Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64568 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #600 on: March 07, 2019, 11:16:50 AM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I think many people are like my parents - they "held their nose" and voted Trump in the last election because "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat Hillary Clinton".

Trump barely won.  If the democrats had run a centrist democrat not named Hillary Clinton, he would not have won.  That wasn't the election of a good candidate, it was choosing between 2 evils.

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 #601 on: March 07, 2019, 11:17:42 AM »
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. : )

Tyro means beginner or novice, with a distinct soupcon of whippersnapper or young buck. It contains censure, but it's not derogatory.

We are in vehement, almost violent agreement w.r.t. your stance on achieving financial independence. I'm still 18-24 months short of full financial independence myself, but I've used the same path as you - good spouse, stable career, delayed gratification, tenacity. No kids for my wife and I, though.

We're also agreed on your points about freedom of expression. I grew up in what has become Trump country. My hometown has been decimated by unemployment, addiction, and hopelessness. It's also agricultural, and at the center of the immigration debate. I'm also a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. I know a lot, like a fucktonne of people who voted for Trump. I'm in wholehearted agreement that liberal knee-jerk diatribe of Trump voters being sexist! racist! ain't doing nobody any good. I'm also in wholehearted agreement that banning users for posting their conservative viewpoints is not a good look for the community. But as I've pointed out, I've posted this exact viewpoint of knee-jerk-ism and have not been banned. I haven't even been moderated.*

I don't believe you've violated my community, nor have you made me mad. You have made me exasperated. You stomped in the sandbox, lectured bunch of elder statesmen, and pissed in the moderator's cheerios, and cried wounded victim when the responses weren't to your liking. You can have the most rational argument in the world, and still get rebuffed for that kind of low emotional intelligence. I categorically support your right to stomp, but you've repeatedly said what you want is discourse. I'm pointing out that discourse is earned by not stomping. Do what you will from here.


*Full faith mea culpa, one of my posts was edited because it had a rape metaphor. I don't believe that incident ties into this debate.

Full disclosure: I don't care who you voted for nor is it any of my business and forgive me as I have not read all of your posts. But let's run with a scenario being that you are a conservative: You voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and even worse you still support him now. According to many people on these forums you are a monster and a racist, at best a dumbass that enables evil. I suspect ( please correct me if I am wrong) that you didn't vote for him and you probably don't like him. Hence your ability to enjoy these forums without vitriol thrown your way. If you don't want to respond to this gotcha scenario I understand, but I think my point is valid.

I'm sure I've come across as a jerk and people are wondering "who the fuck is this guy" and I get it. But I stand by my statements: this place is hostile to anyone that doesn't hate Trump and Frugal Togue is a poor moderator. He has allowed an environment to fester in it's hatred of anything Trump related. It's narcissistic on his part. (Yes I know, I'm probably a narcissist too) This is not healthy and it sets the stage for real conflict. Again, Trump has an excellent chance to win 2020. If your entire world view is tied up in your hatred of Trump and his supporters, where does that leave you when he wins a second time? More self-segregation and potentially violence. That is not good for anyone.

Is it emotionally immature to wade into these forums? Probably but I'm egotistical enough to believe I'm actually helping. And are not respectfully discoursing now? I consider this a win.

But hey, we agree on retirement and congratulations on almost reaching your goal. Life is good on the other side. Making small, daily wise decisions really pays off, financially and otherwise.
I snipped the quotes. They were getting long.

You are correct, I did not vote for Trump. But I'm a practicing Christian, for which I've been called a monster and a dumbass that enables evil. Racism hasn't come into those debates. Sure it irritates me. I'm currently suppressing the urge to be snide over in the thread about Lent. Still, I'm here enjoying the forums, despite the anti-Christian bias.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #602 on: March 07, 2019, 11:18:43 AM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I think many people are like my parents - they "held their nose" and voted Trump in the last election because "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat".

And, the people who believe that "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat", are dumbasses. It's sheeple mentality. It's just another way of saying they don't care if the representative they voted in does, or if they lie, do unethical or illegal behavior, as long as they have an R behind their names. It's a great way to get quality candidates (sarcasm).

Yes, I agree with you. 

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #603 on: March 07, 2019, 11:24:21 AM »
If you voted for, and continue to support Trump, you are supporting a racist.

This certainly doesn't make you a monster.  This also doesn't mean that you're racist. Even despite the constant straw-man arguments put forth saying it does.

It does indicate (at the least) that you aren't particularly concerned about the impacts of racism on people in the country, and that you don't particularly take issue with the racism supported by the Republican party today.


Agree with this.

Agree as well. And again is a well reasoned argument for why the polarization is so strong these days (to being this back around to the original topic). There is no compromising on racism and other such undesirable qualities.

FreshPrincess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #604 on: March 07, 2019, 11:24:54 AM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I think many people are like my parents - they "held their nose" and voted Trump in the last election because "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat".

And, the people who believe that "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat", are dumbasses. It's sheeple mentality. It's just another way of saying they don't care if the representative they voted in does, or if they lie, do unethical or illegal behavior, as long as they have an R behind their names. It's a great way to get quality candidates (sarcasm).

With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you? 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #605 on: March 07, 2019, 11:44:46 AM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I think many people are like my parents - they "held their nose" and voted Trump in the last election because "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat".

And, the people who believe that "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat", are dumbasses. It's sheeple mentality. It's just another way of saying they don't care if the representative they voted in does, or if they lie, do unethical or illegal behavior, as long as they have an R behind their names. It's a great way to get quality candidates (sarcasm).

With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you? 

I'm not implying anything.  Racism, homophobia, and sexism are not acceptable to me.  I could therefore not vote for the current Republican party in good conscience.  No political party is too big to ignore their base.  By continuing to vote for the Republicans when they are overtly racist, you are showing them that you're comfortable with what they do.  Your vote matters!

Because it matters, I would definitely vote.  Vote Libertarian.  Vote Green.  There are a whole bunch of other parties you can vote for:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States.

If you feel yucky being lumped in with racists, don't vote for them.  If enough Republicans did this, the party would clean up their image pretty quickly and you could go back to supporting them with a free conscience.  The party is in the state it currently is because so many Republicans are willing to support the party seemingly no matter what moral choice it makes.  That has to stop to fix the problem.

It's certainly possible that voting for a non-racist smaller party will mean that the Republicans lose.  It comes down to what's important to you I guess . . . are you happy supporting racist, sexist, homophobes?  Keep voting for them.  If you're not, then force the party to change by voting elsewhere.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 11:50:06 AM by GuitarStv »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #606 on: March 07, 2019, 11:49:46 AM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I think many people are like my parents - they "held their nose" and voted Trump in the last election because "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat".

And, the people who believe that "the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat", are dumbasses. It's sheeple mentality. It's just another way of saying they don't care if the representative they voted in does, or if they lie, do unethical or illegal behavior, as long as they have an R behind their names. It's a great way to get quality candidates (sarcasm).

With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you? 

I'm not implying anything.  Racism, homophobia, and sexism are not acceptable to me.  I could therefore not vote for the current Republican party in good conscience.  No political party is too big to ignore their base.  By continuing to vote for the Republicans when they are overtly racist, you are showing them that you're comfortable with what they do.  Your vote matters!

Because it matters, I would definitely vote.  Vote Libertarian.  Vote Green.  There are a whole bunch of other parties you can vote for:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States.

If you feel yucky being lumped in with racists, don't vote for them.  If enough Republicans did this, the party would clean up their image pretty quickly and you could go back to supporting them with a free conscience.  The party is in the state it currently is because so many Republicans are willing to support the party seemingly no matter what moral choice it makes.  That has to stop to fix the problem.

