Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64507 times)

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #650 on: March 07, 2019, 11:28:30 PM »
*defines self as liberal and leftwing*

*makes positive reference to Jordan Peterson*

I love Jordan Peterson. Do you like his stuff as well ? He comes across to me as rational and makes some great points. I find he tends to try and explain complexities in issues rather than just attack people. I think most people that can't stand him don't respond to what he is stating and get offended too easily.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #651 on: March 07, 2019, 11:35:46 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 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).

I don't think it's this simple. I think people are responding to the left and the left couldn't put up a better candidate. I've always voted for the left but I'm starting to realise that the left today isn't something that I will support and the next time I vote I may change my mind.

The left I grew up with always pushed for real social issues. Stuff like protecting the poor, providing opportunities to women and minorities, creating better education and infrastructure. They even would make economically right wing decisions. In Australia the left got rid of all tariffs and floated the dollar.

I find parts of American politics fascinating. When it comes to for instance tariffs these were always in my opinion techniques that the left used whereas now Trump is championing tariffs. I think as a whole protectionist policies are left wing but it seems to be a policy of the right.

Maybe left and right aren't really economically left and right now. I don't know but I find it interesting.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 04:53:12 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #652 on: March 07, 2019, 11:36:23 PM »
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.

Exactly.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #653 on: March 07, 2019, 11:38:04 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.


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.

I feel like banging my head against the wall. What are you going to do ? Kill off anyone who is a racist ? At what point will you be happy ? How is that realistically going to occur ?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #654 on: March 07, 2019, 11:42:34 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!

How many women and non-white people voted for Trump ? Are they all sexist and racist ?

I think that there is much more to this than what is being implied. I think it's a blind spot for a lot of you. You get so worked up and so indignant but I think you are missing the point. People are voting for Trump for valid reasons. I couldn't vote for him but I think the left are not a viable alternative to a lot of people. Why is that occurring ? It can't be because people are racist and sexist. I don't buy that for a second.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #655 on: March 07, 2019, 11:44:23 PM »
Ending the War on Drugs would help a lot for all people

This is something that I think should have been raised earlier. When you have statistics related to black people being incarcerated I think one of the best ways to help this problem is to stop the war on drugs. Can you imagine smoking weed and being locked up ?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #656 on: March 07, 2019, 11:48:15 PM »
I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on.  I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #657 on: March 07, 2019, 11:50:46 PM »
*defines self as liberal and leftwing*

*makes positive reference to Jordan Peterson*

I love Jordan Peterson. Do you like his stuff as well ? He comes across to me as rational and makes some great points. I find he tends to try and explain complexities in issues rather than just attack people. I think most people that can't stand him don't respond to what he is stating and get offended too easily.

Peterson is a two-bit huckster who's the political-theory equivalent of a WWE wrestler: everything he says and writes is designed to look and sound impressive, rather than deal in a substantive way with the topics being discussed, and he has a disgusting habit of heavily implying deeply unpleasant arguments and then denying all responsibility when people ask him if he actually thinks enforced monogamy is a good thing. He's a misogynistic climate change denier who owes his public profile to his transphobic campaign against Bill C16 in Canada.

The point I was making in my post was that if you regard Peterson in a positive light, it casts serious doubt on the idea that you're leftwing or liberal. He's on the right on just about every single issue, and his fanbase is heavily focused among the alt-right, incels and MGTOWs. If you find yourself enthusiastically nodding along with him, you are no longer leftwing or liberal.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #658 on: March 07, 2019, 11:57:28 PM »
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).

...
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".

Some really good points here. I use the term hypocritical and lacking integrity. These are pretty big statements but that is what I see.

I'm looking at this from afar and there are times when I think Trump is so bad mainly because he seems to revel in these dramatic emotional outbursts. When I see the way some people post on here who are anti-Trump I honestly think they are just as bad if not worse.

I'm asking why Trump has received support and I think the way the left are acting are a part of the reason. It's very tribal. I wish it didn't have to be that way but it is. I wonder what would happen if someone could take the sting out of these types of discussions.

Maybe a good example is immigration. The right call it border protection and the left call it racist. It's so over the top. It's really about having a sound immigration policy. This has been a topical issue in Australia for a while and we have the same types of debates but I don't think it is as intense. Can people on here see that someone who supports Trump and wants less immigration isn't necessarily racist ? I assume that everyone on here can see the advantages of immigration. It's changed Australian society completely in a good way.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #659 on: March 07, 2019, 11:58:45 PM »
*defines self as liberal and leftwing*

*makes positive reference to Jordan Peterson*

I love Jordan Peterson. Do you like his stuff as well ? He comes across to me as rational and makes some great points. I find he tends to try and explain complexities in issues rather than just attack people. I think most people that can't stand him don't respond to what he is stating and get offended too easily.

Peterson is a two-bit huckster who's the political-theory equivalent of a WWE wrestler: everything he says and writes is designed to look and sound impressive, rather than deal in a substantive way with the topics being discussed, and he has a disgusting habit of heavily implying deeply unpleasant arguments and then denying all responsibility when people ask him if he actually thinks enforced monogamy is a good thing. He's a misogynistic climate change denier who owes his public profile to his transphobic campaign against Bill C16 in Canada.

The point I was making in my post was that if you regard Peterson in a positive light, it casts serious doubt on the idea that you're leftwing or liberal. He's on the right on just about every single issue, and his fanbase is heavily focused among the alt-right, incels and MGTOWs. If you find yourself enthusiastically nodding along with him, you are no longer leftwing or liberal.

I got your point and it's simply not true. Do you think I'm on the alt-right and incel or into MGTOW ?

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #660 on: March 08, 2019, 01:02:38 AM »
I got your point and it's simply not true. Do you think I'm on the alt-right and incel or into MGTOW ?

Absolutely not what my point was. I have no idea whether you're alt-right, or an incel, or a MGTOW. I do know that if you agree with the bulk of Jordan Peterson's arguments, you are not liberal-left.

Maybe you used to be, and the liberal left position shifted. But you're not a liberal now by the common understanding of the word.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #661 on: March 08, 2019, 03:55:25 AM »
I got your point and it's simply not true. Do you think I'm on the alt-right and incel or into MGTOW ?

Absolutely not what my point was. I have no idea whether you're alt-right, or an incel, or a MGTOW. I do know that if you agree with the bulk of Jordan Peterson's arguments, you are not liberal-left.

Maybe you used to be, and the liberal left position shifted. But you're not a liberal now by the common understanding of the word.

