended.  I'm just saying I'm not going to stop calling out actions that I believe to be racist as racist actions just because you disagree with my judgement.  Personally I'm careful to call out the action and not the person unless there's a pattern of behavior and a refusal to acknowledge and fix said pattern once reasonable efforts have been made to make them aware of it.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #532 on: March 06, 2019, 05:04:32 PM »
Supposed biggest challenge of North Korea, Trump basically said... hold my beer.  Setup a meeting, took it on.  No more rockets being fired, seemingly end to a 7 decade old war is in sight, possible denuclearization, unified Korean olympics team, etc.

Are you serious? Donald Trump accomplished nothing regarding North Korea. The supposed "Art of the Deal" author failed to reach any deal, and as we speak North Korea is rebuilding a nuclear missile test facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/world/asia/north-korea-missile-site.html

Classic case of "you just can't win."  You have decided you hate the president. No matter what he does, it's bad.  You ever purchase a car before?  Walking away is a negotiating tactic.  The North Korea problem is far from over, and yet you are declaring him a failure?  I mean, it's absolutely undeniable that the president has been hugely successful with North Korea.  Just ask South Korea.... Japan.... China...  We are FAR better off today with North Korea than we were during Obama.  Is that even debatable?  I don't even think that's a controversial thing to say.

And yes, I am aware that North Korea is making highly public moves at a missile site that they know is closely watched by satellite spy agencies.  Wolf just did a really great segment on this on CNN a half hour ago.  And you know what?  None of the commentators on the segment share you thoughts.

I don't think the prez has actually made any concrete progress yet with the norks.    Lots of possibilities, but no deal has been reached.   Am I wrong?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #533 on: March 06, 2019, 05:55:38 PM »
There is definitely some real progress being made by someone continuing to make sock puppet accounts for the sole purpose of trolling, Give it a rest dude. Find a hobby. Good grief!!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4838
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #534 on: March 06, 2019, 06:03:29 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.

Absolutely not. That's why my sentence used the modifying word 'probably'. I'd be surprised if the inverse were true. Mathlete keeps citing his skills in statistics, so tell us what is the probability that a group of people who largely separated from another 100,000 years ago or so, mated with other species/races who had separated 500,000 years ago or so, and were exposed to different environmental stimuli, when observed over populations of 1 billion people or so, would not indicate some minor behavioral difference at roughly one-one-thousandth of a standard deviation?

Here's my stab at the math, feel free to check. To determine whether any individual behavioral trait differed from another at P<0.001, we would need to perform a two-sided z-test (or a t-test with n=1 billion) at Z(Φ=0.9995)≈3.29. The absolute value of the test statistic (the difference in means divided by the standard error (standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size of each population times the square root of 2)) would then be compared to this Z-value. The difference that would need to exceed this Z-value to reject the null hypothesis is, by my calculation, 1/6795 times the standard deviation. Close enough to my original low-ball estimate. This would need to be the case for every behavioral trait analyzed. And this is just measuring means; we would also want to consider various percentiles or even the standard deviations themselves.

Obviously, this is an exercise in semantics because we could never possibly measure the whole population, but more importantly there are certainly environmental confounding variables that make any test for genetic differences practically null and void unless we can start treating our subjects like lab rats.
Please provide your math for determining your sample size. You do not need 1 billion, and if you understand sample sizes and the use of sample compared to population (basic in a lower division undergrad stats class) you would know that.

FreeFIRES

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #535 on: March 06, 2019, 06:12:39 PM »
It's pretty obvious.  To many of you, there is simply no middle ground.  If you don't view things the same way, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, etc.  There is no middle ground, there is absolutely no room for understanding and empathy.  I think it's a terrible way to approach the world.  Demonizing entire groups of people is not healthy, rational, tolerant, etc.  It's kind of everything some of you seem to be standing up against, but then turn around and say such things in your next post.  As long as it's not people YOU like, then it's ok. Label them and demonize them.

I choose not to view the world and people that way.  It really is that simple.  We aren't going to convince each other either way.  It's been fun.

I just want to point out that you haven't offered any middle ground either.  You're basically just asking people to accept your judgement of whether an action is rascist or not without providing any kind of compeling argument.  Demanding that we accept your judgement in place of our own is not a middle ground.