Amen.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #607 on: March 07, 2019, 11:50:17 AM »
With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you?

If Donald Trump had run as a democrat with democratic policy positions but otherwise the same person I would not have voted for him.  I'm not exactly sure what I would have done, maybe not vote, maybe vote green party or something like GuitarStv suggested, but I definitely would not have voted for him.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #608 on: March 07, 2019, 11:52:59 AM »
With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you?

If Donald Trump had run as a democrat with democratic policy positions but otherwise the same person I would not have voted for him.  I'm not exactly sure what I would have done, maybe not vote, maybe vote green party or something like GuitarStv suggested, but I definitely would not have voted for him.

Also amen.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #609 on: March 07, 2019, 12:03:42 PM »
With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you?

If Donald Trump had run as a democrat with democratic policy positions but otherwise the same person I would not have voted for him.  I'm not exactly sure what I would have done, maybe not vote, maybe vote green party or something like GuitarStv suggested, but I definitely would not have voted for him.

I've considered this hypothetical as well and I'm not sure it's this simple. I mean sure, if the alternative was a John Kasich absolutely, or even if it was a republican I really didn't like I would not have voted for Trump but what if I was truly convinced that the Republican candidate was just as terrible or worse than Trump?

And after typing that I realized we were talking about best democrat vs. worst republican or vice versa. In that case, never mind. Not only would I not vote for Trump, I would probably vote Republican.

ETA: Also worth noting that I don't have any no compromise stances like some conservatives do with abortion. As illogical as I think that position is, I accept that some voters think being pro choice is worse than any amount of racism, lying, and cheating. I'm not arguing that their stance is acceptable but rather I can see how someone may have voted for Trump without being just a gullible fool.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 12:12:04 PM by Dabnasty »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #610 on: March 07, 2019, 12:05:18 PM »
With all due respect, what's their alternative?  To not vote?  If the Democratic party doesn't align with their values - and there are many conservative values that just don't fit in the (D) box - of course they're going to think the worst republican is better than the best democrat.  The two parties hold very different values and worldviews.  That's why they're two separate parties.  So the alternative is to just not vote?  Or run the risk of being the throwaway vote that swings a state in a direction they don't want to go?

I'm honestly curious you're implying they should do. Stay home because they don't think like you?

If Donald Trump had run as a democrat with democratic policy positions but otherwise the same person I would not have voted for him.  I'm not exactly sure what I would have done, maybe not vote, maybe vote green party or something like GuitarStv suggested, but I definitely would not have voted for him.

Yep! Again I liked a couple other Republican candidates. As soon as the party decided Trump was their choice for candidate, I said hell no! I personally don't give a shit what the letter behind their name is. If you're a racist, sexist dirtbag, you aren't getting my vote!

Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #611 on: March 07, 2019, 12:10:49 PM »
Remember that Trump won both the general election and the Republican primary, and in the Republican primary voters didn't have the excuse of thinking "anyone is better than a Democrat". Voters in the Republican primary, at least, liked Trump. I like to think, and would hope, that nobody like Trump would ever be able to win a Democratic primary.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #612 on: March 07, 2019, 12:29:13 PM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are a guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS (Trump, Sarah Sanders, K Conway, Fox, etc).


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

As far as his chances in 2020, we'll see how the next year or so plays out, eh?

We've gotten off track from your original point. You suggested that if you still support Trump at this point then you are a dumbass misled about reality. Going back to the election is a very different conversation and I don't think there's any point in rehashing that at this point.

Continuing to approve of Trump however is a very different issue. It has nothing to do with the lesser of two evils or conservative values at this point, it's a rating of his effectiveness, character, and abilities. Disapproving of Trump will not result in Hillary coming back and taking over the reigns. If you approve of Trump today, "but Hillary" is not an excuse. You are at this point supporting a terrible person who has lied and cheated and damaged our country. If you can't see that then you are... I don't want to just pick one word and I know some intelligent people fall into this category but even so I'm going to go with... a dumbass.

EDIT: Dammit, I can't do it. Supporting Trump today does not make someone a dumbass. We have well documented evidence that cult members have truly believed ridiculous and dangerous things but this does not necessarily mean they are a dumbass. So to be more thorough, present day Trump supporters are in it for selfish reasons as partgypsy described, deluded to the extent of a dangerous cultist, OR a dumbass.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 12:41:13 PM by Dabnasty »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #613 on: March 07, 2019, 01:39:44 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #614 on: March 07, 2019, 01:55:15 PM »
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.

The marshmallow experiment is a particularly apt reference to make in this thread. Some people (not saying you do) use the results of the original experiment to demonstrate the racial inferiority of black kids' ability to delay gratification that then corresponds to not succeeding later in life. However the original study noted that the biggest difference between the two groups is whether or not the kids had fathers in the home, and follow-up studies have demonstrated that a much stronger link to whether (or how long) a kid is willing to wait for the larger reward is how much the kid trusts the researcher. If you don't actually believe that you'll get two marshmallows later, then of course you'd choose the one marshmallow now.

So it's not really because of race that the kids have different delayed-gratification thresholds, it's because of their lived experience. There can be a number of different effects that are all subconscious that play into the ultimate decision on whether to wait for two marshmallows or not. So if we live in a theoretical society that some level of systematic racism, let's say that makes it harder for blacks to find good jobs, more likely to turn to things like selling weed to make money, more likely to be heavily policed, more likely to be convicted than a white counterpart, and more likely to be sent away for a longer amount of time than a white counterpart, or even just something as simple as black kids being shown different levels of trust and respect by white adults, then that can all ripple down into their subconscious and affect their ability to delay gratification. Which then yes, affects how well they'll do in school and if they'll stay healthy and how well they'll progress in their careers.

So while "toughen up and don't eat the marshmallow" might be fine individual advice on how to win the game it doesn't really do anything to help with the situation of racial disparity / racism. The ripple-effect links have to somehow be broken first, and delayed gratification is only one of them.

Absolutely agree on many of your points. Children that grow up in a stable, two parent household have an immense advantage over children without that home environment, there are exceptions of course.  I strongly believe that is the number one problem facing Black Americans. I think the national average is over 70% and in some cities closer to 80% now for that demographic, which is a tragedy really. ( Btw, other groups are not doing so well either).

What is interesting is that this sad reality wasn't always the case. I know a lot of conservative voices will posit that the War on Poverty
contributed a lot to this and I'm not so sure they are completely wrong on this theory. It's one of the reasons conservatives are leery of government feel-good measures as there are always unintended consequences.

So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

Well I do not have "all the answers" but breaking those generational ripple effects is exactly what policies like Affirmative Action are aimed at doing. Help this generation up in spite of their disadvantages, so that the next generation can stand on a more equal footing.

Other common suggestions include ending the War on Drugs, policing reform / accountability, sentencing reform, increased focus on discrimination during hiring, funding schools in poor areas better (schools are commonly funded by nearby property taxes), and improving welfare laws to eliminate things like benefit cliffs. I think an increase in stability on both fronts - familial and financial - will come as a result of reducing the systemic hurdles people have to overcome.

I do not think that the solution is to simply end welfare / the War on Poverty and tell people to figure it out, and I'd be more inclined to listen to the conservatives who think that is the problem if they'd actually offer some sort of solution beyond that.

Ending the War on Drugs would help a lot for all people, including border towns. It's silly I can buy a fifth of bourbon but it's illegal to smoke weed. And some of these programs are in an endless battle between real need and free-loaders. I think I read correctly Welfare recipients are down over 3 million currently since Trump took over and it would be interesting to see why. I know partly it's because of fears of immigrants (legal or otherwise) of being deported because they have received federal entitlements. But I haven't seen any proof this a valid fear. I would guess the economy has something to do with it as well.