I agree with you here. I was on the left but the left has moved. I'm definitely not a conservative. I'm an atheist who believes in a free market economy and the same rights and opportunities being provided to everyone. I also believe in a government that provides lots of important components of the economy that the free market doesn't provide well such as education, health care and infrastructure. I also believe the government should help enable a healthy social environment through actions like gun control, legislating against actions that are clearly discriminatory towards minorities and trying to create a society that is sustainable.

This thread though and others have made me realise how far away I am from the left today and how they definitely don't represent me.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #662 on: March 08, 2019, 05:08:49 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.

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!

How many women and non-white people voted for Trump ? Are they all sexist and racist ?

I think that there is much more to this than what is being implied. I think it's a blind spot for a lot of you. You get so worked up and so indignant but I think you are missing the point. People are voting for Trump for valid reasons. I couldn't vote for him but I think the left are not a viable alternative to a lot of people. Why is that occurring ? It can't be because people are racist and sexist. I don't buy that for a second.

You are doing it again. Feel free to point out anywhere I stated or implied all Trump voters are in fact racist and sexist. Otherwise you are just slinging straw-man fallacies and certainly appear to be trolling. 

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #663 on: March 08, 2019, 05:28:40 AM »
*defines self as liberal and leftwing*

*makes positive reference to Jordan Peterson*

I love Jordan Peterson. Do you like his stuff as well ? He comes across to me as rational and makes some great points. I find he tends to try and explain complexities in issues rather than just attack people. I think most people that can't stand him don't respond to what he is stating and get offended too easily.

Peterson is a two-bit huckster who's the political-theory equivalent of a WWE wrestler: everything he says and writes is designed to look and sound impressive, rather than deal in a substantive way with the topics being discussed, and he has a disgusting habit of heavily implying deeply unpleasant arguments and then denying all responsibility when people ask him if he actually thinks enforced monogamy is a good thing. He's a misogynistic climate change denier who owes his public profile to his transphobic campaign against Bill C16 in Canada.

The point I was making in my post was that if you regard Peterson in a positive light, it casts serious doubt on the idea that you're leftwing or liberal. He's on the right on just about every single issue, and his fanbase is heavily focused among the alt-right, incels and MGTOWs. If you find yourself enthusiastically nodding along with him, you are no longer leftwing or liberal.

I got your point and it's simply not true. Do you think I'm on the alt-right and incel or into MGTOW ?

Steveo, seriously why are you so obsessed with labels? I mean really you provide the best answer to the OP's question. You break everything down to left and right, or extreme left and right. Why not just represent yourself and debate ideals and opinions on their own merits? You have this unique bad habit of compartmentalizing everything. Why? Just look at this response^.

I absolutely agree with runbikerun about Peterson. He is not a fan of science, at all. I could give a shit less what that makes you, left, right, lizard people. I think the fact that you enjoy him puts everything else into perspective.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16038
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #664 on: March 08, 2019, 06:53:20 AM »
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 ?

A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.


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.

I feel like banging my head against the wall. What are you going to do ? Kill off anyone who is a racist ? At what point will you be happy ? How is that realistically going to occur ?

I'll be happy when the president of the United States no longer feels free to display his racism overtly.  I'll be happy when the Republican party stops embracing racism as part of it's policies and returns to fiscal conservatism.  I'll be happy when it's no longer socially acceptable for half of the US to support racists.  That's should not be seen as a big ask.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #665 on: March 08, 2019, 07:27:52 AM »
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 ?

A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

That sounds oddly familiar. Like what happened during the civil rights movement. What a novel concept!

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #666 on: March 08, 2019, 08:06:25 AM »
A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

That sounds oddly familiar. Like what happened during the civil rights movement. What a novel concept!

Sure, but what happened during the Civil Rights movement was that they made laws.  Here's a clip of Jordan Peterson admitting that those laws were a good idea, although he clearly didn't like the concept of abridging someone's freedom by forcing them to bake a cake for a gay or black couple.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=281

I get that there's an appeal to the idea of "let freedom rule", especially when you're at the top of the ladder.  "Hey, look, all this bigotry will just sort itself out eventually, so let's not impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

Back when slavery was a thing, I'm sure there were people who said, "Look, slavery is going away all on its own.  It's inefficient.  The slaves don't work as hard because they don't get anything out of the deal.  Eventually, economics will get rid of slavery.  Let's not impinge on anyone's freedom."

Or, in the 1950s, "We don't need laws.  If some business doesn't want to serve black people, they won't make as much money and lose out to businesses that do.  Don't impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

And, as long as you're not the slave or the person who can't get a lunch, a job or his gas tank filled up, I'm sure this argument has appeal.

For the people on the bottom of that ladder though, who have to wait generations for equality, it's too long.  I've seen Peterson's arguments, and I don't find them compelling.  At some point, society has an overarching duty to admit that bigotry is a problem and force people not to behave in bigoted ways.

Toque.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #667 on: March 08, 2019, 08:06:58 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.

I feel like banging my head against the wall. What are you going to do ? Kill off anyone who is a racist ? At what point will you be happy ? How is that realistically going to occur ?

I'm sorry you're frustrated.  Why is the onus falling on people against racism to compromise?  Why are we being asked to accommodate an ideology rooted in the subjugation of other people based on their born biological traits?  Racism is an ideology.  All people are equal; all ideologies are not.  Not every thought and belief deserves protection and accommodation.  You're entitled to your beliefs--you are not entitled to publicly and privately discriminate against races because of those beliefs.  Unfortunately, as is shown time and time again throughout history, racist belief inevitably engenders racist action.  That's why giving platform to racist belief can not be tolerated.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #668 on: March 08, 2019, 08:40:47 AM »
And in other news, Tennessee passes bill that outlaws abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. As a fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks and often women do not even know they are pregnant at that point, it essentially outlaws all abortions.
I don't think that Steveo and others realize to what extent conservatives spend their time trying to abridge the rights and freedoms of women, minorities and people who are not rich, by the legislation they pass. I understand that there is some version of conservatism that says that government should be small and not interfere with people's personal rights and property. However the current right of the US does not seem to think those rules should apply to women and their bodies.

And I'm still seeing the straw man arguments. Like Trump is pro-sound immigration policy, while "democrats call that racist". Let's really see what is going on. The Democrats in a bipartisan bill offering 28? billion for immigration reform as well as increased security. Trump turned it down because it didn't all go to building his wall. The wall is not sound immigration policy. As people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me have stated, the places where barriers are effective along the border, they have already been built. Possibly there are a few other places where additional barriers may be effective and that bill would have gone towards funding those areas.
Trump is not listening to: local law enforcement, governors of those states, and border patrol agents who say they do not want a wall. For one it is not effective and two they are asking for support in other areas. The people who want a wall built along the entirety of the lower United States are Trump, people who live in states no where near that border, and contractors wooing to win the contracts for this expensive boondoggle. 

