Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64582 times)

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #700 on: March 08, 2019, 12:15:15 PM »
I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.

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

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.


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.
[/quote]

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #701 on: March 08, 2019, 12:15:23 PM »
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.

I think this again shows the issue. Peterson stating he wouldn't be forced to call someone by a certain pronoun is not doing what you have stated here which I agree with. It's like someone says the sky is blue and your response is global warming is a legitimate issue that is destroying the world.

I think if a religious person refuses to serve a gay person they should be prosecuted for violating that persons civil liberties.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #702 on: March 08, 2019, 12:20:39 PM »
So what do you do to fix it? I'm listening. The atmosphere is so charged that a white person can't even mention the issue without you-know-what. And in all reality, change has to come from within anyway, the best anybody can do is to help create the conditions that help facilitate positive change. But even with that thought I'm at a loss on how to encourage others to preserve the intact family. I'm not a religious person although the church has it's role for believers. It's just so important though not only for financial reasons but our collective national health. Thoughts?

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going back to the original quote on this one. I thought Versatile's suggestion of someone being a feeler more so than a thinker came off as pretentious and I immediately knew it would be taken as an insult. I probably would have taken that way too.

However, I don't think it was a sexist comment. You can look at the post he was responding to and see where he got the idea. It's not necessarily because it came from a woman. Maybe it was sexist but there is sufficient evidence to suggest it was merely a response to what was written.

Given that, I also thought Kris's reaction to it was too much. Not necessarily breaking forum rules, but also not productive.

Edit: GTFO is probably against forum rules

« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:22:18 PM by Dabnasty »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #703 on: March 08, 2019, 12:20:56 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).

I don't need to "excuse" the behavior of voters on the right any more than left. 

None of this excuses misrepresenting what I said. 

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #704 on: March 08, 2019, 12:21:43 PM »
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"?

I disagree with this. What can I do but laugh. There have been so many irrational and over the top comments in this thread that have nothing at all to do with anything I've stated. The troll one is a classic example and I will continue to call it hilarious and laugh at it.

I hope that you can see the hypocrisy and lack of integrity in a lot of what people are stating. Spending so much time trying to prove I am potentially trolling and then stated I'm not stating that you a troll it's just a load of palava. It's a direct attack on me rather than discussing what I'm stating. It's a terrible way to discuss something and when it get's called out well it's okay.

To add to that you and others state well can you stop using the world hilarious or something. That to me shows a lack of integrity. It's hypocritical.

Jordan Peterson has a statement which I like which says get your house in order before you throw stones. This is a good example. If you want to tell me not to use words like hilarious I think for integrity purposes you stop trying to call me out for being something that I'm not.

I also think that some people on here are way too easily offended.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:41:53 PM by steveo »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #705 on: March 08, 2019, 12:25:19 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:54:38 PM by Kris »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #706 on: March 08, 2019, 12:28:18 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).

I don't need to "excuse" the behavior of voters on the right any more than left.

I didn't ask if you were excusing voters on the right.  I asked if you were excusing the voters that you and I were talking about who can't be bothered to be informed about the issues but still want to vote for politicians and policies that are harmful to other people.

None of this excuses misrepresenting what I said.

It doesn't, but it could help you avoid being misunderstood in the future.  If your interested in that...
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:30:13 PM by shenlong55 »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #707 on: March 08, 2019, 12:30:15 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.


steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #708 on: March 08, 2019, 12:34:11 PM »
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.

Exactly. This is spot on. Some people actually believe in reducing illegal immigration and I can completely understand that. It doesn't make you a racist to want to discuss immigration and work out a productive way forward. Unhindered immigration would be tough for any country to handle.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #709 on: March 08, 2019, 12:38:19 PM »
Too bad that's not even remotely what I said.

This is something that makes discussions hard. Certain people do this and to improve discussions it would be good if people stopped this.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #710 on: March 08, 2019, 12:40:50 PM »
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"?

I disagree with this. What can I do but laugh. There have been so many irrational and over the top comments in this thread that have nothing at all to do with anything I've stated. The troll one is a classic example and I will continue to call it hilarious and laugh at it.

I hope that you can see the hypocrisy and lack of integrity in a lot of what people are stating. Spending so much time trying to prove I am potentially trolling and then stated I'm not stating that you a troll it's just a load of palava. It's a direct attack on my rather than discussing what I'm stating. It's a terrible way to discuss something and when it get's called out well it's okay.

To add to that you and others state well can you stop using the world hilarious or something. That to me shows a lack of integrity. It's hypocritical.

Jordan Peterson has a statement which I like which says get your house in order before you throw stones. This is a good example. If you want to tell me not to use words like hilarious I think for integrity purposes you stop trying to call me out for being something that I'm not.

I also think that some people on here are way too easily offended.

Nothing wrong with a little chuckle. Writing it down to let everyone know their opinions are so silly you're laughing at them however, is childish. To me it comes off more as an expression of frustration than comedy.

So your opinion is that providing evidence that someone is potentially trolling is the same as calling them a troll? Can you elaborate? I see those as two distinct things.

Regarding your comments on hypocrisy, you've said you'd like to improve your communication. Steps you could take to do so have been offered and you reject them because it's hypocritical, but why does it matter what anyone else says?

If someone gives me advice with sound reasoning as to why it's good advice, I don't reject it on the basis that I don't like them.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:46:36 PM by Dabnasty »

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #711 on: March 08, 2019, 12:45:33 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #712 on: March 08, 2019, 12:47:29 PM »
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"?

I disagree with this. What can I do but laugh. There have been so many irrational and over the top comments in this thread that have nothing at all to do with anything I've stated. The troll one is a classic example and I will continue to call it hilarious and laugh at it.

I hope that you can see the hypocrisy and lack of integrity in a lot of what people are stating. Spending so much time trying to prove I am potentially trolling and then stated I'm not stating that you a troll it's just a load of palava. It's a direct attack on my rather than discussing what I'm stating. It's a terrible way to discuss something and when it get's called out well it's okay.

To add to that you and others state well can you stop using the world hilarious or something. That to me shows a lack of integrity. It's hypocritical.