I'm not asking anyone to accept my judgment.  I'm merely asking for people to be understanding that others may have different views that are legitimate, based on their personal life experiences and lifestyle.  Going down the road of demeaning others as racists simply because of a news channel should be universally recognized as a pretty terrible way to go about judging others.

I do feel I've demonstrated a reasonable middle ground.  It's others who are saying "If you don't believe in what I think, you are a racist." - where is the middle ground or understanding in statements and posts like that?  How can there be much discussion?  In fact, these are posters saying "there is no middle ground"... sigh.

Anyways, the mod, for some reason, keeps banning me.  Just more proof of the censorship.  I was about done with this conversation anyways so I'll just accept the writing on the wall that alternate opinions and appeals for tolerance and understanding are not welcome here.  I don't feel I've said anything that offensive and certainly am not trolling.  But I don't own the forum or moderate it, so if they want to ban accounts, have at it I guess.

Wait, I think we might have gotten a bit mixed up here.  I don't think I agree that anyone has said that others are racist simply because of a news channel.  I get how you could interpret some of what's been said that way, but I don't think it's what was intended. I'm just saying I'm not going to stop calling out actions that I believe to be racist as racist actions just because you disagree with my judgement.  Personally I'm careful to call out the action and not the person unless there's a pattern of behavior and a refusal to acknowledge and fix said pattern once reasonable efforts have been made to make them aware of it.

I think that's fair.  In fact, I find your entire post fair.  I don't think we are as far off as we often think we are.

FreeFIRES

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #536 on: March 06, 2019, 06:14:39 PM »
There is definitely some real progress being made by someone continuing to make sock puppet accounts for the sole purpose of trolling, Give it a rest dude. Find a hobby. Good grief!!

I am not, in any way, trolling.  I'm participating in a discussion.  The moderator doesn't like my point of view and is banning me.  It's literally a discussion asking conservatives to discuss, then the moderator bans users with conservative viewpoints. It's pathetic.  I'm fine, I'm participating in the discussion as I wish to be.  Just like you are.  If I have to spend 20 seconds making a new name, don't really care.

You have participated in a discussion with me.  Obviously I'm not trolling.  It seems that word is loosely thrown around, just like racism.  And really, if you all want to participate in off topic discussions about topics like this, you shouldn't be thrilled with the moderator banning someone who is willing to partake in good faith in the discussion.

I use other accounts to participate in other parts of the forum.  But need throwaway accounts for sensitive and fragile moderators in the off topic section.

MOD NOTE: Just FYI it was me, arebelspy--not the moderator who has participated in this discussion--that banned the user for trolling. We try not to moderate discussions we participate in. The account in question has been linked to multiple other accounts that were previously banned for trolling. Anyone is free to have their opinion on here. However, there's a big difference between engaging in a discussion and selectively replying, ignoring posters' comments/statistics/studies and continuing to insist on the opposite with nothing to back it up just to rile people up. There is a benefit to the community for a diversity of opinions. There is no benefit to the community to those posts that don't engage in good faith, despite the community's patience. Not posting this as a reply in thread, but directly here so people can read this response, and to not have this in my unread replies.

PM me or any other moderator with any concerns.  Cheers!

« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 07:18:13 PM by arebelspy »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #537 on: March 06, 2019, 07:13:58 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P<0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.

Absolutely not. That's why my sentence used the modifying word 'probably'. I'd be surprised if the inverse were true. Mathlete keeps citing his skills in statistics, so tell us what is the probability that a group of people who largely separated from another 100,000 years ago or so, mated with other species/races who had separated 500,000 years ago or so, and were exposed to different environmental stimuli, when observed over populations of 1 billion people or so, would not indicate some minor behavioral difference at roughly one-one-thousandth of a standard deviation?

Here's my stab at the math, feel free to check. To determine whether any individual behavioral trait differed from another at P<0.001, we would need to perform a two-sided z-test (or a t-test with n=1 billion) at Z(Φ=0.9995)≈3.29. The absolute value of the test statistic (the difference in means divided by the standard error (standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size of each population times the square root of 2)) would then be compared to this Z-value. The difference that would need to exceed this Z-value to reject the null hypothesis is, by my calculation, 1/6795 times the standard deviation. Close enough to my original low-ball estimate. This would need to be the case for every behavioral trait analyzed. And this is just measuring means; we would also want to consider various percentiles or even the standard deviations themselves.