I think it comes down to balance really.


madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #615 on: March 07, 2019, 01:58:59 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #616 on: March 07, 2019, 02:11:05 PM »

...snip

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.

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.

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.

First, steveo is the only person I've seen bring up the word patriarchy on these forums. Most members prefer to talk about gender inequality as it pertains to individual issues which is much more productive than discussing a complex social construct in a few back and forth comments.

He's also participated in many other discussions which essentially go through the same progression.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.

For the record, here is steveo's first comment in this thread. Prior to this the conversation was quite civilized.

I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't find him the most articulate person and he stumbles in his responses but I still don't see where the offense lies. I'm not saying you don't have the right to be offended, but I understand his premise and I don't find it problematic. But I'm also not a woman either. So there's that.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.


I haven't seen enough of his posts to develop any pattern recognition. However, in his defense, I did see at least one illogical argument in that one particular thread.

I have respect for the responsibility of a moderator. And it is very obvious when it is done well and when it is done poorly. Personally, I don't like to flag anything ( I haven't flagged anything here, not even Toque) partly because very few things truly bother me and also because I think that function gets abused. People have others do their dirty work when they should just toughen up a little.


Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #617 on: March 07, 2019, 02:18:08 PM »
If you voted for, and continue to support Trump, you are supporting a racist.

This certainly doesn't make you a monster.  This also doesn't mean that you're racist. Even despite the constant straw-man arguments put forth saying it does.

It does indicate (at the least) that you aren't particularly concerned about the impacts of racism on people in the country, and that you don't particularly take issue with the racism supported by the Republican party today.

New ground :)

I believe you when you say that you believe Trump is a racist. I respect your line in the sand. And you should act accordingly. We are probably never going to come to an agreement on this so I'm bowing out. Not a dodge, I don't have the energy.

I really wish when this person had said those words on these forums someone would have stepped up and said to this person they were out of line. But that didn't happen. But I appreciate you saying it now.




Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #618 on: March 07, 2019, 02:18:37 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

"You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker."

LOL! Oh, brother...

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #619 on: March 07, 2019, 02:21:27 PM »
Again, Trump has an excellent chance to win 2020. If your entire world view is tied up in your hatred of Trump and his supporters, where does that leave you when he wins a second time? More self-segregation and potentially violence. That is not good for anyone.

Since no one's entire world view is centered around hatred for Trump, I guess we don't have to worry about that.

I don't know man. I used to think TDS was just a meme, but I now believe it's a real condition for some people. I'm not joking.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #620 on: March 07, 2019, 02:24:13 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

"You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker."

LOL! Oh, brother...

Right?!? Because Versatileís point of view is clearly a 100% match for Objective Rational Reality, while the rest of us are deluded by our emotions 😂😂😂

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #621 on: March 07, 2019, 02:25:38 PM »
I'll get flamed for this, but at this point, two years into his presidency, there is a 1 item iq test. "Do you support Trump" and the answer is "yes" the answer is that person is a dumbass.

I admit that there are a lot of inner circle hangers-on who have jumped on his bandwagon and promote him and will continue to do that with the hopes of potential enrichment/power/job positions. I get that. But anyone in the general population who still supports him shows they are guillible dumbass willing to swallow a limitless amount of BS.


Sorry if that's too harsh. But facts are facts.

His supporters have certainly been misled and manipulated by the Fox News propaganda and other similar media outlets.  Granted, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, which I agree makes them dumbasses.  Some were manipulated by racial animus, others by religious stuff, which is odd given how "religious" Mr. Trump is, others by the gun fetish, etc.

I would make the argument that most people have been manipulated and misled by the news media. Both sides have eaten this crap up hook, line, and sinker.

Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #622 on: March 07, 2019, 02:29:37 PM »
I don't know man. I used to think TDS was just a meme, but I now believe it's a real condition for some people. I'm not joking.

"TDS" is just another example of Republican projection. They went completely deranged when Obama was president, hating him for no justifiable reason, so they assume that Democratric hatred of Trump must also have no justifiable reason and we must therefore be deranged. However, unlike Obama, there are many legitimate reasons to hate Trump.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #623 on: March 07, 2019, 02:30:32 PM »
If you voted for, and continue to support Trump, you are supporting a racist.

This certainly doesn't make you a monster.  This also doesn't mean that you're racist. Even despite the constant straw-man arguments put forth saying it does.

It does indicate (at the least) that you aren't particularly concerned about the impacts of racism on people in the country, and that you don't particularly take issue with the racism supported by the Republican party today.

New ground :)

I believe you when you say that you believe Trump is a racist. I respect your line in the sand. And you should act accordingly. We are probably never going to come to an agreement on this so I'm bowing out. Not a dodge, I don't have the energy.

I really wish when this person had said those words on these forums someone would have stepped up and said to this person they were out of line. But that didn't happen. But I appreciate you saying it now.

Hey, don't get me wrong.

If you are walking late at night and see someone being mugged and beaten, stand there and watch for a bit, then step over the sobbing body of the victim, take the mugger out for a beer and ask him for help moving (because he's obviously pretty strong) - you're not a mugger.  It certainly doesn't paint you in a very good light though, and a reasonable person has every right to be angry at you for your actions.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #624 on: March 07, 2019, 02:30:43 PM »
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. : )

Tyro means beginner or novice, with a distinct soupcon of whippersnapper or young buck. It contains censure, but it's not derogatory.

We are in vehement, almost violent agreement w.r.t. your stance on achieving financial independence. I'm still 18-24 months short of full financial independence myself, but I've used the same path as you - good spouse, stable career, delayed gratification, tenacity. No kids for my wife and I, though.

We're also agreed on your points about freedom of expression. I grew up in what has become Trump country. My hometown has been decimated by unemployment, addiction, and hopelessness. It's also agricultural, and at the center of the immigration debate. I'm also a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. I know a lot, like a fucktonne of people who voted for Trump. I'm in wholehearted agreement that liberal knee-jerk diatribe of Trump voters being sexist! racist! ain't doing nobody any good. I'm also in wholehearted agreement that banning users for posting their conservative viewpoints is not a good look for the community. But as I've pointed out, I've posted this exact viewpoint of knee-jerk-ism and have not been banned. I haven't even been moderated.*

I don't believe you've violated my community, nor have you made me mad. You have made me exasperated. You stomped in the sandbox, lectured bunch of elder statesmen, and pissed in the moderator's cheerios, and cried wounded victim when the responses weren't to your liking. You can have the most rational argument in the world, and still get rebuffed for that kind of low emotional intelligence. I categorically support your right to stomp, but you've repeatedly said what you want is discourse. I'm pointing out that discourse is earned by not stomping. Do what you will from here.


*Full faith mea culpa, one of my posts was edited because it had a rape metaphor. I don't believe that incident ties into this debate.

Full disclosure: I don't care who you voted for nor is it any of my business and forgive me as I have not read all of your posts. But let's run with a scenario being that you are a conservative: You voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and even worse you still support him now. According to many people on these forums you are a monster and a racist, at best a dumbass that enables evil. I suspect ( please correct me if I am wrong) that you didn't vote for him and you probably don't like him. Hence your ability to enjoy these forums without vitriol thrown your way. If you don't want to respond to this gotcha scenario I understand, but I think my point is valid.