Jordan Peterson has a statement which I like which says get your house in order before you throw stones. This is a good example. If you want to tell me not to use words like hilarious I think for integrity purposes you stop trying to call me out for being something that I'm not.

I also think that some people on here are way too easily offended.

Nothing wrong with a little chuckle. Writing it down to let everyone know their opinions are so silly you're laughing at them however, is childish. To me it comes off more as an expression of frustration than comedy.

So your opinion is that providing evidence that someone is potentially trolling is the same as calling them a troll? Can you elaborate? I see those as two distinct things.

Good question. If you spend so long stating well maybe they are a troll it's just stating they are a troll. Semantically they are different but the context to me proves they aren't different. It's like a smear campaign. It's a indirect way to attack someone while trying to make out that what you are stating is above board when it's not.

I'm not a troll but anyone calling me a troll is a troll beacuse they aren't responding to what I am stating.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #713 on: March 08, 2019, 12:48:08 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

Another example of why people think he's trolling. This has been pointed out 3 times now I believe?

And yet he keeps telling us how much he dislikes this word. odd.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #714 on: March 08, 2019, 12:51:05 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. It was such a trivial comment wasn't it but I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #715 on: March 08, 2019, 12:52:58 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. It was such a trivial comment wasn't it but I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Progress! So the next time you enter a debate on gender issues or anything else really, you won't be using the word patriarchy?

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #716 on: March 08, 2019, 12:53:07 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

Another example of why people think he's trolling. This has been pointed out 3 times now I believe?

And yet he keeps telling us how much he dislikes this word. odd.

This to me shows that you aren't really interested in discussing these issues at all. I think you are being extremely picky towards myself and extremely lenient on others. I don't think in the context of this thread those comments are fair.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #717 on: March 08, 2019, 12:57:02 PM »
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.

I found this very hard to read. I'm not sure if it's yourself or myself or the medium of discussing something but I couldn't really understand much of what you were stating and it appeared you couldn't understand what I was stating. I'm assuming now that you actually tried and had good faith in your discussions but I'm not sure if this is true.

A patriarchy to me is a male dominated society. When people use the term the patriarchy I think they mean western society. I think on this thread we are discussing western society and I would much prefer if people called it that rather than the patriarchy.

I agree with the part that I quoted. I don't view western society as a patriarchy. That isn't to state that patriarchies don't exist. I actually think that throughout history most societies would have been more patriarchal than modern western societies.

Still I don't think discussing the patriarchy is really useful. The recent comments that are more detailed are much easier in my opinion to discuss and if they don't have the label it drops that lens which I think makes discussing issues harder.

I went back to see who first brought up the patriarchy, and it looks like it was on page 4 by a poster calling themselves "Steveo". If you don't want to discuss the patriarchy, don't bring it up in threads that aren't about the patriarchy.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. It was such a trivial comment wasn't it but I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Progress! So the next time you enter a debate on gender issues or anything else really, you won't be using the word patriarchy?

There was another thread where this was bought up and that was the only reason I mentioned it. The whole thread was about something completely different but I had to believe in the patriarchy or I was a terrible person. I was even sent personal messages stating that I had to believe in the patriarchy. It was so over the top.

My comment which I shouldn't have stated was "you are part of the evil patriarchy" simply because that is how some people actually view the world as per that thread.

So yes I did the wrong thing but I'm human and there were reasons for it.

I personally don't like the word and would much rather discuss details. I definitely intend not to use the word. My advice to you is to call out other people when they use the word as well. It's a funny way to view the world and it is completely unhelpful when discussing issues.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #718 on: March 08, 2019, 12:58:22 PM »
The problem is that Trump and Trump supporters, keep moving the goalposts. Trumps say he is ok with legal 😁 mmigration, just not illegal immigration. At the same time they are trying to reduce or prevent legal means for immigration. Trump also wants to redefine what citizenship is. He has created a denaturalization task force to see if he can get naturalized citizens declared non-citizen status. He has also stated he wants to end "birthright status". This has nothing to do with illegal immigration or reform, but the fact he is a xenphobe. The rights of citizenship by birth on American soil or by naturalization is enshrined in the 14th amendment. Steveo, you may not know what is going on here, but not a single living prior president voted for Trump. A coallition of (mostly Republican) national security experts signed a joint letter prior to the 2016 election stating they felt Trump was not fit to serve and a national security risk. The kind of rehetoric he uses, invocations of real versus not real Americans, calling journalists enemy of the people,  and rallies to create us vs them mentality has not been since 1930s Germany.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 01:07:30 PM by partgypsy »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #719 on: March 08, 2019, 12:58:37 PM »
This to me shows that you aren't really interested in discussing these issues at all. I think you are being extremely picky towards myself and extremely lenient on others. I don't think in the context of this thread those comments are fair.

Apologies, I posted that before you acknowledged that you were the one to bring up the word you so despise.

But to be fair it wasn't the first time it's been pointed out, it was the first time you acknowledged it.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #720 on: March 08, 2019, 01:02:30 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).

I don't need to "excuse" the behavior of voters on the right any more than left.

I didn't ask if you were excusing voters on the right.  I asked if you were excusing the voters that you and I were talking about who can't be bothered to be informed about the issues but still want to vote for politicians and policies that are harmful to other people.

The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know.  When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

None of this excuses misrepresenting what I said.

It doesn't, but it could help you avoid being misunderstood in the future.  If your interested in that...

Given the lack of response after my clarification, I don't think my point was misunderstood.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #721 on: March 08, 2019, 01:04:04 PM »
This to me shows that you aren't really interested in discussing these issues at all. I think you are being extremely picky towards myself and extremely lenient on others. I don't think in the context of this thread those comments are fair.

Apologies, I posted that before you acknowledged that you were the one to bring up the word you so despise.

But to be fair it wasn't the first time it's been pointed out, it was the first time you acknowledged it.