Obviously, this is an exercise in semantics because we could never possibly measure the whole population, but more importantly there are certainly environmental confounding variables that make any test for genetic differences practically null and void unless we can start treating our subjects like lab rats.
Please provide your math for determining your sample size. You do not need 1 billion, and if you understand sample sizes and the use of sample compared to population (basic in a lower division undergrad stats class) you would know that.

I'm well aware of using sample size to determine power for experiments. Here, we're talking differences in populations, so it would be fair to assume the maximum sample size would be the entire population. In reality, we couldn't even have a sample size of one per race because it would be unethical. Or would you use your undergraduate statistics to provide a better definition for differences between two racial populations?

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #538 on: March 06, 2019, 07:26:43 PM »
Alright this is pointless. I have to say though, that's it's pretty damn funny this chewy person keeps reopening accounts. Keep it up kid. They'll find a way to block you permanently soon enough.

On a serious note though, your moderator banned someone for what? Does that give anybody pause? It should. Tow the line everyone and don't you dare speak out of line.

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 #539 on: March 06, 2019, 07:29:34 PM »
It's literally a discussion asking conservatives to discuss, then the moderator bans users with conservative viewpoints.

And yet, here I am, conservative viewpoints and all, remaining unbanned. Curious.

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 #540 on: March 06, 2019, 07:45:43 PM »
Alright this is pointless. I have to say though, that's it's pretty damn funny this chewy person keeps reopening accounts. Keep it up kid. They'll find a way to block you permanently soon enough.

On a serious note though, your moderator banned someone for what? Does that give anybody pause? It should. Tow the line everyone and don't you dare speak out of line.

You know what's funny about you, little tyro? It's your post history. Right now it stands at 35 posts, exclusively in the off topic political threads. But this forum community is built around the concepts of financial independence and ecological conservation. Why not post a case study, or your opinion of how you think the 4% rule works, or your preferred bike set up, or your take on Stoicism and it's application to your own life, or some money saving hack you've developed, or some moment of voluntary discomfort, even a funny about one of our beloved and sacred cows.

Anything, anything, that would let the community get to know you from the standpoint of shared paradigms. It's the internet equivalent of the 100+ casual encounters that have to happen before people become friends and start to share trust. It's the opposite of barging straight into the heavily contested threads with your extra smrt brain. You are not practicing emotional intelligence, brah.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4838
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #541 on: March 06, 2019, 08:44:58 PM »
Quote
I find it sexist and racist to suggest

I'm curious how you define sexism and racism. There seems to be two views. I personally define both terms to imply a belief of superiority of a sex or race over another; since I don't feel this definition fairly characterizes me (or even other posters on this thread), I take it as a juvenile insult. However, I do posit there are some differences between sexes and races (when looking at statistics of the whole populations), and maybe this is the criteria you are using to judge me, the observation of differences.

Do you believe that a particular race has behavioral traits that are different from other races?

Genetic behavioral traits or cultural behavioral traits? (Speaking of course on statistics and not on individuals.) Yes, to probably both, but the genetic part is insignificant to their value as human beings, so it is irrelevant. The cultural part is relevant, and as I said some of it may be vestiges from slavery and other forms of institutional racism.

What natural genetic behavioral traits do you attribute to black people, asian people, and white people?

That is a loaded question. But I'd be willing to bet if you looked for a statistic with P&lt;0.001 difference between races for every behavioral trait in existence (and somehow made it a double-blind experiment for that entire population and eliminated the environmental confounding variables) that something would pop up. But since this is impossible, it's useless to conjecture. But I stand by my statement that immediately followed: whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant.

Not a loaded question at all.  You claimed that there were probably natural genetic behavioral traits.  I was wondering if you had evidence of this.

Absolutely not. That's why my sentence used the modifying word 'probably'. I'd be surprised if the inverse were true. Mathlete keeps citing his skills in statistics, so tell us what is the probability that a group of people who largely separated from another 100,000 years ago or so, mated with other species/races who had separated 500,000 years ago or so, and were exposed to different environmental stimuli, when observed over populations of 1 billion people or so, would not indicate some minor behavioral difference at roughly one-one-thousandth of a standard deviation?