I'm sure I've come across as a jerk and people are wondering "who the fuck is this guy" and I get it. But I stand by my statements: this place is hostile to anyone that doesn't hate Trump and Frugal Togue is a poor moderator. He has allowed an environment to fester in it's hatred of anything Trump related. It's narcissistic on his part. (Yes I know, I'm probably a narcissist too) This is not healthy and it sets the stage for real conflict. Again, Trump has an excellent chance to win 2020. If your entire world view is tied up in your hatred of Trump and his supporters, where does that leave you when he wins a second time? More self-segregation and potentially violence. That is not good for anyone.

Is it emotionally immature to wade into these forums? Probably but I'm egotistical enough to believe I'm actually helping. And are not respectfully discoursing now? I consider this a win.

But hey, we agree on retirement and congratulations on almost reaching your goal. Life is good on the other side. Making small, daily wise decisions really pays off, financially and otherwise.
I snipped the quotes. They were getting long.

You are correct, I did not vote for Trump. But I'm a practicing Christian, for which I've been called a monster and a dumbass that enables evil. Racism hasn't come into those debates. Sure it irritates me. I'm currently suppressing the urge to be snide over in the thread about Lent. Still, I'm here enjoying the forums, despite the anti-Christian bias.

I think my hypothetical scenario can be taken from the theory category and stated as fact. : )  Good luck with Lent.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #625 on: March 07, 2019, 02:32:26 PM »
I don't find him the most articulate person and he stumbles in his responses but I still don't see where the offense lies. I'm not saying you don't have the right to be offended, but I understand his premise and I don't find it problematic. But I'm also not a woman either. So there's that.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.


I haven't seen enough of his posts to develop any pattern recognition. However, in his defense, I did see at least one illogical argument in that one particular thread.

I have respect for the responsibility of a moderator. And it is very obvious when it is done well and when it is done poorly. Personally, I don't like to flag anything ( I haven't flagged anything here, not even Toque) partly because very few things truly bother me and also because I think that function gets abused. People have others do their dirty work when they should just toughen up a little.

I have.  Have you been reading my posts explaining to him why people think he's trolling?

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #626 on: March 07, 2019, 02:40:17 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

"You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker."

LOL! Oh, brother...

Right?!? Because Versatileís point of view is clearly a 100% match for Objective Rational Reality, while the rest of us are deluded by our emotions 😂😂😂

I should have known better.

Are you familiar with what I am talking about? Myers-Briggs?

That you viewed that immediately as a sly insult is disheartening. Look it up. I mention this because I believe personality types greatly influence how we view the world. It's really interesting.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #627 on: March 07, 2019, 02:46:52 PM »
I don't find him the most articulate person and he stumbles in his responses but I still don't see where the offense lies. I'm not saying you don't have the right to be offended, but I understand his premise and I don't find it problematic. But I'm also not a woman either. So there's that.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.


I haven't seen enough of his posts to develop any pattern recognition. However, in his defense, I did see at least one illogical argument in that one particular thread.

I have respect for the responsibility of a moderator. And it is very obvious when it is done well and when it is done poorly. Personally, I don't like to flag anything ( I haven't flagged anything here, not even Toque) partly because very few things truly bother me and also because I think that function gets abused. People have others do their dirty work when they should just toughen up a little.

I have.  Have you been reading my posts explaining to him why people think he's trolling?

I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #628 on: March 07, 2019, 02:50:26 PM »
Are you familiar with what I am talking about? Myers-Briggs?

Of course I'm familiar with Myers-Briggs, and I know my MBTI type -- on the T/F line I am 51% thinking and 49% feeling. Just like I said, I'm very well balanced between thinking and feeling. I would imagine that you are heavy on the thinking, it's a real limitation!

(Myers-Briggs has very little scientific merit, though, it's basically like a Buzzfeed quiz that sorts you into a Harry Potter house.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die)

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 #629 on: March 07, 2019, 02:50:32 PM »
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. : )

Tyro means beginner or novice, with a distinct soupcon of whippersnapper or young buck. It contains censure, but it's not derogatory.

We are in vehement, almost violent agreement w.r.t. your stance on achieving financial independence. I'm still 18-24 months short of full financial independence myself, but I've used the same path as you - good spouse, stable career, delayed gratification, tenacity. No kids for my wife and I, though.

We're also agreed on your points about freedom of expression. I grew up in what has become Trump country. My hometown has been decimated by unemployment, addiction, and hopelessness. It's also agricultural, and at the center of the immigration debate. I'm also a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. I know a lot, like a fucktonne of people who voted for Trump. I'm in wholehearted agreement that liberal knee-jerk diatribe of Trump voters being sexist! racist! ain't doing nobody any good. I'm also in wholehearted agreement that banning users for posting their conservative viewpoints is not a good look for the community. But as I've pointed out, I've posted this exact viewpoint of knee-jerk-ism and have not been banned. I haven't even been moderated.*

I don't believe you've violated my community, nor have you made me mad. You have made me exasperated. You stomped in the sandbox, lectured bunch of elder statesmen, and pissed in the moderator's cheerios, and cried wounded victim when the responses weren't to your liking. You can have the most rational argument in the world, and still get rebuffed for that kind of low emotional intelligence. I categorically support your right to stomp, but you've repeatedly said what you want is discourse. I'm pointing out that discourse is earned by not stomping. Do what you will from here.


*Full faith mea culpa, one of my posts was edited because it had a rape metaphor. I don't believe that incident ties into this debate.

Full disclosure: I don't care who you voted for nor is it any of my business and forgive me as I have not read all of your posts. But let's run with a scenario being that you are a conservative: You voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and even worse you still support him now. According to many people on these forums you are a monster and a racist, at best a dumbass that enables evil. I suspect ( please correct me if I am wrong) that you didn't vote for him and you probably don't like him. Hence your ability to enjoy these forums without vitriol thrown your way. If you don't want to respond to this gotcha scenario I understand, but I think my point is valid.

I'm sure I've come across as a jerk and people are wondering "who the fuck is this guy" and I get it. But I stand by my statements: this place is hostile to anyone that doesn't hate Trump and Frugal Togue is a poor moderator. He has allowed an environment to fester in it's hatred of anything Trump related. It's narcissistic on his part. (Yes I know, I'm probably a narcissist too) This is not healthy and it sets the stage for real conflict. Again, Trump has an excellent chance to win 2020. If your entire world view is tied up in your hatred of Trump and his supporters, where does that leave you when he wins a second time? More self-segregation and potentially violence. That is not good for anyone.

Is it emotionally immature to wade into these forums? Probably but I'm egotistical enough to believe I'm actually helping. And are not respectfully discoursing now? I consider this a win.

But hey, we agree on retirement and congratulations on almost reaching your goal. Life is good on the other side. Making small, daily wise decisions really pays off, financially and otherwise.
I snipped the quotes. They were getting long.

You are correct, I did not vote for Trump. But I'm a practicing Christian, for which I've been called a monster and a dumbass that enables evil. Racism hasn't come into those debates. Sure it irritates me. I'm currently suppressing the urge to be snide over in the thread about Lent. Still, I'm here enjoying the forums, despite the anti-Christian bias.

I think my hypothetical scenario can be taken from the theory category and stated as fact. : )  Good luck with Lent.

Wait, I've lost the thread. You're hypothetical scenario was to point out that I don't get vitriol thrown my way, right? That I can enjoy the forums because I'm part of the hive mind? Have I misunderstood, because I don't get your last post.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #630 on: March 07, 2019, 03:10:26 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

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 don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.
It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #631 on: March 07, 2019, 03:14:32 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

"You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker."

LOL! Oh, brother...