Consider it dropped.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #722 on: March 08, 2019, 01:07:50 PM »
The problem is that Trump and Trump supporters, keep moving the goalposts. Trumps say he is ok with legal 😁 mmigration, just not illegal immigration. At the same time they are trying to reduce or prevent legal means for immigration. Trump also wants to redefine what citizenship is. He has created a denaturalization task force to see if he can get naturalized citizens declared non-citizen status. He has also stated he wants to end "birthright status".  The rights of citizenship by birth on American soil or by naturalization is enshrined in the 14th amendment. Steveo, you may not know what is going on here, but it is no coincidence that not a single living prior president voted for Trump, and that national security experts signed a joint letter stating they felt Trump was not fit to serve and a national security risk. The kind of rehetoric he uses, invocations of real versus not real Americans, calling journalists enemy of the people,  and rallies to create us vs them mentality has not been since 1930s Germany. httpsww.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.amp.html

I might not know the details but I've been reading a bunch of these posts. I'm not responding because I can't add that much.

You don't have to convince me regarding Trump though. I can't stand him. I can't stand all of those things you mentioned. I hate all these rallies and emotive responses. The point you make about denaturalization if true (I assume it is) is freaken terrible.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #723 on: March 08, 2019, 01:12:48 PM »
The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know.  When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

These are great points. I find it amazing that these are the candidates that were put up in America which is in reality the biggest democracy in the world. It doesn't say much for democracies does it.

In the context of this thread I think people should realise that people voted for Trump because they thought he was more likely to help fix problems that they can see.

Another point I'd make is that the concept of left and right and liberal and conservative are today very fluid. I find if interesting that people who are conservative or liberal would actually believe in protectionist policies or big governments. I think both sides are now much more aligned to these ideals. I think we are moving away from free markets/small governments into a different era when I think all the evidence points out that free markets and small governments work best. Trump to me is definitely not into free markets and small governments.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #724 on: March 08, 2019, 01:22:09 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #725 on: March 08, 2019, 01:43:45 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

But why the hell would they abolish ICE as any sort of solution to address the problem of low-skilled labor in the US? Am I not understanding something?

I mean, let's say we abolish ICE. I personally think ICE is a pretty crap organization, I'll admit. But arguably, the effect of their existence is a reduction in illegal immigration, right? So, if they're still functioning, in theory, illegal immigration is lower.

I mean, even people way far on the left wouldn't argue that ICE's existence actually increases illegal immigration, right?

Meaning that if we abolish ICE, in theory, illegal immigration would rise. Meaning, more unskilled foreign workers here in the US. I

So, why would Dems support abolishing ICE as a means of decreasing unskilled foreign workers? It just makes no sense. No matter which side of the aisle you are on. And it makes no sense to assert that this would be a position any Democrats would take. It's just nonsensical.

I'm sorry to any other readers of this thread if they're getting sick of my trying to make this point. I just honestly don't get it.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 01:46:20 PM by Kris »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #726 on: March 08, 2019, 01:50:50 PM »
Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

To be clear, I think it was a case of foot-in-mouth for Clinton, but please refer to the original quote and the follow-on mea culpa that occurred the next day:

Quote
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Follow-on:

Quote
Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong. It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people.

So, which of those behaviors that she described (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) would you not file under the term 'deplorable'? (As I mentioned earlier, to Trump's political astuteness he took that sound bite and was off to the races.)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 02:49:01 PM by Boofinator »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #727 on: March 08, 2019, 01:53:36 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

But why the hell would they abolish ICE as any sort of solution to address the problem of low-skilled labor in the US? Am I not understanding something?

I mean, let's say we abolish ICE. I personally think ICE is a pretty crap organization, I'll admit. But arguably, the effect of their existence is a reduction in illegal immigration, right? So, if they're still functioning, in theory, illegal immigration is lower.

I mean, even people way far on the left wouldn't argue that ICE's existence actually increases illegal immigration, right?

Meaning that if we abolish ICE, in theory, illegal immigration would rise. Meaning, more unskilled foreign workers here in the US. I

So, why would Dems support abolishing ICE as a means of decreasing unskilled foreign workers? It just makes no sense. No matter which side of the aisle you are on. And it makes no sense to assert that this would be a position any Democrats would take. It's just nonsensical.

I'm sorry to any other readers of this thread if they're getting sick of my trying to make this point. I just honestly don't get it.

I take @Midwest to be saying that the voters he's referring to do not think deeply enough about the subject to even come to that conclusion.  Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #728 on: March 08, 2019, 01:54:42 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

But why the hell would they abolish ICE as any sort of solution to address the problem of low-skilled labor in the US? Am I not understanding something?

I mean, let's say we abolish ICE. I personally think ICE is a pretty crap organization, I'll admit. But arguably, the effect of their existence is a reduction in illegal immigration, right? So, if they're still functioning, in theory, illegal immigration is lower.

I mean, even people way far on the left wouldn't argue that ICE's existence actually increases illegal immigration, right?

Meaning that if we abolish ICE, in theory, illegal immigration would rise. Meaning, more unskilled foreign workers here in the US. I

So, why would Dems support abolishing ICE as a means of decreasing unskilled foreign workers? It just makes no sense. No matter which side of the aisle you are on. And it makes no sense to assert that this would be a position any Democrats would take. It's just nonsensical.

I'm sorry to any other readers of this thread if they're getting sick of my trying to make this point. I just honestly don't get it.

I take @Midwest to be saying that the voters he's referring to do not think deeply enough about the subject to even come to that conclusion.  Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Ugh. You're probably right. I just have a hard time thinking that anyone would be that stupid. Sorry.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3306
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #729 on: March 08, 2019, 01:58:53 PM »
The problem is that Trump and Trump supporters, keep moving the goalposts. Trumps say he is ok with legal 😁 mmigration, just not illegal immigration. At the same time they are trying to reduce or prevent legal means for immigration. Trump also wants to redefine what citizenship is. He has created a denaturalization task force to see if he can get naturalized citizens declared non-citizen status. He has also stated he wants to end "birthright status".  The rights of citizenship by birth on American soil or by naturalization is enshrined in the 14th amendment. Steveo, you may not know what is going on here, but it is no coincidence that not a single living prior president voted for Trump, and that national security experts signed a joint letter stating they felt Trump was not fit to serve and a national security risk. The kind of rehetoric he uses, invocations of real versus not real Americans, calling journalists enemy of the people,  and rallies to create us vs them mentality has not been since 1930s Germany. httpsww.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.amp.html

I might not know the details but I've been reading a bunch of these posts. I'm not responding because I can't add that much.