Here's my stab at the math, feel free to check. To determine whether any individual behavioral trait differed from another at P&lt;0.001, we would need to perform a two-sided z-test (or a t-test with n=1 billion) at Z(Φ=0.9995)≈3.29. The absolute value of the test statistic (the difference in means divided by the standard error (standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size of each population times the square root of 2)) would then be compared to this Z-value. The difference that would need to exceed this Z-value to reject the null hypothesis is, by my calculation, 1/6795 times the standard deviation. Close enough to my original low-ball estimate. This would need to be the case for every behavioral trait analyzed. And this is just measuring means; we would also want to consider various percentiles or even the standard deviations themselves.

Obviously, this is an exercise in semantics because we could never possibly measure the whole population, but more importantly there are certainly environmental confounding variables that make any test for genetic differences practically null and void unless we can start treating our subjects like lab rats.
Please provide your math for determining your sample size. You do not need 1 billion, and if you understand sample sizes and the use of sample compared to population (basic in a lower division undergrad stats class) you would know that.

I'm well aware of using sample size to determine power for experiments. Here, we're talking differences in populations, so it would be fair to assume the maximum sample size would be the entire population. In reality, we couldn't even have a sample size of one per race because it would be unethical. Or would you use your undergraduate statistics to provide a better definition for differences between two racial populations?
Actually, we compare two populations using representive samples within that population all the time, that is the basis of research, the ability to use a representative sample of the population and manipulate that and compare against another group.
And good job trying to insult my knowledge of statistics given that the information you seem to be missing is lower division undergrad statistics. Just because that is the part you don't understand does not mean the person calling you on it is not knowledgeable about it. I've published in peer reviewed journals, I've done sample size calculations for major R1 grants plus yes, undergrad and graduate statistics. But you know what, none of that matters, because what you are posting is basic stats 101 and you don't get it.
Also there is no ethical issues with looking at differences in demographics.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 08:59:16 PM by Gin1984 »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #542 on: March 06, 2019, 10:29:37 PM »
Alright this is pointless. I have to say though, that's it's pretty damn funny this chewy person keeps reopening accounts. Keep it up kid. They'll find a way to block you permanently soon enough.

On a serious note though, your moderator banned someone for what? Does that give anybody pause? It should. Tow the line everyone and don't you dare speak out of line.

You know what's funny about you, little tyro? It's your post history. Right now it stands at 35 posts, exclusively in the off topic political threads. But this forum community is built around the concepts of financial independence and ecological conservation. Why not post a case study, or your opinion of how you think the 4% rule works, or your preferred bike set up, or your take on Stoicism and it's application to your own life, or some money saving hack you've developed, or some moment of voluntary discomfort, even a funny about one of our beloved and sacred cows.

Anything, anything, that would let the community get to know you from the standpoint of shared paradigms. It's the internet equivalent of the 100+ casual encounters that have to happen before people become friends and start to share trust. It's the opposite of barging straight into the heavily contested threads with your extra smrt brain. You are not practicing emotional intelligence, brah.

First of all, I'm surprised I haven't been banned. So we will see how far this goes.

I don't know what little Tyro means but I assume it's derogatory which actually ties into my response to you.

First of all, I have read MMM for several years now and I really like the no-nonsense approach to many of Pete's articles. It's solid advice and he really takes no prisoners and no excuses. The reason I don't post on other topics is because my struggle is over financially as I am retired (FIRED) and maybe some other retirees can relate in that you just lose interest when you are no longer in the fight. I've won the match. But if you want my advice this game is pretty simple in the rules, but hard in the execution: Choose a spouse or partner very carefully, the kids come after a stable 2-person relationship, maintain stable employment until your financial goals are met and everything else are details related to your financial goals and individual circumstances. Vague enough for you? It's about tenacity and not eating the marshmallow right away really.

But you didn't respond to me for my financial advice so let's get to the point. I have made you mad. You probably feel I have violated your community and I have to some degree as I don't agree with much of anything many people in the Off-Topics have to say in regards to politics. So why am I here?