Right?!? Because Versatileís point of view is clearly a 100% match for Objective Rational Reality, while the rest of us are deluded by our emotions 😂😂😂

I should have known better.

Are you familiar with what I am talking about? Myers-Briggs?

That you viewed that immediately as a sly insult is disheartening. Look it up. I mention this because I believe personality types greatly influence how we view the world. It's really interesting.

Dude, pretty much everyone is familiar with Myers-Briggs.

1) Personality tests such as Myers-Briggs are not scientifically accurate.

2) Even if they were, you are not talking about the results of any test that Magdeylou has taken. You are armchair diagnosing her as a "feeler" (emotion-based) rather than a "thinker" because you think she is. That ain't Myers-Briggs. That's you imposing some sexist bullshit.

Yup. I said it. It's sexist.

Let me guess. You've taken the Myers-Briggs, and you're a "T."

Oh, and also, let me modify my response: You're gonna come back and say, "I had no idea she was a woman! No way could that be sexist!"

Except, nope. Because pretty sure you could tell she was a woman. And even if you honestly could not, "feeling" vs. "thinking" is a gendered way that society (the PATRIARCHY) has dismissed women's experience, their thoughts, their ideas, and YES, even emotions as less valid.

And, at the same time, also dismissed men's displays of emotions as "feminine" and therefore evidence of their being less manly -- and less logical.

So, GTFOH with your Myers-Briggs pop psychology diagnoses.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 04:04:21 PM by Kris »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #632 on: March 07, 2019, 03:49:32 PM »
I don't find him the most articulate person and he stumbles in his responses but I still don't see where the offense lies. I'm not saying you don't have the right to be offended, but I understand his premise and I don't find it problematic. But I'm also not a woman either. So there's that.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.


I haven't seen enough of his posts to develop any pattern recognition. However, in his defense, I did see at least one illogical argument in that one particular thread.

I have respect for the responsibility of a moderator. And it is very obvious when it is done well and when it is done poorly. Personally, I don't like to flag anything ( I haven't flagged anything here, not even Toque) partly because very few things truly bother me and also because I think that function gets abused. People have others do their dirty work when they should just toughen up a little.

I have.  Have you been reading my posts explaining to him why people think he's trolling?

I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I have seen the work of trolls take down good message boards. It is very disheartening, and it shows the need for good moderators. However, I have not seen anything that has remotely resembled trolling in this thread (either that or I am that gullible). What I do see is a refusal to understand that people have differing opinions and worldviews, people can vote for someone for different reasons, and that characterizing all of these people under the same umbrella is extremely counterproductive (as Hillary learned firsthand with her "basket of deplorables" comment (which, in her exact phrasing minus the "half", I actually agree with), which to Trump's Machiavellian credit he took off running with).

What I have seen here is even worse than just characterizing a whole class of people as "dumbass" or worse. The moderators have jumped in, preventing productive discussion in a "forum", where one can hope that people with dissenting opinions can become enlightened (or, God forbid, YOU might become enlightened). Listen, I disagree with a lot of what the multiple-banned poster was stating. For example, I think Trump's racism (or Machiavellianism, which isn't any better) was on display from Day 1 when he referred to Mexican immigrants as follows:  ďTheyíre bringing drugs. Theyíre bringing crime. Theyíre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.Ē Because really there's no evidence that any of these characteristics are more prevalent in that population than our general population. However, I know several people of Mexican heritage who voted for Trump, specifically because he's promised to do something about illegal immigration. Are these Mexican-Americans racist (or, for that matter, dumbasses), just because I disagree with who they are voting for?

It's funny that a lot of people swear they wouldn't have voted for Trump if he ran as a Democrat. What they don't realize is the Trumpian version of a Democrat is one who riles up their base about the overwhelming racism and sexism in the world, the gross inequality, the slaughter of our innocents by guns, the tyranny of the pro-life, etc., etc. These "Friends of Freedom and Equality" will ensure suppression of the "enemies of the people".

ETA: p.s. My final quote was intended as a reference to the original left (and, of course, the Reign of Terror). It dawned on me several hours later that Trump is also fond of the term. Here's an interesting article on its history, which has previously been the domain of the left: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/world/europe/trump-enemy-of-the-people-stalin.html.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 07:53:42 AM by Boofinator »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #633 on: March 07, 2019, 03:52:59 PM »
Yeah, according to my SIL, who has bachelor's and master's degree s in clinical psychology, a specialist certificate in a clinical subfield, and 15 years of experience in professional practice, Myers-Briggs is not valid. The introversion/extraversion dichotomy is valid; the rest is, at best, pop psych.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #634 on: March 07, 2019, 04:00:27 PM »
I don't find him the most articulate person and he stumbles in his responses but I still don't see where the offense lies. I'm not saying you don't have the right to be offended, but I understand his premise and I don't find it problematic. But I'm also not a woman either. So there's that.

Step 1: steveo asks for "proof" of an un-provable thing that no one else was even talking about
Step 2: A few people offer evidence and explain their opinions rationally
Step 3: He responds "you're so irrational and illogical that it's hilarious, this proves I am right" without really getting into the details
Step 4: Some posters continue to try and be rational while others stoop to his level and the conversation is derailed

Mods may not be 100% balanced in calling out each infraction but when someone has a history in other threads I think it's unreasonable to expect mods to ignore their history and look at each comment in a vacuum. Not to mention, mods often only see comments which get flagged. If you really want someone to get a warning for personal attacks you need to flag the comment. If you do so, you also need to keep in mind that they may have received a warning and you'll never know about it.


I haven't seen enough of his posts to develop any pattern recognition. However, in his defense, I did see at least one illogical argument in that one particular thread.

I have respect for the responsibility of a moderator. And it is very obvious when it is done well and when it is done poorly. Personally, I don't like to flag anything ( I haven't flagged anything here, not even Toque) partly because very few things truly bother me and also because I think that function gets abused. People have others do their dirty work when they should just toughen up a little.

I have.  Have you been reading my posts explaining to him why people think he's trolling?

I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I have seen the work of trolls take down good message boards. It is very disheartening, and it shows the need for good moderators. However, I have not seen anything that has remotely resembled trolling in this thread (either that or I am that gullible).

Uh yeah except there was this one person who continued to create multiple profiles in order to come back and tell everyone how not getting a burger joint job made him a victim of racism. I've seen far less obvious trolls get banned. 

Quote
It's funny that a lot of people swear they wouldn't have voted for Trump if he ran as a Democrat. What they don't realize is the Trumpian version of a Democrat is one who riles up their base about the overwhelming racism and sexism in the world, the gross inequality, the slaughter of our innocents by guns, the tyranny of the pro-life, etc., etc. These "Friends of Freedom and Equality" will ensure suppression of the "enemies of the people".

Now you lose everyone by trying to find some false equivalence with racism, sexism, compulsive lying etc. The equivalence to racism is racism. It's not tree or house or a shit sandwich. A Democrat version of Trump is Trump with a "D" instead of an "R." He is still the same racist, sexist shit bag. 

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #635 on: March 07, 2019, 04:33:07 PM »
I have seen the work of trolls take down good message boards. It is very disheartening, and it shows the need for good moderators. However, I have not seen anything that has remotely resembled trolling in this thread (either that or I am that gullible). What I do see is a refusal to understand that people have differing opinions and worldviews, people can vote for someone for different reasons, and that characterizing all of these people under the same umbrella is extremely counterproductive (as Hillary learned firsthand with her "basket of deplorables" comment (which, in her exact phrasing minus the "half", I actually agree with), which to Trump's Machiavellian credit he took off running with).