What do Americans want? They want comprehensive immigration reform. Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. Yes, Democrats want to have dreamers have a straightforward path to citizenship, instead of the limbo they are currently in.

Instead what we have is Trump agreed to accept the bill with what the house and senate gave him, SIGNED it. That should have been end of story. Instead after he signs the bill Trump declared a "state of emergency" and states he is going to take DOD monies to have the wall built anyways. That's not how our government works. If he going to do that, he is creating a precedent for presidents to essentially become dictators because by this method a president can control both the executive and the legislative branch.

Meanwhile because of his decision to declare crossing the border a felony, thousands of children have been separated from their parents as part of his status quo. Rightly so the international community feels this is a human rights violation. It is also unconstitutional from the standpoint of our own laws.     

« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 08:51:51 AM by partgypsy »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #669 on: March 08, 2019, 09:18:47 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #670 on: March 08, 2019, 09:37:48 AM »
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.

I always find it helpful to break down others arguments to their basic essentials and ignore the fluff. People get upset and use inappropriate language and all that stuff but one needs to try to understand what their argument is and if it has merit. Much of what Steveo has to say has merit but I think where a lot of people go off the rails is that they view his merit as an attack on their position. They can both exist, meaning both of your points can be right to varying degrees. And it's o.k. to disagree on magnitudes because whatever issue you happen to be discussing will invariably affect people differently. The goal should be on both sides a greater understanding of the issue. Ideally.

I would be very leery of anyone touting absolutes: All Trump supporters are dumbasses, all trump supporters are racists, all trump supporters are monsters, everything Jordan Peterson has to say is garbage, etc. Because we can flip that around quite easily: All liberals are dumbasses, etc, etc. Doesn't get anybody anywhere.

It's about arguing in good faith.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #671 on: March 08, 2019, 09:43:25 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #672 on: March 08, 2019, 10:04:15 AM »
A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

That sounds oddly familiar. Like what happened during the civil rights movement. What a novel concept!

Sure, but what happened during the Civil Rights movement was that they made laws.  Here's a clip of Jordan Peterson admitting that those laws were a good idea, although he clearly didn't like the concept of abridging someone's freedom by forcing them to bake a cake for a gay or black couple.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=281

I get that there's an appeal to the idea of "let freedom rule", especially when you're at the top of the ladder.  "Hey, look, all this bigotry will just sort itself out eventually, so let's not impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

Back when slavery was a thing, I'm sure there were people who said, "Look, slavery is going away all on its own.  It's inefficient.  The slaves don't work as hard because they don't get anything out of the deal.  Eventually, economics will get rid of slavery.  Let's not impinge on anyone's freedom."

Or, in the 1950s, "We don't need laws.  If some business doesn't want to serve black people, they won't make as much money and lose out to businesses that do.  Don't impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

And, as long as you're not the slave or the person who can't get a lunch, a job or his gas tank filled up, I'm sure this argument has appeal.

For the people on the bottom of that ladder though, who have to wait generations for equality, it's too long.  I've seen Peterson's arguments, and I don't find them compelling.  At some point, society has an overarching duty to admit that bigotry is a problem and force people not to behave in bigoted ways.

Toque.

Didn't Peterson gain his notoriety by fighting back against compelled speech? I distinctly remember him stating that he had no problem addressing people by their preferred pronouns but that it was wrong for the state to compell him to under threat of penalty.

Kind of ties into the issue of forcing someone to perform labor against their will. The State's reach only goes so far and for an INDEPENDENT contractor that could easily be perceived as a violation of that persons civil liberty. I think I just read recently that the baker in Colorado either won his latest case or it was dropped?

I see merit on both sides of that argument and it's interesting to see some restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters and staff.

Interestedly, I finished reading Peterson's book on his 12 rules a few weeks ago. I didn't know what to expect exactly but I was surprised on how heavily he drew from the Bible for examples or parallels. But the 12 rules were sound principles in my view and I would recommend the book to others but be forewarned, he can really get into the weeds to make his points. There were many times I had to stop and ask myself: "What rule are we addressing again?" It's worth checking out though.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #673 on: March 08, 2019, 10:11:47 AM »
A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

That sounds oddly familiar. Like what happened during the civil rights movement. What a novel concept!

Sure, but what happened during the Civil Rights movement was that they made laws.  Here's a clip of Jordan Peterson admitting that those laws were a good idea, although he clearly didn't like the concept of abridging someone's freedom by forcing them to bake a cake for a gay or black couple.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=281

I get that there's an appeal to the idea of "let freedom rule", especially when you're at the top of the ladder.  "Hey, look, all this bigotry will just sort itself out eventually, so let's not impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

Back when slavery was a thing, I'm sure there were people who said, "Look, slavery is going away all on its own.  It's inefficient.  The slaves don't work as hard because they don't get anything out of the deal.  Eventually, economics will get rid of slavery.  Let's not impinge on anyone's freedom."

Or, in the 1950s, "We don't need laws.  If some business doesn't want to serve black people, they won't make as much money and lose out to businesses that do.  Don't impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

And, as long as you're not the slave or the person who can't get a lunch, a job or his gas tank filled up, I'm sure this argument has appeal.

For the people on the bottom of that ladder though, who have to wait generations for equality, it's too long.  I've seen Peterson's arguments, and I don't find them compelling.  At some point, society has an overarching duty to admit that bigotry is a problem and force people not to behave in bigoted ways.

Toque.

Didn't Peterson gain his notoriety by fighting back against compelled speech? I distinctly remember him stating that he had no problem addressing people by their preferred pronouns but that it was wrong for the state to compell him to under threat of penalty.

Kind of ties into the issue of forcing someone to perform labor against their will. The State's reach only goes so far and for an INDEPENDENT contractor that could easily be perceived as a violation of that persons civil liberty. I think I just read recently that the baker in Colorado either won his latest case or it was dropped?

I see merit on both sides of that argument and it's interesting to see some restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters and staff.

Interestedly, I finished reading Peterson's book on his 12 rules a few weeks ago. I didn't know what to expect exactly but I was surprised on how heavily he drew from the Bible for examples or parallels. But the 12 rules were sound principles in my view and I would recommend the book to others but be forewarned, he can really get into the weeds to make his points. There were many times I had to stop and ask myself: "What rule are we addressing again?" It's worth checking out though.