You don't have to convince me regarding Trump though. I can't stand him. I can't stand all of those things you mentioned. I hate all these rallies and emotive responses. The point you make about denaturalization if true (I assume it is) is freaken terrible.

It's true, sadly. This is how he thinks. President Wants to Use Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship

If that happened, it might strip my 70-year-old US-born father of his citizenship. I'm not sure what year my grandfather became a citizen (possibly not before dad was born), and my grandmother died before she could become a US citizen. They were both legal immigrants from Mexico. He dropped the issue when it became evident that he would not make it through the judicial system, but one of his main goals is to appoint as many judges that meet his approval as possible. Half of the legislative branch has already capitulated to his whims. It's a scary time.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #730 on: March 08, 2019, 01:59:52 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

But why the hell would they abolish ICE as any sort of solution to address the problem of low-skilled labor in the US? Am I not understanding something?

I mean, let's say we abolish ICE. I personally think ICE is a pretty crap organization, I'll admit. But arguably, the effect of their existence is a reduction in illegal immigration, right? So, if they're still functioning, in theory, illegal immigration is lower.

I mean, even people way far on the left wouldn't argue that ICE's existence actually increases illegal immigration, right?

Meaning that if we abolish ICE, in theory, illegal immigration would rise. Meaning, more unskilled foreign workers here in the US. I

So, why would Dems support abolishing ICE as a means of decreasing unskilled foreign workers? It just makes no sense. No matter which side of the aisle you are on. And it makes no sense to assert that this would be a position any Democrats would take. It's just nonsensical.

I'm sorry to any other readers of this thread if they're getting sick of my trying to make this point. I just honestly don't get it.

I'm sorry if we're talking past each other. Clearly Dems don't have a reduction in illegal immigration as a talking point for abolishing ICE. That wasn't the OP's point. His point was that illegal immigration is a large concern for a certain segment of the population, Trump is doing something that by all outward appearances is proactive in this regard, while the Democrats are proposing policies that by all appearances would exacerbate the problem by eliminating the very group whose job it is to reduce illegal immigration.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #731 on: March 08, 2019, 02:06:08 PM »

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.

If you believe illegal immigration is affecting the job market (which I believe it is in some sectors), then abolishing ICE would be a pertinent concern. According to Pew Research (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/07/24122119/07-24-2018-Federal-Agencies-release1.pdf): "A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably, with 53% viewing the agency very unfavorably." No, this isn't the same thing as abolishing it, but several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire to abolish it or to consider abolishing it. So, in my view, abolishing ICE would have a potential affect on the job market where illegals work and has been espoused by leading Democratic presidential candidates to one degree or another.

I think a fair rebuttal would be that (1) the government hasn't been shut down over ICE; (2) the president has declared a national emergency over ICE; and (3) the president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." For any self-professed conservative, this should be anathema.

But why the hell would they abolish ICE as any sort of solution to address the problem of low-skilled labor in the US? Am I not understanding something?

I mean, let's say we abolish ICE. I personally think ICE is a pretty crap organization, I'll admit. But arguably, the effect of their existence is a reduction in illegal immigration, right? So, if they're still functioning, in theory, illegal immigration is lower.

I mean, even people way far on the left wouldn't argue that ICE's existence actually increases illegal immigration, right?

Meaning that if we abolish ICE, in theory, illegal immigration would rise. Meaning, more unskilled foreign workers here in the US. I

So, why would Dems support abolishing ICE as a means of decreasing unskilled foreign workers? It just makes no sense. No matter which side of the aisle you are on. And it makes no sense to assert that this would be a position any Democrats would take. It's just nonsensical.

I'm sorry to any other readers of this thread if they're getting sick of my trying to make this point. I just honestly don't get it.

I'm sorry if we're talking past each other. Clearly Dems don't have a reduction in illegal immigration as a talking point for abolishing ICE. That wasn't the OP's point. His point was that illegal immigration is a large concern for a certain segment of the population, Trump is doing something that by all outward appearances is proactive in this regard, while the Democrats are proposing policies that by all appearances would exacerbate the problem by eliminating the very group whose job it is to reduce illegal immigration.

Ugh. Okay, sorry to you and to Midwest for being so dense. I think some of the different conversational threads in this post are melting my brain.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #732 on: March 08, 2019, 02:12:47 PM »
The problem is that Trump and Trump supporters, keep moving the goalposts. Trumps say he is ok with legal 😁 mmigration, just not illegal immigration. At the same time they are trying to reduce or prevent legal means for immigration. Trump also wants to redefine what citizenship is. He has created a denaturalization task force to see if he can get naturalized citizens declared non-citizen status. He has also stated he wants to end "birthright status".  The rights of citizenship by birth on American soil or by naturalization is enshrined in the 14th amendment. Steveo, you may not know what is going on here, but it is no coincidence that not a single living prior president voted for Trump, and that national security experts signed a joint letter stating they felt Trump was not fit to serve and a national security risk. The kind of rehetoric he uses, invocations of real versus not real Americans, calling journalists enemy of the people,  and rallies to create us vs them mentality has not been since 1930s Germany. httpsww.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.amp.html

I might not know the details but I've been reading a bunch of these posts. I'm not responding because I can't add that much.

You don't have to convince me regarding Trump though. I can't stand him. I can't stand all of those things you mentioned. I hate all these rallies and emotive responses. The point you make about denaturalization if true (I assume it is) is freaken terrible.

It's true, sadly. This is how he thinks. President Wants to Use Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship

If that happened, it might strip my 70-year-old US-born father of his citizenship. I'm not sure what year my grandfather became a citizen (possibly not before dad was born), and my grandmother died before she could become a US citizen. They were both legal immigrants from Mexico. He dropped the issue when it became evident that he would not make it through the judicial system, but one of his main goals is to appoint as many judges that meet his approval as possible. Half of the legislative branch has already capitulated to his whims. It's a scary time.