Believe it or not, I am curious to what others think that don't necessarily agree with me. I regularly read and watch people that I really don't like because I want to know why they believe what they believe. It truly matters and its important to know and you'll find that most people are not coming to their conclusions based on malice. The news media is garbage and shares a lot of the blame. I get a kick out of people here trashing Fox but then link an article to MSNBC. They're both trash and manipulating emotions as well as 99.9% of all of the other outlets but I digress. Anyway, that's why I read these forums and the reason I got involved is not because of the bias, it's because of the nastiness from some of the posters and more importantly their vitriol remaining unchecked by the mods. I have repeatedly read comments such as Trump supporters being monsters, stupid, fools, impotent, vile, racists, misogynists, homophobic, etc. Now it specifically forbids personal attacks in the contract one signs but that hasn't stopped several regular commenters with the thousands of posts like you would desire of me. Unchecked. MMM reaches a large audience and one would have to assume that a fair amount of its readership voted for Donald Trump. So we have a situation where MMM members are shitting on other members and the few that dare to defend themselves get drowned out by the usual suspects with nary a word of admonishment by the mods. In fact, like we just witnessed, one of the people who had the audacity to challenge some of these people has been banned by the mods. His sin was not agreeing with some of you guys. He was absolutely respectful and inquisitive and now he is banned.

So where is the problem? First and foremost, the posters that can't refrain from personal insults but more importantly the mods. They are allowing this to happen. Look what happened to me. I respectfully challenged a mod and he threatened to ban me. I absolutely believe if I hadn't publicly called him out on his behavior I would already be gone.

If you want dialogue and understanding you have to suffer through alternative points of view. You don't have to agree with it, but hopefully you can understand without demonizing the other person. This whole forum is weird because MMM talks of face-punches and not being a pussy but god-damn mention Trump and it's off to the races. Another issue too is the election coming up. Trump has an excellent chance of re-election. What's going to happen then to some of you? What if he wins with a real majority?

Anyway, hopefully that answers your questions and I will respond until Frugal Toque bans me. : )




steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #543 on: March 06, 2019, 11:22:22 PM »
Since he refuses to explain what he is referring to when he uses the word patriarchy, I'm pretty sure he is consistently and purposefully arguing against a straw man even after multiple people point it out to him.  To me, that's pretty clearly trolling.

I am definitely not trolling and I don't understand why this is such a big deal however I'll call the patriarchy western society. That is what I believe we are discussing.

I quite like that definition on wikipedia but I don't believe you can really call western society a patriarchy:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Quote
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

It'd be interesting to understand how other people define western society and the patriarchy. I think that there is a difference between stating a society is patriarchal and stating that western society is the patriarchy. I think the idea of the patriarchy is too extreme and doesn't really reflect western society as it exists today.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 11:24:46 PM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #544 on: March 06, 2019, 11:31:44 PM »
Actually I was faithful that you would realize your approach to confrontation/debate is inconsistent with what you want reciprocated. You know, do unto others. But this latest response is just more evidence of the same. I agree, you probably shouldn't have responded. My approach, like many others, wasn't to you liking.

I will respond to this one because I had a very different impression of what you were trying to do. If you are trying to get me to engage in a better fashion I am happy to do so. I have no problems with that at all.

I'll be honest in that I am actually trying very hard to be respectful and courteous. I'm happy for you to provide me with criticisms of how I am engaging here to try and improve on it. It's probably better to send me a PM but I'm happy to discuss it within this thread as well.

I don't want to be inconsistent at all.

At the same this is taking up too much of my time and I'd like to stop engaging.

Yes! I didn't come here to argue as there are more than enough folks doing that. You really seem to want to get your point across and I understand that. Had I engaged, I would have with the initial implication that you had already labeled me as some fringe liberal. Stop the labels! Full stop. You said you would but then continued. And added some unnecessary implied insults. You and I both know labels and insults are not part of a productive conversation. I had no ill intent. We are all humans, I get that. I reduce thing to labels at times as well, especially when frustration sets in. I think with you, you just rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by labeling them all "extreme" immediately.  Perhaps that is a label you should just keep internally to yourself?

Seconded.

Steveo, I have been trying to come up with an explanation for your behavior here and I have to wonder if a lot of it is that you're Australian, not American. Your politics are not the same as American politics and you don't have to live here under the president we live with and you don't see the daily effects of American slavery on American racism. The most outrageous political chat I've seen on this board has come from Aussies in general (Adam Schaunt) and I just have to wonder what sort of news hits your TVs about what goes on here. I tend to find that the Canadians are much more in tune with the shit that's happening at their hotly contested southern border.