What I have seen here is even worse than just characterizing a whole class of people as "dumbass" or worse. The moderators have jumped in, preventing productive discussion in a "forum", where one can hope that people with dissenting opinions can become enlightened (or, God forbid, YOU might become enlightened). Listen, I disagree with a lot of what the multiple-banned poster was stating.

Toque is a moderator but he was not moderating this discussion because he was participating in it, arebelspy is moderating. The user you're referring to was originally banned before participating in this thread and I don't know what their original username was so I can't comment on whether it was justified or not. Everything they posted after that was irrelevant to their banning.

Whether someone like steveo is trolling or not is hard to say, trolling is a matter of intent. If his intent is to discuss honestly then he is not a troll, however he is extremely stubborn and often fails to address the points made by those he is calling illogical.

Same goes for the banned one, very stubborn but possibly sincere. You saw in the climate change policy thread where several different people (including yourself) explained the concept of variable pricing based on production cost yet they continued to rail against government controlled pricing even though they were the only one to bring it up (much like steveo and the patriarchy).

So while it's possible that they were legitimately confused it's also possible that their intent was to derail the conversation and were doing so in a rather insidious way. I would imagine it's tough for the moderators to make a call in cases like that but clearly steveo is still here so I assume the banned one was doing something worse.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #636 on: March 07, 2019, 05:40:01 PM »

Now you lose everyone by trying to find some false equivalence with racism, sexism, compulsive lying etc. The equivalence to racism is racism. It's not tree or house or a shit sandwich. A Democrat version of Trump is Trump with a "D" instead of an "R." He is still the same racist, sexist shit bag.

Thank you. Trump used to be a Democrat, if I'm remembering correctly. He switched sides because it was politically expedient. Even if he had run as a Democrat, I wouldn't have voted for him because I think he's professionally incompetent and personally vile. I've thought the latter since hearing about his first divorce, way back when I was a kid. I've thought the former since I started hearing about all of his failed and shady business deals. The President is supposed to represent the ideals of his constituents. What does Donald Trump say about us?

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #637 on: March 07, 2019, 05:54:41 PM »
Are you familiar with what I am talking about? Myers-Briggs?

Of course I'm familiar with Myers-Briggs, and I know my MBTI type -- on the T/F line I am 51% thinking and 49% feeling. Just like I said, I'm very well balanced between thinking and feeling. I would imagine that you are heavy on the thinking, it's a real limitation!

(Myers-Briggs has very little scientific merit, though, it's basically like a Buzzfeed quiz that sorts you into a Harry Potter house.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die)

You would be correct, and yes it can be a limitation. I'll address the legitimacy with Kris in a bit.

I never said our actions are carved in stone based on our MBTI scores, but your posts tend to lean heavily in the feeling category. At least to my perceptions. I'm happy you are balanced.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #638 on: March 07, 2019, 06:01:47 PM »
I don't know man. I used to think TDS was just a meme, but I now believe it's a real condition for some people. I'm not joking.

"TDS" is just another example of Republican projection. They went completely deranged when Obama was president, hating him for no justifiable reason, so they assume that Democratric hatred of Trump must also have no justifiable reason and we must therefore be deranged. However, unlike Obama, there are many legitimate reasons to hate Trump.

It has certainly been used in a derogatory manner, no doubt. But I do believe some people are suffering psychological trauma at the moment because of their preoccupation of Trump.

I think the worst during the Obama years was Glen Beck. I used to work with a guy that worshipped Beck and parrot every asinine thing Beck would say. It was torture.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #639 on: March 07, 2019, 06:09:39 PM »
If you voted for, and continue to support Trump, you are supporting a racist.

This certainly doesn't make you a monster.  This also doesn't mean that you're racist. Even despite the constant straw-man arguments put forth saying it does.

It does indicate (at the least) that you aren't particularly concerned about the impacts of racism on people in the country, and that you don't particularly take issue with the racism supported by the Republican party today.

New ground :)

I believe you when you say that you believe Trump is a racist. I respect your line in the sand. And you should act accordingly. We are probably never going to come to an agreement on this so I'm bowing out. Not a dodge, I don't have the energy.

I really wish when this person had said those words on these forums someone would have stepped up and said to this person they were out of line. But that didn't happen. But I appreciate you saying it now.

Hey, don't get me wrong.

If you are walking late at night and see someone being mugged and beaten, stand there and watch for a bit, then step over the sobbing body of the victim, take the mugger out for a beer and ask him for help moving (because he's obviously pretty strong) - you're not a mugger.  It certainly doesn't paint you in a very good light though, and a reasonable person has every right to be angry at you for your actions.

That response made me laugh. It's like "whoa mofo, we aren't suddenly buds". Good stuff.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #640 on: March 07, 2019, 06:17:08 PM »
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. : )

Tyro means beginner or novice, with a distinct soupcon of whippersnapper or young buck. It contains censure, but it's not derogatory.

We are in vehement, almost violent agreement w.r.t. your stance on achieving financial independence. I'm still 18-24 months short of full financial independence myself, but I've used the same path as you - good spouse, stable career, delayed gratification, tenacity. No kids for my wife and I, though.

We're also agreed on your points about freedom of expression. I grew up in what has become Trump country. My hometown has been decimated by unemployment, addiction, and hopelessness. It's also agricultural, and at the center of the immigration debate. I'm also a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. I know a lot, like a fucktonne of people who voted for Trump. I'm in wholehearted agreement that liberal knee-jerk diatribe of Trump voters being sexist! racist! ain't doing nobody any good. I'm also in wholehearted agreement that banning users for posting their conservative viewpoints is not a good look for the community. But as I've pointed out, I've posted this exact viewpoint of knee-jerk-ism and have not been banned. I haven't even been moderated.*

I don't believe you've violated my community, nor have you made me mad. You have made me exasperated. You stomped in the sandbox, lectured bunch of elder statesmen, and pissed in the moderator's cheerios, and cried wounded victim when the responses weren't to your liking. You can have the most rational argument in the world, and still get rebuffed for that kind of low emotional intelligence. I categorically support your right to stomp, but you've repeatedly said what you want is discourse. I'm pointing out that discourse is earned by not stomping. Do what you will from here.


*Full faith mea culpa, one of my posts was edited because it had a rape metaphor. I don't believe that incident ties into this debate.

Full disclosure: I don't care who you voted for nor is it any of my business and forgive me as I have not read all of your posts. But let's run with a scenario being that you are a conservative: You voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and even worse you still support him now. According to many people on these forums you are a monster and a racist, at best a dumbass that enables evil. I suspect ( please correct me if I am wrong) that you didn't vote for him and you probably don't like him. Hence your ability to enjoy these forums without vitriol thrown your way. If you don't want to respond to this gotcha scenario I understand, but I think my point is valid.

I'm sure I've come across as a jerk and people are wondering "who the fuck is this guy" and I get it. But I stand by my statements: this place is hostile to anyone that doesn't hate Trump and Frugal Togue is a poor moderator. He has allowed an environment to fester in it's hatred of anything Trump related. It's narcissistic on his part. (Yes I know, I'm probably a narcissist too) This is not healthy and it sets the stage for real conflict. Again, Trump has an excellent chance to win 2020. If your entire world view is tied up in your hatred of Trump and his supporters, where does that leave you when he wins a second time? More self-segregation and potentially violence. That is not good for anyone.

Is it emotionally immature to wade into these forums? Probably but I'm egotistical enough to believe I'm actually helping. And are not respectfully discoursing now? I consider this a win.