Refusing to serve someone because of their race/religion/creed/ethnicity/sex/orientation violates the civil liberties of the person that's being discriminated against.  I see no problem with the State forcing business owners to not violate the civil liberties of their customers.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #674 on: March 08, 2019, 10:12:39 AM »
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.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.

1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?

Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?

Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

ETA: I don't think steveo's only purpose is to troll, but I do think he enjoys derailing the conversation and getting people riled up. He claims to want to improve communication and be part of a productive conversation but continues to use tactics that others have explicitly asked him not to. Like saying he finds someone's opinion hilarious.

Seriously @steveo, if you are being sincere and I've misjudged your intentions at the very least, could you stop saying you find things "hilarious"?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 10:26:10 AM by Dabnasty »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #675 on: March 08, 2019, 10:20:57 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #676 on: March 08, 2019, 10:27:31 AM »
This is the problem I have with Peterson: he's an intellectual coward. He first gained notoriety by opposing the addition of gender identity to the list of protected classes (along with race, religion etc) in Canadian law. This wasn't a decision which changed the basic principles of the law in question: it simply extended protection to trans people. And yet Peterson focused entirely on how wrong it was for the law to compel him to acknowledge a student's trans identity, completely failing to address the fact that the law compels equal treatment of multiple classes already.

 If he had the courage of his conviction, and was willing to really get into the question of protected classes, why didn't he argue for the right to address black students as niggers? Instead, he took a swing at the trans community, because he wants to be notorious and edgy, rather than genuinely despised and reviled.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #677 on: March 08, 2019, 10:38:18 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #678 on: March 08, 2019, 10:41:33 AM »
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.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.

1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?

Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?

Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

I think I've already explained where I could see others viewing him as a troll, but the caveat is that their standard does not meet my standard. People are different and that's acceptable. But yes, Steveo should stop IMPLYING what others wishes and thoughts are and just ask them. My guess is that he has become defensive from the perpetual attacks and I've found Shenlong55 to be pretty honest and inquisitive so far. However, in his defense, we had a mod that basically accused him of being a troll and threatened to ban him. The question should be what exactly is the threshold for being considered a troll? It's highly subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I would give him a chance to make his points and ask him and others to quit assuming what others intentions are. Sound fair?


Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.
[/quote]

Are you discussing this thread or in general? I would argue both Kris and Toque have both violated normal bounds in this conversation. Keep in mind I have been reading these forums for years and I have seen many examples of very poor behavior that has remained unchecked. I'll let you guess which side of the political spectrum they have fallen on most times.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #679 on: March 08, 2019, 10:47:12 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #680 on: March 08, 2019, 10:48:25 AM »
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.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.

1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?

Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?

Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

I think I've already explained where I could see others viewing him as a troll, but the caveat is that their standard does not meet my standard. People are different and that's acceptable. But yes, Steveo should stop IMPLYING what others wishes and thoughts are and just ask them. My guess is that he has become defensive from the perpetual attacks and I've found Shenlong55 to be pretty honest and inquisitive so far. However, in his defense, we had a mod that basically accused him of being a troll and threatened to ban him. The question should be what exactly is the threshold for being considered a troll? It's highly subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I would give him a chance to make his points and ask him and others to quit assuming what others intentions are. Sound fair?


Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

Are you discussing this thread or in general? I would argue both Kris and Toque have both violated normal bounds in this conversation. Keep in mind I have been reading these forums for years and I have seen many examples of very poor behavior that has remained unchecked. I'll let you guess which side of the political spectrum they have fallen on most times.
[/quote]

I would like to know what violation I have committed. Disagreeing with you and pointing out sexism is not a violation.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #681 on: March 08, 2019, 10:51:39 AM »
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.
Well, they're only irrelevant if you don't care about having a conversation here.  I was honestly just trying to help you understand why others might see your actions as trolling so that you could address the problems.  But sure, I can address the other parts of your post if you'd like.  Apologies if I'm a bit blunt...


I'm actually really confused about what your trying to say here overall, it kind of seems like your the one who believes that western society is the patriarchy...
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.
For one, you say directly that when you use the word patriarchy your referring to western society.  If you can't see the issue with defining the patriarchy as western society and then arguing that western society isn't the patriarchy then I don't know how to explain it to you...

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.
But then you say that you can't really call western society a patriarchy...  So now it just seems like your contradicting yourself and possibly trying to avoid providing a direct response again.

On the other hand, if you actually are using the definition from Wikipedia then I don't see how you can argue that the patriarchy doesn't exist.  Not as a matter of opinion, from a definitional/linguistic/logical matter.  Maybe you could argue that "western society", in total, is not a patriarchy, but that's not the same as no patriarchy existing.  It's a statement of fact that in the US men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership and I believe that's already been shown.  Moral authority might be more debatable, but I'm pretty sure they also predominate in social privilege and control of property.  If those conditions exist in the US, then the US is a patriarchy by definition.  If the US is a patriarchy, then logically patriarchies exit.

I also don't see why you would use some of the rhetoric that you have if you're using the Wikipedia definition of patriarchy since it doesn't say anything about men intentionally manipulating culture to harm women.  That makes me feel like your just throwing out the definition that you think I want to hear in order to avoid providing a direct response again.

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.
This I might be able to agree with.  I don't have much experience outside the US, so I don't know if "western society", in total, is a patriarchy.  But regardless, it has no bearing on whether patriarchies exist or not.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 11:10:42 AM by shenlong55 »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #682 on: March 08, 2019, 11:00:53 AM »


I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

You understand I'm not making the argument for or against the wall nor arguing that all democrats want to abolish ice - correct?

With regard to labor, the jobs illegal immigrants are performing haven't been moved overseas. It's possible if the cost of labor were increased, a portion of those jobs would be mechanized or eliminated but I suspect many would be done by Americans at a higher cost.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #683 on: March 08, 2019, 11:06:48 AM »


I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

You understand I'm not making the argument for or against the wall nor arguing that all democrats want to abolish ice - correct?

With regard to labor, the jobs illegal immigrants are performing haven't been moved overseas. It's possible if the cost of labor were increased, a portion of those jobs would be mechanized or eliminated but I suspect many would be done by Americans at a higher cost.

Yes, I do. But you were making the argument that some of them want to abolish ICE as a solution to cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US. Which is BS.