You're welcome to chime in on American politics of course, but take it with a grain of salt that the argument that we're having here is different than the argument that you're having.  Perhaps give us the benefit of the doubt that we know better what's going on in our own country. It also helps as a point of reference when you're insulting people (which you shouldn't do to begin with) to clarify whom you're insulting. You entered this argument and engaged for 8 or so pages before telling people you're an Aussie.

I like the advice provided via MasterStache. I'll try to do that. I think what would help if we could try and get everyone to try and drop the labels. It makes it extremely hard to discuss issues constructively.

I don't know about the difference between American and Australian politics because I'm not American. I do see these same sorts of discussions now though in Australia. I don't agree that I've insulted anyone apart from people that are insulted a little too easily.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 03:40:52 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #545 on: March 06, 2019, 11:35:33 PM »
Regarding Steveo, again where are the racist, sexist, bigoted views espoused? Enough to send me two warnings? The reason I defended him ( I don't know him at all ) is because of your insistence that his views were over the line. What line did he cross? Perhaps you have a different definition of tolerance to opposing views.

I think clearly that some of the comments from those people much further to the left than me were bizarre and that is trying not to offend anyone. None of my comments were any of the terms you have listed above. I said earlier I don't care about being labelled those terms because it's just not true. I think people who discuss issues like that and get offended so easily have issues and the way they react is just highlighting those issues.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #546 on: March 06, 2019, 11:38:22 PM »
It's particularly offensive when someone1 has just taken 30 minutes to read a study in it's entirety, consider the confounding factors (which are generally addressed by the authors), made an honest effort to forget their biases, and come to the conclusion that maybe there's some evidence here that suggests the existence of societal unfairness. Then you come over the top and tell me I'm just not logical enough? Did you even read the study?2

I read that study and it was honestly hilarious in that the premise and conclusion were completely irrational. This was backed up by other posters who concurred that there was no proof whatsoever in that study.

Using studies is fine but my advice would be to use them in the right context. I tried to explain my proof of the matriarchy wasn't really proof but it was a hell of a lot more logically consistent than the message that was being provided to me.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #547 on: March 06, 2019, 11:41:18 PM »
The title of this thread asks why does it have to be this way? Because differing opinions (within respectful parameters) get shut down in these forums. Once again, where did Steveo cross the line? What warranted him being labeled a troll and the threat of banishment? Nobody has answered this question.

People have differing opinions for valid reasons many times. If you create an echo chamber you will never bridge this divide.

Yep. I've admitted I could improve on my communication technique and I am trying to do this. It's interesting though that some of the other side have been much more extreme and do not hold themselves to the same level of accountability.

We should be able to discuss issues without such dramatics.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 12:11:34 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #548 on: March 06, 2019, 11:47:02 PM »
Racism:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Even the first sentence on the wiki article:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another"

We need a good definition of racism and then we should state well that person isn't or is racist. Someone in the KKK is clearly racist. Someone who doesn't believe in giving hand-outs is not necessarily racist.

If you call someone racist for not espousing your world view I suppose I would call you a bigot.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #549 on: March 06, 2019, 11:52:48 PM »
Thanks for the response. For the record, I hate these damn terms like patriarchy and all of that crap.

From what I understood, his main point was that Western society has moved on from a strictly patriarchal system and the remnants are largely a result of men and women making individual choices. Hence a lot of the results that we see today.

Is that a reasonable interpretation and mindset to have? I'm pretty sure he was arguing from his individual life experiences. I don't know that it makes him wrong if he hasn't experienced what others have, and I don't recall him invalidating other's experiences.

I hate these terms as well. I just responded because it seemed so important but I don't think it is.

You've summed up my position as well. I said earlier that this is really a discussion about equality of opportunities, equality of outcomes and change and how it occurs. My impression is that people on the left are really talking about equality of outcome and the rate of change in society. I could be wrong but that is how I see it so far and nothing in this thread has really changed my mind.

I have seen some people on the left talk about accepting the potential that in a non-patriarchal society there might not be equality of outcome but I haven't seen much engagement in relation to this issue which I think is the key issue.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 03:56:18 AM by steveo »