But hey, we agree on retirement and congratulations on almost reaching your goal. Life is good on the other side. Making small, daily wise decisions really pays off, financially and otherwise.
I snipped the quotes. They were getting long.

You are correct, I did not vote for Trump. But I'm a practicing Christian, for which I've been called a monster and a dumbass that enables evil. Racism hasn't come into those debates. Sure it irritates me. I'm currently suppressing the urge to be snide over in the thread about Lent. Still, I'm here enjoying the forums, despite the anti-Christian bias.

I think my hypothetical scenario can be taken from the theory category and stated as fact. : )  Good luck with Lent.

Wait, I've lost the thread. You're hypothetical scenario was to point out that I don't get vitriol thrown my way, right? That I can enjoy the forums because I'm part of the hive mind? Have I misunderstood, because I don't get your last post.

The scenario where you were to declare you voted for and support Trump. Partygypy and several others immediately chimed in and said yes, you would be a dumbass. I was theorizing that you haven't received flak because you didn't vote for Trump and my theory has been proven correct several times over already.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #641 on: March 07, 2019, 06:24:15 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

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 don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.
It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

I'm not sure I know what you want from me. Did my synopsis of what I thought he was trying to say help at all? Did you agree with it?

Again, I think he is clumsy in his arguments but I didn't sense any trolling. To be clear, to me a troll is someone who deliberately provokes for a reaction. These people typically don't care about telling the truth. He seems sincere to me and his basic premise has merit. But again, I'm a dude and don't experience life as a woman. Your experience might be different.

Can you both be right?

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #642 on: March 07, 2019, 06:36:21 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

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 don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.
It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

I'm not sure I know what you want from me. Did my synopsis of what I thought he was trying to say help at all? Did you agree with it?

Again, I think he is clumsy in his arguments but I didn't sense any trolling. To be clear, to me a troll is someone who deliberately provokes for a reaction. These people typically don't care about telling the truth. He seems sincere to me and his basic premise has merit. But again, I'm a dude and don't experience life as a woman. Your experience might be different.

Can you both be right?

I don't want anything from you.  I'm just trying to help you understand why some people might feel like steveo was trolling.  It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about how he's approaching the discussion.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 06:53:09 PM by shenlong55 »

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #643 on: March 07, 2019, 06:51:52 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

The part I bolded is exactly the right place to focus, I think.

.

Imagine that you are a black American. Imagine that you have learned about the atrocities perpetuated on your people since the beginning of this country, and you have seen many of them in your own life and in the lives of your friends and family in the present day.

Now imagine that a person who is a member of the group who perpetuated all of that upon your people for the last 400 years, is telling you that your problem is the decline of your community ... when their group is the reason that you've been disenfranchised, prevented from owning a home, incarcerated and killed at much higher rates than anyone else, etc etc etc. Their group is the primary reason that your community has declined! It would piss me off for sure and I would not be likely to take that advice, nor is that advice likely to be helpful, because it doesn't take into account the complexity and history and context.

Clearly black communities have some healing to do. But what I have been taught by my friends and my education is that it is not my job as a white person to decide what that healing looks like for black folks. My job as a white person is to do what I can to change the society conditions that my people have set up, that I have personally benefited from (without having any intention to), so that black people have the resources they need to heal their own communities.

This means educating myself and the people in my circle, it means being open to being coached when I get stuff wrong, and it means not trying to step in and save anyone. It means voting for candidates who will listen to all of their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who donate a lot to their campaigns. It means standing up for black people and amplifying their voices. It means giving black educators money so they can continue doing their work.

White folks have enough work to do to clean up our own behavior before we even think about telling people of other races about theirs.

I agree, I can't fix other's problems, especially cultural issues that I don't share. It has to come from within. However, I feel that some pressure to reform from external forces is perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever studied personality traits? You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker. That is not an insult, don't misinterpret that, but people are different based on personality.

Have you ever read and absorbed a post before responding to it? You said absolutely nothing in this response.

In response to your shady question, Iím a human being with thinking and feeling quite balanced, thanks for asking.

Unlike a lot of the dudes on this thread, though, Iím empathetic, and not a particularly rigid thinker. Iím willing to listen to people and consider new information and absorb it and upgrade my view of life and humanity based on what I learn.

I didnít always understand the mechanisms of oppression and privilege but I adopted that way of thinking after a lot of education and listening to folks who have different experiences than me. Rigid thinking people donít tend to be able to do that kind of thing, though ó to the detriment of us all.

"You strike me as a feeler more so than a thinker."

LOL! Oh, brother...

Right?!? Because Versatileís point of view is clearly a 100% match for Objective Rational Reality, while the rest of us are deluded by our emotions 😂😂😂

I should have known better.

Are you familiar with what I am talking about? Myers-Briggs?

That you viewed that immediately as a sly insult is disheartening. Look it up. I mention this because I believe personality types greatly influence how we view the world. It's really interesting.

Dude, pretty much everyone is familiar with Myers-Briggs.

1) Personality tests such as Myers-Briggs are not scientifically accurate.

2) Even if they were, you are not talking about the results of any test that Magdeylou has taken. You are armchair diagnosing her as a "feeler" (emotion-based) rather than a "thinker" because you think she is. That ain't Myers-Briggs. That's you imposing some sexist bullshit.

Yup. I said it. It's sexist.

Let me guess. You've taken the Myers-Briggs, and you're a "T."

Oh, and also, let me modify my response: You're gonna come back and say, "I had no idea she was a woman! No way could that be sexist!"

Except, nope. Because pretty sure you could tell she was a woman. And even if you honestly could not, "feeling" vs. "thinking" is a gendered way that society (the PATRIARCHY) has dismissed women's experience, their thoughts, their ideas, and YES, even emotions as less valid.

And, at the same time, also dismissed men's displays of emotions as "feminine" and therefore evidence of their being less manly -- and less logical.

So, GTFOH with your Myers-Briggs pop psychology diagnoses.

She looks like a woman in her picture. Not quite sure where you are going with that. I would say you are over-reacting just a bit here and putting hypothetical thoughts in my head that I have never uttered. Did I just stereo-type you or is that a fair assumption based on what you have written? I guess it would depend on what you would like to believe.

I asked her if she was familiar with Myers-Brigg because I assumed in my first post to her she would understand (meaning I was asking in the academic sense ) when I mentioned feeler vs. thinker. But nope, just like you she took it as an insult. I believe people react and interpret issues partly on their personality types. I've never made the claim Myers-Brigg is the word of god, but it is a good starting point to kind of figure out peoples internal value system's. I was genuinely curious about her based on her writing style.

You're the only person that has weaponized those terms in this conversation. I don't care if you don't like me but argue in good faith please. You can't read my mind and if you need clarification on my thoughts I will be happy to explain. I don't need you putting words in my mouth, FTFY, your personal interpretation, or claiming clairvoyance. Just ask me and be honest.


Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #644 on: March 07, 2019, 07:02:42 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

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 don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.
It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

I'm not sure I know what you want from me. Did my synopsis of what I thought he was trying to say help at all? Did you agree with it?

Again, I think he is clumsy in his arguments but I didn't sense any trolling. To be clear, to me a troll is someone who deliberately provokes for a reaction. These people typically don't care about telling the truth. He seems sincere to me and his basic premise has merit. But again, I'm a dude and don't experience life as a woman. Your experience might be different.

Can you both be right?

I don't want anything from you.  I'm just trying to help you understand why some people might feel like steveo was trolling.  It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about how he's approaching the discussion.