Even if Trump could legally make such an executive order, your father would not be affected due to the ex post facto provision in the Constitution.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #733 on: March 08, 2019, 02:20:41 PM »
Here are some things the current administration is doing regarding reducing legal immigration of skilled workers for US companies as well as reducing the ability of foreign students to attend American colleges and universities. It is a far reaching and non-sensical restriction of immigration for the United States.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/02/what-to-expect-on-immigration-in-2019/#338c5b813347


I understand why conservatives keep crying the Democrats want open borders, because to them Dreamers should have a path to citizenship, while to conservatives they are lumped in with illegals who should be deported. And Democrats have not done a good job of pr in where they stand regarding border security and enforcement.

To be pragmatic, no one wants to read through 100's of pages of legalese, this is the bipartisan bill that was supported both by Republicans and Democrats. It includes billions for border security and enforcement, but not Trump's wall.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/02/04/new-bipartisan-immigration-plan-to-be-introduced-in-the-senate/?utm_term=.7afaa82fc3bd
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 02:38:45 PM by partgypsy »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #734 on: March 08, 2019, 02:24:07 PM »
I did read a lot of the posts about Trump but I'm not sold that he is a racist.

In case others missed this gem. 

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #735 on: March 08, 2019, 02:30:38 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).

I don't need to "excuse" the behavior of voters on the right any more than left.

I didn't ask if you were excusing voters on the right.  I asked if you were excusing the voters that you and I were talking about who can't be bothered to be informed about the issues but still want to vote for politicians and policies that are harmful to other people.

The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know.  When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

I think we got a little off point here, but just to clarify I understand very well the reasons that some people had for voting for Trump in 2016.  I'm even somewhat sympathetic to those reasons.  I am not interested in pretending that their actions (not their beliefs) did not enable racist, sexist politicians to gain power however.  I understand that it may not have been their intent, I don't think they are monsters for it.  But I don't think that pretending that their actions do not have consequences will help anyone.  And as has been pointed out previously, those reasons do not extend to continued support for him.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #736 on: March 08, 2019, 02:45:48 PM »
The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know. When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

Clinton called deplorable people deplorable. I guess that is wrong if you feel the need to defend racist, sexist, xenophobic people. Trump absolutely insulted people. Remember "I love the poorly educated?" People didn't vote for Trump because they felt insulted by Clinton. I mean maybe they did, but that's kind of like giving up wine coolers for hard liquor because wine coolers have too much alcohol. 

I did want to comment on the factory jobs. Manufacturing itself was seeing an increase in jobs before the election even began. One of the reasons was the implementation of training programs by employers themselves. They need less "gadget" assemblers and more machine operators. Clinton's platform for manufacturing was to greatly increase funding for these programs and invest on other technical programs to help folks fill better, higher paying jobs. GM is trying to do that right now at their Lordstown, OH plant, which just closed down.

Point being, I absolutely believe people were misinformed. Trump promised these people their jobs back knowing damn well they weren't coming back. Meanwhile, Clinton promised to help them actually move forward with realistic action plans that were already being implemented. The preponderance of manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation/technology, not trade. Of course all we heard was how Dems were shipping jobs off to China and that is why you don't have your manufacturing job.   

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #737 on: March 08, 2019, 03:07:52 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #738 on: March 08, 2019, 03:09:51 PM »
The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know. When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

Clinton called deplorable people deplorable. I guess that is wrong if you feel the need to defend racist, sexist, xenophobic people. Trump absolutely insulted people. Remember "I love the poorly educated?" People didn't vote for Trump because they felt insulted by Clinton. I mean maybe they did, but that's kind of like giving up wine coolers for hard liquor because wine coolers have too much alcohol. 

I did want to comment on the factory jobs. Manufacturing itself was seeing an increase in jobs before the election even began. One of the reasons was the implementation of training programs by employers themselves. They need less "gadget" assemblers and more machine operators. Clinton's platform for manufacturing was to greatly increase funding for these programs and invest on other technical programs to help folks fill better, higher paying jobs. GM is trying to do that right now at their Lordstown, OH plant, which just closed down.

Point being, I absolutely believe people were misinformed. Trump promised these people their jobs back knowing damn well they weren't coming back. Meanwhile, Clinton promised to help them actually move forward with realistic action plans that were already being implemented. The preponderance of manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation/technology, not trade. Of course all we heard was how Dems were shipping jobs off to China and that is why you don't have your manufacturing job.

On the deplorable's comment, when you say half of Trump's supporters are deplorable and roughly the country supports him, you just insulted a lot of people.  Was it taken out of context, probably.  If someone was in the 50% that supported Trump, it was probably difficult to know if they were part of the bad people or the good people.  All in all, it was a dumbass thing for her to say and she admitted as much.

On manufacturing, as Trump lied about those jobs coming back or at least the extent.  Some of them simply aren't coming back due to automation.  Automation has had a huge impact on manufacturing in the US.  I thought that was a huge lie when he said it prior to the election.  The Lordstown closing is an exclamation point on that.

Trump's tax policy and trade negotiations could help bring some projects back to the US, but time will tell on that. 

I'm open to someone running against Trump but the democrats continue to march leftward.  Hopefully they will be smart enough to find a good candidate that might be less bad than Trump to a majority of the population.

Kris - Thanks for re reading the comment.  I'm trying to to have a positive dialogue and find areas of common ground.  That's genuinely my intention.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #739 on: March 08, 2019, 03:23:18 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.

Look. I didn't expect you to own up to any of it. And frankly, most of the time that I have called men on sexist behavior toward me in the past, they have denied it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13310
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #740 on: March 08, 2019, 03:23:32 PM »
I'm open to someone running against Trump but the democrats continue to march leftward.

Just a general comment -  the Democrats may seem left to Americans, but to people in other countries they seem very middle of the road.

Part of the issues I have seen in this discussion is that what people think of as left or right is very country dependent.  Many of us have our geographic information with our names - anyone can see that I am in Canada.  But for those who don't, for political discussion it would be really helpful  if you could identify your country.   Because what liberal and conservative mean is very country-dependent.

Oh, by the way, I posted this a long time ago - I really wish the OP had said liberal and conservative, not Liberal and Conservative - because for Canadians he named actual political parties, not ideologies.