And yes, I know the jobs immigrants are performing haven't been moved overseas. But then again, those aren't the jobs that have moved away from the American working and middle class either, are they?

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #684 on: March 08, 2019, 11:23:02 AM »
Didn't Peterson gain his notoriety by fighting back against compelled speech? I distinctly remember him stating that he had no problem addressing people by their preferred pronouns but that it was wrong for the state to compell him to under threat of penalty.

Kind of ties into the issue of forcing someone to perform labor against their will. The State's reach only goes so far and for an INDEPENDENT contractor that could easily be perceived as a violation of that persons civil liberty. I think I just read recently that the baker in Colorado either won his latest case or it was dropped?

Except the government wasn't trying to compel speech, only adding gender identity and expression to the list of things you can't discriminate based upon - adding it to a list of things like "skin colour" and "sexual orientation".
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
No one's going to jail for calling a "he" a "she" or vice-versa.

His job, however, required him to teach students in a respectful manner, which meant calling a trans student by their newly claimed gender instead of the one he had assigned that person.  My job requires me to do the same thing regarding my coworkers.  Big deal.  It's about being nice to people, accepting them as part of our society, and maybe - just maybe - cutting down on the suicide and depression rate of such people.

Toque.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #685 on: March 08, 2019, 11:26:53 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

Going back to the original point of this thread, why are you assuming disingenuousness just because someone has a different viewpoint than you? I agree the wall will be a boondoggle for its intended purpose, but I believe it is a symbol for many of the people who voted for Trump of doing something radical to reduce illegal immigration. So we can talk about why we see the wall as being a poor solution to the problem and point out the other flaws in their argument without assuming everyone who supports Trump in any way is a bad actor (trolls excepted). (By the way, I recall this same mudslinging approach during Obama, during Bush II, and during Clinton (my political memory goes no further).) Maybe I am just naïve to politics, but I actually believe it is possible to have a civil and productive conversation with people with whom we disagree.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Age: 92
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #686 on: March 08, 2019, 11:32:02 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

This is patently false and you should know better. I have lived very close to our sourthern border for ages and know first hand. The truth is that the threat to poor and middle class wages comes from BOTH low skilled illegal immigrants competing for finite amount of work and thus supressing wages AND decades of outsourcing. One may be more pervasive nationally than the other but both are severe problems. When you live near the border the former problem is capable and has destroyed economic gains to lower/middle class families in the relevant industries[/color]

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #687 on: March 08, 2019, 11:34:08 AM »


I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

You understand I'm not making the argument for or against the wall nor arguing that all democrats want to abolish ice - correct?

With regard to labor, the jobs illegal immigrants are performing haven't been moved overseas. It's possible if the cost of labor were increased, a portion of those jobs would be mechanized or eliminated but I suspect many would be done by Americans at a higher cost.

Yes, I do. But you were making the argument that some of them want to abolish ICE as a solution to cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US. Which is BS.

And yes, I know the jobs immigrants are performing haven't been moved overseas. But then again, those aren't the jobs that have moved away from the American working and middle class either, are they?

Rather than attacking, slow down and read what I said.  I was putting forth a simplistic viewpoint of low skilled laborers.  Trump wants wall/Democrats want to abolish ICE.  I would have thought the phrase "on the surface" would have been clear to you.   That's about as nuanced as a lot of people think. 

Regarding your second point, the middle class doesn't work in construction?  I know many low/middle class people who work in construction and who are probably impacted by the low cost competition.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 11:38:44 AM by Midwest »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #688 on: March 08, 2019, 11:43:03 AM »
*defines self as liberal and leftwing*

*makes positive reference to Jordan Peterson*

I love Jordan Peterson. Do you like his stuff as well ? He comes across to me as rational and makes some great points. I find he tends to try and explain complexities in issues rather than just attack people. I think most people that can't stand him don't respond to what he is stating and get offended too easily.

Peterson is a two-bit huckster who's the political-theory equivalent of a WWE wrestler: everything he says and writes is designed to look and sound impressive, rather than deal in a substantive way with the topics being discussed, and he has a disgusting habit of heavily implying deeply unpleasant arguments and then denying all responsibility when people ask him if he actually thinks enforced monogamy is a good thing. He's a misogynistic climate change denier who owes his public profile to his transphobic campaign against Bill C16 in Canada.

The point I was making in my post was that if you regard Peterson in a positive light, it casts serious doubt on the idea that you're leftwing or liberal. He's on the right on just about every single issue, and his fanbase is heavily focused among the alt-right, incels and MGTOWs. If you find yourself enthusiastically nodding along with him, you are no longer leftwing or liberal.

I got your point and it's simply not true. Do you think I'm on the alt-right and incel or into MGTOW ?

Steveo, seriously why are you so obsessed with labels? I mean really you provide the best answer to the OP's question. You break everything down to left and right, or extreme left and right. Why not just represent yourself and debate ideals and opinions on their own merits? You have this unique bad habit of compartmentalizing everything. Why? Just look at this response^.

I absolutely agree with runbikerun about Peterson. He is not a fan of science, at all. I could give a shit less what that makes you, left, right, lizard people. I think the fact that you enjoy him puts everything else into perspective.

I think I already answered this point directly. I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't view myself as left today.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #689 on: March 08, 2019, 11:45:08 AM »
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.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.

1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?

Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?

Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

I think I've already explained where I could see others viewing him as a troll, but the caveat is that their standard does not meet my standard. People are different and that's acceptable. But yes, Steveo should stop IMPLYING what others wishes and thoughts are and just ask them. My guess is that he has become defensive from the perpetual attacks and I've found Shenlong55 to be pretty honest and inquisitive so far. However, in his defense, we had a mod that basically accused him of being a troll and threatened to ban him. The question should be what exactly is the threshold for being considered a troll? It's highly subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I would give him a chance to make his points and ask him and others to quit assuming what others intentions are. Sound fair?


Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

Are you discussing this thread or in general? I would argue both Kris and Toque have both violated normal bounds in this conversation. Keep in mind I have been reading these forums for years and I have seen many examples of very poor behavior that has remained unchecked. I'll let you guess which side of the political spectrum they have fallen on most times.

I would like to know what violation I have committed. Disagreeing with you and pointing out sexism is not a violation.
[/quote]

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.

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.



Basically you have made up an entire scenario in your biased imagination.