I misunderstood. If your goal was to get me to understand how you and others would perceive Steveo as trolling then yeah, I could see how you would interpret it that way. I mean I don't agree, but my standard is different than yours. That's not an insult, please don't do a Kris on me.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #645 on: March 07, 2019, 07:44:09 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

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 don't honestly care what he believes or how he defines any of the words that he uses.  Even if we assume that it was just a miscommunication, the problem is his refusal to engage in a manner that would clear up the miscommunication.  The fact that he chooses to continuously argue against whatever it is that he believes the word patriarchy means instead of responding to what the other party is actually trying to say indicates to me that it's more likely an intentional tactic to rile people up.  If he was actually interested in having an honest discussion he would need to acknowledge the differences in definitions and take said differences into account when debating.  Arguing that "the patriarchy doesn't exist" isn't an honest response to someone else's statement that "the patriarchy does exist" when the two people are referencing completely different things by the word patriarchy.  And doing so intentionally, to me, is trolling.
It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

I'm not sure I know what you want from me. Did my synopsis of what I thought he was trying to say help at all? Did you agree with it?

Again, I think he is clumsy in his arguments but I didn't sense any trolling. To be clear, to me a troll is someone who deliberately provokes for a reaction. These people typically don't care about telling the truth. He seems sincere to me and his basic premise has merit. But again, I'm a dude and don't experience life as a woman. Your experience might be different.

Can you both be right?

I don't want anything from you.  I'm just trying to help you understand why some people might feel like steveo was trolling.  It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about how he's approaching the discussion.

I misunderstood. If your goal was to get me to understand how you and others would perceive Steveo as trolling then yeah, I could see how you would interpret it that way. I mean I don't agree, but my standard is different than yours. That's not an insult, please don't do a Kris on me.

To be clear, I'm not saying that he is trolling, just that it seems entirely reasonable to me if others saw him as such.  I'm definitely open to the idea that it was unintentional.  That's why I was trying to clarify things in the first place and still am.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #646 on: March 07, 2019, 11:07:29 PM »

Re: steveo (and others like him), he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesnít exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  Heís the type of person that thinks ďhey, IíM not racist, so therefore no one else is either.Ē  Or ďSince I donít see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesnít exist.Ē

If I might quote myself from Page 5 of this thread, this is exactly what we've seen play out.  Downplay or deny actual evidence when it's presented and continue as if the "extreme left" is being silly. 

I will say this, it's been very interesting to see the "moderates" on the right twist themselves into knots trying to defend this guy.  Even if Trump said explicitly "Black people suck", these people would still say "well, there's nuance there" and "Hey, the world is a complicated place and he might be saying that for complicated reasons". 

No, the reason is not complicated.  It's simple.  It's obvious.  If you don't see it, it's because you don't WANT to see it.  Because it makes you uncomfortable for some reason (god knows why).  But there you have it. 

Put another way:

Random moderate conservative:  "I don't see that sexism/racism exists"

Several women:  "Here's examples of sexism that I've experienced directly".

Random moderate conservative:  "I still don't see that sexism/racism exists". 

It's rather breathtaking to watch this level of cognitive dissonance between their view of the world and the facts presented by others.


So what will convince these "moderates"?  Nothing.  Nothing will ever, ever, ever, ever convince them. As I stated previously theres no real value to discussing it with them, the only real thing that can be done is simply out-vote them and make the change over their self-imposed blindness.

This shows another issue. We are talking about society as a whole. Maybe sexism and bad behaviour will be wiped out completely but I doubt it. We have to take a general look at society. I have used examples of how I live in a multi-cultural and gender environment previously and that was apparently unacceptable to be used as proof.

Do you now believe that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance ? If we are to use your logic the answer has to be yes. If you believe no then you are cherry picking your idea. Maybe it's not cognitive dissonance and maybe it is a difference of opinion.

My advice to you is to learn to accept that people can have different opinions rather than if people don't believe the same thing as you they suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's just as likely that you are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Come on dude, really? Racism and sexism playout in so many people's lives. That's not cognitive dissonance. That's fucking reality dude. Stop trying to downplay real life experiences. And you wonder why people don't respond positively towards you?? I guess maybe it's cognitive dissonance that my own racist grandfather refused to watch basketball because "too many black people (except he didn't use the term "black people") played." Or another family member was fired from his job because he unfairly treated black people. Yep, the "n" word was just a regular old common word used in my house. It's so common to these family members that one was banned from Facebook for using the "n" word. Guess what? They all see Trump as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Know why I don't get along with these conservatives? Because they (not me) decided that since I don't behave in this manner then I must be some liberal communist who wants to give everyone handouts. Not ironically I did get along with them somewhat while Obama was President. I believe having someone in power that espouses those horrible views has given them motivation to no longer keep them bottled up.

Yeah it must be great growing up and living in a perfect bubble where there is no sexism and racism. But that shit is everywhere, even in middle class suburban white households.

You aren't responding to my post at all. It's really simple the argument above is that unless you agree with someone's viewpoint then you suffer from cognitive dissonance. This is a very simple argument. If I provide proof that work is great anyone who disagrees with me must suffer from cognitive dissonance. Is that true ? Of course it's not. The truth is that people are entitled to different viewpoints.

I assume the initial poster who I have previously shown suffers from some sort of totalitarianism syndrome doesn't understand that different people can have different life experiences and opinions and that is cool. I think what they mean is that if any racism occurs you must believe that society is racist but that isn't the case. Racism can occur but society as a whole can abhor racism.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #647 on: March 07, 2019, 11:16:00 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.

It's such a big deal because in just about every reply that I see from you mentioning the patriarchy you make it sound like your arguing against someone who has asserted that "there is a cabal of men secretly influencing the cultures of the world in order to intentionally harm/hold back women and minorities".  Since I'm fairly certain that nobody that you've been talking to has asserted that, it does nothing at all to disprove what they've said.  Instead it just shows either how little you understand the opposing point of view or that you are purposefully misinterpreting your opponents argument in order to get a rise.  Refusing to engage with those who are trying to point this out just reinforces the idea that you have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint and are just here to talk at people to make whatever point it is that you think your making.

As a side note, I'd like to ask the conservatives in this thread a serious question.  Do you guys really expect liberals to take complaints like this seriously while, to the best of my knowledge, your side is still raging against "PC culture"?  Can you really blame them if they finally got your message and decided maybe it really isn't worth the extra effort that they have to expend to ensure that they're not offending certain people?  I get that you don't like the group that they've chosen to apply the message to, but really...?

I find this fascinating. I have already responded to your question. All your comments are basically irrelevant. It'd be best if you'd respond to my point on the subject.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #648 on: March 07, 2019, 11:22:17 PM »
The people that call for "a middle ground" don't understand is this.  If on one extreme you have virulent, explicit racism, and on the other extreme you have zero racism, the only moral/just position is "no racism".  Anything in "the middle" is, by definition, racist to some degree.  That's why people like me balk when others call for a middle ground.

I've called out your totalitarianism and I think this shows the issue. I'll try to explain the problem to you. You can't get to zero racism and you can't police it. It's impossible. It's also not the issue. Western society already doesn't tolerate racism. The game is won. If you honestly want some backward hick who was bought up racist and will die racist to have his belief system changed I'd ask how to do that. Do we get all the racists and dump them on their own Island and blow them up ?

I'd like you to explain what you really mean by eradicating racism. How would that look ?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #649 on: March 07, 2019, 11:23:37 PM »
First, steveo is the only person I've seen bring up the word patriarchy on these forums. Most members prefer to talk about gender inequality as it pertains to individual issues which is much more productive than discussing a complex social construct in a few back and forth comments.

That is interesting however I hate the term and I would prefer to discuss specific issues. It's hard to get there though.