Oh, Happy International Women's Day, everyone.    ;-)

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #741 on: March 08, 2019, 03:31:07 PM »
The poor/middle class voters in 2016 were presented with 2 choices, Clinton or Trump. 

Trump is a liar, but he promised to keep out some of the illegal competition via a wall and policy (maybe a lie), keep factory jobs (big lie), and MAGA (whatever that means).

Clinton, on the other hand, referred to certain segments as deplorable and had numerous other skeletons in her closet. 

Those were the choices.  Were the ardent supporters of Trump misinformed?  Likely. 

Were the people who thought Trump the lesser of 2 evils misinformed?  I don't know. When one of the candidates calls you names and the other promises jobs (even if he's lying)? 

I'm not arguing or cheerleading for Trump nor arguing against your disgust of him.  He's said some awful things.

I would have loved a third choice that stood a chance.

Clinton called deplorable people deplorable. I guess that is wrong if you feel the need to defend racist, sexist, xenophobic people. Trump absolutely insulted people. Remember "I love the poorly educated?" People didn't vote for Trump because they felt insulted by Clinton. I mean maybe they did, but that's kind of like giving up wine coolers for hard liquor because wine coolers have too much alcohol. 

I did want to comment on the factory jobs. Manufacturing itself was seeing an increase in jobs before the election even began. One of the reasons was the implementation of training programs by employers themselves. They need less "gadget" assemblers and more machine operators. Clinton's platform for manufacturing was to greatly increase funding for these programs and invest on other technical programs to help folks fill better, higher paying jobs. GM is trying to do that right now at their Lordstown, OH plant, which just closed down.

Point being, I absolutely believe people were misinformed. Trump promised these people their jobs back knowing damn well they weren't coming back. Meanwhile, Clinton promised to help them actually move forward with realistic action plans that were already being implemented. The preponderance of manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation/technology, not trade. Of course all we heard was how Dems were shipping jobs off to China and that is why you don't have your manufacturing job.

You don't seem to get it. When Clinton called Trump supporters racist she conveniently avoided facing the issues that are a concern to a lot of people and put more people off-side. You are doing the same thing.

You have an assumption that if you are concerned about legitimate threats such as terrorism and immigration then you are a racist blah blah blah. People hear you and others state this and you offend them.

Your response is simply that of a bigot:- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Quote
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

These are the type of concerns that are being raised within this thread. If you are a bigot (which by the definition of the word you are) it's extremely hard to engage with you.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #742 on: March 08, 2019, 03:40:59 PM »
I'm open to someone running against Trump but the democrats continue to march leftward.

Just a general comment -  the Democrats may seem left to Americans, but to people in other countries they seem very middle of the road.

Part of the issues I have seen in this discussion is that what people think of as left or right is very country dependent.  Many of us have our geographic information with our names - anyone can see that I am in Canada.  But for those who don't, for political discussion it would be really helpful  if you could identify your country.   Because what liberal and conservative mean is very country-dependent.

Oh, by the way, I posted this a long time ago - I really wish the OP had said liberal and conservative, not Liberal and Conservative - because for Canadians he named actual political parties, not ideologies.

Oh, Happy International Women's Day, everyone.    ;-)

It's interesting because I consider American parties all over the place. I mean Trump to me is in my opinion backwards and left wing in his economic policies. I think republicans are actually like this and democrats are very similar. I think it's more conservatism versus social re-structuring that occur in America.

By conservatism I mean gun rights and appealing to religion on one side and on the other side some form of social re-engineering because of racism and sexism. We definitely have some of this in Australia but I don't think it is as extreme.

I don't see a party in America that believes in small governments and the free market whereas in Australia both parties I think predominantly believe in small government and the free market.

Happy International Women's Day to everyone.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #743 on: March 08, 2019, 03:46:59 PM »
I'm open to someone running against Trump but the democrats continue to march leftward.

Just a general comment -  the Democrats may seem left to Americans, but to people in other countries they seem very middle of the road.

Part of the issues I have seen in this discussion is that what people think of as left or right is very country dependent.  Many of us have our geographic information with our names - anyone can see that I am in Canada.  But for those who don't, for political discussion it would be really helpful  if you could identify your country.   Because what liberal and conservative mean is very country-dependent.

Oh, by the way, I posted this a long time ago - I really wish the OP had said liberal and conservative, not Liberal and Conservative - because for Canadians he named actual political parties, not ideologies.

Oh, Happy International Women's Day, everyone.    ;-)

As an American, I realize that our countries have different values.  That doesn't, however, mean I want to emulate all of their values nor impose mine on them.  Just an observation.

Question for you as our northern friend, there has been much talk about illegal immigration in this thread and some criticism for our policy (not necessarily by you). 

If Canada had 1.2M people in the country illegally, do you think your citizens would be concerned?  I arrived at the 1M by comparing your population of roughly 36M to our population which is roughly 10x yours.  Theoretically we have 10 - 12M undocumented people in the US.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 03:48:44 PM by Midwest »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #744 on: March 08, 2019, 04:05:23 PM »
I'm open to someone running against Trump but the democrats continue to march leftward.

Just a general comment -  the Democrats may seem left to Americans, but to people in other countries they seem very middle of the road.

Part of the issues I have seen in this discussion is that what people think of as left or right is very country dependent.  Many of us have our geographic information with our names - anyone can see that I am in Canada.  But for those who don't, for political discussion it would be really helpful  if you could identify your country.   Because what liberal and conservative mean is very country-dependent.

Oh, by the way, I posted this a long time ago - I really wish the OP had said liberal and conservative, not Liberal and Conservative - because for Canadians he named actual political parties, not ideologies.

Oh, Happy International Women's Day, everyone.    ;-)

As an American, I realize that our countries have different values.  That doesn't, however, mean I want to emulate all of their values nor impose mine on them.  Just an observation.

Question for you as our northern friend, there has been much talk about illegal immigration in this thread and some criticism for our policy (not necessarily by you). 

If Canada had 1.2M people in the country illegally, do you think your citizens would be concerned?  I arrived at the 1M by comparing your population of roughly 36M to our population which is roughly 10x yours.  Theoretically we have 10 - 12M undocumented people in the US.