Nowhere was I denigrating Madge, but you implied it

You have called me a sexist with no proof

You have also implied what I believed about Myers-Briggs based on your imagination and that I was implying I thought others were stupid because I asked Madge if she was clear what I was referring to after she misunderstood

You assumed what my designation was without asking, although you did get it right

You made up a whole conversation in your head about my responses that I never uttered

You lectured me on the Patriarchy for no reason

You accused me of making pop-psychology armchair diagnosis' when I simply asked a question

Then you told me to Get the Fuck Out

Finally your question/statement about it not being a violation to disagree with someone is valid, HOWEVER you made up this entire fiasco in your head. You were arguing with an imaginary boogeyman. Trust me, I will tell what I believe, but you have to have the decency to ask first and not make up imaginary shit.

You know what would have cleared up this whole mess? You simply asking me what I meant when I asked her about her personality type. It truly was that simple.

If you would like to have a conversation about personality traits and how they color our world than I am here for you as it is interesting.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 11:57:44 AM by Versatile »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #690 on: March 08, 2019, 11:45:15 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

Going back to the original point of this thread, why are you assuming disingenuousness just because someone has a different viewpoint than you? I agree the wall will be a boondoggle for its intended purpose, but I believe it is a symbol for many of the people who voted for Trump of doing something radical to reduce illegal immigration. So we can talk about why we see the wall as being a poor solution to the problem and point out the other flaws in their argument without assuming everyone who supports Trump in any way is a bad actor (trolls excepted). (By the way, I recall this same mudslinging approach during Obama, during Bush II, and during Clinton (my political memory goes no further).) Maybe I am just naïve to politics, but I actually believe it is possible to have a civil and productive conversation with people with whom we disagree.

My assumption of disingenuousness was not because of a different viewpoint. It was because abolishment of ICE cannot reasonably be seen as any sort of attempt to address low skilled labor in the US. Whether one thinks ICE is a good idea or a bad one. Saying that is some Democrats' proposed solution to that problem is not being truthful.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #691 on: March 08, 2019, 11:50:09 AM »
partgypsy, I agree with most of what you have to say here, and I appreciate the constructive manner in which it was posted. One small nitpick:

Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. 

I don't believe this to be the case except for the high-skilled jobs. The low-skilled job employers, I'm convinced, prefer illegal immigrants, because they can be more competitive with foreign produce by not treating them with equal rights. Consequently, I feel the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to focus more on the demand side (the employers), rather than on the supply side (the immigrants). If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants, they would not be coming in such numbers, and we'd be forced to change our immigration laws so that our fields get harvested and our livestock get processed for consumption. (And possibly, provide assistance to the industries affected by these laws for a time period.)

There's some truth to this but part of the preference for illegals is due to the competitive nature of the low margin industries we're talking about. If your competitor making the same commodity product a few miles away is hiring illegals you can either join them or go out of business.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that the focus should be on the employers, I just don't necessarily put the blame on employers. In the long term I even suspect those employers would like these changes. Short term, it would cause disruption as they're forced to raise prices but after things even out again, they would be able to operate above board and not need to break the law to remain competitive.

I don't put the blame on the employers either, it is the only way to stay competitive. But I think you're discounting the already extremely cheap produce* we receive from primarily Mexico (and other countries with cheap labor). I don't think farms can stay competitive without either government subsidies (which is basically a new tax) or seasonal immigrant programs where they can pay competitive (and by that I mean very low) wages. I honestly don't know what the answer is. (I guess the other option would be the laissez-faire approach, where most farmers who rely on extensive labor go bankrupt.)

*I pick on produce because it is most affected (due to it being a cheap import/export commodity). Obviously, there are other industries that would not face this issue to this degree, though I think all of the other industries that employ illegal immigrant labor would suffer as well. Take house construction, which uses a lot of illegal immigrants. Those jobs would be filled by people demanding a higher wage, which would in turn increase the price of new construction, which would then reduce the demand for new houses, and therefore create a bit of a recession in that industry.

I suspect reducing/controlling the amount of cheap low skilled labor illegally working in the US would help the poor and middle class in the long run.  Both parties have been unwilling to address this situation for a long period of time, hence the 10 -12M people in our country illegally.  For people competing for these jobs, Trump is promising a wall and some democrats want to abolish ICE.  On the surface, which seems like a better policy for those competing against the central American construction guy?

PS - I don't think mass deportation of those here long term is realistic or desirable, but we need to take steps to stop the inflow.

Ha! That might be an interesting question, if it was anything but disingenuous.

1) Trump is not promising a wall to address low-skilled labor. He's doing it to keep his base inflamed and to perpetuate a shell game so that they won't pay attention to his corruption and graft.

2) The threat to poor and middle-class wages is not coming from immigrants doing low-skilled jobs. It's from decades of companies moving jobs overseas to countries where labor is cheaper.

3) 'Some' Democrats want to abolish ICE. First: this is the left-hand side of the left-wing, and it has almost no chance of passing. Second: the reason those people want to abolish ICE is because of its rushed and suspect birth in the wake of 9/11 and its systematic record of near-human rights abuses. If ICE were abolished, other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agency’s responsibilities. As they did before 9/11. And also, this has nothing at all to do with being part of some sort of Democratic solution to poor and middle-class wages. That's a pathetic, partisan, and clearly untrue thing to say.

Going back to the original point of this thread, why are you assuming disingenuousness just because someone has a different viewpoint than you? I agree the wall will be a boondoggle for its intended purpose, but I believe it is a symbol for many of the people who voted for Trump of doing something radical to reduce illegal immigration. So we can talk about why we see the wall as being a poor solution to the problem and point out the other flaws in their argument without assuming everyone who supports Trump in any way is a bad actor (trolls excepted). (By the way, I recall this same mudslinging approach during Obama, during Bush II, and during Clinton (my political memory goes no further).) Maybe I am just naïve to politics, but I actually believe it is possible to have a civil and productive conversation with people with whom we disagree.

My assumption of disingenuousness was not because of a different viewpoint. It was because abolishment of ICE cannot reasonably be seen as any sort of attempt to address low skilled labor in the US. Whether one thinks ICE is a good idea or a bad one. Saying that is some Democrats' proposed solution to that problem is not being truthful.

Too bad that's not even remotely what I said.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #692 on: March 08, 2019, 11:50:38 AM »
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.

I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.

That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.

@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.

1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?

Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?

Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

I think I've already explained where I could see others viewing him as a troll, but the caveat is that their standard does not meet my standard. People are different and that's acceptable. But yes, Steveo should stop IMPLYING what others wishes and thoughts are and just ask them. My guess is that he has become defensive from the perpetual attacks and I've found Shenlong55 to be pretty honest and inquisitive so far. However, in his defense, we had a mod that basically accused him of being a troll and threatened to ban him. The question should be what exactly is the threshold for being considered a troll? It's highly subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I would give him a chance to make his points and ask him and others to quit assuming what others intentions are. Sound fair?


Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.

Are you discussing this thread or in general? I would argue both Kris and Toque have both violated normal bounds in this conversation. Keep in mind I have been reading these forums for years and I have seen many examples of very poor behavior that has remained unchecked. I'll let you guess which side of the political spectrum they have fallen on most times.

I would like to know what violation I have committed. Disagreeing with you and pointing out sexism is not a violation.

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.




Basically you have made up an entire scenario in your biased imagination.

Nowhere was I denigrating Madge, but you implied it

You have called me a sexist with no proof

You have also implied what I believed about Myers-Briggs based on your imagination and that I was implying I thought others were stupid because I asked Madge if she was clear what I was referring to after she misunderstood

You assumed what my designation was without asking, although you did get it right

You made up a whole conversation in your head about my responses that I never uttered

You lectured me on the Patriarchy for no reason

You accused me of making pop-psychology armchair diagnosis' when I simply asked a question

Then you told me to Get the Fuck Out

You know what would have cleared up this whole mess? You simply asking me what I meant when I asked her about her personality type. It truly was that simple.

If you would like to have a conversation about personality traits and how they color our world than I am here for you as it is interesting.

[/quote]

I called your statement sexist.

Which, frankly, it was. People can make sexist statements without being across the board sexists. Men and women can make sexist statements. Hell, I have made sexist statements.

Your attempt to armchair diagnose her as more "feeling" based rather than "thinking" based, trying to back yourself up with a pseudoscientific test -- when you didn't even have the results of any such test she might have taken in the first place -- was sexist.

And you did make a pop psychology armchair diagnosis.

Pointing out those things is not against the forum rules.

I did swear -- although you will note I abbreviated it so as not to offend delicate eyes. I am a sweary person. So is MMM, by the way. Swearing is not against forum rules.

And, by the way, Madgeylou agreed with me. She also found your statement denigrating and sexist. Maybe you could apologize to her.

So, no, I reject your statement that I have violated any rules here.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 11:52:52 AM by Kris »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #693 on: March 08, 2019, 11:56:49 AM »
Rather than attacking, slow down and read what I said.  I was putting forth a simplistic viewpoint of low skilled laborers.  Trump wants wall/Democrats want to abolish ICE.  I would have thought the phrase "on the surface" would have been clear to you.  That's about as nuanced as a lot of people think.

I don't think you need to tell anyone on the left this.  I'm pretty sure it's one of the main problems that they're trying to point out.  Voting based on issues that you don't know shit about hurts other people and is unacceptable.  I'm not going to excuse those who support harmful policies just because they choose not to be informed.  I am also all for helping to improve their understanding of the situation in a non-hostile way, but if reasonable efforts are made to inform them and they refuse or push back excessively then there's not much anyone else can do about.  They at least have to be open to seeing another viewpoint before any progress can be made.

Oh, and to be clear, everyone is still free to believe whatever the heck they want.  It's only when you take action on those false beliefs that it's a problem, because at that point it's no longer just a belief.  It's an action that has real effects on other people.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:02:24 PM by shenlong55 »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #694 on: March 08, 2019, 12:00:36 PM »
A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

I agree but the issue is what is racism. There is no chagrin on my part. I'm not racist and will not support racists.

I'll be happy when the president of the United States no longer feels free to display his racism overtly.  I'll be happy when the Republican party stops embracing racism as part of it's policies and returns to fiscal conservatism.  I'll be happy when it's no longer socially acceptable for half of the US to support racists.  That's should not be seen as a big ask.

It sounds fine but I don't think it is as simple as what you state. I did read a lot of the posts about Trump but I'm not sold that he is a racist. I do see your point though. I already raised this point as well. I don't think the Republican party shows fiscal conservatism. I do think the Republican party under Trump and maybe before that seem to focus on identity politics and try and rile people up but I think the left does that as well.

I can't stand Trump and the way he portrays for instance certain countries to be problems when it comes to terrorism for instance. I can't stand the idea of a border wall. I think these policies appeal to racists. I also think these policies appeal to people who are uneducated or who have simplistic viewpoints of the world. There are though underlying issues that those policies are trying to manage.

The problem is that people who aren't racist will support the wall being built and not allowing people from countries that have a greater incidence of terrorists being allowed to emigrate to the US. This is where I see the problem lying. When you call people racist who support these policies you aren't tackling the issue. Sure that works for the racist people but there will be so many people who are not racist who support Trump on these issues.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #695 on: March 08, 2019, 12:03:33 PM »
Rather than attacking, slow down and read what I said.  I was putting forth a simplistic viewpoint of low skilled laborers.  Trump wants wall/Democrats want to abolish ICE.  I would have thought the phrase "on the surface" would have been clear to you.  That's about as nuanced as a lot of people think.

I don't think you need to tell anyone on the left this.  I'm pretty sure it's one of the main problems that they're trying to point out.  Voting based on issues that you don't know shit about hurts other people and is unacceptable.  I'm not going to excuse those who support harmful policies just because they choose not to be informed.  I am also all for helping to improve their understanding of the situation in a non-hostile way, but if reasonable efforts are made to inform them and they refuse or push back excessively then there's not much anyone else can do about.  They at least have to be open to seeing another viewpoint before any progress can be made.

Oh, and to be clear, everyone is still free to believe whatever the heck they want.  It's only when you vote on those false beliefs that it becomes a problem, because then it has real effects on other people.

Did you read the original series of posts?  Kris, intentionally or not, misrepresented what I said. 

I didn't defend Trump.  I didn't attack the left.  I have intentionally said very little in this thread because it's a shit show on both sides.  Jesus Christ.

Mods - This has jumped the shark.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:09:05 PM by Midwest »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #696 on: March 08, 2019, 12:05:45 PM »
I understand that there is some version of conservatism that says that government should be small and not interfere with people's personal rights and property.

Exactly.

Let's really see what is going on. The Democrats in a bipartisan bill offering 28? billion for immigration reform as well as increased security. Trump turned it down because it didn't all go to building his wall. The wall is not sound immigration policy. As people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me have stated, the places where barriers are effective along the border, they have already been built. Possibly there are a few other places where additional barriers may be effective and that bill would have gone towards funding those areas.
Trump is not listening to: local law enforcement, governors of those states, and border patrol agents who say they do not want a wall. For one it is not effective and two they are asking for support in other areas. The people who want a wall built along the entirety of the lower United States are Trump, people who live in states no where near that border, and contractors wooing to win the contracts for this expensive boondoggle. 