It definitely is a concern. In Australia if we had that many illegal immigrants it would definitely be an issue. I'm probably not giving perfect statistics however I think we have about .03% of the population being illegal immigrants. Most would have come here on holiday and just stayed. It sounds like America has an estimated 3% of the population being illegal immigrants. Is that true ?

I'm a big fan of immigration. My wife is an immigrant. When I grew up the food wasn't very good and now it's sensational. I also have so many friends of different backgrounds. Immigration has also I think helped our economy massively. In stating that too much immigration can cause problems.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13310
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #745 on: March 08, 2019, 04:23:50 PM »

Question for you as our northern friend, there has been much talk about illegal immigration in this thread and some criticism for our policy (not necessarily by you). 

If Canada had 1.2M people in the country illegally, do you think your citizens would be concerned?  I arrived at the 1M by comparing your population of roughly 36M to our population which is roughly 10x yours.  Theoretically we have 10 - 12M undocumented people in the US.

Despite what people seem to think (based on casual comments about immigrating here), Canada has tough immigration requirements. We don't want illegal immigrants either, and we do kick them out.  We do have people overstaying their visas, just as happens in the US.  We don't have as much of a problem with our border entries, simply because we only have one land border, and it is with the US, but we do get illegal immigrants from the US.  What made the news last winter (2017/18, not 2018/19) was people who had refugee status in the US suddenly coming across the border away from entry points because they got afraid that they were going to have issues in the US. 

I found this online article interesting.
https://www.immigroup.com/news/illegal-immigration-canada

Where we do seem to differ is being more open to refugees and legal immigrants. If you meet our point system you are welcome here.  If you are applying under false pretenses, go away.  Canada is becoming (really, has become) multicultural and multi-ethnic as a result.  I remember when our first Governor-General of Ukrainian descent was appointed, that was a big deal because he wasn't from either of the founding groups (French or English).  Since then we have had women and minorities (sometimes the same person, like Michaëlle Jean [Francophone, a woman, came as a child from Haiti]) as GGs.  The leader of the federal NDP party is Jagmeet Singh.  The leader of the Ontario NDP party is Andrea Horwath.  The NDP is generally considered our left-wing party, the Conservatives are way more right-wing than the old Progressive Conservatives, and the Liberals sit in the middle.

The stories I have heard about friends working in the US and green cards. . . . .  It seems to be really hard to immigrate to the US, long waits and arbitrary decisions.   In the US, if the jobs exist that the illegal immigrants are taking, wouldn't it make more sense to have them come in as legal immigrants?     

Re liberal/conservative, there is an online site/test (I wish I had bookmarked it - hah! found it, it is below) that looks at political affiliation on 2 axes, since liberal/conservative really is uni-dimensional.  Using it instead of liberal/conservative would probably really help this discussion.  I took it and realized why Stephen Harper was the absolutely worst Prime Minister to me, we were in diametrically opposite quadrants.   

https://www.politicalcompass.org/                                                                                                   

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #746 on: March 08, 2019, 05:11:26 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.

Look. I didn't expect you to own up to any of it. And frankly, most of the time that I have called men on sexist behavior toward me in the past, they have denied it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's the equivalent of you having a dream about your husband cheating on you and when you wake up to find him by your side and not in the arms of another woman you still hold it against him and get mad at him.

You have dreamed this whole kerfuffle up in your imagination and you want me to own up to behavior I didn't exhibit? I find you completely irrational and you have deliberately chosen to be offended.

Me: That is not what I meant

You: But that's not what I want to believe

Me: But I didn't mean what you want to believe

You: But I believe it, therefore it must be true, even though I have no proof

Me: But I'm telling you what is true, as I am the originator and know exactly what I was trying to convey

You: That's what a sexist would say

Me: I give up

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #747 on: March 08, 2019, 05:17:08 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.

Look. I didn't expect you to own up to any of it. And frankly, most of the time that I have called men on sexist behavior toward me in the past, they have denied it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's the equivalent of you having a dream about your husband cheating on you and when you wake up to find him by your side and not in the arms of another woman you still hold it against him and get mad at him.

You have dreamed this whole kerfuffle up in your imagination and you want me to own up to behavior I didn't exhibit? I find you completely irrational and you have deliberately chosen to be offended.

Me: That is not what I meant

You: But that's not what I want to believe

Me: But I didn't mean what you want to believe

You: But I believe it, therefore it must be true, even though I have no proof

Me: But I'm telling you what is true, as I am the originator and know exactly what I was trying to convey

You: That's what a sexist would say

Me: I give up

Nope.

I mean, almost no one ever admits to sexist or racist behavior. Like seriously. People knee-jerk never, ever, ever admit to this. Except in very rare cases.

Like, even straight up Neo-nazis say, "I'm not racist! I just don't believe blacks and whites should mix."

So no. It's not like someone being asked to admit stuff they literally never did.

It's people being called out for what they did. And of course believing they are the heroes of their own narrative. And not being willing to take a step back, and look at the situation.

So again. I was never expecting you to take a step back and say to yourself, "Huh. Maybe I should think about what a woman -- actually, two women -- are telling me was sexist."

Because that literally almost never happens.

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #748 on: March 08, 2019, 06:20:23 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.

Look. I didn't expect you to own up to any of it. And frankly, most of the time that I have called men on sexist behavior toward me in the past, they have denied it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's the equivalent of you having a dream about your husband cheating on you and when you wake up to find him by your side and not in the arms of another woman you still hold it against him and get mad at him.

You have dreamed this whole kerfuffle up in your imagination and you want me to own up to behavior I didn't exhibit? I find you completely irrational and you have deliberately chosen to be offended.

Me: That is not what I meant

You: But that's not what I want to believe

Me: But I didn't mean what you want to believe

You: But I believe it, therefore it must be true, even though I have no proof

Me: But I'm telling you what is true, as I am the originator and know exactly what I was trying to convey

You: That's what a sexist would say

Me: I give up

Nope.

I mean, almost no one ever admits to sexist or racist behavior. Like seriously. People knee-jerk never, ever, ever admit to this. Except in very rare cases.

Like, even straight up Neo-nazis say, "I'm not racist! I just don't believe blacks and whites should mix."

So no. It's not like someone being asked to admit stuff they literally never did.

It's people being called out for what they did. And of course believing they are the heroes of their own narrative. And not being willing to take a step back, and look at the situation.

So again. I was never expecting you to take a step back and say to yourself, "Huh. Maybe I should think about what a woman -- actually, two women -- are telling me was sexist."

Because that literally almost never happens.

Wow, that is one hell of a get out of jail free card you've got lined up for yourself.


So again. I was never expecting you to take a step back and say to yourself, "Huh. Maybe I should think about what a woman -- actually, two women -- are telling me was sexist."

No actually I was expecting two people, who happened to be women, to take responsibility for their reactions and not jump to conclusions. I was also expecting you, who happens to be a woman, to take responsibility and step back and say to herself " boy, I really misread this one, maybe next time I won't be so quick to fly off the handle and assume I know the writers intentions. "

If you are going to throw the sexism card out there even after I have explained this to you, then don't get mad next time someone doesn't take your accusations seriously. Because I won't as you have made this entire dramafest up in your head. You are not believable. Your actions have demonstrated this and your poor logic cements my opinion of you.

You have actually hurt your cause, as you have demonstrated as a woman, you are too sensitive to distinguish between an honest question and sexism. I didn't feel a need for a huge disclaimer (although I put a small one in) when I first asked the question because I thought that would be insulting ironically. You know, equality. Toughen up a little.













Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #749 on: March 08, 2019, 06:27:42 PM »

Asking someone their personality type is not sexist. That's absurd. Were you being sexist when you said " let me guess, you're a T"? Please follow the logic here. The fact that some people stereotype women does not mean in this instance I was attempting to denigrate her.

The fact that both you and her took it the wrong way is not proof that I committed an offense, and I will not apologize to her because I didn't insult her. The insult is in your imagination.

Stop with the armchair diagnosis bullshit; I asked her a question. See my first point in regards to your behavior.

I don't care if you swear, that's a dodge anyway. You told me to get the fuck out, meaning I am not welcome here.

Stop inferring what others are thinking and give them a chance to explain themselves.

You didn't simply ask her her personality type. You said, I bet you're a feeler instead of a thinker.

I said, I bet you're a T, because I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers. Turns out I was right about the T part.

No. I said GTFOH with your armchair analysis BS. I did not mean you are not welcome here. This is not my forum to say whether anyone is welcome or not. I meant your analysis is BS, knock it off.

Editing to add: Also, just in case you are planning to continue arguing with me about what my intention was with GTFOH, here's the definition of that term in Urban Dictionary. It's an expression of disbelief, mainly (often at perceived foolishness). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GTFOH  Which, as you will see above, is how I was using it.

And as far as inferring: she agreed with me in the thread above when I said, "LOL! Oh, brother!" And, I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, but she then PMed me, thanking me for sticking up for her. So, I don't think I'm inferring anything.

Per your definition of GTHOH, got it. Maybe though like my asking a question about personality traits it can be misconstrued. Something to consider. Same with calling people dude, it appears disrespectful.

"I was guessing based on your remarks that you took the test, came out a T, and you're proud of that because you think the test is telling you you're more logical than feelers."

That's what assuming other's intentions will get you. I'm not proud or otherwise, it just is.

Lastly, I'm happy you and Madge were there for each other, but both of you becoming angry was for naught, as an insult or stereotype was never intended. The fact that both of you misunderstood does not equate to an insult on my part. The insult was completely imagined. Ask me next time.

Look. I didn't expect you to own up to any of it. And frankly, most of the time that I have called men on sexist behavior toward me in the past, they have denied it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's the equivalent of you having a dream about your husband cheating on you and when you wake up to find him by your side and not in the arms of another woman you still hold it against him and get mad at him.

You have dreamed this whole kerfuffle up in your imagination and you want me to own up to behavior I didn't exhibit? I find you completely irrational and you have deliberately chosen to be offended.

Me: That is not what I meant

You: But that's not what I want to believe

Me: But I didn't mean what you want to believe

You: But I believe it, therefore it must be true, even though I have no proof

Me: But I'm telling you what is true, as I am the originator and know exactly what I was trying to convey

You: That's what a sexist would say

Me: I give up

Nope.

I mean, almost no one ever admits to sexist or racist behavior. Like seriously. People knee-jerk never, ever, ever admit to this. Except in very rare cases.

Like, even straight up Neo-nazis say, "I'm not racist! I just don't believe blacks and whites should mix."

So no. It's not like someone being asked to admit stuff they literally never did.

It's people being called out for what they did. And of course believing they are the heroes of their own narrative. And not being willing to take a step back, and look at the situation.

So again. I was never expecting you to take a step back and say to yourself, "Huh. Maybe I should think about what a woman -- actually, two women -- are telling me was sexist."

Because that literally almost never happens.

Wow, that is one hell of a get out of jail free card you've got lined up for yourself.


So again. I was never expecting you to take a step back and say to yourself, "Huh. Maybe I should think about what a woman -- actually, two women -- are telling me was sexist."

No actually I was expecting two people, who happened to be women, to take responsibility for their reactions and not jump to conclusions. I was also expecting you, who happens to be a woman, to take responsibility and step back and say to herself " boy, I really misread this one, maybe next time I won't be so quick to fly off the handle and assume I know the writers intentions. "

If you are going to throw the sexism card out there even after I have explained this to you, then don't get mad next time someone doesn't take your accusations seriously. Because I won't as you have made this entire dramafest up in your head. You are not believable. Your actions have demonstrated this and your poor logic cements my opinion of you.

You have actually hurt your cause, as you have demonstrated as a woman, you are too sensitive to distinguish between an honest question and sexism. I didn't feel a need for a huge disclaimer (although I put a small one in) when I first asked the question because I thought that would be insulting ironically. You know, equality. Toughen up a little.

Sure.

I’m a sensitive, sensitive woman.

But you, as a man, get to decide what’s real.

Happy Friday, dude.