What do Americans want? They want comprehensive immigration reform. Businesses would actually like MORE work visas as well as other legal pathways for good workers to stay and possibly become citizens to the US. Border patrol agents would like more technology to monitor the border. Yes, Democrats want to have dreamers have a straightforward path to citizenship, instead of the limbo they are currently in.

Instead what we have is Trump agreed to accept the bill with what the house and senate gave him, SIGNED it. That should have been end of story. Instead after he signs the bill Trump declared a "state of emergency" and states he is going to take DOD monies to have the wall built anyways. That's not how our government works. If he going to do that, he is creating a precedent for presidents to essentially become dictators because by this method a president can control both the executive and the legislative branch.

Meanwhile because of his decision to declare crossing the border a felony, thousands of children have been separated from their parents as part of his status quo. Rightly so the international community feels this is a human rights violation. It is also unconstitutional from the standpoint of our own laws.   

I agree with this apart from the comment I used a straw man. I didn't state this:-  "Like Trump is pro-sound immigration policy, while "democrats call that racist". I don't think Trumps policies are sound policies. I don't even think he is racist. I think he is a fool who has stupid policies.

Immigration is in my opinion typically good for a country. There can be problems but typically it's very good for a country.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #697 on: March 08, 2019, 12:09:07 PM »
Rather than attacking, slow down and read what I said.  I was putting forth a simplistic viewpoint of low skilled laborers.  Trump wants wall/Democrats want to abolish ICE.  I would have thought the phrase "on the surface" would have been clear to you.  That's about as nuanced as a lot of people think.

I don't think you need to tell anyone on the left this.  I'm pretty sure it's one of the main problems that they're trying to point out.  Voting based on issues that you don't know shit about hurts other people and is unacceptable.  I'm not going to excuse those who support harmful policies just because they choose not to be informed.  I am also all for helping to improve their understanding of the situation in a non-hostile way, but if reasonable efforts are made to inform them and they refuse or push back excessively then there's not much anyone else can do about.  They at least have to be open to seeing another viewpoint before any progress can be made.

Oh, and to be clear, everyone is still free to believe whatever the heck they want.  It's only when you vote on those false beliefs that it becomes a problem, because then it has real effects on other people.

Did you read the original series of posts?  Kris, intentionally or not, misrepresented what I said. 

I didn't defend Trump.  I didn't attack the left.  I have intentionally said very little in this thred because it's a shit show on both sides.  Jesus Christ.

Mods - This has jumped the shark.

Yes, I did.  I was suggesting one reason why she might have done so.  Because pointing that out to someone on the left who already knows that comes across as you trying to excuse those voters behavior whether you intended it that way or not (which I'm still not sure about).
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:15:46 PM by shenlong55 »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #698 on: March 08, 2019, 12:10:23 PM »
Much of what Steveo has to say has merit but I think where a lot of people go off the rails is that they view his merit as an attack on their position. They can both exist, meaning both of your points can be right to varying degrees. And it's o.k. to disagree on magnitudes because whatever issue you happen to be discussing will invariably affect people differently. The goal should be on both sides a greater understanding of the issue. Ideally.

I would be very leery of anyone touting absolutes: All Trump supporters are dumbasses, all trump supporters are racists, all trump supporters are monsters, everything Jordan Peterson has to say is garbage, etc. Because we can flip that around quite easily: All liberals are dumbasses, etc, etc. Doesn't get anybody anywhere.

It's about arguing in good faith.

Exactly. I don't think people respond to what I state. They feel attacked and lash out but so many times I've read comments and it's nothing at all like what I actually stated.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #699 on: March 08, 2019, 12:13:08 PM »
A good way to stamp out racism is to refuse to tolerate it when it rears up . . . by pointing it out and by refusing to let those who perpetrate it unconvincingly explain it away, and refusing to let those who support it ignore the impacts of their actions.  Which is what many in this thread have been doing, much to your apparent chagrin.

That sounds oddly familiar. Like what happened during the civil rights movement. What a novel concept!

Sure, but what happened during the Civil Rights movement was that they made laws.  Here's a clip of Jordan Peterson admitting that those laws were a good idea, although he clearly didn't like the concept of abridging someone's freedom by forcing them to bake a cake for a gay or black couple.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0?t=281

I get that there's an appeal to the idea of "let freedom rule", especially when you're at the top of the ladder.  "Hey, look, all this bigotry will just sort itself out eventually, so let's not impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

Back when slavery was a thing, I'm sure there were people who said, "Look, slavery is going away all on its own.  It's inefficient.  The slaves don't work as hard because they don't get anything out of the deal.  Eventually, economics will get rid of slavery.  Let's not impinge on anyone's freedom."

Or, in the 1950s, "We don't need laws.  If some business doesn't want to serve black people, they won't make as much money and lose out to businesses that do.  Don't impinge on anyone's freedom in the meantime."

And, as long as you're not the slave or the person who can't get a lunch, a job or his gas tank filled up, I'm sure this argument has appeal.

For the people on the bottom of that ladder though, who have to wait generations for equality, it's too long.  I've seen Peterson's arguments, and I don't find them compelling.  At some point, society has an overarching duty to admit that bigotry is a problem and force people not to behave in bigoted ways.

Toque.

Didn't Peterson gain his notoriety by fighting back against compelled speech? I distinctly remember him stating that he had no problem addressing people by their preferred pronouns but that it was wrong for the state to compell him to under threat of penalty.

Kind of ties into the issue of forcing someone to perform labor against their will. The State's reach only goes so far and for an INDEPENDENT contractor that could easily be perceived as a violation of that persons civil liberty. I think I just read recently that the baker in Colorado either won his latest case or it was dropped?

I see merit on both sides of that argument and it's interesting to see some restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters and staff.

Interestedly, I finished reading Peterson's book on his 12 rules a few weeks ago. I didn't know what to expect exactly but I was surprised on how heavily he drew from the Bible for examples or parallels. But the 12 rules were sound principles in my view and I would recommend the book to others but be forewarned, he can really get into the weeds to make his points. There were many times I had to stop and ask myself: "What rule are we addressing again?" It's worth checking out though.

I think Peterson is a great microcosm for the issues within this thread. His books had good solid principles that rambled a little but it was good. I don't find much of what he says offensive but people get so offended. It's like they don't respond to him but some idea they make up about him. That then creates drama and fiction and he makes cash because people start supporting him.